Presented at the 1985 SME-AIME Annual General Meeting, New York, NY, Preprint #85-100.

THE IMPACT OF SCREEN DESIGN PARAMETERS

ON THE OPERATION EFFICIENCY OF
SECONDARY CRUSHING PLANTS


J. A. Meech and R. J. Tucker
Queen's University, Department of Mining Engineering

Presented at the SME-AIME Annual Meeting
New York, New York February 24-28, 1985
Preprint Number 85-100

Abstract
An analysis of screen design options on the operating efficiency of secondary crushing plants has
been conducted using a dynamic computer model. The model allows for the simulation of a wide
variety of crushing circuits and can be run on either a microcomputer (IBM PC/XT) or a large
time-sharing mainframe computer. Size reduction and separation characteristics of crushers and
screens are based on standard manufacturer design and performance data. Input/output routines
are available in tabular, alarm or strip chart recorder modes to facilitate operation of the program.
A number of alternate circuit designs are compared to show the influence of surge capacity,
screen size and area, screen deck location, and closed side crusher settings on the operation of a
10,000 ton per day plant. The program is currently in use at Queen's University to teach plant
operations and control. It has potential to be a valuable tool for operator training.

Introduction
Future trends in the design of secondary crushing plants will emphasize simplicity in order to
minimize capital costs and to reduce operating downtime from maintenance functions. Some of
the changes likely to be encountered include:

1. No internal surge bin capacity
2. Separate screening of secondary and tertiary products
3. Open circuit crushing
4. Single-stage closed circuit crushing
5. Single-stage open circuit crushing

While these features can reduce overall investment requirements, it must be recognized that they
can impact negatively on the operating efficiency of crushing circuits designed with the same
equipment sizes and installed power. Future crushing plants will need to be more over-designed
than those of the past.

Recently at Queen's University we have been using a simulation model of secondary crushing
operations (1) to examine the impact of some of these changes and, in particular, how sensitive
are the effects to adjustments in screen design parameters. The model was originally developed
as a teaching tool for mineral processing students to learn about the operation and control of
secondary crushing facilities. As such, it could also be an effective training technique for new
crushing plant operators. Since the model is capable of demonstrating operational problems
2

created at the design stage, we believe it has a potential use to avoid under-designing certain
types of circuits. This paper describes such an approach for a secondary crushing plant designed
to produce about 10,000 tonnes per day of ore. Four different types of crushing circuits using
similar equipment have been studied. The hole size and effective area of the screens used in each
circuit have been varied to establish the throughput efficiency of each circuit.

Model Design
The program was developed to provide "hands-on" experience in the operation of crushing plants
for students and new operating personnel. The program is dynamic as opposed to the steady-state
nature of other crushing models (2-5), in order to demonstrate circuit responses to operator
actions and ore variations. The model can consider extreme cases of over-loading or under-
loading equipment and incorporates a number of circuit upsets and interruptions that occur in a
real plant. Input and output are controlled interactively in the form of actual control information
available to an operator in a plant control room. Program speed can be varied between a real-
time simulation to one in which an 8-hour shift is completed within about 12 minutes.

Calculations are based on the design considerations, performance specifications and suggested
operating and control procedures of the major equipment manufacturers (3,7). The model is
designed to reflect the general trends and relationships encountered in normal plant operations.
Directional accuracy has been emphasized to indicate the correct trends in circuit response to
changes in operating strategy and ore variation. It was considered that a rigorously accurate
determination of product sizes was not warranted since intermediate products are not routinely
sampled in an operating plant. When conducted, these studies produce data that are difficult to
assess and require statistical adjustment to remove error (4).

