A sand mill design method and a sand mill

Abstract

This invention discloses a sand mill design method and a sand mill. The sand mill design method includes the following steps: S1: Identify multiple factors that affect the grinding performance of the sand mill. For each factor, multiple level variables are set. Based on the multiple factors and their corresponding level variables, an orthogonal array for orthogonal experiments is determined. S2: Identify multiple indicators of the grinding performance of the sand mill. Based on the obtained orthogonal array, conduct orthogonal experiments to obtain the corresponding indicator values ​​in each experimental scheme. S3: Weight and sum the multiple indicator values ​​obtained in each experimental scheme to obtain the optimal comprehensive performance index. S4: Perform range analysis on the different factors affecting each indicator in multiple experimental schemes to obtain the experimental scheme corresponding to the optimal comprehensive performance index. The combination of multiple factors corresponding to this experimental scheme is the optimal combination of structural parameters. This invention shortens the research and development cycle of the sand mill, improves work efficiency, and reduces production and design costs.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to a grinding device, and more particularly to a sand mill design method and a sand mill. Background Technology

[0002] When the sand mill is working, the material is fed into the cylinder by the material pump. The material and the grinding media in the cylinder rotate at high speed together due to the stirring action of the disperser. This causes the material and the grinding media to collide, rub and shear each other, which breaks the material. The ground material is then separated from the grinding media by the dynamic separator, allowing the material to flow out from the discharge pipe.

[0003] The performance of a sand mill is affected by various factors, such as its geometry, shaft speed, and the properties of the grinding media. The performance of a sand mill varies under different parameters, making it difficult to determine the degree of influence of different factors and their combinations on its performance during the design process. Therefore, the traditional method for improving the structural design of a sand mill involves listing multiple parameters affecting its performance, each with multiple values. Analysis is typically conducted under constant conditions using a single-factor level approach, resulting in a large number of simulation tests, long processing times, and a tendency to overlook certain aspects. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of this invention is to provide a sand mill design method to solve one or more technical problems existing in the prior art, and at least provide a beneficial option or create conditions.

[0005] The solution to the technical problem of this invention is:

[0006] A sand mill design method includes the following steps: S1: Identify multiple factors affecting the grinding performance of the sand mill, and set multiple level variables for each factor. Determine an orthogonal array for orthogonal experiments based on the multiple factors and their corresponding level variables; S2: Identify multiple indicators affecting the grinding performance of the sand mill, and conduct orthogonal experiments according to the obtained orthogonal array to obtain the corresponding indicator values ​​in each experimental scheme; S3: Weight and sum the multiple indicator values ​​obtained in each experimental scheme to obtain the optimal comprehensive performance index; S4: Perform range analysis on the different factors affecting each indicator in multiple experimental schemes to obtain the experimental scheme corresponding to the optimal comprehensive performance index. The combination of multiple factors corresponding to this experimental scheme is the optimal combination of structural parameters.

[0007] This technical solution has at least the following beneficial effects: In the structural design of the sand mill, step S1 is performed to identify multiple factors affecting the grinding performance of the sand mill. During improvement, multiple level variables are designed for each factor. Based on the multiple factors and their corresponding level variables, an orthogonal array for orthogonal experiments can be determined. Step S2 is performed to identify multiple indicators that have a major impact on the grinding performance of the sand mill. Orthogonal experiments are conducted based on the orthogonal array obtained in step S1, and the values ​​of the determined multiple indicators are obtained from the experimental schemes. In step S3, the multiple indicator values ​​in each experimental scheme are weighted and summed to obtain the comprehensive performance index of each experimental scheme. Then, different... The comprehensive performance indicators obtained from the experimental schemes are compared to obtain the optimal comprehensive performance index. In step S4, based on the orthogonal experiment in step S2, a range analysis is performed on each factor to obtain the experimental scheme corresponding to the optimal comprehensive performance index. This experimental scheme corresponds to the optimal comprehensive performance index obtained in step S3. By manufacturing according to this experimental scheme, a better-performing sand mill can be obtained. In this way, the number of experimental combination schemes is greatly reduced through orthogonal experiments. A small number of experimental combination schemes can cover most of the experimental information, obtain more comprehensive conclusions, reduce workload, shorten the research and development cycle of the sand mill, improve work efficiency, and reduce production design costs.

