Ball mill optimization

Dhaka, Bangladesh
21 March 2010

Introduction

Mr.Peramas Wajananawat

Experience: 13 Years (2 y in engineering,11 y in production)
 Engineering department  Kiln and Burning system
 Siam Cement (Ta Luang) Kiln system, Raw material grinding and Coal grinding
 Siam Cement (Lampang)  Cement grinding and Packing plant

The Siam Cement (Thung Song) Co,Ltd

Production Engineer
 Cement grinding 7 lines





2 x Conventional mill 150 t/h (OPC)

2 x Pre-grinding 100 t/h (OPC)
2 x Semi-finish grinding 270 t/h (OPC)
1 x VRM 120 t/h

 Cement bag dispatching

Contact e-mail: [email protected]

 KHD
 Fuller
 KHD
 Loesche (LM46.2 +2C)

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.

Objective of Ball mill optimization

Mill performance test
Air flow and diaphragm
Separator performance test

Objective
1. Audit performance of grinding system
2. Show the key areas for optimization the ball
mill system
3. Provide the basic information for changes or
modifications within grinding system
4. Reduce power consumption, Quality
improvement or Production improvement

Ball mill optimization

Ball mill optimization

Mill charge
1. Mill sampling test
2. Charge distribution
3. Regular top-ups

Air flow & Diaphragm

1. Mill ventilation
2. Water injection
3. Diaphragms

Separator
1. Tromp curve
2. Separator air flow
3. Separator sealing

When: Do optimization
1.
2.

In some period (1 month, 1 Quarter, 1 Year or ???)

To assess the reason/cause of disturbance





3.

When abnormal operation

Poor performance of grinding system
Low mill output or poor quality product
High operation or maintenance costs

Keep operation in a good efficiency

Conventional grinding system

Clinker

Gypsum Limestone

To Cement Silo

Cement Mill

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Main Machine
Feeding system
Tube mill
Dynamic separator
Dedusting (BF/EP)
Transport equip.

Mill charge optimization

Clinker

Gypsum Limestone

To Cement Silo

Cement Mill

What is function of mill?

Size reduction along the mill

-Coarse grinding  1st compartment
Normal feed size 5% residue 25 mm.
Max feed size 0.5% residue 35 mm.

-Fine grinding

 2nd compartment

Coarse material grinding

Fine material grinding

Piece weight (or knocking weight)

Specific surface

Average weight/piece of grinding

media in each compartment
(g/piece)

Piece weight
Impact force

Average surface area of (ball)

grinding media in each compartment
(m2/t)

Specific surface
Attrition force

 Need small ball size

 Need large ball size

10

Ball charge composition

Calculation (for steel ball)
 Piece weight
: i = [3.143/6] x d3 x 7.8 ;g/pcs.
 Specific surface : o = 123 / i (1/3)
; m2/ton

Note : d = size of ball (cm)

11

Ball charge composition

Check piece weight and specific surface
Compartment
1
Fraction
(mm), d
90
80
70
60
50
40
Total #1

Charge calculation

(t)
5.0
11.0
13.6
15.3
5.6
2.5
53.0

%
9%
21%
26%
29%
11%
5%
100%

Compartment
2
Fraction

12

Specific surface,
Surface, O
o
pcs.
(m2/t)
(m2)
1,673
8.5
43
5,240
9.6
106
9,671
11.0
149
17,277
12.8
196
10,927
15.4
86
9,528
19.2
48
54,317
11.8
628

Weight, W weight Piece weight, I no., n

(g)
2,989
2,099
1,406
886
512
262
976

Piece weight: 976 g/piece

Specific surface: 11.8 m2/t

Charge calculation
Specific surface,
Surface, O
o
pcs.
(m2/t)
(m2)
0
15.4
0
0
19.2
0
45,170
25.6
128
749,309
30.7
1,476
1,143,35
38.4
1,441
4
2,308,58
45.2
2,102
5
4,246,41
37.6
5,147
7

Weight, W weight Piece weight, I no., n

(mm), d
50
40
30
25

(t)
0.0
0.0
5.0
48.0

%
0%
0%
4%
35%

(g)
512
262
111
64

20

37.5

27%

33

17

46.5

34%

20

Total #1

137.0

100%

32

Piece weight: 32 g/piece

Specific surface: 37.6 m2/t

Ball charge composition

General we use (Product Blaine 4,500 cm2/g) for Conventional
 Cpt.1 : Piece weight 1,500-1,600 g./piece
 Cpt 2 : Specific surface 30-35 m2/t

For Pre-grinding system  R/P + Conventional

 Cpt.1: PW ~1,100-1200 g/pc
 Cpt.2: SS ~35-40 m2/t
**depend on product fineness!!

