Ball mill optimization

Dhaka, Bangladesh
21 March 2010
1
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) KHD
2 x Pre-grinding 100 t/h (OPC) Fuller
2 x Semi-finish grinding 270 t/h (OPC) KHD
1 x VRM 120 t/h Loesche (LM46.2 +2C)
Cement bag dispatching
Contact e-mail: peramasw@scg.co.th
2
Contents
1. Objective of Ball mill optimization
2. Mill performance test
3. Air flow and diaphragm
4. Separator performance test
3
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
4
Ball mill optimization
5
Ball mill optimization
Mill charge 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
When: Do optimization
1. In some period (1 month, 1 Quarter, 1 Year or ???)
2. 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
6
Conventional grinding system
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
Clinker Gypsum Limestone
Main Machine
1. Feeding system
2. Tube mill
3. Dynamic separator
4. Dedusting (BF/EP)
5. Transport equip.
7
Mill charge optimization
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
Clinker Gypsum Limestone
8
What is function of mill?
9
M
Size reduction along the mill
-Coarse grinding 1
st
compartment
Normal feed size 5% residue 25 mm.
Max feed size 0.5% residue 35 mm.
-Fine grinding 2
nd
compartment
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
10
Coarse material grinding Coarse material grinding Fine material grinding Fine material grinding
Need large ball size
Need small ball size
Calculation (for steel ball)
Piece weight : i = [3.143/6] x d
3
x 7.8 ;g/pcs.
Specific surface : o = 123 / i
(1/3)
; m
2
/ton
Note : d = size of ball (cm)
Ball charge composition
11
Ball charge composition
Check piece weight and specific surface
Compartment
1
Charge calculation
Fraction Weight, W weight Piece weight, I no., n
Specific surface,
o
Surface, O
(mm), d (t) % (g) pcs. (m2/t) (m2)
90 5.0 9% 2,989 1,673 8.5 43
80 11.0 21% 2,099 5,240 9.6 106
70 13.6 26% 1,406 9,671 11.0 149
60 15.3 29% 886 17,277 12.8 196
50 5.6 11% 512 10,927 15.4 86
40 2.5 5% 262 9,528 19.2 48
Total #1 53.0 100% 976 54,317 11.8 628
Compartment
2
Charge calculation
Fraction Weight, W weight Piece weight, I no., n
Specific surface,
o
Surface, O
(mm), d (t) % (g) pcs. (m2/t) (m2)
50 0.0 0% 512 0 15.4 0
40 0.0 0% 262 0 19.2 0
30 5.0 4% 111 45,170 25.6 128
25 48.0 35% 64 749,309 30.7 1,476
20 37.5 27% 33
1,143,35
4
38.4 1,441
17 46.5 34% 20
2,308,58
5
45.2 2,102
Total #1 137.0 100% 32
4,246,41
7
37.6 5,147
Piece weight: 976 g/piece
Specific surface: 11.8 m2/t
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 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 (F
80
)
1/2
x [(S
g
xW
i
)/(100xC
s
xD
e
1/2
)]
1/3
Where
B : Maximum ball size (mm.)
F
80
: Feed material size for 80% pass (m)
W
i
: Bond work index (kWh/t)
C
s
: N/Nc (normally ~ 0.7-0.75)
S
g
: Specific gravity of raw material (t/m3)
D
e
: Effective diameter of mill (m.)
F
80
= log [(0.20)
size residue(mm.)
]/log(%residue)
Example;
Given
Feed size = 5% res. 25 mm.
W
i
= 13.0 kWh/t
C
s
= 0.7
S
g
= 3.0 t/m
3
D
e
= 4.0 m.
F
80
= log(0.20)
25
/log(0.05)
F
80
= 13.4 mm.
Find : Maximum ball size
B = 36x(13.4)
1/2
x[(3x13)/(100x0.7x4
1/2
)]
1/3
Maximum ball size = 86 mm.
14
Maximum steel ball size
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2 5 10 15 20 25 30
M
a
x

B
a
l
l

S
i
z
e

(
m
m
.
)
Feed Size (mm.), F80
Maximum ball size (mm.) : Clinker Wi 13.0 kWh/t, Cs 0.7, Sg 3
** Typical fresh clinker : 5% residue 25 mm. or F
80
= 13.4 mm.
15
Example
Given
Feed size = 5% res. 20 mm.
W
i
= 12.0 kWh/t
C
s
= 0.7
S
g
= 3.0 t/m
3
D
e
= 2.5 m.
Find: required maximum ball size
F
80
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
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
Clinker Gypsum Limestone
19
Mill ventilation air
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
20
M
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.
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 ?
22
M
m/sec
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
Lighting
Shovel
Scoop
Meter
Meter
Plastic bag
Lock switch
PPE
Crash stop
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
Clogging
Liner
Ball charge
Diaphragm
Clean block slot
25
3. Crash stop and visual inspection
Material level in compartment #1 and #2
M
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
M
Inside diameter, Di
Free height, h
Effective length, L
27
Ball charge quantity (Filling degree)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

f
i
l
l
i
n
g

(
%
)
h/De
h
H
De
Meter
Normal range 28-32%
Ball level
h = H- (D
e
/2)
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
1m 0.5 0.5 0.5 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 0.5 1m
1.1
1m 1m
1.2 1.3 1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4 2.5
2.6
2.7
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Deep 20 cm.
Take sampling
Material sampling point in mill
29
1m 0.5 0.5 0.5 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 0.5 1m
1.1
1m 1m
1.2 1.3 1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4 2.5
2.6
2.7
1.1
1.2
1.3 1.4
Top view
1
1
1
0.5 m.
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5 m.
Take 1 sample
Get total 11 collected
samples along the mill
1 kg per sample
Side view
Front 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 % residue on sieve (by weight)
Blaine 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.50 0.20 0.09
Position m.
cm2/g
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Compt 1 pt.1 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 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
pt.5 9.5 0.00 0.00 2.00 19.00
33
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
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
B
l
a
i
n
e

(
c
m
^
2
/
g
)
%

R
e
s
i
d
u
e

o
n

s
i
e
v
e
Length (m.)
Size Reduction Progress
32.000 mm
16.000 mm
8.000 mm
4.000 mm
2.000 mm
1.000 mm
0.500 mm
0.200 mm
0.090 mm
Blaine cm2/g
Comp. 1 Comp. 2
0.5
4 4.
5
3
2 1
0.
5
4 5 3 2 1 6 9.5 9 8 7
0.5 m 0.5 m
Typical grinding diagram : OPC 3000 cm
2
/g
34
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 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 FLSmidth Holderbank Slegten
First comp.
+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.)
Second comp.
+0.2 mm. 20-30% 20-30%
15-25% (at 0.1
mm.)
+0.5 mm. Max 5% Max 5% -
Blaine
(cm2/g)
- 2,100 -
36
Evaluation of mill test
Compartm
ent
Particle
size
FLSmidth
Holderban
k
Slegten Mill test Result OK?
First comp.
+0.5 mm. 15-25% 12-25% - 28%
Little much
coarse
particle size
from
compartmen
t 1
+0.6 mm. 10-20% - - -
+1.0 mm. 7-14% - - 12.5%
+2.0 mm. Max 4% Max 3%
Max 5% (at 2.5
mm.)
10.5%
Second
comp.
+0.2 mm. 20-30% 20-30%
15-25% (at 0.1
mm.)
2%
Good!
+0.5 mm. Max 5% Max 5% - 0%
Blaine
(cm2/g)
- 2,100 - 2,120
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
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
B
l
a
i
n
e

(
c
m
^
2
/
g
)
%

R
e
s
i
d
u
e

o
n

s
i
e
v
e
Length (m.)
Size Reduction Progress
32.000 mm
16.000 mm
8. 000 mm
4. 000 mm
2. 000 mm
1. 000 mm
0. 500 mm
0. 200 mm
0. 090 mm
Blaine cm2/g
Comp. 1 Comp. 2
37
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
39
Bad condition step liner
Broken liner
Good condition liner
Slot blockage
Inspection
Common problems!
Compartment Result Ball charge
Liner/Diaphragm
Operation Mill vent.
First comp.
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)
-Feed too much
(visual
inspection)
-Too high velocity
(check air flow)
Second comp.
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
-Feed too much
(visual
inspection)
-Too high velocity
(check air flow)
40
Case mill test, CM6 STS (Aug,2008)
1,487
1,626
1,739
1,927
1,807
2,058
2,333
2,314
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
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
D
i
a
p
h
r
a
g
m
D
i
a
p
h
r
a
g
m
%

r
e
s
i
d
u
e
B
l
a
i
n
e

(
c
m
2
/
g
)
abnormal
41
Evaluate and correction
Compartme
nt
Particle
size
FLSmidth
Holderba
nk
Slegten
Mill
test
Result OK?
First comp.
+0.5 mm. 15-25% 12-25% - 31%
Abnormal size reduction
(in front of diaphragm),
should clear blockage
diaphragm slot
+0.6 mm. 10-20% - - -
+1.0 mm. 7-14% - - -
+2.0 mm. Max 4% Max 3%
Max 5%
(at 2.5 mm.)
23%
Second
comp.
+0.2 mm. 20-30% 20-30%
15-25%
(at 0.1 mm.)
52%
Abnormal size reduction
(in front of diaphragm),
should clear blockage
diaphragm slot
+0.5 mm. Max 5% Max 5% - 51%
Blaine
(cm2/g)
- 2,100 - 2,314
Reference standard
42
Case Mill test from : VDZ congress 2009
43
Cement plant in Europe
Chamber 1 : good size reduction efficiency
Chamber 2 : 45 micron shown results that grinding has
stopped midway through the 2
nd
chamber
Evaluate and correction
44
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.)
Separator performance test
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
Clinker Gypsum Limestone
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
47
Maximized separator performance 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
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
Clinker Gypsum Limestone
Separator circulating air
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
Usual ranges of circulating air
Depend on separator feed and production rate
Separator load 1.8-2.5 kg feed / m
3
= Separator feed / Circulating air
Dust load (fine) less than 0.75-0.8 kg fine / m
3
= Fine product / Circulating air
Circulating air
flow (m/h)
Separator feed
(t/h)
Return
Fine
product
(t/h)
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)
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
Clinker Gypsum Limestone
Sampling
1
2
3
53
Sampling point in process
Separator feed
or mill output
Return (reject) Fine product
Scoop
54
Sampling test
Point
Sampling point Weight Required sieve analysis
1 Separator feed m 0.5 kg PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)
2 Separator return g 0.5 kg PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)
3 Separator fine f 0.5 kg PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)
55
PSD analysis equipment
Particle size distribution analysis
56
ThungSong 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)
Feed
%residue
Fines
%residue
Rejects
%residue
1 96.4 95.1 98.1
2 93.9 91.7 96.5
4 89.0 85.3 93.7
8 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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100 1000
%

