You are on page 1of 8

3/15/2017

3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director

Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session

#T21

Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation

Craig Burke, Director of Engineering, Polydeck Screen Corporation

Mike Garrison, Product Support, Polydeck Screen Corporation

Dave Turin, Gold Miner on Discovery’s Gold Rush

To earn Professional Development Hours (PDH):

1. Log into the CONEXPO – CON/AGG App 2. Go to this session in “Schedule” 3.
1.
Log into the CONEXPO – CON/AGG App
2.
Go to this session in “Schedule”
3.
Check In using the Slider in Session Detail
www.conexpoconagg.com 1
3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director
Screen Types www.conexpoconagg.com 44 4
Screen Types
www.conexpoconagg.com
44
4
3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director

Expect to learn the following:

3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director

Horizontal vs. Inclined

3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director
3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director

Basic Terms Different types of screens Principles of setting up a screen Factors that affect screening efficiency Screen motion Screen Performance Evaluations How Performance Evaluations can impact the bottom line

www.conexpoconagg.com 2
www.conexpoconagg.com 2
 

Pros of Horizontal Screens

Pros of Inclined Screens

 

Low Profile for mobile equipment

Higher travel speed (feed)

Triple shaft

Higher feed capacity

Fines stratify faster

Oval motion stroke High G screening

Less “surging”/spillover

Adjustable stroke length, timing angle, RPM

“Tumbling” action

Double Shaft

More clearance/access

Gravity assistance

Linear stroke

Cons

Cons

Slower travel speed

Higher installation requirements

 Less access room (repairs)  Higher horsepower www.conexpoconagg.com 5
Less access room (repairs)
Higher horsepower
www.conexpoconagg.com 5
Combo or Multi-Slope Screen

Combo or Multi-Slope Screen

 

Increased material travel speed - similar to inclined

 

screens

 

Reduces bed depth in feed area

Enables fines to “stratify” quicker through the media

Introduces fines to bottom deck faster for increased utilization

3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director
  • www.conexpoconagg.com 6

Travel rate slows down at discharge end to make better cut

3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director
3/15/2017 Maximizing Screen Efficiency Session #T21 Ron Kuehl, Vice President, Polydeck Screen Corporation Craig Burke, Director

Basic Terms

 

Stratification

When the particles in the product stream separate with large particles floating to the top and small particles falling to the

bottom.

Screen Stroke

The shape and amplitude of the motion of a screen. Usually screen stokes are circular, oval or strait line strokes.

Open Area

The area available on a screen for a aggregate particle to fall through a hole in a screen. Usually expressed as a %.

Screen Efficiency

The percentage of material that falls through a screen compared in relation to the total amount of material in the product stream of that size.

G-Force of a Screen

The force at which a screen moves to the top and returns to bottom of its respective stroke

• Travel Rate The speed material travels down the screen • Bed Depth The depth of
• Travel Rate
The speed material travels down the screen
• Bed Depth
The depth of the material on any given screen deck. The limit of which is usually four times the screen aperture of the deck
www.conexpoconagg.com 3

3/15/2017

3/15/2017 High Frequency Screens • High frequency screens’ normal operating range is 38 – 45 degrees.

High Frequency Screens

High frequency screens’ normal operating range is 38 – 45 degrees.

Excellent material processing in separations from ½” to 30m. Can make a “finer” cut than most conventional screens.

• Many high frequency decks are not crowned • Material spread is critical for high frequency
• Many high frequency decks are not crowned
• Material spread is critical for high frequency screen
www.conexpoconagg.com
7
7
Proper Feed Arrangement Proper feed introduction is critical to screen efficiency The material must be screened
Proper Feed Arrangement
Proper feed introduction is critical to screen efficiency
The material must be screened out as soon as
possible on the top deck to get full utilization of
the decks below
www.conexpoconagg.com 10
3/15/2017 High Frequency Screens • High frequency screens’ normal operating range is 38 – 45 degrees.
Screen Set-up www.conexpoconagg.com 88 8
Screen Set-up
www.conexpoconagg.com
88
8
Good Feed Distribution www.conexpoconagg.com 11 11
Good Feed Distribution
www.conexpoconagg.com
11
11
Screen Set-up Screen application determines how a screen is set up • Coarse Separation  Lower
Screen Set-up
Screen application determines how a screen is set up
Coarse Separation
Lower speed and large stroke is necessary to properly stratify the material so it can be effectively
screened

Scalp screens will typically run at 600 RPM with 1” of stroke to effectively shake the coarse particles

to the top of the strata

Fine Separation

High speed and small stroke is necessary to properly stratify small particles while keeping the material in contact with the screen for maximum screening efficiency

 Tertiary screens will often operate at 1200 RPM with 0.25 inch stroke www.conexpoconagg.com 9 9
Tertiary screens will often operate at 1200 RPM with 0.25 inch stroke
www.conexpoconagg.com 9
9
3/15/2017 High Frequency Screens • High frequency screens’ normal operating range is 38 – 45 degrees.