The program has been structured in a general and adaptable way to allow the simulation of a
wide range of plant capacities, equipment sizes and circuit configurations. Adjustments to
individual units within a circuit can be made quickly to reflect site specific factors or to
emphasize a particular facet of the operation. The main program flowchart is shown in Figure 1.
The main program (PLANT) reads the input data of circuit configuration and equipment details.
For the first cycle of a shift all counters and alarms are initialized; material remaining in the
circuit from a previous shift is recalled; and provision is made to adjust-crusher closed side
settings. Each unit within the model is set-up to process up to 30 blocks of ore. The following
parameters define an ore block:

- Tonnage
- Grade of Mineral A
- Grade of mineral B
- Grade of mineral C
- Percent moisture
- Work index
- Specific gravity
- 80% passing size
- 20% passing size
- Bulk density

3

At the start of each cycle a new packet of ore is created. The value of each parameter is selected
independently on a random trending basis and the packet is inserted into the first block of the
first unit operation in the circuit, usually a coarse ore pile. By calling the appropriate subroutine
in sequence (LAG, CRUSH, or SCREEN), ore is moved through bins, crushers and screens
where the material is stored, reduced in size, or split into size fractions. From within these
subroutines a summation subprogram (SIZE) is called as required to combine ore packets of
similar or different size distributions and to blend the above mentioned ore parameters. At the
completion of each cycle, the output subroutine (OUT) is called to display the operating
parameters and any alarms triggered. The operator has the opportunity to adjust set-points or to
start or stop any of the equipment in response to this information.

When operated on a microcomputer, output can be viewed in a variety of modes. A tabular mode
showing all unit power draws, feed rates and alarms is the normal configuration. A1ternatively, a
graphical strip chart each unit power draw and feed rate can be called to depict output for the
entire shift. Alarm signals both visual and audio can be acknowledged through a separate alarm
panel. The main program increments the clock timer, advances material through the circuit and
creates a new block of ore for the first unit. Cycle time can be altered between 1 and 120 seconds
as required. Although 1 second increments increase the precision of the model, the total
simulation time increases significantly limiting the number of studies which can be performed.
Typically 20 to 120 seconds is the range used most often at Queen's.

Crushing
The CRUSH subroutine is capable of considering three commonly used crusher sizes in either
secondary or tertiary service (1.3, 1.7 and 2.1 m). The model calculates product tonnage, product
size distribution, crusher power draw and tonnage of material held up within the crusher chamber
according to the flowchart shown in Figure 2.

The model is designed to demonstrate two main trends in the operation of a crusher: first, the
generally accepted concept that product size decreases with higher power draw and secondly,
that capacity or throughput .can be limited either volumetrically or by available horsepower. A
block of ore assigned to the crusher by the LAG subroutine is adjusted to reflect SG and bulk
density changes and is added to material held within the crusher chamber from the previous
cycle. Amperage is then calculated in a form similar to that used by Hatch and Mular (4) as
follows:

A = B1 + B2T + B3R(T/TMAX) + B4W(T/TMAX)

where Bl, B2, B3 and B4 are coefficients determined by the crusher type and size, T is the
tonnage rate, R is the reduction ratio (initially feed size/closed side setting), W is the ore work
index and TMAX is a calculated maximum feedrate based on maximum available amperage B5).
The values of the coefficients used for tertiary crushing reflect an increase in the relative
influence of ore hardness as opposed to feed size since tertiary crushers receive material of more
uniform size than do secondary units.

Next, the 80 percent passing size of the product (DD) is calculated as follows:

4

DD = 3.0 CSS/(1.0 + A/B5)

where CSS is the closed size crusher setting. Thus as the crusher power draw approaches full
load, the 80 percent passing size of the discharge product approaches 1.50 times the closed size
setting in agreement with published product size distributions reported at full load (7). Lower
crusher loading results in a coarser product. At idling conditions, the 80 percent passing size
becomes approximately twice the close side setting. A new value of R is then calculated based
on DD and values for TMAX, A, DD and R are continually recalculated until successive values
of R agree within 1 percent.

