LEARNING UNIT 3: PROCESS ENGINEERING OF SIZE REDUCTION

Contents
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................2

3.1.1 Crushing.............................................................................................................3

3.1.2 Grinding..............................................................................................................4

3.1.3 Milling.................................................................................................................5

3.2 Design of grinding circuits..........................................................................................6

3.2.1 The rate of production method.........................................................................10

3.2.2 The specific energy method.............................................................................11

3.2.3 The Kick, Rittinger or Bond methods................................................................12

3.2.4 The population balance model method............................................................14

3.3 Size reduction equipment........................................................................................20

3.4 Types of crushing equipment...........................................................................20

3.4.1 Jaw crusher..............................................................................................................21

3.4.2 Gyratory crusher.......................................................................................................22

3.4.3 Hammer mill.............................................................................................................22

3.4.4 Crushing rolls............................................................................................................23

3.5 Sample preparation equipment................................................................................24

3.5.1 Jones Riffle splitter...........................................................................................24

3.5.2 Cone and quartering.........................................................................................25

3.6 Size analysis equipment...............................................................................................26

3.6.1 Laboratory-scale test sieves.............................................................................27

3.6.2 Malvern particle size analyser..........................................................................30

3.7 Worked examples....................................................................................................32

References.............................................................................................................................39

1
Learning outcomes

After completing this learning unit, you will be able to

 differentiate between crushing, grinding and milling

 design a grinding circuit

 state and discuss the different techniques employed in sizing industrial-scale

mills

 evaluate the rate parameters of the population balance model

 discuss the equipment used in size reduction, sample preparation and sample

analysis

 calculate the energy required to reduce the size of a given feed to a desired

product size specification

3.1 Introduction

The unit operation of size reduction (comminution) by mechanical means such as

crushing, grinding or milling is important and applicable to many different types of

industries, e.g. minerals processing, coal dressing, pharmaceutical, energy, foundry,

food. Surprisingly, this basic unit operation in many process engineering industries

has over the years been given very little attention, especially when it comes to the

circuit or process design aspects. It is only in the last two or so decades that some

progress in terms of theoretical generation of validated principles and knowledge

was made. This body of knowledge is now comparable to what is available in other

unit operations such as evaporation, drying, absorption, adsorption, distillation and

leaching. This anomaly associated with the rather late development of guiding

principles resulted from a historical misconception in which comminution was treated

2
as a “black art” and not a science. It used to be wrongly believed that the art of size

reduction could only be mastered after years and years of practice and not through

studies (Austin, Klimpel & Luckie 1984).

The theoretical basis governing comminution as a unit operation has many

similarities to that used in the design of reactors in chemical reaction engineering.

There are also similar terminologies and concepts used in both these fields of

process engineering. The design of comminution circuits became the entry point and

primary purpose of chemical engineers in the rather conservative minerals

processing sector. Historically only mining engineers worked at the mines. With more

appreciation of the scope of the processing duties, metallurgists were then slowly

entrusted with and incorporated into the mining industry. The need to design, retrofit

and optimise processing circuits led to opportunities opening up for the chemical

engineers to work in the mining or minerals processing sector (Austin & Rogers

1985).

3.1.1 Crushing

Crushing is the first mechanical stage in the process of comminution in which a

principal objective is the liberation of the valuable minerals from the gangue.

Crushing is typically a dry operation that is performed in two or three stages (i.e.

primary, secondary and tertiary crushing). Lumps of run-of-mine ore as large as 1.5

m across are reduced in the primary crushing stage to between 10 and 20 cm in

heavy duty machines. In most operations, the primary crushing schedule is the same

as the mining schedule. When primary crushing is performed underground, it is

normally the responsibility of a mining technician; for primary crushing at the surface,

3
it is customary for the mining technician to deliver the ore to the crusher and for the

minerals processing technician to crush and handle the ore from this point through

the successive ore processing stages.

Vibrating screens are sometimes placed ahead of secondary or tertiary crushers to

remove undersize material (i.e. scalp the feed), thereby increasing the capacity of

the crushing plant. Undersize material tends to pack the voids between large

particles in the crushing chamber, and can choke the crusher, causing damage,

because the packed mass of rock is unable to swell in volume as it is broken.

3.1.2 Grinding

Grinding is the last stage in the comminution process where particles are reduced in

size by a combination of impact and abrasion, either dry, or more commonly, in

suspension in water. It is performed in cylindrical steel vessels that contain a charge

of loose crushing bodies (the grinding medium) that are free to move inside the mill,

thus comminuting the ore particles. According to the ways by which motion is

imparted to the charge, grinding mills are generally classified into two types: tumbling

mills and stirred mills. In tumbling mills, the mill shell is rotated and motion is

imparted to the charge via the mill shell. The grinding medium may be steel rods,

balls, or rock itself. Media ball sizes, for example, range from about 20 mm for fine

grinding to 150 mm for coarse grinding.

Tumbling mills are typically employed in the mineral industry for primary grinding (i.e.

stage immediately after crushing), in which particles between 5 and 250 mm are

reduced in size to between 25 and 300 μm. In stirred mills, the mill shell is stationary,

4
mounted either horizontally or vertically and motion is imparted to the charge by the

movement of an internal stirrer. Grinding media (25 mm or less) inside the mill are

agitated or rotated by the stirrer, which typically comprises a central shaft to which

screws, pins, or discs of various designs are attached. Stirred mills are used in

regrinding, fine (15 - 40 μm) and ultrafine (¿15 μm) grinding.

All ores have an economic optimum particle size which maximises the difference

between net smelter return (NSR) and grinding costs: too coarse a grind and the

inadequate liberation limits recovery (and thus revenue) in the separation stage; too

fine a grind and grinding costs exceed any increment in recovery (and may even

reduce recovery depending on the separation process). The optimum grind size will

depend on many factors, including the extent to which the values are dispersed in

the gangue, and the subsequent separation process to be used. It is the purpose of

the grinding section to exercise close control on this product size and, for this

reason, correct grinding is often said to be the key to good minerals processing.

3.1.3 Milling

Milling also refers to the process of breaking down, separating, sizing or classifying

aggregate material. A mill is a device that breaks solid materials into smaller pieces

by grinding, crushing or cutting. There are many different types of mills and many

types of materials processed in them. Historically mills were powered by hand (e.g.

via a hand crank), working animal (e.g. horse mill), wind (windmill) or water

(watermill). Today they are usually powered by electricity.

5
3.2 Design of grinding circuits

The task of a chemical engineer in designing any type of reactor is to size the reactor

for a required output rate of a desired quality of product, using mass and energy

balances, reaction kinetics, thermodynamic data, etc. The engineer’s design must

allow for the input or extraction of energy required for the reactions to take place and

should be able to minimise the amount of unreacted feed and the side reactions or

production of by-products. The resultant process must be safe, stable, controllable

and environmentally friendly and produce products that meet the customer’s quality

expectations or specifications. It should be able to meet its optimal design capacity

efficiently with minimal operating costs such as utilities, labour and raw materials.

A similar approach applies to grinding mill design. If you take a look at the simplest

type of mill, known as a tumbling ball mill (figure 3.1), you will notice that a coarser

feed material is fed into the mill, undergoes the breakage action through interaction

with tumbling grinding media and finer product particle size distribution (PSD) is

obtained from the mill. The mill is treated as a reactor here in which the reaction

achieved is size reduction. A fundamental approach to basic mill circuit design is to

size a mill that will produce a desired product size distribution from a given feed. The

correct choice of mill conditions, such as rotational speed, ball size, ball loading,

interstitial filling and slurry density, is essential to optimise the process. Optimisation

in this context means minimising capital expenditure while maximising production of

the desired size class material.

6
 Figure 3.1: Front view of a tumbling ball mill charged with slurry and grinding media

(Photograph by lecturer)

It is common practice when designing processing circuits to include a by-pass,

recycle and purge streams. Sometimes it might even be more appropriate to have

the same processing unit connected in series just to avoid the overload of a single

piece of equipment. In grinding circuit design, after the feed material has reduced its

size in the mill, the different size classes exiting the mill must be separated. This step

is known as classification, and it gives an indication of how efficient the size

reduction process was. Sieves, hydro cyclones or air cyclones are usually used to

perform the classification task. These units classify, separate or split the product into

two streams, namely the oversize or overflow (coarser) material and the undersize or

underflow (finer) material. The oversize material is then recycled to the mill for

7
regrinding (figure 3.2), and the undersize is fed to the next processing unit. An

optimum recycle ratio also needs to be specified.

Mill product
Classifier

Make-up feed

Mill Q
G P
Circuit
product

recycle
T
Figure 3.2: Design of a grinding circuit

One of the tasks of a design process engineer is to specify the best processing route

from the many available options. More often than not, a designer has to choose

between a circuit that contains a primary crusher, secondary crusher, tertiary

crusher, rod mill and ball mill (figure 3.3) and another that contains an autogenous

mill sequence (figure 3.4). The constituent units would have to be meticulously sized

and cost estimated. A good choice of the processing route should always be

supported by a superior economic evaluation and analysis (JEI Metallurgical [n.d.]).

Cyclone overflow

Concentrate
Crushed ore
(to grinding
circuit)

Cyclone underflow

Rod mill Ball mill

Sump
8
Figure 3.3: Design option for a grinding circuit

Pit ore

Gyratory crusher Pebble crusher

Cyclone

Stockpile
SAG mill
Screen

Ball mill
Sump hopper

Figure 3.4: Design option for a grinding circuit

The final design of a comminution circuit is a task that should be done after an

engineer has acquired enough understanding and knowledge of the whole

beneficiation process. There are two possible methods of going about the design

(Metso [n.d.]). The first option is to focus on coming up with an optimal size reduction

unit, with the hope that when these optimal units are connected in a circuit, they will

result in an optimum overall process. However, this is an old-school approach that is

becoming less popular and being slowly replaced by the second option. Historically

engineers were limited by the computing power available and so could only solve the

optimisation for one unit at a time.

9
The modern-day engineering approach is driven more by principles such as process

intensification, process integration and systems optimisation. These techniques

focus on the entire process as opposed to individual units and do not follow the belief

that optimum units lead to an optimum overall process. In this second option,

downstream beneficiation units such as flotation, leaching or smelters are all taken

into account and an entire minerals processing circuit is designed. Whichever

approach a designer may opt for, individual mills will still need to be sized and in the

next section we look at the different methods used in sizing ball mills. Ball mills are

the most commonly used size reduction units.

3.2.1 The rate of production method

In the rate of production method of sizing an industrial-scale mill, a laboratory-scale

ball mill of known dimensions is used to perform experiments with the objective of

producing an optimum amount of the desired size class material (Danha et al 2016).

Mill conditions such as residence time, grinding media size, degree of loading, slurry

density and interstitial filling level are specified and systematically varied to maximise

the desired product size class material. After optimal operating conditions have been

identified, well-known scale-up procedures are then applied to design an industrial-

scale mill based on the rate of production of desired size class material from a

laboratory-scale ball mill. This method is still being used today by some

manufacturers of ball mills as well as designers of milling circuits. However, its

biggest shortfalls lie in the method’s inability to specify other optimal operating

parameters, such as recycle ratio and by-pass, as well as its inability to deal with

changes in feed and product size specifications.

10
3.2.2 The specific energy method

Specific energy (equation 3.1) is defined as energy per unit mass and is sometimes

referred to as energy density. It is measured in kWh per ton and incorporates the

kinetic, potential and internal energy components in its expression.

Mp
Specific energy ( E )= (3.1)
Q

Where

Mp = Mill power

Q = Mass output rate of desired product

The specific energy method is similar to the first method in that it uses a laboratory-

scale mill to experimentally determine the optimal conditions which are then scaled

up using well-known scale-up procedures. The difference between the specific

energy approach and the first method is that power is measured that is required by a

pilot mill to produce a specified product size from a given feed size. This power is

converted to the specific energy using equation 3.1. An assumption is then made

that the specific energy needed to produce a required product size at a desired

output rate from a given feed size is independent of the mill design. Using this

technique, an industrial mill with a specified production capacity can then be sized.

This approach is still applied in some modern-day mill design factories and

industries. However, it has serious limitations in terms of its failure to account for the

expected variations in residence time and material flow rates in the mill, as well as its

failure to specify the optimal recycle ratio and other mill operating parameters or

conditions.

11
3.2.3 The Kick, Rittinger or Bond methods

The third method uses a combination of the principles behind methods 1 and 2 and

those from the old empirical laws of grinding. The laws of grinding were postulated

by Bond (1960), Charles (1957) and Rittinger (1867) in an attempt to relate the size

reduction process to the input energy. The general grinding law as proposed by

Walker et al (1937) is

dX
dE=−C n (3.2)
X

Where

E = Grinding energy per unit mass

X = Mean particle size

C and n = Constants for a given material and mill

When n = 1, 2 or 1.5, integration of equation 3.1 gives rise to Kick’s law, Rittinger’s

law, or Bond’s law, respectively.

3.2.3.1 Kick’s law

Kick’s law states that the specific energy necessary to go from size X f to size X p is

E=K log ( X f / X p ) (3.3)

Where

K = Physical meaning of the energy required to produce a tenfold reduction in

particle size

X f and X p = Arbitrary single sizes characterising the feed and product distributions,

e.g. 80% passing sizes

3.2.3.2 Rittinger’s law

12
Rittinger’s law says that the specific energy (E) of grinding is directly proportional to

the new surface area produced.

The energy surface area balance of Rittinger’s law in terms of particle sizes is

E=K
[ 1
−
1
X p Xf ] (3.4)

X max
1 dP ( X , t )
Xp ∫
Where: =
0
X

X max
1 dP ( X , 0 )
=∫
Xf 0 X

P ( X , t ) = Fraction by weight less than size X of products of fracture

P ( X , 0 ) = Fraction by weight less than size X of the feed material

t = Time taken for a particle to reduce from its feed to product size

3.2.3.3 Bond’s law

Bond’s law of comminution can be empirically expressed as follows (Austin 1973):

E=10 wi
( 1
−
1
√ X p √ Xf ) (3.5)

Where

w i = Bond work index, whose physical meaning is 1.5 times the specific

grinding energy required to reduce feed particles ( X f ) from 900 µm to product

particles ( X p ) of 100 µm

X p ∧X f = 80% by weight passing sizes in the product and feed, respectively

Method 3 also applies scale-up models to size industrial-scale mills. The method is

still applied in modern-day mill circuit design. However, these three classical laws or

empirical expressions are a rough estimate of the solution to the fourth method, the

population balance model.

13
3.2.4 The population balance model method

The fourth and most accurate method of sizing ball mills which is also used in the

design and optimisation of milling circuits is the population balance model, also

known as the size-mass balance equation.

3.2.4.1 Modelling a grinding process

One of the tools that is commonly applied in designing grinding circuits and also in

evaluating whether comminution is being carried out effectively is process modelling

(Fuerstenau & Venkataraman 1988). In theory, process modelling makes it possible to

predict accurately the product PSD after a certain grinding time and under specified

grinding conditions (Das, Khan & Pitchumani 1995). Process models can be used as,

among other things, benchmarks by operators to set mill residence times and process

conditions in order to produce particles in the size range required by a designated

downstream process. The problem associated with using a less accurate model to

estimate the amount of material remaining in a chosen particle size class is that it

misses out on the optimum grind time to be used to produce a desired fineness of grind,

and therefore risks grinding either too fine (wasting energy in the process) or too coarse

(reducing the efficiency of downstream processes such as floatation). Using a less

accurate model also leads to overdesign or underdesign of equipment, and following

operating procedures that are neither optimal nor economical.

First-order models are often valid and frequently used in the analysis of the rate of

breakage of single-component (homogeneous) material in a batch laboratory-scale ball

mill. However, batch tests do not always fit the first-order model, and there are various

14
hypotheses as to why this happens. Austin et al (1982) postulated that the non-linear

breakage of material can be due to a general slowing down of all grinding rates as fines

accumulate in the charge, calling this behaviour the mill environment effect. However,

this phenomenon is only applicable to fine dry grinding. Austin et al (1982) noted that

the effect also occurs when the particles are too large to be properly nipped by the balls.

In this case the material behaves as if some particles are relatively weak, while others

are stronger. For the latter effect, they suggest that the first-order breakage model can

be split into two parts: a fraction φ of the weak material (with a specific rate of breakage

SA) and a fraction 1- φ of strong material (with a specific rate of breakage S B). They

called this phenomenon the material effect. Another possible reason why batch tests do

not conform to first-order kinetics could be that the material is non-homogeneous

(heterogeneous). In such a case, the material would not consist of weak and strong, but

rather soft and hard particles.

Various models can be used to predict the PSD of multi-component or heterogeneous

feeds, as summarised in the next section. These models appear to be non-first order,

but can also be a simple combination of two first-order models. The models can be

employed to predict the grinding of the overall mixture by fitting data obtained from

simple batch tests. The model parameter estimation is arrived at via a force fixing

technique, which involves minimising the numerical estimation of the sum of squares of

the deviation between model prediction and experimental data. We can do this by

searching in the parameter space until an acceptable fit with the experimental data is

achieved (Austin et al 1984).

3.2.4.2 A kinetic approach to grinding

15
In the analysis of various types of grinding mills, the concept of treating grinding as a

rate process (like chemical reactor design) is well accepted (Tangsathitkulchai 2002). A

batch grinding process is commonly characterised by two main functions: selection (S i),

which gives the rates of breakage of each size class i, and breakage (b ij), which

describes the size distribution of the primary product particles (Berube et al 1979)

broken from size class j and reporting to size class i. An expression of the rate for a

grinding system is given by a population balance model (PBM) expression:

i−1
dmi ( t ) /dt=−S i mi ( t ) + ∑ b ij S j m j ( t ) (3.6)
j=1

Where

i and j = Size classes

mi (t ) = Mass fraction of the particles in size class i, after a grind time t

Si = Specific rate of breakage of size class i

b ij = Mass fraction of broken products from size class j, which appear in size class i on

primary breakage

t = Grinding time

Equation 3.6 makes it possible to predict the product PSD at various grinding times

(Reid 1965) if the parameters bij and Si are known for all size classes. For breakage of

the feed (size class 1) material, integration of equation 3.6 yields:

−S1 t
m1 ( t )=m1 ( 0 ) exp (3.7)

or

ln [ m1 ( t ) /m1 ( 0 ) ]=−S1 t (3.8)

16
If the grinding process follows a first-order model, then a plot of ln [ m1 ( t ) /m1 ( 0 ) ] versus t

should give a straight line, the gradient of which is the selection function or first-order

rate of breakage (S1) (Tangsathitkulchai 2003). In many cases, breakage of material in a

batch laboratory ball mill will show a reasonable approximation to what equation 3.7

leads us to expect (Austin et al 1982). Breakage does not, however, always follow a

first-order model (Austin et al 1977). There are many reasons for deviation (Rajamani &

Guo 1992), including the environment inside the mill, such as slurry density (Verma &

Rajamani 1995), a cushioning effect, a number of different sizes in the feed and a range

of components of varying hardness. Gardner and Rogers (1975) proposed, developed

and demonstrated a two-component approach to comminution processes that exhibit

heterogeneous breakage characteristics. This was based on the posit that the material

is made up of two separate components, each with different breakage properties. This

can be represented as two parallel first-order models, requiring a separate equation for

each component, which enables the analyst to explain this deviation by means of similar

terminology and methodology to those which can be used in relation to first-order

modelling.

Considering a composite binary mixture of a soft and a hard material, with φ the fraction

of soft material A and (1- φ ) the fraction of hard material B, the left-hand side of equation

3.6 can be modified so that the total rate of breakage of size class i (as shown by

equation 3.9) results from the sum of the rates of breakage of the soft (equation 3.10)

and hard (equation 3.11) components, taking their relative abundance in the ore into

consideration (Austin et al 1984).

d [ mi ( t ) ] /dt=φ d miA ( t ) /dt+ ( 1−φ ) d miB ( t ) /dt (3.9)

17
in whichd miA ( t ) /dt=−SiA miA ( t ) , (3.10)

and d miB ( t ) /dt=−SiB miB ( t ). (3.11)

Where

miA = Mass fraction of material of size class i in the soft component A, after a grind time t

miB = Mass fraction of material of size class i in the hard component B, after a grind time

SiA = Specific rate of breakage of the soft component in size class i

SiB = Specific rate of breakage of the hard component in size class i

For the feed size class (m1), equation 3.9 can be integrated to obtain a two-component

first-order breakage model, as given by equation 3.12. This expression is actually a

modification of the single component first-order model (equation 3.7), which has been

split into two parts, composed of a fraction φ of the soft component A (with a specific

rate of breakage S1A) and a fraction 1-φ of the hard component B (with a specific rate of

breakage S1B).
− S1 A t − S1B t
m1 ( t )=φ exp + ( 1−φ ) exp (3.12)

We can also perform a similar kinetic analysis as above for the intermediate size class

(m2) material (Danha et al 2015). For this scenario, the first-order breakage model of a

single component ore is given by equation 3.13, which is equation 3.6 applied to size

class 2:

d m2 (t )
=−S 2 m2 ( t ) +b 21 S 1 m1 ( t ) (3.13)
dt

Where

18
m2 (t) = Mass fraction of material in the intermediate size class, after a certain grinding

time

m1 (t) = Mass fraction of material in the feed size class, after a certain grinding time

b 21 = Fraction of material broken from the feed size class that reports to the intermediate

size class

S1 = Breakage rate function of feed size class material

S2 = Breakage rate function of intermediate size class material

Further integration of equation 3.13 yields equation 3.14:

b21 S 1 m1 ( 0 )
m2 (t )=m2 ( 0 ) exp−S t + 2
[exp−S t −exp−S t ]
1 2
(3.14)
S2−S 1

Modification of the above single component first-order breakage model for the

intermediate size class material, in order to incorporate a second component, results in

equation 3.15. This expression is basically a split of the right-hand side of equation 3.14,

into two parts, composed of a fraction φ for the soft component A and a fraction (1-φ) for

the hard component B, each with its own specific rates of breakage.

[
m2 (t )=φ m2 ( 0 ) exp
−S2 A t
+
b 21 A S1 A m1 (0)
S2 A −S 1 A
[exp
−S t
1A
−exp
−S t
]+ 2A

]
[
( 1−φ ) m2 ( 0 ) exp−S t +
2B
b21 B S 1 B m1 (0)
S 2 B−S 1 B
[exp
−S t
−exp
1B −S t
] 2B

] (3.15)

Where

m2 (t) = Mass fraction of material in the intermediate size class, at time t

m1 (0) = Mass fraction of material in the feed size class, at t = 0 minutes

b 21 A = Fraction of the soft component broken from the feed size class that reports to the

intermediate size class

19
b 21B = Fraction of hard component broken from the feed size class that reports to the

intermediate size class

φ = Fraction of the soft component of the ore

S1 A = Breakage rate function of the soft component in the feed size class

S1 B = Breakage rate function of the hard component in the feed size class

S2 A = Breakage rate function of the soft component in the intermediate size class

S2 B = Breakage rate function of the hard component in the intermediate size class

3.3 Size reduction equipment

In minerals processing, all ores have to be reduced to a desired/specified size range for

efficient downstream processing. It is the purpose of all size reduction equipment to

produce this size range. Correct grinding is often said to be the key to good minerals

processing (Wills & Napier-Munn 2005). Undergrinding the ore results in a product that

is too coarse, with a low degree of liberation, whereas overgrinding wastes energy,

reduces the particle size of the already liberated gangue and may also reduce the

particle size of the liberated mineral value to one below that required for efficient

separation. The desirability of using a number of size reduction units when the particle

size is to be reduced considerably arises from the fact that it is not generally economical

to effect a large reduction ratio in a single machine. Size reduction equipment is usually

classified according to the size of the feed and product, as shown in table 3.1:

Table 3.1: Classification of size reduction equipment

Equipment Feed size Product size

Coarse crushers -1 500+40 mm -50+5 mm

Intermediate crushers -50+5 mm -5+0.1 mm

20
 Fine crushers -5+0.1 mm -0.1 mm

Colloid mills -0.1 mm -0.01µm

3.4 Types of crushing equipment

The most important coarse, intermediate and fine crushers may be classified as in

table 3.2:

Table 3.2: Crushing equipment

Coarse Intermediate crushers Fine crushers

crushers

Jaw crusher Crushing rolls Ball mill

Gyratory crusher Hammer mill Rod mill

Single roll crusher Tube mill

Babcock mill

3.4.1 Jaw crusher

The jaw crusher has a fixed jaw and a moving jaw pivoted at the top with the

crushing faces formed of manganese steel. Since the maximum movement of the

jaw is at the bottom, there is little tendency for the machine to clog, though some

uncrushed material may fall through and have to be returned to the crusher. The

maximum pressure is exerted on the large material which is introduced at the top.

The machine is usually protected so that it is not damaged if lumps of metal

inadvertently enter, by making one of the toggle plates in the driving mechanism

relatively weak so that if any large stresses are set up, this is the first part to fail.

21
Easy renewal of the damaged part is then possible. There are a number of

expressions associated with a crusher:

a) The mass mean diameter

d v=
∑ n1 d 14
∑ n1 d 31

b) The surface mean diameter

d s=
∑ n1 d31
∑ n1 d 21

c) The length mean diameter

dL =
∑ 2
n1d1
n1 d 1

d) The mean length diameter

d l=
∑ n1d1
∑ n1

3.4.2 Gyratory crusher

The gyratory crusher employs a crushing head that is in the form of a truncated

cone, mounted on a shaft. Its upper end is held in a flexible bearing, and the lower

end is driven eccentrically to describe a circle. The crushing action takes place round

the whole of the cone. As the crusher is continuous in action, the fluctuations in the

stresses are smaller than in jaw crushers and the power consumption is lower.

This unit has a large capacity per unit area of grinding surface, particularly if it is

used to produce a small size reduction. It does not, however, take such a large size

of feed as a jaw crusher, although it gives a rather finer and more uniform product.

Because the capital cost is high, the crusher is suitable only where large quantities of

22
material are to be handled. The jaw crusher and the gyratory crusher both employ a

predominantly compressive force.

3.4.3 Hammer mill

The hammer mill is an impact mill employing a high-speed rotating disc, to which a

number of hammer bars are fixed that are swung outwards by centrifugal force.

Material is fed either at the top or at the centre, and is thrown out centrifugally and

then crushed by being beaten between the hammer bars, or against breaker plates

fixed around the periphery of the cylindrical casing. The material is broken down until

it is small enough to fall through the screen which forms the lower portion of the

casing. Since the hammer bars are hinged, the presence of any hard material does

not cause damage to the equipment. The bars are readily replaced when they are

worn out.

The machine is suitable for crushing both brittle and fibrous materials and in the

latter case, it is common practice to employ a screen. The hammer mill is suitable for

hard materials although, since a large amount of fines is produced, it is advisable to

employ positive pressure lubrication to the bearings to prevent the entry of dust. The

size of the product is regulated by the size of the screen and the speed of rotation. A

number of similar machines are available.

3.4.4 Crushing rolls

Two rolls, one in adjustable bearings, rotate in opposite directions and the clearance

between them can be adjusted according to the size of feed and the required size of

product. The machine is protected against damage from very hard material, by

spring loading.

23
The crushing rolls (figure 3.5), which may vary from a few centimetres up to about

1.2 m in diameter, are suitable for effecting a small size reduction ratio of 4:1 in a

single operation. It is therefore common practice to employ a number of pairs of rolls

in series.

An idealised system is where a spherical or cylindrical particle of radius r2 is being

fed to crushing rolls of radius r1, 2α being the angle of nip (the angle between the two

common tangents to the particle and each of the rolls), and 2b being the distance

between the rolls. You can see from the geometry of the system that the angle of nip

is given by

( r 1 +b )
cos α= (3.16)
( r 1+r 2)

For steel rolls, the angle of nip is not greater than about 32o.

Figure 3.5: Crushing rolls

24
3.5 Sample preparation equipment

After the run-of-material is processed by way of size reduction in a comminution circuit,

samples of the product material are obtained from the circuit and prepared for analysis

using any of the methods or techniques described in this section.

3.5.1 Jones Riffle splitter

After a gross sample has been obtained from an ore processing circuit, it is

necessary to reduce its quantity to a size suitable for analysis. The idea here is to

obtain a homogeneous and representative sample. Large samples may be reduced

to test sample size by one or more passes through a sample splitter, commonly

known as a Jones Riffle splitter (figure 3.6). This splitter is designed in such a way

that when material is fed into the equipment, the exit stream is divided into two equal

fractions of similar PSD to the original sample. One of the halved product samples is

fed back to the splitter and again split into two more halves. Repeated passes of one

of the halved product samples allow the sample to be split into quarters, eighths, and

25
so on until the size of the sample desired for analysis is obtained.

Figure 3.6: Jones Riffle splitter (Photograph by lecturer)

3.5.2 Cone and quartering

Cone and quartering is another method of splitting a gross sample into

representative smaller sizes, using a manual technique. The process engineer

arranges a pile of the gross sample in a rough cone shape, scrapes the material up

round the edges and deposits it on top, allowing it to run down equally in all

directions, thus mixing the sample thoroughly (see A in figure 3.7). The sample is

then flattened into a circle with a shovel, and gradually spread to a uniform thickness

(B). The engineer marks the flat pile into quarters, and rejects two opposite quarters

(C). The rejected quarters are returned to the stock. After that the two quarters

26
remaining can be mixed into a conical pile created by taking alternate shovelfuls

from each. This process of piling, flattening and rejecting two quarters is continued

until the sample is reduced to the required size.

A B C

Figure 3.7: Cone and quartering (Danha et al 2013)

3.6 Size analysis equipment

After sample preparation, a homogeneous sample is sent to the laboratory for size

analysis using any of the methods described in this section.

3.6.1 Laboratory-scale test sieves

27
 Figure 3.8: Stacked sieves (with a diameter of 30 cm) used for a size test

Sieving is the physical separation of fine from coarse material by means of a

perforated vessel, or as in this case, a series of vessels in a stack (figure 3.8),

arranged in order of the size of the mesh, the coarsest sieve at the top and the finest

at the bottom. The sample is placed on the top sieve, the lid put on, and the stack is

clamped in a mechanical shaker for about 15 minutes. The general practice is to use

the fourth or square root of two series rule to regulate the sizes:

x n=x n∨x n−1 × √ 2∨x n−1 × √ 2

4
(3.17)

The bottom sieve has the finest mesh openings (e.g. 53 µm); the sieve above it has

openings calculated from equation 3.17 in the stack (e.g. 75µm). Using the same

technique, other sieve sizes in the stack are also calculated, e.g. 106 µm, 150 µm

212 µm. The use of sieves in this sequential order allows for better data presentation

and a more meaningful analysis of the test results. Another consideration is the

quantity of material. There is a natural (but incorrect) tendency to use a large sample

of material when sieving, but a smaller sample allows for a more accurate analysis. If

the sample is too large, there is a smaller opportunity for each of the particles to

contact the screen surface. On the other hand, there is a lower limit in terms of mass

of material in a sample. Too low an amount will result in an inaccurate measurement

when the amount that rests on the sieve is weighed, because the measuring

equipment used cannot weigh masses below two decimal places of a gram.

Generally a 25–100 g sample size sieved for time intervals of 10–20 minutes is

recommended (Advantech [n.d.]).

28
Sieving is easy and inexpensive and produces results rapidly, which is why sieves

are widely used in particle size analysis work. However, sieves are fabricated of a

woven mesh material, and variations in the weave are common. This may hinder the

reproducibility of test results between sieves. Also, because of the variation in size of

the openings, some smaller than normal and some larger, the time intervals at which

the sieve analysis takes place also become extremely important.

Some of the terminology used in sieving is listed below.

 Agglomeration

Agglomeration is the sticking together of particles to one another. This condition

commonly occurs in materials possessing high moisture content. To prevent

agglomeration from occurring, materials are normally dried in an oven at 120 °C,

overnight, before sieving.

 Blinding

Blinding is the obstruction of the sieve apertures with particles. This is usually

caused by either working with particles that are exactly the same size as the

screen opening or by the build-up of a number of fine particles on the wire mesh

that eventually closes off the openings. Blinding can also result from sieving

agglomerated material or working with a sample quantity too large for the sieve.

 Electrostatic charges

Electrostatic charges result from an accumulation of electrical charges on the

particles and sieve components. These cause agglomeration of the material and

29
blinding of the sieves. This condition is frequently seen in materials with a large

fraction of particles that are finer than 25 µm.

 Test sieve

A test sieve is a mesh screening medium with openings of uniform size and shape,

mounted on a rigid frame. Normally it is used for laboratory testing or for small-scale

production applications.

 Wet sieving

Usually a gentle spray of water is used to break down any agglomerates that may

have formed and also lubricate near-size particles so they can pass through the

mesh. After the fines have been washed through the sieve, the remaining material is

oven-dried and analysed.

 Pan

A pan is a vessel that receives the materials passing through the finest sieve. Most

pans have an extended rim with a skirt that is designed as a nest for a sieve stack in

order to make it easy to mount on a mechanical shaker.

 Skirt

A skirt is a section of a test sieve below the sieve mesh that allows for the sieves to

be nested in a test stack.

30
3.6.2 Malvern particle size analyser

Figure 3.9: The Malvern particle size analyser (2000MU model)

The Mastersizer (figure 3.9) is a piece of equipment used for laser diffraction particle

sizing that relies on the fact that the diffraction angle of light is inversely proportional

to the particle size of the sample being measured. The Mastersizer is an instrument

designed to measure the PSD of wet and dry samples. The instrument has the

advantages of a wide measuring range (from 0.02–2 000 microns) and rapid data

production. This is desirable in industrial cases where product quality controllers are

expected to give rapid feedback to plant operators for process adjustment purposes.

The Mastersizer consists of the following:

 A source of light

A laser is used to provide a coherent intense light beam on a fixed wavelength.