Screening Efficiency

Craig Burke, Director of Engineering, Polydeck Screen Corporation

www.conexpoconagg.com 12
www.conexpoconagg.com 12

3/15/2017

3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of

What is Screening Efficiency?

The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of perfection of separation of the material into

size fractions above or below the aperture size. (Will’s Mineral Processing Technology, Seventh Edition, p. 186)

A measure of how much of the feed material should have gone through the hole versus how much really did go through the hole.

Undersize Oversize www.conexpoconagg.com 13
Undersize
Oversize
www.conexpoconagg.com 13
3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of

Calculating Screen Efficiency?

VSMA Handbook:

Efficiency =

TPH of Undersize in feed which actually passes TPH of Undersize in feed (should pass)

Also referred to as “Efficiency of Undersize Recovery”

(Allis Mineral Systems, Vibrating Screen Theory and Selection)

www.conexpoconagg.com 14
www.conexpoconagg.com 14
3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of

Calculating Screen Efficiency Example

Calculate the efficiency of the 1” cut on the top deck.

How Many TPH didn’t go through? 41.1% of the deck overs passes 1”, so: TPH (-1”)
How Many TPH didn’t go through?
41.1% of the deck overs passes 1”, so:
TPH (-1”) Overs = 0.411 x 53 TPH
TPH (-1”) Overs = 22 TPH
How Many TPH should go through?
93.8% passes 1”, so:
TPH (-1”) = 0.938 x 500 TPH
TPH (-1”) = 469 TPH
Efficiency =
TPH of Undersize in feed which actually passes
TPH of Undersize in feed (should pass)
=
(469 - 22 TPH)
469 TPH
= 95.3%
www.conexpoconagg.com 15
3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of

Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency?

3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of
3/8” / 1/2” = 0.75 7/16” / 1/2” = 0.875 3/8” Particle 7/16” Particle
3/8” / 1/2” = 0.75
7/16” / 1/2” = 0.875
3/8” Particle
7/16” Particle

Particle Size

The closer the particle size to the aperture, the

 

harder to pass it.

“Half Size” and smaller go fairly easily.

¼” particle, ½” aperture, e.g.

“Near Size” takes a lot more time.

Crusher recirc increases near size.

 
 harder to pass it.  “Half Size” and smaller go fairly easily. – ¼” particle,
 

Understand your particle shape.

 
 harder to pass it.  “Half Size” and smaller go fairly easily. – ¼” particle,

Increasing feed rate is not always bad.

www.conexpoconagg.com 16
www.conexpoconagg.com 16
3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of

Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency?

3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of

Particle Shape

Elongated, flat or otherwise irregular shapes don’t place easily.

Not only do these particles not pass easily themselves, they hinder other particles.

Are there opportunities to amend particle shape in your crusher? Reduction Ratio Compression vs. Impact

3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of
  • www.conexpoconagg.com 17

3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of
3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of

Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency?

www.conexpoconagg.com 18
www.conexpoconagg.com 18

Feed Rate

Feed rate affects bed depth. Before a particle can be screened, it has to get to the deck.

Thin bed depth can be as bad as thick. A bounding particle is not seeing much of the deck either.

3/15/2017 What is Screening Efficiency? • The efficiency of screening is determined by the degree of

3/15/2017

3/15/2017 Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency? • Feed Rate, Cont.  Bed Depth Ratio – Less

Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency?

Feed Rate, Cont.

  • Bed Depth Ratio Less than 4:1 ratio of bed depth to aperture size at the discharge of the deck is recommended for efficient screening. o e.g. – For a ½” aperture, a bed depth at discharge of no more than 2” is recommended. o Check wear pattern on clamp bars or side plate wear protectors. o Establish reference points on each deck.

www.conexpoconagg.com 19
www.conexpoconagg.com 19
3/15/2017 Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency? • Feed Rate, Cont.  Bed Depth Ratio – Less

Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency?

• Moisture  Inherent versus introduced moisture.  Clays and silts.  Damp or wet material
• Moisture
Inherent versus introduced moisture.
Clays and silts.
Damp or wet material tends to:
– Clump or stick together
o Hitchhikers
Artificial oversize
– Accrete to the screen media – Blinding
o Reduced aperture size
o Closed apertures
o
www.conexpoconagg.com 22
Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency? • Screen Angle  Changes the shape of the aperture relative
Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency?
• Screen Angle
Changes the shape of the aperture relative to what the particle sees.
– The “Apparent Aperture”.
– Remember our basketball shot? What goes through easier, a “rainbow”
shot or a flat “brick”?
Higher angles produces higher particle speeds.
– Fewer opportunities to find a hole.
Horizontal screen throw angle.
– Also changes the particles presentation.
– Pair the best throw angle with application.
www.conexpoconagg.com 20
3/15/2017 Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency? • Feed Rate, Cont.  Bed Depth Ratio – Less

Screen Motion/Orbits

Mike Garrison, Product Specialist, Polydeck Screen Corporation www.conexpoconagg.com 2323 23
Mike Garrison, Product Specialist, Polydeck Screen Corporation
www.conexpoconagg.com
2323
23
3/15/2017 Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency? • Feed Rate, Cont.  Bed Depth Ratio – Less

Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency?

