The evolution of HPGR

Modelling

Roberto Carlos Medrano Nina

HPGR Schema

From Napier-Munn et al., 1996.

TAGGART (1954) Spring Roll Crusher

d100/2

D/2
aC
D/2 xg/2

First equation to describe a compression angle

D  xg
cosa C  8  a C  10
D d 100
 EARLY MODELS

The Guevara & Menacho model (1987)

The Fuerstenau, Shukla & Kapur model (1991)

The Austin, Weller & Lim model (1993)

Guevara & Menacho (1987) First HPGR model

Power model
P  uLD p
0.5
 p0 
  240F80  0.25
 
 p
Product size distribution model


1  Pi  1  P0  exp  SiE E 
Relationship between power, pressure and roll speed.

Link between specific energy and first order grinding kinetics

equation
Fuerstenau, Shukla & Kapur (1991) HPGR model

Laboratory scale tests with several materials

HPGR PSD are similar to Ball Mills PSD after long grinding times

PSD are self-similar: Modified tumbling mills grinding equations

could be used for HPGRs
Fuerstenau, Shukla & Kapur (1991) HPGR model

Product size distribution model

dM i E  i 1
  k j bi  j M j E   ki M i E 
dE j 1

Functional expression for breakage (Austin & Luckie)

a2 a3
 xi   xi 
Bij  a1    1  a1  
x  x 
 j  j
Functional expression for rate of breakage (Fuerstenau et al)

A x aj
ki 
1  Q x qj
First to use functional expressions for breakage and breakage rate
Austin, Weller & Lim (1993) HPGR model

Throughput model Power draw model

u L D  1  cosa C  P  1.56 u L D p 0.84

GS 
 1 1 
  
 1   C  cosa C 1   g 

Product size distribution model
Rate of breakage Breakage
1
1  ai  a2 a3
  xi 1   xi 1 
 xi
1 

 Bij  A p 
B
 x 

  1 A pB 

 x 

x   j   j 
 g 
Evolved from Menacho model for throughput and power draw

Modifies Whiten crusher model

BREAKTHROUGH STUDIES

Peripheral and axial pressure distribution

Power draw models

Pressure distribution and shear forces in the gap

 Johanson (1965) defined a “nip angle” during the roller compaction

process.

 Katashinski (1966) was the first to measure, with a sensor pin,

compressive and shear forces during the compression of metal powders.

 Feige (1989) used the sensor-pin method for the measurement of

peripheral and axial pressure distributions in a roller crusher.

 Schwarz and von Seebach (1990) discovered the “edge effect” in an

industrial HPGR.

 Lubjuhn (1992) characterized the peripheral pressure distribution in a

lab-scale HPGR using quartz and limestone.

 Both Guevara (1991) and Schönert (2000) calculated a force balance in

the gap.
Klymowsky Power draw equations

Relationship between average pressure and grinding force


pave  F 1000 L D a IP
2

Total HPGR motor power

P   n 30 D F sin 

 Grinding force, F, is applied to the rolls in a specific point

defined by angle .

 Klymowsky recommends using half the value of the

compression angle (later confirmed by Torres).
 RECENT MODELS

The Morrell, Lim, Shi & Tondo Model (1997)

The Schneider, Alves & Austin Model (2009)

The Torres & Casali Model (2009)

Morrell, Lim, Shi & Tondo (1997) HPGR model
Evolved from Austin model after exhaustive laboratory tests at
JKMRC

Uses Andersen cone crusher model for pre-crusher, edge effect

and compressive bed breakage zones.

Bundled with JKSimMet since Version 5.3

Schneider, Alves & Austin (2009) HPGR model
Feed
Evolved from Austin model

Uses Austin’s functional

expressions for breakage and
rate of breakage for two
comminution mechanisms.
i
pi   d i , j f j Product Bundled with ModSim 3.6.17.
j 1

“Estorcego” Compression

 1  P a
 1 i  n P
  

 xi  xi 
ai  1   xi  a 'i   k  k
  xg   1 xi 
P
 0 in  k
 
   
Bij  1  1  t 
9
Bij  1  1  t 
 9   

 x j xi 1 
10   1  i  n x j  xi 10 

 x j xi 1 
 1  i  n x j  xi
Torres & Casali (2009) HPGR Model
Evolved from Morrell and Fuerstenau model and Klymowsky power
equations

Uses Herbst & Fuerstenau functions for rate of breakage and

specific rate of breakage scale-up.

Uses a pressure profile function to model edge and centre

products.
Torres & Casali (2009) HPGR Model

Power draw
HPGR Throughput
Compression angle  a IP 
P  100 p D L sin  u
GS  3600  C x g L u  Single particle 2 4 x g  C D   2 
cos a IP 
1
x  D   x  D  
 g
2 D  Compression
g
f


x > xC

u u
xc
Particle bed
compression
aIP 
Pressure
xg

Moveable Roll
DxL
C
Torres & Casali (2009) Comminution Model

NB “comminution boxes”
1 2 3 … … NB-2 NB-1 NB

Parabolic pressure profile

Edge Edge
Centre product
product product
Torres & Casali (2009) Comminution in the kth box

Scale up of the specific rate of breakage for each

Solve (Herbst
block N x NB system of ODEs
& Fuerstenau)
f i ,k  f i d  P  i 1
 mi ,kk  zS 
Sviz,k dz E  S j , k bij m j , k  z   S i , k mi , k  z 
i j 1
 k
H
border conditions:
Power in each block (parabolic pressure profile)
mi ,k z  0  fi  mi ,k z  z2*   pi2,k
 a IP   L  4 yk 
z  k sin
* PD 100ap L D sin   u NB 2
2
IP  2   j 1 L  4 y j
2

Uses functional expressions for breakage (Austin

& Luckie) and rate of breakage (Herbst &
Fuerstenau)

 S j ,k * 
  j i1, kAij ,k exp  z 
i
pi ,k p
 vz 
Torres & Casali (2009) Model Validation

Specific energy (predicted vs experimental)

Damp sample

Laboratory (a) and full scale (b) product size distribution model
Inherited and shared properties of each model

 Steady-state condition.

 Plug-flow hypothesis.

 Use of functional expressions for breakage and breakage rate.

 Two comminution mechanisms: Nipping and particle bed compression.

 Main comminution zone defined between compression angle and gap.

 Main breakage mechanism: compression of multiple particles.

 Enough maturity to be included in plant simulation software.

HPGR Evolution Tree

Torres & Morrell et al

Casali Schneider et al

Austin et al

Fuerstenau et al
Guevara &
Menacho Lubjuhn

Schwarz & von Seebach

Feige
Katashinskii
Klymowsky
Taggart Johanson
Schönert