Grinding in a ball mill

Coarse grinding
(1st chamber)

Fine grinding
(2nd chamber)

1
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball charge operating cost
ƒ Ball charge operating cost is composed of:
 Ball purchasing … 0.09 [USD/t] (assumed 100 [g/t] gross wear)
 Energy …………... 1.05 - 3.50 “ (assumed 35 [kWh/t])

 Classification …… 0.02 - 0.04 “

1.14 - 3.63 [USD/t]

ƒ Ball wear do affect the specific energy consumption of

the mill
ƒ Ball charge classification allow saving 5 [%] in energy
cost

2
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball size, ball form and grinding efficiency

Dead zone

Free space becomes smaller

So does the production

3
HGRS 03-02/OR
Visual criteria for ball form classification

Bad

Good

4
HGRS 03-02/OR
Visual criteria for ball form classification

New ball Ø60

Actual average [mm]
Ø 39 [mm]

New ball Ø60

[mm]
Future average Ø 32 – 34
[mm]

5
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball size classifying machines

6
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball charge classification frequency
ƒ Depends on mill yearly production, ball net wear rate
and ball charge contamination with foreign bodies.

ƒ Once a year ƒ Once every two – three years for:

 OPC
 OPC + < 5 [%] MIC

ƒ Once every one – two years for:

 Composite cements
 Slag mills
 Puzolana mills

ƒ One form classification ƒ One form classification every

each size classification second size classification

7
HGRS 03-02/OR
1st chamber ball charge classification

Scrap Total
Balls in basket t 12.0 36.0 18.0 8.0 3.5 77.5
Sampled balls -- 50 50 50 50 50 50
Sample weight kg 140.0 90.0 62.3 38.1 28.5 0.0
Eq. Diameter mm 88 76 67 57 52 2
Composition % 15 46 23 10 5 0 1'400 [g]

50 balls sample

100.00

8
HGRS 03-02/OR
2nd chamber ball charge classification

Scrap Total
Balls in basket t 8.3 14.1 30.6 41.9 99.1 6.0 200.0
Sampled balls -- 200 200 200 200 200 100 0 200
Sample w eight kg 85.3 38.5 18.2 9.5 4.5 14.2 0.0 2.9
Eq. Diam eter mm 47 36 28 23 18 33 0 15
Composition % 4 7 15 21 50 0 0 3 33 [g]
Number of balls -- 19'461 73'247 336'264 882'105 4'404'444 0 0 413'793 36.6 [m2/t]

200 balls sample

100.00

9
HGRS 03-02/OR
 Different ball type for some balls manufacturers

Saxmax, Topmax, Brochausen & Holze Saxmax, Topmax &

Supermax Supermax

Superallmax Christian Pfeiffer Almax, CR3

Maxicrom, Duomax, Magotteaux Hardalloy, Duogam

Duogam, Ecogam

Vegatough 18 & 18 NT, Vega Industries Vegahard 12,

Vegatough 21 Vegahard 18

10
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball type and operating conditions
[%] Cr
25

20

Vegatough 18 Saxmax

Maxicrom Superallmax
15

BHO
1st chamber / low
abrasive material
Chr. Pfeiffer
10

Magotteaux

Vega Ind.
5
2 3 4 [%] C
11
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball type and operating conditions
[%] Cr
25

Vegatough 21
Topmax
20
Duomax Duogam

Superallmax
15

BHO
1st chamber /
Medium abrasive
Chr. Pfeiffer
10 material

Magotteaux

Vega Ind.
5
2 3 4 [%] C
12
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball type and operating conditions
[%] Cr
25
Supermax

Vegatough 21

20
Ecogam

Superallmax
15

BHO
1st chamber / High
abrasive material
Chr. Pfeiffer
10

Magotteaux

Vega Ind.
5
2 3 4 [%] C
13
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball type and operating conditions
[%] Cr
25 BHO

Supermax
CR3 Chr. Pfeiffer

Topmax Duogam
Vegahard 18 Magotteaux
20

Saxmax Vega Ind.

2nd chamber / High

15
abrasive material
Hardalloy

Allmax
Allmax
10 Vegahard 12

2nd chamber / Low -

medium abrasive
5 material
2 3 4 [%] C
14
HGRS 03-02/OR
Ball type and operating conditions: summary

Working
Chamber conditions Abrassivity BHO C. Pfeiffer Magotteaux Vega
1 soft (1) Low - Medium Saxmax Superallmax Maxicrom Vegatough 18 NT
Medium - High Topmax Superallmax Duogam / Duomax Vegatough 21

Extremely high Supermax Superallmax Ecogam Vegatough 21

Hard Low - Medium Superallmax Maxicrom Vegatough 18
Medium - High Superallmax Vegatough 18 - 21

Extremely high Superallmax Vegatough 21

2 Low - Medium Saxmax Allmax Hardalloy Vegahard 12

Medium - high Topmax Allmax Duogam Vegahard 12

Extremely high Supermax CR 3 Duogam Vegahard 18

Corrosion CR 3 Vegahard 18
Soft > 25 % of filling degree
Mill critical speed < 75 %
Good material level in the chamber

15
HGRS 03-02/OR
Mixing balls from different manufacturers
ƒ Is possible to mix in a first chamber

Maxicrom, Saxmax, Vegatough 18

Duogam, Duomax, Topmax, Saxmax, Vegatough 21

Ecogam, Supermax, Vegatough 21

Precaution

Balls for soft working conditions not to be used in

mills with hard working conditions
Mixing balls with different resistance to abrasion is
possible but not economically interesting.

