Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
kW
*These are general statements that do not account for abnormalities in the feed size/cavity profile/ore properties/etc.
+ ++ +++
+ ++ +++
+ ++ +++
+ ++ +++
+ +++ +++
+ ++ ++
Capacity is proportional to the Cavity Density and Flow Through the Chamber Power Draw is proportional to the Cavity Density and Capacity Reduction is proportional to the Cavity Density and Power Draw Crushing Efficiency is proportional to the Capacity and Reduction, and is inversely proportional to the Power Draw
Test Background
In May 2010, testing was conducted at the Mineral Research & Test Center in Milwaukee, WI, USA An HP200 was used with multiple settings Two different materials were tested
Hard-Trap Rock 25% CR 18 W.I. Soft- Limestone 41% CR 12 W.I.
Three cavity levels were investigated 42 tests were run with 76 samples taken
Test Procedure
Tests were run in tertiary (shorthead) position Four CSSs were investigated Cavity level was visually confirmed and recorded Power draw was steady (~+/-3%) for 30 seconds before sampling Power, capacity, and particle size distribution (PSD) were evaluated for every test
Full Cavity
Half Cavity
Results - Summary
Super-Choked gave slightly better performance than Full-Cavity, but there was a large drop-off with the Half-Cavity tests As the cavity level increased from HC, the capacity (+23-25%) and power (+43-50%) increased while the discharge became finer The average specific energy to produce a 0-13mm product was 35% less with F or SC, respectively, when compared to HC The average specific energy to produce a 0-6.7mm product was 10-13% less with F or SC, respectively, when compared to HC
Table 1: Relative production and specific energy based on half cavity results Condition Super Choked Full Cavity Half Cavity MTPH 1.25 1.23 1.00 kW 1.50 1.43 1.00 kWh/T Throughput 1.21 1.16 1.00 MTPH 13mm x 0 1.59 1.49 1.00 kWh/T 13mm x 0 0.95 0.97 1.00 MTPH 6.7mm x 0 1.75 1.62 1.00 kWh/T 6.7mm x 0 0.87 0.90 1.00
Super Choked Full Cavity Half Cavity Super Choked Half Cavity
10.0
This table and following graphs show results from the base tests as well as a small number of tests ran with a relatively finer feed (1.5 x ).
HFS Comparison
Half Cavity
Choke Feed
Super Choked
Practical Lessons
The crusher is more efficient with a full or super-choked chamber
Therefore, keeping a full chamber consistently is more energy efficient Smaller or fewer crushers can be used by operating near max capacity Bins/feeders/control packages will prove to be beneficial Liner life and sustainable profile improve with a consistently full cavity A higher cavity level will generally give a more consistent power draw
Final Note
Each crusher/liners/feed material/application is different and the effect of the cavity level will vary. The trends of this study are valid, but the magnitude of production differences can only be seen with testing trials with the actual machine and feed.
THANK YOU