Int. J. Miner. Process.

93 (2009) 204–208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Miner. Process.

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j m i n p r o

Technical note

Cone crusher chamber optimization using multiple constraints

Dong Gang ⁎, Huang Dongming, Fan Xiumin
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, PR China
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The chamber geometry is one of the key factors that influences the performance of a cone crusher. The design
Received 19 January 2009 of the chamber geometry should take product quality and crushing efficiency into account. In this paper the
Received in revised form 9 June 2009 kinematics of rock material in a crushing chamber, as interparticle breakage occurs, has been analyzed and
Accepted 4 July 2009
the chamber division is achieved. Based on the chamber division and a population balance model, the
Available online 22 July 2009
method for chamber geometry design is presented. Combining the empirical model for predicting particle
Keywords:
shape with the size distribution model, a flakiness prediction model is proposed. With the size reduction
Cone crusher model and flakiness prediction model as constraints, an optimization of the crushing chamber is achieved.
Crushing chamber Finally, the validity of the crushing chamber optimization model has been verified by an appropriate
Optimization prototype test.
Size reduction © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Flakiness index

1. Introduction parameters, including rotational speed n, eccentric angle γ, height of

Cone crushers are widely used in the mining and aggregates
industry to crush blasted rock material. The chamber geometry is one
of the key factors that influences the cone crusher performance,
measured by productivity, particle size and particle shape of the
product. Previous research in this area (Evertsson, 2000; Gauldie,
1953) has studied the behavior of a particular cone crusher, which
made it possible to model the kinematics of the rock material and
proposed the method for dividing the crushing chamber into several
crushing zones. In order to predict product quality, Evertsson (1997)
presented a size reduction model. Magnus and Evertsson (2006) have
studied the factors that may influence product flakiness and presented
an empirical model for predicting the product particle shape. However
this model could not be used directly for chamber optimization.
Most previous research has focused on modeling of the relation-
ships between the key parameters, and only a few have been about
improving the models, combining the models and optimization with
the models. As the chamber geometry is crucial for the performance of
a cone crusher, the method for crushing chamber optimization under
multiple constraints will be useful for improving its performance.
2. Crushing chamber geometry optimization
The purpose of chamber geometry optimization is to design the
geometry of the concave chamber surfaces given that the key
⁎ Corresponding author. School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong
University, Shanghai 200030, PR China. Tel.: +86 21 62933362; fax: +86 21 62932070.
E-mail address: dgang@sjtu.edu.cn (D. Gang).
pivot point h and base angle of cone α, have been given.
The two main crushing parts of cone crusher are the mantle and
the concave. The axis of the mantle intersects the axis of the crushing
chamber at point O, which is a pivot point. The angle between the two
axes is γ, which is an eccentric angle, as shown in Fig. 1. As the crusher
is working, the mantle moves around the axis of the crushing
chamber. In the cross section of the cone crusher, the mantle is
performing a pendulum movement with O as the center. As the
mantle swings between the closed and open sides, it periodically
approaches and leaves the concave surface. When rock materials get
into the crushing chamber, they keep falling until they meet the
mantle. Then the rock materials are pushed against the concave
surface by the mantle and get crushed.
While the rock particle is falling in the crushing chamber, the
movement can be expressed by Eq. (1). While the particle is pushed
against the concave surface, the movement could be regarded as a
combination of circular motion and simple harmonic motion, and the
two motions could be expressed by Eq. (2). As a result, it is possible to
trace the movement of the particle, as it passes through the crushing
chamber.
As shown in Fig. 2, the pivot point O is taken as the origin of the
coordinate system, A0 is the intersection point of the choke level and
the open side, and its coordinates are (X0, Y0). Generally, it is
reasonable to take A0 as the initial position of the particle. The particle
keeps falling until it reaches the mantle at A1, whose coordinates are
(X1, Y1). Obviously, X1 is equal to X0 and Y1 can be calculated with
Eqs. (1) and (2). Eq. (1) is the equation of falling motion, where t1 is
the time. Eq. (2) is the equation of simple harmonic motion, where n
is the rotational speed specified in rpm, (XP, YP) are the coordinates of

0301-7516/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.minpro.2009.07.005
 D. Gang et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 93 (2009) 204–208 205

the pivot point O, XYPP − Y0 YP − Y1

− X0 is the slope of the open side and XP − X1 is the
slope of the mantle's edge when the particle reaches the mantle, and

1
γ cos nπt
30 is the angle between the two lines at time t1.