16
HGRS 03-02/OR
Mixing balls from different manufacturers
ƒ Is possible to mix in a second chamber

Hardalloy, Saxmax, Vegahard 12

Duogam, Duomax, Topmax, Saxmax, Vegahard 18

Precaution

Never used 2nd chamber balls in the first chamber

Mixing balls with different resistance to abrasion is

possible but not economically interesting.

17
HGRS 03-02/OR
Possible defects
ƒ Visible ƒ Non visible
 Internal health
 Micro - structure & hardness
ears  Chemical composition

Inclusion Sucking

Micro -
Claming ? structure

18
HGRS 03-02/OR
Consequences from defects

ƒ Breakage

ƒ Deformation

ƒ Higher net and gross wear

rates
ƒ Deterioration of mill
performance:
 Reduced production
 Reduced mill availability

19
HGRS 03-02/OR
Aspect and breakage
ƒ Aspect ƒ Breakage

ƒ Visual control prior delivery ƒ Discuss with ball manufacturer

acceptance ball operating conditions
ƒ Reclaim by > 1 - 3 [%] of balls ƒ Reclaim by > 0.5 - 3 [%] of
with visual defects breakage per ball size

20
HGRS 03-02/OR
Net & gross wear rate calculation

Scraps
S = 6 [t]

Wear
compensation Small balls Good balls
WC = 24 [t] SB = 4 [t] GB = 68 [t]

Initial charge Cement production

IC = 80 [t] TC = 750’000 [t]
21
HGRS 03-02/OR
Net wear rate calculation

IC + WC – (GB + SB + S)
Net wear = X 1’000’000 [ g ball / t cement ]
TC

80 + 24 – (68 + 4 + 6)
Net wear = X 1’000’000 = ~ 35 [ g ball / t cement ]
750’000

22
HGRS 03-02/OR
Net wear rate through filling degree changes

Initial charge Actual charge

IC = 80 [t] IC = 78 [t]

IC + WC – AC
Net wear = X 1’000’000 [ g ball / t cement ]
TC

ƒ Not very accurate for low wear

rates
23
HGRS 03-02/OR
Net wear calculation through ball sampling
New balls net wear rate evolution with the operating time
Ball diameter mm 90 80 70 60
140 Weight t 20.0 28.0 20.0 12.0
Unit weight when new kg 2.90 2.04 1.37 0.86
120 Number of balls -- 6'897 13'746 14'652 13'970
Weight after 1'000 [h] kg 2.73 1.92 1.28 0.81
Weight after 4'000 [h] kg 2.17 1.53 1.02 0.64
100
Loss weight kg 3850.00 5390.00 3850.00 2310.00
Net wear rate [g/t]

Cement production t 440'000

80 Wear rate g/t 35.0

60

40

∆ Abrasivity
20

0
0 500 1'000 1'500 2'000 2'500 3'000 3'500 4'000 4'500 5'000
Operating time [h]

24
HGRS 03-02/OR
Net wear calculation through ball sampling
ƒ Ball sampling: ƒ Sampling time shortens as
 1st chamber > 20 balls of wear rate increases
each size ƒ To refill the mill with balls to
 2nd chamber compensate wear is possible
- > 50 balls Ø 40 – 60 [mm]
ƒ Exclude from the sampling and
- > 100 balls Ø < 40 [mm] calculations the ball sizes used
ƒ Weight each ball separately for wear compensation
ƒ Plot ball weight distribution
and calculate:
 Average ball weight by size
 Standard deviation by size

25
HGRS 03-02/OR
Net wear calculation through marked balls test
ƒ Ball manufacturer must not be
informed to avoid laboratory
quality balls
ƒ Allow comparison of different
manufacturers under the same
operating conditions
ƒ Heavy work due to high
number of balls to be marked
ƒ Procedure:
 Mark the balls to be tested
 Weight each ball separately
 Introduce the balls in the mill
 Apply same procedure as
for “net wear calculation
through ball sampling”

26
HGRS 03-02/OR
Gross wear rate calculation

IC + WC – GB
Gross wear = X 1’000’000 [ g ball / t cement ]
TC

80 + 24 – 68
Gross wear = X 1’000’000 = ~ 48 [ g ball / t cement ]
750’000

27
HGRS 03-02/OR
When mixing balls from different manufacturers
ƒ Estimation through comparison of the wear rates before
and after the mixing:
 Short term comparison
- Reduction in the filling degree
- Marked balls test

 Medium term comparison

- Ball charge mass balance when classification

28
HGRS 03-02/OR