OPTIMIZED MECHANICAL TREATMENT

AND MATERIAL SEGREGATION

THROUGH BALLISTIC SEPARATION
WITHIN MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL
WASTE TREATMENT

W. MÜLLER, M. NIESAR AND T. TURK

IGW Ingenieurgemeinschaft Witzenhausen Fricke & Turk GmbH

SUMMARY:In trials on a large technical scale the fundamental effectiveness of the ballistic
separator for various fields of application in mechanical-biological waste treatment was tested.
By means of the ballistic separator minerals and stones can be separated effectively from the
screen overflow of wastes previously screened and crushed. This is a basic condition for a
further treatment in order to produce high-grade refuse derived fuels (RDF). The unit is also able
to take over the screen function and can separate crushed waste directly into three fractions: an
RDF fraction relevantly reduced of high-gravity solids, a fine fraction rich in organic matter for
biological treatment and a fraction of high-gravity solids. By modifying the screen covers the
ballistic separator may separate remaining components of high calorific value and high-gravity
solids from the biologically treated fine fraction.

1. INTRODUCTION

In combination with the energy recovery of partial streams and the thermal treatment of non-
recoverable residuals not suitable for landfilling, the mechanical-biological residual waste
treatment (mbt) represents an economic and environmentally sound alternative to the exclusive
treatment of all residual wastes in an incineration plant. Mechanical treatment processes are
essential components to trim the wastes in the different treatment steps of an mbt plant.
In several trials the field of application and the efficiency of a ballistic paddle separator were
tested. So far the ballistic separator is successfully applied in different fields of recovering
recyclables (paper, packaging and treatment of secondary fuels). Investigations regarding the
application in the field of mechanical-biological treatment did not yet exist. To test the general
suitability first tests were conducted at the MBT plant Pößneck in May 2002 (IGW, 2002). On
the basis of the results obtained then, some modifications of the ballistic separator were realized.
The efficiency of the modifications was checked during trials at the MBT plant Linkenbach in
December 2002 (IGW, 2003).
The suitability and efficiency of the ballistic separator for mechanical-biological residual
waste treatment was tested in technical trials for the following fields of application:

Proceedings Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 6 - 10 October 2003
 2003 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
application case 1: Material stream separation as first separation step in a MBT process after
crushing
application case 2: Screening and separation of high-gravity solids in secondary fuel
processing
application case 3: Additional treatment of the fraction to be landfilled after biological
treatment
For the different cases of application the resulting material streams have to meet different
requirements. For application case 1 a separation as effective as possible into different fractions
for recovery (fraction of high calorific value), biological treatment and, if necessary, disposal
(undesirable components) should take place.
In application case 2 the quality of the fraction of high calorific value produced in application
case 1 is to be adapted to the specific requirements of the ways of recovery that follow.
However, the required degree of treatment of the fraction of high calorific value depends on the
way of recovery in general and on the plant specific differences of the recovery way (Müller et
al. 2002).
The legal requirements of application case 3 are determined by the directive on
environmentally safe landfilling of municipal wastes (German „Abfallablagerungsverordnung“)
(Anonymous, 2001). In application case 3 it should be checked if post-treatment with the
ballistic separator minimizes the unwanted side effects of conventional post-treatment, usually
done with a drum screen.

2. DESIGN AND MODE OF OPERATION OF THE TESTED BALLISTIC

SEPARATOR

The operation of the ballistic separator is based on the ballistic principle. Six alternating paddles,
rotating against each other, screen the material placed on them or transport it to the overflow (see
picture 1). The unit can be adapted to the material to be separated in an ideal way by different
perforations of the paddle covering. The complete set of paddles is built with an adjustable
inclination which offers further adjustment options.

STADLER

Paddle

Figure 1: Operational principle of the ballistic separator.

The different types of the ballistic separator can be distinguished mainly by the one, two or three
step design of the machine. This allows a high flexibility and variable options for application of
the unit. When conducting the test at the MBT plant Linkenbach a two step unit with a
horizontally set first level of paddles was applied (see picture 2).

material input

Figure 2: Two step ballistic separator (as used in trial).

Since during one course of a test the same perforation size was installed on both paddle levels
three material streams were produced during each of the different test courses:
Screen passage 1 and 2 (output stream 1 and 3 in picture 2),
light fraction (fraction of high calorific value)(output stream 4 in picture 2),
heavy fraction (output stream 2 in picture 2).

3. EXECUTION OF THE TRIAL

The trials were conducted at MBT plant Linkenbach in Neuwied. The MBT plant Linkenbach
exclusively accepts and treats residual domestic waste and commercial waste. In 2000
approximately 40,000 Mg wastes were processed (MBT input). Before the wastes get into the
drum screen (round mesh screen 100 mm) they are crushed at first. The screen passing fraction
(“fines”) is transported via a magnetic separator directly into a homogenizing drum. The
retention time of the wastes in the homogenizing drum is approx. 30 minutes. Then the processed
wastes are transported on conveyor belts to the composting hall where they are set up as table
windrow. During the intensive composting which lasts approx. 3 weeks the material is aerated
and turned every 3 to 4 days.
At the moment the bio-meachnically treated wastes are landfilled directly at the landfill
Linkenbach. However, no later than by the 1st of June 2005 the material has to undergo a post-
maturation. During optimization trials the post-maturation windrows were built with material
from intensive composting and composted over a period of 12 weeks (Wallmann et al. 2001).
Below an overview of the waste samples is listed which were processed with the ballistic
separator in order to assess its efficiency for different ranges of application in mechanical-
biological residual waste treatment in December 2002 at MBT plant Linkenbach:
application case 1: waste sample I: crushed domestic waste
mesh width paddle 1 and 2: 75 mm
 waste sample II: crushed domestic waste
mesh width paddle 1 and 2: 45 mm
application case 2: waste sample III: screen overflow > 100 mm, MBT plant Linkenbach
mesh width paddle 1 and 2: 45 mm
application case 3: waste sample IV: output intensive composting MBT
mesh width paddle 1 and 2: 20 mm
waste sample V: output intensive composting MBT post-maturation
Linkenbach
mesh width paddle 1 and 2: 20 mm
Then the produced material streams of the different waste types – light fraction, heavy
fraction and fines- are analysed for their grain size distribution and material composition.

4. RESULTS

4.1 Distribution of the Mass Streams of the Tested Waste Types

Picture 3 shows the determined mass streams for the five tested waste samples. Due to the
varying characteristics of the different waste samples and respectively the varying treatment
goals considerable differences are noted when comparing the waste samples.

Mass streams ballistic separator - comparison of light fraction (= RDF)

the tested waste types heavy fraction

fines paddle 2
fines paddle 1
100%

29.7% 26.0%
31.8%
80% 36.4%

6.4% 6.6%
76.9% 22.2%
60% 5.1% 11.5%
8.8%

5.7%

40% 22.1%

56.7% 54.9%
46.4%
20%
13.1% 1.2% 29.7%

8.8%
0%
household waste household waste overflow of 100 mm after 3 weeks after 16 weeks
crushed; crushed; drum screen; composting; composting;
75 / 75 mm 45 / 45 mm 45 / 45 mm 20 / 20 mm 20 / 20 mm

Figure 3: Mass streams ballistic separator MBT plant Linkenbach,

November 2002 – Comparison of the tested waste types.
The share of the light fraction varied between 76.9 % (waste sample III: screen overflow) and 26
% (waste sample V: post-maturation). A high variation was determined for the heavy fraction, its
share ranged from 6.4 % (waste sample I: domestic waste) to 22.2 % (waste sample V: post-
maturation). The lowest screen passage (sum of screen passage 1 and 2) was determined, as
expected, with 10 % for the waste sample III „screen overflow MBT“, the highest with 63.7 %
for the waste sample „intensive composting“.

4.2 Application Case 1: Material Stream Separation as first Step of Separation in a

MBT waste sample I + II: Domestic Waste (pre-crushed)
The usual standard of todays MBT concepts is a material stream separation in the mechanical
treatment step with a drum screen that normally has a pre-crushing of the wastes beforehand.
One disadvantage of the drum screen is that the fraction of high calorific value also contains
high-gravity solids that have a disturbing effect on the further processing for secondary fuels.
With the processing of the waste sample I should therefore be checked if the ballistic separator
may – apart from the screening – also perform a separation of high-gravity solids.
To assess the suitability of the ballistic separator for the treatment of crushed domestic waste
the results of the tests with the ballistic separator are compared to the test results of the drum
screen at the MBT plant Linkenbach. The assessment of the two processing units is based on
these goals:
Discharging of an optimum quantity of the light fraction in relation to the plant throughput of
the MBT plant Linkenbach that can be sent to energy recovery (lower heating value Hu >
11,000 MJ/Mg FS),
as effective as possible extraction of high calorific components from the material stream
intended for biological treatment,
separation of the heavy fraction from the coarse fraction to avoid disturbance of further
processing of secondary fuels.
By the drum screen treatment fewer shares of screen overflow were extracted compared to the
ballistic separator. While for the drum screen the light fraction share was 28.3 % the shares of
the ballistic separator were between 31.9 and 36.4 %. With regard to the quality of the extracted
screen overflow only few differences could be determined. The screen overflow extracted with
the 100 mm screen had a calorific value of approx. 11,900 MJ/Mg FS, for both samples extracted
with the ballistic separator a calorific value of 11,000 was determined. With the ballistic
separator variants a higher load of heating value was extracted from the waste stream due to the
higher mass share in the screen overflow.
Conclusion
The trials on processing pre-crushed domestic waste with the ballistic separator showed an
increase of the extracted quantity of the high calorific fraction in comparison to the presently
installed 100 mm drum screen at the MBT plant Linkenbach (see picture 4).
The heating value is almost equal to the screen overflow from the drum screen. The same
applies for the share of minerals still contained. The optical assessment of the minerals won from
the sorting analysis however revealed that the minerals of the light fraction of the ballistic
separator are composed of smaller particles of plane shape. These should cause less problems in
a following crushing step than the larger minerals in the screen overflow of the drum screen. A
reduction of this mineral fraction through respective changes in the adjustment of the ballistic
separator is certainly possible but this would result in an increase of the heavy fraction share.
 ferrous metals
Comparison of the output quantity overflow = light fraction
streams of the different treatment units heavy fraction
fines, for composting

100% 2.5%

28.3% 31.9%
80% 36.4%

6.4%
60%
11.5%

40%
69.1%
61.8%
52.2%
20%

0%

100 mm drum screen Ballistic Ballistic

-separator 75 mm -separator 45 mm

Figure 4: Comparison of the output quantity streams of the different treatment units.

4.3 Application Case 2: Screening and Separation of high-gravity solids for RDF
Processing (Waste Sample III: Screen Overflow MBT plant Linkenbach)
In the present MBT concepts the components of high calorific value are usually separated by
means of drum screen. The high calorific components are then in many recovery cases to be
processed as so-called refuse derived fuels (RDF) by a further treatment (fine
crushing/pelletizing) depending on the way of recovery. To save the diminution units or even to
make crushing possible at all, mineral components and metals are to be separated to the highest
possible degree. The air separators often applied for this purpose have the disadvantage that they
produce exhaust air that has to be expensively treated on the basis of the 30th German emission
control directive (BImschV).
Since the ballistic separator operates without air this disadvantage is widely excluded. To test
the suitability of the ballistic separator for screening and heavy material separation the screen
overflow of the mechanical treatment in Linkenbach was examined.
For this task the two paddle levels of the ballistic separator were changed to 45 mm screen
holes.
The removal of inert materials during treatment of the screen overflow in the mechanical-
biological treatment plant Linkenbach was entirely achieved for glass and to a great extent for
minerals. This is demonstrated by the sorting results of the light and heavy fraction and of the
fines of the waste sample III as shown in table 1.
Table 1: Composition, separation rates, chemical-physical parameters
Sample III: Screen overflow; MBT plant Linkenbach November 2002.
efficiency of ballistic separator: compostition and separation rates treating screen overflow > 100 mm

Ballistic-separator heavy fraction

light fraction > 45 mm fines < 45 mm total
> 45 mm

separation separation separation

fraction composition composition composition composition
rate rate rate

organics 5.0% 50.8% 5.2% 8.9% 30.9% 40.3% 7.6%

paper/cardboard 20.1% 91.0% 9.2% 6.9% 3.5% 2.2% 17.0%
films 11.2% 97.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 8.8%
plastics 9.6% 78.6% 11.7% 16.2% 5.2% 5.2% 9.4%
metals 3.5% 63.8% 10.2% 31.9% 2.1% 4.3% 4.2%
glas 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 100.0% 0.1%
textiles/shoes 9.3% 85.3% 9.1% 14.7% 0.2% 0.0% 8.3%
composite materials 6.8% 75.0% 11.0% 21.4% 2.3% 3.6% 6.9%
sanitary products 23.3% 97.3% 3.4% 2.3% 0.4% 0.3% 18.4%
minerals 1.7% 23.1% 22.8% 53.8% 12.6% 23.1% 5.6%
wood 2.1% 42.9% 13.7% 46.0% 4.2% 11.1% 3.9%
others 6.1% 78.6% 2.1% 5.1% 10.0% 16.3% 6.0%
< 8 mm 1.3% 0.5% 26.1% 3.7%

total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

share from total 76.9% 13.1% 10.0%

dry matter content (DM) 68.8% 79.6% 65.2% 70.0%

organic dry matter
content (oDM) 79.8% 54.4% 53.1% 73.7%
biodegradable dry
matter content (oDMbio) 38.8% 20.7% 33.9% 36.2%
upper calorific
value Ho [MJ/Mg DM] 20,000 14,000 12,800 18,400
lower calorific
value Hu [MJ/Mg FM] 12,100 9,200 6,600 11,200

A transfer of the sorting results to the mass distribution indicates the separation rates or
reappearance rates of the sorting fractions in the single output streams that are also shown in
table 1. Per material stream there are two columns which are to be read differently. In the column
“composition” the sum of the vertical numbers is always 100% and thus represents the
composition of the single material streams. The columns “separation rates” are to be read
horizontally and also sum up to 100 % per sorting fraction. For example, the number 78.6 % for
the separation rate for plastics in the light fraction > 45 mm means that 78.6 % of the total
amount of plastics in the tested waste sample (9.4 %, see last column in table 1) is found in the
light fraction > 45 mm. Therefore the separation and reappearance rates determined in the tests
are an essential assessment criterion for the efficiency of the treatment units. In addition, the
separation rates serve for simulating expected material streams and qualities of other waste
compositions.
The accumulation of the high calorific fraction in the light fraction > 45 mm is also
represented in the comparison of the heating values. In the light fraction the lower heating value
Hu is at 12,100 MJ/Mg FS, in the heavy fraction at 9,200 MJ/Mg FS and in the fines at 6,600
MJ/Mg FS (see Table 1).
With 13.1 % the heavy fraction takes a relatively large share of the quantity. Since relevant
amounts of high caloric fractions remain in the heavy fraction (plastics, composite materials,
wood) an additional treatment step could be useful. In orientation trials with a also by Stadler
company newly developed high-gravity solid trap approx. 55 % light materials with a calorific
value of more than 11,000 MJ/Mg FS could be separated from the high-gravity solids fraction. A
combination of ballistic separator and high-gravity solid trap results in a significantly higher
share of separated high calorific fraction of higher quality compared to the drum screen.
The fines < 45 mm have high shares of organics, fine fraction < 8 mm and minerals and can
thus be added to the material stream for biological treatment without any problem.
Conclusion
The test results regarding the further treatment of the screen overflow at the MBT plant
Linkenbach show that with the ballistic separator treatment a significant quality improvement of
the high calorific fraction with regard to an RDF use can be achieved, thus realizing a targeted
trimming for an energy recovery afterwards.

4.4 Application Case 3: Post-Trimming of the fraction to be landfilled after the

biological treatment step
The German Landfilling Waste Directive (AbfAblV) defines, among other things, the
requirements on the quality of mechanical-biologically pre-treated wastes to be landfilled. Apart
from stability parameters AT4 and TOCEluat strict requirements on the heating value or
alternatively on the TOCsolid are defined. Meeting the respective limit values (Ho < 6,000 MJ/Mg,
TOCsolid < 18 %) usually requires a separation of the components of high calorific value to the
largest possible extent.
For this purpose normally a post-treatment after the biological treatment step is necessary
which usually is carried out by means of drum screens (20 to 40 mm). However, in this non-
specific step of separation inert materials are also collected with the screen overflow. If these
high-gravity solids would remain in the material to be landfilled this would have a positive effect
on meeting the limit value. Therefore it should be tested if by a post-trimming with the ballistic
separator the unwanted side-effects of the conventional post-treatment can be minimized.
Below, the results of the tests with the ballistic separator are compared to results with a
conventional 40 mm drum screen. The comparison considers the results of the treatment of
intensive composting material since the treatment of the post-maturation material was not ideal
due to the high moisture which is why the results are of limited validity.
For post-trimming of the fraction to be landfilled after the biological treatment step the two
paddle levels of the ballistic separator were retrofitted to 20 mm screen mesh width.
The goals that the assessment of the treatment units is based on are:
Separate by screening a landfill fraction as large as possible that meets landfill requirements;
Extract the still remaining components of high calorific value that can be sent to energy
recovery if possible (lower heating value Hu > 11,000 MJ/Mg FS).
In picture 5 the essential results of the treatment trials of intensive composting material with a 40
mm drum screen and the ballistic separator are shown in summary. By treating with the ballistic
separator, with 63.7 % an almost 10 % lesser share of landfill fraction was achieved compared to
the 40 mm screen. The TOCsolid content was significantly below the 18 % limit value in both
landfill fractions.
The energy recoverable fraction with a lower heating value Hu >11,000 MJ/Mg FS took 29.7 %
of the input quantity when treating with the ballistic separator. This fraction had a high heating
value of more than 12,000 MJ/Mg FS and can be energy recovered as secondary fuel.
The quality of the light weight fraction created with a 40 mm screen with a heating value of
almost 8,000 MJ/Mg FS was significantly below the requirement criterion for the fraction of
high calorific value (share of 25.7 %). A comparable quality was determined for the high-gravity
solids that had a share of 6.6 % in the treatment with the ballistic separator.
Conclusion
The post-treatment of biologically treated waste with the ballistic separator has clear advantages
with regard to the quality of the produced light weight fraction in comparison to the conventional
treatment with a 40 mm drum screen. By treating the landfill fraction with the ballistic separator
it can be effectively separated from components of high calorific value and landfilling according
to the legal requirements can be realized.
However, the trials also showed that this high-grade treatment may perhaps not be necessary
since the required limit values can be met with a drum screen as well or possibly without further
treatment. The application of the ballistic separator is therefore especially recommended for
composting fractions with a large share of high calorific components. This can be the case, for
example, if a MBT plant also processes commercial wastes.

Comparison of the output quantity streams of the different treatment units

100%
light fraction, RDF

25.7% 29.7%
coarse fraction
80%

6.6%
fraction for landfilling

60%

40%
74.3%
63.7%

20%

0%
drum screen 40 mm Ballistic
-separator

Figure 5: Comparison of the output quantity streams of the different treatment units.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Stadler company for preparing and financing the trials with the ballistic separator.
We also like to thank the responsible people of the MBT plants Pößneck and Linkenbach for
permission of and contribution to the trials.

REFERENCES

Anonymous (2001): Verordnung über die umweltverträgliche Ablagerung von Siedlungsabfällen

(AbfAblV), BGBl, 2001a
IGW (2002): Untersuchungen zur Leistungsfähigkeit des Ballistik-Separators der Fa. Stadler im
Bereich der mechanisch-biologischen Restabfallbehandlung; Untersuchungsbericht,
unveröffentlicht
IGW (2003): Leistungsfähigkeit des Ballistik-Separators der Fa. Stadler im Bereich der
mechanisch-biologischen Restabfallbehandlung - Untersuchungen auf der MBA Linkenbach
und SBS-Aufbereitung Ulm -, Untersuchungsbericht, unveröffentlicht
Müller, W., R. Heinrich, U. Wiegel und T. Turk (2002): Energetische Verwertung
heizwertreicher Fraktionen aus gemischten Siedlungsabfällen – Konzeptionen und Kostenin:
Thomé-Kozmiensky (2002): Ersatzbrennstoffe 2, vivis-Verlag, ISBN 3-935317-08-5; S. 465-
484
Wallmann, R., 2001: Entwicklung der Abluftbehandlung bei mechanisch-biologischer
Restabfallbehandlung, Müll & Abfall 8, S. 496 - 497