1 2
Y1 − Y0 = gt ð1Þ
2 1
     
nπt1 Y − Y0 Y − Y1
γ cos = arctan P − arctan P : ð2Þ
30 XP − X0 XP − X1

Subsequently, the particle is pushed against the concave surface

and reaches the closed side at A2, whose coordinates can be calculated
with Eq. (3) and the equation of the closed side. Eq. (3) is the equation
of the first circular motion, where R1 is the distance between A1 and O.

2 2 2
X2 + Y2 = R1 : ð3Þ

Repeating the steps above, the whole trace of the particle in the
crushing chamber can be calculated. In this paper, n is supposed to be
greater than the critical rotational speed, so that the particle will not
slide along the mantle.
Based on the theory of interparticle breakage, when such breakage
occurs in the crushing chamber, rock materials are crushed only once,
in a single crushing zone. Accordingly, the study described above not
only traces the movement of rock materials but also reveal how to
divide the crushing chamber into crushing zones. Obviously, each
Fig. 1. The crushing chamber and cone crusher working principle.
turning point of the trace is on the boundary between two crushing

Fig. 2. The kinematics analysis of material and the division of the crushing chamber.
206 D. Gang et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 93 (2009) 204–208

zones. In the cross section of the crushing chamber, the outline of each
crushing zone is a quadrangle. Using the formalism described above,
the three sides of the quadrangle can be defined. The next step is to
define the fourth side, which is to design the curve of concave surface
in each crushing zone.
As the closed side setting (CSS) should be given by the user of
crusher, the design should be started in the discharge gate of the
crushing room. However, in the course of the design of the concave
surface there are two key factors that should be taken into account.
Firstly, based on the theory of population balance, while the crusher is
operating, the mass of rock materials in one crushing zone must be
equal to that in the next crushing zone so that materials do not get
Fig. 3. The model of the i crushing process.
jammed in the crushing chamber. Secondly, the nip angle of each
crushing zone should be less than the given nip angle so that materials
do not slide along the mantle. In the Chinese Standard, the nip angle of The values of Si and Bi are determined by the parameter (s/b)i,
the crushing chamber should be less than 27° (Lang, 1998). which is the compression ratio of crushing zone i. This parameter
As the cone crusher can only work on the premise of no jamming, describes how much the rock material is compressed and is
the minimum standard deviation of the mass of material in each determined from the location of the crushing event and the crusher
crushing zone is taken as the objective of the crushing chamber dynamics. Actually, following the work on the crushing chamber
geometry optimization. As shown in Eq. (4), m is the total number of geometry optimization, the compression ratio of each crushing zone
crushing zones, ΔVi is the volume of crushing zone i, µi is the has already been calculated. As shown in Fig. 2, (s/b)i is just the value
volumetric filling ratio of crushing zone i and ρ is the density of the of ΔSC1C2C3C4 / ΔSC1C2C5C6, where ΔSC1C2C3C4 is the area of quadrangle
material, so Mi(ΔVi, µi, ρ) is the mass of material in crushing zone i. C1C2C3C4 and ΔSC1C2C5C6 is the area of quadrangle C1C2C5C6. So it is
M1(ΔV1, µ1, ρ) is the mass of materials in crushing zone 0, which is possible to take the size distribution of final product as the constraint
the closest to the discharge gate. In fact M1(ΔV1, µ1, ρ) is the mass of in the crushing chamber optimization.
material that falls out of the crushing chamber during a single rotation of
the mantle, and it reflects the productivity of the cone crusher. The 3.2. Flakiness prediction model
productivity of the cone crusher could be calculated knowing M1(ΔV1,
µ1, ρ), the rotational speed n and some empirical correction coefficients, Generally the product flakiness is tested according to European
such as Ks and Kh (Lang, 1998). The coefficient Ks describes the influence Standard EN 933-3, which is a part of the European Standard for
of the size distribution of the feed on crusher output, and the value range classification of aggregate characteristics.
is 1–1.4. The coefficient Kh describes the influence of material hardness Magnus and Evertsson (2006) revealed that the flakiness of the
on crusher output, and the value range is 0.75–1. product can be estimated with the knowledge of the CSS and the
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi average size of the feed, and presented an empirical model for
uP predicting product flakiness in cone crushing, as shown in Eq. (8),
u m
u ðMi ðΔVi ; μ i ; ρÞ−M1 ðΔV1 ; μ 1 ; ρÞÞ2
ti = 1 where FI(F̄¯, CSS, PSIZE) is the flakiness index, F̄¯ is the average size of
F ð xÞ = ð4Þ the feed and PSIZE is the particle size of the product.
m−1
!2  
0 V βi V βmin : ð5Þ
 0:24 1:25F + 20 2 1:25x + 20
FI F; CSS; PSIZE = PSIZE − PSIZE + 1:25F:
F CSS CSS