 A suitable sample dispersion detector

The key to a quality particle size measurement technique is the ability to present

a well-dispersed homogeneous sample to the laser beam at an appropriate

concentration and with a minimum of bias.

31
  A light detector

Light scattered by the sample is focused onto a photosensitive silicon detector,

which is made up of a large number of discrete elements. The optical system is

optimised to ensure that the signal from each element is directly proportional to

the amount of light on it.

 A means of passing the sample through the laser beam

A dry powder can be blown through the beam by means of pressure, and then

sucked into a vacuum cleaner to prevent dust from being sprayed into the

environment. Particles in suspension can be measured by recirculating the

sample in front of the laser beam, using water as a dispersant.

 Data collection and analysis

Hundreds of thousands of particles will pass through the laser beam every

second. The light falling onto the detectors is measured and integrated 500 times

each second. This makes it possible to obtain a statistically significant scattering

pattern of the widest distributions within a few seconds. Microsoft Windows-

based software can be used to capture and analyse the results, which can then

be exported to basic Excel.

The limitations of this piece of equipment lie in the assumptions about particle

shape, water dispersant and surface tension designed into the machine.

3.7 Worked examples

Example 3.1

32
A material is crushed in a jaw crusher so that the average size of particle is reduced

from 50 mm to 10 mm with the consumption of energy of 13.0 kW/(kg/s). What would

be the consumption of energy needed to crush the same material of average size 75

mm to an averege size of 25 mm

a) assuming that Rittinger’s law applies?

b) assuming that Kick’s law applies?

Which of these results would be regarded as being more reliable and why?

Solution

a) Rittinger’s law

This is given by

E=K R f c
[ 1
−
1
L2 L1 ]
Thus

13.0=K R f c
[ 1
−
1
10 50 ]
(
K R f c = 13.0 x
50
4 )
=162.5 kW /(kg . mm)

Thus the energy required to crush 75 mm material to 25 mm is

E=162.5
[ 1
−
1
25 75 ]
= 4.33 kJ /kg

b) Kick’s law

This is given by

E=K k f c ln
( )
L1
L2
Thus

33
 13.0=K k f c ln ( 5010 )
[
And K k f c =
13.0
1.609 ]
=8.08 kW /(kg /s )

Thus the energy required to crush 75 mm material to 25 mm is given by

E=8.08 x ln ( 7525 )=8.88 kJ / kg

The size range involved might be considered as that for coarse crushing and,

because Kick’s law more closely relates the energy to effect elastic deformation

before fracture occurs, this would be taken as giving the more reliable result.

Example 3.2

If crushing rolls (figure 3.5), 1.0 m in diameter, are set so that the crushing surfaces

are 12.5 mm apart and the angle of nip is 31 o, what is the maximum size of particle

which should be fed to the rolls? If the actual capacity of the machine is 12% of the

theoretical, calculate the throughput in kg/s when running at 2.0 Hz if the working

face of the rolls is 0.4 m long and the bulk density of the feed is 2 500 kg/m 3.

Solution

The particle size may be obtained from

( r 1 +b )
cos α=
( r 1+r 2)

12.5
In this case: 2 α =310 and cos α=0.964, b= =6.25 mm or 0.00625 m and
2

34
 r 1= ( 1.02 )=0.5 m
Thus

0.964= ( 0.5+0.00625
0.5+r 2
)
And
r 2=0.025 m∨25 mm
The cross-sectional area for flow = (0.0125 x 0.4) = 0.005 m2

And the volumetric flow rate = (2.0 x 0.005) = 0.010 m3/s

Thus, the actual throughput

(0.010 x 12)
=0.0012 m3 /s
100
Or
( 0.0012 x 2500 )=3.0 kg /s ¿ .

Example 3.3

A crusher was used to crush a material with a compressive strength of 22.5 MN/m 2.

The size of the feed was –50 mm, +40 mm and the power required was 13.0

kW/(kg/s). The screen analysis of the product was as follows:

Size of aperture Amount of product

(%)
Through 6.0 All
On 4.0 26
On 2.0 18
On 0.75 23
0n 0.50 8
On 0.25 17
On 0.125 3
Through 0.125 5

35
What power would be required to crush 1 kg/s of a material of comprehensive

strength 45 MN/m2 from a feed of –45 mm, +40 mm to a product of 0.50 mm average

size?

Solution

A dimension representing the mean size of the product is required. Using Bond’s

method of taking the size of opening through which 80% of the material will pass, a

value of just over 4.0 mm is indicated by the data. Alternatively, calculations may be

made as follows:

Size of Mean d1 n1 nd1 nd12 nd13 nd14

aperture (mm)
6.00
5.00 0.26 1.3 6.5 32.5 162.5
4.00
3.00 0.18 0.54 1.62 4.86 14.58
2.00
1.375 0.23 0.316 0.435 0.598 0.822
0.75
0.67 0.08 0.0536 0.0359 0.0241 0.0161
0.50
0.37 0.17 0.0629 0.0233 0.0086 0.00319
0.25
0.1875 0.03 0.0056 0.00105 0.00020 0.000037
0.125
0.125 0.05 0.00625 0.00078 0.000098 0.000012

Total 2.284 8.616 37.991 177.92

The mass mean diameter is

∑ n1
4
d1
d v=
∑ n1 d 31
= (177.92/37.991)
= 4.683 mm
The surface mean diameter is

d s=
∑ n1 d31
∑ n1 d 21
36
 = (37.991/8.616) = 4.409 mm
The length mean diameter will be

dL =
∑ 2
n1d1
n1 d 1

= (8.616/2.284) = 3.772 mm

The mean length diameter

d l=
∑ n1d1
∑ n1
= (2.284/1.0) = 2.284 mm
In the present case, which is concerned with power consumption per unit mass, the

mass mean diameter is probably of the greatest relevance. For the purposes of

calculation, a mean value of 4.0 mm will be used, which agrees with the value

obtained by Bond’s method.

For coarse crushing, Kick’s law may be used as follows:

Case 1
Mean diameter of feed = 45 mm, mean diameter of product = 4 mm, energy

consumption = 13.0 kJ/kg, compressive strength = 22.5 N/m2

Using Kick’s law

13.0=K K x 22.5 ln ( 454 )

And

K K= ( 13.0
54.4 )
kg MN
=0.239 kW /( )(
s m
) 2

Case 2

37
Mean diameter of feed = 42.5 mm, mean diameter of product = 0.50 mm,

compressive strength = 45.0 N/m2

Thus

E=0.239 x 45 ln ( 42.5
0.5 )

And

E=0.239 x 199.9=47.8 kJ /kg

Or for a feed of 1 kg/s, the energy required = 47.8 kW

Example 3.4

A crusher reducing limestone of crushing strength 70 MN/m 2 from 6 mm diameter

average size to 0.1 mm diameter average size requires 9 kW. The same machine is

used to crush dolomite at the same output from 6 mm diameter average size to a

product consisting of 20% with an average diameter of 0.25 mm, 60% with an

average diameter of 0.125 mm and a balance having an average diameter of 0.085

mm. Estimate the power required, assuming that the crushing strength of dolomite is

100 MN/m2 and that crushing follows Rittinger’s law.

Solution
The mass mean diameter of the crushed dolomite may be calculated as follows:
n1 d1 n1 d 1
3
n1 d 1
4

0.20 0.250 0.003125 0.00078

0.60 0.125 0.001172 0.000146
0.20 0.085 0.000123 0.000011
Totals: 0.00442 0.000937

And from the mass mean diameter equation:

d v=
∑ n1 d 1 4
∑ n1 d 13
38
 0.000937
¿ =0.212 mm
0.00442
For case 1
E=9.0 kW , f c =70.0 MN /m2, L1=6.0 mm , and L2=0.212 mm

Or:
For case 2

f c =100.0 MN /m , L1=6.0 mm , and L2=0.212 mm

2

Hence:

E=0.013 x 100.0
[ 1
−
1
0.212 6.0 ]
¿ 5.9 kW

39
References

Austin, LG. 1973. A commentary on the Kick, Bond and Rittinger laws of grinding. Powder

Technology, 7:315–317.

Austin, LG & Rogers, RSC. 1985. Powder technology in industrial size reduction. Powder

Technology, 42:91-109.

Austin, LG, Klimpel, RR & Luckie, PT. 1984. Process engineering of size reduction: ball

milling. New York: SME-AIME.

Austin, LG, Shoji, K & Bell, D. 1982. Rate equations for non-linear breakage in mills due to

material effects. Powder Technology, 31:127–133.

Austin, LG, Trimarchi, T & Weymont, NP. 1977. An analysis of some cases of non-first-order

breakage rates. Powder Technology, 17:1-55.

Berube, MA, Berube, Y & Le Houillier, R. 1979. A comparison of dry and wet grinding of a

quartzite ground in a small batch ball mill. Powder Technology, 23:169–178.

Bond, FC. 1960. Crushing and grinding calculations. British Chemical Engineering, 6:378-

385.

Charles, RJ. 1957. Energy-size reduction relationships in comminution. Transactions on

AIME Mining Engineering, 208:80–88.

Danha, G, Hidebrandt, D & Glasser, D. 2013. Identifying opportunities for increasing the

milling efficiency of Bushveld Igneous Complex (BIC) Upper Group (UG) 2 ore. PhD thesis,

University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

Danha, G, Hildebrandt, D, Glasser, D & Bhondayi, C. 2015. Application of basic process

modeling in investigating the breakage behavior of UG2 ore in wet milling. Powder

Technology, 279:42–48.

40
Danha, G, Legodi, D, Hlabangana, N, Bhondayi, C & Hildebrandt, D. 2016. A

fundamental investigation on the breakage of a bed of silica sand particles: an

attainable region approach. Powder Technology, 301:1208-1212.

Das, PK, Khan, AA & Pitchumani, B. 1995. Solution of the batch grinding equation. Powder

Technology, 85:185–192.

Fuerstenau, DW & Venkataraman, KS. 1988. The comminution of multicomponent feeds

under batch and locked-cycle conditions: kinetics, simulation and energy distribution.

International Journal of Mineral Processing, 22:108-118.

Gardner, RP & Rogers, RS. 1975. A two-component mechanistic approach for the

comminution of material that exhibits heterogeneous breakage characteristics. Powder

Technology, 12(3):247–258.

JEI Metallurgical. [n.d.]: http://www.metallurgist.com/overview-of-metallurgical-

services.html [Accessed on: 12 November 2018].

Metso. [n.d.]: https://www.metso.com/industries/mining/ [Accessed on: 12 November

2018].

Rajamani, RK & Guo, D. 1992. Acceleration and deceleration of breakage rates in wet ball

mills. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 34:103-118.

Reid, KJ. 1965. A solution to the batch grinding equation. Chemical Engineering Science,

20:953–963.

Rittinger, RP. 1867. Lehrbuch der Aufbereitungskunde. Berlin: Ernst and Korn.

Tangsathitkulchai, C. 2002. Acceleration of particle breakage rates in wet batch ball milling.

Powder Technology, 124:67–75.

Tangsathitkulchai, C. 2003. The effect of slurry rheology on fine grinding in a laboratory ball

mill. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 69(1-4):29-47.

41
Verma, R & Rajamani, RK. 1995. Environment-dependent breakage rates in ball milling.

Powder Technology, 34:103–108.

Walker, WH, Lewis, WK, McAdams, WH & Gilliland, ER. 1937. Principles of

chemical engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wills, BA & Napier-Munn, T. 2005. Grinding mills. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

42