Finally a maximum discharge rate (TC) for the incoming ore and current crusher loading is
calculated. If TC is greater than T, the crusher is capable of handling the current feed rats.
Should T be greater than TC, the crusher conditions and product size are recalculated with
T=TC. Each new value of R modifies TC and iteration continues until T is less than TC. The
discharge tonnage is taken as TC and the excess material (F) is stored to be added to the new
feed to the next cycle. No size reduction of the excess material occurs. Currently the crusher
capacity (TC) is a function of the amperage limiting capacity (TMAX) and is inversely related
independently to ore hardness and reduction ratio. Literature references to capacity restrictions
are not extensive. Motz (8) states that "capacity can be limited volumetrically in the case of the
softer ores, or by the horsepower in the case of the harder ores". Flavel (9) shows that capacity
can be severely reduced by increases in feed size. In either case, the limitations are not likely to
be related simply to ore and crusher volumes, but also reflect the increased tine required to
reduce the size of larger or harder material enough to pass the discharge opening. High level
alarms trip out the crusher and feeder, when maximum power draw and/or chamber levels are
exceeded. In cases where the crusher shuts down on overload, the tonnage in the machine is
retained and must be jogged out by the operator on subsequent start up.

Screening
The SCREEN subroutine was designed to accept crusher discharge material and to split it into
undersize and oversize fractions. Tonnage and size distributions are calculated for both fractions.
The feed characteristics are a result of previous crushing operations and the feed rate is either the
set-point tonnage for circuits with feeders or crusher discharge tonnage.

Screen calculations are based on the standard relationships used by manufacturers to determine
screen area requirements for a given feed, a selected screen opening and a desired efficiency (3,
10). For the purposes of the subroutine, where screen area and opening are set, the process is
reversed so that the efficiency is calculated based on the feed and operating conditions:


EF = _______TPH of undersize in feed_________
A x C x bulk density x modifying factors

where EF is the efficiency factor, C is the basic capacity of the screen (in tonnes per unit screen
area), A is the total screen surface area and the modifying factors account for screen open area,
shape of opening, percent fines in the feed and number of decks.

5

The efficiency factor is converted to a screening efficiency term and this is used to split the
undersize material in the feed into the undersize and oversize products. The efficiency is
modified by the moisture content in the feed, to simulate sticky ore which may clog the screen
openings, and by the percent loading of the screen. Both under-loading and over-loading produce
reduction in screening efficiency (5). Tonnages of both the oversize and undersize are
determined by consideration of the efficiency and the fines contained in the feed. The size
distribution of the coarse fraction is determined by the top-size of the feed and the carry-over of
fines. The size distribution of the undersize is defined by the 80% passing size based on screen
efficiency and the fines in the feed.

Screen amperage and overload calculations are based on the greater of either the total screen feed
or the oversize tonnage. Total feed load is based on the assumption that a screen area of 14.9 m
2

(8 ft x 20 ft) is capable of handling 1000 tph. Oversize load is based on this same screen handling
700 tph of oversize. Similar to the procedure for the crushers, a trip-out due to overload
conditions results in retention of material for treatment on subsequent start up. Products
discharged from the various units of equipment during each cycle are summed in an appropriate
manner to allow calculation of the amperages on interconnecting conveyors.

Surge Capacity
Conveyors or surge bins are represented within the system by subroutine LAG. This model
provides a method to control equipment feed rates when feeders are defined as part of the circuit.
Output from a preceeding operating is placed in the first block of the unit. This material is
advanced one block at the completion of each cycle (first in - first out or plug flow). When used
as a bin a certain degree of mixing occurs when the discharge feeder is operating.

The tonnages contained in all blocks are summed and depending on maximum and minimum
Limits, a high or low level alarm can be triggered. A low level alarm shuts off the discharge
feeder and a high level alarm trips out preceeding equipment. As a conveyor, the time delay
between major units in the plant is modified by specifying the block number which must be
reached before material is discharged to the next unit operation. Incorporated within the program
are the normal plant interlocks that shutdown in-line equipment should the succeeding unit be
non-operative or incapable of receiving material sent to it.

Circuits Examined
The model was used to evaluate the following four circuit types:

1. Closed circuit with two 450 tonne surge bins
2. Closed circuit with no surge bin
3. Closed circuit with a screen plant surge bin
4. Closed circuit with separate screening of secondary and tertiary crushing products
(no surge bin), screens located immediately beneath crushers.

