energies

Article
Influence of Operating Conditions and Crushing
Chamber on Energy Consumption of Cone Crusher
Ruiyue Liu 1 , Boqiang Shi 1, *, Guoguang Li 1 and Hongjun Yu 2
1 School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China;
b20150253@xs.ustb.edu.cn (R.L.); b20160240@xs.ustb.edu.cn (G.L.)
2 Equipment Manufacturing Branch Company of Anshan Iron and Steel Group Mining Co., Ltd.,
Anshan 114000, China; yhj1958@163.com
* Correspondence: shiboqiang@ustb.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-010-6233-2865




Received: 1 February 2018; Accepted: 24 April 2018; Published: 1 May 2018


Abstract: This paper provides an energy consumption model and explains how the operating conditions
and structural parameters of a crushing chamber affect energy consumption. Energy consumption
is closely related to compressive pressure and displacement. The relationship between pressure,
displacement and structural parameters is discussed. The influence of operating parameters on
pressure and displacement based on the law of motion of material is examined. Energy consumption
can be obtained by the product of pressure and displacement. In consideration of the pressure on
the liner surface, which varies according to both height and circumference, an infinitesimal method
was used to solve the issue of energy consumption. We validated the predicted energy consumption
during breakage with experimental data from a PYGB1821 cone crusher which was consistent with
the measured results. Finally, we provide an explanation of the influence of operating parameters
and structural parameters on compressive pressure and displacement as well as energy consumption.

Keywords: cone crusher; energy consumption; crushing chamber; operating conditions; motion law

1. Introduction
Cone crushers are commonly used instruments in the secondary and tertiary crushing of rock
material in the minerals industry. With the development of the modern social economy, the amount
of material needed to be crushed has gradually increased along with a proportional rise in energy
consumption. However, cone crushers typically have very low efficiency, which directly relates to
their economic benefit [1,2]. Therefore, further studies on energy consumption related to the crushing
process are necessary.
Currently, several models are used to estimate the energy requirement during comminution,
such as Bond’s model and Rittinger’s model [2,3]. Bond’s model frequently has been used to
calculate the energy consumption in comminution [2–4]. However, Bond’s model may be not
accurate in terms of different particle size distribution. To address this, Lindqvist [5] modified the
energy model to estimate the energy consumption for different size distributions. The influence of
particle size distribution on energy consumption was also investigated using fractal theory [6–8].
Apart from particle size distribution, particle size and shape may also affect energy requirements [9].
Fengnian Shi [10] estimated the energy required for a desired size reduction using a Julius Kruttschnitt
(JK) size-dependent breakage model. A similar study was conducted by Nadolski [11]. Additionally,
the minimum practical energy requirements of particle comminution, or threshold energy, was studied
using a JK size-dependent breakage model. Bonfils [12] modified the JK size-dependent breakage
model which had previously considered the particle shape. However, the relationship between
energy and size reduction was found to be discrete according to the above-mentioned energy models.

Energies 2018, 11, 1102; doi:10.3390/en11051102 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 1102 2 of 16

Subsequently, Zhang [13] developed a continuum approach for predicting energy consumption in
comminution. Nevertheless, energy absorption during breakage is not only consumed by the rock
fragmentation process but also dissipated as a result of friction, wear, and acoustic emission. Mütze [14]
found that energy consumption caused by flow losses was less than 0.1% of the energy requirement,
despite the fact that the energy which was consumed by pure elastic deformation was almost 15% [15].
The relationship between energy requirements and size reduction can be obtained by the energy
models described above. However, when a crusher is operated at different conditions, the energy
requirement cannot be computed according to existing energy models. Consequently, Numbi [16]
developed an energy consumption model with two control variables, the speed and closed side setting
of the jaw crusher. Johansson [17] estimated energy consumption according to the forces acting on the
static jaw. In addition to mathematical modeling, Discrete Element Modelling (DEM) could also be
used to simulate energy consumption. Quist [18,19] predicted energy consumption for different closed
side setting cases and speeds with DEM techniques. A similar study was conducted by Cleary [20]
who found that energy consumption was sensitive to material strength.
In this paper, a mathematical model is introduced to study the influence of operating conditions
and structure of a crushing chamber on energy consumption. Then, the mathematical computation
tools, Maple and MATLAB, are employed to solve this model. Finally, the model is calibrated on the
basis of an industrial experiment.

2. Energy Consumption Analysis

The total energy consumption in a cone crusher can be divided into several parts: no-load
mechanical energy of the cone crusher, energy consumption during breakage, energy loss due to
the wear of mantle and bowl liner, and energy loss caused by thermoplastic effects and sound wave
propagation [14]. This paper considers no load energy consumption E0 and energy consumption
during comminution E1 . E1 may be obtained by the product of force F and displacement s [17].
Therefore, a characteristic equation of energy consumption model can be expressed as equation (1).
Z sact
E = E0 + E1 = E0 + F (s)ds, (1)
0

To estimate the energy requirement in size reduction according to Equation (1), pressure p is needed
to calculate the force on the liner. Pressure is related to material properties, operating parameters,
and structural parameters of the cone crusher.

3. Prediction Model of Breakage Energy

3.1. Crushing Pressure Model of the Liner

Pressure on the liner surface is influenced by compression ratio i and feed size distribution σ for a
given material [17,21]. Moreover, the compression ratio varies with the speed of mantle and structure
parameters, as does crushing pressure, which can be observed in Figure 1. The maximum pressure
is at the closed side setting (CSS), while the minimum pressure is at the open side setting (OSS).
The pressure at the OSS is approximately equal to 0. Pressure on the liner surface can be expressed as
Equation (2).
p = f 1 (i, σ ), (2)
Energies 2018, 11, 3 of 16

Energies 2018, 11, 1102 3 of 16

The material height before compression is equal to the width of OSS and can be calculated as
Equation (4).

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Cross section of crushing chamber: (a) surface pressure distribution of the mantle; (b)
Figure 1. Cross section of crushing chamber: (a) surface pressure distribution of the mantle; (b) material
material
movementmovement trajectory.
trajectory.

 R2  s / compression
To investigate the pressure on the linerb surface, 2  R1 , ratio should be expressed with(4) the
structural parameters of the crushing chamber. Compression ratio, i.e., the ratio of stroke to the height
where R2 is the radius of bowl liner. R1 is the radius of the mantle. Stroke s is a special case of s(θ).
before compression, can be calculated as Equation (3).
s(θ) reflects the compression process, and it is presented in Appendix A.
s(θ )s
s  i(θ )R=  b ,  R1 , (3)
(5)
2
where b represents the height before compression. s(θ) is the stroke when the mantle rotates angle θ.
where
The material height before compression is equal to the width of OSS and can be calculated as
Equation (4). s2 sin 2  s cos 
R    R12   , (6)
b = R2 + s/24 − R1 , 2 (4)

where R2 is the radius of bowl liner. R1 is the radius of the mantle. Stroke s is a special case of s(θ).
s  2it 0is presented
s(θ) reflects the compression process, and R12  y 2 , in Appendix A. (7)

Consequently, we can obtain the variation of s(θ) accordings to Equations (5)–(7). s(θ) increases
s ( θ ) = R ( θ ) + − R1 , (5)
nonlinearly with rotation angle, as shown in Figure 2. The 2 growth rate of s(θ) presents an increasing
trend from 0 to π/2. Nevertheless, it shows the opposite trend between π/2 and π.
where s
s2 sin2 θ s cos θ
R ( θ ) = R1 2 − − , (6)
4 2
s
q
s = 2γ0 R1 2 + y2 , (7)

Consequently, we can obtain the variation of s(θ) according to Equations (5)–(7). s(θ) increases
s(θ)

nonlinearly with rotation angle, as shown in Figure 2. The growth rate of s(θ) presents an increasing
s/2
trend from 0 to π/2. Nevertheless, it shows the opposite trend between π/2 and π.
Finally, the compression ratio can be obtained by Equations (3)–(7). However, the compression
ratio is also influenced by the speed of the mantle. A higher speed is preferred to ensure high
productivity of the cone crusher. When the mantle is operated at a higher speed, the actual compression
ratio iact may be less than0 the nominal compression ratio i, and the material will pass through the
0 pi/4 pi/2 3pi/4 pi 5pi/4 3pi/2 7pi/4 2pi
crushing chamber by free fall and squeezing, as shown
Rotation in Figure 1b. Clearly, the actual stroke sact is
angle/rad
less than s when the mantle accelerates away rapidly enough. Taking crushing zone m as an example
Figure 2. The variation of s(θ).
(Figure 3), the material first falls from A2m to A2m+1 . Time of free fall is tm+1 . Next, it is squeezed
from A2m+1 to A2m+2 . Squeezing time is tm+2 . The coordinates of A2m , A2m+1 and A2m+2 are (x2m , y2m ),
Finally, the compression ratio can be obtained by Equations (3)–(7). However, the compression
(x2m+1 , y2m+1 ), and (x2m+2 , y2m+2 ), respectively. n is the mantle speed. k is the actual stroke coefficient.
ratio is also influenced by the speed of the mantle. A higher speed is preferred to ensure high
productivity of the cone crusher. When the mantle is operated at a higher speed, the actual
 1
4 2

=s 2γ 0 R12 + y 2 , (7)
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 4 of 16
Consequently, we can obtain the variation of s(θ) according to Equations (5)–(7). s(θ) increases
nonlinearly with rotation angle, as shown in Figure 2. The growth rate of s(θ) presents an increasing
When the initial point coordinates are given, the actual stroke and material height (Appendix A) can
trend from 0 to π/2. Nevertheless, it shows the opposite trend between π/2 and π.
be calculated according to Figure 4.

s
s(θ)

Energies 2018, 11, s/2 4 of 16

compression ratio iact may be less than the nominal compression ratio i, and the material will pass
through the crushing chamber by free fall and squeezing, as shown in Figure 1b. Clearly, the actual
stroke sact is less than s when the mantle accelerates away rapidly enough. Taking crushing zone m as
an example (Figure 3), the material first falls from A2m to A2m+1. Time of free fall is tm+1. Next, it is
0
squeezed from A2m+1 to 0 A2m+2pi/4
. Squeezing
pi/2 time
3pi/4is tm+2pi
. The coordinates
5pi/4 3pi/2 of A 2m, A2m+1
7pi/4 2piand A2m+2 are (x2m,
Rotation angle/rad
y2m), (x2m+1, y2m+1), and (x2m+2, y2m+2), respectively. n is the mantle speed. k is the actual stroke coefficient.
When the initial point coordinates are given, the actual stroke and material height (Appendix A) can
Figure
Figure2.2.The
The variation
variation ofof s(θ).
s(θ).
be calculated according to Figure 4.

Finally, the compression ratio can be obtained by Equations (3)–(7). However, the compression
ratio is also influenced by the speed of the mantle. A higher speed is preferred to ensure high
productivity of the cone crusher. When the mantle is operated at a higher speed, the actual

Figure 3. Crushing zone m.

Then iact can be written

Startas Equation (8).
Input
sact (θ ) s(θ + β − π )
iact (θ ) =
Speed,eccentric angle,CSS,etc. = , (8)
bact R2 + 0.5sact (π ) − R1

The other influence factor of crushing pressure, i.e., size distribution coefficient, represents the
Particle passes through the N
dispersion of particle size.
crushing chamber by free fall v
u q  − − 2 −
σ = t ∑ λj dj − d / d ,
u
Y (9)
j =1
Initial point A 2m (x2m , y2m )

A 2m+1(x2m+1 , y2−m+1 ,t2m+1 )

where
y2 m  2 λyj 2is the yield of particle size j. q is the number of particle
A , yd j is,tdetermined
sizes.
(x ) by the mean
m 1
  0)
 tan(− 2m +2 2m +2 2m +2 2m +2
x2 m  2  x2 m
size of particle 1
j. d is the average size of all particles.
y2 m 1  y2 m  gtm2 1 km 
ntm  2
Finally, 2the crushing pressure can be obtained by Equations (2), (8)30
and (9). m=m+1 k=1
60
tm 1  tm  2 +0.01=
n Y
y2 m  1 <yCSS
2 0ntm  2 x   x 
 arctan  2 m  2   arctan  2 m  N
30  y 2 m  2   y 2 m  1 
  k
2 0ntm  2 2  y   nt 
x2 m  2  x2 m  x2 m  y22m 1 sin  arctan  2 m  2   0 m  2  sact    s      
30  x
 2m 2  30 
  sact  
  bact  R2   R1
2 nt y   nt 2
y2 m  2  y2 m 1  0 m  2 xm2  ym2 1 cos  arctan  2 m  2   0 m  2 
30  x
 2m 2  30 
 
End
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 5 of 16
Figure 3. Crushing zone m.

Start
Input
Speed,eccentric angle,CSS,etc.

Particle passes through the N

crushing chamber by free fall

Y
Initial point A 2m (x2m , y2m )

A 2m+1(x2m+1 , y2m+1 ,t2m+1 )

y2 m  2  y2 m  1 A 2m+2 (x2m+2 , y2m+2 ,t2m+2 )
 tan(   0 )
x2 m  2  x2 m
1 2
y2 m 1  y2 m  gtm 1 km 
ntm  2
m=m+1 k=1
2 30
60
tm 1  tm  2 +0.01=
n Y
y2 m  1 <yCSS
2 0ntm  2 x   x 
 arctan  2 m  2   arctan  2 m  N
30 y
 2m 2  y
 2 m 1 
  k
2 0ntm  2 2  y   nt 
x2 m  2  x2 m  x2 m  y22m 1 sin  arctan  2 m  2   0 m  2  sact    s      
30  x
 2m 2  30 
  sact  
  bact  R2   R1
2 nt y   nt 2
y2 m  2  y2 m 1  0 m  2 xm2  ym2 1 cos  arctan  2 m  2   0 m  2 
30  x
 2m 2  30 
 
End

Figure The
4. 4.
Figure Theflow
flowchart
chart of actualstroke
of actual strokecoefficient.
coefficient.

Thenofiact
3.2. Modeling can beConsumption
Energy written as Equation (8).
s ( ) s(     )
iact (projected
The product of crushing pressure, )  act = area of the mantle, , and the stroke is equal(8)
to the
bact R2  0.5sact ( )  R1
work performed by the mantle. The work is then multiplied by the speed of mantle according to
Equation (10).The equation corresponds to the energy consumption during rock fragmentation.

16.667n sact Aact

R R
E1 = cos α R0 p(iact , σ )dAds
R0
16.667n ymax sact lact
R , (10)
= cos α y0 0 0 p(iact , σ )dldsdy

where Aact is the projected area of the mantle and equals the product of arc length l and the height
of the mantle. y0 is the distance between the suspension point O and the top of the mantle. ymax is
the distance between the suspension point and the bottom of the bowl. lact is the actual arc length of
mantle during squeezing.
However, the motion of mantle is not a simple rotation around its axis. It is difficult to perform
an integral for Equation (10). Therefore, coordinate transformation was performed to simplify the
calculation. The z-axis was translated to the position where x = s/2. The rotation angle of mantle
changed from θ to φ correspondingly, as shown in Figure 1a. Then, the rotation angle φ could be
obtained according to the law of sines.

s sin θ
ϕ = θ − arcsin , (11)
2R1

Thus, energy consumption can be expressed as Equation (12).

Z ymax Z π Z R( ϕ)+s/2− R
16.667n 1
E = E0 + p(iact , σ ) R1 ds( ϕ)dϕdy, (12)
cos α y0 (1− k ) π 0

Energy consumption per hour could be calculated according to Equation (12). The energy
conservation of a crusher is particularly important and attracts considerable attention. However,
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 6 of 16

the energy requirement per hour cannot estimate whether the cone crusher is energy-efficient or not.
It could be evaluated by the energy consumption per unit production. Therefore, it was necessary to
calculate the production of the cone crusher. The production Q equals to the integral of mass-flow field
over the choke level of crushing chamber [22].
60(θ −kπ )
(Z 60θ
)
(3− k ) π Z 2πn
Z π Z
2πn
Q = 60nρ R2 [ R2 − R(θ )]vdown dtdown dθ − 60(1−k)π
R2 [ R2 − R(θ )]vup dtup dθ (13)
π 0 (1− k ) π 2πn

where ρ is the material density. vdown is the free fall velocity of material. vup is the upward speed of
material. tdown is the free fall time. tup is the squeezing time.
According to Equations (12) and (13), energy consumption per unit production can be presented
as Equation (14).
E
E = Q
Ry R π R R( ϕ)+s− R1
E0 cos α+16.667n y max π − ϕ 0 p(iact ,σ ) R1 ds( ϕ)dϕdy (14)
0
= Q cos α

4. Example

4.1. Experiment
To verify the model of energy consumption, industrial experiments were conducted on a PYGB1821
cone crusher at Anshan Iron and Steel Group Mining Co., Ltd. (Anshan, China). Energy consumption,
feed size distribution, and structural parameters of the crushing chamber were measured. Table 1 shows
the energy consumption of the cone crusher.

Table 1. Energy consumption and material level.

Energy Energy Energy

Material Material Material
Consumption Consumption Consumption
Level/% Level/% Level/%
/(kW·h) /(kW·h) /(kW·h)
235.03 0 374.28 65.51 374.03 60.45
235.77 0 370.20 65.80 375.03 58.33
235.52 0 387.50 66.98 376.69 57.64
235.03 0 387.33 67.82 369.04 56.60
239.1 0 391.90 67.45 391.15 63.14
245.33 0 383.42 67.68 391.15 64.06
245.08 0 384.67 67.77 393.82 63.40
244.17 0 402.71 68.50 424.33 65.36
245.83 0 407.03 67.13 424.33 62.85
242.01 0 386.58 69.21 402.71 62.38
244.67 0 399.30 70.23 402.71 63.72
241.76 0 384.67 67.13 375.03 67.25
244.17 0 394.48 67.91 384.67 69.36
242.01 0 382.51 68.00 386.58 69.21
376.94 70.02 396.23 68.87 375.03 67.59
380.10 62.50 399.80 70.28 396.64 71.38
371.45 66.29 387.08 57.06 379.85 62.64
370.95 66.03 372.86 53.27 373.86 61.2
373.86 65.89 380.60 60.39 374.53 59.81
380.35 66.72 374.53 61.89 369.29 59.03
383.42 67.39 379.85 62.64 387.33 67.53
380.35 66.72 373.86 61.20 378.19 65.83

Material density was 2730 kg/m3 . Feed particle size distribution was as shown in Table 2.
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 7 of 16

Table 2. Feed particle size distribution.

Feed Size Distribution/%

Particle Size/mm Test Number
1 2 3
+100 2.51 4.13 1.87
−100~+66 8.69 13.25 12.05
−66~+42 19.42 16.73 22.03
−42~+30 19.39 18.34 17.92
−30~+24 15.13 12.72 11.35
−24~+12 30.31 32.17 30.77
−12~+7 3.34 1.97 3.52
−7~+5 0.27 0.13 0.29
−5~0 0.94 0.56 0.20

Table 3 shows the parameters of cone crusher.

Table 3. Structural parameters of crushing chamber and operating parameters.

Coefficient Value
Maximum radius of the mantle/m 0.8039
Maximum radius of the bowl liner/m 0.917
Abscissa of initial point/m 0.1878
Ordinate of initial point/m 0.3333
Ordinate of CSS/m 0.727
Height under the suspension point O/m 0.3412
Height of bowl liner/m 0.8732
Base angle of mantle/◦ 50.5
Base angle of bowl liner/◦ 48
Nip angle/◦ 21
Eccentric angle/◦ 2.5
Closed set setting/mm 19
Speed/(r/min) 300

Crushing pressure is necessary to compute the energy consumption and can be obtained by
the piston and die test. The pressure required to compress material to a given compression ratio is
equal to the pressure response in the piston [9]. Pressures, which were recorded at the piston tests,
could be used for the establishment of the pressure model. According to Bengtsson [9], the pressure is
influenced by the compression ratio and feed size distribution. Accordingly, the pressure on unit area
can be expressed as follow [23].
   
p = i2 −263.01σ2 + 393.673σ − 51.603 + i 189.563σ2 − 127.947σ + 51.452 , (15)

4.2. Results Analysis

We assumed that the no-load energy consumption was constant at the given speed [16]. According
to Table 1, average no-load energy consumption and total energy consumption were 241.11 kW·h
and 385.10 kW·h, respectively. The simulated energy consumption could be obtained by Equation
(12), and it was 383.52 kW·h. The simulated value was 1.58 kW·h less than the average experimental
value. Moreover, the 95% confidence interval of energy consumption ranged from 381.56 kW·h to
388.63 kW·h. The simulated value was in the 95% confidence interval. Therefore, the model could be
used to predict the energy consumption of the cone crusher.
 Energies 2018, 11, 1102 8 of 16

4.3. Influencing Factors of Energy Consumption

Energy consumption is related to the pressure and displacement in the direction of pressure.
For the given rock material, the pressure primarily depends on the compression ratio. Accordingly,
the compression ratio and displacement are predominantly influenced by mantle speed and structure
parameters of the crushing chamber in the cone crusher. As illustrated in Figure 5a, actual compression
ratio presented a downward trend with the increase of speed. Notably, the compression ratio had a
positive correlation with the pressure, and the compression ratio and pressure under different speeds
shared a similar
Energies 2018, 11, trend. Figure 5b shows the relationship between pressure and actual stroke. 8 of 16
Energies 2018, 11, 8 of 16
0.5 30
n=240rpm n=240rpm
0.5 30 y=0.727m
n=260rpm
0.45 n=240rpm n=260rpm
n=240rpm
n=280rpm y=0.727m
0.45 n=260rpm n=280rpm
25 n=260rpm
n=300rpm
0.4 n=280rpm n=300rpm

Compressive pressure/MPa
25 n=280rpm
n=320rpm
n=300rpm
Actual compression ratio

0.4 n=320rpm
n=300rpm

Compressive pressure/MPa
n=340rpm
0.35 n=320rpm 20 n=320rpm
n=340rpm
Actual compression ratio

n=360rpm
n=340rpm
0.35 20 n=360rpm
n=340rpm
n=380rpm
0.3 n=360rpm n=380rpm
n=360rpm
0.3 n=380rpm 15
n=380rpm
0.25 15
0.25
0.2 10
0.2 10
0.15
0.15 5
0.1 5
0.1
0.05 0
0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
0.05
0.35 0.45 0.55y-coordinate/m
0.65 0.75 0.85 0 5 10 15 Actual
20 stroke/mm
25 30 35 40
(a) (b)
y-coordinate/m Actual stroke/mm

(a) (b)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Compression
Compressionratioratioand
andpressure
pressurefor
forvarious
variousspeeds:
speeds:(a)(a)
relation of compression
relation ratioratio
of compression vs. the
vs.
Figure 5. of
height Compression
mantle; (b) ratio andofpressure
relation for various
compressive speeds:
pressure vs (a) relation
actual stroke. of compression ratio vs. the
the height of mantle; (b) relation of compressive pressure vs actual stroke.
height of mantle; (b) relation of compressive pressure vs actual stroke.
Displacement, the other influencing factor of energy consumption with different speeds,
Displacement,
Displacement,the
depends on the effective other
the other influencing
influencing
squeezing factor
factor
time and of energy
of energy
squeezing consumption
consumption
velocity. with squeezing
with different
First, effective different speeds,
speeds, depends
time was
on
depends
the on the
effective
calculated effective
squeezing
based squeezing
time
on Figure
and
4. Astime
squeezingand squeezing
shown in Figure velocity.
velocity. First, effectiveFirst, effective
squeezing
6, the color-filled
timesqueezing
was
markers time was
calculated
represent
based
actual
calculated
on Figurebased
squeezing time. When the mantle ran at a speed lower than 340 rpm, actual squeezing time actual
on
4. As shown Figure 4.
in Figure As shown
6, the in Figure
color-filled 6,
markers the color-filled
represent markers
actual squeezingrepresent
time. When the
equaled
squeezing
mantle ran time.
at aWhen
speedthe mantle
lower thanran340atrpm,
a speed
actuallower than
squeezing 340 rpm,
time actual
equaled squeezing
30/n.
30/n. While the speed was more than 360 rpm, actual squeezing time was less than 30/n. Namely, the
Whiletime equaled
the speed was
30/n.
moreWhile
higher
thanthe360speed
the speed,
rpm, was
the lessmore than 360
actual squeezing
squeezing rpm,
time
time, actual
was
which
less squeezing
than 30/n.time
indicated lower was less
Namely,
energy than 30/n.
the higher
utilization. Namely,
the speed,
Moreover,
thethe
less
actual
higher the
squeezing speed,
time,the less
which squeezing
indicated time,
lower which
energy indicated
utilization.lower energy
Moreover,
squeezing time gradually decreased in proportion to increase in compression number. utilization.
actual Moreover,
squeezing actual
time gradually
squeezing
decreased time gradually decreased
in proportion to increaseininproportion
compression to increase
number. in compression number.
0.16 0.14
n=240rpm n=260rpm n=280rpm n=300rpm n=320rpm n=340rpm n=360rpm n=380rpm
0.16 0.14
n=240rpm n=260rpm n=280rpm n=300rpm n=320rpm n=340rpm n=360rpm n=380rpm
0.14 0.12
0.14 0.12

0.12 0.1
0.12 0.1
Time/s

Time/s

0.1 0.08
Time/s

Time/s

0.1 0.08

0.08 0.06
0.08 0.06

0.06 0.04
0.06 0.04

0.04 0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
0.04 Compression 0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12number
14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 Compression
10 12 14 16 number
18 20 22 24 26
(a)
Compression number
(b)
Compression number

(a) (b)
Figure 6. The influence of speed on squeezing time: (a) relation of compression number vs. squeezing
Figure
time 6.
Figure The
with influence
speed
6. The of of
ranging
influence speed
from on
240
speed squeezing
onrpm time:
to 300
squeezing rpm; (a)(b)
time: relation
(a) of of
relation
relation compression
of number
compression
compression vs.vs.
number
number squeezing
vs. squeezing
squeezing
time with
time with
time speed
with speed ranging
speed rangingfrom
ranging from240 rpm
from 240 to
320 rpm 300
rpm to rpm;
to 300
380 rpm;(b) relation of compression number vs. squeezing
rpm. (b) relation of compression number vs. squeezing
time
timewith
withspeed
speed ranging from
ranging from320 rpm
320 toto
rpm 380 rpm.
380 rpm.
Next, the velocity under different mantle speeds was calculated [22]. Figure 7a illustrates the
Next, the
variation velocity
of the under
velocity differentwithin
particularly mantlethespeeds was calculated
squeezing process. The [22]. Figure 7a
maximum illustrates
squeezing the
velocity
variation
should beof the velocity
at the angle particularly
of π/2. Whenwithin the squeezing
the speed was greater process.
than 360The
rpm,maximum squeezing
squeezing velocity velocity
gradually
should be at the angle of π/2. When the speed was greater than 360 rpm, squeezing
decreased, which was not beneficial to crushing rock material. Next, displacement is shown velocity gradually
in Figure
decreased,
7b. It waswhich was not
observed thatbeneficial
the actualtostroke
crushing rock material.
increased Next, displacement
in relationship to a decreaseisof
shown
speed. inThat
Figureis to
7b.say,
It was observed that the actual stroke increased
the stroke had a negative correlation with speed. in relationship to a decrease of speed. That is to
say, the stroke had a negative correlation with speed.
 Energies 2018, 11, 1102 9 of 16

Next, the velocity under different mantle speeds was calculated [22]. Figure 7a illustrates the
variation of the velocity particularly within the squeezing process. The maximum squeezing velocity
should be at the angle of π/2. When the speed was greater than 360 rpm, squeezing velocity gradually
decreased, which was not beneficial to crushing rock material. Next, displacement is shown in
Figure 7b. It was observed that the actual stroke increased in relationship to a decrease of speed.
That is to
Energies say,11,the stroke had a negative correlation with speed.
2018, 9 of 16
Energies 2018, 11, 9 of 16
1 40
n=240rpm n=240rpm
40 y=0.727m
1 n=260rpm n=260rpm
n=240rpm
Squeeze n=240rpm 35 y=0.727m n=280rpm
n=280rpm n=260rpm
n=260rpm 35 n=300rpm
0.5 Squeeze n=300rpm n=280rpm
n=280rpm 30 n=320rpm
0.5 n=320rpm n=300rpm
n=300rpm n=340rpm
n=340rpm 30 n=320rpm

Actual stroke/mm
n=320rpm 25 n=360rpm
n=360rpm
Velocity/(m/s)

0 n=340rpm n=340rpm

Actual stroke/mm
n=380rpm 25 n=380rpm
n=360rpm
n=360rpm
Velocity/(m/s)

0 20 n=380rpm
n=380rpm
20
-0.5 15
-0.5 Free fall
15
Free fall 10
-1
10
-1 5
Free fall
5
-1.5 Free fall 0
0 0.4π 0.8π 1.2π 1.6π 2π 0 0.4π 0.8π 1.2π 1.6π 2π
-1.5 Rotation angle/rad 0 Rotation angle/rad
0 0.4π 0.8π 1.2π 1.6π 2π 0 0.4π 0.8π 1.2π 1.6π 2π

(a) (b)
Rotation angle/rad Rotation angle/rad

(a) (b)
Figure7.7.Squeezing
Figure Squeezingvelocity
velocityand
andactual
actualstroke
strokefor
forvarious
variousspeed:
speed:(a)
(a)relation
relationofofspeed
speedvs.
vs.squeezing
squeezing
Figure 7. Squeezing
velocity;(b)
(b)relationvelocity
relationofofspeedand
speedandactual
andactualstroke for
actualstroke.
stroke. various speed: (a) relation of speed vs. squeezing
velocity;
velocity; (b) relation of speed and actual stroke.
Finally, energy consumption under different speeds was computed based on Equation (10). It
canFinally,
Finally, energy
be seen fromconsumption
Figure 8 thatunder different speedswaswas computed based
energy consumption under different speeds computed based onon Equation
Equation (10).
(10). It
It can
speed had significant effects on energy consumption. Energy
can
be be
seen seen
from from
Figure Figure
8 that 8 that
speed speed
had had
significantsignificant
effects on effects
energy on energy
consumption. consumption.
consumption during breakage at 280 rpm was about 73.96% as much as that at 240 rpm. Moreover,
Energy Energy
consumption
consumption
during breakageduring
breakage energy breakage
at 280
had
rpm was at about
a positive280correlation
rpm was as
73.96% about
with 73.96%
much as thatasatmuch
speed. However,as this
240 rpm.that at 240
Moreover,
did notrpm. Moreover,
breakage
indicate
energy
energy
breakage
had a energy
positive had a
correlationpositive
with correlation
speed. However,withthisspeed.
did However,
not indicate this
energy did not indicate
consumption
consumption presented an upward tendency with the increase of speed, as illustrated in Figure 8b. energy
presented
consumption presented
an upward tendency
The energy consumption an the
with upward
was alsotendency
increase of speed,
influenced withasthe
by the increasein
illustrated
no-load ofFigure
speed,8b.
mechanical asenergy
illustrated
The energy in Figure
consumption
of the cone 8b.
crusher:
The
wasenergy consumption
also influenced was
by the also influenced
no-load mechanicalby the no-load
energy mechanical
of the energy
cone crusher: of
the
the higher the speed, the more no-load energy consumption, and the less energy consumption during the cone
higher crusher:
the speed,
the
thehigher
breakage.the
more no-loadspeed, the
energy
Therefore, more no-load
consumption,
energy energy
consumption consumption,
and the and the
theless
less energy consumption
could fluctuate with energy
duringconsumption
increase of speed. during
breakage. Therefore,
breakage. Therefore, energy
energy consumption consumption
could fluctuate with could fluctuate
the increase with the increase of speed.
of speed.
Energy consumption per rotation during breakage / (kWh/r)

Speed/ (r/min)
240 1
Energy consumption per rotation during breakage / (kWh/r)

240 260 280 Speed/

300(r/min)320 340 360 380
425 530
240 1
Energy consumption during breakage/kWh

220 0.9 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
425420 530520
Energy consumption during breakage/kWh

220 0.9
200 0.8 420415 520510
Energy consumption /kWh

200 0.8 415410 510500

180 0.7
Energy consumption /kWh

Production/ (t/h)

180 0.7 410405 500490

160 0.6
Production/ (t/h)

160 0.6 405400 490480

140 0.5
400395 480470
140 0.5
120 0.4
395390 470460
120 0.4
100 0.3 390385 460450
100 0.3
80 0.2 385380 450440
80 0.2 380375 440430
60 0.1
240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
60 Speed/ (r/min) 0.1 375 Speed/ (r/min) 430
240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380

(a) (b)
Speed/ (r/min) Speed/ (r/min)

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Energy consumption and production when varying speed: (a) relation of speed vs. energy
Figure
Figure8.8.Energy
consumption
Energyconsumption
during and
breakage;
consumption (b)production
and relation of when
production whenvarying
speed, speed:
production
varying and(a)
speed: relation
energy
(a) ofofspeed
speedvs.
consumption.
relation vs.energy
energy
consumption during breakage; (b) relation of speed, production and energy consumption.
consumption during breakage; (b) relation of speed, production and energy consumption.
The structural parameters of a crushing chamber predominantly include the eccentric angle, nip
The
angle, structural parameters
influenceof aeccentric
crushingangle
chamberandpredominantly include the pressure
eccentric is
angle, nip
TheCSS, etc. The
structural parameters ofof a crushing chamber nippredominantly
angle on compressive
include the eccentric presented
angle,
angle, CSS,
in angle, etc.
FigureCSS, The
9. The influence of eccentric angle and nip angle on compressive pressure is presented
nip etc.increase of eccentric
The influence angleangle
of eccentric leads
andto nip
an angle
increase of pressure. pressure
on compressive As eccentric angle is
is presented
indirectly
Figure 9. The increase
proportional of eccentric
to the angleb is
stroke s, and leads to an
almost increaseAccordingly,
invariant. of pressure.itAs
caneccentric angle that
be concluded is
directly proportional to the stroke s, and b is almost invariant. Accordingly, it can be
compression ratio presents a positive correlation with eccentric angle according to Equation (3), as concluded that
compression ratio presents
does the pressure. a positive
Therefore, breakage correlation with eccentric
energy increased angle according
with eccentric angle and tospeed,
Equation (3), asin
as shown
does the pressure.
Figure 10a. EnergyTherefore, breakage
consumption of aenergy increased
cone crusher may with eccentric
have anglewith
fluctuated andthe
speed, as shown
increase in
of speed
Figure 10a. Energy consumption of a cone crusher may have fluctuated with the increase
when the eccentric angle was more than 1.8°, as can be seen in Figure 10b. As such, the proportion of of speed
when the eccentric angle was more than 1.8°, as can be seen in Figure 10b. As such, the proportion of
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 10 of 16

in Figure 9. The increase of eccentric angle leads to an increase of pressure. As eccentric angle is
directly proportional to the stroke s, and b is almost invariant. Accordingly, it can be concluded
that compression ratio presents a positive correlation with eccentric angle according to Equation (3),
as does the pressure. Therefore, breakage energy increased with eccentric angle and speed, as shown
in Figure 10a. Energy consumption of a cone crusher may have fluctuated with the increase of speed
when the eccentric angle was more than 1.8◦ , as can be seen in Figure 10b. As such, the proportion of
Energies
no-load 2018, 11, consumption in total energy consumption may have changed with the eccentric10angle.
energy of 16
Energies 2018, 11, 10 of 16
25 25
25 γ0=1.3° y=0.727m 25 α0=21.0° y=0.727m
γγ0=1.5°
=1.3° y=0.727m αα0=21.4°
0
=21.0° y=0.727m
0
20 γγ00=1.7°
=1.5°
20 αα00=21.8°
=21.4°

pressure/MPa
pressure/MPa

20 γ =1.7°
γ 0=1.9° 20 α =21.8°
α 0=22.2°

pressure/MPa
pressure/MPa

0 0
γγ00=2.1°
=1.9° αα00=22.6°
=22.2°
15 15
15 γγ0=2.3°
0
=2.1°
15 αα0=23.0°
=22.6°
0
γγ00=2.5°
=2.3° α0=23.0°
Compressive

Compressive
γγ0=2.7°
=2.5°
Compressive

Compressive
10 10
0
10 γ0=2.7° 10

5 5
5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 0
0 5 10 Actual
15 stroke/mm
20 25 30 35 0 5 10 Actual
15 stroke/mm
20 25 30 35
Actual stroke/mm Actual stroke/mm
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure9.
9.The
Theinfluence
influenceofofeccentric
eccentricangle
angleand
andnip
nipangle
angleon
onpressure:
pressure:(a)
(a)relation
relationof
ofeccentric
eccentricangle
anglevs.
vs.
Figure 9. The influence of eccentric angle and nip angle on pressure: (a) relation of eccentric angle vs.
pressure;
pressure;(b)
(b)relation
relationof
ofnip
nip angle
angle and
and pressure.
pressure.
pressure; (b) relation of nip angle and pressure.
300 500
n=240rpm n=240rpm
300 500
n=240rpm
n=260rpm n=260rpm
n=240rpm
breakage/kWh

n=260rpm
n=280rpm n=280rpm
n=260rpm
breakage/kWh

250
n=280rpm
n=300rpm 450 n=300rpm
n=280rpm
250
n=320rpm 450 n=320rpm
n=300rpm
consumption/kWh

n=300rpm
n=320rpm
n=340rpm n=340rpm
n=320rpm
consumption/kWh

200
200 n=340rpm
n=360rpm n=360rpm
n=340rpm
400
during

n=360rpm
n=380rpm n=380rpm
n=360rpm
400
during

150 n=380rpm n=380rpm

consumption

150
350
consumption

Energy

100 350
Energy

100
300
Energy

50 300
Energy

50

0 250
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
0 250 Eccentric2angle/ 2.2
°
1.4 1.6 Eccentric2angle/ 2.2
1.8 ° 2.4 2.6 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.4 2.6 2.8
Eccentric angle/ ° Eccentric angle/ °
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Energy consumption for various eccentric angle and speed: (a) relation of eccentric angle
Figure 10.
10. Energy consumption for various
variouseccentric
eccentricangle
angleand
andspeed:
speed: (a)relation
relation
ofof eccentric angle
vs. breakage
Figure energy
Energy consumption;
consumption for (b) relation of eccentric angle vs.(a)
energy consumption
eccentric of cone
angle vs.
vs. breakage energy consumption; (b) relation of eccentric angle vs. energy consumption of cone
crusher.
breakage energy consumption; (b) relation of eccentric angle vs. energy consumption of cone crusher.
crusher.
The
Theother
otherstructural
structuralparameter,
parameter, nip
nip angle,
angle, can
can be
be expressed
expressed as
as Equation
Equation (16).
(16).
The other structural parameter, nip angle, can be expressed as Equation (16).

α0αα=0 ==αα1α1−−−(α
αα±((
± γγ0 ),,
±γ 0 ,
)) (16)
(16)
(16)
0 1 0

whereααα111is
where
where isthe
is thebase
the baseangle
base angleof
angle ofbowl
of bowlliner.
bowl liner.Usually,
liner. Usually, value
Usually,
range
range of
value range
value of nip
of
angle is
nip angle
nip angle is
21°~23°.
is 21
◦ ~23◦ .
21°~23°.
An increase in the nip angle led to a small increase in the energy consumption,
consumption,as asillustrated
illustratedin
An
An increase
increase in in the
the nip
nip angle
angle led
led toto aa small
small increase
increase inin the
the energy
energy consumption, as illustrated in
in
Figure 11. The action of nip angle ensured that the rock particle did not slide upwards. The
Figure 11. The
Figure 11. Theaction
action of of
nipnip angle
angle ensured
ensured that
that the theparticle
rock rock particle did not
did not slide slide The
upwards. upwards. The
adjustment
adjustment range of the nip angle Additionally,
was narrow. the Additionally, the nip
change ofwas thesignificantly
nip angle was
adjustment range of the nip angle was narrow. Additionally, the change of the nip angle was
range of the nip angle was narrow. change of the angle less
significantly less thanTherefore,
the base angle. Therefore, energy consumption was not subjected to the nip
significantly less than the base angle. Therefore, energy consumption was not subjected to the nip
than the base angle. energy consumption was not subjected to the nip angle, according to
angle, according to Equation (10).
angle, according
Equation (10). to Equation (10).
Finally, CSS also strongly influenced energy consumption and could be regulated by adjusting
Finally, CSS also strongly influenced energy consumption and could be regulated by adjusting
the height of the bowl. CSS can be presented as:
the height of the bowl. CSS can be presented as:
s
CSS = R2 − R1 − s , (17)
CSS = R2 − R1 − 2 , (17)
2
Compressive pressure for various CSS can be calculated by Equations (15) and (17). It is clear
Compressive pressure for various CSS can be calculated by Equations (15) and (17). It is clear
from Figure 12a that the pressure decreased with an increase of CSS, while the actual stroke remained
Energies 2018, 11, 11 of 16

size: the bigger the CSS, the bigger the product size. Thus, the energy requirement in size reduction
will decrease. Finally, the relationship among the production, CSS, and energy consumption is as
shown
Energies in Figure
2018, 13b. Energy consumption decreased with an increase of CSS; however, production
11, 1102 11 of 16
showed the opposite trend.

240 430
n=240rpm n=240rpm
n=260rpm n=260rpm
Energy consumption during breakage/kWh

210 n=280rpm n=280rpm

420
n=300rpm n=300rpm
n=320rpm n=320rpm

Energy consumption/kWh
180 n=340rpm n=340rpm
410
n=360rpm n=360rpm
n=380rpm n=380rpm
150 400

120 390

90 380

60 370
Energies212018, 11,21.4 21.8 22.2
Nip angle/°
22.6 23 21 21.4 21.8 22.2 22.6 1123of 16
Nip angle/°

(a) (b)
size: the bigger the CSS, the bigger the product size. Thus, the energy requirement in size reduction
willFigure
decrease.
Figure11. Finally,
11.Energy
Energy the relationship
consumption
consumption when among
whenvarying the
varyingthe production,
thenip
nipangle
angleand CSS,
speed:and
andspeed: (a) energyofof
(a)relation
relation consumption
nip
nipangle vs. is as
anglevs.
breakage
shown in energy
Figure consumption;
13b. Energy (b) relationship
consumption of nip
decreased angle
withvs.
anenergy consumption
increase of CSS; of cone
however, crusher.
breakage energy consumption; (b) relationship of nip angle vs. energy consumption of cone crusher. production
showed the opposite trend.
30 300
CSS=13mm y=0.727m n=240rpm
Finally, CSS also strongly influenced energy consumption
240CSS=16mm and could be regulated by n=260rpm
adjusting
Energy consumption during breakage/kWh

430
25 CSS=19mm n=240rpm n=240rpm
n=280rpm
the height of the bowl. CSS can be presented
CSS=22mm as: 250
n=260rpm n=260rpm
Compressive pressure/MPa

Energy consumption during breakage/kWh

n=300rpm
210CSS=25mm n=280rpm n=280rpm
n=320rpm
420
20 n=300rpm n=340rpm
CSS=32mm
n=320rpm s n=300rpm
− R1 − ,
CSS = R2 200 n=360rpm
n=320rpm (17)
Energy consumption/kWh

CSS=38mm
n=340rpm
180
n=360rpm
410 2 n=380rpm
n=340rpm
15 n=360rpm
n=380rpm n=380rpm
Compressive
150 pressure for various CSS can be 150calculated by Equations (15) and (17). It is clear
400
10
from Figure 12a that the pressure decreased with an increase of CSS, while the actual stroke remained
120 100 390
unchanged.
5 Therefore, the breakage energy consumption showed the same trend with pressure,
as shown 90 in Figure 12b. Accordingly, energy consumption 380
can be calculated according to Equation (12).
50
The00energy 5 consumption
10 15 showed
20 25 a downward
30 35 trend10 with an15 increase
20 of CSS
25 and30also in 35a nonlinear
40
Actual stroke/mm CSS/mm
60
way, as 21illustrated
21.4 in Figure
21.8 13a
22.2 CSS is one of 23
22.6 the most370important factors21.8
in determining 22.6 the product
(a)Nip angle/° 21 21.4
(b)Nip angle/°22.2 23
size: the bigger the CSS, the bigger the product size. Thus, the energy requirement in size reduction will
FigureFinally,
decrease. 12. The the
influence
(a)of CSS on
relationship pressure
among theand breakage CSS,
production, energy:
and(a)energy
(b)
relationconsumption
of CSS vs. pressure; (b)
is as shown in
Figurerelation
13b. of
Figure 11.CSS
Energy vs.
Energy breakage
consumption
consumption energy consumption.
when
decreased varying
with the
an nip angleof
increase and speed:
CSS; (a) relation
however, of nip angle
production vs. the
showed
breakage energy consumption; (b) relationship of nip angle vs. energy consumption of cone crusher.
opposite trend.
460 CSS/mm
n=240rpm 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
400 700
n=260rpm n=300rpm
30 300
440 CSS=13mm n=280rpm
y=0.727m n=240rpm
CSS=16mm n=300rpm 390 650
n=260rpm
Energy consumption during breakage/kWh

n=320rpm
Energy consumption/kWh

25 CSS=19mm n=280rpm
Energy consumption /kWh

420 CSS=22mm n=340rpm 250

Compressive pressure/MPa

n=300rpm
CSS=25mm n=360rpm 380 600
n=320rpm
Production/ (t/h)

20 n=380rpm n=340rpm
CSS=32mm
400 CSS=38mm n=360rpm
200 370 550
n=380rpm
15
380 500
360
150
10
360 350 450
100
5
340 340 400
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSS/mm CSS/mm
0 50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Actual (a)
(b)
stroke/mm CSS/mm

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Relation of CSS and energy consumption: (a) CSS vs. energy consumption; (b) CSS,
production12. and
Figure 12. The energy consumption.
Figure The influence
influence of
ofCSS
CSSon
onpressure
pressureand
andbreakage
breakageenergy:
energy:(a)(a)
relation of of
relation CSS vs.vs.
CSS pressure; (b)
pressure;
relation
(b) of CSS
relation vs. vs.
of CSS breakage energy
breakage consumption.
energy consumption.
5. Discussion
460 CSS/mm
n=240rpm 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
400 700
n=260rpm n=300rpm
440 n=280rpm
n=300rpm 390 650
n=320rpm
Energy consumption/kWh

Energy consumption /kWh

420 n=340rpm
n=360rpm 380 600
Production/ (t/h)

n=380rpm
400
370 550

380 500
360

360 350 450

 En
0 50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Actual stroke/mm CSS/mm

(a) (b)
Figure
Energies 2018, 12. The influence of CSS on pressure and breakage energy: (a) relation of CSS vs. pressure; (b)
11, 1102 12 of 16
relation of CSS vs. breakage energy consumption.

460 CSS/mm
n=240rpm 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
400 700
n=260rpm n=300rpm
440 n=280rpm
n=300rpm 390 650
n=320rpm
Energy consumption/kWh

Energy consumption /kWh

420 n=340rpm
n=360rpm 380 600

Production/ (t/h)
n=380rpm
400
370 550

380 500
360

360 350 450

340 340 400

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSS/mm CSS/mm

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Relation
Figure 13. Relation of
of CSS
CSS and energy consumption:
and energy consumption: (a)
(a) CSS vs. energy
CSS vs. energy consumption;
consumption; (b)
(b) CSS,
CSS,
production and energy consumption.
production and energy consumption.

5. Discussion
5. Discussion
In the present study, we developed an energy consumption model of a cone crusher and
investigated the influence of operating conditions and structure parameters on energy consumption.
Our results demonstrated that energy consumption was sensitive to speed, eccentric angle, and CSS.
This is notable because it provides guidance for chamber design and energy optimization.
Energy consumption depended on both pressure and displacement. Both the pressure and
displacement decreased with an increase in speed. Consequently, breakage energy consumption
showed a downward trend with speed, as illustrated in Figures 5b and 8a. The result is similar to
the findings of Johansson and Cleary [19,20]. However, the energy consumption of cone crusher may
show different trends with breakage energy consumption because the energy consumption was also
influenced by no-load mechanical energy. Therefore, the relationship between energy consumption
and speed, either positive or negative correlation, depends on the proportion of breakage energy
consumption in total energy consumption. As can be seen from Figure 8b, energy consumption
gradually decreased with an increase in speed. The production increased firstly with speed and
then decreased. Moreover, the maximum squeezing velocity was at the angle of π/2, as shown in
Figure 7a.The design speed should ensure that the initial squeezing velocity of material is less than
the maximum squeezing velocity. As a result, speed and production both need to be considered to
optimize the energy consumption of the cone crusher.
Structural parameters, eccentric angle, and CSS had a significant influence on the breakage energy
consumption. However, this was not the case for the nip angle. Since the eccentric angle was an
important factor for the displacement, the greater the displacement, the more pressure was exerted.
Accordingly, the breakage energy consumption was correspondingly higher. When the eccentric angle
was more than 1.8◦ , the energy consumption of cone crusher also fluctuated with the increase of speed.
Clearly, the eccentric angle affected the speed of minimum energy consumption. CSS is a particle
size controller parameter. Both breakage energy consumption and energy consumption of a cone
crusher showed a downward trend with an increase of CSS; the size of crushed material increased
with CSS. Therefore, the energy which was used to crush the material decreased. This result was in
agreement with the findings of Cleary [20]. Surprisingly, the nip angle, which usually ranges from
21◦ to 23◦ , had nearly no influence on energy consumption. The influence of nip angle on pressure
and displacement was not obvious. The action of the nip angle is to guarantee that the material does
not slide upwards. That is to say, the influence of nip angle on energy consumption could be ignored
when we optimized the energy consumption.
The model could be used to show the influence of some parameters on energy consumption,
although it exhibited several defects which made the predicted value less than the average experimental
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 13 of 16

value. Energy consumption caused by flow losses, thermoplastic effects, and sound wave propagation
are ignored. Another explanation for the discrepancy is material heterogeneity. Both the particle size
and particle shape may have influence the pressure and energy consumption. These issues could be
explored to improve prediction accuracy in a further study.

6. Conclusions
A mathematical model was developed to study the influence of speed, eccentric angle, nip angle,
and CSS on the energy consumption of a cone crusher. This model was calibrated and validated based
on a PYGB1821 crusher at Anshan Iron and Steel Group Mining Co. Ltd.
In general, speed, eccentric angle, and CSS had a significant influence on energy consumption.
However, nip angle was found to have negligible influence. The predicted energy consumption at
the speed of 240 rpm was 39.25 kW·h higher than that at 300 rpm. When the speed was 380 rpm,
the energy consumption was only 90.13% of that at 240 rpm. Moreover, the relationship between energy
consumption and speed, either in terms of a positive or negative correlation, was also influenced
by eccentric angle. The eccentric angle presented a positive correlation with energy consumption.
An increase in eccentric angle from 1.3◦ to 2◦ (a 53.84% increase) led to an 18.68% increment, while the
next 53.84 % increase led to a further 27.87% increment. In addition, when the CSS was 38 mm,
the energy consumption was only about 87.68% as much as that at 13 mm.
The model provides an effective means for quantifying the influence of operating parameters
and structural parameters on energy consumption. Furthermore, the model also explains how the
operating parameters and structural parameters affect energy consumption. Therefore, the model
could be used to provide a reference for further study on how to match and optimize operating
parameters and structural parameters.

Author Contributions: Ruiyue Liu and Boqiang Shi conceived and designed the calculations and experiments;
Guoguang Li and Hongjun Yu had contributed to perform the experiments. Ruiyue Liu wrote the paper.
Acknowledgments: The industrial experiments were carried out at Anshan Iron and Steel Group Mining Co., Ltd.
Yaoming Su and the others staffs are gratefully acknowledged for providing information and support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
A surface area of liner, m2
b material height before compression, m
bact actual material height before compression, m
CSS closed side setting
−
d the average size of all particles, mm
−
dj the mean size of particle j, mm
E energy consumption of cone crusher, kW·h
E0 no-load mechanical energy, kW·h
E1 energy consumption during breakage, kW·h
Fstress stress on the liner, N
i compression ratio
iact actual compression ratio
k actual stroke coefficient
lact the actual arc length of mantle during squeezing, m
l arc length, m
m crushing zone
n mantle speed, r/min
O suspension point
OSS open side setting
O1 the center of the mantle
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 14 of 16

O2 the center of the bowl liner

p pressure on the mantle, MPa
q the number of particle sizes
Q production, t/h
R1 radius of the mantle, m
R2 radius of bowl liner, m
R(θ) distance between the center O2 of the bowl liner and the surface of the mantle, m
s stroke, m
sact actual stroke, m
s(θ) the stroke when the mantle rotates angle θ, m
tdown free fall time of choke level, s
tup squeezing time of choke level, s
tm+1 free fall time of crushing zone m, s
tm+2 squeezing time of crushing zone m, s
vdown the free fall velocity of material, m/s
vup the upward speed of material, m/s
ycss ordinate of closed side setting, m
ymax the distance between the suspension point O and the bottom of the bowl, m
y0 the height under the suspension point O, m
x2m abscissa of A2m , m
y2m ordinate of A2m , m
x2m+1 abscissa of A2m+1 , m
y2m+1 ordinate of A2m+1 , m
x2m+2 abscissa of A2m+2 , m
y2m+2 ordinate of A2m+2 , m
α base angle of the mantle, ◦
α0 nip angle, ◦
α1 base angle of the bowl liner, ◦
β actual squeezing angle, ◦
γ0 eccentric angle, ◦
θ rotation angle of mantle around the center of bowl liner, ◦
λj the yield of particle size j
ρ material density, kg/m3
σ feed size distribution
ϕ rotation angle of mantle around its center, ◦

Appendix
(1) Stroke

s(θ) can be presented as Equation (A1).

s ( θ ) = b + R ( θ ) − R2 (A1)

R(θ) can be calculated according to the law of cosines.

s
s2 sin2 θ s cos θ
R(θ ) = R1 2 − − (A2)
4 2

The stroke s is expressed as: q

s = 2γ0 R1 2 + y2 (A3)
The material height before compression can be calculated as Equation (A4).

b = R2 + s/2 − R1 (A4)
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 15 of 16

Substituting Equation (A4) into Equation (A1) gives:

s
s(θ ) = R(θ ) + − R1 (A5)
2

(2) Actual material height and actual stroke

Actual material height is expressed as:

sact (π )
bact = R2 + − R1 (A6)
2

Actual stroke can be presented as:

sact (θ ) = s(θ + β − π ) (A7)
where
β = kπ (A8)
Actual stroke coefficient is expressed as:
ntm+2
k= (A9)
30
To obtain the actual material height and stroke, it is essential to establish the relation between coordinates
and time. The slope of A2m+1 A2m+2 is formulated as:

y2m+2 − y2m+1
= tan(α − γ0 ) (A10)
x2m+2 − x2m

The free fall distance of material can be expressed as:

1 2
y2m+1 − y2m = gt (A11)
2 m +1

The motion cycle of mantle is expressed as:

60
tm+1 + tm+2 + 0.01 = (A12)
n

The actual eccentric angle can be formulated as:

   
2γ0 ntm+2 x x2m
= arctan 2m+2 − arctan (A13)
30 y2m+2 y2m+1

The abscissa of A2m+2 can be expressed as:

   
2γ0 ntm+2 y2m+2 γ0 ntm+2
q
x2m+2 = x2m + 2 + y2
x2m sin arctan − (A14)
30 2m+1 x2m+2 30

The ordinate of A2m+2 is formulated as:

   
2γ nt y γ nt
q
y2m+2 = y2m+1 − 0 m+2 2
xm + y2m+1 cos arctan 2m+2 − 0 m +2 (A15)
30 x2m+2 30

The coordinates and time can be obtained by solving Equations (A10)–(A15). Finally, calculation results can
be used to compute the actual material height and actual stroke.

References
1. Holmberg, K.; Kivikytö-Reponen, P.; Härkisaari, P.; Valtonen, K.; Erdemir, A. Global energy consumption
due to friction and wear in the mining industry. Tribol. Int. 2017, 115, 116–139. [CrossRef]
2. Legendre, D.; Zevenhoven, R. Assessing the energy efficiency of a jaw crusher. Energy 2014, 74, 119–130.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1102 16 of 16

3. Petrakis, E.; Stamboliadis, E.; Komnitsas, K. Evaluation of the relationship between energy input and particle
size distribution in comminution with the use of piecewise regression analysis. Part. Sci. Technol. 2016, 35,
479–489. [CrossRef]
4. Terva, J.; Kuokkala, V.T.; Valtonen, K.; Siitonen, P. Effects of compression and sliding on the wear and energy
consumption in mineral crushing. Wear 2018, 398–399, 116–126. [CrossRef]
5. Lindqvist, M. Energy considerations in compressive and impact crushing of rock. Miner. Eng. 2008, 21,
631–641. [CrossRef]
6. Deng, Y.; Chen, M.; Jin, Y.; Zou, D. Theoretical analysis and experimental research on the energy dissipation
of rock crushing based on fractal theory. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 33, 231–239. [CrossRef]
7. Martins, S. Size-energy relationship in comminution, incorporating scaling laws and heat. Int. J. Miner. Process.
2016, 153, 29–43. [CrossRef]
8. Xu, Y.; Wang, Y. Size effect on specific energy distribution in particle comminution. Fractals 2017, 25, 1750016.
[CrossRef]
9. Bengtsson, M.; Svedensten, P.; Evertsson, C.M. Characterization of Compressive Breakage Behavior.
In Proceedings of the XXIII International Mineral Processing Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 3–8 September 2006.
10. Shi, F. A review of the applications of the JK size-dependent breakage model part 2: Assessment of material
strength and energy requirement in size reduction. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2016, 157, 36–45. [CrossRef]
11. Nadolski, S.; Klein, B.; Kumar, A.; Davaanyam, Z. An energy benchmarking model for mineral comminution.
Miner. Eng. 2014, 65, 178–186. [CrossRef]
12. Bonfils, B.; Ballantyne, G.R.; Powell, M.S. Developments in incremental rock breakage testing methodologies
and modelling. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2016, 152, 16–25. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, C.; Nguyen, G.D.; Kodikara, J. An application of breakage mechanics for predicting energy-size
reduction relationships in comminution. Powder Technol. 2016, 287, 121–130. [CrossRef]
14. Mütze, T. Energy dissipation in particle bed comminution. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2015, 136, 15–19. [CrossRef]
15. Mütze, T. Modelling the stress behaviour in particle bed comminution. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2016, 156, 14–23.
[CrossRef]
16. Numbi, B.P.; Zhang, J.; Xia, X. Optimal energy management for a jaw crushing process in deep mines. Energy
2014, 68, 337–348. [CrossRef]
17. Johansson, M.; Bengtsson, M.; Evertsson, C.M.; Hulthén, E. A fundamental model of an industrial-scale jaw
crusher. Miner. Eng. 2017, 105, 69–78. [CrossRef]
18. Quist, J.; Evertsson, C.M. Cone crusher modelling and simulation using DEM. Miner. Eng. 2016, 85, 92–105.
[CrossRef]
19. Johansson, M.; Quist, J.; Evertsson, C.M.; Hulthén, E. Cone crusher performance evaluation using DEM
simulations and laboratory experiments for model validation. Miner. Eng. 2017, 103–104, 93–101. [CrossRef]
20. Cleary, P.W.; Sinnott, M.D.; Morrison, R.D.; Cummins, S.; Delaney, G.W. Analysis of cone crusher performance
with changes in material properties and operating conditions using DEM. Miner. Eng. 2017, 100, 49–70.
[CrossRef]
21. Wu, J.; Bai, H.; Li, Q.; Ma, D. Grain size distribution effect on the hydraulic properties of disintegrated coal
mixtures. Energies 2017, 10, 612. [CrossRef]
22. Evertsson, C.M. Cone Crusher Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden, July 2000.
23. Ma, Y.; Fan, X.; He, Q. Prediction of cone crusher performance considering liner wear. Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 404.
[CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).