[0008] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, the sand mill includes a cylinder, grinding beads located inside the cylinder, a rotating shaft that can rotate inside the cylinder, and multiple dispersing units arranged axially at intervals on the rotating shaft. Each dispersing unit includes a dispersing disc coaxially connected to the rotating shaft and multiple pins arranged around the outer periphery of the dispersing disc. The diameter of the grinding beads is factor a, the outer diameter of the dispersing disc is factor b, the distance between any two adjacent dispersing units is factor c, the diameter of the pins is factor d, and the distance between the pins and the inner wall of the cylinder is factor e. When the sand mill is working, the rotating shaft is driven by an external device, causing the multiple dispersing units to mix and disperse the material and grinding media inside the cylinder. During this process, various factors influence the performance of the sand mill. This section primarily focuses on the grinding media and the dispersing structure, selecting factors a, b, c, d, and e as the factors affecting the grinding performance of the sand mill in step S1.

[0009] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, factors a, b, c, d, and e each have three level variables, resulting in an orthogonal array with 27 experimental schemes. Based on the selected five factors a, b, c, d, and e, each with three level variables, the orthogonal array for conducting the orthogonal experiment can be determined, namely L. 27 (3 5(), where L represents orthogonality, 27 represents the number of trials, 3 represents the number of levels, and 5 represents the number of input factors. Compared to the traditional comprehensive experiment with 5 factors and 3 levels, this uses a total of 3 5 =243 schemes, which greatly shortened the test cycle and saved design time and cost.

[0010] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, in step S2, the indicators for the grinding performance of the sand mill are determined to include turbulence intensity, shear rate, flow field velocity, number of collisions, and particle velocity. Corresponding to the selected factors, since the focus is on the disperser structure and grinding media, the main effects include changes in turbulence intensity, shear rate, flow field velocity, number of collisions, and particle velocity. These changes are measured in the experimental scheme and used as multiple indicators to evaluate the performance of the mill, thereby determining the degree of performance change.

[0011] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, in step S3, the turbulence intensity is x1, and the weighting coefficient of x1 is 0.4; the shear rate is x2, and the weighting coefficient of x2 is 0.2; the flow field velocity is x3, and the weighting coefficient of x3 is 0.2; the number of collisions is x4, and the weighting coefficient of x4 is 0.1; the particle velocity is x5, and the weighting coefficient of x5 is 0.1. The comprehensive performance index obtained after weighting and summing each group of test schemes is w. The values ​​of w obtained in each group of test schemes are compared, and the largest value is the optimal comprehensive performance index. Each index has a different meaning and range. The judgment of multiple indices is not a simple direct comparison and evaluation. Therefore, when judging the grinding performance index of the sand mill, different weighting coefficients are first configured and then summed to obtain a comprehensive performance index that can better evaluate the grinding performance. By comparing the values ​​of w obtained in each group of test schemes, the optimal comprehensive performance index corresponding to the optimal structural combination parameters is obtained.

[0012] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, the present invention also includes step S5: The grinding performance of the sand mill obtained according to the optimal combination of structural parameters is tested, and the results are judged by detecting particle size and particle size distribution as grinding performance parameters. If the ideal result is achieved, the design is completed; if the ideal result is not achieved, the process returns to step S1, changes multiple level variables in each factor, and then repeats steps S1 to S5. After obtaining the optimal combination of structural parameters in step S4, the sand mill is manufactured according to the optimal combination of structural parameters, and then a grinding performance test is conducted. The results are judged by detecting particle size and particle size distribution as grinding performance parameters. If the result meets the expected ideal, the design is completed; if the ideal structure is not achieved, the process returns to step S1, where the level variables in each factor need to be adjusted, and then steps S1 to S5 are repeated.

[0013] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, the level difference of factor a is between 2 mm and 4 mm, the level difference of factor b is between 15 mm and 35 mm, the level difference of factor c is between 15 mm and 35 mm, the level difference of factor d is between 5 mm and 15 mm, and the level difference of factor e is between 4 mm and 8 mm. When the test judgment of grinding performance does not meet expectations and it is necessary to readjust the level values ​​of each factor, controlling the variation difference of factors a, b, c, d, and e within the specified range can make the level variables more uniformly covered, thereby improving the accuracy of the entire design test.

[0014] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, the range analysis in step S4 is performed as follows: in, x is the average value of the parameters of the test scheme for the j-th evaluation index. j,i Let be the simulation parameter value of the i-th evaluation index under the j-th experimental scheme, where i is the experimental scheme number and j is the evaluation index number. Using the above formula, in step S4, range analysis can be performed on the different factors affecting each index in multiple experimental schemes to obtain the optimal level of the influencing factors. By combining the factors at each optimal level, the optimal combination of structural parameters can be obtained.

