Crushing analysis of the industrial cage mill and the laboratory jaw crusher

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

School of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

Abstract

Many research studies have been conducted on the liberation of locked minerals using a crusher and comparing this device with the other devices. This paper reviews the liberation of middle coal by different methods of crushing force. In the Tabas coal washing plant, particles of 0.5-50 mm size are processed through the heavy media method (using 3 Tri-flo separators) and particles of 0-0.5 mm size are processed using the flotation method (using 6 column flotation cells). A Tri-flo separator with a diameter of 700 mm and the capacity of 120 tons per hour is used for the cleaning of 6-50 mm raw coal particles. The study was conducted using a laboratory jaw crusher and a cage mill with a specific comminution ratio, both crushing forces were analyzed with the same distribution and mechanism of production of fines. In this study, grading and washability characteristics of a representative sample of middle product were reviewed and the dimensions of the ash were measured for each section. Intermediate product crushing using a laboratory jaw crusher and an industrial cage mill were conducted at up to 5 mm size and 50 percent of final speed. The amount of coal released after each section grading was determined by a sinking and floating test for size +0.5 mm and release analysis and ash testing for smaller dimensions of -0.5, these tests were conducted for each section product dimension. The results indicated that utilizing a cage mill is more effective than a laboratory jaw crusher, resulting in 11-percent more yield with 12 ash. The rate of fines produced through the laboratory jaw crusher is less than the industrial cage mill.

Highlights

  • Industrial cage mill creates better mineral liberation of middling than the jaw crusher.
  • Grinding the middle product with a cage mill results in a better yield than jaw crusher.
  • The rate of fines produced through the jaw crusher is less than the cage mill.

Keywords

References

[1] A. Noble, G.H. Luttrell, A review of state-of-theart processing operations in coal preparation, Int. J. Mining Sci. Tech. 25 (2015) 511-521.
[2] D.L. Khooury, Coal cleaning technology N.D.C., Park. Ridge, N.J., 1981, pp. 34-46.
[3] F. Rodriguez, M. Ramirez, R. Ruiz, F. Concha, Scale-up procedure for industrial cage mills, Int. J. Miner. Process. 97 (2010) 39-43.
[4] J. Hao, H. Zhang, K. Yang, C. Lu, J. Chen, Y. Li, Effect of different milling processes on the mineral distribution in a coal powder, Int. J. Mining Sci. Tech. 22 (2012) 237-242.
[5] E.T. Oliver, J. Abbott, N.J. Miles, Liberation characteristics of a coal middlings, Coal Prep. 16 (1995) 167-178.
[6] T. Oki, H. Yotsumoto, S. Owada, Calculation of degree of mineral matter liberation in coal from sinkfloat separation data, Miner. Eng. 17 (2004) 39-51.
[7] W. Xie, Y. He, X. Zhu, L. Ge, Y. Huang, H. Wang, Liberation characteristics of coal middlings comminuted by jaw crusher and ball mill, Int. J. Mining Sci. Tech. 23 (2013) 669-674.
[8] W. Zou, Y. Cao, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, Coal petrology characteristics of middlings from Qianjiaying fat coal mine, Int. J. Mining Sci. Tech. 23(5) (2013) 777-782.
[9] G. Unland, Y. Al-Khasawneh, The influence of particle shape on parameters of impact crushing, Miner. Eng. 22 (2009) 220-228.
[10] M. Ito, S. Owada, T. Nishimura, T. Ota, Experimental study of coal liberation: electrical disintegration versus roll-crusher comminution, Int. J. Miner. Process. 92 (2009) 7-14.
[11] J.W. Leonard, Coal Preparation, 5th ed., Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc., 1990.
[12] B.A. Wills, Mineral processing technology, 7th ed., Butterworth Heinemann Publisher, 2006.
[13] R. Dehghan, M. Aghaei, Evaluation of the performance of tri-Flo separators in Tabas (Parvadeh) coal washing plant, Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Tech. 7 (2014) 510-514.
Journal of Particle Science and Technology
Volume 3, Issue 3
September 2017
Pages 155-161

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 April 2017
  • Revise Date: 31 December 2017
  • Accept Date: 31 December 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics