CONTROLLING CRUSHING COSTS AND PARTICLE SHAPE ANTHONY J.

MAGEROWSKI General Manager, Systems Resource Group Nordberg Sales Corp.

Abstract Controlling particle shape and crushing costs are ever-present goals of an aggregate plant operator. An improvement in each will naturally increase company profits. In the process of improving them we also produces other side benefits that are often overlookED or thought of as different or unrelated problems, such as quarry life waste production and waste handling. These items are directly related to the yield of coarse particles. They all can be controlled and are related to each other. ________________________________________________________________________ Key words: Reduction ratio, recirculating load, particle shape, yield

Magerowski

Introduction Although this paper is directed at particle shape and crushing costs related to Cone Crusher tests conducted on limestone, the same trends depicted in this paper occur with all types of crushers and materials. Only the magnitude of the resultant values change. Figures 1 through 11 show results of a series of tests conducted at the Nordberg Mineral Research and Test Center (MRTC) located in Milwaukee, WI. The tests were conducted on a dolomitic limestone from a local Milwaukee quarry. The eight tests were closed circuit tests at various crusher settings to change the crushing reduction ratio and, in turn, the % recirculating load. Reduction Ratio But before one can make changes to improve particle shape and crushing costs, one should understand what has the most influence on particle shape and crushing costs. That one factor is reduction ratio per stage of processing. One may say that the type of crusher has more influence but effects of reduction ratio are the same for all crusher types. Just compare the product from a primary impactor to that of a tertiary. One will see that the primary produces a poorer shaped product than the tertiary because the primary is normally required to operate at a much higher reduction. There is a very simple relationship between reduction ratio, crushing costs and particle shape: the higher the reduction ratio the poorer the shape and the higher the costs. Therefore, reducing the reduction ratio for each stage of crushing in a circuit will improve the final product shape and reduce the costs of producing that product. The result is a higher quality and higher profit product being produced. Particle shape. The particle shape listed in this paper is the French Flakiness Specification. Nordberg established the French Flakiness test as a standard particle shape test for its R&D test. First of all, it is a mechanical test. One first screens the material on square openings and then each size fraction is screened on an appropriate slotted grid. The material that passes the grid is a flake. Because it is a mechanical test, one does not

Magerowski

have to measure each particle separately. This removes the human factor from the test results. Therefore, the test is repeatable, more accurate and consistent between labs and individuals conducting the tests. One of the main problems with any of the particle shape tests that require a person to actually handle and measure particles is that you can never get the same result from two tests conducted on the same sample. And the variations between two individuals can be and are unacceptablY high. Nordberg has eliminated this problem by going to the French Flakiness test. Figure 1 clearly shows that the higher the reduction ratio, the poorer the shape. From a reduction ratio of 3 to a reduction ratio of 7, the % Flakiness increased from 5 to 16 % of poorLY shaped particles produced. Again, the higher the reduction ratio the poorer the shape. Yield. One of the items that is directly related to crushing costs is the yield of any given product. Figure 2 shows that reduction ratio also influences yield. As the reduction ratio increases the yield of chip production decreases. This in turn also reduces the amount of chip being produced, Figure 3. The higher the reduction ratio per stage of crushing, the lower the yield of stone and the higher the production of fines or screenings. In some cases sand production is what one may be looking for and one is doing the right thing with a high reduction ratio. But for those of you that produce way too many screenings, high reduction ratio is your enemy. Energy. And if this isn't enough to show one where they stand, reduction ratio also influences the energy utilization of your crushing equipment. Figure 4 show that over the same reduction ratio increase the power increases by approximately 30%. The reduction ratio per stage of processing has been shown to have a direct influence on particle shape, stone yield, stone production and energy utilization; now lets look at what can be done about it. Controlling Reduction Ratio There are many operating criteria that affect particle shape and crushing costs. Each one has a varying amount of influence. But feed gradation, open or closed circuit operation, the % recirculating load and circuit flow are directly related to reduction ratio and are criteria that can be controlled by the plant operator. Feed gradation. When the top size of the feed to a 4 _ Symons was reduced from 4" to 2", the reduction ratio was cut in half resulting in a 38% reduction in the

Magerowski

amount of flakes present in the product, from 17.4% to 10.8%. The project specification limit was 15%. In this case the change in feed size was accomplished by changing the size of the screen cloth preparing the feed for the crusher. This illustrates that a small investment of money and time can produce profits. The change took a 17.4% non-salable product and made it a 10.8% salable product. Open or closed circuit. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of how utilizing two pieces of equipment together, crusher and screen, is important to produce a quality product and lower processing costs. In a closed circuit operation, the crusher can be operated at a higher setting which results in a lower reduction ratio. For open circuit operation, a high reduction has to be applied in one pass to meet the same product size. The particle shape improves when the final product is produced in closed circuit due to the lower reduction ratio. To produce a minus _ product in open circuit the crusher was set at a 3/8 setting and produced 75.0 STPH consuming 0.93 kw/T. The crushing reduction ratio was 7.4 and resulted in a Flakiness Index of 22.3%. To producing the same product in closed circuit the crusher was set at a1/2 setting and produced 86.4 STPH consuming 0.78 kw/T. The crushing reduction ratio was 5.8 and the Flakiness Index was 14.4%. Utilizing the potential of two pieces of equipment, the crusher and the screen, to produce the product increased the rate by 15%, lowered the energy comsumption by 19% and improved the particle shape by 54%. Closed circuit operation is always better than doing it in open circuit. % Recirculating load. Before we get into this, let me define what I main by the term % recirculating load. The percent of recirculating load is calculated by the formula shown here. (TPH Recirculated TPH New Feed) 100 = % Recirculating Load As an example, if a crusher is processing 200 tph of material and 50% of it is removed as product and has to be replaced with new feed, then there would be 100 tph of recirculating load and 100 tph of new feed. 100/100 x 100 = 100% The crusher would then be said to be operating at 100% recirculating load.

Magerowski

Figure 5 shows the relationship of the reduction ratio to the % recirculating load . The higher the % recirculating load, the lower the reduction ratio. Therefore, increasing the recirculating load will give one all the same benefits as reducing the reduction ratio. Operators tend to say that the recirculating load serves no other purpose than wear out equipment and increase maintenance costs. To the contrary, the increase in the % recirculating load improved particle shape (Figure6), increased yield (Figure 7), reduced chip power consumption (Figure 8) and increased production (Figure 9). First, by operating the crusher at a larger setting it reduced the power draw of the crusher which reduced its operating costs. And second, the use of a higher recirculating load produced a better shaped product that met the job specifications. They went from having a nonsalable product to a salable product. From loss to profit. Id say the increased recirculating load paid for itself. But like everything else in this world of ours, there is a practical limit as to how much recirculating load will give one the most improvement. The graphs of chip kw/T and production versus % recirculating load are compared in Figure 10. Both curves show an improvement over their full length but the slopes of both curves are much steeper below 100% recirculating load, than above 100%. This indicates to me that most of the improvement is obtained at % recirculating loads within the range of 50 to 100 %. Continuously increasing recirculating load will not have the return on investment that would warrant it. Also, there is a point at which production of stone will decrease with increase in recirculating load. Eliminating recirculating load is not the way to maximum production of high quality stone production. Controlling recirculating load in the 50 to 100 % range will give one the best benefits of all. The processing circuit. Shown in Figure 11 is the flow diagram of a circuit designed to produce a minus 2 _ by _ ballast. After it was setup and running it was found that the ballast did not meet particle shape requirements. A review of the circuit showed two factors were at play that contributed to the circuit producing a poor shape. The first was that the poorly shaped particles produced by the Jaw crusher were going directly to the final product. The second was that the Cone was fed a coarse graded feed, minus 8 plus 2 _ resulting in a high crushing reduction ratio for that stage of crushing. This was corrected (Figure 12) by directing the Jaw discharge directly to the HP300 instead of the screen. Two thing occurred. First, all of the material going to final

