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 Siam Cement (Ta Luang) Siam Cement (Lampang) Kiln and Burning system Kiln system, Raw material grinding and Coal grinding 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 KHD Fuller KHD Loesche (LM46.2 +2C)

Cement bag dispatching

Contact e-mail: [email protected]

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

3.

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)

Average weight/piece of grinding media in each compartment (g/piece) Piece weight Impact force

Specific surface
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 Compartment 2 Fraction (mm), d 50 40 30 25 20 17 Total #1 Charge calculation Weight, W weight Piece weight, I no., n (t) 5.0 11.0 13.6 15.3 5.6 2.5 53.0 % 9% 21% 26% 29% 11% 5% 100% (g) 2,989 2,099 1,406 886 512 262 976 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

Piece weight: 976 g/piece Specific surface: 11.8 m2/t

Charge calculation Weight, W weight Piece weight, I no., n (t) 0.0 0.0 5.0 48.0 37.5 46.5 137.0 % 0% 0% 4% 35% 27% 34% 100% (g) 512 262 111 64 33 20 32 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

Piece weight: 32 g/piece Specific surface: 37.6 m2/t

12

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

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

R/P + Conventional

13

Maximum steel ball size (Bond equation)

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

14

Maximum steel ball size

Maximum ball size (mm.) : Clinker Wi 13.0 kWh/t, Cs 0.7, Sg 3
180

Max Ball Size (mm.)

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

10

15
Feed Size (mm.), F80

20

25

30

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

15

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. F80 Maximum ball size (mm.)

Find: required maximum ball size

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
M

**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
M

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

Clogging

Clean block slot

25

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)

60.0 Degree of filling (%)
De

50.0 40.0

h Ball level

30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

N ormal range 28-32%

h = H- (De/2)

Meter

0.000

0.100

0.200 h/De

0.300

0.400

0.500

28

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

Deep 20 cm.

0.5 1 1m 1m 0 m .5 0 1m 1m 1 .5 m 1 m

1m 1m 0.5

1.1 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

Material sampling point in mill

Take sampling

29

0.5 1 1m 1m 0 m .5 0 1m 1m 1 .5 m 1 m

1m 1m 0.5

1.1 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.3

1.4 1.4

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

Side view

Front view

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

0.5 m.

1 0

1 1

1 0

1 1

Get total 11 collected samples along the mill 1 kg per sample

Take 1 sample

Top view

30

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 Blaine Position m. cm2/g Compt 1 pt.1 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 pt.2 pt.3 Partition Compt 2 pt.1 pt.2 4.0 4.5 ** 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 pt.3 pt.4 7.0 8.0 9.0 pt.5 9.5 940 1080 1260 1300 1500 1600 1700 1880 2000 2120 1.00 2.00 0.50 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 9.00 7.00 4.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.00 32.00 33.00 24.00 18.00 12.00 9.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 1.50 2.00 56.00 59.00 50.00 42.00 39.00 32.00 27.00 21.00 19.50 18.50 19.00 32 mm 7.00 9.00 3.00 0.50 0.10 0.05 16 mm 18.00 21.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 8 mm 34.00 36.00 13.00 3.00 5.00 7.50 % residue on sieve (by weight) 4 mm 47.00 45.00 18.00 5.50 7.00 9.00 2 mm 57.00 52.00 20.50 8.00 8.00 10.50 1 mm 64.00 60.00 31.00 19.50 10.50 12.50 0.50 mm 71.00 69.00 48.00 29.50 22.00 28.00 0.20 mm 81.00 79.00 67.00 52.00 46.00 48.50 0.09 mm 90.50 89.00 83.00 71.00 65.00 68.00

33

0.5 1 2 3 4 4. 5
Typical grinding diagra m : OPC 3000 cm2 /g

0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9.5 5 0.5 m
2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800

0.5 m

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Comp. 1

Size Reduction Progress

32.000 mm 16.000 mm 8.000 mm

% Residue on sieve

Blaine (cm^2/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. 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 reduction graph Size

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 Particle size +0.5 mm. +0.6 mm. First comp. +1.0 mm. +2.0 mm. +0.2 mm. Second comp. +0.5 mm. Blaine (cm2/g)
36

FLSmidth 15-25% 10-20% 7-14% Max 4% 20-30% Max 5% -

Holderbank 12-25% Max 3% 20-30% Max 5% 2,100

Slegten Max 5% (at 2.5

mm.)