Crushing equipment for all circuits consisted of one secondary crusher and two tertiary crushers,
all of size 2.1 m (7 ft.). Installed horsepower was 350 hp (260 kW), Each of circuits 1, 2 and 3
were serviced by two double-deck screens of variable area (17-30 m ) and opening size (19 or 13
mm). Circuit 4A contained one 14.9 m (8x20) double deck screen for the secondary product with
6

two separate screen decks for the tertiary product. Circuit 48 contained a smaller 11.9 m (8x16)
double deck screen for the secondary product with the same variation in tertiary screening area.
Table 1 shows the screen variations used in all circuits.

Each circuit was evaluated by processing the same ore over a period of 3 shifts. The ore
conditions varied considerably over the progress of the three shifts as shown in Table 2.
Basically shift 1 received intermediately hard feed of considerable variation; shift 2 ore was
softer and more consistent while the ore fed during shift 3 steadily increased in both size and
hardness as the shift progressed.

Operating and Control Strategies
Each circuit was adjusted to optimize the crusher settings for the particular screens installed,
Basically as the screen area was decreased, both the secondary and tertiary crushers were
tightened to decrease the amount of oversize to be handled. Similarly when the screen hole size
was changed from 19 to 13 mm, the crushers were tightened further to match the change in final
product size required.

The feed rates controlled in each circuit were adjusted to attempt to maintain an operating power
draw of between 75 to 80 percent of available power. This control strategy was not always
possible however due to ore changes that produced circuit upsets or because of unbalanced
crusher loads as the closed side settings approached their minimum levels (26 mm for the
secondary and 6 mm for the tertiaries).

Selection of Closed Side Settings
Each circuit containing the different screening equipment was operated for 3 shifts at a variety of
closed side settings to establish the "best average settings for the ore conditions and the installed
screening equipment. Figures 3 and 4 present power draw results for Circuits 1 and 2
respectively run under relatively Loose crusher settings for the same operating period. Variations
in crusher power draw reflect fluctuations in the size and hardness of feed material and changes
in federate due to operator adjustments and random deviations from the feeder setpoint.

The tertiary crusher variations for Circuit 2 as compared to Circuit 1 are more extreme since with
no surge capacity or intermediate feed control, fluctuation in plant feed rate and ore conditions
are transferred directly to the screens. As a result, screen oversize tonnages and size vary
considerably compared with the buffering action of the surge bins in Circuit 1.

As can be seen in Figures 3 and 4, the tertiary power draw in Circuit 1 is both more stable and
consistently higher than that achieved in Circuit 2. In fact, the higher tonnage processed by the
tertiaries in Circuit 1 results in a 10 minute shut down of the tertiary crusher due to an enpty
surge bin. Furthermore, after the first hour of the shift, the surge capacity and feed rate control
available in Circuit 1 have allowed an increase in the secondary crusher feedrate.

Approximately four hours into the shift, one of the tertiary crushers in
Circuit 2 tripped out on high amperage resulting in the shutdown of the entire plant under full
load. Two hours of operating time were required to jog the circuit empty and restart the plant.
7

This lost time and lower power draw combined to reduce the shift throughput to 2505 tonnes for
Circuit 2 as compared to 4106 tonnes for Circuit 1.

To improve on the performance of each circuit with varying screen equipment, studies were
conducted at several crusher settings. Figures 5 and 6 show typical results of this work for
Circuit 2 operating with undersized screens. The importance of balancing the load between the
various circuit components is apparent from this data. When either crusher is operated loose, the
screens become the limiting production constraint. If a crusher is set too tight for the screen area
available, it becomes the bottleneck. Figure 5 shows a peak average shift production of about
2700 tonnes when the tertiaries are set at 12 mm.

Although the circuit appears balanced, further production increases can be achieved by
tightening up the secondary crusher from 34 to 30 mm as shown in Figure 6. This surprising
result occurs because finer and more consistent feed is delivered to the screens and tertiary
crushers, enhancing their performance and allowing higher overall power draw on the secondary
and higher overall tonnage through the plant.