Magerowski

product passed through the Cone which produces a much better shaped product than the Jaw crusher. Second, the feed to the Cone was made finer, therefore, the Cone operated at a lower reduction ratio. This helped improve the shape of all particles being produced by the Cone. The product produced by this new circuit configuration did meet the particle shape requirements without any reduction in the capacity of the circuit. By just changing the position of one conveyor the non-salable product was change to a salable product. A small investment of time and money gives big benefits. Another example is shown in Figure 13. Here the crusher was producing a poor shape at a low production rate. The problem was a result of the very coarse and narrow graded feed (minus 8 plus 4) being fed to the crusher. A coarse and narrow graded feed has a very poor flow characteristic. The crusher had difficulty accepting the feed material into the crushing cavity resulting in a total feed to the tertiary circuit of 325 STPH. This problem was solved by adding the minus 4 plus 3/4 material to the feed of the Cone, Figure 14. Due to the wider feed gradation and the improved flow characteristics of the new feed, the total feed to the tertiary circuit increased to 400 STPH of an improved shaped product. This is another example of how a simple change of the flow in a circuit can give high improvements in production. Another method of improving particle shape employed in Europe is to recirculate up to 10% of the crusher discharge back to the crusher as crusher feed, Figure 15. What this does is make the crusher feed smaller, therefore, reducing the reduction ratio of the crusher and, in turn, improving the particle shape of the crusher discharge. Conclusion In closing I want to get one message across to you, understanding reduction ratio and how you can control it within your processing circuit will give one the power to improve the quality of your product, increase production and lower production costs of ones products. Improved profits are the result. Instead of going out to your quarry with a sledgehammer with the idea that you have to beat the hell out of a rock to get what you want. I say you can get much much more out of the rock if you give it a hug and realize that it is your baby. Tenderly processing it at low reductions is the way to go to maximize it potential and your profits. HUG a rock - improve PROFITS.

Magerowski

Figure 1
% Flakiness vs. Reduction Ratio 25 20 15 10 5 0 2 4 6 8 y = 12.181Ln(x) - 7.7618 Reduction Ratio % Flakiness Log. (% Flakiness)
% Chip Yield
80 70 60 50 40 30 2 4

Figure 2
% Chip Yield vs. Reduction Ratio

% Flakiness

% Chip Yield Log. (% Chip Yield)

6 8 y = -42.066Ln(x) + 117.81

Redution Ratio

Figure 3
Chip TPH vs. Reduction Ratio 40 Chip TPH Chip TPH 35 Log. (Chip TPH)
Chip kw/T 1.5 1 0.5 2 3 4

Figure 4
Chip kw/T vs. Reduction Ratio

30 25 20 2 4 6 8 Reduction Ratio

Chip kw/T Log. (Chip kw/T)

8
y = 0.3193Ln(x) + 0.4353

y = -13.624Ln(x) + 52.786

Reduction Ratio

Figure 5
Reduction Ratio vs. % Recirculating Load 8 6 5 4 3 2 0 50 100 150

Figure 6
Particle Shape v. % Recirculating Load % Flakiness
Reduction Ratio Log. (Reduction Ratio)

Reduction Ratio

25 20 15 10 5 0 50 100 150 % Recirculating Load

y = -3.9829Ln(x) + 26.761

Particle Shape Log. (Particle Shape)

% Recirculating Load
y = -1.3014Ln(x) + 10.162

Magerowski

Figure 7
% Chip Yield vs. % Recirculating Load
80 70 60 50 40 30 0 50 100 150 y = 11.726Ln(x) + 6.1257 % Recirculating Load % Chip Yield