13

Maximum steel ball size (Bond equation)

B=36 x (F80)1/2 x [(SgxWi)/(100xCsxDe1/2)]1/3
Where








14

B : Maximum ball size (mm.)

F80 : Feed material size for 80% pass (m)
W i : Bond work index (kWh/t)
C s : N/Nc (normally ~ 0.7-0.75)
Sg : Specific gravity of raw material (t/m3)
D e : Effective diameter of mill (m.)
F80 = log [(0.20) size residue(mm.)]/log(%residue)

Example;
Given
Feed size = 5% res. 25 mm.
Wi = 13.0 kWh/t
Cs = 0.7
Sg = 3.0 t/m 3
De = 4.0 m.
F80 = log(0.20)25/log(0.05)
F80 = 13.4 mm.
Find : Maximum ball size
1/2
1/2 1/3
B = 36x(13.4) x[(3x13)/(100x0.7x4 )]
Maximum ball size = 86 mm.

Maximum steel ball size

Maximum ball size (mm.) : Clinker Wi 13.0 kWh/t, Cs 0.7, Sg 3

Max Ball Size (mm.)

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

10

15

20

Feed Size (mm.), F80

** Typical fresh clinker : 5% residue 25 mm. or F80 = 13.4 mm.

15

25

30

Example

Given

Feed size = 5% res. 20 mm.

Wi = 12.0 kWh/t
Cs = 0.7
Sg = 3.0 t/m3
De = 2.5 m.

Find: required maximum ball size

 F80
 Maximum ball size (mm.)

16

Mill performance test

Steps
1. Recording of related operational data
2. Air flow measurement
3. Crash stop and visual inspection in mill
4. Sampling in mill
5. Evaluation of test

17

1. Recording of related operational data

Tube Mill
 Feed rate, Return, Grinding aids, Water injection, Mill drive
power (kW)

Static separator
 Vane position

Mill ventilation fan

 Damper position, Air flow rate (if have instrument), Pressure
 Fan drive power

18

2. Air flow measurement

Air flow measurement
 Air flow rate
 Temperature
 Static pressure

Mill ventilation air

Clinker

Gypsum Limestone

To Cement Silo

Cement Mill

19

Mill ventilation air

Purpose
 Forward movement of the material  retention time
 Take out fine particles and so diminish the risk of coating
 Cooling of the material in mill  Diminish coating / dehydration
of gypsum

Usual ranges of ventilation:

Air speed in mill
 Open circuit : 0.8 to 1.2 m/sec
 Closed circuit : 1.2 to 1.5 m/sec

m/sec

**Min 0.5 m/s  tend to result inefficient over grinding and excessive
heat generation with possible coating problem.
**Max > 1.4 m/s  drag particle out of mill before they have been
sufficiency ground.
20


Agglomeration and ball coating

Cause:
Temperature too high tendency of the
material forming agglomerates/coating on
grinding media and liner plates
Grinding efficiency will be reduce
Temperature outlet mill range 110-120 C.

21

Test 2

Mill dimension
 Inside diameter 3 m.
 Degree of filling 28% in both compartment

Mill ventilation check

 Flow 22,000 m3/h

Check Air ventilation speed in mill ?

m/sec

22

3. Crash stop and visual inspection

Stable operation before crash stop

Emergency stop or Crash stop
 Tube mill / All auxiliary equipment
 Mill Ventilation

Disconnect main circuit breaker (Safety !)

Preparation of sampling equipment (shovel, scoop, plastic bag, meter,
lighting etc.)

23

Preparation of sampling equipment

Lock switch

Plastic bag

PPE

Crash stop

Meter
Lighting

Shovel
Meter
Scoop

24

3. Crash stop and visual inspection

Visual inspection






Liner and Diaphragm condition  wear, block

Ball size distribution along the mill  classify liner
Water spray nozzle condition  clogging
Foreign material ?
Ball charge condition  agglomeration, coating

Liner

Diaphragm

Ball charge

25

Clogging

Clean block slot

3. Crash stop and visual inspection

Material level in compartment #1 and #2

26

3. Crash stop and visual inspection

Ball charge quantity (Filling degree)

Measurement by free height
 Measure average internal diameter, Di
 Measure height, h, in three different points along axis for each grinding
compartment

Effective length, L

Free height, h
M

Inside diameter, Di

27

Ball charge quantity (Filling degree)

De

h
Ball level

h = H- (De/2)

Degree of filling (%)

60.0
50.0
40.0

30.0

N ormal range 28-32%

20.0
10.0
0.0
Meter

28

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300
h/De

0.400

0.500

4. Sampling inside mill (mill test)

Sampling of material
 Take ~1 kg sample every 1 m along mill axis
 Each sample collected from 3 point in the same cross section
 Removed some balls and taken sample
 First and last sample in each compartment should be taken
from 0.5 m off the wall or diaphragms

0.5 1m 1m 1m 0.5 0.5 1m 1m 1m 1m

1.1
1.1

1.2
1.2

1.3
1.3

1.4
1.4

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

1m 1m 0.5

2.5

Material sampling point in mill

29

Deep 20 cm.

2.6

2.7

Take sampling

0.5 1m 1m 1m 0.5 0.5 1m 1m 1m 1m

1.1
1.1

1.2
1.2

1.3
1.3

1.4
1.4

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

1m 1m 0.5

2.5

2.7

2.6

Front view

Side view

0.5 m.

0.5 m.
1

1
0

1
0

1
1

1
0

1
1

Take 1 sample

30

Top view

1
1

Get total 11 collected

samples along the mill
1 kg per sample

4. Sampling inside mill (mill test) cont.

After work inside the mill
 Calculation quantity of ball charge and filling degree
 Sample sieve analysis
 1st compartment

Sieve : 16 , 10 , 6 , 2 , 1.25 , 0.5 , 0.2 mm

 2nd compartment

Sieve : 1.25 , 0.5 , 0.2 , 0.12 , 0.09 , 0.06 mm., Blaine Fineness

 Plot size reduction chart (graph)

31

Sieve test equipment

32

Results: Sieve and Fineness analysis from mill test

Sample Location

% residue on sieve (by weight)

Blaine
Position m. cm2/g

32

16

0.50

0.20

0.09

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

0.5

7.00

18.00

34.00

47.00

57.00

64.00

71.00

81.00

90.50

1.0

9.00

21.00

36.00

45.00

52.00

60.00

69.00

79.00

89.00

2.0

3.00

7.00

13.00

18.00

20.50

31.00

48.00

67.00

83.00

3.0

0.50

1.00

3.00

5.50

8.00

19.50

29.50

52.00

71.00

pt.2

4.0

0.10

3.00

5.00

7.00

8.00

10.50

22.00

46.00

65.00

pt.3

4.5

0.05

4.00

7.50

9.00

10.50

12.50

28.00

48.50

68.00

Partition

**

Compt 1 pt.1

Compt 2 pt.1

0.5

940

1.00

8.00

32.00

56.00

pt.2

1.0

1080

2.00

9.00

33.00

59.00

2.0

1260

0.50

7.00

24.00

50.00

3.0

1300

0.01

4.00

18.00

42.00

4.0

1500

0.00

1.50

12.00

39.00

5.0

1600

0.00

1.00

9.00

32.00

6.0

1700

0.00

0.50

5.00

27.00

pt.3

7.0

1880

0.00

0.22

4.00

21.00

pt.4

8.0

2000

0.00

0.01

3.00

19.50

9.0

2120

0.00

0.01

1.50

18.50

0.00

0.00

2.00

19.00

pt.5

33

9.5

0.5 1 2 3 4 4.
5

0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9.5
5
0.5 m

Size Reduction Progress

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800

0.5 m

32.000 mm
16.000 mm
8.000 mm

Blaine (cm^2/g)

% Residue on sieve

Typical grinding diagra m : OPC 3000 cm2 /g

4.000 mm
2.000 mm
1.000 mm
0.500 mm
0.200 mm
0.090 mm
Blaine cm2/g

0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 ** 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.5 Length (m.)
34

Comp. 1

Comp. 2

5. Evaluation of performance test

Grinding efficiency
 Data for evaluation
 Result from visual inspection inside tube mill
 Sample analysis from longitudinal sampling inside tube mill  Size
reduction graph

Cement Mill

35

Evaluation of mill test  standard reference

Size reduction along mill axis

Sieve residues and Blaine value in front of the diaphragms
Compartme
nt

First comp.

Particle size

FLSmidth

Holderbank

Slegten

+0.5 mm.

15-25%

12-25%

+0.6 mm.

10-20%

+1.0 mm.

7-14%

+2.0 mm.

Max 4%

Max 3%

Max 5% (at 2.5

mm.)

+0.2 mm.

20-30%

20-30%

15-25% (at 0.1

mm.)

Second comp.

36

+0.5 mm.

Max 5%

Max 5%

Blaine
(cm2/g)

2,100

Size Reduction Progress

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800

0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 ** 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.5
Comp. 1

Compartm
ent

First comp.

32.000 mm
16.000 mm
8.000 mm

Blaine (cm^2/g)

% Residue on sieve

Evaluation of mill test

4.000 mm
2.000 mm
1.000 mm
0.500 mm
0.200 mm
0.090 mm
Blaine cm2/g

Length (m.)

Comp. 2

Particle
size

FLSmidth

Holderban
k

Slegten

Mill test

Result OK?

+0.5 mm.

15-25%

12-25%

28%

+0.6 mm.

10-20%

+1.0 mm.

7-14%

12.5%

+2.0 mm.

Max 4%

Max 3%

Little much
coarse
particle size
from
compartmen
t1

Max 5%

(at 2.5

10.5%

mm.)

+0.2 mm.

20-30%

20-30%

15-25% (at 0.1

2%

mm.)

Second
comp.
37

+0.5 mm.

Max 5%

Max 5%

0%

Blaine
(cm2/g)

2,100

2,120

Good!

Evaluation of mill test

Test result : provide information to
 Improvement of ball charge composition
 Maximum ball size and composition
 Charge composition (PW and SS)

 Modification/Replace inside grinding compartment

 Liners
 Diaphragms

 Operation
 Mill ventilation
 Clear diaphragm slot

38

Good condition liner

Broken liner

Inspection

Bad condition step liner

39

Slot blockage

Common problems!
Compartment

First comp.

Second comp.

40

Liner/Diaphragm

Result

Ball charge

Over limit of
particle size in
front of diaphragm
1 st comp.

-Increase impact
force in 1 st comp.
-Revise ball
charge and need
larger ball size
(piece weight)

-Low lifting
efficiency (visual
inspection)
-Clean block at
diaphragm (nib)

Over limit of
particle size in
front of diaphragm
2 nd comp.

-Wait for revise

charge in 1 st
comp.

-Wait for improve

liner in 1 st comp.

1 st comp. OK but
2 nd comp.  over
limit of particle size
in front of
diaphragm

-Revise ball
charge and may
need to increase
specific surface
or Piece weight

-Check ball
charge
distribution along
the mill
-Classifier liner
efficiency
-Clean block at
diaphragm

Operation

Mill vent.

-Feed too much

(visual
inspection)

-Too high velocity

(check air flow)

-Feed too much

(visual
inspection)

-Too high velocity

(check air flow)

Case mill test, CM6 STS (Aug,2008)

70.0

2500

2,314

2,058

abnormal

1,927

60.0

1,739

2000

1,807

1,626

Diaphragm

50.0

40.0

30.0

1,487

1500

1000

20.0
500
10.0

0.0

0
0

5.6 mm.

41

2 mm.

0.5 mm.

0.212 mm.

0.09 mm.

10

0.075 mm.

12

0.045 mm.

14

blaine

Blaine (cm2/g)

2,333

Diaphragm

% residue

80.0

Evaluate and correction

Reference standard

Compartme Particle
nt
size

FLSmidth

Holderba
Slegten
nk

Mill
test

+0.5 mm.

15-25%

12-25%

31%

+0.6 mm.

10-20%

+1.0 mm.

7-14%

+2.0 mm.

Max 4%

Max 3%

Result OK?
Abnormal size reduction
(in front of diaphragm),
should clear blockage
diaphragm slot

First comp.

Second
comp.

42

Max 5%
(at 2.5 mm.)

15-25%

23%

+0.2 mm.

20-30%

20-30%

(at 0.1 mm.)

52%

+0.5 mm.

Max 5%

Max 5%

51%

Blaine
(cm2/g)

2,100

2,314

Abnormal size reduction

(in front of diaphragm),
should clear blockage
diaphragm slot

Case Mill test from : VDZ congress 2009

Cement plant in Europe

Chamber 1 : good size reduction efficiency

Chamber 2 : 45 micron shown results that grinding has
stopped midway through the 2nd chamber
43

Evaluate and correction

Average ball size in chamber 2 is too small (average 16 mm, PW 17 g.)

Take charge distribution more coarse to increase PW and average ball
size diameter (to 42 g. and 22 mm.)
44

Separator performance test

Clinker

Gypsum Limestone

To Cement Silo

Cement Mill

45

What is separator?

46

Advantage of grinding system

with separator
Reduce the number of fine particle to
be ground in mill
Increase production capacity and
Reduce mill power consumption
Increase % of Active particle in fine
particle of Cement

Advantage of grinding system with separator

Maximized separator performance  Maximized power saving

47

Separator performance test

Steps
1. Recording of related operational data
2. Air flow measurement
3. Sampling within grinding system
4. Evaluation of test

48

1. Recording of related operational data

Tube Mill
 Feed rate, Return, Grinding aids, Water injection, Mill drive
power (kW)

Dynamic separator
 Rotor speed, Damper/vane position
 Separator drive power (kW)

Separator circulating fan & Separator ventilation

 Flow rate (if have instrument), Damper position
 Separator fan power (kW)

49

2. Air flow measurement

Air flow measurement
 Air flow rate
 Temperature
 Static pressure

Separator circulating air

Clinker

Gypsum Limestone

To Cement Silo

Cement Mill

50

Dynamic Separator circulating air

Purpose
 Distribute and disperse cement dust
 Classify cement dust at rotor
 Take out fine particle from separator to be product

Separator feed
(t/h)

Usual ranges of circulating air

Depend on separator feed and production rate
 Separator load  1.8-2.5 kg feed / m3
 = Separator feed / Circulating air

Circulating air
flow (m/h)

 Dust load (fine)  less than 0.75-0.8 kg fine / m3

 = Fine product / Circulating air

Return

51

Fine
product
(t/h)

3. Sampling within grinding system

Operation period
 Determined suitable sampling point
 Stable operation
 6-12 hours duration of performance test

 Taking samples every ~1 hour

52

Sampling plan (stable operation period)

1

Clinker

Gypsum Limestone
3
2

To Cement Silo

Cement Mill

53

Sampling

Sampling point in process

Return (reject)

Separator feed
or mill output
54

Scoop

Fine product

Sampling test
Point

55

Sampling point

Weight

Required sieve analysis

Separator feed  m

0.5 kg

PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)

Separator return  g

0.5 kg

PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)

Separator fine  f

0.5 kg

PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)

PSD analysis equipment

Particle size distribution analysis

56

Thung Song Plant

Result: from Laser analysis
-Range 1.8-350 um
-Test time <5 mins/sampling

57

Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

58

Rm

Rf

Rg

Size (um)

Feed
%residue

Fines
%residue

Rejects
%residue

96.4

95.1

98.1

93.9

91.7

96.5

89.0

85.3

93.7

81.5

74.6

89.9

16

68.8

55.1

85.6

24

60.3

41.2

83.9

30

32

52.2

28.9

80.9

20

48

39.4

13.0

71.9

10

64

32.3

7.4

62.9

96

18.2

0.0

40.5

200

4.9

0.0

11.0

TOTAL:

636.9

492.3

814.9

100
90
80
% Residue

70
60
50
40

1
Feed %residue

10
100
Sieve size (um)
Fines %residue

1000
Rejects %residue

59

Rm

Rf

Rg

Size (um)

Feed
%residue

Fines
%residue

Rejects
%residue

96.4

95.1

98.1

93.9

91.7

96.5

89.0

85.3

93.7

81.5

74.6

89.9

16

68.8

55.1

85.6

24

60.3

41.2

83.9

32

52.2

28.9

80.9

48

39.4

13.0

71.9

64

32.3

7.4

62.9

96

18.2

0.0

40.5

200

4.9

0.0

11.0

TOTAL:

636.9

492.3

814.9

Meaning sieve size 32 um

 52.2% of separator feed
residue on sieve size 32 um

 80.9% of reject residue on

sieve size 32 um

4. Evaluation of performance test

Separator efficiency
 Data for evaluation
 Particles size analysis of sample within grinding system

- Separator feed
- Separator fine
- Separator tailing or Reject

Rm
Rf
Rg

 Tromp curve or Fractional recovery

 The tromp curve shows what fraction of particles of different sizes in the
feed material is going in to the coarse fraction (often called Return or
Tailing)

 Separator specific loads / Dust Load

60

Tromp curve

Calculation
 Circulation factor (CF)
 CF = (Rf - Rg)/(Rm - Rg)
where
 Rf = % residue on sieve of fine
 Rg = % residue on sieve of coarse
 Rm = % residue on sieve of feed

 In this case (size 48 um)

 Circulation Factor = 1.81

61

Tromp curve

Calculation
 Tromp value
 Tromp (range d1,d2) = [(Rg1-Rg2)/(Rm1-Rm2)]x[1-(1/CF)]x100
where
 Tromp (range d1,d2) : Fraction of particles size between d1 and d2
 Rg = % residue on sieve of coarse (return/reject)
 Rm = % residue on sieve of separator feed

 In this case
 Tromp value (32-48 um) = 31.5%

62

Example
Rm

Rf

Rg

Feed
%residue

Fines
%residue

Rejects
%residue

96.4

95.1

98.1

93.9

91.7

96.5

89.0

85.3

93.7

81.5

74.6

89.9

16

68.8

55.1

85.6

24

60.3

41.2

83.9

32

52.2

28.9

80.9

48

39.4

13.0

71.9

64

32.3

7.4

62.9

96

18.2

0.0

40.5

200

4.9

0.0

11.0

TOTAL:

636.9

492.3

814.9

Size (um)

63

Find Circulation factor (CF) of

particle size 32 um and 48 um
 CF = (Rf - Rg)/(Rm - Rg)
where
 Rf = % residue on sieve of fine
 Rg = % residue on sieve of coarse
 Rm = % residue on sieve of feed

Find Tromp value of size in range

32-48 um
 Tr (d1,d2)=[(Rg1-Rg2)/(Rm1-Rm2)]x[1(1/CF)]x100
where
 Tromp (range d1,d2) : Fraction of particles size
between d1 and d2
 Rg = % residue on sieve of coarse (return/reject)
 Rm = % residue on sieve of separator feed

Tromp value meaning Tromp value (32-48 um) = 31.5%

For separator feed size between 32-48 um = 100 %
Separator feed

Separator

31.5% to coarse fraction

Reject/Return

64

68.5% to fine fraction

Fine product

Tromp value  Plot Tromp curve

Rm

Size (um)

65

Rf

Rg

Feed
Fines
Rejects
%residue %residue %residue

CF

Size avg
(um)

Tromp
value

1
2
4

96.4
93.9
89.0

95.1
91.7
85.3

98.1
96.5
93.7

1.76
1.85
1.79

0.5
1.5
3

22.9
29.3
25.2

8
16

81.5
68.8

74.6
55.1

89.9
85.6

1.82
1.82

6
12

22.8
15.2

24

60.3

41.2

83.9

1.81

20

8.9

32
48
64
96

52.2
39.4
32.3
18.2

28.9
13.0
7.4
0.0

80.9
71.9
62.9
40.5

1.81
1.81
1.81
1.82

28
40
56
80

16.6
31.5
56.9
71.4

200

4.9

0.0

11.0

1.80

148

98.8

TOTAL:

636.9

492.3

814.9

1.81

TOTAL:

Plot Tromp curve

Particle size in range 32-48 um
-31.5% go to be Return
-68.5% go to be Fine product

% recovery to return (reject)

100
90
80
70

Particle size in range 8-16 um

-15.2% go to be Return
-84.8% go to be Fine product

60
50
40

Particle size in range 2-4 um

-25.2% go to be Return
-74.8% go to be Fine product

30
20
10
0
1

10

100

Sieve size (um)

66

1000

Tromp curve of Ideal and Actual separator

% recovery to return (reject)

100
90

Ideal separator
No coarse in product and No fine in
return/reject

80
70
60

Actual separator
Have some coarse in product and Have
some fine in return/reject

50
40
30
20
10
0
1
Sieve size (um)

Actual separator
67

Ideal separator

Tromp curve
% recovery to return (reject)

100

Cut size : d50 = 60 um

The cut size of the separation
being made is the particle size
where the tromp value is 50%
Meaning : Size 60 um has an
equal chance to go either to
product or to rejects

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

10

d50

100

Sieve size (um)

68

1000

Tromp value meaning  Cut size (d50)

For separator feed size between 48-64 um = 100 %
Separator feed

Separator

50% to coarse fraction

Reject/Return

69

Size ~ 60 um: equal chance to go

either to product or to rejects

50% to fine fraction

Fine product

Tromp curve
% recovery to return (reject)

100

Sharpness = d25/d75
Sharpness = 0.38
Steeper tromp curve, the better
the separation

90
80
70
60

Ideal separator sharpness = 1

50
40
30
20
10
d75
0
1

10

d25

100

Sieve size (um)

70

1000

Tromp curve
% recovery to return (reject)

100

Bypass = 8.9%
Meaning : Bypass is an
indication of the amount of
material that essentially
bypasses the separator.
The lower the bypass, the more
efficiency the separation.

90
80
70
60
50
40
30

3rd generation bypass < 15%

20
10
Minimum value
0
1

10

100

Sieve size (um)

71

1000

Evaluation of separator performance test

Item

Units

Typical range

Result

Evaluate

2-3

1.81

little less

micron

depend on rotor speed

and fineness level

0.5

0.38

little less

5-15%

8.90%

OK

Separator load

kg/m3

1.8-2.5

1.7

OK

Product load

kg/m3

0.75

0.6

OK

Circulation factor
Cut size(d50)
Sharpness (d25/d75)
Bypass

60 micron seems high

Action :
1. Increase circulation factor (CF)  Separator load has available
2. Need to increase speed of rotor (due to higher CF  coarser separator feed)
3. Tromp curve move to finer side and d50 change to be less than 60 um.
4. Bypass slightly increase
5. Power consumption of mill went down.

72

Improvement Tromp curve

% recovery to return (reject)

100

1. Improve product: Reduce cut size

-Increase circulation factor to 2-3
-Increase rotor rotation speed
-%Bypass may slightly increase  OK
-Check separator load and dust load ?

90
80
70
60
50

Result:
-Better active particle size of product
-Strength improve

40
30
20
10
0
1

10

100

1000

Sieve size (um)

Actual separator
73

Ideal separator

Improvement Tromp curve

% recovery to return (reject)

100

2. Improve production rate: Reduce

%bypass
-Improve separator feed distribution
-Check separator load and dust load ?
-Separator ventilation flow
-Check mechanical seal or leak
-Check guide vane and rotor blade ?

90
80
70
60
50
40

Result:
-Increase production rate
-Reduce power consumption

30
20
2

10
0
1

10

100

1000

Sieve size (um)

Actual separator
74

Ideal separator

Test result : provide information to :

Adjustment of separator settings
 Circulation load
 Separating air flow, fan speed ,etc

Modification inside separator

 Mechanical adjustment ,etc
Mechanical seal
Dispersion plate
Guide vane and rotor

75

General separator improvement

Separator feed chute
o 100% feed on dispersion plate
(over the rotor)  good distribution

Feed point and dispersion plate

76

General separator improvement

Make sure symmetry feed on rotor 
good distribution

KHD Sepmaster and Fuller O-Sepa

77

General separator improvement

Adjust guide vane  good air flow
distribution to rotor

Guide vane

78

General separator improvement

Check rotor blade condition (wear and
deform) normal classification

Rotor blade condition

79

General separator improvement

Upper and Lower seal condition  good
classification
Grinding aids  good
classification/reduce bypass

80

Summary
Ball mill optimization

Mill charge

81

Air flow & Diaphragm

Separator

1. Mill sampling test

2. Charge distribution
3. Regular top-ups

1. Mill ventilation
2. Water injection
3. Diaphragms

1. Tromp curve
2. Separator air flow
3. Separator sealing

1. Every 6 months
2. Every 1 Year
3. 1,000 hours

1. Check and maintain

2. 1,000 hours check
3. 1,000 hours check

1. Every 3 months
2. Optimized and maintain
3. Every 3 months

Q&A

Performance test


Mill test and Separator test

Evaluation



Visual inspection
Size reduction graph and Tromp curve

Improvement


Charge composition, Operation, ect.

Results


82

Energy saving, Quality improvement