Ball Charge Design and Management

Ball Charge Design & Management

Grinding is a transfer of energy…

 10 10 

Wb  Eb    
 D80 f D80i 
Specific energy vs size of the particles

35
Bond
30 30mm  3mm
2 kWh/t

Specific energy (kWh/t)

25

20 3mm  300µm
6 kWh/t
15

10 300µm  30µm
5 24 kWh/t

0
100000 10000 1000 100 10
Size of particle (µm )

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 2

 Mill exit
Ball Charge gas&+Management
Design dust

… from a mill to particles…

(mill motors = 85% of the power absorbed in the shop)
Mill rotation
Partition wall
Fresh feed +
Rejects Material

Balls

Venti- Balls
lation

Compartments

Liners C2
Liners C1 KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 3
 Ball Charge Design & Management

… throught the movement of balls…

P  M   b  Q 
Assumptions: lever b is proportional to D i
lever b is independent from mill speed
 b  x  Di
n
P  x  Di  Q    x  Di  Q 
30
simplified to
x
P  c  Di  Q  n[kW ] with c
30
Power Factors
0,270
1st. chamber
2nd. chamber
0,250
c = power factor [-]
Po w er F acto r [-]

0,230

Q = Mass of ball charge [t]

0,210

0,190
Di= usefull diameter [m]
0,170
n = speed of mill shell [rpm]
0,150
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Filling De gre e [%]

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 4

 Ball Charge Design & Management

… with a poor efficiency (95% lost in heat)

Specific energy vs size of the particles

35 50mm  ~ 0,5mm
Bond Crushing is more
30 efficient
Attrition (C2)

Specific energy (kWh/t)

25
~20kWh/t Under ~0,5mm  5µm
2/3 of mill 20
Grinding by attrition
Crushing (C1) 15

10 -12kWh/t 10
Rule
1/3 of mill 5 Max 5% residues at
mesh 2,5mm at the
0
end of C1
100000 10000 1000 100 10
Size of particle (µm )

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 5

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Matching Ball Sizes…

Grinding Ball vs Clinker Size

Optimum Ball Diameter (mm)

100

10
.1 1 10 100
Clinker Size d80 (mm)

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 6

 Ball Charge Design & Management

… without forgetting the effect of the liners

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 7

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Porosity

Fine balls - small voids

Coarse balls - large voids low retention
high retention
• Average ball weight
• total charge weight / total number of balls
• kg/ball

• Specific surface area

• total surface area / charge weight
• m2/ton

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 8

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Volume loading
Ball movement according filling degree / critical speed
Mill revolution - % of critical speed
20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Ball charge - % of mill volume

10%

20%

30%

40%

Area of best
grinding effect KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 9
 Ball Charge Design & Management

Ball volume loading

Volume Load vs Specific Power (on circ. mass)
25
Specific Grinding Energy
(kWh/t mill throughput)

20
VL = approx. 25%

15 • Minimum
Grinding
Energy
10
(kWh/t)

5
15 20 25 30 35

Volume Load (%)

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 10

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Following filling degree A

di h´
S
F  100 %
A

The required surface area [S]

can be calculated by:
S
l
d  h
S i  3  (di  h)2  4  l 2  m ²  A = Free surface
6l
S = Surface area of charge
The string value [l] can be calculated by:
 d i  d i  h  
l  8   d i  h      m 
 2 2 

The filling degree can be calculated by measuring the free height

[h’] and the clear inside diameter [di] only.

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 11

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Calculation of filling degree

Filling degree f as a function of free

h´/di height h´ above ball
charge

0,75

0,70

0,65

0,60
f [%]
20 25 30 35

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 12

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Chamber length / Ball charge

L L
Length to diameter ratio (for OPC):  3,0  3,5 (closed circuit)  3,5  5,0 (open circuit)
D D

27 - 35% 65 - 73%

2nd. Chamber
1st. Chamber 28 – 32% volume load

30 – 32% volume load 20 – 24 kWh/t specific power

8 – 12 kWh/t specific power 28 – 34 m²/t specific surface

10 – 12 m²/t specific surface 50 - 60g/ball cement mill

1,6 – 1,8 kg/ball cement mill 150 - 200g/ball raw mil

1,5 – 2,0 kg/ball raw mil 4,70 t/m³ bulk density

4,55 t/m³ bulk density KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 13

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Ball Charge Fundamentals

• In a ball mill, the balls grind the material

• Match the charge to the material particle size

• The ball charge has a major effect on material progression

in the tube

• Adjust the mill charge porosity or permeability, to the

amount of circulating load and throughput required

• Adjust the level of charge, or volume loading, to optimize

production and efficiency.