Figure 8
Chip kw/T vs. % Recirculating Load
1.6 Chip kw/T 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Chip kw/T Log. (Chip kw/T)

% Chip Yield Log. (% Chip Yield)

% Recirculating Load
y = -0.1114Ln(x) + 1.368

Figure 9
Chip TPH vs. % Recirculating Load
40
Chip kw/T 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6

Figure 10
Optimizing Recirculating Load 40 Chip TPH 35 30 25 20 15 0 50 100 150 % Recirculating Load Chip kw/T Chip TPH Log. (Chip kw/T) Log. (Chip TPH)

Chip TPH

35 30 25 20 0 50 100 150
y = 3.972Ln(x) + 15.917

Chip TPH Log. (Chip TPH)

Chip kw/T Chip TPH

y = -0.1087Ln(x) + 1.3572 y = 3.972Ln(x) + 15.917

% Recirculating Load

Figure 11
Granite

NHZ8x20 DD

N56x16 SD

C140

2 1/2" x 3/4"

HP300 std
3" x 0

3/4" x 0

Magerowski

Figure 12
Granite

NHZ8x20 DD

N56x16 SD

C140

2 1/2" x 3/4"

HP300 std
3" x 0

3/4" x 0

Figure 13
Trap Rock

4" 3/4"
N56x16 SD

C125

HP400 std

3/4" x 0

To Tertiary Circuit

Granite

Figure 14
4" 3/4"

C125

HP400 std

3/4" x 0

To Tertiary Circuit

Magerowski

Granite

Figure 15

NHZ8x20 DD

N56x16 SD

C140

2 1/2" x 3/4"

HP300 std
3" x 0

3/4" x 0

Up To 10%

Magerowski

10

Controlling Crushing Costs and Particle Shape

Presented Presented By: By: Anthony Anthony Magerowski Magerowski General General Manager Manager Systems Resource Systems Resource Group Group Nordberg Sales Corp Nordberg Sales Corp

What has the most influence on crushing cost and particle shape?

Reduction Ratio

The higher the reduction ratio per stage of crushing, the poorer the shape and the higher the costs!!!

% Flakiness vs. Reduction Ratio 25 20 15 10 5 0 2 4 6 8 y = 12.181Ln(x) - 7.7618 Reduction Ratio

Chip kw/T vs. Reduction Ratio

Chip kw/T
1.5 1 0.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
y = 0.3193Ln(x) + 0.4353

Chip kw/T Log. (Chip kw/T)

Reduction Ratio

Items that influences particle shape and crushing costs:

Material being processed Type of crusher Screen media used Feed gradation Recirculating Load Method of energy input Open/Closed circuit operation Full and constant crusher operation Particle size to setting relationship Circuit material flow

Reduction in feed size.

4 1/4' S. H. Symons @ 1/2" CSS Coarse Liner in Open Circuit Basalt Feed Top Size 4" 2" * Texas Spec. Reduction Ratio 3.95 1.82 % Flakes * 17.4 10.8

Reduction Ratio vs. % Recirculating Load 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 50 100 150 % Recirculating Load

y = -1.3014Ln(x) + 10.162

HP200 Limestone Minus 1/2" Product Circuit Setting Open 5/8" Closed ** 5/8"
* French Specification

% Flakiness * STPH 15.2% 71.5 8.8% 91.0

** (38 % Recir. Load)

Granite

NHZ8x20 DD

N56x16 SD

C140 2 1/2" x 3/4"

HP300 std
3/4" x 0

3" x 0

Trap Rock

N56x16 SD

4" 3/4"

C125

HP400 std
3/4" x 0

To Tertiary Circuit

Granite

2 1/2 N56x16 SD 3/4

C140 2 1/2" x 3/4"

HP300 std
3/4" x 0

3" x 0

Up T 10%

Reduction Ratio
The key to maximizing production of quality produces within one's processing circuit.