The second factor is taken as the boundary constraint in the ð8Þ

crushing chamber geometry optimization. As shown in Eq. (5), βi is
the nip angle of crushing zone i. With the method above, a crushing Based on this empirical model and the size reduction model, the
chamber geometry optimization can be achieved, as shown in Fig. 2. percentage of flaky particles in the final product can be calculated, as
shown in Eq. (9).
3. Constraints of product quality
X
K  
FItotal = Pj FIj F; CSS; P SIZEj : ð9Þ
3.1. Size reduction model
j=1

The crushing process in each crushing zone has been presented by

In Eq. (9) P̄¯SIZEj is the average size within size range j, FIi(F̄¯, CSS,
Evertsson (1997). In that process the material flow through the
P̄¯SIZEj) is approximately the percentage of flaky particles in size range
crusher is modeled as a series of successive crushing events, as shown
j and Pj is the product matrix of the crushing zone j. Actually, the value
in Fig. 3 and Eq. (6), where Pi + 1 represents the feeding material of
of Pj is the percentage of the particles in size range j with respect to
crushing zone i, Pi represents the discharge materials of the same
the total product. Obviously FItotal is the percentage of total flaky
zone, Si is the selection function and Bi is the Breakage function.
particles in the final product. The flakiness prediction model can also
Pi = ½Bi Si + ½1 − Si Pi ð6Þ be taken as the constraint in optimization of the design of the crushing
+ 1
chamber.
Y
m
P= ½Bi Si + ½1 − Si F : ð7Þ 4. Crushing chamber optimization under multi-constraints
i=1

Based on this method for crushing chamber geometry optimiza-

As the entire process of crushing is modeled as a series of tion, taking the size reduction model and flakiness prediction model
successive crushing events, the size distribution of the final product as constraints, a crushing chamber optimization model is achieved.
can be calculated using Eq. (7), where P represents the final product As shown in Eq. (10), the rotational speed n, eccentric angle γ,
and F represents the initial feed. height of pivot point h, base angle of cone α and average nip angle of
 D. Gang et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 93 (2009) 204–208 207

Fig. 5. The optimized chamber geometry of PYB900.

variables as shown in Eq. (13). The cone crusher chamber optimiza-

tion is implemented with Matlab, the corresponding flowchart is
shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. The cone crusher chamber optimization flowchart.
chamber βnip are taken as the design variables. The other structural
and working parameters, such as the eccentric distance and length of
the stroke, can be determined by the parameters above.
h i
X = ½x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 ; x5  = n; γ; h; α; βnip :
The objective of the crushing chamber optimization is to produce
the minimum standard deviation of the mass of discharge materials of
each crushing zone as shown in Eq. (11). The size reduction model and
flakiness prediction model are taken as performance constraints, as
shown in Eq. (12). PCSS is the percentage of material whose size is less
than CSS, and it is a key parameter for estimating the crusher performance.
PCSS min is the expected value of the minimum PCSS. FItotal max is the
expected value of the maximum FItotal.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uP
u m
u
ti = 1
ðMi ðΔVi ; μ i ; ρÞ− M1 ðΔV1 ; μ 1 ; ρÞÞ2
F ð xÞ =
m−1
PCSS z PCSS min
: ð12Þ
FItotal V FItotal max
To ensure that the optimization would succeed and the outcome
would be useful, there should be boundary constraints on the design
8
>
> n V n V nmax
> min
>
< γ min V γ V γ max
hmin V h V hmax : ð13Þ
>
>
>
> α V α V α max
: min
0 V β V βmin
In this work a PYB900 cone crusher (made in China) is taken as an
example. The structural and working parameters of PYB900 are taken
ð10Þ as the initial input for the crushing chamber optimization. The
outcome of the optimization, including these parameters and the
crushing chamber geometry, and the corresponding performance
prediction, are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 5. With the flakiness
prediction model, the flakiness index of the final product is calculated,
as shown in Fig. 6.
To verify the validity of the cone crusher chamber optimization
model, we cooperated with the Shanghai Jianshe Luqiao Machinery Co.,
Ltd to redesign the PYB900 cone crusher in accordance with the
outcome of the optimization. The corresponding prototype has been
made. It has been working in a quarry in Huzhou China. The
performance of the prototype has been tested, as shown in Table 1.
The productivity and PCSS of the prototype are respectively 105.56t ·h− 1
Y min ð11Þ and 48.15%, which are both greater than those of the original PYB900.
The FItotal of the prototype is 25.95%, which is less than that of the
original PYB900. Actually, the improvement of output is mainly because
of the increase in the volume of the crushing chamber and the rotation
speed of the shaft. The improvement of product quality is because
interparticle breakage occurs in the process of crushing and rock
materials get crushed thoroughly. The performance of the prototype did
not match the outcome of optimization, and several factors such as cone

Table 1
The outcome of optimization and prototype test.

Type of parameters Structural and working parameters Performance parameters

n (r · min− 1) γ (deg) h (mm) α (deg) β (deg) Q (t · h− 1) PCSS (%) FI (%)
Initial parameters 270 2 344 40 22 80 45 30
Parameters optimized 332.46 1.8 382.46 44 24.3 125.12 54.88 22.13
Parameters of prototype 330 1.8 380 44 24 105.56 48.15 25.95
208 D. Gang et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 93 (2009) 204–208

References
Evertsson, C.M., 1997. Output prediction of cone crushers. Miner. Eng. 11, 215–231.
Evertsson, C.M., 2000. Cone Crusher Performance. Ph.D. thesis. Chalmers University of
Technology.
European Standard. 1997. EN 933-3. CEN European.
Gauldie, K., 1953. Performance of Jaw Crushers. Engineering. October 9, 1953, 456–458;
October 16, 1953, 485–486.
Lang, B.X., 1998. Cone Crusher, first ed. Mechanical Industry Publishing Company,
Beijing.
Magnus, B., Evertsson, C.M., 2006. An empirical model for predicting flakiness in cone
crushing. Int. J. Miner. Process. 79, 49–60.

Glossary

Roman
Bi breakage function of crushing zone i
Fi feeding matrix of crushing zone i
F feeding matrix of initial feed
¯¯F average particle size of the feed
FI flakiness index
FIi percentage of flaky particles of size range j
FItotal mass of total flaky particles to the mass of total product
g gravitational acceleration
h height of pivot point
Fig. 6. The flakiness index of the final product. k total number of size range
Ks feed size distribution coefficient
Kh material hardness coefficient
m total number of crushing zones
crusher operating conditions, feeding conditions, assumptions of those Mi mass of materials in crushing zone i
models and cone crusher manufacturing deviations, may lead to those n eccentric shaft speed
discrepancies. However, basically the validity of the crushing chamber Pi product matrix of crushing zone i
P product matrix of final product
optimization is verified by the corresponding prototype test.
PCSS product weight percentage undersize
PSIZE particle size of the product
5. Conclusions ¯P¯SIZEj average particle size of size range j of the product
Q productivity of cone crusher
Si selection function of crushing zone i
In this paper, in which we have studied rock material in a crushing Stroke stroke of discharge gate
chamber, the motion of the material has been traced and the method (s/b)i utilized compression ratio of crushing zone i
for dividing crushing chamber into crushing zones is presented. Based ti time of the ith falling motion
ΔVi volume of crushing zone i
on the chamber division and population balance model, the method
for the design of the chamber geometry is presented. Combining the Greek letter
empirical model for predicting particle shape with the size distribu- α base angle of cone
tion model, a flakiness prediction model is proposed. Using the size βi nip angle of crushing zone i
βnip average nip angle of crushing chamber
reduction model and flakiness prediction model as constraints, the γ eccentric angle
crushing chamber design optimization is achieved. All this work will ρ density of material
be useful for future cone crusher optimization strategies. µi volumetric filling ratio of crushing zone i
With the cooperation of cone crusher manufacturer, the PYB900
Acronyms
cone crusher has been redesigned in accordance with the outcome of
CSS closed side setting
the optimization procedure. The corresponding prototype has been
working in a quarry in Huzhou China. The validity and reliability of the
crushing chamber optimization have been verified with the prototype
test.