You are on page 1of 15

Cavity Levels Effect on Cone Crusher Performance and Production

Dusty Jacobson, Metso

Motive for Study

Poor feed control and/or operating practices often lead to a cone crusher being operated with a low cavity level This study was conducted to show the difference in production and crushing efficiency as the cavity level varies in a cone crusher
Cavity Level


Material Flow as Cavity Empties

Theory Behind Study

Higher cavity increases capacity
A head of material pushes material down, improving flow Higher particle density in chamber

Higher cavity improves reduction

Gives higher particle density increased interparticle crushing Crushing action starts at top of chamber Low cavity can result in single layer crushing

Higher cavity increases power

Increased capacity, increased particle density, higher reduction

*These are general statements that do not account for abnormalities in the feed size/cavity profile/ore properties/etc.

Theoretical Cavity Level Effects

Cavity Level Low Near-Full Super Choked Particle Density Flow Thru Chamber Capacity Power Draw Reduction Crushing Efficiency

+ ++ +++

+ ++ +++

+ ++ +++

+ ++ +++

+ +++ +++

+ ++ ++

Capacity is proportional to the Cavity Density and Flow Through the Chamber Power Draw is proportional to the Cavity Density and Capacity Reduction is proportional to the Cavity Density and Power Draw Crushing Efficiency is proportional to the Capacity and Reduction, and is inversely proportional to the Power Draw

Test Background
In May 2010, testing was conducted at the Mineral Research & Test Center in Milwaukee, WI, USA An HP200 was used with multiple settings Two different materials were tested
Hard-Trap Rock 25% CR 18 W.I. Soft- Limestone 41% CR 12 W.I.

Three cavity levels were investigated 42 tests were run with 76 samples taken

Test Procedure
Tests were run in tertiary (shorthead) position Four CSSs were investigated Cavity level was visually confirmed and recorded Power draw was steady (~+/-3%) for 30 seconds before sampling Power, capacity, and particle size distribution (PSD) were evaluated for every test

Cavity Level Indication

HC, F, and SC cavity levels are shown to the right. HC had material level at 5/8 of the way up from the bottom of the cavity F was material level to the top of the feed plate SC was 12 (300mm) above the feed plate This was measured and visually consistent during testing
Half Cavity Full Cavity Super Choked

Full Cavity

Half Cavity

Results - Summary
Super-Choked gave slightly better performance than Full-Cavity, but there was a large drop-off with the Half-Cavity tests As the cavity level increased from HC, the capacity (+23-25%) and power (+43-50%) increased while the discharge became finer The average specific energy to produce a 0-13mm product was 35% less with F or SC, respectively, when compared to HC The average specific energy to produce a 0-6.7mm product was 10-13% less with F or SC, respectively, when compared to HC
Table 1: Relative production and specific energy based on half cavity results Condition Super Choked Full Cavity Half Cavity MTPH 1.25 1.23 1.00 kW 1.50 1.43 1.00 kWh/T Throughput 1.21 1.16 1.00 MTPH 13mm x 0 1.59 1.49 1.00 kWh/T 13mm x 0 0.95 0.97 1.00 MTPH 6.7mm x 0 1.75 1.62 1.00 kWh/T 6.7mm x 0 0.87 0.90 1.00

Results Summary (cont)

Real benefits were seen to operate with a full cavity at a wider CSS (1/8 or 3mm) instead of tighter with a half cavity (see below) The effect of cavity level was greater when looking at finer size fractions
NOTE: These results are machine dependant. The effects with larger machines may be more pronounced. But, the general trends seen are universal to high speed cone crushing.
Table 2: Operating data - Similar discharge PSD of super choked at wider CSS than half cavity CSS (mm) 22 22 19 19 16 MTPH 1.36 1.33 1.0 1.42 1.0 kW 1.10 1.02 1.0 1.16 1.0 kWh/T 0.81 0.76 1.0 0.82 1.0 P80 1.02 1.10 1.0 1.05 1.0 P50 1.04 1.10 1.0 0.99 1.0
100.0 90.0 80.0
% Passing

Normalized PSD Based on Cavity Level

Super Choked Full Cavity Half Cavity Super Choked Half Cavity

60.0 50.0 40.0

30.0 20.0
Super Choked Average Full Cavity Average

10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 Size (relative to CSS)

Half Cavity Average


Average Results Relative to Super-Choked Condition

Cavity Level Super Choked Full Cavity Half Cavity Capacity 1.00 0.93 0.78 Power Draw 1.00 0.92 0.65 P80 1.00 1.05 1.17 P50 1.00 1.09 1.30 %Passing CSS 77% 75% 68% %Passing of CSS 41% 38% 32%

This table and following graphs show results from the base tests as well as a small number of tests ran with a relatively finer feed (1.5 x ).

HFS Comparison
Half Cavity
Choke Feed

Super Choked

Practical Lessons
The crusher is more efficient with a full or super-choked chamber
Therefore, keeping a full chamber consistently is more energy efficient Smaller or fewer crushers can be used by operating near max capacity Bins/feeders/control packages will prove to be beneficial Liner life and sustainable profile improve with a consistently full cavity A higher cavity level will generally give a more consistent power draw

Final Note
Each crusher/liners/feed material/application is different and the effect of the cavity level will vary. The trends of this study are valid, but the magnitude of production differences can only be seen with testing trials with the actual machine and feed.

Dusty Jacobson, Metso Peter Janssen, Metso Victor Urbinatti, Metso