COAL

TECHNOLOGY

COAL
PREPARATION

PERFROAMCE
EVALUATION IN COAL
PREPARTION PLANT

Feridun Boylu
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones-Principle

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones
Classification-Hydrocyclones

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones

O
𝐹 =𝑂 +𝑈
o 𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝑂 ∗ o+𝑈 ∗𝑢
o'
O: Üst akımdaki malzeme miktarı
U: Alt akımdaki malzeme miktarı
F F: Beslenende malzeme miktarı
f f: Beslenen malzemede +x fraksiyon miktarı
f' o: Hidrosiklon taşanında +x fraksiyon miktarı
u: Hidrosiklon alt akımında +x fraksiyon miktarı

𝐹 =𝑂 +𝑈
𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 ′=𝑂 ∗ o ′ +𝑈 ∗ 𝑢′
O: Üst akımdaki malzeme miktarı
U: Alt akımdaki malzeme miktarı
F: Beslenende malzeme miktarı
U
u f’: Beslenen malzemede sıvı/katı oranı
u' o’: Hidrosiklon taşanında sıvı/katı oranı
u’: Hidrosiklon alt akımında sıvı/katı oranı

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones
O
O’Flow o
o' Sampling
Screen Analysis
Feed S.Ratio % det.
F
f
f'
Numune alımı
Sampling
Elek analizi
Screen Analysis
PKO tayini
S.Ratio % det.

Sampling M, %
Screen Analysis
Solid x
U S.Ratio % det.
U’Flow u Water 1600-x
u' (100 − 𝑃𝐾𝑂)
𝑢′= Pulp 1600
𝑃𝐾𝑂

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones-Example
Beslenen malzeme miktarı: 20 t/h (Katı )
O Beslenen malzemede sıvı/katı oranı: 30 %
O’Flow o Hidrosiklon taşanında sıvı/katı oranı: 15 %
o' Hidrosiklon alt akımında sıvı/katı oranı: 50 %

Feed U: alt akımdan gelen malzeme miktarı: ?

F
f
f'
Numune alımı (100 − 𝑃𝐾𝑂)
Sampling 𝑓 ′ ,𝑜′ ,𝑢 ′ =
Elek analizi 𝑃𝐾𝑂
Screen Analysis
PKO tayini
S.Ratio % det. ( 100 −30)
𝑓 ′= =2.33 (100 − 15)
30 𝑜′ = =5.67
15

(100 −50)
𝑢′ = =1.00
50

20=U + O 𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝑂 ∗ o+𝑈 ∗𝑢
U’Flow
U
u
20 ∗ 2.33=𝑈 ∗ 1.00+ ( 20 − 𝑈 ) ∗ 5.67
u'
𝑈 =14.3 𝑡 / h
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones-Example 1
FEED
Mass Dens. Volume (ml)
Solid 1.65*X 1.65 X
Water 1000-X 1.00 1000-X
Pulp 1215 1.215 1000 U'Flow O'Flow Feed
Solid 85.96 14.04 100
FEED
f', o', u' 0.536 5.455 1.226
Mass Dens. Volume (ml)
Solid 545.8 1.65 330.77 ’
Water 669.2 1.00 669.23
Pulp 1215 1.215 1000 𝐹 =𝑂 +𝑈
U'Flow ’
Mass Dens. Volume (ml)
Solid 875.8 1.65 530.77 ’)
Water 469.2 1.00 469.23

’)
Pulp 1345 1.345 1000

O'Flow
’)
Mass Dens. Volume (ml) ′
Solid 165.0 1.65 100.00
F ∗ ( 𝑓 ′ − 𝑢 )/ ¿
Water 900.0 1.00 900.00
Pulp 1065 1.065 1000

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones-Example 1
Top Size Bottom Size Feed U'Flow O'Flow
mm mm % % %
1.4 0.5 13.8 16.10 0
Screen 0.5 0.3 35.6 41.49 0
analysis 0.3 0.1 34.8 40.56 0.04
0.1 0.075 9.2 1.86 53.98
0.075 0.038 3.2 0.00 22.45
0.038 0 3.3 0.00 23.53
TOTAL 100.0 100.00 100.00

Screen analysis Top Size Bottom Size Feed U'Flow O'Flow

mm mm % % %
1.4 0.5 13.8 13.84 0
0.5 0.3 35.7 35.66 0
0.3 0.1 34.9 34.86 0.0
Screen 0.1 0.075 9.2 1.60 7.6
analysis 0.075 0.038 3.2 0.00 3.2
0.038 1E-08 3.3 0.00 3.3
TOTAL 100.0 85.96 14.04

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones-Example 1
Bottom Mean
Top Size Feed U'Flow O'Flow
Size Size Part.
%
mm mm % % % mm
1.4 0.5 13.84 13.84 0 0.84 100.00
0.5 0.3 35.66 35.66 0 0.39 100.00
0.3 0.1 34.87 34.86 0.0 0.17 99.98
0.1 0.075 9.17 1.60 7.6 0.09 17.41
0.075 0.038 3.15 0.00 3.2 0.05 0.00
0.038 1E-08 3.30 0.00 3.3 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 100.0 85.96 14.04

How much we had in feed

How much we have in O’flow
For size fraction of -0.1+ 0.075
Let’s say we had 9.17 % in feed and we obtained 7.6 of 9.17 with O’flow
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones-Example 1
Top Bottom Mean
Feed U'Flow O'Flow
Size Size Size Part.
%
mm mm % % % mm
1.4 0.5 13.84 13.84 0 0.84 100.00 Perfect/Ideal
0.5 0.3 35.66 35.66 0 0.39 100.00 Classificaion
0.3 0.1 34.87 34.86 0.0 0.17 99.98
0.1 0.075 9.17 1.60 7.6 0.09 17.41
0.075 0.038 3.15 0.00 3.2 0.05 0.00
0.038 1E-08 3.30 0.00 3.3 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 100.0 85.96 14.04

P75

( 𝑑25 − 𝑑75 )
P50 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ( 𝐼 )=
2 𝑑 50

If I <0.06
P25
Assume that the classification was
performed good.
d25 d25
d50
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones
Laboratuar çaplı hidrosiklonda yapılan ölçümler sonucunda;
Hidrosiklona beslenen kömür şlam yoğunluğu 1.130 g/cm3,
Hidrosiklon alt akım pulp yoğunluğu: 1280 g/cm3 ve
Üst akım pulp yoğunluğu 1040 g/cm3 olarak ölçülmüştür.
Şlam içerisideki katı özgül ağırlığı 1650 g/cm3 olarak belirlenmiştir.