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 14

 How to design a ball charge and
manage it?
Calculation of a theoretical ball charge
(always involve your Technical centre)
Optimisation of a ball charge in an existing mill
(better to involve Technical centre)
Ball charge management and follow-up
 Ball Charge Design & Management

Theoretical ball charge

• Parameters
• Product: type, composition, fineness, throughput…
• the ball charge design must produce the maximum output of
different types of optimum quality cement. The charge should be
adjusted to the type most produced.
• Material characteristics: crushability, grindability, size,
moisture…
• Mill: L/D, power available, internals, speed, ventilation…
• Whenever possible, the design should try to minimise the risk of
metal to metal contact and thereby the wear rate of components

Always take into account possible variations of these parameters

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 16

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Design methodology
• Numerous attempts to make the process more scientific and
rigorous
• Slegten, Polysius Models
• Lafarge Corp. Mill Grinding Reference
• Effort continues with Best Practices

• Efforts are hampered by lack of

• Raw material testing data
• Crushability, feed size
• Consideration for mill & circuit design/condition
• Liner type & condition, mill sweep, separator type

• Lack of extensive trial & validation programme

… but methods can be a useful guide!

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 17

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Design methodology
Definition of the volume
loading

Calculation of the tonnage Chambers internal dimensions

in each chamber
Ball charge bulk density

Calculation of the largest BOND formula

ball size Granulometry of the feed
material (D80)

Apply model Slegten or Polysius

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 18

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Ball volume loading

1st compartment 2nd compartment
Minimum kWh/t 26 – 28% 28 – 30%

Maximum 32 – 34% 34 – 36%

Production

• The recommended volume loading for minimum kWh/t is based on an acceptable

compromise with production and by the amount of wear on the balls and liners
• The upper limits are the maximum absorbed power allowed by the drive, the
maximum level of the grinding charge with respect to the trunnions and to the central
partition vent opening

Experience indicates that the best volume loading for cement mills is
C1: 30 to 32%
C2: 28 to 32%

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 19

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Biggest ball
Bond Formula
D20 Wi .
Ømax = 20,17 . 3
K %Vc. Du
where,

Ømax = biggest ball diameter, mm

D20 = sieve dimension where 20% is retained, µm
K = constant (350 for dry mills, open or closed circuit , 300 for wet)
 = specific mass of material, g / cm3
Wi = Bond Work Index, kWh / t
Du = useful inside mill diameter, m
%Vc = % of critical speed

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 20

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Ball charge design - C1

• Emphasis on crushing and less on grinding
• Typical top size
• 80 mm Ø if easy to crush, small feed size
• 90 mm Ø is the most common
• 100 mm Ø in rare cases: very hard, coarse feed

• Coarser ball charges give good crushing capability but

• Too porous - shorter retention
• Less surface, less grinding
• Can result in poor preparation for second chamber if you
overfeed (usually forced to underfeed)
• Extra wear

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 21

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Ball charge design - C2

• Emphasis on attrition grinding

• Cement grinding wants maximum fines generation (Blaine)

• Top size depends on how much preparation is done in the first

chamber. Recommendation : 30 ... 50 mm
• Smallest size depends on the discharge grate slot size
• Practical rule of thumb: smallest Ø = 2 X slot width
• E.g. slot width = 8-10 mm: smallest Ø = 16-20 mm

• Non-classifying liners limits C2 to 3 sizes (or size ratio 2:1)

Classifying liners allow a large variety of Ø’s
• Best Practice “Ball Charge Level Management”

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 22

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Effective length curves

• Convert the % weight to equivalent % length
• Plot effective mill length vs. ball Ø
• Connect midpoints
Alpena FM19 (1989) - Effective Length Curve
4
Ball Diameter, inches

Partition
3

Effective Length Curve

2
Cumulative Length Plot

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Length, m (from Feed End)

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 23

 Ball Charge Design & Management
Portions of the design curve
that can be used by mills of
different lengths.
Why use a curve?