Results
From the application of the preceding testwork with, each circuit, the "best" crusher settings
were selected for each screen type used. Figure 7 shows the average results achieved for each
circuit. Note that Circuits 1, 2 and 3 all show similar responses with a moderately decreasing
production as available screen area is reduced. Circuit 1 performs at the highest level while
Circuit 2 is the poorest of the three, indicative of the influence of individual unit feed control and
internal surge capacity on the efficiency of plant operations. With one internal bin and screen
feedrate control, Circuit 3 falls between these two extremes.

Circuit 4 shows a higher sensitivity to screen area reductions than do the other circuits since the
total reduction affects only the tertiary screens and not all of the remaining screen area is
available to the tertiary crusher produ5t. At high total screen area (>29m
2
), note how the lower
secondary screen area (4B) limits throughput significantly while at lower total screen area, both
curves (4A and 4B) follow similar slopes, displaced by 2 m
2
, indicative of tertiary screens
limiting production.

Figure 8 compares the average total power utilization (= %powerdraw x fractional operating
time) for each circuit. The relative trend in power utilization with 19 mm screens is remarkably
similar to that of the shift production for all circuits. With Circuits 1, 2 and 3, the drop in power
utilization with decreased screen area reflects a loss in operating time rather than power level
while in the case of Circuit 4, the power levels on all crushers dropped significantly as screen
area decreased. Attempting to maintain higher power draw caused frequent screen tripout and
subsequent downtime. With the 13 mm screens, the situation is somewhat different. As the
crushers are, tightened to match the smaller available screen areas, power draw levels on the
secondary crusher decreased while the tertiary crusher power draw increased. With Circuit 1, this
trade-off produces a stable total power utilization curve while Circuit 3 data show a decline
similar to that occurring at 19 mm. In Circuit 2 however, since the crusher settings at a11 screen
areas have approached their minimum permissible level preventing further tightening, the power
utilization actually increases as the screen area decreased reflecting a trend toward less
8

inefficient crushing. As in the case at 19 mm, all power levels in Circuits 4A and 4B decline with
decreased screen area.

Discussion
Loss in production can result from two sources, the inability to achieve satisfactory power input
because of equipment limitations within the circuit and the inefficiency of power utilization from
operating crushers at lower power draw and from the circulation of large amounts of undersize
material because of inefficient screening.

In analysing the results, it is interesting to compare the ratios of tonnage achieved under different
conditions with those predicted by the Bond work index formula together with the actual power
utilization. The ratios predicted by Bond show the change in production resulting from changes
in power input while the deviation between the actual and predicted ratios reflects the
inefficiencies of both crushing and screening.

First we examine the ability of the model to predict the tonnage change that occurs when the
product specification of a particular circuit is altered. Table 3 shows the average tonnage ratios
for all tests with each circuit when the screen hole size is changed from 19 to 13 mm. Note that
in Circuit 1, the deviation from the Bond prediction is within 3 percent while in Circuit 3 there is
exact agreement.

Circuit 2 and 4A however show deviations of about 5 percent despite achieving higher relative
power draws at 13 mm than at 19 mm. Thus, the efficiency of screening and crushing is reduced
in those circuits without direct unit feed rate control.

Next the tonnage ratios as a function of screen area are presented in Table 4. The data for
Circuits 1, 2 and 3 are combined together here, since the relative effects of screen area reductions
are similar in these circuits. A 20 percent reduction in available screen area produces a 4.6
percent decline in tonnage while a 40 percent change lowers the tonnage by 23 percent. A
substantial portion of this significant drop is due to inefficient screening and crushing.

Circuit 4A shows a much higher sensitivity to total screen area over this similar range. A 20
percent reduction in available screen area produces a 14.7 percent drop in tonnage while a 27
percent change reduces the tonnage by over 50 percent. As with the other circuits, most of this
decline results from inefficient screening and crushing.