Ayrıca hidrosiklon alt akımından numune alınmış ve 2 lt lik ölçüm kabının dolu süresi 3.1 sn olarak hesaplanmıştır..

Hidrosiklona beslenen pulp miktarını (m3/h ya da t/h) 𝑀

𝑑=
𝑉
ÇÖZÜM
Miktar, d, g/cm3 V, cm3
g 1130=1.65 𝑥 +1000 − 𝑥
Katı 1.650x 1.650 x
1130 − 1000=1.65 𝑥 − 𝑥
Sıvı 1000-x 1.000 1000-x
Pülp 1130 1.130 1000
(Beslenen katı oranı)

Benzer şekilde
(H.siklon alt akım katı oranı)
(H.siklon üst akım katı oranı)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones

(100 − 𝑃𝐾𝑂)
𝑓 ′ ,𝑜′ ,𝑢 ′ =
𝑃𝐾𝑂
( 100 −29.2) (100 −55.5) (100 − 9.8)
𝑓 ′= =2.42 𝑢′ = =0.80 𝑜′ = =9.2
29.2 55.5 9.8

𝐹 =U + O 𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝑂 ∗ o+𝑈 ∗𝑢
𝐹 ∗ 2.42=𝑈 ∗ 0.8+ ( 𝐹 − 𝑈 ) ∗ 9.2
=2.97 t/h pulp !!!!!!!
𝑈=2𝑙𝑡 /3.1 𝑠𝑛
55.5
2.97 ∗ =1.64 𝑡 / h
100
𝐹 ∗ 2.42=1.64 ∗0.8 + ( 𝐹 −1.64 ) ∗ 9.2
𝐹 ∗ ( 9.2 −2.42 ) =15.088 −1.312 𝐹 ∗ 6.78=13.776
𝐹 =2.031 𝑡 / h

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones
Siklon alt , üst akımlarından numune alınarak boyut analizi yapılıyor. Sonuçlar aşağıdaki tabloda verilmiştir.
Siklon performansını bulunuz.
Üst Boyut Alt Boyut Beslenen Alt Akım Üst Akım
mm mm Miktar % %
%
1.400 0.500 1.04 1.04 0.0000
0.500 0.300 2.68 2.68 0.0000
0.300 0.100 2.62 2.62 0.0004
0.100 0.075 0.69 0.12 0.5729
0.075 0.038 0.24 0.00 0.2390
0.038 0.000 0.25 0.00 0.2500
TOPLAM 7.52 6.46 1.06

Üst Boyut Alt Boyut Miktar Alt Akım Üst Akım Toplam Dağılım
mm mm % % % % %
1.400 0.500 1.04 1.04 0.0000 = 1.04 + 0.00 = 1.04 = 0.0 /1.04 = 0.0
0.500 0.300 2.68 2.68 0.0000 = 2.68 + 0.00 = 2.68 = 0.0 / 2.68 = 0.0
0.300 0.100 2.62 2.62 0.0004 = 2.62 + 0.0004 = 2.6204 = 0.0004 / 2.6204 = 0.01
0.100 0.075 0.69 0.12 0.5729 = 0.12 + 0.5729 = 0.6929 = 0.5729 / 0.6929 = 82.68
0.075 0.038 0.24 0.00 0.2390 = 0.00 + 0.2390 = 0.2390 = 0.2390 / 0.2390 = 100.0
0.038 0.000 0.25 0.00 0.2500 = 0.00 + 0.25 = 0.25 = 0.25 / 0.25 = 100.0
TOPLAM 7.52 6.46 1.06 7.52

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones

𝑑 75 − 𝑑 2 5
𝐼=
2∗ 𝑑50

𝑑 25
𝑆h𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (∝)=
𝑑 75

Not: dağılım eğrisi genelde

şekilde görüldüğü gibi oluşmaz.

Eğrinin eteği sıfıra yaslanmaz.

Bu durumda düzeltme faktörü
uygulanır.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones

Hidrosiklon performansı ölçümlerinde ayırma istenilen seviyelerde değilse

Alt akımda ince malzeme kaçağı var

besleme basıncı yetersiz
Siklon alt akım çıkış çapı yüksek
Beslenende PKO düşük olabilir.

Üst akımda iri boyutlu malzeme kaçağı var

Siklon besleme basıncı yüksek
Besleme PKO yüksek olabilir

Kesme boyutu yüksek

Siklon çapı büyük olabilir kontrol edilmelidir. (Siklon dizaynı kontrolü)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Separators-Gravity Based

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Separators-Gravity Based
Spiral concentrators are a gravity based concentrating device, that separates light density
granular and sandy (18 mesh to 200 mesh (1 mm to 0.075 microns)) consistency material
from heavier density material. In order to have a good separation, there should be a
difference in SG's of at least 1.0. One main benefit of spiral concentrators is they have no
moving parts. The feed range, in percent solids, to a spiral ranges from 20% solids up to
40% solids. Depending upon the material characteristics, a maximum efficiency will usually
be reached somewhere in this range. All that is required are some slurry pumps, the slurry
to be separated and the banks of spirals with a feed distributor. Note that a agitated feed tnk
gives a very uniform feed and generally provides the best efficiency.

Slurry is pumped to the top of the spiral (typically 13' to 15' from the floor), and it enters a
feed distributor that evenly distributes the feed to each spiral concentrator. The design and
shape of the spiral make it work, when combined with gravitational acceleration. As the
slurry travels the spiraling path down the spiral, mineral grains settle and start sorting
according to size, density and to a lesser extend shape. Low density particles are carried
with the bulk of the water towards the outside of the spiral (perimeter), while particles with
the greatest density migrate towards the inside of the spiral

A cross section of a spiral concentrator can be divided into various regions, with each region
describing the effect it has on the slurry traveling through it. On the outer most region (1)
(perimeter), will have mostly water, with fine particles, trapped by the high velocity of the
moving water. Moving inward towards the center of the spiral, the next region(2) would
consist of a very small area where the maximum water velocity exists, and prevents any
separation to occur. This region is defined since it separates the next region (3) from the
first region.