Open Area

 What percentage of the deck will allow material to be screened?  Inspect decks for
What percentage of the deck will allow material to be screened?
Inspect decks for aperture blockage.
– Plugging and blinding.
Homemade impact plates.
– Crown bars.
www.conexpoconagg.com 21
3/15/2017 Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency? • Feed Rate, Cont.  Bed Depth Ratio – Less

Screen Motion/Orbits

Circular displayed below

  • Inclined screens have circular orbits

3/15/2017 Factors That Effect Screen Efficiency? • Feed Rate, Cont.  Bed Depth Ratio – Less
Electronically recorded orbit www.conexpoconagg.com 24
Electronically recorded
orbit
www.conexpoconagg.com 24

3/15/2017

3/15/2017 Screen Motion/Orbits • Elliptical – displayed below  Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits Electronically recorded

Screen Motion/Orbits

Elliptical displayed below

  • Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits

3/15/2017 Screen Motion/Orbits • Elliptical – displayed below  Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits Electronically recorded
Electronically recorded orbit www.conexpoconagg.com 25
Electronically
recorded orbit
www.conexpoconagg.com 25
3/15/2017 Screen Motion/Orbits • Elliptical – displayed below  Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits Electronically recorded

Screen Performance

Evaluations www.conexpoconagg.com 2828 28
Evaluations
www.conexpoconagg.com
2828
28
3/15/2017 Screen Motion/Orbits • Elliptical – displayed below  Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits Electronically recorded

Screen Motion/Orbits

Linear displayed below

  • Horizontal screens with two shaft designs

Electronically recorded orbit www.conexpoconagg.com 26
Electronically
recorded orbit
www.conexpoconagg.com 26
3/15/2017 Screen Motion/Orbits • Elliptical – displayed below  Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits Electronically recorded

Screen Performance Evaluations

3/15/2017 Screen Motion/Orbits • Elliptical – displayed below  Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits Electronically recorded

The orbits of the screen are recorded at each spring base (velocity) and at each vibrator (Displacement / stroke) The speed of the screen and motor is recorded The ‘Z’ axis deflections of the screen is recorded The total movement of the supporting structure is recorded

www.conexpoconagg.com 29
www.conexpoconagg.com 29
3/15/2017 Screen Motion/Orbits • Elliptical – displayed below  Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits Electronically recorded

Screen Motion/Orbits

Elliptical Orbits

 When the vibrators are moved away from the screen’s ‘CG” (Center of Gravity) elliptical orbits
When the vibrators are moved away from the screen’s ‘CG” (Center of Gravity)
elliptical orbits may be created
FAST travel rate
Multi-slope screens commonly use this design
Medium travel rate
SLOW travel rate
www.conexpoconagg.com 27
3/15/2017 Screen Motion/Orbits • Elliptical – displayed below  Horizontal screens have elliptical orbits Electronically recorded

Screen Performance Evaluations

Example 1 799 RPM .4 inch displacement 3.6 G’s Example 2 830 RPM .37 inch displacement
Example 1
799
RPM
.4 inch displacement
3.6
G’s
Example 2
830
RPM
.37 inch displacement
3.6
G’s
Example 3
700
RPM
.52 inch displacement
3.6
G’s
Example 4
1010 RPM
.25 inch displacement
3.6
G’s
www.conexpoconagg.com 30
Rev I March 2014

3/15/2017

3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations • Screen Performance Evaluations are used to:  Increase efficiency  Prevent

Screen Performance Evaluations

Screen Performance Evaluations are used to:

  • Increase efficiency

  • Prevent / correct screen body problems (broken cross members, side plates, etc.)

A Polydeck Screen Performance Evaluation reports:

  • Screen Acceleration / ‘G’ force

  • Screen Displacement / Stroke

  • Screen natural / critical frequencies

  • Supporting structure integrity

  • The recorded movement and deflections of the screen

www.conexpoconagg.com 31
www.conexpoconagg.com 31
Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #2 = Acceleration / ‘G’ force too low • Displacement /
Screen Performance Evaluations
Case Study #2 = Acceleration / ‘G’ force too low
• Displacement / Stroke too low
This screen suffered poor production at 650 tons/hour serving
as the ‘scalping screen’
The recorded displacement (stroke) of this screen was .37 inch.
Additional counterweights were installed – displacement was
increased to .51 inch
Screen Balance Wheel
The result allows this screen to produce 1200 tons/hour!
Screen now operates at full capacity
www.conexpoconagg.com 34
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations • Screen Performance Evaluations are used to:  Increase efficiency  Prevent

Screen Performance Evaluations

Case Study #1 = Excessive Acceleration / ‘G’ force

10x24 screen

This screen had .65mm slotted panels (slots with flow) and recorded 4.8 G’s Acceleration

The screen was adjusted to 3.1 G’s Acceleration with a resulting 28% increase in ore through the media!

This screen then had .5mm panels installed to allow a finer finished product

The resulting improvements allows this screen to be operated reduced hours to achieve production demands

The reduction in G force combined with increased efficiencies is a winning combination for this producer

3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations • Screen Performance Evaluations are used to:  Increase efficiency  Prevent
Rev I March 2014 www.conexpoconagg.com 32
Rev I March 2014
www.conexpoconagg.com 32
Screen Performance Evaluations 3.4 G’s .37 inch displacement 650 tons/hour www.conexpoconagg.com 35
Screen Performance Evaluations
3.4 G’s
.37 inch displacement
650 tons/hour
www.conexpoconagg.com 35
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations • Screen Performance Evaluations are used to:  Increase efficiency  Prevent

Screen Performance Evaluations

Example: reduction in acceleration increase screening efficiency

RPM G force Velocity Displacement Travel Rate RPM G force Velocity Displacement Travel Rate 839 4.3
RPM G force Velocity
Displacement Travel Rate
RPM G force Velocity
Displacement Travel Rate
839
4.3
18.75 inch/sec
.43 inch
2.85 ft/sec
839
3.8
16.48 inch/sec
.38 inch
1.59 ft/sec
www.conexpoconagg.com 33
Screen Performance Evaluations 4.7 G’s .51 inch displacement 1200 tons/hour www.conexpoconagg.com 36
Screen Performance Evaluations
4.7 G’s
.51 inch displacement
1200 tons/hour
www.conexpoconagg.com 36

3/15/2017

3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’

Screen Performance Evaluations

Case Study #3 =Excessive Supporting Structure Movement

8’ x 20’ horizontal screen - gravel

This customer replaced 3 screens in a 10-year period on this tower due to failures!

Supporting structures should not exceed movement of more than .6 Inch/sec (15.25mm/sec) in the ‘Y’, ‘X’ and ‘Zaxis

Structure movement far in excess of allowable standards were the root cause of the screen body failures!

3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’
www.conexpoconagg.com 37
www.conexpoconagg.com 37
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’

Screen Performance Evaluations

3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’
8x20 triple deck horizontal operating at severe critical frequency The same screen after corrections www.conexpoconagg.com 40
8x20 triple deck horizontal operating at severe
critical frequency
The same screen after corrections
www.conexpoconagg.com 40
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’

Screen Performance Evaluations

3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’
www.conexpoconagg.com 38
www.conexpoconagg.com 38
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’

Screen Performance Evaluations

www.conexpoconagg.com 41
www.conexpoconagg.com 41
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’

Screen Performance Evaluations

Case Study #4 = Operations at Critical Frequencies 96 total crossmember failures over 4 screens 
Case Study #4 = Operations at Critical Frequencies
96 total crossmember failures
over 4 screens
This screen suffered multiple cross member failures over a
3-year period with very low loading conditions
Multiple screens recorded operation at or near critical
frequencies requiring changes to speed and counterweight
settings to prevent failures
Critical frequency ‘peak’
@ 13Hz / 780 RPM
Operation at or near such peaks
result in screen body damages
www.conexpoconagg.com 39
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluations Case Study #3 = Excessive Supporting Structure Movement • 8’ x 20’

Screen Performance Evaluations

www.conexpoconagg.com 42
www.conexpoconagg.com 42

3/15/2017

3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluation @ Gold Rush Dave Turin, Gold Miner on Discovery’s Gold Rush www.facebook.com/grdozerdave

Screen Performance

Evaluation @ Gold Rush

Dave Turin, Gold Miner on Discovery’s Gold Rush

www.facebook.com/grdozerdave www.conexpoconagg.com 43
www.facebook.com/grdozerdave
www.conexpoconagg.com 43
www.conexpoconagg.com 44
www.conexpoconagg.com 44
3/15/2017 Screen Performance Evaluation @ Gold Rush Dave Turin, Gold Miner on Discovery’s Gold Rush www.facebook.com/grdozerdave

Questions?

Please complete the session evaluation on the CONEXPO CON/AGG Mobile App

www.conexpoconagg.com 45
www.conexpoconagg.com 45