Finally, the four circuits examined are compared to each other in Table 5 for conditions in which
adequate screen capacity has been installed. The tonnage ratios are referenced against Circuit 1
since it consistently produced the highest shift production.

With Circuit 2, the need to operate at lower power levels to avoid upset conditions causes a
reduction in power input which restricts tonnage by 7.6 percent and 17.3 percent at 19 and 13
mm respectively. Additional production losses of 5.0 and 10.3 percent at 19 and 13 mm
respectively are caused by inefficient use of available power. Circuit 3 shows some improvement
over Circuit 2 with equivalent power input to
9

that of Circuit 1 being achieved at a 19 mm hole size. However a similar reduction in crushing
and screening efficiency to that observed In Circuit 2 produces a 5.7 percent production loss at
19 mm.

Either of these circuits could be made to perform at production levels equivalent to Circuit 1 by
increasing the installed horsepower on the crushers. The increases required can be summarized
as follows:

SCREEN HOLE INCREASED CRUSHING POWER
SIZE (mm) REQUIRED (%)
CIRCUIT 2 CIRCUIT 3
19 13 6
13 28 12

Circuit 4A outperforms Circuit 1 with screen areas of 29 m
2
and higher. Improved screening
efficiencies of the secondary and tertiary screens produce a reduced power level in the tertiary
crushers. By operating at higher power draw levels, this suggests the installed tertiary crushing
horsepower could be decreased by about 16 percent without loss in shift production. Care must
be taken however to ensure that adequate secondary screen area is available. If this screen is
smaller than an 8x20 (14.9 m
2
), the circuit cannot achieve the required production regardless of
total screen area installed. This can be seen in Figures 7 and 8 by the data plotted for Circuit 4B.

Open Circuit Crushing
Preliminary testwork with the model have also been conducted to examine an open circuit
crushing plant containing one 2.1 m secondary crushes with a 350 hp motor, one 8x20 (14.9 m )
double deck screen and one 2.1 m tertiary crusher with a 450 hp motor. The crushers were set to
produce a final product size similar to that achieved in the above closed-circuit flowsheets and
operate both units at about 75 percent power draw. At 19 mm product size, the plant produced a
tonnage ratio to Circuit 1 of 0.813 compared with 0.732 predicted by the Bond formula. This
increased efficiency, likely due to improved feed size to the tertiary crusher, suggests that this
type of circuit can perform at the same level as Circuit 1 with 450 hp motors on both crushers.

At 13 mm product size, the performance of this circuit was extremely poor. Product size was
over 10 percent coarser than any of the equivalent closed circuit despite the crushers being set at
their minimum value. Less than 75 percent production could be achieved because of poor power
input and inefficient crushing. It is extremely unlikely that this type of circuit could be
successfully applied to produce a 13 mm product specification. Instead, this circuit would be
used where a rod mill grinding stage is downstream and product quality constraints are not as
severe. Crushing plant product size would probably be coarser and less consistent than with a
conventional closed-circuit flowsheet.

Conclusion
A computer model has been developed to simulate the operation and control of secondary
crushing plants. In addition to being a useful teaching and training aid, the model can
demonstrate operational characteristics of various design changes and decisions. A study of the
impact of screen design parameters on the operating efficiency of several common crushing
10

plants has been successfully conducted. The study shows the importance of independent unit
feed control together with internal surge capacity on the performance of closed circuit
flowsheets. Circuits without these features operate at reduced power input and increased
instability. In order to compensate, the installed crusher horsepower needs to be higher by 13
percent for a 19 mm product size and 28 percent for a 13 mm product size.

Using separate screening for the secondary and tertiary crusher products can lead to a reduction
of about 16 percent in the installed tertiary horsepower because of improved screening
efficiency. However incorrectly sized secondary screens can limit production severely, unless the
secondary crusher horsepower is increased.

Open circuit crushing can also be studied using this model. Preliminary results suggest that
product size specification and tonnage equivalent to that achieved by conventional closed-circuit
plants are possible at about 86 percent of total installed horsepower for a 19 mm product
specification.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Department of Mining Engineering at
Queen's University and to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for
financial support during the development of this program.

References
1. Tucker, R.J. and Meech, J.A.: "A Dynamic Computer Model of Ore Crushing plants for
Teaching Purposes and Operating Training", Proc. of 1984 Summer Simulation Conference,
Boston, Mass., Vol. 2, July, 1984, p. 1107-1113
2. Magerowski, A.J. & Karra, V.K.: "Computer-aided Crushing Circuit Design", Design and
Installation of Comminution Circuits, Mular, A.L. and Jergensen 2nd, G.V., Editors, AIME,
NY, 1982, pp. 238-300.
3. Nichols, J.P.: "Selection and Sizing of Screens", Design and Installation of Comminution
Circuits, Mular, A.L. and Jergensen 2nd, G.V., Editors, AIME, New York, 1982, pp. 509-522.
4. Hatch, C.C. and Mular, A.L.: "Simulation of the Brenda Mines Ltd. Secondary Crushing
Plant', Mining Engineering, Volume 30, No. 9, September 1982, pp. 1543-1562.
5. Karra, V.K.: "A Process Performance Model for Cone Crushers", Proc. of XIV Inter. Min.
Proc. Congress, Toronto , Canada, Sect. 111, 1982, p. III-6.1.
6. Tucker, R.J. & Meech, J.A.: "Modelling Secondary Crushing Plants for Teaching Purposes
and Operator Training", 17th Can. Min. Proc. Conf., Ottawa, Canada, Jan. 1985, pp. 21.
7. Nordberg Process Machinery: Reference Manual (1976).
8. Hotz, J.C.: "Crushing", Mineral Processing Plant Design, Second Edition , Mular , A.L. and
Bhappu, R.B., Editors, Society of Mining Engineers of AIME, New York, 1980, pp. 203-238.
9. Flavel , M.D.: " Selection and Sizing of Crushers", Design and Installation of Comminution
Circuits , Mular, A.L. & Jergensen 2nd, G.V., Eds., AIME, New York, 1982, pp. 343-386.
10. Coleman, K.G.: "Selection and Guidelines for Size and Type of Vibrating Screens in Ore
Crushing Plants", Mineral Processing Plant Design, Second Edition, Mular, A.L. & Bhappu,
R.B., Eds., Society of Mining Engineers of AIME, New York, 1980, pp. 341-361.



11

Table 1: Screen Areas Used in this Study.

Circuits 1, 2, and 3
Size Number Installed hp Area (m2)
8 x 20 2 25 29.7
8 x 16 2 20 23.8
8 x 16 2 15 17.8

Circuit 4
Size Number Installed hp Area (m2)
Secondary
8 x 20 (4A) 2 25 14.9
8 x 16 (4B) 2 20 11.9
Tertiary
8 x 16 2 20 23.8
6 x 16 2 15 17.8
6 x 12 2 12 13.4
4 x 12 * 2 8 8.9
4 x 9 * 2 6 6.7
* unconventional sizes

Table 2: Typical Ore Conditions
Shift 1 2 3
Work Index (kWh/t) 14.0 12.5 15.0
D80 Feed Size (mm) 191 178 203
Variability High variation Low variation
Steady increase in
hardness and size
throughout the shift


Table 3: Impact of Screen Hole Size on Relative Average Shift Production
(referenced against a 19 mm hole size)
Circuit 1 2 3 4
Screen Hole Size (mm) 19 13 19 13 19 13 19 13
Actual Tonnage Ratio 1.0 0.764 1.0 0.687 1.0 0.736 1.0 0.793
Predicted Tonnage Ratio 1,9 0.744 1.0 0.723 1.0 0.735 1.0 0.838
Deviation due to less (more)
efficient crushing/screening
0 (2.7) 0 5.0 0 0 0 5.4
Average Power Level (%) 80 79 72 77 76 79 69 77
Average CSS (mm)
Secondaries
Tertiaries
33
10
29
8
30
10
28
7
31
10
29
8
33
10
28
7
















