FACULTY: ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT: CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

RESEARCH TITLE: IMPACT OF OVERSIZE

. BOULDERS ON PRODUCTION
. LOSS

STUDENT NAME: CHIMHUYA TAPUWANASHE

ELVIS

YEAR: 2023

i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to investigate the production loss at Bikita minerals due to downtimes
in removing oversized boulders from the jaw crusher. The time taken to remove each boulder
was recorded and production loss calculated per 8-hour shift. The results shows that the
production loss was high and therefore the problem need to be solved. The electrical energy
used by the crusher was also recoded to determine the electrical energy loss due to the down

i
times. The energy was obtained by direct measurement of crusher's motor power during the
crushing of rocks.

Key words: jaw crusher, grizzly screen, bridging, crushing, fracture mechanism.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1
1.1INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1
1.2PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................................. 2
1.3RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................. 2
1.4.0 AIM .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.41 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 2
1.6 APPLICATION OF GRIZZLY SCREEN .......................................................................... 3
1.5 JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 3
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 jaw crushers ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Blake Jaw Crushers .................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Single Toggle Jaw Crusher ...................................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Double Toggle Jaw Crusher ..................................................................................... 7
2.2.4 Dodge Jaw Crushers ................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Components of a Jaw Crusher......................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Swing Jaw: ............................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Fixed Jaw: ................................................................................................................ 8
2.3.3Liners: ....................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.4 Toggle Plate: ............................................................................................................ 9
2.3.5 Eccentric Shaft: ........................................................................................................ 9
2.4 Jaw Crusher Construction ............................................................................................... 9
2.5 Important Design And Operation Factors ..................................................................... 11
2.6 Fracture Process During Comminution ......................................................................... 14
2.6.1 Jaw Crusher Capacity............................................................................................. 15
2.7 Fracture Mechanics ....................................................................................................... 17
2.7.1 Griffith’s Theory .................................................................................................... 18
2.8 Relationship between Fracture Toughness and Energy ................................................ 19
2.9 How to improve jaw crusher performance and productivity ........................................ 20
2.9.1 Avoid bridging ....................................................................................................... 20
iii
 2.9.2 Apply the proper jaw die profile ............................................................................ 21
2.9.3 Monitor the condition of jaws ................................................................................ 21
Traditional approaches to mitigation .............................................................................. 22
Chapter 3: Grizzly screen as a control method ....................................................................... 23
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Grizzly screens .............................................................................................................. 24
3.2.1 Static Grizzlies ....................................................................................................... 25
3.2.2 Grizzly Bars ........................................................................................................... 25
3.2.3 Vibrating Grizzly Screen........................................................................................ 26
3.3 Disadvantages of grizzly screens .................................................................................. 26
Chapter 4: ................................................................................................................................ 28
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................. 32
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 32
5.2 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 32
5.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 6: References ............................................................................................................. 33

List of Figures

FIGURE 2.1 SINGLE TOGGLE BLACK JAW CRUSHER ............................................................................................... 6

FIGURE 2.1DOUBLE TOGGLE BLACK JAW CRUSHER .............................................................................................. 7
FIGURE 2.3 ANGLE OF NIP .................................................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 2.4 BUSH BEARING................................................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 2.5 FRACTURE PROCESS IN JAW CRUSHER CHAMBERS .............................................................................. 15
FIGURE 2.6 AN ELLIPTICAL CAVITY INSIDE A PLATE ............................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 3.1GRIZZLY ............................................................................................................................................. 24
FIGURE 3.2 GRIZZLY BARS ................................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 4.1 CURRENT REDUCTION PLANT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM. ................................................................... 28
FIGURE 4.2 PROPOSED REDUCTION PLANT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM .................................................................. 29
TABLE 4.2 CALCULATED PRODUCTION LOSS IN TONS PER HOUR FOR THE 8 HR SHIFTS .......................................... 30

iv
CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
A jaw crusher is a large piece of equipment that is used in mine and ore processing plants to crush
rocks. Inventor Eli Whitey Black, who primarily developed machinery used for crushing stone
first introduced the equipment back in 1858. From there, jaw crushers have seen plenty of action
in the pit and quarry industries as well as in recycling processes where large materials need to be
reduced. (Shannon Harding Grafik, 2021). Jaw crushers use compressive force to break down large
materials into smaller, more manageable pieces. It has two crushing jaws (one is stationary while
the other one is moving) that produces mechanical pressure for crushing the materials. The two
vertical crushing jaws create a V-shaped opening called the crushing chamber where the materials
are dropped off. It’s so-called because the opening starts wide then tapers down to a V where the
crushed materials go (Shannon Harding Grafik, 2021). At Bikita Minerals, a 36 by 25-inch
Double-toggle Blake crusher is used which means it has a gap of 36 inch and a width of 25 inch.

The primary applications for using jaw crushers are crushing different kinds of ore, reducing
building rubble to pieces, Rock ranging (from medium to extremely hard rocks), creaking down
large glasses and crushing other hard materials. (Wills, 2006)
There are two types of jaw crushers, single toggle and double toggle jaw crushers. The current
primary crusher at Bikita minerals is a double toggle black jaw crusher. At Bikita Minerals, the
second stage of comminution is done at the Reduction plant. Large boulders are crushed from a
size of about 0.5m to 19mm in two sections that is the primary section and the secondary section.
Crushing efficiency is reduced when boulders are larger than the opening of the primary jaw
crusher (+0.6m at Bikita minerals), they can build up in and eventually block or obstruct the
crusher. This problem is called bridging, which means stones blocking the flow from entering or
moving down in the crushing chamber. It can be caused by just one stone that is larger than the
feed opening, or many average-sized stones crossing against each other and blocking the crusher’s
feed (Luiz, 2020).

Bridging can cause a significant loss of production that oftentimes goes unnoticed. It is relevant to
keep an eye on bridging in the feeding area of a primary crusher as it can take several minutes to
resolve the issue (big rock being removed, fragmented or directed to the chamber). These events
can cause mines to incur significant financial losses due to unplanned downtime, a decrease in

1
throughput, or an increase in energy use. It can occur six to ten times on an 8-hour shift, which
quickly leads to 30 minutes of lost production (Luiz, 2020). If that happens at Bikita mine, with
jaw crusher working capacity of 350 t/hr, the production loss per day is 520 tons. Other effects
include a great deal of energy and can result in power spikes and wear and tear of the crusher liner.
These problems can be reduced by the installation of a heavy-duty vibrating grizzly screen. The
grizzly bars are made of cast manganese and alloyed steel. Grizzly bars are resistant to crack
propagation and are built to endure a longer life.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The loss of production due to plant downtime is one of the major problems faced at Bikita minerals.
Most unplanned plant downtime is crusher related and primarily due to blockages caused by
oversized feed (+0.6m). The average downtime per 8-hour shift is 30 minutes leading to 1 hour
30mins a day. With jaw crusher working capacity of 350 t/hr, the production loss per day is 520
tons. Other effects include increase in energy use, which can result in power spikes and wear and
tear of the crusher liners. Workers are also at risk of injury during boulder removal due to the
moving jaws

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What are the effects of oversize boulders during primary crushing?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using grizzly screens?

What is the crushing efficiency of the primary crusher (jaw crusher)?

1.4.0 AIM
To reduce production loss due to downtime caused by oversize boulders entering the primary
crusher (jaw crusher).

1.41 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

To calculate the production rate of primary crusher per hour.

To determine the crushing efficiency of jaw crusher.

To determine electrical energy consumed per hour by jaw crusher.

2
1.6 APPLICATION OF GRIZZLY SCREEN
Grizzly screens are used as a primary separator for the preliminary separation of material in front
of jaw crushers. Generally, the grizzly screen is placed in an inclined position, and the materials
are dumped at the high end. Under the action of its own weight, it slides down the screen surface
and the particles smaller than the gap or hole on the screen surface pass through the screen to
achieve classification. A vibrating grizzly screen can be applied to increase screen efficiency. It is
placed between the feeder and the primary crusher to avoid oversize boulders entering the crusher
(Ugurmak, 2021). An apron conveyer can be used to convey the oversize to a stockpile. This
research will give full description on design and application of the grizzly screen.

1.5 JUSTIFICATION
Due to the problems caused by bridging, which are reducing production rate, energy loss, wearing,
and tearing of crusher liners it is a major problem, which needs to be solved at Bikita minerals. A
vibrating grizzly should be installed after the apron feeder so that oversize boulders do not enter
the jaw crusher thereby reducing downtimes and operating costs. The use of grizzly screen also
eliminates the hazards faced by workers during the process of removing boulders inside the
crusher.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Comminution is a process in which larger pieces of ore or rock form smaller pieces under exposure
of mechanical forces, i.e. there is a change in dispersed state of solids, which is uniquely
determined by grain size composition. There are many reasons for using comminution: achieving
the release of useful minerals from useless minerals as preparation for concentration, attaining
certain size and shape of grain in producing concrete and asphalt, increasing the grain surface and
thus its reactivity, changing structural and chemical characteristics i.e. mechanical activation
(Bedekovic, 2000). All these make grinding an integral part of almost every process in mineral
processing, and its importance and significance arise from the fact that it is highly energy
demanding and also very inefficient and as such will always be an interesting area to explore
(Tomislav Korman, 2014).

3
According to (Sadrai, 2011), "the energy efficiency of comminution equipment can be defined as
the ratio of surface energy change to the mechanical energy input". According to this, grinding
efficiency varies between 0.1% and 1% (Abouzeid, 2002). Crushing efficiency is slightly higher
between 2% and 3%. According to Rittinger (1867), the energy required for comminution is
proportional to the newly created (free) surface area. According to Kick (1885), the specific energy
consumption during grinding is proportional to reduction in the diameter of the observed particles.
According to Bond (1952), the energy is inversely proportional to the square root of the newly
created surface area, which is a sort of compromise between "Rittinger's area" and "Kick's
diameter." Kick's "law" gives good results for crushing, Bond's for grinding and Rittinger's for
fine grinding. Based on a large number of tests, Bond introduced a working index or comminution
parameter that represents the resistance of the material to crushing and grinding (Bedekovic,
2000).

Rittinger’s law
1 1
E = CR (𝑋 − 𝑋 ) (2.1)
2 1

𝑑𝐸 1
In differential form = -CR (2.2)
𝑑𝑋 X2
Where: X1 is initial particle size
X2 is final particle size
CR is a constant
E is the energy required to reduce the top particle size of the material
From X1 to X2
Kick’s law

𝑋1
E = Ck lin (2.3)
𝑋2
𝑑𝐸 1
In differential form = -Ck (2.4)
𝑑𝑋 X
CK is the Kick’s law constant

4
Bond’s law

1 1
E = CB ( − ) (2.5)
√𝑋2 √𝑋1
𝑑𝐸 1
In differential form = -CB3 (2.6)
𝑑𝑋
X2
Characterization of rocks for selection of crusher can be done in different ways, and the most
commonly used is Bond work index. (Holmes, 1957) Proposed a modification of Bond's equation
with the additional coefficient that depends on the properties of rock. There are several methods
for the determination of resistance to crushing, however, two most commonly used methods are
pendulum and falling weight tests. For the determination of the resistance to crushing, Bond's
index is determined based on the average comminution energy for individual samples using a
device with a double pendulum (Bedekovic, 2000). Numerous authors have conducted tests of
resistance to crushing by considering physical and mechanical properties. Bearman (1991)
conducted an extensive research on the impact of physical and mechanical properties of rocks on
the performance of crushers. Based on these studies, the most important characteristics that affect
crushing energy are fracture toughness, tensile strength, and point load index (Bedekovic, 2000).

Based on the falling pendulum tests, Narayanan and Whiten (1988) developed a straightforward
t10 parameter that describes the distribution of classes in the grain-size composition of the crushed
material. This parameter represents the proportion of fragmented particles smaller than 1/10 of the
input grain sizes. The tests established the link between the specific comminution energy and the
parameter t10 (Napier-Munn T. J., 1996). Donovann (2003) analyzed the influence of individual
characteristics on the performance of jaw crusher, and found that of all of the surveyed properties
fracture toughness had a greatest impact on crushing energy. Kujundzic (2008) found that the
energy required for crushing igneous rocks was higher compared to the crushing of sedimentary
rocks. It was also found that the hardness showed no significant influence on the crushing energy.
Olaleye (2010) found that the increasing uniaxial compressive strength increased the time required
for crushing. Toraman (2010) conducted tests on laboratory jaw crusher and found a link between
the crushing index and the impact strength index. Tosun and Konak (2014) developed a model to
predict the energy consumption of primary and secondary crushers. According to this model, the
specific energy of crushing depends on the specific consumption of explosives and uniaxial
compressive strength. From an energy consumption viewpoint, it is clear that blasting with the

5
intention of decreasing the Bond work index (Wi) will produce large energy savings (Bedekovic,
2000).

2.2 JAW CRUSHERS

Jaw crushers are machines designed to impart compression and impact forces on a rock placed
between two plates. In a jaw crusher, one of the plate moves (swings) while the other one remains
stationary (fixed). Liners made of hardened steel are usually fixed on the jaws. These liners can
be both flat and convex or a combination of both. There are two main types of jaw crushers; Blake
jaw crushers and Dodge jaw crushers (MWANGI, 2021).

2.2.1 Blake Jaw Crushers

E.W. Blake patented the Blake crusher in 1858 and variations in detail on the basic form are found
in most of the jaw crushers used today. The patent states that the stonebreaker “consists of a pair
of jaws, one fixed and the other movable, between which the stones are to be broken.” The jaws
are set at an acute angle with one jaw pivoting to swing relative to the other fixed jaw. Material
fed into the jaws is repetitively nipped and released to fall further into the crushing chamber until
the discharge aperture (Wills, 2016). In Blake jaw crushers, the swing jaw is pivoted at the top of
the frame so as to attain a maximum amplitude at the bottom of the crushing jaws. Usually, Blake
crushers are controlled by the pitman and operated by toggles. The size of the opening feed is
known as the ‘gape’ while that of the closing feed is known as the ‘set’. Blake jaw crushers can
be single-toggle or double-toggle (MWANGI, 2021).

