See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261059813

A Gyratory Crusher Model and Impact Parameters Related to Energy

Consumption

Article  in  Minerals and Metallurgical Processing · August 2007

DOI: 10.1007/BF03403212

CITATIONS READS

9 7,416

4 authors, including:

Vladislav Kecojevic Dragan Komljenovic

West Virginia University Hydro-Québec
81 PUBLICATIONS   1,084 CITATIONS    108 PUBLICATIONS   1,080 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Risk-Informed Decision-Making in Management of Industrial Assets View project

Collision avoidance in surface mines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vladislav Kecojevic on 31 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PROOF COPY
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6
7
8
Gyratory crusher model and impact 6
7
8
9
10
parameters related to energy 9
10
11
12
13
consumption 11
12
13
14 R. Pothina, V. Kecojevic and M.S. Klima 14
15 Student, assistant professor and associate professor, respectively, The Pennsylvania State 15
16 University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16
17 17
18 18
19 D. Komljenovic 19
20 Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Quebec, Trois-Rivières, Canada; 20
21 and reliability engineer, Hydro-Québec, Becancour, Canada 21
22 22
23 Abstract 23
24 The objective of this research was to develop a mathematical model for gyratory crushers to help in the prediction 24
25 of energy consumption and to analyze dominant parameters that affect this energy consumption. The develop- 25
26 ment of a gyratory crusher model was achieved in the following three main stages: mathematical representation 26
27 and coding of the crushing process; building an amperage constant model to derive an energy-scaling formula; 27
28 and modifying the amperage constant model to represent a full-scale model. Due to their significant influence on 28
29 feed-size distributions, two blasting parameters, i.e., burden and spacing, were considered. The crusher parameters 29
30 that affect energy consumption were also identified. A case study of an operating dolomite mine was performed. 30
31 The results indicated that by changing the burden, spacing and crusher closed-side setting, the overall (blasting 31
32 and crushing) costs could be reduced by 4.7% to 7.9% annually. It can also be concluded that burden and spacing 32
33 values have a linear positive relationship with the crusher energy consumption, while closed-side setting values 33
34 have an inverse linear relationship with the energy consumption. 34
35 35
36 Key Words: Comminution, Crushing, Modeling, Optimization, Mining, Blasting 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 Introduction materials with compressive strengths grreater than 190 40
41 According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE, 2004), MPa (27,500 psi), which are considered very hard, for all 41
42 extraction, materials handling and beneficiation account for kinds of abrasive materials (Mular et al, 2002). Figure 1 42
43 19%, 42% and 39%, respectively, of the energy consumption shows the important parts of a gyratory crusher. 43
44 in mineral production. The most energy-intensive stage of The feed and product size distributions and produc- 44
45 beneficiation is comminution, which accounts for approxi- tion requirements are the main factors that affect energy 45
46 mately 75% of the energy consumed during beneficiation consumption in the crushing process. Because crushing 46
47 (DOE, 2004). Blasting, crushing and grinding operations involves machine-material interaction, the specific pa- 47
48 account for almost 15 billion kWh of energy each year in rameters of the machine and the material also strongly 48
49 the United States or 1% of the total U.S. electric power influence energy consumption. For example, reducing 49
50 demand (Herbst et al., 2003). Due to poor industrial op- the closed-side setting to obtain a higher reduction ratio 50
51 erational practices, current crushing machinery is 5% less significantly increases the energy consumption of the 51
52 efficient than desirable (Herbst et al., 2003). crusher. Likewise, the coarser the feed size, the greater the 52
53 Gyratory crushers play an important role in commi- energy required to crush it. However, the energy expended 53
54 nution as primary crushing units. They are suitable and in breaking the particles is only a small fraction of the 54
55 economical for high production rates, typically greater than total energy expended in the breakage process (Austin and 55
56 1,500 t/h (1,650 stph) (Mular et al., 2002). Although these Klimpel, 1964; Beke, 1964). The rest of the energy used 56
57 crushers can be applied to materials with a wide variety overcomes friction between machine parts and generates 57
58 of compressive strengths, they are especially preferred for heat and sound. 58
59 59
60 60
61 61
62 62
63 Paper number MMP-06-058. Original manuscript submitted online October 2006. Revised manuscript received and accepted 63
64 for publication January 2007. Discussion of this peer-reviewed and approved paper is invited and must be submitted to SME 64
65 Publications Dept. prior to Feb. 29, 2008. Copyright 2007, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. 65

August 2007 • Vol. 24 No. 3 170 MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING

 PROOF COPY
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 Figure 1 — Gyratory crusher (adapted from ThyssenKrupp, 2005). 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
According to the Mineral Processing Technology Roadmap that lack significant influence on energy consumption.
38 38
developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (2000), com- In this research, dominant blasting parameters such as
39 39
minution will be one of the areas of greatest impact in future burden (distance between the first row of blast holes and
40 40
mineral-processing technologies. The U.S. Department of highwall slope) and spacing (distance between two blast
41 41
Energy (DOE) suggests various strategies for cost and energy holes) were considered to facilitate representation of feed-
42 42
savings, including building models, developing efficient motors, size distributions. The Kuz-Ram model was used to generate
43 43
optimizing operations and reducing equipment wear. The DOE feed size distributions based on burden and spacing configu-
44 44
emphasizes the need for process improvements in crushing rations (Pothina, 2006). The parameters that affect energy
45 45
systems to produce optimal product sizes, which can reduce consumption in gyratory crushers and relationships among
46 46
the amount of unusable particles, reduce dust production, and them were established. The optimal operational ranges of the
47 47
improve crusher capacity and energy efficiency. most influential parameters that provide maximum energy
48 48
Recurrent breakage and selection of particles occurs in savings in the crushing process were determined. Microsoft
49 49
the crushing process. Particles in the feed, having sizes less Excel was used to provide the framework for coding and
50 50
than the closed-side setting will directly become product, development of the mathematical model. The data acquired
51 51
while particles above a certain size undergo rebreakage with from a dolomite mine in Pennsylvania were analyzed using
52 52
a certain probability until they reach the desired product size. the Minitab Statistical package. Correlation methods were
53 53
This process is influenced by both machine and material-spe- used to establish the relationships between various variables
54 54
cific parameters. For example, by decreasing the closed-side that influence energy consumption. After identifying the
55 55
setting, more particles encounter breakage, thus consuming parameters that influence energy consumption, an optimiza-
56 56
more energy. Likewise, if the top size of the feed particles is tion function was developed and applied to minimize costs
57 57
large, the probability of particles subject to breakage increases, involved in blasting and crushing.
58 58
59 which in turn, increases energy consumption. Other machine 59
60 parameters, such as the crusher liner length and eccentric throw, Relationship of the crushing process and energy 60
61 and material parameters, such as feed size distribution and consumption 61
62 coarseness, influence energy consumption. To represent the Many researchers have developed mathematical equations to 62
63 crushing process accurately, any mathematical model should determine energy consumption in the crushing process based 63
64 consider all these parameters. However, the challenge is to on the feed and product sizes of the particles. Of these, Bond’s 64
65 control the complexity of the model by removing parameters formula is the most popular. However, Bond’s formula uses 65

MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING 171 Vol. 24, No. 3 • August 2007
 PROOF COPY
1 the 80% passing size of the feed and product size distributions, particles on power consumption is not considered. This rep- 1
2 limiting its accuracy in representing the size reduction process. resents a handicap because irregularly shaped feed particles 2
3 Another drawback of this formula is that the machine-specific can break more easily than others due to stress concentrations 3
4 properties that affect energy consumption are not considered. at their irregular projections (Hogg, 2003). 4
5 After conducting experiments on a wide range of particles and The power drawn by a crusher depends on material specific 5
6 industrial comminution devices, Hukki (1961) concluded that parameters like feed size, shape, hardness and distribution, 6
7 no single energy–particle-size relationship was adequate for feed rate and machine specific parameters like crusher settings 7
8 all ranges of material sizes. and liner profile. The product size distributions of gyratory 8
9 According to Lynch (1977), energy losses due to transmission crushers/cone crushers mainly depend on crusher settings 9
10 and internal friction of the crushing device may be quantifiable, (gap) and to a lesser degree on feed rate and size, liner profile 10
11 but assessing the energy lost due to internal friction between the and condition (Anderson 1988; Anderson and Napier-Munn, 11
12 particles and their elastic and plastic deformations is not pos- 1988). Therefore, all these parameters need to be considered 12
13 sible. Therefore, understanding comminution/crushing cannot to arrive at the representative values for power consumption 13
14 be based on energy–size-reduction theories alone. Instead, this and product size distribution. Knowing the extent of influence 14
15 study asserts that a comprehensive understanding the effects of each parameter on power consumption is important. 15
16 of feed and product size distributions and operating variables Scientists at the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Cen- 16
17 of the crushing device that causes size reduction is necessary tre (JKMRC) conducted extensive research over the last 25 17
18 to accurately represent the process. years on size reduction, including the analysis of power draw 18
19 The number of parameters that affect energy consumption in comminution circuits (Morrell et al., 1992; Napier-Munn 19
20 in crushing is very large. However, only a few parameters af- et al., 1996). Using pendulum tests, Narayanan and Whiten 20
21 fect energy significantly. Therefore, a mathematical model that (1988) found a specific comminution energy (Ecs) required 21
22 considers only the significant parameters influencing energy for breaking a particular ore particle. Calculation of Ecs 22
23 consumption and reduces complexity without affecting the final values for a wide range of industrial ores/rocks resulted. The 23
24 result considerably represents an additional challenge. size distribution, represented using the t10 value, defined the 24
25 During size reduction, because particles undergo recurrent proportion of material passing 1/10th of original ore particle 25
26 breakage, industrial comminution operations can be explained size. A database of t10 values and their corresponding Ecs 26
27 as multiple breakage events (Epstein, 1948). The breakage rate values for a wide range of ores was the resulting development. 27
28 and product size distributions are also dependent on the type Narayanan and Whiten correlated the Ecs and t10 values with 28
29 of machine and method of applying force. Therefore, detailed the actual power drawn by industrial crushers. Using this 29
30 modeling of the comminution process would need to account provided a large database of values necessary to predict any 30
31 for these factors. crusher’s power draw. 31
32 It has been suggested that comminution models can be JKMRC also developed a simulation software package 32
33 classified as “black-box” models or fundamental models (Na- called JKSimMet to optimize industrial mineral processing 33
34 pier-Munn et al., 1996). The “black-box” models try to predict circuits (Awachie, 1983; Anderson, 1988). This package con- 34
35 product size distributions and energy expended from the feed tains a model that is capable of predicting the crusher power 35
36 size distribution, physical parameters of the feed material, and draw and product size distribution. JKMRC models include 36
37 particle breakage characteristics. Fundamental models, on the ore-specific parameters such as feed size distribution, hardness 37
38 other hand, consider each element of the comminution process, and feed rate and machine-specific parameters such as liner 38
39 such as interaction of ore particles within a machine and with profile and condition. However, these models depend on the 39
40 the machine largely on the basis of Newtonian mechanics. large database of ore-specific and machine-specific values 40
41 Several researchers (King, 1979; Herbst and Fuerstenau, 1980; generated over many years of research. For a typical industrial 41
42 Radziszewski and Tarasiewicz, 1989; Mishra and Rajamani, user, the overall procedure of using these various values and 42
43 1992; Inoue and Okaya, 1994) contributed to the development understanding the concepts behind them might prove very 43
44 of fundamental models. A main constraint for the slow progress complicated. Moreover, JKSimMet aims at overall optimiza- 44
45 in the development of these models has been the very high tion of the mineral-processing circuit rather than optimizing 45
46 computational requirements. individual units such as a gyratory crusher. 46
47 “Black-box” models can predict product size distribution as Apart from the development of simulation models for the 47
48 a function of mill/crusher feed size distribution and material whole comminution system, significant research has focused 48
49 characteristics and operating conditions using mass balance on developing optimum structural features of crushers. Wear on 49
50 equations to model the crushing process. The population balance critical parts of a crushing plant during its life affects production. 50
51 model is one of the “black-box” models proposed by Epstein Wear changes the profiles of crusher liners and even the volume 51
52 (1948), which has been applied in various size-reduction ap- of the crushing chambers. Svedensten and Evertsson (2001) 52
53 plications around the world (Herbst and Fuerstenau, 1968; developed a software package using visual C++ for optimizing 53
54 Kelsall et al., 1969; Austin and Brame, 1983; and Guillaneau plant performance, taking wear into consideration. Lindquist 54
55 et al., 1995). and Sotkovszki (2003) found that the nonlinear dependency 55
56 Lynch (1977) used Whiten’s model with certain modifica- between pressure and wear of cone crusher liners could be 56
57 tions to incorporate machine specific parameters for the crusher explained through variations in particle size and inaccuracies 57
58 at Mount Isa Mines Limited. However, this model was only in feed flow rates. Rosario et al. (2004a; 2004b) and Rosario 58
59 applicable to cone crushers and did not incorporate parameters and Hall (2006) used a laser-based tool for assessing wear in 59
60 such as the wear rate of liners and their profiles, which can gyratory crushers. As a result, a novel methodology to evaluate 60
61 influence energy consumption. Lynch predicted the power crusher liner profiles and its link to crusher performance was 61
62 consumption of the cone crusher from the size distributions of developed and new mantle profiles were designed. 62
63 feed and breakage matrices. In his model, the crusher power Comminution models developed and based on the compu- 63
64 draw is mainly due to the breakage process expressed by the tational power of computers are in general very complex and 64
65 breakage function/matrix. The effect of the shape of the feed require extensive effort to adapt them for a given crushing 65

August 2007 • Vol. 24 No. 3 172 MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING

 PROOF COPY
1 system. A holistic approach to crusher optimization, such 1
2 as an optimization routine that finds the best possible set of 2
3 crusher parameters to maximize its performance for a given 3
4 input, is not available. 4
5 A comprehensive optimization technique should involve the 5
6 following two key elements: an efficient and portable model 6
7 for generating the optimal crusher parameters for the required 7
8 output and a statistical procedure for testing the validity of 8
9 the data generated by the model. This study uses MS Excel 9
10 spreadsheets coupled with Minitab statistical software. These 10
11 tools are easily applied and provide adequate methods for 11
12 implementation and validation of the model. Models developed 12
13 using Excel spreadsheets have the comparative advantage of 13
14 being portable and widely available to the industry (Kawatra 14
15 et al., 2001). 15
16 16
17 Development of the gyratory crusher model 17
18 The development of the gyratory crusher model involves the 18
19 following three main stages: mathematical representation and 19
20 coding of the crushing process, amperage constant model 20
21 construction to derive an energy scaling formula and modifica- 21
22 tion of the amperage constant model to a full-scale model. An 22
23 algorithm for the crusher model is given in Fig. 2. 23
24 Material-specific parameters such as hardness, density 24
25 and, especially, the feed size distribution have great influ- 25
26 ence on energy consumption in crushers. According to Ash 26
27 (1963), burden and spacing are the most important parameters 27
28 influencing blasting fragmentation and, hence, the feed size 28
29 distribution of the primary crusher. Ash (1963) suggested that 29
30 the ratio between burden and spacing should be between 1.0 30
31 and 2.0, while blast holes initiated independent of each other 31
32 should have a ratio between 1.0 and 1.5. Because the efficiency 32
33 of crushing operations depends on the feed size distributions, 33
34 considering burden and spacing values is of crucial importance. 34
35 The Kuz-Ram model (Cunningham, 1983) is the widely ac- 35
36 cepted mining-practice standard for representing fragment size 36
37 Figure 2 — Algorithm for the crusher model. 37
distributions, and it is used throughout this study.
38 For this model, it is assumed that the particles with sizes 38
39 less than the closed-side setting (CSS) will directly become 39
40 product. Particles with sizes greater than the open-side set- 40
41 ting (OSS) will remain in the crushing chamber for further and K3 equals 2.3 (Anderson, 1988). According to Anderson, 41
42 size reduction. However, particles having sizes between the the constants K1 and K2 depend mainly on the CSS and par- 42
43 CSS and OSS will be selected for breakage with a certain tially on the tonnage per hour (CrPRODhr), the 80% passing 43
44 probability (Napier-Munn et al., 1996). Thus, for each and size of the feed (F80), the eccentric throw of the gyratory 44
45 every crushing cycle, this process is repeated until the mate- crusher (ET), the crusher liner age (LHR) and the crusher liner 45
46 rial within the crusher is converted to the required product or length (LLEN). In a broad sense, the probability of selection 46
47 until the feed size is reduced to a size below the CSS. Because of a particle for breakage depends strongly on the CSS and 47
48 each gyratory crusher has a fixed OSS, the CSS is the key weakly on ET, CrPRODhr, LHR and LLEN. For this reason, 48
49 parameter that is adjustable by the hydraulic ram under the the current study considers K1 and K2 to be equal to the CSS 49
50 mantle. Based on the previous discussion, obviously, attain- and OSS, respectively. Ignoring all the other constraints that 50
51 ing the required product size distribution is by adjusting the have a weak influence on K1 and K2 reduces the complexity 51
52 crusher gap or CSS. of the model. 52
53 According to Lynch (1977), the breakage matrix actually At this stage, defining the term “energy scaling” is neces- 53
54 comprises two matrices: one represents coarse breakage (B1) sary. Energy scaling is the method of measuring the energy 54
55 and the other represents fine breakage (B2). Coarse breakage requirements for the crusher based on the material, machine 55
56 is due to the impact between crusher liners and the material, characteristics, and production requirements. This helps to 56
57 accounting for 80% to 85% of the total breakage. The rest of establish the required hourly power rating for the crusher 57
58 the breakage (fine breakage) is due to attrition between the and calculated energy expenditure for a particular opera- 58
59 particles (Lynch, 1977). It should be noted that the relation tion. With some exceptions, matrix notations to represent 59
60 C × x, shown in Fig. 2, is a matrix that represents material feed and product size distributions are similar for jaw, cone 60
61 selected for breakage and has its use as a predictor for energy and gyratory crushers. But the energy-scaling methods dif- 61
62 consumption. fer considerably because the energy required to crush a unit 62
63 By knowing the size of the particle in each size range of mass of material depends on many parameters related to 63
64 the feed, the classification matrix can be derived. In an ideal the machine and material. Proper energy-scaling methods 64
65 condition, K1 is equal to the CSS, while K2 is equal to the OSS facilitate the accurate prediction of energy requirements for 65

MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING 173 Vol. 24, No. 3 • August 2007
 PROOF COPY
1 a particular crushing operation. This, in turn, allows the user Because Eqs. (2) and (3) are used for the same purpose, 1
2 to find the range of operating parameters that cause the least they are equated as 2
3 energy consumption. 3
W = Emt (4)
4 The Bond (1952) equation is used to scale the energy 4
5 consumption in crushing. But the energy required to crush a This can be rewritten as 5
6 ton of material differs from machine to machine. As an alter- 6
Wi × WSR = (V × A × PF) × t (5)
7 native, Bond’s work index can be related to the values that 7
8 represent energy consumption in industrial crushers by some If A × t = At = Wi × Asrmt, then 8
9 scaling factor. Relating the energy required to crush a ton of 9
Wi × WSR = (V × At × PF) (6)
10 any material found by Bond’s equation to the corresponding 10
11 amperage constant would help find a new energy-scaling for- 11
Wi × WSR = Wi × (V × Asrmt × PF) (7)
12 mula. Simply, this method finds a way to effectively relate the 12
13 constant that represents the degree of breakage at a particular 13
WSR = V × Asrmt × PF (8)
14 size distribution to the part that represents size reduction in 14
15 Bond’s equation. The method developed to achieve the task WSR 15
16 is the platform for full-scale model development. Asrmt = 16
17 Bond’s equation is V × PF (9)
17
18 where 18
19   1 1  Asrmt is an amperage constant that corresponds to size 19
W = [Wi ] × 10 ×  −  (1)
20   P80 F80   reduction. 20
21 21
22 The right side of the equation has two parts: a portion that Because V and PF are constants for a particular operation, 22
23 represents the energy required to crush a ton of specific mate- Eq. (9) shows dependence of Asrmt on WSR. From the above 23
24 rial (Wi) and a portion that represents size reduction (WSR), equations, evidently, for every crushing process a unique WSR 24
25 where exists, and in turn, an Asrmt value exists. The Asrmt value gives 25
26  the fraction of amperage constant (At) responsible for size 26
 1 1 
27 WSR = 10 ×  −  reduction in the total amperage drawn by the motor. Another 27
28   P80 F80   distinctive value for each size reduction process that is very 28

29 sensitive to feed size distributions and selection and breakage 29
30 Rewriting the equation yields processes that occur in the crusher is the amperage factor, a, 30
31 described in Lynch’s equation (Lynch, 1977). Relating these 31
W = Wi × WSR (2)
32 two variables (a and Asrmt) is crucial in finding the energy 32
33 In general, the F80 and P80 values for a particular crush- consumption for a particular crushing process. 33
34 ing operation are the average values for a wide range of size With the Minitab statistical package and using the calcu- 34
35 distributions resulting from blasting and crushing operations, lated values, a relationship between the amperage factor a 35
36 respectively, which makes WSR constant for a specific op- and the amperage constant Asrmt was established as will be 36
37 eration. This is one of the main drawbacks in using Bond’s noted below. 37
38 equation. In fact, different blasting configurations will result One of the important objectives of the amperage constant 38
39 in different fragment size distributions and different feed size model is the necessity of finding burden and spacing values 39
40 distribution values for the crusher. As mentioned above, dif- that can produce the fragment size distributions suitable for 40
41 ferent size distributions may have the same F80 values but the gyratory crusher. The assumption is that the feed particles 41
42 the corresponding P80 values differ at a particular CSS value resulting from the blasts are in a range between γlower and 42
43 for the crusher. γupper. The product size requirements of the gyratory crusher 43
44 Each size reduction process at a particular feed size dis- are assumed to be in the range of Ωlower to Ωupper. Burden and 44
45 tribution, resulting from the particular burden and spacing spacing values vary between Blower and Bupper and Slower and 45
46 configurations, has its own unique set of F80, P80 and CSS Supper, respectively. For each feed size distribution, the CSS 46
47 values. Values for WSR and W are unique for different burden, varies between CSSlower and CSSupper. For each set of B, S and 47
48 spacing and CSS configurations. Based on these facts, finding CSS, a unique set of a and Asrmt values arise. 48
49 the equation that predicts the energy utilized in the crushing After establishing the relationship between the amperage 49
50 operation for the given feed size distribution is essential. factor and the amperage constant, determining the energy 50
51 An alternative way to calculate the energy required for scaling formula for any feed size distribution at any given 51
52 crushing the material is given by Ohm’s law as CSS is possible. For example, for a particular set of B, S and 52
53 CSS values, a corresponding Asrmt value exists. Knowing the 53
Emt = (p × t) = (V × A × PF) × t (3)
54 value of Asrmt, the energy required to crush material (Emt) is 54
55 where calculated by 55
56 p is power required for crushing the material, 56
Emt = Wi × V × Asrmt × PF (10)
57 t is the time taken for crushing, 57
58 V is line voltage of the motor drive of the crusher, The required power (Psrhr) is calculated by 58
59 A is amperage drawn by the machine to crush material 59
60 and  E × LF  (11) 60
Psrhr =  mt × RC
61 PF is the power factor.  DE  61
62 where 62
63 The PF or cosf is the ratio between the real power supplied LF is the lump factor, 63
64 and apparent power received by the motor. Loss in transmission DE is the drive efficiency and 64
65 is due to phase angle (f) differences. RC is required production per hour. 65

August 2007 • Vol. 24 No. 3 174 MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING

 PROOF COPY
1 Crusher drive efficiency is a ratio between the input elec- Dex is the density of explosive, 1
2 trical energy of the motor to the output mechanical energy it Vex is the volume of each blast hole, 2
3 supplies to rotate the gyratory crusher. The energy required Eex is available energy of explosive per unit of mass and 3
4 to crush a material also depends on its coarseness, which is Aas is the total area per blasting shot. 4
5 defined by the material lump factor. The coarseness of the 5
6 material and the energy consumed to crush it are linearly The total tonnage of rock fragmented per blasting shot Tar 6
7 proportional. can be obtained as 7
8 Crusher idle power (P0) can be calculated as 8
Tar = Tvr × Rd = Nh × S × B × Hd × Rd (17)
9 9
P0 = V × Aidle × PF (12)
10 where 10
11 where Tvr is the total volume of blasted rock and 11
12 Aidle is the idle amperage-draw for the crusher. Rd is the rock density. 12
13 13
14 From the above equations, the total power (l) is calculated The blasting cost per metric ton of fragmented material 14
15 by can be calculated as 15
16 N h × ( H d × Dc ) + ( Ec × M exh )  16
λ = P0 + Psrhr (13)
17 Cbmt = 17
Tar (18)
18 The above equations provide power and energy-consump- 18
19 tion-related data. Because spacing is dependent on burden, it where 19
20 is a representative variable for feed size distributions. To avoid Nh is the number of blast holes per shot, 20
21 load fluctuations, burden values are in a range that neither Hd is the blast hole depth, 21
22 underload nor overload the crusher. This also helps meet the Dc is drilling cost per unit of length, 22
23 customers’ demand in regard to product size distributions. Ec is the explosive cost per unit of mass and 23
24 The optimization equation for minimizing the blasting and Mexh is the total mass of explosive per blast hole shot. 24
25 crushing costs on an annual basis takes the following form 25
26 Blasting cost per year (Cbyear) is 26
27
B , CSS
(
min → Ctyear = Cbyear + Ccyear ) (14) Cbyear = Cbmt × Trpy (19)
27
28 28
29 subject to where 29
30 Trpy is total required production per year. 30
Blower ≤ B ≤ Bupper
31 31
32 Crushing cost per year (Ccyear) is sum of crusher ownership 32
CSSlower ≤ CSS ≤ CSSupper
33 cost (Oc) and crusher operating cost (Opc), i.e. 33
34 34
llower ≤ l ≤ lupper Ccyear = Oc + Opc (20)
35 35
36 where 36
Wlower ≤ W ≤ Wupper
37 37
Oc = Cc + Ii + Inc + Tc (21)
38 38
glower ≤ g ≤ gupper
39 39
Opc = Ec + Mc + Lc (22)
40 where 40
41 B is the burden, where 41
42 CSS is the closed-side setting, Cc is the capital cost per year, 42
43 λ is the crusher power requirement per hour, Ii is the interest cost per year, 43
44 Ω is product size distribution (in-range), Inc is the insurance cost per year, 44
45 γ is the feed size distribution (in-range), Tc is the taxes cost per year, 45
46 Cbyear is the blasting cost per year, Ec is the electricity cost per year, 46
47 Ccyear is crushing cost per year, Mc is the maintenance cost per year and 47
48 Ctyear is the total cost per year and Lc is the labor cost per year. 48
49 the subscripts lower and upper indicate the lower and upper 49
50 The crushing cost (Ccmt) per metric ton of fragmented mate- 50
bounds of the values.
51 rial can be calculated as 51
52 52
Energy consumption per metric ton in blasting (Bmt) can Ccmt = Ccyear/Trpy (23)
53 53
be calculated as
54 54
55 Bmt = Tee/Tar (15) Application of the gyratory crusher model 55
56 A dolomite mine in Pennsylvania provided the data related to the 56
where
57 production rate, rock mass characteristics, drilling and blasting 57
Tee is a total explosive energy generated per blasting shot
58 parameters. The name of the mine is not disclosed to honor the 58
and
59 request of the mine management. The current burden and spac- 59
Tar is the total tonnage of rock fragmented per blasting
60 ing applied in the mine are 3.75 and 4.61 m, respectively. The 60
shot
61 primary crusher is capable of handling a maximum feed size of 61
62 D × Vex × Eex A 1,524 mm (60 in.). However, the requirement of the mine is to 62
Tee = ex × as
63 3.6 S×B (16) limit the primary crusher feed to a maximum size of 914 mm (36 63
64 in.). A Superior MK-II gyratory crusher, with a rated power of 64
where
65 450 kW and an open-side setting of 150 mm (6 in.) is used. The 65

MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING 175 Vol. 24, No. 3 • August 2007
 PROOF COPY
1 crusher has a closed-side setting adjustable 1
2 from 110 to 140 mm (4.3 to 5.5 in.) and is 2
3 capable of producing the required product 3
4 size in the range of 13 to 140 mm (0.5 to 4
5 5.5 in.). The power required to reduce the 5
6 maximum feed size to the required product 6
7 size is 352.4 kW, according to Bond’s equa- 7
8 tion (Pothina, 2006). A gyratory crusher’s 8
9 idle power is generally one-third of its rated 9
10 power (Vergne, 2005). Thus, this system 10
11 requires an additional usage of 100 kW. 11
12 This will increases hourly power usage of 12
13 the crusher to approximately 450 kW. The 13
14 compressive strength and abrasive index 14
15 of dolomite are 207 MPa (30,000 psi) and 15
16 620, respectively. 16
17 17
18 Results and analysis 18
19 Figure 3 shows the data related to the feed 19
20 size distributions. It can be observed that 20
21 increasing burden and spacing values will 21
22 increase the coarseness of the material. For 22
23 example, at B and S values of 1.5 and 1.85 23
24 m (5 and 6 ft), respectively, 100% of the 24
25 feed material is finer than 0.2 m (8 in.), 25
26 Figure 3 — Feed size distributions at different burden (B) and spacing (S) val- whereas only 30% of the feed material is 26
27 ues. finer than 0.2 m for B and S values of 6.5 27
28 and 8.00 m (21 and 26 ft), respectively. 28
29 Varying B and S in combination with 29
30 the CSS produces a range of product size 30
31 distributions, as shown in the Fig. 4. A 31
32 diagonal line (ideal slope) represents the 32
33 ideal product size distribution. The ideal 33
34 slope of the product size distribution is 34
35 the ratio between the x‑intercept (size of 35
36 particle) and the y‑intercept (cumulative 36
37 percentage). A value of one indicates 37
38 higher uniformity of the required product 38
39 size and minimum fines in the product. 39
40 Product size distributions close to the ideal 40
41 slope are preferred. Size distributions to 41
42 the right side of the ideal slope are coarser, 42
43 while those to the left side of the ideal 43
44 slope are finer. 44
45 Based on Levene’s test, the probability 45
46 plot of residuals, an F-test, and fitted plots; 46
47 the choice of linear regression to find the 47
48 relation between a and Asrmt was justified. 48
49 The p-value from Levene’s test (0.558) 49
50 conducted on the residual values resulting 50
51 from the linear regression supports the 51
52 initial assumption that the variance of the 52
53 residuals is constant. The F-test indicated 53
54 that cubic and quadratic regressions were 54
55 not statistically significant in representing 55
56 the relation between a and Asrmt. Due to 56
57 this, linear regression was used to estab- 57
58 lish a relation between a and Asrmt. The 58
59 obtained regression equation is 59
60 60
61 Asrmt = -22.24 + 0.3348 a (24) 61
62 From the Minitab output, the intercept 62
63 (-22.24) and the coefficient of a (0.3348) 63
64 Figure 4 — Product size distributions for different B, S and CSS. lies in the intervals (-30.87, -13.95) and 64
65 (0.3018, 0.3678), respectively, at a 95% 65

