National Engineering School of Sfax University of Ottawa

Laboratory of Materials Engineering & 29 Canadian Materials Science

th

Environment (LMEE) Conference (CMSC 2017)

Failure analysis of hammer premature

wear during barite rocks crushing

Presented by: Mouna KALLEL (PhD student)

Supervised by: Pr. Khaled ELLEUCH

Plan

1 Context and problematic

2 Materials characterization

3 Worn surface analysis

4 Wear mechanism

5 Conclusion
2
 Context and problematic

Crushing process is the basic operation in the mineral industry.

However, the continuous service of crushers under severe
operating conditions provokes heavy wear. Statistics show
that wear and the consumption of crushing media account for
roughly 50% of the crushing cost.

3
 Context and problematic
Problematic: Hammer wear

Hammer crusher has undergone a great material loss from hammers leading to the
interruption of the barite rock crushing process after one week of service

Worn
hammer

Unworn
hammer
Material loss

4
 Context and problematic
Feeding
Barite rock before crushing (<100mm)
Crushing chamber

rotor

Maximum radial force: 138 N

Hammer
Rotating speed: 1400 rpm
Feeding rate :18 tons/h Sizing grate

Crushed rock
(<5mm)
Barite rocks are broken by hammer shock

The particles, with dimension < 5mm, pass through the sizing grate

The rest of particles with higher dimensions remain trapped between the
hammers in rotation and the sizing grate to be crushed again 5
Plan

1 Context and problematic

2 Materials characterization

3 Worn surface analysis

4 Wear mechanism

5 Conclusion
6
 Materials characterization: Hammer
Hammer material: chemical composition and microstructure
Sharp edges
Chemical composition: 3%wt C ; 25wt%
Eutectic carbide
M7C3
Cr
Microstructure: Eutectic carbides M7C3 +
Martensitic matrrix with secondary carbides

Martensitic matrix with

secondary carbides High chromium cast iron thermally
treated
15 kv X 500 50µm

Hammer material: Mechanical properties

Bulk hardness HV30 690

Young’s modulus E 172 GPa

Compressive strength σR 2460 MPa

Yield strength σY 2051 MPa

7
Strain hardening rate e 8%
Materials characterization: Barite rocks
Barite rocks before crushing

Sharp edges
Sharp edges

Large
particles
Small particles 20 mm

Chemical composition: BaSO4 + impurities:

Pb, Al , Ca et Si (abrasive element)
Properties: - different particle size
- irregular shape
- sharp angles
Micro-hardness: 158 HV0,05
8
Plan

1 Context and problematic

2 Materials characterization

3 Worn surface analysis

4 Wear mechanism

5 Conclusion
9
 Worn surface analysis: Hammer damage view
 Comparison in dimensions and mass between an unworn hammer and a worn hammer

Unworn Worn
hammer hammer
Li=206 mm

Lf=186 mm
Length (mm) 206 186
Thickness (mm) 45 40
Mass (kg) 5.375 4.240
24mm
Material loss: 1,135 Kg (21% of the hammer bulk
mass)

Grooves
Craters Active
Surface

Upper
Surface

10
 Worn surface analysis: SEM observation
Upper surface

Removed material

Microscratches
Crack-network

15 kv 5000Χ 5 µm 15 kv 5000Χ 5 µm

Active surface
Removed material

microscratch
Ridges
Grooves
Microcracks

15 kv 200Χ 200 µm 15 kv 2000Χ 10 µm 11

 Worn surface analysis: EDS analysis

Broken carbides Wear

fragmentation
debris
Displaced
material 2
1 craters 4

15 kv 1000Χ 20 µm 15 kv 1000Χ 20 µm

Surface chromium percentage in different damaged areas

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4
(Undammaged) (fragmentation) (displaced (wear debris)
material)
Cr (%at) 25.250 14.221 4.289 2.770
Cr (%wt) 30.734 21.280 11.122 9.046

The more severe the surface damage is, the lower the chromium content is.

Surface chromium migration occurs from ‘damaged ’to undamaged surfaces 12

 Worn surface analysis: Cross section

Resin Resin

Longitudinal Detached eutectic

microcracks carbide particle
Finer
Coarser
carbide
carbide
specimen specimen
15 kv 2000Χ 10 µm 15 kv 2000Χ 10 µm

Longitudinal
microcracks + Radial
microcracks
Eutectic carbide
fracture

13
Plan

1 Context and problematic

2 Materials characterization

3 Worn surface analysis

4 Wear mechanism

5 Conclusion
14
Wear mechanism

Wear mechanism

Impact wear Abrasive wear

Surface chromium
migration

15
 Wear mechanism
Impact
Barite rock
Sliding
Impact Sliding

Hammer

Angular tip Impact site Microscratch

Microcracks initiation Microscratches formation by

sharp edges of barite rock
Fragmented carbide
particles
Groove

Carbides microcracking Grooves formation

Wear debris

Surface chromium
16
migration Material removal
Plan

1 Context and problematic

2 Materials characterization

3 Worn surface analysis

4 Wear mechanism

5 Conclusion
17
Conclusion

From this failure hammer study, it can be concluded that:

The hammer material loss is caused mainly by the following factors:
-the hammer fragility;
-the size, the shape, the angularity and the silicon amount of barite
rocks.
Regarding the failure analysis of worn surfaces, it was found that the
hammer material loss is caused mainly by microcracking and
microcutting mechanisms associated with surface chromium
migration;

18
This presentation is a part of work, which has recently published in
‘Tribology International’ journal

19
Thank you for
your attention

20