15-25% (at 0.1

mm.)

Evaluation of mill test

% Residue on sieve

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Comp. 1

Size Reduction Progress

2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800

32.000 mm 16.000 mm 8.000 mm

Blaine (cm^2/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
Comp. 2

Length (m.)

Compartm ent

Particle size +0.5 mm. +0.6 mm.

FLSmidth 15-25% 10-20% 7-14% Max 4% 20-30% Max 5% -

Holderban k 12-25% Max 3% 20-30% Max 5% 2,100

Slegten Max 5%
mm.) (at 2.5

Mill test 28% 12.5% 10.5% 2% 0% 2,120

Result OK? Little much coarse particle size from compartmen t1

First comp.

+1.0 mm. +2.0 mm. +0.2 mm.

15-25% (at 0.1

mm.)

Second comp. 37

+0.5 mm. Blaine (cm2/g)

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

Slot blockage

39

Common problems!
Compartment Result Over limit of particle size in front of diaphragm 1 st comp. Ball charge -Increase impact force in 1 st comp. -Revise ball charge and need larger ball size (piece weight)
Liner/Diaphragm

Operation -Feed too much (visual inspection)

Mill vent. -Too high velocity (check air flow)

First comp.

-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.

Second 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

-Feed too much (visual inspection)

-Too high velocity (check air flow)

40

Case mill test, CM6 STS (Aug,2008)

80.0 2,333 2,058 1,927 1,739 1,626 1,487 1,807 2000 2,314 2500

% residue

70.0

abnormal
60.0 50.0

Diaphragm

Diaphragm

1500

40.0

30.0

1000

20.0 500 10.0

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

5.6 mm.

2 mm.

0.5 mm.

0.212 mm.

0.09 mm.

0.075 mm.

0.045 mm.

blaine

41

Blaine (cm2/g)

Evaluate and correction

Reference standard

Compartme Particle nt size +0.5 mm. +0.6 mm. First comp. +1.0 mm. +2.0 mm. +0.2 mm. Second comp. +0.5 mm. Blaine (cm2/g)
42

FLSmidth 15-25% 10-20% 7-14% Max 4% 20-30% Max 5% -

Holderba Slegten nk 12-25% Max 3% 20-30% Max 5% 2,100 Max 5%

(at 2.5 mm.)

Mill test 31% 23% 52% 51% 2,314

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

15-25%
(at 0.1 mm.)

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?

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

46

Advantage of grinding system with separator

Maximized separator performance

47

Maximized power saving

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

Dust load (fine)

less than 0.75-0.8 kg fine / m3

Circulating air flow (m/h)

= Fine product / Circulating air

Fine product (t/h)

Return

51

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

Sampling

Cement Mill

53

Sampling point in process

Return (reject)

Fine product

Separator feed or mill output

54

Scoop

Sampling test
Point 1 2 3

Sampling point
Separator feed Separator return Separator fine m g f

Weight
0.5 kg 0.5 kg 0.5 kg

Required sieve analysis

PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g) PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g) PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)

55

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)

Rm Rf Rg

Size (um)
1 2 4 8 16 24 32 48 64 96 200 TOTAL:

Feed %residue
96.4 93.9 89.0 81.5 68.8 60.3 52.2 39.4 32.3 18.2 4.9 636.9

Fines %residue
95.1 91.7 85.3 74.6 55.1 41.2 28.9 13.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 492.3

Rejects %residue
98.1 96.5

100 90 80 70
% Residue

93.7 89.9 85.6 83.9 80.9 71.9 62.9 40.5 11.0 814.9

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1
Feed %residue

10 100 Sieve size (um)

Fines %residue

1000
Rejects %residue

58

Rm

Rf

Rg

Size (um)
1 2 4 8 16 24 32 48 64 96 200 TOTAL:

Feed %residue
96.4 93.9 89.0 81.5 68.8 60.3 52.2 39.4 32.3 18.2 4.9 636.9

Fines %residue
95.1 91.7 85.3 74.6 55.1 41.2 28.9 13.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 492.3

Rejects %residue
98.1 96.5 93.7 89.9 85.6 83.9 80.9 71.9 62.9 40.5 11.0 814.9

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

59

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

Size (um)
1 2 4 8 16 24 32 48 64 96 200 TOTAL:

Feed %residue
96.4 93.9 89.0 81.5 68.8 60.3 52.2 39.4 32.3 18.2 4.9 636.9

Fines %residue
95.1 91.7 85.3 74.6 55.1 41.2 28.9 13.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 492.3

Rejects %residue
98.1 96.5 93.7 89.9 85.6 83.9 80.9 71.9 62.9 40.5 11.0 814.9

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

63

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

68.5% to fine fraction Fine product

64

Tromp value
Rm

Plot Tromp curve

Rf Rg

Size (um)
1 2 4 8 16 24 32 48 64 96 200 TOTAL:

Feed Fines Rejects %residue %residue %residue

96.4 93.9 89.0 81.5 68.8 60.3 52.2 39.4 32.3 18.2 4.9 636.9 95.1 91.7 85.3 74.6 55.1 41.2 28.9 13.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 492.3 98.1 96.5 93.7 89.9 85.6 83.9 80.9 71.9 62.9 40.5 11.0 814.9

CF
1.76 1.85 1.79 1.82 1.82 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.82 1.80 1.81

Size avg (um)

0.5 1.5 3 6 12 20 28 40 56 80 148 TOTAL:

Tromp value
22.9 29.3 25.2 22.8 15.2 8.9 16.6 31.5 56.9 71.4 98.8

65

Plot Tromp curve

100 % recovery to return (reject) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1000

Particle size in range 32-48 um -31.5% go to be Return -68.5% go to be Fine product Particle size in range 8-16 um -15.2% go to be Return -84.8% go to be Fine product Particle size in range 2-4 um -25.2% go to be Return -74.8% go to be Fine product

Sieve size (um)

66

Tromp curve of Ideal and Actual separator

100 % recovery to return (reject) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Sieve size (um)

Ideal separator No coarse in product and No fine in return/reject Actual separator Have some coarse in product and Have some fine in return/reject

Actual separator
67

Ideal separator

Tromp curve
100 % recovery to return (reject) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 d50 100 1000

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

Sieve size (um)

68

Tromp value meaning

Cut size (d50)

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

Separator

Size ~ 60 um: equal chance to go either to product or to rejects

50% to coarse fraction Reject/Return

50% to fine fraction Fine product

69

Tromp curve
100 % recovery to return (reject) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 d75 0 1 10 d25 100 1000

Sharpness = d25/d75 Sharpness = 0.38 Steeper tromp curve, the better the separation Ideal separator sharpness = 1

Sieve size (um)

70

Tromp curve
100 % recovery to return (reject) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Minimum value 0 1 10 100 1000

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. 3rd generation bypass < 15%

Sieve size (um)

71

Evaluation of separator performance test

Item Circulation factor Cut size(d50) Sharpness (d25/d75) Bypass Separator load Product load Units micron % kg/m3 kg/m3 Typical range 2-3
depend on rotor speed and fineness level

Result 1.81

Evaluate little less

60 micron seems high 0.38 8.90% 1.7 0.6 little less OK OK OK

0.5 5-15% 1.8-2.5 0.75

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

100 % recovery to return (reject) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1000 1

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

Sieve size (um)

Actual separator
73

Ideal separator

Improvement Tromp curve

100 % recovery to return (reject) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1000 2

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 ? Result: -Increase production rate -Reduce power consumption

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 distribution to rotor good air flow

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 classification Grinding aids good classification/reduce bypass good

80

Summary
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 1. Check and maintain 2. 1,000 hours check 3. 1,000 hours check

Separator
1. Tromp curve 2. Separator air flow 3. Separator sealing 1. Every 3 months 2. Optimized and maintain 3. Every 3 months

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

81

Q&A
Performance test
Mill test and Separator test

Evaluation
Visual inspection Size reduction graph and Tromp curve

Improvement
Charge composition, Operation, ect.

Results
Energy saving, Quality improvement

82