August 2007 • Vol. 24 No. 3 176 MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING

 PROOF COPY
1 confidence level. Equation (24) and the fitted line plot, shown 1
2 in Fig. 5, indicate a positive linear relationship between a and 2
3 Asrmt. From the Minitab output, the adjusted r2 value was 84.5%, 3
4 which indicates a strong positive linear relationship between a 4
5 and Asrmt. With this new finding, the amperage constant model 5
6 was modified to develop a full-scale model, which applies to 6
7 any feed size distribution and crusher setting. 7
8 Predicting the power consumption of the gyratory crusher (λ) 8
9 is possible for the full-scale model at any given B, S and CSS 9
10 values. The B, S and CSS values can be operated or changed 10
11 in the range that closely mimics the amperage constant model. 11
12 For the full-scale model, expanding the range for the burden 12
13 produces values between 2.2 to 4.5 m (7.2 to 14.8 ft). Similarly 13
14 the CSS values range from 0.110 to 0.140 m (0.36 to 0.46 ft). 14
15 Equation (15) indicates optimization function used to 15
16 minimize the total annual (blasting and crushing) cost. This 16
17 function is subject to the following conditions: 17
Figure 5 — Fitted line plot.
18 18
19 2.2 m ≤ B ≤ 4.5 m 19
20 0.110 m ≤ CSS ≤ 0.140 m 20
21 74.99 kW ≤ l ≤ 450 kW 21
22 85% ≤ Ω ≤ 90% 22
23 90% ≤ γ ≤ 98% 23
24 24
25 Figure 6 shows the hourly power consumption λ of the 25
26 crusher for various B, S and CSS values. When the B and S 26
27 values increase, λ also increases. To the contrary, λ decreases 27
28 with the increase of CSS. In Fig. 6, the crusher power draw 28
29 limit is 450 kW. 29
30 The product size in-range values (Ω) that satisfy the custom- 30
31 ers’ need are between 85% and 90%. This appears between lines 31
32 G and F (Fig. 7). Burden values corresponding to this range are 32
33 between lines B and C. Keeping the product size distribution 33
34 in-range is a requirement for meeting the customers’ demand. 34
35 At the same time, feed size distributions corresponding to the 35
36 product size distributions found in the previous step should be 36
37 according to the specified values, i.e., 90% to 95%. In Fig. 7, 37
38 Lines E and F show the required γ value range. Burden values 38
39 corresponding to these values are between Lines A and D. 39
40 Because burden values for Ω are in this range, the conditions 40
41 on γ are satisfied. 41
42 Energy consumption and costs to perform blasting and 42
43 crushing operations appear in Figs. 8 through 10. Figure 8 43
44 shows the energy consumption in processing one metric ton 44
45 of material. Figure 9 shows the cost per metric ton, and Fig. 45
46 10 shows the cost per year for various B and CSS values. The 46
47 burden values between Lines B and C are those that enable 47
48 product size distributions within the specified range. 48
49 Analyzing Figs. 7 through 10 leads to the following con- 49
50 clusions: 50
51 Figure 6 — Crusher power draw (l) at different B, S and 51
52 • the feed size distribution in-range (γ) and product size CSS values. 52
53 distribution in-range (Ω) are inversely proportional, as 53
54 shown in Fig. 7; 54
55 • energy/costs involved in blasting has an inverse linear 55
56 relationship with B and S values, whereas, the energy/ 56
57 costs involved in crushing has a linear relationship with The interactions of various output values are shown in 57
58 B and S; Fig. 11. Burden and spacing values in the ranges of 3.25 to 58
59 • CSS values and the crushing costs are inversely propor- 3.50 and 4.00 to 4.31 m (10.7 to 11.5 and 13.1 to 14.1 ft), 59
60 tional to each other; respectively, with the combination of CSS values ranging 60
61 • total energy/costs decrease with increasing burden values, from 0.110 to 0.120 m (0.36 to 0.39 ft) can result in minimum 61
62 but this trend’s limit is for primary crushing only; and crushing costs ranging from $1,318,819 to $1,331,470. At 62
63 • if secondary and tertiary crushing or grinding costs are burden and spacing values of 3.25 and 4.00 m (10.7 and 13.1 63
64 additions to primary crushing, total costs increase gradu- ft), respectively, and a crusher CSS of 0.115 m (0.38 ft), the 64
65 ally after some point to form a convex shaped curve. minimum yearly crushing cost is $1,318,819. The range of B, S 65

MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING 177 Vol. 24, No. 3 • August 2007
 PROOF COPY
1 and CSS values, 4.00 to 4.25, 4.92 to 5.23 1
2 and 0.135 to 0.140 m (13.1 to 13.9, 16.1 2
3 to 17.2 and 0.44 to 0.46 ft), respectively, 3
4 result in minimum total costs in the range 4
5 of $1,934,933 to $2,001,867. Values of 5
6 B, S and CSS at 4.25, 5.23 and 0.140 m 6
7 (13.9, 17.2 and 0.46 ft), respectively, will 7
8 result in minimum annual total costs of 8
9 $1,934,933. 9
10 Currently, the subject mine operates 10
11 with B, S and CSS values of 3.75, 4.61 11
12 and 0.125 m (12.3, 15.1 and 0.41 ft), 12
13 respectively, with total costs per year of 13
14 $2,100,612. The optimized values en- 14
15 able annual savings in total costs from 15
16 $98,745 to $165,679, i.e., 4.7% to 7.9%, 16
17 respectively. 17
18 To test the developed model, the values 18
19 obtained from the crusher manufacturer 19
20 are compared with the values obtained 20
21 from this study. Figure 12 shows the 21
22 product size distribution at B, S and CSS 22
23 values that produces minimum crush- 23
24 ing and minimum total annual costs. It 24
25 Figure 7 — Feed and product in-range (%) at different B, S and CSS values. also can be seen that the manufacturer’s 25
26 curve representing suggested percentage 26
27 passing values is similar to the values 27
28 generated by the model developed for 28
29 this study. 29
30 30
31 Summary and conclusions 31
32 The output results indicate that increasing 32
33 burden and spacing values will increase 33
34 the coarseness and size of the feed mate- 34
35 rial. This in turn overloads the crusher 35
36 at some stage and produces over-size 36
37 material. An increase in the closed-side 37
38 setting will cause a decrease in power 38
39 consumption. The burden, spacing and 39
40 closed-side setting values that result 40
41 in minimum annual crushing and total 41
42 costs within the constraints, i.e., feed size 42
43 distribution required (90% to 98%) and 43
44 product size distribution (85% to 90%), 44
45 were determined. 45
46 The range of values that results in mini- 46
47 mum crushing energy cost are as follows: 47
48 burden at 3.25 to 3.50 m (10.7 to 11.5 ft), 48
49 spacing at 4.00 to 4.31 m (13.1 to 14.1 ft) 49
50 and closed-side setting at 0.110 to 0.120 50
51 m (0.36 to 0.39 ft). The range of values 51
52 that results in minimum total energy costs 52
53 are as follows: burden at 4.00 to 4.25 m 53
54 (13.1 to 13.9 ft), spacing at 4.92 to 5.23 54
55 m (16.1 to 17.2 ft) and closed-side setting 55
56 at 0.130 to 0.140 m (0.43 to 0.46 ft). The 56
57 suggested ranges can save annually from 57
58 $98,745 to $165,679, i.e., 4.7 % to 7.9 %, 58
59 respectively, in total costs. The results of 59
60 this study, specifically the mathematical 60
61 and software model developed in MS 61
62 Excel, can be used by industry profes- 62
63 sionals to evaluate different blasting and 63
64 Figure 8 — Energy consumption to crush a metric ton of material at different crushing scenarios and to predict energy 64
65 B and CSS values. consumption in this process. 65

August 2007 • Vol. 24 No. 3 178 MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING

 PROOF COPY
1 Limitations of the model include lack of quantifi- 1
2 cation of internal flaws of the material that could be 2
3 useful to quantify energy consumption in crushing. 3
4 Quantification also helps to improve the modeling 4
5 of crushing systems by providing more complete 5
6 physical parameters of the material. In the model 6
7 developed, a few physical parameters like wear, 7
8 liner profile, liner length, and liner material were 8
9 not taken into account. Including these parameters, 9
10 without increasing the complexity of the model, 10
11 the accuracy of the modeling techniques can be 11
12 increased further. Parameters like K1 (equal to CSS 12
13 of the crusher) and K2 (equal to OSS of the crusher) 13
14 depend on production and physical parameters like 14
15 liner profile, length, and wear. These aspects were 15
16 not taken into account in the model. 16
17 It is a challenging task to include all these relation- 17
18 ships into a single model, because it is difficult to 18
19 obtain the data for these variables from the working 19
20 crusher. Data collection from a working crusher is 20
21 time consuming and expensive, because it interferes 21
22 with the mine’s production cycle. It is an important 22
23 task to globally optimize the total crushing process. 23
24 In this research work optimization is applied to pri- 24
25 mary crushing only. Total crushing process includes 25
26 secondary and tertiary stages also. A comprehensive 26
27 optimization technique that simultaneously considers 27
28 all three crushing stages can provide better energy 28
29 savings. 29
30 30
31 Acknowledgment Figure 9 — Cost to crush a metric ton of material at different B and 31
32 The research work in this paper is supported by the CSS values. 32
33 U.S. Department of Energy’s Mining Industry of 33
34 the Future program. Their contribution is gratefully 34
35 acknowledged. 35
36 36
37 References 37
38 Anderson, J.S., 1988, “Development of a Cone Crusher Model,” 38
39 M.S. Thesis, University of Queensland (JKMRC), Australia, 39
pp. 5-26.
40 Anderson, J., and Napier-Munn, T.J., 1988, “Power prediction for 40
41 cone crushers,” Proc. Third Mill Operators Conference, AusIMM, 41
42 Cobar, NSW, Australia, pp. 230-275. 42
Ash, R.L., 1963, “The mechanics of rock breakage: standards for
43 blast design,” Pit and Quarry, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 118-122.
43
44 Austin, L.G., and Klimpel, R.R., 1964, “Theory of grinding opera- 44
45 tions,” Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol. 56, pp. 18-29. 45
Austin, L.G., and Brame, K., 1983, “A comparison of the bond method
46 46
for sizing wet tumbling mills with a size mass balance simulation
47 model,” Powder Technology Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 261-274. 47
48 Awachie, S.E.A., 1983, “Development of Crusher Models Us- 48
49 ing Laboratory Breakage Data,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of 49
Queensland, JKMRC, Australia, pp.25-56.
50 Beke, B., 1964, Principles of Comminution, Maclaren, London. 50
51 Bond, F.C., 1952, “The third theory of comminution,” Trans. SME/ 51
52 AIME, pp. 484-494. 52
Cunningham, C.V.B., 1983, “Fragmentation estimations and Kuz-Ram
53 model-four years on,” Proceedings of the First Int. Symp. on
53
54 Rock Fragmentation and Blasting, Sweden, pp. 439-453. 54
55 Epstein, B., 1948, “Logarithmico-normal distributions in breakage 55
56 of solids,” Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol. 40, pp. 2289-2291. 56
Guillaneau, J.C., Ollofsson, O., Durance, M.V., and Villeneuve, J.,
57 1995, “Modeling of the Sala Agitated mill using BRGM pilot plant 57
58 data,” Proceedings of XXV APCOM, pp. 325-331. 58
59 Herbst, J.A., and Fuerstenau, D.W., 1968, “The zero order produc- 59
tion of fines in comminution and its implications in simulation,”
60 Tran. SME/AIME, Vol. 241, pp. 531-549.
60
61 Herbst, J.A., and Fuerstenau, D.W., 1980, “Scale up procedure for 61
62 continuous grinding mill design using population balance mod- 62
els,” Institute of Mining Proceedings, Vol. 7, pp. 1-31.
63 63
Herbst J.A., Chang L.Y., and Flintoff, B., 2003, “Size reduction and
64 liberation,” Principles of Mineral Processing, M.C. Fuerstenau Figure 10 — Annual costs to crush the feed material at different B 64
65 and K.N. Han, eds., SME, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 61-81. and CSS values. 65

MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING 179 Vol. 24, No. 3 • August 2007
 PROOF COPY
1 Hukki R.T., 1961, “Proposal for solomonic settlement 1
between the theories of Von Rittinger, Rick and
2 Bond,” Trans SME/AIME, pp. 403-408.
2
3 Hogg, R., 2003, “Particle characterization,” Principles 3
4 of Mineral Processing, M.C. Fuerstenau and K.N. 4
Han, eds., SME, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 9-20.
5 Inoue, T., and Okaya, K., 1994, “Grinding mechanism
5
6 in centrifugal mills,” 8th European Symposium on 6
7 Comminution, Stockholm, pp. 431-440. 7
8 Kawatra, S.K, Eisele, T.C., and Wlaqui, H.J., 2001, 8
“Optimization of comminution circuit throughput
9 and product size distribution by simulation and 9
10 control,” <http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/ 10
11 purl/837186-Yhbgdr/native/837186.pdf> 11
Kelsall, D.F., Reid, K.J., and Stewart, P.S.B., 1969,
12 “The study of grinding processes by dynamic
12
13 modeling,” Electronic Engineering Trans. Inst., 13
14 EE5(1), pp. 84-95. 14
15 King, R.P., 1979, “A model for the quantitative estima- 15
tion of mineral liberation by grinding,” Institute
16 Journal for Mining, pp. 207-220. 16
17 Lindquist, M., and Sotkovszki, P., 2003, “Work 17
18 hardening in cone crusher liners,” <http://web. 18
sagmilling.nsf/Articles/691CC7491F79F1FA872
19 56DA8006214DC>.
19
20 Lynch, A.J., 1977, Mineral Crushing and Grinding Cir- 20
21 cuits: Their Simulation, Optimization and Control, 21
Vol. 1, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
22 Mishra, B.K., and Rajamani, R.K., 1992, “Analysis of
22
23 media motion in a ball mill,” Comminution: Theory 23
24 and Practice,” K. Kawatra, ed., SME, Littleton, 24
25 Colorado, pp. 427-440. 25
Morrell, S., Napier-Munn, T.J., and Andersen J., 1992,
26 “The Prediction of power draw for comminution 26
27 machines,” Comminution: Theory and Practice, 27
28 K. Kawatra, ed., SME, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 28
405-426.
29 Mular, A.L., Halbe D.N., and Barrett D.J., 2002, Mineral
29
30 Processing Plant Design, Practice, and Control, 30
31 Proceedings, Vol.1, SME, Littleton, pp. 584-600. 31
32 Napier-Munn, T.J., Morrell, S., Morrison, R.D., and 32
Kojovic, T., 1996, Mineral Comminution Circuits:
33 Their Operation and Optimization, Vol. 45, JKMRC, 33
34 Brisbane. 34
35 Narayanan, S.S., and Whiten, W.J., 1988, “Determina- 35
tion of comminution characteristics from single
36 particle breakage tests and its application to ball
36
37 mill scale-up,” Trans of Inst of Min. and Metall., 37
38 245, C115-124. 38
Pothina, R., 2006, “A Gyratory Crusher Model for
39 Energy Savings,” M.S. Thesis, The Pennsylvania
39
40 Figure 11 — Interaction of important parameters for different B, S and CSS 40
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
41 values. Radziszewski, P., and Tarasiewicz, S., 1989, “Autog- 41
42 enous mill design using comminution energet- 42
ics,” Proc. Conference on SAG ’89, Vancouver,
43 pp. 773-782. 43
44 Rosario, P.P., Hall, R.A., and Maijer, D.M., 2004a, 44
45 “Improved gyratory crushing operation by the 45
assessment of liner wear and mantle profile
46 redesign,” Minerals Engineering, Vol. 17, No.
46
47 11-12, pp. 1083-1092. 47
48 Rosario, P.P., Hall, R.A., and Maijer, D.M., 2004b, “Liner 48
49 wear and performance investigation of primary 49
gyratory crushers,” Minerals Engineering, Vol.
50 17, No. 11-12, pp. 1241–1254. 50
51 Rosario, P.P., and Hall, R.A., 2006, “Integration of 51
52 gyratory crusher liner wear and operational per- 52
formance for better crusher management,” CIM
53 Bulletin, Vol. 99 (1095), pp. 1-8.
53
54 Svedensten P., and Evertsson V., 2001, Computer 54
55 assisted optimisation of crushing plants for both 55
machine parameter and wear tolerances, <http://
56 www.mvs.ch alme rs.se/~psvede>
56
57 ThyssenKrupp, 2005, Gyratory Crushers, <http://www. 57
58 eprocessingplants.com/eng/html/kreiselbrecher. 58
59 en.shtml>, pp.1-11. 59
Vergne, J.D.L, 2005, Hard rock miner’s handbook
60 rules of thumb, <http://www.mcintoshengineer- 60
61 ing.com/Hard%20Rock%20Handbook/hardrock. 61
62 htm> 62
U.S. Department of Energy, 2000, “Mineral Process-
63 ing Technology Road Map,” U.S. Department
63
64 Figure 12 — Product size distributions compared to manufacturer’s suggested of Energy, <http://www.eere.energy.gov/indus- 64
65 distribution. try/mining/>. 65

August 2007 • Vol. 24 No. 3 180 MINERALS & METALLURGICAL PROCESSING

View publication stats