• Only so much grinding can be

done over a given length of mill

Ball Ø Size
Effective
• Must match particle size to ball Ø Length
Curve

• Therefore the longer the mill, the

smaller ball Ø it can use Mill Length

• Smaller particles get harder to

grind, thus we must use more of
the smaller sizes to maintain good
grinding. This results in a curve
instead of a straight line

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 24

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Polysius design
• Use exponential curve
• Start with 90mm top size
• Result depends on compartment length
• @ C1 = 33%  result: 90/ 80/ 70 - 32%/ 32%/ 36%

Comparison on Alpena FM19: 1989 Design vs Polysius

4.0
Ball Diameter. inches

3.5 1989 Design

Partition
Polysius

End of Mill
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Length, m (from Feed End)
KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 25
 Ball Charge Design & Management

Slegten Model

• Divides the mill into 3 parts

• Preparation in the 1st Compartment
• Same quantity of 80, 70, 60mm  balls  16% of 60mm 
• Addition of 90 mm 
• Transition zone in the 2nd Compartment
• Same quantity of 50 and 40 mm  balls
• Finishing zone in the 2nd Compartment
• 30, 25, 20 and 17 mm  balls (for example)
• Exponential function: (cm) = 3,3 .e(-0,1 . X)
(x = effective length in m)
• Effective length curve with origin at the partition wall

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 26

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Slegten Model
First Compartment
Ball (mm) % of Weight % of Weight Number of
(x) Balls

90 100 – 5x 20,0%

80 2 ,4x 38,4% N

70 1,6x 25,6% N

60 x 16,0% N
Usually (x) is taken at 16,0%

Second Compartment
Transition Zone Finishing Zone
Ball (mm) Number of  (cm) = 3,3 .e(-0,1 . X)
Balls
( x = effective length in m)
50 N  Effective length curve with origin at the
partition wall
40 N

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 27

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Slegten model example calculation

• Material characteristics
• Clinker
• D80 = 15 mm
• Wi = 13,49 kWh/t
  = 3,09 g/cm3

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 28

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Slegten model example calculation

• Closed circuit cement mill

• L/D = 3
• Du = 3,65 m
• Lu = 10,95 m
• Useful length C1 = 3,28 m (30%)
• Useful length C2 = 7,67 m (70%)

• Mill speed = 75% of critical speed (16,6 rpm)

• Ball charge bulk density C1 = 4.5 t/m3 C2 = 4.7 t/m3
• Steel density = 7.8 t/m3

• Volume loading C1 = 30%

• Volume loading C2 = 28%

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 29

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Excercise

• Calculate biggest ball

• Remember

D20 Wi .
Ømax = 20,17 . 3
K %Vc. Du

• Propose a ball charge (Slegten)

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 30

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Ball charge optimization (existing mill)

• Calculate theoretical ball charge as a reference

• Perform a mill audit to assess critical points
• Axial test: grinding efficiency of the charge, presence of nibs…
• Partition condition: slot width, broken plates…
• Condition of ball charge and liners
• Coating, temperature, water injection…
• Adjust ball charge according to conclusions

When several products are made with the same mill,

check conditions for all of them

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 31

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Ball charge management

• Having a well-designed ball charge is one thing…

… but you need to keep it this way in time
• Wear
• Balls can break, lose their shape
• Pollution by foreign bodies
• Partition liners can break  balls get mixed
• Object of ball charge management
• Top-ups
• Ball charge sorting
• Wear calculation

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 32

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Top-ups

• Follow-up at least every month

• Check mill power consumption (same product every time)
• Free height measurement on purged mill
• Top-up decision
• Ratio should be known
• 10 kW ~ 1 t of balls
• Or 1% filling level ~ x t of balls
• Rules to be established for each plant: when to add balls
• Usually add only bigger balls
• Methods
• Mill stopped: through doors
• Mill in operation: through inlet trunnion (possible with feed, but not
recommended)
• Always record date, ball size and quality, weight…

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 33

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Ball charge sorting

• Objective
• Eliminate scrap, broken and undersize balls
• scrap = foreign metallic elements polluting the ball charge (bolts,
pieces of liners, …)
• Go back to optimal ball charge
• Minimal frequency
• C1
• Every year or 7500 to 8000 hours
• C2 (and C3)
• Every 2 years or 15000 to 16000 hours
• More often when necessary (very high wear, wet mills…)

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 34

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Sorting method

• Purge mill, take everything out of the compartment

• Sort, weigh and record
• By size classes for still usable balls (ex: 75 – 85 mm = 80 mm
class)
• Undersized balls (not suitable for the compartment)
• Broken, out-of-shape balls (not reusable)
• Scrap
• Sorting machine recommended
• When a plant has several mills, it can be easier to have
an extra charge ready to put in the mill  gives more
time for sorting

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 35

 Ball Charge Design & Management

Wear calculation

• Can be done only if proper records of charges, top-ups

and sorting are kept
• Major indicator = wear rate in g of metal / ton of product
• By compartment or globally
• Count only worn metal from balls (not scrap)
• Other indicators can be calculated if specific needs
• Example

KUJ – July 2012 – Grinding I - 36