12




Table 4: Impact of Screen Area on Relative Shift Production
Circuit 1, 2, and 3
Screen Area (m2) 29.7 23.8 17.8
Actual Tonnage Ratio 1.00 0.954 0.770
Predicted Tonnage Ratio * 1.00 0.986 0.915
% Deviation due to less
efficient crushing and/or
screening
0 3.1 17.6
Average Power Level (%) 78 78 76
Average CSS (mm)
Secondaries Tertiaries 33
11
32
10
30
8

Circuit 4
Screen Area (m2) 32.7 29.7 23.8 21.6
Actual Tonnage Ratio 1.027 1.0 0.853 0.476
Predicted Tonnage Ratio * 1.005 1.0 0.936 0.874
% Deviation due to less
efficient crushing and/or
screening
(2.2) 0 3.1 17.6
Average Power Level (%) 80 76 70 64
Average CSS (mm)
Secondaries Tertiaries 40
14
35
10
28
8
26
8
* Predicted by Bond Formula and Actual Power Utilization

Table 5: Relative Average Shift Production for each Circuit Type with Adequate Installed
Screen Area 29.8 m
2

(referenced against a 19 mm hole size)
Circuit 1 2 3 4
Screen Hole Size (mm) 19 13 19 13 19 13 19 13
Actual Tonnage Ratio 1.0 1.0 0.874 0.724 0.943 0.889 1.000 1.054
Predicted Tonnage Ratio 1.0 1.0 0.924 0.827 1.002 0.950 0.898 0.923
Deviation due to less (more)
efficient crushing/screening
0 0 3.4 12.4 5.9 6.4 (11.4) (14.2)
Average Power Level (%) 80 79 74 75 80 77 73 80
Average CSS (mm)
Secondaries
Tertiaries
33
10
30
10
30
10
30
10
33
10
30
10
35
10
28 6


13




























































Figure 1: Flowchart of PLANT Program.

READ IN CRUSHER
AND EQUIPMENT
SPECIFICATIONS
1. Initialize Shift 2.
2. Load Circuit
3. Adjust Crushers
CREATE NEW
ORE BLOCK
CALL
SUBROUTINES
IN SEQUENCE
ADJUST TIMER
AND ORE
CONDITIONS
STORE
CIRCUIT
CONTENTS
CREATE AND EDIT
SHIFT REPORT
LAG
Store/Delay
Ore Movement
CRUSH
Crusher
Calculations
SCREEN
Screen
Calculations
SIZE
Sum and Blend
Ore Blocks
OUT
Interactive
Input/Output
14




T = T(SET) + F

























































Figure 2. Flowchart for Crusher Amperage and Product Size Calculations.
Calculate
R1
T = TC
Calculate
TMAX
Calculate
A
Calculate
DD
Calculate
R2
IF

|R1-R2| < 0.01
R2
NO
YES
Calculate
TC
IF

TC > T
F = F + T -TC
15



Figure 3. Secondary and Tertiary Crusher Power Draw Circuit 1 (C.S.S. 36, 14, 14)



Figure 4. Secondary and Tertiary Crusher Power Draw Circuit 1 (C.S.S. 36, 14, 14)
16




Figure 5: The influence of tertiary crusher setting on shift production in Circuit 2.
Secondary crusher setting = 34 mm
Secondary crushers = 2.1 mm (7 ft) 350 hp
Tertiary crushers = 2.1 m (7 ft) 350 hp
19 mm Screens (Extra Heavy Duty) = 2 (6 x 16) 25 hp



Figure 6: The influence of secondary crusher setting on shift production in Circuit 2.
Tertiary crusher setting = 12 mm
Secondary crushers = 2.1 m (7 ft) 350 hp
Tertiary crushers = 2.1 m (7 ft) 350 hp
19 mm Screens (Extra Heavy Duty) = 2 (6 x 16) 25 hp
17



Figure 7: Effect of screen area on average shift production
in Circuits 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 19 and 13 mm.

18


Figure 8: Effect of screen area on total crusher power utilization
in Circuits 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 19 and 13 mm.