[0015] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, in step S4, the range value obtained for each factor is R. The R values ​​of different factors are sorted from largest to smallest to obtain a ranking of the importance of the influencing factors from largest to smallest. Based on the range values ​​R obtained in step S4, the order of importance of the influencing factors from largest to smallest can be achieved, that is, the order of primary and secondary influencing factors.

[0016] A sand mill is derived from the sand mill design method described above.

[0017] The technical solution has at least the following beneficial effects: the sand mill produced according to the optimal combination of structural parameters obtained by the above design method can be better designed to achieve the required grinding effect and significantly reduce the design and development time, thereby reducing production and R&D costs. Attached Figure Description

[0018] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments will be briefly explained below. Obviously, the described drawings are only a part of the embodiments of the present invention, and not all of them. Those skilled in the art can obtain other design schemes and drawings based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0019] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the present invention.

[0020] In the attached diagram: 1-cylinder, 2-rotating shaft, 31-dispersion disc, 32-pin. Detailed Implementation

[0021] The following will clearly and completely describe the concept, specific structure, and technical effects of the present invention in conjunction with embodiments and accompanying drawings, so as to fully understand the purpose, features, and effects of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of them. Other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without creative effort are all within the scope of protection of the present invention. Furthermore, all connection relationships mentioned herein do not simply refer to direct connection of components, but rather to the ability to form a better connection structure by adding or reducing connecting accessories according to specific implementation conditions. The various technical features in this invention can be combined interactively without contradicting each other.

[0022] A sand mill design method includes the following steps: S1: Identify multiple factors affecting the grinding performance of the sand mill, and set multiple level variables for each factor. Determine an orthogonal array for orthogonal experiments based on the multiple factors and their corresponding level variables; S2: Identify multiple indicators affecting the grinding performance of the sand mill, and conduct orthogonal experiments according to the obtained orthogonal array to obtain the corresponding indicator values ​​in each experimental scheme; S3: Weight and sum the multiple indicator values ​​obtained in each experimental scheme to obtain the optimal comprehensive performance index; S4: Perform range analysis on the different factors affecting each indicator in multiple experimental schemes to obtain the experimental scheme corresponding to the optimal comprehensive performance index. The combination of multiple factors corresponding to this experimental scheme is the optimal combination of structural parameters.

[0023] In this sand mill design method, step S1 identifies multiple factors affecting the grinding performance of the sand mill. During improvement, multiple level variables are designed for each factor. Based on the multiple factors and their corresponding level variables, an orthogonal array for orthogonal experiments can be determined. Step S2 identifies multiple indicators that primarily affect the grinding performance of the sand mill. Orthogonal experiments are conducted based on the orthogonal array obtained in step S1, and the determined indicator values ​​are obtained from the experimental schemes. In step S3, the multiple indicator values ​​in each experimental scheme are weighted and summed to obtain the comprehensive performance index of each experimental scheme. Finally, the comprehensive performance indices obtained from different experimental schemes are compared. By comparing the overall performance indicators, the optimal comprehensive performance index is obtained. In step S4, based on the orthogonal experiment in step S2, a range analysis is performed on each factor to obtain the test scheme corresponding to the optimal comprehensive performance index. This test scheme corresponds to the optimal comprehensive performance index obtained in step S3. By manufacturing according to this test scheme, a better-performing sand mill can be obtained. In this way, the number of test combination schemes is greatly reduced through orthogonal experiments. A small number of test combination schemes can cover most of the test information, obtain more comprehensive conclusions, reduce workload, shorten the research and development cycle of the sand mill, improve work efficiency, and reduce production and design costs.

[0024] In step S1, the sand mill includes a cylinder 1, grinding beads located inside the cylinder 1, a rotating shaft 2 rotatable inside the cylinder 1, and multiple dispersing units arranged axially at intervals on the rotating shaft 2. Each dispersing unit includes a dispersing disc 31 coaxially connected to the rotating shaft 2 and multiple pins 32 arranged around the outer periphery of the dispersing disc 31. The diameter of the grinding beads is factor a, the outer diameter of the dispersing disc 31 is factor b, the distance between any two adjacent dispersing units is factor c, the diameter of the pins 32 is factor d, and the distance between the pins 32 and the inner wall of the cylinder 1 is factor e. When the sand mill is working, the rotating shaft 2 is driven to rotate by an external drive, thereby causing the multiple dispersing units to mix and disperse the material and grinding media inside the cylinder 1. During this process, various factors affect the performance of the sand mill. Here, we mainly focus on the grinding media and the dispersing structure, selecting factors a, b, c, d, and e as the factors affecting the grinding performance of the sand mill in step S1.

[0025] Furthermore, factors a, b, c, d, and e each have three level variables, resulting in an orthogonal array with 27 experimental schemes. Based on the selected five factors a, b, c, d, and e, each with three level variables, the orthogonal array for conducting the orthogonal experiment can be determined, namely L. 27 (3 5(), where L represents orthogonality, 27 represents the number of trials, 3 represents the number of levels, and 5 represents the number of input factors. Compared to the traditional comprehensive experiment with 5 factors and 3 levels, this uses a total of 3 5 =243 schemes, which greatly shortened the test cycle and saved design time and cost.

[0026] For example, under unchanged operating conditions, the following five factors are selected to determine their impact on the grinding performance of the sand mill: grinding bead diameter (a), outer diameter of the dispersing disc 31 (b), distance between any two adjacent dispersing units (c), diameter of the pin 32 (d), and distance between the pin 32 and the inner wall of the cylinder 1 (e). Each factor has three levels. The grinding bead diameter is divided into three specifications: large, medium, and small. Here, 4 mm, 6 mm, and 8 mm are selected as the three levels for the grinding bead diameter factor. The outer diameter of the dispersing disc 31 is selected as three levels: 760 mm, 740 mm, and 720 mm. The distance between the dispersing disc 31 and the outer diameter is selected as three levels: 150 mm, 120 mm, and 100 mm. The diameter of the pin 32 is selected as three levels: 40 mm, 30 mm, and 25 mm. The distance between the pin 32 and the inner cylinder is selected as three levels: 30 mm, 25 mm, and 20 mm. Table 1 is obtained from these results.

[0027]

[0028] Table 1

[0029] The factors required for the experiment were arranged into an orthogonal array, resulting in Table 2:

[0030]

[0031]

[0032] Table 2

[0033] In step S2, the indicators for the grinding performance of the sand mill are determined to include turbulence intensity, shear rate, flow field velocity, number of collisions, and particle velocity. Corresponding to the selected factors, since the focus is on the disperser structure and grinding media, the main effects include changes in turbulence intensity, shear rate, flow field velocity, number of collisions, and particle velocity. These changes are measured in the experimental scheme and used as multiple indicators to evaluate the performance of the mill, thereby determining the degree of performance change. Through experiments, different factors and levels in the orthogonal array are tested one by one, and the grinding performance indicators of the sand mill at each experimental factor level are obtained, as shown in Table 3.

[0034]

[0035]

[0036] Table 3

[0037] As a further improvement to the above technical solution, in step S3, the turbulence intensity is x1, and the weighting coefficient of x1 is 0.4; the shear rate is x2, and the weighting coefficient of x2 is 0.2; the flow field velocity is x3, and the weighting coefficient of x3 is 0.2; the number of collisions is x4, and the weighting coefficient of x4 is 0.1; the particle velocity is x5, and the weighting coefficient of x5 is 0.1. The comprehensive performance index obtained after weighting and summing each group of test schemes is w. The values ​​of w obtained in each group of test schemes are compared, and the largest value is the optimal comprehensive performance index. Each index has a different meaning and range. The judgment of multiple indices is not a simple direct comparison and evaluation. Therefore, when judging the grinding performance index of the sand mill, different weighting coefficients are first configured and then summed to obtain a comprehensive performance index that can better evaluate the grinding performance. By comparing the values ​​of w obtained in each group of test schemes, the optimal comprehensive performance index corresponding to the optimal structural combination parameters is obtained. Referring to Table 4, for each experimental factor level, the grinding performance index of the sand mill was obtained, and a weight was assigned to each index. Then, the weight was calculated according to the formula. Perform a total summation.