Spiral concentrators can be made with multiple starts (multiple spirals interwound) to save
floor space. I have seen up to 3 start spirals, which would essentially give 3 spirals in about
the same space that one would take up. Spiral concentrators are normally used in banks of
multiple spirals. Typical capacities for spirals run from 1-3 tons per hour of feed for minerals
and 3-5 tons per hour for coal. Typical construction of a spiral concentrator is fiberglass and
urethane to reduce wear from abrasion.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Separators-Gravity Based
Region 3 is a very active region where the velocity
begins to slow down and most of the separation
occurs, as more dense particles settle to the bottom
and the water velocity keeps the light density particles
in the stream near the surface, where they eventually
wind up in the outer regions (2 and 1). The next region
is actually where two regions overlap (region 3 and 5),
and is a very narrow region (like region 2). Next to the
last region (region 5) is where the heavy density
concentrates collect. The remaining low density
particles in this region find their way to the top of the
slurry surface and are carried off by the fast flowing
water to the perimeter of the spiral, with the bulk of
the water and the low density solids. Some spirals
have a wash water section, where additional water is
added to free any trapped light density material in the
concentrates, and on a wash water spiral, the
innermost portion is where this water is added, and it
is called region 6.
From the innermost region of the spiral, the concentrates then flow to the bottom section of the spiral, where splitter "bars"
actually make a cut of the material, channeling the inner most material to the heavy concentrate port, a 'middlings' splitter can be
used to channel the intermediate to a separate discharge port, and the majority of the water and the light density material is cut to
a low density port. Some spiral concentrators, especially those used in coal cleaning, have the capability of removing the high
density material at multiple positions in the vertical spiral. Coal can consist of as much as 50% high density material, compared to
a typical heavy mineral with only 5% to 10% high density content. These cutter bars are adjustable, and are usually set up during
the start up and rarely moved, unless differing material is processed. They can be changed easily, to accommodate differing feed
material.

Spiral concentrators can be made with multiple starts (multiple spirals interwound) to save floor space. I have seen up to 3 start
spirals, which would essentially give 3 spirals in about the same space that one would take up. Spiral concentrators are normally
used in banks of multiple spirals. Typical capacities for spirals run from 1-3 tons per hour of feed for minerals and 3-5 tons per
hour for coal. Typical construction of a spiral concentrator is fiberglass and urethane to reduce wear from abrasion.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Separators-Gravity Based
W3
F
Sampling Points
Slime
tank • From feed
• From Slime tank
• From dewatering screens

Possible analysis:
• Check solids ratios on slime tank it should be in
Coal Spiral

the range of 20-35 %

• Check PSD of feed (the maximum size should
be around 3 mm and the bottom size should be
higher than 100 micron for effective
Tailings
separation.
Clean Coal
• If higher than the ranged values add water
(W3)
T drained water • Ash analysis on each products and feed.
C • Performance test (Tromp Curves and probable
errors, Imperfection…..)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Separators-Gravity Based
F
W3
𝐹 =𝐶 + 𝑇 𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝐶∗ 𝑐+𝑇 ∗𝑡
Slime 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑠h % 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔
tank
𝐶𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠h % 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛𝐶𝑜𝑎𝑙
𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 Ash % of

𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝐶∗ 𝑐+(𝐹 − 𝐶)∗𝑡

Coal Spiral

𝑖𝑓 𝐹 𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒(100%)
100 ∗ 𝑓 =𝐶 ∗𝑐 +(100 −𝐶)∗ 𝑡
100 ∗ 𝑓 =𝐶 ∗𝑐 +100 ∗ 𝑡 −𝐶 ∗𝑡
Tailings Clean Coal
)

T 100 ∗( 𝑓 − 𝑡 )
drained water =𝐶 T= 100-
C (𝑐 − 𝑡 )

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Spiral Conc.-Example
𝑆 :123.59 𝑡 /hF
40 % 𝐴𝑠h W3
𝑺𝑶𝑳𝑼𝑻𝑰𝑶𝑵
𝑊 :76.59𝑡 /h
Slime
tank 𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝐶∗ 𝑐+(𝐹 − 𝐶)∗𝑡
𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜30 % 123.59 ∗ 40=𝐶 ∗13.5+(123.59 − 𝐶)∗65
𝐶 =62.88 𝑡/h
𝑇 =123.59 −62.88 𝑡 /h
𝑇 =66.65 𝑡 /h
Coal Spiral

𝑾𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑩𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆
𝑡
𝑆( )
h
𝑆𝑅 %= ∗ 100
Tailings Clean Coal ( 𝑆+𝑊 )
𝑡
123.59( )
h
T drained water 30= ∗100
(123.59+ 𝑊 )
65 % 𝐴𝑠h C
𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒23%
13.5 % 𝐴𝑠h And calculate the water addition W3)
𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒32% 𝑊 =431.75𝑜𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑠𝚤 𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Spiral Conc.-Example

100 ∗( 𝑓 − 𝑡 )
=𝐶
(𝑐 − 𝑡 )
= 62.88 t/h

= 129.53-62.88 t/h=66.65 t/h

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMV (dense medium vessel)

C= 62.88 t/h (48.5 %)

T= 66.65 t/h (51.5 %)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 DMV (dense medium vessel) 1.45
g/cm3
2.65
g/cm3
DM Vessel Operation

Prior to feeding coal to the DMV, the correct dense

medium is pumped into the vessel through the feed
washer manifold and the purge hoppers.
The vessel is filled until it is freely overflowing.

•To check for proper flow, one can physically measure the
fluid depth overflowing the weir. The proper depth is 3 ¾-
in. Ligth
The coal is then fed to the HMV through the Feed particl.
Manifold.
The depth that the feed is injected should be minimized to 1.55 g/cm3 (coal)
avoid possible bypass of light particles to the tailings
stream.
A feed sink plate is used to direct the feed downward into
the vessel so that particles do not ‘raft’ across the width of
the bath.
•If the refuse particles tend to adhere to the coal particles,
the plate should be adjusted downward where higher
currents are present.
•The plate is a high wear item and thus should be checked Dense
periodically.
Approximately 10% of the dense medium enters through particl.
the purge hoppers.
•Provides a gentle up-current which helps stabilize the (tails)
medium.
•The purge hopper also
PERFORMANCE serves as the drain when the HMV
EVALUATION
 Mass Balance on Hydrocyclones
DM Cyclone
Like classifying cyclones, an air
core is needed through the middle
of the cyclone to ensure proper
directional movement of the inner
fluid toward the Vortex Finder.
Unlike classifying cyclones, DMC
units must be installed in a near
horizontal position, which is
typically 10o from horizontal.

DM Cyclone Operation
The reason for the near horizontal position is that, in the vertical position, the
gravitational pull on the dense medium results in a slumping of the medium
toward the apex, which pinches the air core.
Under a ‘slumping’ condition, the separation efficiency would be very sensitive to
inlet pressure and medium viscosity.
Other factors favoring a horizontal orientation include the ease of piping for
both gravity-fed and pump-fed systems and a reduction in head-room
requirements.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)
COMPOSITION of DENSE MEDIUM
Particle Size Distribution
Solids Ratio
Clay contamination
Particle shape and density

MEDIUM STABILITY MEDIUM RHEOLOGY

Density difference between OF Yield Stress
and UF Viscosity

DMC PERFORMANCE
Density shift/offset
Ep

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
FEED CHARACTERISTICS Inlet Pressure
Particle Size Distribution Flowrate
Particle Shape Medium Split
Near Gravity Material Volumetric medium/coal Ratio
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)
Ağır ortam siklonları uygulamasında, etkin bir kömür yıkaması için birçok parametre etkili olmaktadır, ayırma
performansına etki ede ngenel faktörler ortam malzemesi, beslenen kömür/cevher özellikleri ve çalışma şartlarıdır

Ağır Ortam Özelliklerinin Ayırma Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisi

Ağır ortam malzemesi boyut dağılımı

Ağır ortam siklonlarında kullanılan ortam malzemesinin boyut dağılımı, ayırma etkinliklerini doğrudan etkilemektedir. Ortam
malzemesinin (örneğin manyetit), boyut dağılımı belirli bir seviyeye kadar küçüldükçe ayırma etkinlikleri artmaktadır [7]. Çok ince
boyutlu ortam malzemesi, ortam viskozitesinin artmasına sebep olacağından, daha yüksek besleme basınçları gerektirmektedir.
İiri boyutlu ortam malzemesi ise, daha düşük ortam viskozitesioluşturmaktadır. Ortam malzemesinin iriliği, siklon içerisinde ortam
segregasyonuna da sebep olabilmektedir (ağır ortam stabilitesi açısından önemli).

Ağır ortam yoğunluğu

Morrimoto ve ark. [8] değişen ortam yoğunluğunun, ağır ortam ayırma performansı üzerinde çok önemli etkisinin olmadığını
belirtmişlerdir. King ve Juckes [9] ise, bu iddianın partisyon eğrilerinin “reduced specific gravity” değerlerine (özgül
ağırlık/kesme noktası) göre çizildiğinde doğru olmadığını ve gerçek Ep değerinin, artan ortam yoğunluğu ile doğru orantılı
olarak arttığını belirtmişlerdir.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)
Ağır ortam reolojisi
Collins ve ark. [10] ve sonrasında Davis ve
Napier-Munn [11] yaptıkları çalışmalarda, Acceptable medium properties
siklon alt ve üst akım ortam yoğunluklarını

DMC overflow medium density, g/cm3

incelemiş ve kesme (ayırma)
yoğunluğunun, görünür ortam High viscosity
viskozitesinden etkilendiğini ve kesme High stability
yoğunluğunun, siklon alt akım yoğunluğu
ile değiştiğini saptamışlardır. Ortamda kil
veya ufalanmış kömür taneciklerinin
an ge
r
olmadığı düşünülürse, bunun yegane
m um
ti Low viscosity
sorumlusunun manyetit boyut dağılımı Op
olduğu söylenebilir. Manyetit boyutunun Low stability
küçülmesi, ortam viskozitesinin artmasına
da sebep olmaktadır. Eğer, yüksek
besleme basıncı uygulanırsa bu olumsuz
etki ortadan kaldırılabilmektedir. Ağır ortam
reolojisi aynı zamanda ağır ortam Circulating medium density, g/cm3
stabilitesini de doğrudan etkilemektedir
(Şekil 4.6).
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)
Ağır ortam stabilitesi
Collins ve arkadaşları [12], ağır ortam malzemesi stabil olmadığında, ayırmada gerçekleşen kesme yoğunluklarında, büyük ölçüde
kayma olacağını (yoğunluk kayması-density offset) belirtmişlerdir. Ağır ortam stabilitesi, siklon alt ve üst akımından çıkan ortam özgül
ağırlıkları arasındaki fark olarak ifade edilir. Örneğin; ortam pülpü 1.5 g/cm3 yoğunluğa ayarlandığında, siklon üst akımından çıkan
ortam pülpünün yoğunluğu, 1.5 g/cm3’den daha düşük değerlerdedir (örneğin 1.40 g/cm3), siklon alt akımından çıkan ortam pülpünün
yoğunluğu ise daha yüksek olur (örneğin; 1.75 g/cm3). Bu durum, AOS içerisine beslenen ağır ortam içerisindeki manyetitin
segregasyonundan ve iri boyutlu manyetitin siklon alt akımına, ince boyutlu manyetitin ise üst akıma yönlenmesinden
kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu farkın küçük olduğu durumlarda, daha etkin ayırmaların gerçekleştirilmesi söz konusu olmaktadır [13-15]. Bunun
sebebi de yakın yoğunluk aralığındaki malzemenin resirkülasyonu ile herhangi bir tanenin, siklonun alt ve ya üst akımına doğru
yönlendirilmesidir. Driessen [16] ve Baston ve Jeunelcens [16], OAS alt ve üst akımından çıkan ortam pülpü arasındaki yüksek
yoğunluk farkının (density offset) geliştiği şartlarda, ayırma etkinliğinin olumsuz etkilendiğini, Collins ve diğ [10] ve Scott ve diğ. [17] ise,
tatmin edici seviyede ayırma performansının, yoğunluk farkının 0.2-0.5 g/cm3 aralığında sağlandığını belirtmişlerdir. Collins ve diğ. [10]
ayrıca, yoğunluk farkının belirli değerlerin altına düşmesi ile ayırma etkinliğinin de bozulduğunu saptamışlardır.

Bazı kaynaklarda ise, ağır ortam siklonu alt ve üst akımından çıkan ortam malzemesi yoğunluk farkının, 0.1-0.4 olduğu şartlarda
optimum ayırmaların gerçekleştiği ifade edilmiştir.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)
𝑆𝐺𝑚𝑢𝑓 −𝑆𝐺𝑚𝑜𝑓 =0.1−0.4
Ayarlanan ağır ortam yoğunluğu ya da ağır ortam siklonlarına beslenen ortam yoğunluğu (SGmf)
ve siklon üst akım (SGmof) ve alt akım yoğunlukları (SGmuf) arasında bir denge durumu söz
konusudur.

𝑆𝐺𝑚𝑓 − 𝑆𝐺𝑚𝑜𝑓
=3 −12 %
𝑆𝐺𝑚𝑓

Yukarıdaki eşitliğe göre; uygun ortam viskozitesinin ve uygun ortam stabilizasyonunun

sağlandığı şartlarda, siklon üst akımından çıkan ortam yoğunluğu ile siklona beslenen ortam
yoğunluğu arasındaki fark, siklona beslenen ortam yoğunluğunun % 3-12’si arasında
değişmelidir. Eğer bu fark, %12’nin üzerinde ise ortamda bulunan “yakın yoğunluklu” malzeme
nedeniyle, taneler siklon içerisinde hapsolur (retention).

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)
Çalışma koşullarının ayırma peformansı üzerindeki
etkisi
Siklon çalışma değişkenleri içerisinde en temel
olanları; kömür besleme boyutu, siklon besleme
basıncı, siklon dizayn parametreleri ve kömür/ortam
hacmi oranıdır.
Kömür besleme boyutu küçüldükçe, siklon içerisindeki
çökme hızları da düşmekte ve bu da optimal
retensiyon süresi içerisinde, küçük tanelerin doğru
akıma yönlenmesini ve doğru akımda yer almasını
zorlaştırmaktadır. Kömür besleme boyutu küçüldükçe,
artan ortam viskozitesi nedeniyle, kesme
yoğunluğunda büyük oranda kayma olmakta ve bu da
ayırma etkinliğine olumsuz olarak yansımaktadır. Bu
nedenle, küçük boyutlu tanelerin hareket hızını Şekil 4.7. Ortam malzemesi olarak manyetitin
arttırmak için, ya siklon besleme basıncı arttırılmalı ya kullanıldığı, 140 mm çaplı bir AOS devresinde, 15
da siklon çapı küçültülmelidir [19]. Ağır ortam siklon kPa besleme basıncında, devreden ortam pülpü,
çapı, beslenmesi gereken maksimum kömür boyutuna AOS üst akımı alt akımı ve kesme yoğunluklarının
bağlı olarak değişmektedir. Beslenen maksimum
kömür boyutunun ise, siklon çapının % 5’inden büyük
olmaması tavsiye edilmektedir [20].

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)

Şekil 4.8. Devreden ortam pülpü özgül ağırlığı 1.28 g/cm3 olduğunda, AOS üst akımı alt
akımı ve kesme yoğunluklarının gelişimi [18]

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)
Siklon çapına bağlı olarak, taneler üzerine etki
eden santrifüj kuvveti büyüklüğü değişim
göstermektedir. Siklon çapı büyüdükçe, santrifüj
kuvveti de azalmaktadır (Şekil 4.9). Düşük besleme
basınçlarında, belirli bir boyuttan daha küçük olan
kömür boyut gruplarındaki (breakaway size)
malzemelerin, ayırma performansında düşüş
gözlenmektedir.
Siklon çapı arttıkça santrifüj kuvveti
azalacağından, siklon çapı büyüklüğüne bağlı
olarak, ayırmanın etkin olduğu alt boyutlar da
olumsuz etkilenecektir (Şekil 4.10). Hata faktörünün Şekil 4.9. Siklon çapı-santrifüj kuvveti arasındaki ilişki
dramatik olarak artış gösterdiği boyut, breakaway
size olarak tanımlanır. Breakaway size olarak ifade
edilen alt boyut-performans ilişkisi aşağıdaki
formülde verilmektedir [21].

𝑑𝑏 =( 6 ∗ ∅1.64 ) ∗10− 5

Burada db, breakaway size (mm), ϕ siklon

çapı (mm) ile ifade edilmektedir. Şekil 4.10. Siklon çapı-breakaway size boyutu
arasındaki ilişki
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)
Inlet pressure is a key variable that
influences DMC performance. Good
practice dictates that the inlet
pressure should be maintained
between 9 and 12 cyclone diameters
of medium head. If the pressure is too
low (e.g., less than 4-5 diameters of
medium head), coal may be
misplaced to refuse as the air core
becomes unstable and a higher
portion of medium splits to
underflow. To check for adequate
pressure, the DMC should be
equipped with an operating and 𝑆𝐺𝑚𝑓
𝑃 𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛 =[ 9 ∗ 𝐷+ 𝐻 ] ∗
properly calibrated pressure gauge. 27.7
𝑆𝐺𝑚𝑓
The required gauge pressure (Pg) can 𝑃 𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑥 = [ 12 ∗ 𝐷+ 𝐻 ] ∗
be calculated using 27.7

in which ρf is the density of the circulating medium, g the acceleration of gravity, Dc the
cyclone diameter, and E is the distance between the pressure gauge and the centerline of the
cyclone measured in the inlet area

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)

𝑃 ¿ ¿
𝑃 ¿ ¿

Pgmin: Minimum Inlet pressure

(kPA)

Pgmax: Maximum Inlet pressure

(kPa)
D: Cyclone diameter(cm)
H: Gauge height (cm)
(from cyclone orifice)
SGmf: Medium density (g/cm3)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Dense Medium Cyclone-Medium-to-coal Ratio
Overloading of the vortex finder can cause large coal losses in DMCs. To avoid this problem, the medium-
to-coal ratio in the overflow should exceed 2.5 by volume. This condition can be checked by collecting
samples of the overflow medium as it discharges from the sieve bend feed box at the top of the sieve.
Multiple samples across the entire sieve width and into the full depth of the sieve feed stream must be
taken to ensure that the sample is representative.
The medium-to-coal ratio (MCR) can then be
calculated using: )
𝑀 𝑚 𝜌𝑐
𝑀𝐶𝑅= ∗
𝑀𝑐 𝜌𝑚
Mm is the mass of sampled medium,

Partition, %
Mc the mass of coal solids
ρc the estimated density of the coal solids,
ρm is the density of the circulating medium.
M-C ratio
For example, a sample of slurry from the feed box
discharge of a DMC clean coal sieve was collected and
found to weigh 45 kg. The slurry sample was screened M-C ratio
and found to contain 10 kg of plus 28 mesh solids (dry). M-C ratio
The specific gravities of the slurry and solids were found
to be 1.4 SG and 1.6 SG, respectively. Based on these
values, the medium-to-coal ratio is acceptable since it is
greater than 2.5 (i.e., [(45-10)/10][1.4/1.6] = 3.1). If the
value is less than 2.5, then the medium flow rate should Mean Density, g/cm3
be increased or coal tonnage reduced.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 Dense Medium Cyclone-Medium Split
Medium Split: A minimum of 2/3 of the volume flow of medium that is fed to the cyclone
should report to the cyclone overflow. The split can be determined by measuring the
cyclone feed density, overflow density (through clean coal sieve), and underflow density
(through refuse sieve) and using the formula:
For example, if the SG of the feed, overflow and underflow are 1.5, 1.4
and 1.7, respectively, then the split to overflow is 2/3 [i.e.,
(1.7-1.5)/(1.7-1.4) = 2/3] and the split is acceptable. Corrective actions

( 𝑆𝐺𝑢𝑚𝑓 − 𝑆𝐺𝑚𝑓 ) should be taken if the value is less than 2/3. In most cases, a smaller
apex can be used to correct an overflow volume that is too small.
𝜑=
( 𝑆𝐺𝑢𝑚𝑓 − 𝑆𝐺𝑜𝑚𝑓 )
in which
ϕ : fractional split of medium to DMC
the overflow
SGmf: specific gravity of DMC
medium feed
Sgumf: specific gravity of DMC DMC Feed
DMC
underflow medium O’Flow (Sgmf) DMC
Sgomf: specific gravity of DMC (Sgomf) U’Flow
overflow medium (Sgumf)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Dense Medium Cyclone-Magnetite size distribution
The quality of the circulating medium can have a large impact on DMCs.
Quality is measured in terms of

(i) the size distribution of the medium solids and

(ii) the degree of contamination by non-magnetic material.

Grade B magnetite (90% passing 325 mesh) is a common choice by U.S. operators.

Unfortunately, the circulating medium may be much coarser or finer than the as-received
magnetite. Magnetite that is too coarse can become unstable and may lead to a collapse of the
dense medium suspension in the cyclone, causing large losses of coal. Magnetite that is too fine
is not typically detrimental to performance, although finer magnetite is more difficult to recover in
magnetic separators. The particle size distribution of the medium should be routinely monitored
by means of electronic particle sizing techniques (e.g., Microtrac) to ensure that the magnetite is
of a consistent and acceptable grade.
Manyetit sınıfı -44 mikron malzeme oranı

Coarse A (İri A sınıfı) 60

Medium B (Orta B sınıfı) 75
Fine C (İnce C sınıfı) 90
Superfine D (Süper ince D sınıfı) 95
Ultrafine E (Çok ince E sınıfı) 97
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Dense Medium Cyclone-Medium Contamination
Medium Contamination: Contamination can adversely impact DMC performance by
affecting the medium viscosity and stability. Contamination is usually quantified as the
percentage of nonmagnetic fines (<28 mesh) contained in a sample of dried medium solids.
The slurry sample is normally passed through a Davis tube to separate the magnetic and
nonmagnetic solids prior to drying. To avoid problems created by contamination, the
circulating medium should contain less than 7% by weight of nonmagnetic solids in the
total slurry (excluding any material coarser than 28 mesh). For example, a 1 kg sample of
circulating medium (slurry) containing 65 grams (dry) of nonmagnetic material would have
a non-magnetic contamination level of 65/1000 = 6.5% (contamination is acceptable).

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 DMV (dense medium vessel)
Feed
2 stage dense medium separation
Low dens. Sep.
Coal + medium First stage: low dense medium seperation for
DMV
clean coal production
Tails +
medium Tails Coal Second stage: high dense medium seperation
for reasonable tailis.

medium medium
optional

DMV
high dens. Sep.

middligs medium medium Final tails.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMV (dense medium vessel)
F Material balance should be established based on the ash
Feed f content of each products and feed

𝐹 =𝐶 + 𝑇
DMV
𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝐶 ∗ 𝑐+ 𝑇 ∗𝑡

Tails Coal In case that we do not know C and T

Use material balance based on the ash

content
T C
t c
𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝐶 ∗ 𝑐+ 𝑇 ∗𝑡
𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 =𝐶 ∗ 𝑐+( 𝐹 − 𝐶) ∗𝑡

𝐹 ∗ 𝑓 − 𝐹 ∗𝑡=𝐶 ∗ 𝑐 − 𝐶 ∗𝑡 𝐹 ∗( 𝑓 −𝑡 )=𝐶 ∗(𝑐 −𝑡 )

𝐹 ∗( 𝑓 −𝑡 ) If so, Just take samples from feed

=𝐶 𝑇 =𝐹 − 𝐶 and products and perform ash
(𝑐 −𝑡 ) analysis on them.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMV (dense medium vessel)

Temiz kömür verimi (Tesis Verimi): Yıkama sonrası elde edilen temiz
kömür miktarının yıkama işlemine giren Tüvenan kömüre oranı olarak ifade
edilmektedir.

𝑡− 𝑓
𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑧 𝐾 ö 𝑚 ü𝑟 ( 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 ) 𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖= ∗100
𝑡 −𝑐

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMV (dense medium vessel)
Zenginleştirme (yıkama) Verimi: Yıkama sonrası elde edilen temiz kömür miktarının, teorik
olarak elde edilebilir olan temiz kömür miktarına oranı olarak ifade edilmektedir.

Teorik verimler, tüvenan kömürün yıkanabilme eğrilerinden bulunmaktadır.

Yanabilir Verim: Yıkama işlemine giren tüvenan kömür içerisindeki organik kısmın ya da
başka bir deyişle yanabilir olan kısmın hangi oranda temiz kömür ile kazanıldığını ifade
etmektedir.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMV (dense medium vessel)

Kül Uzaklaştırma Verimi: Yıkama işlemine giren tüvenan kömür içerisindeki kül yapıcı maddelerin hangi
oranda ayrıldığını ifade etmektedir.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMV (dense medium vessel)
Material balance should be established based on the ash content of each products and feed.
OR
It is possible to use density tracers

Yoğ. Beslenen Yüzen 1 Yüzen 2 Batan Toplam Partisyon Partisyon

g/cm3 Malzeme Malz. Malz. Malz. Malzeme kaysayısı kaysayısı
adet Adet Adet Adet Adet (Lave) (Mikst)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
=[1]+[2]+[3] =100*[1]/[4] =100*[[1]+[2]]/[4]
1.40 40 40 0 0 40 100.0 100.0
1.48 40 40 0 0 40 100.0 100.0
1.52 40 39 1 0 40 97.5 100.0
1.56 40 33 7 0 40 82.5 100.0
1.60 40 6 34 0 40 15.0 100.0
1.64 40 2 38 0 40 5.0 100.0
1.68 40 0 40 0 40 0.0 100.0
1.72 40 0 40 0 40 0.0 100.0
1.76 40 0 40 0 40 0.0 100.0
1.80 40 0 40 0 40 0.0 100.0
1.85 40 0 36 4 40 0.0 90.0
1.90 40 0 10 30 40 0.0 25.0
1.95 40 0 0 40 40 0.0 0.0
2.00 40 0 0 40 40 0.0 0.0

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMV (dense medium vessel)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA

For nearly 50 years, dense medium cyclones (DMCs) have been used by the mining industry
to upgrade relatively coarse particles in the 50 to 0.5 mm size range. These high-capacity
units, which are often operated in parallel banks (see Figure 1.1), utilize centrifugal forces
to enhance the separation of fine particles that cannot be efficiently upgraded using static
density-based separators such as dense medium vessels and baths. DMCs are relatively
inexpensive and typically require little operator attention. Consequently, DMC circuits have
grown in popularity to the point where they are now used in a variety of mineral
beneficiation and coal processing plants. In the U.S. alone, DMCs are used in nearly 80% of
all coal plants, representing an installed capacity in excess of 85,000 tons/hr. Estimates
suggest that a very seemingly insignificant one percentage point increase in the DMC
efficiency would produce 1.6 million tons of additional clean coal in the U.S. from the same
tonnage of mined coal. At a price of $38/ton (current spot-market value), the recovered
tonnage represents annual revenues of nearly $60 million for the U.S. coal industry.
Therefore, a small improvement in the efficiency of DMCs can greatly enhance industry
profitability

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
Most of the early expertise related to the design and operation of DMC circuits was developed by
researchers atthe Dutch State Mines in the 1940s and 50s. This renowned group developed a large
body of test data which, for commercial reasons, was never freely published. One of their best works
was a proprietary technical manual for DMC circuit design that was only provided to their licensees.
Although this manual served the industry well, it was thought to suffer from several major
shortcomings. For example, the manual was developed as a guide for the “design” of DMC circuits, i.e.,
the manual provides recommendations for cyclone geometry, inlet pressure, feed medium density,
magnetite fineness, etc., required to achieve a given throughput and cutpoint. The manual is, in
essence, a statement of good operating practice. However, the manual provides no indication of how
sensitive the separation is to variations in operating parameters. Therefore, plant operators are often
unaware of the impacts that normal variations in operating pressure (due to pump wear) or circulating
medium (due to losses of ultrafine magnetite in the magnetic recovery circuit) may have on DMC
performance. Another major shortcoming of the manual is that it primarily focuses on installations
treating fine (<15 mm) coal. Although the manual mentions operational problems that can occur when
treating coarser particles, it offers no guidance as to how these problems may be identified or
resolved. Technical issues regarding the application of DMC circuits for non-coal (mineral) applications
are also largely ignored. Many of these items may have been studied by the pioneering researchers at
Dutch State Mines, but their data were never freely published and were lost when this group ceased
operations in the late 1960s.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA

Several noteworthy studies have been published regarding the design and operation of DMC
circuits since the demise of the Dutch State Mines. Significant works include the research
conducted at the U.S. Bureau of Mines by Gottfried and Jacobsen (1977) which helped to
provide a convenient means of representing size-by-size partition curves for DMCs. However,
reports describing this work give little detail on the operating conditions used in the study.
Several good performance models for DMCs were developed during the 1980s by Napier-Munn
(1984), Rao et al. (1986), Davis (1987), King and Juckes (1988) and Scott (1988). However, none
of these early works was able to directly link the independent design and operating variables
(geometry, inlet pressure, magnetite grind, etc.) to dependent variables such as specific gravity
(SG) cutpoint or Ecart probable (Ep). Several significant studies were also performed by Chedgy
et al. (1988) and Restarick and Krnic (1990), but these investigations primarily addressed issues
related to difficulties in making low density separations. Consequently, the engineering
knowledge required to properly design and operate DMC circuits remained largely incomplete.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
Since the late 1980s, researchers in Australia have carried out R&D programs to address the lack of
engineering criteria for DMC design and operation. Much of this expertise can be attributed to the work
of Dr. Chris Wood while employed at the Julius Kruttschnitt Minerals Research Centre (JKMRC) in
Brisbane. In conjunction with other JKMRC researchers, Wood developed a variety of advanced
mathematical models, simulation programs and user handbooks for the design, evaluation and
optimization of DMC circuits. Much of the pioneering work associated with the use of density tracers for
evaluating DMC performance was performed by these researchers. Through their field studies, these
workers documented yield losses of as much as 15% due to problems with DMC circuits. The most
common problems encountered included parallel units separating at different densities and vortex
finder overload or surging due to temporary accumulation of middlings. In many cases, these problems
were corrected by low-cost modifications to plant circuitry or operating procedures. The work at JKMRC
demonstrates the tremendous benefits that may be realized through improvements in DMC operation.
For example, a JKMRC study conducted at the Riverside plant, Australia, indicated that the DMC circuits
in one half of the plant separated density tracers at 0.05 SG units higher than did those in the other half.
The problem was identified as a poor application of nucleonic density gauges and inadequate mixing of
return medium. By correcting these problems, the cutpoints were properly matched and the resulting
yield improvement generated additional annual revenues in excess of $1 million. At several other
operations, the DMC plants were found to suffer from severe yield loss due to inappropriate medium
rheology. At one site, for example, it was found that excessive particle retention (causing surging and
yield loss) could be avoided by rearrangement of the way in which correct density medium was bled to
the regeneration circuit. The result of this action was to increase revenue by an estimated $2 million
annually. Corresponding modifications have now been made by the parent company in two of their
other preparation plants.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
The engineering expertise developed through the efforts of Wood and others at JKMRC has
been summarized in a proprietary handbook entitled “Coal Washing Dense Medium
Cyclones.” Unfortunately, the use of this handbook is restricted to the Australian companies
who sponsored the research through the Australian Mineral Industries Research Association
(AMIRA). As such, much of this expertise is not available to U.S. producers. In light of this
problem, the intent of this project has been the development of a set of engineering tools
that can be used to translate the DMC expertise developed in Australia to the U.S. situation.
The potential economic impacts of improvements in DMC operation and design for the U.S.
coal industry can be best illustrated by means of an example. Figure 1.2 shows a situation
that is considered typical for modern coal plants. As shown, the highest DMC yield for a
particular feed is achieved by a hypothetical device that sorts particles individually according
to quality (i.e., ash content). The performance of a properly operated float-sink laboratory is
only slightly worse than the ideal separation. A typical DMC plant operating at a high SG
cutpoint approaches the ideal curve; however, at the lower SGs required to generate higher
product qualities (i.e., moderate to low ash products), yield from a typical plant falls well
below the ideal separation. Current estimates (Wood et al., 1997) suggest that only one-
fourth of the discrepancy between the actual and ideal separation curves can be eliminated
by technological improvements in equipment design. On the other hand, three-fourths of
this discrepancy can be eliminated by ensuring that existing dense medium separators work
at peak efficiency.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA

While it may be impractical to routinely maintain this level of performance, preliminary

work suggests that about half of this improvement can be consistently achieved at
industrial sites. If the coal sample used in this illustration were washed to an ash of 7.5%,
the achievable yield increase would be more than three percent. This improvement can
often be realized at minimal cost through minor alterations in circuit layout or maintenance
procedures. For a U.S. plant treating 500 tph of raw coal in the dense medium cyclone
circuit, this improvement would amount to more than $4.5 million of additional saleable
clean coal per year (i.e., 3% x 500 ton/hr x $50/ton x 6,000 hr/yr = $4.5 MM/yr). Therefore,
a good return on investment can be expected for the development of engineering tools
that allow plant operators to evaluate and optimize the performance of existing equipment.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA

Yield increases expected through (i) future advances in equipment design and
(ii) improved application and control of current equipment (after Wood, 1997).