R
e
s
i
d
u
e
Sieve size (um)
Feed %residue Fines %residue Rejects %residue
58
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
Rm Rf Rg
Size (um)
Feed
%residue
Fines
%residue
Rejects
%residue
1 96.4 95.1 98.1
2 93.9 91.7 96.5
4 89.0 85.3 93.7
8 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
59
4. Evaluation of performance test
Separator efficiency
Data for evaluation
Particles size analysis of sample within grinding system
- Separator feed R
m
- Separator fine R
f
- Separator tailing or Reject R
g
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 = (R
f
- R
g
)/(R
m
- R
g
)
where
R
f
= % residue on sieve of fine
R
g
= % residue on sieve of coarse
R
m
= % 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) = [(R
g1
-R
g2
)/(R
m1
-R
m2
)]x[1-(1/CF)]x100
where
Tromp (range d1,d2) : Fraction of particles size between d1 and d2
R
g
= % residue on sieve of coarse (return/reject)
R
m
= % residue on sieve of separator feed
In this case
Tromp value (32-48 um) = 31.5%
62
Example
Find Circulation factor (CF) of
particle size 32 um and 48 um
CF = (R
f
- R
g
)/(R
m
- R
g
)
where
R
f
= % residue on sieve of fine
R
g
= % residue on sieve of coarse
R
m
= % residue on sieve of feed
Find Tromp value of size in range
32-48 um
Tr (d1,d2)=[(R
g1
-R
g2
)/(R
m1
-R
m2
)]x[1-
(1/CF)]x100
where
Tromp (range d1,d2) : Fraction of particles size
between d1 and d2
R
g
= % residue on sieve of coarse (return/reject)
R
m
= % residue on sieve of separator feed
Rm Rf Rg
Size (um)
Feed
%residue
Fines
%residue
Rejects
%residue
1 96.4 95.1 98.1
2 93.9 91.7 96.5
4 89.0 85.3 93.7
8 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
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 Plot Tromp curve
65
Rm Rf Rg
Size (um)
Feed
%residue
Fines
%residue
Rejects
%residue
CF
Size avg
(um)
Tromp
value
1 96.4 95.1 98.1 1.76 0.5 22.9
2 93.9 91.7 96.5 1.85 1.5 29.3
4 89.0 85.3 93.7 1.79 3 25.2
8 81.5 74.6 89.9 1.82 6 22.8
16 68.8 55.1 85.6 1.82 12 15.2
24 60.3 41.2 83.9 1.81 20 8.9
32 52.2 28.9 80.9 1.81 28 16.6
48 39.4 13.0 71.9 1.81 40 31.5
64 32.3 7.4 62.9 1.81 56 56.9
96 18.2 0.0 40.5 1.82 80 71.4
200 4.9 0.0 11.0 1.80 148 98.8
TOTAL: 636.9 492.3 814.9 1.81 TOTAL:

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100 1000
%

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

t
o

r
e
t
u
r
n

(
r
e
j
e
c
t
)
Sieve size (um)
Plot Tromp curve
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
66
Tromp curve of Ideal and Actual separator
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
%

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

t
o

r
e
t
u
r
n

(
r
e
j
e
c
t
)
Sieve size (um)
Ideal separator
Actual separator
67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100 1000
%

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

t
o

r
e
t
u
r
n

(
r
e
j
e
c
t
)
Sieve size (um)
Tromp curve
d50
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
68
Tromp value meaning Cut size (d50)
For separator feed size between 48-64 um = 100 %
Separator feed
Separator
50%to coarse fraction
Reject/Return
50% to fine fraction
Fine product
Size ~ 60 um: equal chance to go
either to product or to rejects
69
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100 1000
%

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

t
o

r
e
t
u
r
n

(
r
e
j
e
c
t
)
Sieve size (um)
Tromp curve
d75
Sharpness = d25/d75
Sharpness = 0.38
Steeper tromp curve, the better
the separation
Ideal separator sharpness = 1
d25
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100 1000
%

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

t
o

r
e
t
u
r
n

(
r
e
j
e
c
t
)
Sieve size (um)
Tromp curve
Minimum value
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.
3
rd
generation bypass < 15%
71
Evaluation of separator performance test
Item Units Typical range Result Evaluate
Circulation factor - 2-3 1.81 little less
Cut size(d50) micron
depend on rotor speed
and fineness level
60 micron seems high
Sharpness (d25/d75) - 0.5 0.38 little less
Bypass % 5-15% 8.90% OK
Separator load kg/m
3
1.8-2.5 1.7 OK
Product load kg/m
3
0.75 0.6 OK
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100 1000
%

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

t
o

r
e
t
u
r
n

(
r
e
j
e
c
t
)
Sieve size (um)
Improvement Tromp curve
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
Ideal separator
Actual separator
1
73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100 1000
%

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

t
o

r
e
t
u
r
n

(
r
e
j
e
c
t
)
Sieve size (um)
Improvement Tromp curve
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
Ideal separator
Actual separator
2
74
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
76
Feed point and dispersion plate
General separator improvement
Make sure symmetry feed on rotor
good distribution
77
KHD Sepmaster and Fuller O-Sepa
General separator improvement
Adjust guide vane good air flow
distribution to rotor
78
Guide vane
General separator improvement
Check rotor blade condition (wear and
deform)normal classification
79
Rotor blade condition
General separator improvement
Upper and Lower seal condition good
classification
Grinding aids good
classification/reduce bypass
80
Summary
81
Ball mill optimization
Mill charge 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
Energy saving, Quality improvement
82