[0038] 1 0.92 0.81 0.95 0.28 0.62 0.81 2 1.04 1.13 1.03 2.53 1.10 1.21 3 0.91 0.80 0.92 0.52 1.19 0.88 4 1.05 1.08 0.98 1.24 1.01 1.06 5 1.17 1.18 0.94 1.13 0.57 1.06 6 0.84 0.70 1.02 2.20 1.77 1.08 7 1.07 1.12 0.96 0.67 1.10 1.02 8 1.00 1.04 1.02 0.95 0.42 0.95 9 0.97 0.92 1.07 0.94 1.06 0.99 10 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.90 1.18 1.00 11 0.95 0.84 0.92 0.82 0.89 0.91 12 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.24 1.01 1.05 13 0.97 0.92 0.98 1.18 0.54 0.94 14 0.95 0.92 1.10 0.69 1.20 0.97 15 1.10 1.24 0.99 0.56 1.40 1.08 16 1.04 1.08 0.95 0.82 0.77 0.98 17 1.15 1.36 0.98 1.24 0.48 1.10 18 1.17 1.35 0.95 1.16 0.57 1.10 19 0.94 0.91 0.99 0.69 1.17 0.94 20 0.91 0.80 1.02 1.17 1.23 0.97 21 1.09 1.26 0.95 0.86 1.16 1.08 22 0.95 0.92 0.99 1.14 1.17 0.99 23 0.86 0.79 1.08 0.65 1.29 0.91 24 0.99 0.94 0.96 0.61 1.02 0.94 25 0.92 0.87 1.05 1.11 1.02 0.97 26 1.00 0.99 1.09 0.71 1.15 1.00 27 1.02 1.02 1.06 0.99 0.91 1.02

[0039] Table 4

[0040] The range analysis performed in step S4 is as follows: in, x is the average value of the parameters of the test scheme for the j-th evaluation index. j,i Let be the simulation parameter value of the i-th evaluation index under the j-th experimental scheme, where i is the experimental scheme number and j is the evaluation index number. Using the above formula, in step S4, range analysis can be performed on the different factors affecting each index in multiple experimental schemes to obtain the optimal level of the influencing factors. Based on the combination of factors at each optimal level, the optimal combination of structural parameters can be obtained, as shown in Table 5.

[0041]

[0042] Table 5

[0043] For example, the value of K1 is the sum of the weighted values ​​of the indicators obtained by factor a in Table 4 under the first level variable; the value of K2 is the sum of the weighted values ​​of the indicators obtained by factor a in Table 4 under the second level variable; and the value of K3 is the sum of the weighted values ​​of the indicators obtained by factor a in Table 4 under the second level variable. The value is equal to K1 / 3. The value is equal to K² / 3. The value is equal to K3 / 3. Similarly, the values ​​of factors b, c, d, and e can be calculated in the same way.

[0044] In step S4, the range value obtained for each factor is R. For example, the range value R of factor a is... and The range values ​​between the factors are used to rank the R values ​​of different factors from largest to smallest, thus obtaining a ranking of the factors' importance from largest to smallest. Based on the range values ​​R obtained in step S4, the factors' importance can be ranked from largest to smallest, that is, the order of importance of the factors. As shown in Table 5, R... d >R e >R b >R a >R c The influencing factors, in order of importance, are d (diameter of pin 32), e (distance between pin 32 and the inner wall of cylinder 1), b (outer diameter of dispersion disk 31), a (diameter of grinding beads), and c (distance between dispersion disks 31 of any two adjacent dispersion units). The optimal combination of structural parameters is d2e3b3a2c2, i.e., pin 32 diameter 30 mm, distance between pin 32 and the inner wall of cylinder 1 20 mm, outer diameter of dispersion disk 31 720 mm, grinding bead diameter 6 mm, and distance between dispersion disks 31 of any two adjacent dispersion units 120 mm. Based on this optimal combination of structural parameters, production was carried out and the corresponding sand mill was obtained.

[0045] Therefore, this method greatly shortens the R&D testing time, allows for the faster acquisition of the optimal parameter combination for the required design performance, better balances the accuracy of the test, improves production design efficiency, and reduces design costs.

[0046] The invention also includes step S5: The grinding performance of the sand mill obtained based on the optimal combination of structural parameters is tested, and the results are judged by detecting particle size and particle size distribution as grinding performance parameters. If the ideal result is achieved, the design is completed; if the ideal result is not achieved, the process returns to step S1, and multiple level variables in each factor are changed, then steps S1 to S5 are repeated. After obtaining the optimal combination of structural parameters in step S4, the sand mill is manufactured based on the optimal combination of structural parameters, and then grinding performance is tested. The results are judged by detecting particle size and particle size distribution as grinding performance parameters. If the result meets the expected ideal, the design is completed; if the ideal structure is not achieved, the process returns to step S1, where the level variables in each factor need to be adjusted, and then steps S1 to S5 are repeated.

[0047] When adjusting the level variables of each factor in step S1, the level difference for factor a is between 2 mm and 4 mm, for factor b between 15 mm and 35 mm, for factor c between 15 mm and 35 mm, for factor d between 5 mm and 15 mm, and for factor e between 4 mm and 8 mm. When the test results for grinding performance do not meet expectations and it is necessary to readjust the level values ​​of each factor, controlling the differences in the changes of factors a, b, c, d, and e within the specified range can make the level variables more uniformly covered, thereby improving the accuracy of the entire designed test.

[0048] A sand mill is derived from the sand mill design method described above.

[0049] Based on the optimal combination of structural parameters obtained by the above design method, the sand mill manufactured in this manner can be better designed to achieve the required grinding effect and significantly reduce the design and development time, thereby reducing production and R&D costs.

[0050] The preferred embodiments of the present invention have been described in detail above, but the present invention is not limited to the embodiments described. Those skilled in the art can make various equivalent modifications or substitutions without departing from the spirit of the present invention, and these equivalent modifications or substitutions are all included within the scope defined by the claims of this application.

Claims

1. A sand mill design method, characterized in that: Includes the following steps: S1: Identify multiple factors that affect the grinding performance of the sand mill, and set multiple level variables for each factor. Determine the orthogonal array of the orthogonal experiment based on the multiple factors and their corresponding level variables. S2: Determine multiple indicators of the grinding performance of the sand mill, conduct orthogonal experiments based on the obtained orthogonal table, and obtain the corresponding indicator values ​​in each experimental scheme. S3: Weight the multiple index values ​​obtained from each group of test schemes to obtain the optimal comprehensive performance index; S4: Perform range analysis on the different factors affecting each index in multiple test schemes to obtain the test scheme corresponding to the optimal comprehensive performance index. The combination of multiple factors corresponding to this test scheme is the optimal combination of structural parameters. The sand mill includes a cylinder (1), grinding beads inside the cylinder (1), a rotating shaft (2) that can rotate inside the cylinder (1), and multiple dispersing units arranged axially at intervals on the rotating shaft (2). Each dispersing unit includes a dispersing disk (31) coaxially connected to the rotating shaft (2) and multiple pins (32) arranged around the outer periphery of the dispersing disk (31). The diameter of the grinding beads is factor a, the outer diameter of the dispersing disk (31) is factor b, the distance between any two adjacent dispersing units is factor c, the diameter of the pins (32) is factor d, and the distance between the pins (32) and the inner wall of the cylinder (1) is factor e. In step S2, the indicators for the grinding performance of the sand mill include turbulence intensity, shear rate, flow field velocity, number of collisions, and particle velocity. The specific details of the range analysis in step S4 are as follows: , ,in, The j-th evaluation index is the average value of the test scheme parameters. Let be the simulation parameter value of the i-th evaluation index under the j-th test scheme, where i is the test scheme number and j is the evaluation index number.

2. The sand mill design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Factors a, b, c, d, and e each have three level variables, resulting in an orthogonal array with 27 experimental schemes.

3. The sand mill design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S3, the turbulence intensity is The The weighting coefficient is 0.4, and the shear rate is... The The weighting coefficient is 0.2, and the flow field velocity is... The The weighting coefficient is 0.2, and the number of collisions is... The The weighting coefficient is 0.1, and the particle velocity is... The The weighting coefficient is 0.1, and the comprehensive performance index obtained after weighting and summing each experimental scheme is: Compare the results obtained from each experimental design. The maximum value of the value is the optimal comprehensive performance index.

4. The sand mill design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The process also includes step S5: conducting a grinding performance test on the sand mill obtained based on the optimal combination of structural parameters, and judging the results by detecting the particle size and particle size distribution as grinding performance parameters. If the ideal result is achieved, the design is completed; if the ideal result is not achieved, the process returns to step S1, changes multiple level variables in each factor, and then repeats steps S1 to S5.

5. The sand mill design method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The level difference of factor a is between 2 mm and 4 mm, the level difference of factor b is between 15 mm and 35 mm, the level difference of factor c is between 15 mm and 35 mm, the level difference of factor d is between 5 mm and 15 mm, and the level difference of factor e is between 4 mm and 8 mm.

6. The sand mill design method according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S4, the range value obtained for each factor is R. The R values ​​of different factors are sorted from largest to smallest to obtain the order of importance of the influencing factors from largest to smallest.

7. A sand mill, characterized in that: The design method of the sand mill is derived from any one of claims 1 to 6.

Images