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
Common DMC Problems Field studies indicate that the most common troubles
encountered in dense medium cyclone circuits include:
ƒclean coal overload,
ƒ excessive particle retention,
ƒ and incorrect SG cutpoints.

These problems typically result in the loss of recoverable clean coal to the refuse stream.
Fortunately, these problems can often be corrected via simple low-cost modifications to
plant circuitry or changes to plant operating protocols.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
Clean Coal Vortex Overload

The vortex finder of a dense medium cyclone is somewhat analogous to the overflow lip of
a dense medium vessel. In a vessel, a minimum depth of overflow of 7-10 cm must be
maintained to ensure that the largest size particles of clean coal can be hydraulically
carried into the clean product. Likewise, an adequate flow of medium containing the
proper amount of medium particles must pass through the vortex finder of a DMC in order
to carry out the coal particles. If the flow of medium to the overflow is too low, then the
excess clean coal cannot be carried through the vortex finder and will instead report to
refuse. This problem is common in DMCs operated with too large an apex or too low of an
inlet pressure.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
Particle Retention/Surging

The centrifugal field within a DMC causes magnetite to classify and preferentially report to
underflow. The classification causes the underflow SG to be higher than that of the feed and
the overflow SG to be lower than that of the feed. As a result, middlings particles that have a
density between that of the feed SG and overflow SG tend to remain in the cyclone for a
longer period of time than particles outside this density range. Retention is normally
associated with only the coarsest particles and rarely occurs for particles finer than about 15
mm. The retention of coarser middlings may even improve the separation by breaking
middlings into smaller particles that are better liberated and easier to discharge. However,
particle retention can be a serious problem when middlings particles enter the cyclone at a
faster rate than they can be removed. The excessive build-up of middlings eventually leads to
a sudden surge to the underflow that clears the accumulated load of retained material.
Unfortunately, the surge also tends to carry out a portion of low-density clean coal to the
refuse stream.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
Improper Specific Gravity Cutpoints

Dense medium cyclones are frequently installed in banks of two or more parallel units in order to
achieve the production requirements of a given plant. For all practical purposes, the maximum yield
from such a circuit can only be achieved when all of the DMCs are operated at the same specific gravity
cutpoints. This optimization principle is valid regardless of the desired quality of the total clean coal
product or the ratios of different coals passed through the circuit (Abbott, 1981; Luttrell et al., 2000). To
illustrate the importance of optimizing DMC circuits, consider a 500-tph circuit consisting of two
identical DMCs. Both cyclones are capable of producing a product with an ash content of 8% when they
operate at the same cutpoint of 1.51 SG. The overall yield from these two DMCs is 73.4%. However, the
two units can also produce a combined clean coal ash of 8% by operating the first cyclone at 1.56 SG
(which produces 8.5% ash) and by operating the second cyclone at 1.46 SG (which produces 7.5% ash).
Although the combined product is still 8% ash, operation at a cutpoint difference of 0.1 SG units
reduces the overall plant yield from 73.4% to 73.1%. If the cyclones are operated for 5000 hrs per year,
the annual revenue lost due to improper optimization is $225,000 (0.3% x 500 ton/hr x 5000 hr/yr x
$30/ton = $225,000). As shown in Figure 1.3, the loss of revenue becomes significantly greater as the
quality of the clean coal is reduced from 8% ash to 6% ash. At the 6% ash value, a cutpoint difference of
just 0.04 SG units between the two DMCs will result in lost revenues approaching $1 million annually
for the washability data and coal market values employed in this particular example. Thus, it is
important that all dense medium circuits (vessels and cyclones) be operated at the same SG cutpoint to
optimize total plant yield.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA

DM Vessel: Low Density

By-Pass
Causes may include:

•In-sufficient upward flow

medium;
•Plugged purge hoppers;
•Deep feed injection;
•Unstable medium;
•Overflow weir overload;
•False reading caused by
laminated middlings.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
DM Vessel: High Density By-
Pass
Causes may include:

•Excessive upward flow of

medium;
•Worn sink plate;
•Overload of high-density
material in feed;
•Viscous medium;
•Excessive or un-equal medium
flow in feed side manifolds;
•Large amount of material below
the bottom size in the feed.
Adequate conveyor capacity is
needed by flight number,
dimensions and speed.
Medium contamination less than
10%.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
Particle Retention and Surging

Coarse particle retention and

surging are characterized by the
following partition curve.
To reduce or eliminate particle
retention, the difference between
the medium density of the
overflow and underflow streams
(ρu – ρo) should be less than 0.40
RD units.
To reduce the density difference,
the following actions can be used:
•Reduce inlet pressure;
•Reduce magnetite particle size;
•Increase DMC diameter;
•Increase apex diameter;
•Increase the feed medium- to-
coal ratio;
•Reduce feed particle size
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mass Balance on DMC (Dense Medium Cyclone)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA

DMC

DMC
O’Flow
(Sgomf) M-C ratio
DMC Feed
Min 2.5 (Sgmf) DMC
M-C ratio U’Flow
i.e: Mcoal= 20 kg
3:1-5:1 (Sgumf)
Mm= 50 kg
Dm: 1.6 Vmedium= 50/1.6= Measure the volume of medium and coal
i.e: Mcoal= 30 kg
31.25 cm3 Mm= 100 kg
Dc= 1.5 Vcoal: 20/1.5 =13.3 cm3 Dm: 1.6 Vmedium= 100/1.6= 62.55 cm3
MC ratio: 31.25/13.3 = >2.5 (no Dc= 1.5 Vcoal: 30/1.5 =20 cm3
problem) MC ratio: 62.55/20 = >3 (no problem)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 KÖMÜR HAZIRLAMA
In case of low or high values of limits
Please control the feed pressure (inlet head or inlet
pressure)

DMC

DMC
O’Flow
(Sgomf)
DMC Feed
Take sample and DMC
(Sgmf)
measure density U’Flow
(Use Marcy cup) Take sample and (Sgumf) Take
1.32 g/cm3 measure density (Use sample and
Marcy cup) measure density
1.52 g/cm3 (Use Marcy cup)
1.72 g/cm3
Sgum-SGom=1.72-1.32 = 0.4 should be in the range of 0.1-0.4
(SGmf-Sgmo) /SGmf= (1.52-1.32)/1.52 =0.2/1.52 =0.13 should be in the range of 0.03-0.12
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION