Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 13281335 This article is also available online at: www.elsevier.

com/locate/mineng

Inuence of particle size on wear rate in compressive crushing

Mats Lindqvist
b

a,*

, Magnus Evertsson a, Tapiwa Chenje b, Peter Radziszewski

a Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, S412 96 Go teborg, Sweden Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, 817 Sherbrooke Str. West, Montreal, Que., Canada H3A 2K6

Received 6 September 2005; accepted 1 December 2005 Available online 19 January 2006

Abstract The inuence of particle size on wear rate in compressive crushing of rock was investigated experimentally. A test apparatus was developed to replicate the squeezing wear that is present in many rock crushers. Silica sand of dierent size classes between 0.725 and 2.03 mm was used. The crushing load was varied. The results show a strong relationship between particle size and wear rate. The wear rate increases as particle size increases. Not only mean particle size, but also size distribution width also has an inuence on wear rate. From some theoretical considerations, an alternative wear model was derived, that matches experimental data well. In the new model, the wear is proportional to particle size and to the square root of the pressure. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Crushing; Comminution; Simulation; Modeling; Particle size

1. Introduction In a series of papers by the author, a model to predict the worn geometry of a cone crusher has been presented (Lindqvist and Evertsson, 2003a, 2004). Even though the model predicts the worn geometry fairly well, many variables that change as the material passes through the crushing chamber are neglected. One of those variables is the inuence of the particle size distribution on wear rate. According to Hutchings (1992), the wear rate in erosive wear, two body, and three body abrasion, increases as particle size increases. In compressive crushing rock particles of various sizes are squeezed and crushed against a steel surface. The wear mechanism is pure squeezing wear without macroscopic relative motion between the rock particles and the steel surface. Many wear models described in the literature, see for example Hutchings (1992), assume that wear is proportional to sliding distance. However, in a cone crusher there is no or very little relative sliding motion between rock and
*

liner. If a worn crusher liner is inspected, no ploughing grooves can be observed. Therefore, the wear model implemented for cone crushers was adapted to this fact. In the model for wear prediction, described by Lindqvist and Evertsson (2003b), it is assumed that the amount of wear in a crushing action is proportional to the maximum average pressure that occurs during the crushing event, Eq. (1). In this constitutive equation W is the wear resistance coefcient. The average pressure is here the sum of contact loads exerted by the particles within a certain area enclosing those contacts, divided by that area. Wear w is here expressed in mm, pressure in N/mm2, and hence the wear resistance will have the unit N/mm3. p Dw max 1 W This is a material parameter unique for each combination of liner material and rock (Hutchings, 1992). The average pressure expressed in Eq. (1), is in reality a number of contact loads of dierent magnitude acting on the steel surface. The wear that occurs is a function of the number and magnitude of those contact loads, and by the shape and strength of the particles pressed against the surface. The relationship between particle size, average pressure and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 704 955 663. E-mail address: mats.lindqvist@chalmers.se (M. Lindqvist).

0892-6875/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2005.12.002

M. Lindqvist et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 13281335

1329

wear rate is not known. The aim of this study is to investigate whether or not particle size has any inuence on wear rate in squeezing wear. Successful eorts have been made to theoretically derive the statistical distribution of contact loads in particulate materials. See for example Ngan (2004). Those theories are typically based on assumptions of frictionless, equally sized, linearly elastic spheres in contact, and they have successfully been veried in experiments (Ngan, 2004). In rock crushing applications, however, where the particle shape and size varies considerably, and especially when particle breakage occurs, theoretical solutions for the contact load distribution are not available. Some experimental results have been achieved by Hansson (2002), who studied fatigue of aggregate beds in roads. Hansson (2002) results indicate that particle size does inuence the distribution of contact loads, but he does not discuss the contact load distributions inuence on wear. Yao and Page (2000, 2001) and Yao et al. (2000) presented thorough work where sliding wear was investigated on microscopic scale for a single crushing event. They concluded that a layer of ne particles near the metal surface will yield less wear as compared to coarser particles, and that higher crushing pressure will produce more nes near the surface, and hence less wear in relation to the applied pressure. Yao and Page (2001) used average pressures much higher than what is present in cone crushers, up to 300 MPa, as opposed to typically 7 MPa in a cone crusher. Chenje and Radziszewski (2004) found a linear relationship between crushing load and wear rate up to a certain level of load, above which the wear rate levels o. This result is in agreement with Yao and Page (2000), even though the pressure levels in Chenje and Radziszewski (2004) study are likely to be much lower than in Yao and Page (2000).

2. Experimental setup As a consequence of the complexity of wear, a large variety of devices for wear testing exist. See for example Osara (2001), who has made a thorough evaluation of different wear testing methods. Each of these methods has the objective of investigating some specic aspect of wear. None of the test devices described by Osara (2001), are suitable for investigating squeezing wear while having control of the variables particle size and crushing pressure. An abrasive wear tester was previously used by Radziszewski (2002) with a steel wheel and subsequently modied to allow the measurement of friction as well as testing at higher applied forces (Radziszewski et al., 2005). That wear tester was developed from the standardized rubber wheel abrasion test described by Misra and Finnie (1980). Radziszewski (2002) modied the rubber wheel abrasion tester and replaced the rubber wheel with one made of steel, mainly in order to make it possible to increase the crushing load to levels commonly found in grinding. The tests carried out by Chenje and Radziszewski (2004) were made with a xed specimen and a moving wheel. The wear mechanism was hence sliding wear. In order to study the compressive wear found in cone crushers, the wear tester was further modied. The xed specimen was replaced with a roller, see Figs. 13. The purpose of the roller is to ensure that we get the pure squeezing wear mechanism that is present in cone crushers. The rock material was silica sand, well known for its strongly abrasive properties. The silica sand was thoroughly sieved into four dierent size classes: 0.6 0.85 mm, 0.851.18 mm, 1.181.7 mm and 1.72.36 mm. Two tests were made with material that was not sieved to study the eect of size distribution width. Weights were put on the pivoted beam so that a well dened crushing

Fig. 1. Modied abrasive wear tester.

1330

M. Lindqvist et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 13281335

Fig. 2. Wear test in progress.

Fig. 3. Worn specimen. The initial diameter of the specimen was 44.45 mm.

force on the roller was obtained. The ow of material was controlled by adjusted the nozzle at the end of the hose from the hopper. The wheel of the wear tester was run at 20 rpm. The nozzle was adjusted to obtain a slightly excessive ow of material. Unfortunately it was not possible to adjust the ow of material so that it exactly matched the capacity of the tester. An excessive amount of material was used and some of the material passed on the sides of the crushing zone without being crushed. It would have been desirable to see the particle size distribution before and after crushing. But it was not meaningful to screen the crushed material since it was mixed with material that passed on the sides without being crushed. The valve of the abrasive hopper was opened and the roller was released onto the rotating wheel of the abrasive tester. The wear on the roller was measured with a vernier calliper. Since the abrasive tester consumes large amounts of material, the wear tests were made as short as possible. Each test was made long enough so that a diameter change of at least 10 times the resolution of the vernier calliper (0.02 mm) was obtained. 3. Results In the rst few tests many measurements were made with short intervals. It was noted that the wear rate was very low or even negative when starting from a new specimen. The explanation for this is that when a measurement is made, it is the peaks of the rough surface that are measured. This means that the smooth surface of a new specimen needs to be used for a certain time before taking measurements of wear. For this reason the rst 5 min of each particle size tested were not included in the measurement of wear. Doing this, Fig. 4 shows that the wear increases linearly with the number of crushing events, as expected. One crushing event corresponds to one revolution of the specimen. The number of revolutions of the specimen is computed as the ratio between the average diameter of the wheel and the specimen multiplied with

the test time and wheel rotational speed. The wear mechanism is squeezing wear. No ploughing grooves can be observed, see Fig. 3. Note that the new specimen has anges to ensure that material is not squeezed to the sides of the crusher. For each revolution of the specimen, each point on the roller will be subject to one crushing event. The wear expressed as wear per crushing event, for the dierent particle sizes is shown in Fig. 5. The wear resistance coecient described by Eq. (1), can be computed only if the crushing pressure is known. Evertsson and Lindqvist (2002) presented a pressure response model for compressive crushing. The compression ratio (s/b) is the squeezed distance s divided by initial bed thickness b. The pressure response model is a polynomial t that relates compression ratio, (s/b) and size distribution width, denoted, to pressure. Evertsson and Lindqvist (2002) used the variational coecient (standard deviation/mean particle size) of the size distribution to characterize size distribution width. See Eq. (2). The pressure p is returned in MPa. ps; r a1 s=b r2 a2 s=b r a3 s=b
2 2 2

a4 s=br2 a5 s=br a6 s=b

Approximate values for coecients a1a6 are here presented for quartzite. a1 957; a5 120; a2 512; a6 1:07 a3 119; a4 184;

To estimate the crushing pressure on the roller, the equilibrium equation between the applied force and the pressure distribution needs to be established. But in order to do this, the pressure distribution area must be computed. The position where squeeze starts in a roll crusher is governed by the coecient of friction l. See Fig. 6. A particle, or a bed of particles, squeezed between oblique surfaces as the particle in Fig. 6 will slide against the roller unless the angle (a + b) < arctan l and the particle, or bed of particles is nipped (Ma gi and Gerbert, 1993). Eq.

M. Lindqvist et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 13281335

0.3
Load: 938 N, Part . Size: 2.03 mm Load 633 N, P.S. 2.03 Load 1141 N, PS: 1.44

1331

0.25

Load 633 N, PS: 1.44 Load 1548 N, PS: 2.03

Radial wear [mm]

Load 1141 N, PS: 0.725

0.2

Load 633 N, PS: 1.015 Load 1141 N, PS: 1.015 Load 1548 N. PS: 1.015

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Number of crushing events

Fig. 4. Radial wear on specimen as a function of the number of crushing events.

2.0E-04 1.8E-04 1.6E-04 1.4E-04

d50=0.725 mm d50=1.015 mm d50=1.44 mm d50=2.03 mm d50=1.63, Wide size distr.

Radial 1.2E-04 wear rate [mm/ 1.0E-04 crushing event] 8.0E-05

6.0E-05 4.0E-05 2.0E-05 0.0E+00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Crushing load [N]

Fig. 5. Wear rate per crushing event as a function of crushing load, for dierent particle sizes.

(3) shows the relationships that can be derived from geometry and equilibrium, assuming that the bed of particles will be nipped when (a + b)/2 = arctan l. The angle arctan l is often called the frictional angle (Ma gi and Gerbert, 1993). 9 a b=2 arctan l > = D R1 R3 cos a R2 R3 cos b 3 > ; R1 R3 sin a R2 R3 sin b By making an initial guess of the distance D, the angles a and b can be computed iteratively. The pressure distribution on the roller is shown in Fig. 7. The pressure distribution in Fig. 7 corresponds to a crushing force according to Eq. (4). Z a p cos a0 R da0 4 F B
0

B is the width of the wheel. The tangential shear force is here neglected. To estimate the maximum crushing pressure, an initial guess of the distance D was made. The angle a was computed according to Eq. (3) and the pressure distribution was computed using Eq. (2). The compression ratio is 2R3/(D R1 R2). The integral in Eq. (4) was solved. This was done in an iterative procedure until the known crushing load F is in equilibrium with the pressure distribution. Several studies (Chenje and Radziszewski, 2004; Yao and Page, 2000; Lindqvist and Evertsson, 2003a), have shown that the coecient of friction between crushed rock and steel is between 0.3 and 0.5. Here a coecient of friction of 0.4 was used. The wear was measured, and the number of revolutions of the roller was computed. Ideal rolling (no gross slip) between the specimen roller and wheel was

1332

M. Lindqvist et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 13281335

Fig. 6. Geometry of roll crusher.

Fig. 7. Pressure distribution on roller.

assumed, and the average diameter of wheel and specimen during each test was used to compute the number of revolutions. A point on the roller is subject to a crushing event for each revolution of the roller. Now that we have an estimate of the pressure on the roller, Eq. (1) is used to compute to corresponding wear resistance W for each test.

Crushing load and particle sizes were varied. Fig. 8 shows the wear resistance for each test. Fig. 8 clearly shows that the wear resistance is lower for larger particles. As mentioned, two tests were made with material with a wider size distribution width, in order to investigate if this aects wear rate, see Fig. 8. The size dis-

M. Lindqvist et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 13281335

1.8E+05 1.6E+05

1333

Wider size distribution (d80-d20)/d50=0.65

Wear resistance coefficient [N/mm3]

1.4E+05 1.2E+05 1.0E+05 8.0E+04 6.0E+04 4.0E+04 2.0E+04 0.0E+00 0 0.5 1 1.5 Particle sized 50 [mm] 2 2.5

Fig. 8. Wear resistance as a function of mean particle size, d50.

tribution width was computed as (d80 d20)/d50, and was between 0.20 and 0.22 for all tests except the two with wider size distribution where (d80 d20)/d50 = 0.65. 4. Discussion The results show a clear relationship between particle size and wear rate, see Fig. 8. Two of the tests were performed with material that was not screened before crushing, i.e. with a wider size distribution. Fig. 8 shows that the wear resistance lies outside the trend for the other tests. This indicates not only mean particles size, but also size distribution width aects wear rate. The results imply that a particle size dependent wear model would be more appropriate when modeling squeezing wear. Such a model is here derived through some theoretical considerations. Assume that a bed of roughly equally sized particles are squeezed against a steel surface of a certain area. Smaller particles, compared to larger ones, will cause a larger number of contact loads within that area, since the number of particles increase as the particle size decreases. Each contact load will be lower as the number of particles and contacts increase. With knowledge of the wear or damage caused by each contact load, a wear model can be derived. Consider a number N of particles squeezed against a surface of area A. The crushing pressure p is the total load Ftot divided by the area A. The contact load from each particle is f and the sum of all individual contact loads is Ftot, see Eqs. (5) and (6). F tot Nf p F tot =A 5 6

N a1 A

1 d2

a1 is a proportionality constant dependent on particle shape. It is reasonable to assume that the damage, or wear caused to the surface by each contact load is a monotonous function of the applied load f. Several dierent functions that relate contact load f to local wear w can be conceived. A rst, simple assumption would be that wear is proportional to contact load, Eq. (8). w1 a2 f 8 A rock particle pressed against a steel surface will, by plastic deformation, make an indent of size h. A linearly elastic and perfectly plastic material will exert the same pressure on the entire indenting body, namely a pressure that equals the yield stress. This means that the area of the indent mark is proportional to the load. So if the steel is assumed to be linearly elastic and ideally plastic, then the size h of the indent is proportional to the square root of the contact load f since f k rh2 ( ) h f 1=2 =rk . r is the yield stress of the material, and k is a constant depending on particle shape. If the indent size h is used as a direct measure of the damage or wear w inicted on the steel surface, Eq. (9) would be an alternative function to describe the surface damage or wear caused by a single contact load. p w2 a3 f 9 In Eqs. (8) and (9), a2 and a3 are constants, dependent on the mechanical properties of rock and steel, and on particle shape. Combining Eqs. (5)(7) with Eq. (8) or (9) hence gives the wear equations expressed in Eqs. (10) and (11). 1 2 d p W1 1 p d p w2 W2 w1 10 11

The linear size of each particle is d. As the particle size decreases there will be more contact points. The number of particles N, squeezed against the surface is given by Eq. (7).

1334

M. Lindqvist et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 13281335

W1 and W2 are the wear resistance coecients which are determined by the particle shape, the mechanical properties of the rock and steel and on particle size distribution width. Using Eqs. (10) and (11), the wear results shown in Fig. 5, and the estimated crushing pressure, the wear resistance coecients in Eqs. (10) and (11), can be computed, see Figs. 9 and 10. Figs. 9 and 10 clearly show that Eq. (11) is more appropriate of the proposed wear models since the wear resistance parameter W2 is not dependent on particle size. This is conditional to a narrow size distribution. Note that the wear model of Eq. (11) is not only particle size dependent, but also nonlinear with respect to pressure. The particle sizes that were investigated here are smaller than in a cone crusher, and the maximum particle size was here limited by the test equipment.

Chenje and Radziszewski (2004) showed that in sliding abrasive wear, the wear rate increases linearly as the normal load increases up to a certain level and then levels o. Such behaviour cannot clearly be seen in Fig. 5, but the alternative wear model of Eq. (11) indicates that such behaviour can be expected. The maximum load tested in the present study was 1548 N, and the test apparatus could not sustain a higher load than that. This load corresponds to a crushing pressure of about 17 MPa, well above the maximum crushing pressures in cone crushers, typically 68 MPa. In a study by Lindqvist and Evertsson (2003b) a systematic deviation in the wear prediction for cone crushers was observed. The wear rate was over predicted in the lower part of the crushing chamber. Lindqvist and Evertsson (2006) introduced another wear model parameter to account for the eect of shear forces in the contact between

300000

250000

Wider size distribution

200000

W 1 [N/mm]

150000

100000

50000

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Particle size d50 [mm] 2 2.5

Fig. 9. Wear resistance coecient vs. particle size according to alternative wear model in Eq. (10).

60000

Wider size distribution

50000

40000
1/2

mm] W 2 [N
30000 20000 10000

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Particle size d50 [mm]

Fig. 10. Wear resistance coecient vs. particle size according to alternative wear model in Eq. (11).

M. Lindqvist et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 13281335

1335

the rock and liner, leading to a signicant improvement in prediction of worn geometry. The alternative wear model of Eq. (11) is also likely to improve the results with respect to that deviation. The reason for this is that particles are smaller, and that the pressure is higher further down in the chamber. This indicates that the predicted wear rate will relatively increase in the upper part of the crushing chamber as compared to the lower part. 5. Conclusions, future work In compressive crushing of rock material, a dierence in particle size in the range 0.752.03 mm has here been shown to have an impact on wear rate. The results in Fig. 10 show that not only mean particle size, but also size distribution width aects the wear resistance. This needs to be investigated further before the wear model of Eq. (11) can be implemented in a cone crusher model. In a cone crusher, the level where the cross sectional area is at a minimum is called the choke level. Below the choke level, the cross sectional area increases, and there is more and more space between particles as they move further down. In the ow model for cone crushers presented by Evertsson (1999) and Lindqvist and Evertsson (2004), all particles are assumed to move in the same way. During squeeze, it is possible that smaller particles trickle down between larger ones, and has a dierent residence time in the crusher. To what extent ner particles participate in the pressure build up and wear in a cone crusher is not known. We now have a cone crusher model that predicts the operating conditions with some accuracy (Lindqvist and Evertsson, 2006). Introducing more complex model behaviour to take more phenomena into account, might make the problem of nding optimal model parameters poorly conditioned, i.e. several dierent combinations of model parameters will make simulations match measurements. Possibly, the new wear model of Eq. (9), just as the previously implemented shear force dependent wear model, will also solve the issue with poor wear prediction. More work will be necessary to fully understand the relative importance of these dierent wear models.

Acknowledgement Professor Emeritus Go ran Gerbert, Chalmers University of Technology is gratefully acknowledged for valuable discussions regarding wear models. References
Chenje, T., Radziszewski, P., 2004. Determining the steel media abrasive wear as a function of applied force and friction. Minerals Engineering 17, 12551258. Evertsson, C.M., 1999. Modelling of ow in cone crushers. Minerals Engineering 12, 14791499. Evertsson, C.M., Lindqvist, M., 2002. Power draw and pressure distribution in cone crushers. Presentation on Minerals Engineering-02 Perth, Australia. Hansson, J., 2002. Utmattning av obundet material I en va gkropp. Thesis, Department of Geology, Chalmers University of Technology, Go teborg, Sweden. Hutchings, I.M., 1992. Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials. Arnold, ISBN 0-340 56184 X. Lindqvist, M., Evertsson, C.M., 2003a. Prediction of worn geometry in cone crushers. Minerals Engineering 16 (12), 13551361. Lindqvist, M., Evertsson, C.M., 2003b. Liner wear in jaw crushers. Minerals Engineering 16 (1), 112. Lindqvist, M., Evertsson, C.M., 2004. Improved ow- and pressure model for cone crushers. Minerals Engineering 17 (1112), 12171225. Lindqvist, M., Evertsson, C.M., 2006. Development of wear model for cone crushers. Wear, in press. Misra, A., Finnie, I., 1980. A classication of three-body abrasive wear and design of a new tester. Wear 60, 111121. Ma gi, M., Gerbert, G., 1993. Maskinelement del A, Maskin- och fordonskonstruktion. Chalmers Tekniska Ho gskola, Go teborg. Ngan, A.H.W., 2004. Statistical distribution of contact forces in packings of deformable spheres. Mechanics of materials 37, 493506. Osara, K., 2001. Characterization of Abrasion, Impact-Abrasion and Impact Wear of Selected Materials. Doctoral Dissertation, Tampere University of Technology, Publications 356, Tampere, 156p. Radziszewski, P., 2002. Exploring steel media wear. Minerals Engineering 15, 10731087. Radziszewski, P., Varadi, R., Chenje, T., Santella, L., Sciannamblo, A., 2005. Tumbling mill steel media abrasion wear test development. Minerals Engineering 18 (3), 333341. Yao, M., Page, N.W., 2000. Inuence of comminution products on abrasive wear during high pressure crushing. Wear 242, 105113. Yao, M., Page, N.W., 2001. Friction measurement on Ni-hard 4 during high pressure crushing of silica. Wear 249, 117126. Yao, M., Page, N.W., Keys, S., McMillan, W., Cenna, A., 2000. A high pressure shear cell for friction and abrasion measurements. Wear 241, 186192.