2.2.2 Single Toggle Jaw Crusher

Figure 2.1 Single Toggle Black Jaw Crusher

6
In single-toggle jaw, crushers (Figure 2.1) the swing jaw is suspended on the eccentric shaft, which
allows a lighter, more compact design than with the double-toggle machine. The motion of the
swing jaw also differs from that of the double-toggle design (Wills, 2016). Not only does the swing
jaw move toward the fixed jaw under the action of the toggle plate, but it also moves vertically as
the eccentric rotates. This elliptical jaw motion assists in pushing rock through the crushing
chamber. The single-toggle machine therefore has a somewhat higher capacity than the double-
toggle machine of the same gape. The eccentric movement, however, increases the rate of wear on
the jaw plates. Direct attachment of the swing jaw to the eccentric imposes a high degree of strain
on the drive shaft, and as such, maintenance costs tend to be higher than with the double-toggle
machine. This type of crusher has less weight and is cheaper in comparison to the double toggle
type (MWANGI, 2021).

2.2.3 Double Toggle Jaw Crusher

Figure 2.2 Double Toggle Black Jaw Crusher

This crusher has two toggle plates as shown in Figure 2.1. The oscillating movement of the
swinging jaw is effected by vertical movement of the pitman, which moves up and down under
the influence of the eccentric. The back toggle plate causes the pitman to move sideways as it is
pushed upward. This motion is transferred to the front toggle plate, which in turn causes the swing
jaw to close on the fixed jaw, this minimum separation distance being the closed set (or closed
side setting). Similarly, downward movement of the pitman allows the swing jaw to open, defining
the open set (or open side setting) (Wills, 2006). Even though the double toggle jaw crusher

7
crushes tough and abrasive rocks, it is heavier and costly to manufacture. Blake type jaw crushers
are very popular due to the following reasons: They are easy to repair and simple to adjust so that
minimal wear is experienced during operation. They are able to crush blocky and abrasive rocks.
It is possible to reinforce the crusher using a high strength crusher frame. This makes them ideal
for crushing very hard rocks (Abuhasel, 2019).

2.2.4 Dodge Jaw Crushers

Figure 2.3 Jaw-crusher types.

In these jaw crushers, the moving jaw is pivoted at the bottom and connected to the eccentric shaft.
The movable jaw is hinged at the bottom of the crusher frame to ensure that maximum amplitude
if motion is at the top of the jaws as shown in Figure 2.3. These crushers are commonly used in
laboratories due to their small capacity (Deepak, 2010). The Dodge crusher is restricted to
laboratory use, where close sizing is required.

2.3 COMPONENTS OF A JAW CRUSHER

2.3.1 Swing Jaw:
This is the main moving part of a jaw crusher. Its movement is achieved through the eccentric
shaft which provided enough force to crush the rocks.

2.3.2 Fixed Jaw:

It is located on the opposite side of the pitman and is statically mounted. It is covered with liners
which prevent it from wear.

2.3.3Liners:
Jaw crusher liners are made of hardened manganese steel. They are usually symmetrical at the top
and flipped over at the bottom as most wear takes place at the closed side of the jaw crusher. Liners
are mounted on the crushing side of both the fixed jaw and swing jaw.

8
2.3.4 Toggle Plate:
The toggle plate acts as a fail-safe device in the jaw crusher. If a non-crushable material which is
larger than the closed side setting, the toggle plate will crush in order to prevent further damage to
the jaw crusher. A good example of a non-crushable material is the steel loader tooth or the tramp
iron, which are present in mined rock debris.

2.3.5 Eccentric Shaft:

This provides the eccentric motion of the swing jaw. It goes through the entire length of the swing
jaw.

2.4 JAW CRUSHER CONSTRUCTION

Jaw crushers are heavy-duty machines and hence must be robustly constructed. The main frame is
often made from cast iron or steel, connected with tie-bolts. It is commonly made in sections so
that it can be transported underground for installation. Modern jaw crushers may have a main
frame of welded mild steel plate. The jaws are usually constructed from cast steel and fitted with
replaceable liners, made from manganese steel or “Ni-hard,” a Ni-Cr alloyed cast iron (Esterle,
1996). Apart from reducing wear, hard liners are essential to minimize crushing energy
consumption by reducing the deformation of the surface at each contact point. The jaw plates are
bolted in sections for simple removal or periodic reversal to equalize wear. Cheek plates are fitted
to the sides of the crushing chamber to protect the main frame from wear. These are also made
from hard alloy steel and have similar lives to the jaw plates (Wills, 2006).

The jaw plates may be smooth, but are often corrugated, the latter being preferred for hard, abrasive
ores. Patterns on the working surface of the crushing members also influence capacity, especially
at small settings. The corrugated profile is claimed to perform compound crushing by compression,
tension, and shearing. Conventional smooth crushing plates tend to perform crushing by
compression only, though irregular particles under compression loading might still break in
tension. Since rocks are around 10 times weaker in tension than compression, power consumption
and wear costs should be lower with corrugated profiles. Regardless, some type of pattern is
desirable for the jaw plate surface in a jaw crusher, partly to reduce the risk of undesired large
flakes easily slipping through the straight opening, and partly to reduce the contact surface when
crushing flaky blocks (Wills, 2016).

9
In several installations, a slight wave shape has proved successful. The angle between the jaws is
usually less than 26, as the use of a larger angle causes particle to slip (i.e., not be nipped), which
reduces capacity and increases wear. In order to overcome problems of choking near the discharge
of the crusher, which is possible if fines are present in the feed, curved plates are sometimes used.
The lower end of the swing jaw is concave, whereas the opposite lower half of the fixed jaw is
convex. This allows a more gradual reduction in size as the material nears the exit, minimizing the
chance of packing. Less wear is also reported on the jaw plates, since the material is distributed
over a larger area.

The speed of jaw crushers varies inversely with the size, and usually lies in the range of 100-350
rpm. The main criterion in determining the optimum speed is that particles must be given sufficient
time to move down the crusher throat into a new position before being nipped again. The throw
(maximum amplitude of swing of the jaw) is determined by the type of material being crushed and
is usually adjusted by changing the eccentric. It varies from 1 to 7 cm depending on the machine
size, and is highest for tough, plastic material and lowest for hard, brittle ore. The greater the throw
the less danger of choking, as material is removed more quickly. This is offset by the fact that a
large throw tends to produce more fines, which inhibits arrested crushing. Large throws also impart
higher working stresses to the machine (Schonert, 1979).

In all crushers, provision must be made for avoiding damage that could result from uncrushable
material entering the chamber. Many jaw crushers are protected from such “tramp” material (often
metal objects) by a weak line of rivets on one of the toggle plates, although automatic trip-out
devices are now common. Certain designs incorporate automatic overload protection based on
hydraulic cylinders between the fixed jaw and the frame. In the event of excessive pressure caused
by an overload, the jaw is allowed to open, normal gap conditions being reasserted after clearance
of the blockage. This allows a full crusher to be started under load (Anon, 1985). The use of
“guard” magnets to remove tramp metal ahead of the crusher is also common. Jaw crushers are
supplied in sizes up to 1,600 mm (gape) 3 1,900 mm (width). For coarse crushing application
(closed setB300 mm), capacities range up to ca. 1,200 t h-1. However, Lewis et al. (1976) estimated
that the economic advantage of using a jaw crusher over a gyratory diminishes at crushing rates
above 545 t h-1 , and above 725 t h-1 jaw crushers cannot compete.

10
2.5 IMPORTANT DESIGN AND OPERATION FACTORS
There are some design and operation factors that must be given attention in jaw crushers at the
design and operation stages, without which, the machine will not function economically. Such
factors and critical components include the nature of feed material, angle of nip, jaws, pitman,
eccentric shaft, toggle plate, drawback rod, cheek plates, bearing, crusher frame, pulley and
flywheel. Nature of Feed Material Crushers which comminute by compression are strongly
recommended for hard, brittle and abrasive rocks, i.e., rocks with Mohs hardness value ranging
from 6 to 7 and above. Donovan posited that the crushing force must exceed the fracture strength
of a particle for it to fracture; however, rocks broken in jaw crushers fail at stress levels well below
the compressive strength due to induced tensile stresses and the presence of cracks. It is the tensile
strength of rock material that must be exceeded in order for it to fracture. Decrease in strength of
rocks is due to pre-existing flaws and cracks within the rocks which act as stress concentrators as
well as moisture effect on the mineral grains . Refahi et al. showed that the difference between
Wall and Bond energies for hard rocks are more than those of lower strength rocks; this arose due
to more sensitivity of the hard rock to stress concentration and strain rate. According to Elisante,
physical properties of materials such as: moisture content, structure, friability, density, hardness
and crushing strength are important design criteria, as these affect both the life of the liners and
power requirement. Olaleye revealed that the higher the strength of a rock, the higher the crushing
time under the influence of a crusher; this implies more wear to the crusher jaws. Donovan, noted
that rocks are brittle materials and the theoretical strength σt of an ideal brittle material should be
approximately, σ where, is Young’s modulus. Angle of Nip the jaws are set at an acute angle to
each other. This angle commonly known as the “angle of nip” is usually less than 26º. This is due
to slipping effect when the angle is larger which reduces capacity. Niemela and Kieranen stated
that a desirable nip angle controls the ability to crush a given type of material at a commercial rate
and it preferably falls between 17º and 27º. Exceeding the maximum angle causes regurgitation or
slipping from the machine, while operating below the desired range leads to the production of
undesirable dust and fines; hence, the machine tends to serve more like a pulverizer. Figure 3
illustrates the angle of nip in a jaw crusher.

11
Figure 1.3 Angle of nip

Crusher Jaw Plates Compression of materials undergoing crushing in a jaw crusher is achieved
when the movable jaw presses the feed against a stationary jaw. These jaws can be flat surfaced
or corrugated. Crusher jaws were formerly made of white cast iron and later with high manganese
austenitic steel also known as Hadfield steel, which is the dominant wear material for the jaws.
Wear on these components increases as the feed lump is being reduced and moved towards the
discharge. According to Kinkel, the greatest amount of crushing is done at the lower edges of the
jaws; consequently, these lower edges are subjected to much greater wear than any other part of
the jaw, because, the greatest movement of the movable jaw is at the lower edge. These plates are
made reversible, so that the worn end can be inverted to become the upper end of the plate, thereby,
reducing the cost of replacing these worn jaws. The variation in the amount of wear on the fixed
jaw calls for a variation in the surface hardness of the jaw. This will be difficult to achieve by
casting, but can definitely be achieved by hard facing techniques. Additionally, virtual modeling
results have shown that the strength to weight ratio of the movable jaw can be increased by
increasing the number of stiffeners attached to its back, this is depicted in Figure 4. The fixed jaw
is bolted to a support plate, while the movable jaw is bolted to the pitman for easy dismantling
when they are worn out, to be replaced or partly worn, to be inverted. The pitman is joined at the
upper end to accept the eccentric shaft . This structure houses the eccentric lobe and supports the
movable jaw. The lower end of the pitman is guided by the toggle plate and drawback rod attached
to it. It has been demonstrated by Sutti and Jonkka that a pitman with a cross-sectional support in
the form of a honeycomb structure reduces or removes bending of the pitman and wear compared
with a pitman without such support. The cross-sectional supports eliminate bending and distortion
horizontally, with additional advantages including crushing material with smaller stroke count and
smaller stroke length, reduction in the amount of energy required from the flywheel, lesser material

12
requirement for producing the pitman, reduced mass of the pitman and avoidance of holes arising
from casting, when open structured pitman is used.

Eccentric Shaft Rotation of the eccentric shaft during operation by the pulley causes the movable
jaw to make an elliptical movement. Karra et al.revealed that increased eccentricity of the shaft
leads to increase in throw; hence, increase in throughput capacity can be achieved without
increasing the physical size of the jaw crusher by increasing the stroke of the eccentric shaft,
decreasing the speed without increasing the crushing force through increased jaw width. Also,
increased throw gives the advantages of retaining the structural design of the crusher and
decreasing the machine loads. The crusher stroke is the displacement of jaw between the widest
and narrowest points on an eccentrically gyrating cycle. Alternatively, Donovan defined the throw
as the stroke of the swing jaw or the difference between the open side set and the closed side set.
The open side set is the maximum discharge aperture, while the closed side set is the minimum
discharge aperture. The side or cheek plates are positioned on the left and right ends of the crushing
chamber to prevent the material being crushed from reaching the frame of the crusher, which will
lead to the wear of the frame. Cheek plates are also made of manganese steel; materials such as
white cast iron and hardfaced steel can be used since the impact on the side plates is minimal
compared to the stationary jaw. Worn cheek plates together with worn jaws should be replaced on
time as worn chamber will affect the capacity of the crusher, size and shape of the produced
particles .The toggle plate is used to hold the lower part of the jaw in position; this depends on the
desired product size. Toggles are designed to be adjustable for easy removal of uncrushable object
such as tramp iron and to achieve proper discharge setting. Mechanisms for toggle adjustment
include: spring relief mechanism for relieving strain on the jaws when tramp iron lodges between
the jaws, shims and hydraulic cylinders, which allow easy adjustment of discharge setting by
moving the toggle block to the desired setting, remote controlled electromechanical actuation
mechanism is possible. A trial mechanism design with different acute angles of inclination showed
that the throw is not only related to the eccentric shaft, but also the toggle inclination. Considering
the role of the toggle plate, there is need to determine the optimal angle of inclination for efficient
performance. Drawback or Tension Rod-Spring Mechanism The drawback rod is attached to the
lower end of the movable jaw or the pitman carrying the movable jaw, and carries a spring at the
opposite end. The rod-spring subassembly retrieves the movable jaw from the furthest end of
travel. Here, the spring deflection and the rigidity of the rod are pertinent. This spring-biased rod

13
facilitates the cyclical return of the lower end of the jaw to the base position. Pulley and Flywheel
The weights of these two machine elements need be balanced as any deviation may lead to
undesired twisting of the eccentric shaft and increased vibration. They are firmly keyed to the
opposite ends of the eccentric shaft. Usually, they are made of gray cast iron because of its good
vibration damping, machinability and resistance to sliding wear. The pulley has two or more
grooves and is driven by belts attached to the prime mover which may be a combustion engine or
an electric motor. The flywheel supplies the moment of inertia of a system, as it serves as a
reservoir, which stores energy during the period when the supply is more than the requirement and
releases it when the energy requirement is more than the supply. Hence, the inertia required to
crush a material in a jaw crusher is provided by the flywheel. Bearings hold the eccentric shaft in
position and enable its free rotation. Lubrication of these elements with grease and sealing of their
ends should be ensured to prevent entry of dust. Dynamic loads from the pitman, movable jaw,
flywheel, pulley, drawback rod, toggle plate and eccentric shaft lead to severe wear in the bearings.
Choudaha et al. demonstrated that replacing a roller bearing with bush/babbited bearing in two
halves, increased the availability of a jaw crusher by 17%, reduced breakdown and mean time to
repair by 89%, while the maintenance was reduced by 86%. In addition, this increased customer
satisfaction and enhanced productivity as removal of the pulley and flywheel before changing the
bearing was avoided. The bush bearing is as shown in Figure 2.4

Figure 2.4 Bush bearing

2.6 FRACTURE PROCESS DURING COMMINUTION

Jaw crushers are compression machines, which generate powerful crushing forces. For a particle
to fracture, the crushing force must be greater than the fracture strength of the particle (Donovan,
2003). The rocks are usually fed into the crusher when the jaws are furthest apart. During the
compression stroke, the feed material is crushed into smaller sizes and slide down the cavity as
shown in Figure 2.3. This process continues until the rocks pass through the set as product.

14
Figure 2.5 Fracture process in jaw crusher chambers

The operator decides the size of the set during operation. The Open Side Set (OSS) is the maximum
opening between the jaws while the Closed Side Set (CSS) is the minimum opening between the
jaws at discharge. The gape is the distance between the jaws at the feed opening. The throw is the
stroke of the swing jaw and is defined as the difference between the OSS and CSS.

Parameter Range Reduction Ratio, R 1:4 to 1:7 Frequency of stroke, v 100 to 300 rpm Throw, LT
10 to 70 mm

2.6.1 Jaw Crusher Capacity

Jaw crusher capacity can be defined as the volume or mass of crushed material per unit time. The
capacity is a function of:

i. Design parameters such as width of the crushing chamber

ii. OSS and CSS (These control the reduction ratio)

iii. The type of feed method i.e. continuous feeding, intermittent feeding, manual feeding, etc.

iv. Operating characteristics such as the number of strokes per minute, stroke length (Throw)

The jaw crusher capacity is a function of eight parameters as shown:

Q = f (W* L* LT *n* θ,*K*LMAX*LMIN )………………………………………2.7

Q = Jaw crusher capacity,

15
W = Jaw crusher width,

L = Height of the jaw crusher,

n = Frequency of strokes per minute (rpm),

θ = Jaw angle,

K = constant related to machine parameters,

LMAX = Open set (maximum opening of the set),

LMIN = Closed set (minimum opening of the set).

The capacity of jaw crushers is determined by the rate at which the rocks move down the crushing
chamber. This process is a succession of jaw angles that reduce the size of the feed material until
they are small enough to pass through the set. This implies that the capacity of the jaw crusher is
dependent on the time taken for a particle to be crushed and dropped through each jaw angle
succession until it is discharged at the bottom. Therefore, the frequency of opening and closing of
the jaws are critical in jaw crusher capacity.

Several researchers have tried to establish the mathematical models for determining the jaw
crusher capacity. However, getting a model that takes into account all the variables affecting jaw
crusher capacity is very difficult (Legendre & Zevenhoven, 2014). Manufacturers have settled on
the Rose and English (A. Gupta & Yan, 2006) model in the design of jaw crusher characteristics.
In this model, the maximum jaw crusher capacity QM is given by:

𝑅
𝐐𝐌 = 2820𝐿0.5
𝑇 W(2𝐿𝑀𝐼𝑁 + 𝐿 𝑇 )(𝑅−1)
0.5
ϼ𝑆 𝑓(𝑃𝐾 )𝑓(𝛽)𝑆𝑐 [𝑇⁄𝐻 ] …………………………….2.8

where

R = Reduction ratio

ϼS = Ore density in t/m3

PK= Size distribution function or packing characteristics

β = The ratio of set to mean size of feed material

SC = Parameter related to rock surface characteristics

16
The packing characteristics, PK is the ratio of the difference of the maximum (dMAX) and minimum
(dMIN) to the mean size of feed material (dMEAN ):

𝑑𝑀𝐴𝑋 −𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥
PK = ( )…………………………………………………………………..……… 2.9
𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛

PK, and β can be related to jaw crusher capacity by the functions f(P K) and f(β) respectively. This
relationship is as shown in Figure . For all practical purposes, f(β) is equal to 1 because the closed
set must always be less than the feed size.

It has also been found that beyond a certain operating frequency, the productivity of the crusher
decreases (A. Gupta & Yan, 2006). This frequency is the critical crusher frequency and is given
as:

𝟏 𝑹−𝟏 0.5
𝑽𝑪 = 𝟒𝟕 (𝑳 𝟎.𝟓
( ) [cycles/min]…………………………………………………….2.10
𝑻) 𝑹

Therefore, for actual crusher speeds, v, the actual capacity of a jaw crusher, QA, is given by;

QA = QM v/vc for v < vc and...............................................................................................2.11

QA = QM vc/v for v > vc…………………………………………………………………..2.12

If v = vc, then QA will be equal to QM and in this case, the maximum capacity for production is
theoretically achieved.

2.7 FRACTURE MECHANICS

Rock properties affect the energy consumption and performance of a jaw crusher. Fracture
properties such as particle strength, breakage fragment size distribution and specific breakage
energy of a material have been known to affect the power consumption of size-reduction machines.
Fracture toughness can be defined as an intrinsic material property, which depicts the material’s
resistance to crack propagation.

The energy required for comminution can be determined by the surface area created. As the particle
sizes decrease, the number of new surface areas increase. Therefore, measuring the surface area
before and after size-reduction process can be a good indicator of the amount of energy used in
comminution. During fracture, energy is consumed in the following ways:

 Creation of new surfaces such as internal cracks.

17
  Kinetic energy and rotation energy carried by flying and rotating fragments respectively.
 Through heat and plastic deformation at crack tips.
 Energy consumption in releasing sound and electromagnetic radiation.
 Other processes such as friction between mineral grains.

2.7.1 Griffith’s Theory

Griffith theory proposed that inherent cracks within a brittle material are main cause of failure. In
Figure 2.6, the stress σA is the tensile strength. If the material 22 completely fractures as a result
of the applied stress, then σA is the fracture strength and the corresponding stress at C is the
molecule strength or theoretical strength of the material. Fracture in a rock sample with inherent
cracks usually starts at point C. Therefore, the stresses at point C determine whether a crack will
initiate (Stamboliadis, 2002).

Figure 2.6 An elliptical cavity inside a plate

How a particle breaks during comminution is a difficult process to understand. For instance, sub-
processes which take place before material failure are dependent on the type of comminution
machine used and also pre-existing flaws within the material. The mechanism of failure affect the
product size distribution. In addition, pre-existing cracks act as stress concentrators hence
facilitating crack propagation.

18
In critical conditions, i.e. when the material failure occurs, σA = σF and c = c0 and thus

2𝐸𝛾
𝜎𝐹 = √ ………………………………………………………………………………2.13
𝜋𝐶0

Equation 2.12 is the Griffith strength relation where σF is the fracture stress, E is Young’s modulus
and γ is the surface fracture energy per unit area. Equation 2.1 shows that fracture stress depends
on the crack length, c, and hence fracture stress is not a material property. Modifying the equation;

2𝐸𝛾
𝜎 𝐹𝐶 1/2 = √ ………………………………………………………………………2.14
0 𝜋𝐶 0

In Equation , the right side has constants E and γ which are material properties and the left side
represents fracture toughness which is a material property. Griffith strength relationship shows
that materials with shorter crack lengths require higher applied stresses to fracture than materials
with longer cracks. This can be related to Weibull’s weakest link theory, which states that the
strength of a particle is dependent upon its most critical flaw. As the particle size decreases, the
probability of a critical flaw reduces. This implies that bigger particles have a higher probability
of failure than smaller ones.

The bounding surfaces in a solid, just as in liquids, possess surface tension which confirms the
presence of a corresponding amount of surface energy. Therefore, for a crack to be formed, the
magnitude of applied energy must be proportional to the area of the new surfaces created (Zhang,
2016). Measuring the surface area before and after size reduction could be an indicator of how
much energy is used in comminution (Toraman O. Y., 2010). Therefore, the new surface area
created will be used in this research to obtain the energy efficiency of the single toggle jaw crusher.

2.8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRACTURE TOUGHNESS AND

ENERGY
Fracture mechanics deals with the study of individual crack formation and propagation in solid
particles as a result of applied stress. Fracture toughness is the most fundamental parameter in
fracture mechanics as it describes the resistance to crack extension. Therefore, sufficient strain
energy must be released to overcome the surface energy.

Based on Griffith theory;

19
G = GC,

where, G is the strain energy release rate (or crack propagation force) and

GC is the fracture toughness or critical strain energy release rate.

If G is equal to GC, crack extension takes place. The strain energy release rate G can also be related
to the stress intensity factor K. For Mode I crack,

GI = K2 I E∗

where, GI is the strain energy release rate for Mode I and KI is the stress intensity factor for Mode
I nature of fracture. E ∗ is the effective Young’s modulus

and ν is the material’s Poisson’s ratio.

In engineering, rock failure often originates from one or multiple cracks in micro or macro scale.
For instance, during rock blasting, rocks are shattered into fragments as a result of crack
propagation. Therefore, to solve a fracture problem, one has to understand fracture mechanics
theory. To know whether a crack will propagate the energy release rate or stress intensity factor
should be determined. It is also important to note that the stresses at or near crack tips vary as the
cracks extend hence rock failure is a complex dynamic problem (Refahi A., 2009).

2.9 HOW TO IMPROVE JAW CRUSHER PERFORMANCE AND

PRODUCTIVITY
Everyone wants to get the most out of their equipment, and jaw crusher operators are no exception.
There are several factors that affect crusher performance and thus the whole circuit. Here are a
few things that can help you avoid production losses (Zeng, 1993).

2.9.1 Avoid bridging

Continuous bridging in the feeding area of jaw crushers is a common problem.

What is it?s

Bridging means stones blocking the flow from entering or moving down in the crushing chamber.
It can be caused by just one stone that is larger than the feed opening, or then many average-sized
stones of crossing against each other and blocking the crusher’s feed.

Why it is a problem?

20
Bridging can cause a significant loss of production that oftentimes goes unnoticed. It is relevant to
keep an eye on bridging in the feeding area of a primary crusher as it can take several minutes to
resolve the issue (big rock being removed, fragmented or directed to the chamber). If it occurs say
ten times in a day, it quickly leads to one hour of lost production.

If that happens, for instance, in one of our crusher models, C130 with 352 short ton per hour (stph)
working capacity and assuming a USD 12 /short ton, the daily loss can easily add up to four
thousand dollars.

How to prevent bridging?

 Bridging can be avoided by implementing a tight control of the blasting grid to avoid
generating oversize material.
 Training the truck loader operator to separate the oversize material at the pit and the
primary crushing plant operator visualizing the flow of material to the crusher
 Controlling the stones’ speed and direction by varying feeder speed and using the hydraulic
hammer installed in the area (Sutti, 2013).

2.9.2 Apply the proper jaw die profile

There are many kinds of rocks, differing in crushability, abrasiveness, flakiness, etc. Choosing the
best combination of fixed and movable jaw dies profiles will help to optimize production when
crushing difficult material. A Rock of low crushability requires a closer nip angle to keep the
capacity as designed. A highly abrasive rock requires thicker and heavier jaw dies that last longer,
thus avoiding loss of production due to frequent stops to replace them. Flaky rock requires toothed
jaw dies to crush it into more cubical pieces, avoiding stops due to bridging and belt cutting along
the crushing circuit.

Having the appropriate jaw die profile saves more than 20% of production capacity that would
otherwise be a loss.

2.9.3 Monitor the condition of jaws

Besides being an important item for the machine’s performance, the jaw crusher’s jaws are
responsible for front frame and swing jaw protection. Wear generally causes loss in production
due to increased crushing angle, loss of tooth profile, reduction of the CSS to compensate the

21
possible lamellar effect, etc. That is why it needs to be monitored throughout the crusher’s
lifecycle.

As excessive wear can cause a 10–20% reduction in production, it is important to find the optimal
time for the jaw turn or change in terms of cost and benefit.

We often stress the importance of optimizing blast parameters to reduce the cost of comminution
and cut back on energy use, but effective blasting can also reduce the likelihood of crusher
obstructions. Most unplanned plant downtime is crusher related and primarily due to blockages
caused by oversized feed. These events can cause mines to incur significant financial losses due
to unplanned downtime, a decrease in throughput, or an increase in energy use.

When boulders are larger than the opening of the primary jaw crusher, they can build up in and
eventually block or obstruct the crusher. In this case, production must be temporarily stopped to
break down or remove the boulder. But even boulders that are small enough to be processed by
the primary jaw crusher can cause problems – breaking down large rocks requires a great deal of
energy and can result in power spikes, slower production rates, and wear and tear of the crusher
liner.

Traditional approaches to mitigation

Mines have traditionally taken a reactive approach to mitigating the problems associated with
oversized material. A boulder obstruction is typically identified by monitoring trends in crusher
throughput – a falling trend indicates that material is not able to pass through the crusher. At this
point, the blockage or obstruction has already occurred. Mine personnel must halt production to
dig out the boulders or use rock breakers to clear the obstruction, creating a bottleneck and further
decreasing production.

Boulders that cannot pass through the grizzly must be broken down by rock breaking equipment.

It is true that, with a grizzly in place, boulders are less likely to enter the primary crusher. However,
a grizzly is still susceptible to blockages – mine personnel need to remove oversized material or
schedule rock breaking.

22
CHAPTER 3: GRIZZLY SCREEN AS A CONTROL METHOD
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of screening is to separate from a granular substance particles that are smaller than
the screen opening from those that are larger. This is not as simple as it sounds, and the difficulties
compound as the opening becomes smaller. For example, if a sample of a crushed mineral ore
containing 50% by weight of particles smaller than 1/8” is dropped on a static test sieve, most of
the undersize will remain on the screen, with only a trickle passing through. Now if the sieve is
subjected to some kind of motion, reciprocating or gyratory in the horizontal plane, or shaken with
a reciprocating motion having both vertical and horizontal components, the minus 1/8” particles
will begin to pass through the screen, at a diminishing rate until all but the particles closest to the
opening size have been separated out. The time duration of the shaking to reach this stage will be
roughly proportional to the amount of the sample placed on the test sieve1, which determines the
depth of the static material bed before the shaking starts (Slokan, 1969).

The most commonly used measure of screen efficiency is the cumulative weight of material that
has passed the screen in any time interval, compared to the total weight of undersize in the feed,
expressed in a percentage. This can be reversed, when the oversize is the product to be recovered;
then efficiency is the weight percent of material in the screened oversize fraction compared to the
total weight of oversize in the feed (Slokan, 1969).

The probability (p) that any particle will pass a square opening in a woven wire screen is governed
by the difference between its average diameter (d) and the opening dimension (L), and the wire
diameter (t).

𝑃 = 𝐾[(𝐿 − 𝐷) ÷ (𝐿 + 𝑡)]2

A Swedish inventor Dr. Fredrick Mogensen, predicts the probability p of a particle passing a
square mesh sieve opening, if it approaches at 90º to the plane of the opening and does not touch
a boundary wire, as from which it can be seen that the probability of an undersize particle passing
the opening will diminish exponentially as its diameter approaches the opening dimension, and
increase exponentially as the wire diameter (t) approaches zero.

It may also be noted that, if the particle is removed (d=0), the equation equals the percent open
area of a square mesh wire screen÷100. Thus if p is proportional to capacity, in a square mesh wire

23
screen capacity must be proportional to the percent open area, a relationship that is made use of
later in deriving the capacity correction factor F for the ratio L/t.

When the screen, supporting a static bed of material of extended size range, is shaken, a
phenomenon called “trickle stratification”2 causes the particles to stratify from finer at the bottom
to coarser at the top. The shaking motion may be in the horizontal plane of the screen, circular or
reciprocating, or with a vertical component. It may be a vibration applied directly to the screen
wires.3 In the example above, the particles in the fraction smaller than 1/8” that reach the screen
surface have a chance of passing an opening that is expressed by the Mogensen probability
function. Then ideally, for any average particle diameter less than 1/8”, the number of particles of
diameter d that will pass in a unit of time is the product of the probability function times the number
of times a single particle is presented to an opening (without touching a boundary wire).

3.2 GRIZZLY SCREENS

Figure 3.1Grizzly

Very coarse material is usually screened on an inclined screen called a grizzly screen. Grizzlies
are characterized by parallel steel bars or rails (Figure 3.1) set at a fixed distance apart and installed
in line with the flow of ore. The gap between grizzly bars is usually greater than 50 mm and can
be as large as 300 mm, with feed top size as large as 1 m. Vibrating grizzlies are usually inclined
at an angle of around 20º and have a circular-throw mechanism. The capacity of the largest
machines exceeds 5,000 t h-1 (Sullivan, 1962).

24
The most common use of grizzlies in mineral processing is for sizing the feed to primary and
secondary crushers. If a crusher has a 100 mm setting, then feed can be passed over a grizzly with
a 100 mm gap in order to reduce the load on the crusher. The bars are typically made from wear-
resistant manganese steel and are usually tapered to create gaps that become wider toward the
discharge end of the screen to prevent rocks from wedging between the bars. Domed or peaked
profiles on the tops of the bars give added wear protection and prevent undersized rocks from
“riding” along the bars and being misplaced (Sullivan, 1962).

Grizzly Screens have been designed for the toughest applications capable of high capacity and the
ability to process coarse material. These screens have a very robust design, which allow them to
operate under tough conditions (primary or secondary). They used as a primary separator for the
preliminary separation of material in front of jaw crushers.

3.2.1 Static Grizzlies

With no vibration mechanism, these units are used in scalping applications. They are installed at a
slope of 35º 50º to assist material flow. Static grizzlies are less efficient than their vibrating
counterparts and are usually used when the proportion of oversize material in the feed is small.

3.2.2 Grizzly Bars

Figure 3.2 Grizzly Bars

Bars are a widely used means of reducing the work of primary or secondary crushers. As the ore
is fed to the crusher, it passes over the grizzly bars, and the finer pieces drop through into the mill
ore bin. The grizzly is made of wear resisting wedge shaped bars easily replaced if necessary.

25
Grizzly Bars are punched and held in place by steel rods passing through the holes. Cast iron
spacers, of the proper shape and width, are placed between the bars. Various types of bars and
spacers can be used, depending upon the application (Rusi ń ski E, 2013).

3.2.3 Vibrating Grizzly Screen

A vibrating grizzly screen has been developed as a distinct improvement over the fixed grizzly
now in such wide use. It combines the functions of screening and feeding the ore to the primary
crusher, and, by eliminating the undersize product in the ore feed to the crusher, materially
increases the crusher capacity. In addition, due to the pulsating action of the unit, the ore is fed
positively to the crusher, at a controlled rate and the manual labor usually required is eliminated.

The unit consists of a strong, frame mounted, standard grizzly, which receives a positive eccentric
motion in a lateral plane through connecting links attached to the head motion of the jaw crusher.
Due to this positive action the angle of slope of the grizzly may be much less than that required in
fixed type grizzlies; and head room or fall may be reduced. The Shaking Grizzly is constructed in
several sizes to fit standard Jaw Crushers.

Aggregate production plants use screens to direct, separate, and control material flow in the
process. The two main purposes for screening the aggregates are to remove oversize material from
the crusher product or undersize material from the crushing plant and to size the materials
produced. An aggregate production plant must perform both functions (Rusi ń ski E, 2013).

3.3 DISADVANTAGES OF GRIZZLY SCREENS

A major problem with grizzly screens is that objects having at least one dimension only slightly
larger than the bar spacing tend to become jammed between the bars of the screen. 21. The
apparatus as defined by claim 18, wherein the shallow bed slot has a length at least as long as the
width of the primary grizzly bar. These obstructions prevent or retard the discharge of
subsequently encountered objects, and the screening capacity increasingly deteriorates. Often such
jammed objects require manual removal from the screen using a crowbar, sledge hammer and the
like. It is known to manufacture a grizzly screen whose bars have tapered cross-sections wherein
the bottom of each bar is narrower than the top, thus increasing the likelihood that objects passing
downward through the screen will not become jammed between the bars This innovation does not,
however, prevent all jamming of the screen and serious jamming problems still occur.

26
Still a further shortcoming of existing grizzly screens is that the bars forming such screen are
usually rigidly connected to the screen frame and require considerable effort and tools to remove
or replace damaged or worn bars. It is desirable to provide a positive attachment apparatus for the
screen bars, which also allows easy removal and replacement of the bars without tools (Legendre
D, 2014).

27
CHAPTER 4:
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter will look at the downtime recorded at Primary section from 9 May to 13 May 2022
(5 days) for 8-hour shifts. The results were recoded and total production loss was calculated per
day. The recorded downtime was due to chocking of jaw crusher only.

Stockpiles
Bin
Apron feeder

Jaw Crusher
(Primary crusher)

Conv 2

Chute
Conv 3

Stockpile
Decoupling
Bin 12
screen
Stockpile

Stockpile

Figure 4.1 Current Reduction plant process flow diagram.

28
 Stockpiles
Bin
Apron feeder

+ 0.60m
Grizzly screen
Oversize stockpile

-0.60m

Jaw Crusher
(Primary crusher) blasting

Conv 2

Chute
Conv 3

+19mm -19mm

Stockpile
Decoupling
Bin 12
screen
Stockpile

Stockpile
Secondary crushing

Figure 4.2 Proposed Reduction Plant process flow diagram

Figure 4.1 shows the current reduction plant (primary section) at Bikita minerals (without a grizzly
screen).figure 4.2 shows a proposed process diagram with a grizzly screen to avoid oversize
boulders from entering the crusher.

29
Table 4.1 Downtime recorded at Primary section from 9 May to 13 May 2022 for 8-hour shifts

Day Downtime recorded(morning shift)

Monday 7.30-7.35 8.25-8.35 9.14-9.17 10.02-10.08 12.24-12.28 14.37-14.41

Tuesday 8.12-8.19 10.42-11.00 12.05-12.10 13.17-13.20 14.28-14.30

Wednesday 9.10-9.13 11.43-11.59 13.12-13.16 14.19-14.23

Thursday 7.50-7.57 9.29-9.35 10.14-10.21 11.02-10.04 12.20-12.22 14.48-14.49

Friday 8.00-8.07 9.12-9.20 12.03-12.15 14.06-14.10

Table 4.2 calculated production loss in tons per hour for the 8 hr shifts

Day Total time Production loss

(mins) (t/hr)

Monday 30 175

Tuesday 35 204.2

Wednesday 27 157.5

Thursday 25 145.8

Friday 31 180.8

Average 29.6 172.66

Average production loss per day = 172.66 * 3 = 519 tons

Table 4.2 Primary crusher technical data

DRIVE Voltage Power rpm CURRENT

(V) (kw) Amps
Primary crusher 525 125 1480 30

30
Table 4.3 Electrical Power recorded at I hour intervals

Time Power CURRENT Power used

(kw) Amps
Hrs (kw/hr)

1 5762 29

2 5862 29 100

3 5963 30 101

4 6063 29 101

5 6165 30 100

Average 100.5

Average energy loss per day = 100.5+ 100.5/2 = 150.75kw

The loss of production due to plant downtime is one of the major problems faced at Bikita minerals.
Most unplanned plant downtime is crusher related and primarily due to blockages caused by
oversized feed (+0.6m). From the results above (table 4.2), it shows that the average downtime is
approximately 1 hour 30minutes a day and average production loss is approximately 519 tons.

That production loss is too high and thereby takes more time to achieve production monthly targets.
The application of a heavy-duty vibrating grizzly screen is needed to reduce or eliminate these
downtime problems. A proposed process diagram is shown on figure 4.2. The oversize boulders
will not pass thru the grizzly screen and conveyed to a stockpile for re-blasting.

The application of a grizzly screen reduces production costs from energy loss during choking. The
risk of workers in removing the boulders during choking is also eliminated.

31
CHAPTER 5
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In this project, the research work done has highlighted several facts on the application of a grizzly
screen to avoid oversize boulders entering the jaw crusher. This chapter will look at the
conclusions and the recommendations for future work suggested.

5.2 CONCLUSION
A description on the grizzly method of screening was given and at the same time proposing its
application in the crushing circuit to increase crushing efficiency. The grizzly method is economic
and is also safe for the workers.

A major problem with grizzly screens is that objects having at least one dimension only slightly
larger than the bar spacing tend to become jammed between the bars of the screen. These
obstructions prevent or retard the discharge of subsequently encountered objects, and the screening
capacity increasingly deteriorates. Often such jammed objects require manual removal from the
screen using a crowbar, sledgehammer and the like.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. I recommend an installation of a stonebreaker at the reduction plant to quickly break the
oversize boulders.
2. I recommend installation of a weight meter on conveyor number 3 to account for feed,
which has been crushed per shift and to determine the crushing rate of jaw crusher.
3. I recommend installation of proper ventilation system to minimize dust.

32
CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
1. Abouzeid, F. a., 2002. The energy efficiency of ball milling in comminution, Int. J. Miner..

2. Abuhasel, K. A., 2019. A Comparative Study of Regression Model and the Adaptive
Neuro-Fuzzy Conjecture Systems for Predicting Energy Consumption for Jaw Crusher..

3. Anon, 1985. Rugged roller-bearing crusher. Mining Mag.

4. Bedekovic, S. a., 2000. Fragmentation – First Stage in Enrichment Process of Mineral Raw
Materials, The Mining-Geological-Petroleum Engineering Bulletin.

5. Deepak, 2010. Optimum Design and Analysis of Swinging Jaw Plate of a Single Toggle
Jaw Crusher. Ph. D dessertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering National
Institute of Technology, Rourkela..

6. Esterle, 1996. Coal breakage modeling: a tool for managing fines generation. Howarth, H.
et al. (Eds.), Proc. Mining Technology Conference, Perth, WA, Australia..

7. Fickling , Robben et al, 2013. Introduction to RADOS XRF ore sorter.. Phalaborwa, SA,
SAIMM, pp. 99-110.

8. Holmes, 1957. A contribution to the study of comminution, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng.

9. Legendre D, Z., 2014. Assessing the energy efficiency of a jaw crusher. Energy.

10. Luiz, W., 2020. How to improve jaw crusher performance and productivity.

11. MWANGI, P. N., 2021. Optimisation of Energy Efficiency and Comminution Process of
a Single Toggle Jaw Crusher Using Discrete Element Method. JOMO KENYATTA
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY.

12. Napier-Munn T. J., M. S. M. R. D. K. T., 1996. Mineral Comminution Circuits Their

Operation and Optimisation. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Center, Australia.

13. Refahi A., M., 2009. Comparison between bond crushing energy and fracture energy of
rocks in a jaw crusher using numerical simulation, J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall..

14. Robben, 2013. Potential of a Sensor Based ore sorter for gold mining industry., Aachea:
s.n.

33
15. Robben, 2014. CCharacteristics of Sensor Based ore sorting Thechnologies and
implementation in mining, Aachea,Germany: Shaker verlag.

16. Rusi ń ski E, M. P. P. D., 2013. Experimental and Numerical Studies of Jaw Crusher
Supporting Structure Fatigue Failure..

17. Sadrai, 2011. Energy efficient comminution under high velocity impact fragmentation,
Miner. Eng..

18. Schonert, K., 1979. Verfahren zar Fein-und Feinstzerkleinerung von Verfahren zar Fein-
und Feinstzerkleinerung von.

19. Shannon Harding Grafik, 2021. What Are Jaw Crushers and How Do They Work?.

20. Slokan, 1969. First Stage in Enrichment Process of Mineral Raw Materials,. The Mining-
Geological-Petroleum Engineering Bulletin.

21. Stamboliadis, 2002. A contribution to the relationship of energy and particle size in the
comminution of brittle particulate materials, Miner. Eng.

22. Sullivan, 1962. Resonant Screens for the Mining Industry”. Mining Congress Journal.

23. Sutti, R. a. J., 2013. Pitman of aw crusher crushing plant and crushing method”, US atent
No..

24. Tomislav Korman, G. B. T. K. D., 2014. IMPACT OF PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL

PROPERTIES OF ROCKS ON ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF JAW CRUSHER.

25. Toraman O. Y., K. S. C. S., 2010. Predicting the crushability of rocks from the impact
strength index, Miner. Eng..

26. Ugurmak, 2021. Application of grizzly screens.

27. Wills, B., 2006. mineral processing. 7 ed. s.l.:Elsevier.

28. Wills, B. A. ,. N.-M., 2016. An Introduction to the Practical Aspects of Ore Treatment and
Mineral Recovery. 8th ed. London: s.n.

29. Zeng, Y. a. F. .., 1993. Application of vibration signals to monitoring crushing parameters
Powder Technology.

34
35