Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5
Mining Science and Technology 20 (2010) 0204–0208 MINING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY www.elsevier.com/locate/jcumt Influence
Mining Science and Technology 20 (2010) 0204–0208 MINING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY www.elsevier.com/locate/jcumt Influence

Mining Science and Technology 20 (2010) 0204–0208

MINING

SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcumt

Influence of some rock strength properties on jaw crusher performance in granite quarry

OLALEYE B M *

Department of Mining Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria

Abstract: The influence of rock strength properties on Jaw Crusher performance was carried out to determine the effect of rock strength on crushing time and grain size distribution of the rocks. Investigation was conducted on four different rock samples namely marble, dolomite, limestone and granite which were representatively selected from fragmented lumps in quarries. Uncon- fined compressive strength and Point load tests were carried out on each rock sample as well as crushing time and size analysis. The results of the strength parameters of each sample were correlated with the crushing time and the grain size distribution of the rock types. The results of the strength tests show that granite has the highest mean value of 101.67 MPa for Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test, 6.43 MPa for Point Load test while dolomite has the least mean value of 30.56 MPa for UCS test and 0.95 MPa for Point Load test. According to the International Society for Rock Mechanic (ISRM) standard, the granite rock sample may be classified as having very high strength and dolomite rock sample, low strength. Also, the granite rock has the highest crushing time (21.0 s) and dolomite rock has the least value (5.0 s). Based on the results of the investigation, it was found out that there is a great influence of strength properties on crushing time of rock types. Keywords: rock strength; jaw crusher; crushing time; grain size distribution; efficiency

1

Introduction

The strength of a material refers to the material's ability to resist an applied force. Strength property of rock is the ability of the rock material to resist failure when load is applied without yielding or fracture. The mechanical properties of rock depend upon the inter- action between the crystals, particles and cementation material of which it is composed [1] . The yield strength of a material is an adequate indicator of the material's mechanical strength and is the parameter that predicts plastic deformation in the material, from which one can make informed decisions on how to increase the strength of a material depending on its micro-struc- tural properties and the desired end effect. Strength is considered in terms of compressive strength, tensile strength, and shear strength, namely the limit states of compressive stress, tensile stress and shear stress, respectively [2] . According to Reference [3], the effect of dynamic loading is probably the most important practical part of the strength of materials, especially the problem of fatigue. Repeated loading often initi- ates brittle cracks, which grow slowly until failure occurs.

Received 29 August 2009; accepted 12 November 2009 *Corresponding author. Tel: 86 516 83885948 E-mail address: Lhyeven@163.com doi: 10.1016/S1674-5264(09)60185-X

It is of paramount importance to first carryout size

reduction of an ore or rock material on a laboratory scale for the ore or rock material to be profitably and economically processed industrially. This permits the determination of parameters such as liberation size, grindability, coarse to medium to fine proportion in any product of the crushing and grinding equipment

and the proportion of values of gangues in the fines

Jaw Crusher is used for crushing rock material in mines and quarries. It provides the latest technology in heavy duty crusher design that delivers high pro- duction, infinite setting adjustment, larger feed open- ing bolted mainframe, cast swing, jaw holder and optional positioning of the crusher support feet to suit installation requirement. This crusher is designed for exceptional heavy and continuous application with heavy duty part for optimum operation and long life and this can be influenced by the strength properties of the rock. The influence of rock strength property can result to the loss of capacity to perform the stipu- lated function for which jaw crusher was designed. The UCS was the main quantitative method for char- acterizing the strength of rock materials [5] . Point load test is used to determine rock strength indexes in geotechnical practice. Rock lithologies were classi- fied into general categories and conversion factors were determined for each category. This allows for intact rock strength data to be made available through

[4]

.

OLALEYE B M

Influence of some rock strength properties on jaw crusher performance in granite quarry

205

point load testing for numerical geotechnical analysis and empirical rock mass classification systems such as the Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR) [6] .

Crushing is an integral portion for mineral proc- essing operations and is critical for the preparation of ore for downstream process for mineral processing operations. Crushing of quarried rock is carried out in stages, with the primary crushing stage typically car- ried out using Jaw crusher and subsequent (secondary and tertiary). From field observation, the greater the number of crushing stage, the higher the amount of fine produced as a proportion of total plant through- out. The type of crusher used also directly controls the amount of fines produced. A recent study of quarry fines looked at possible relationship between quarry plant operation and the generation of quarry fines [7-8] . The conclusion drawn have been critically revealed that hard rock aggregate plant production is directly proportional to the number of crushing stages;

it increases with an increase in production stage. Low

reduction fines generation at each stage especially where the rock or mineral are fragile, however, the cumulative fines production may be higher than a process using fewer stages with higher reduction. The particle size analysis is the method used to determine the particle size distribution or the grain size distribution of rock/ore materials. In practice, close size control of feed to mineral processing equipment is required in order to reduce the size ef-

fect and make the relative motion of the particles separation dependent [9] . The particle size distribution of a material is important in understanding its physi- cal and chemical properties. It affects the strength and load bearing properties of rocks. The easiest conven- tional method of determining mineral particle size is sieve analysis, where grain size is separated on sieve of different sizes/apertures using Sieve Shaker. Thus, the particle size distribution is defined in terms of discrete size ranges and measured in micron ( m). It

is usually determined over a list of size ranges that

covers nearly all the sizes present in the sample. Some methods of determination allow much narrower size ranges to be defined that can be obtained by use of sieves and are applicable to particle sizes outside the range available in sieves. However, the idea of notional ‘sieve’ that ‘retains’ particles above a certain

size and ‘passes’ particles below that size is univer-

sally used in presenting particle size distribution data of all kinds. The size distribution may be expressed as

a ‘range’ analysis, in which the amount in each size

range is listed in order of fineness of particles. It may

also be presented in ‘cumulative form’ in which the total of all sizes ‘retained’ or ‘passed’ by a single no- tional ‘sieve’ is given for a range of sizes. Range analysis is suitable when a particular ideal mid-range particle size is being sought while cumulative analy- sis is used where the amount of ‘under-size’ or ‘over-size’ must be controlled.

2 Materials and method

2.1 Sample collection, preparation and testing

The rock samples used for the investigation were obtained from different quarries in Nigeria. Dolomite, limestone and marble samples were collected from Edo State and granite rock samples from Ondo State, Nigeria. Five boulders of each rock type of dimension 90 cm×50 cm×50 cm were representatively selected from recently blasted portion of the rocks which were free from natural defects, that is, discontinuities such as cracks, joints, fractures etc were packed properly to avoid damage during transportation. For the un- confined compressive strength test, the rock sample was cut into square shape with dimension of 60 mm×60 mm with masonry saw and Vernier caliper was used to measure the dimension. Also, for the point load test, the rock samples were broken into irregular shape with sledge hammer. Vernier caliper was used to measure the diameter and length of ir- regular shaped rock samples from the different loca- tions. The mean value for length ad diameter was determined The rock samples were prepared and tested in the laboratory to International Society for Rock Mechan- ics Standard for each strength test carried out using Masonry Saw Machine and Compression Testing Machine and Point Load Tester respectively [10] . The readings were taken and recorded. The size reduction of equal weighed of the rock samples was done using Laboratory Jaw Crusher and the particle size distribu- tion was carried out in notional set of sieves using Sieve Shaker. The crushing times were taken and re- corded and the weights of samples retained on the sieves recorded for size distribution. The rock sample were cut into square shape by using masonry cutting machine, the cut samples were smooth, free of abrupt irregularities and strength. Five specimen of each of the rock samples were tested and the failure load was recorded for each test as the failure was observed axially in the compressive testing machine. Some lumps of the different rock types were then crushed using the Laboratory Jaw Crusher and taken record of the crushing times. The screening of the crushed rock samples was carried out in a set of sieve using the Laboratory Sieve Shaker. The sieve was arranged in the order of decreasing aperture: 4700, 2000, 1700, 1180, 850, 600, 425, and 212 m by placing the sieve that has the largest opening at the top and the least opening at the bottom. A tight fitting pan or receiver was placed below the bottom sieve to receive the finest grained which is referred to as un- dersize. The crushed sample was placed on the top sieve and a lid was used to cover it to prevent escape of the rock sample during the process. The set of the sieve was then placed in a sieve shaker which vi- brates the sieve for proper screening. This operation

206

Mining Science and Technology

Vol.20

No.2

was carried out on each of the rock sample for five minutes. This was achieved by using the automatic control timer of the sieve shaker. After the screening analysis, the retained sample on each sieve was measured on weigh balance and recorded to the cor- responding sieve opening size.

3 Results and discussion

Tables 1~6 are the results of unconfined compres- sive strength tests, crushing time and particle size distribution of the different rock samples while Figs. 1 and 2 are the plots of the compressive strength val- ues and the logs of the size distribution of the rock types respectively.

Table 1

Results of unconfined compressive strength tests of rock samples

Rock samples

Mean UCS (MPa)

Mean PLI (MPa)

Marble

86.11

5.28

Dolomite

34.72

1.98

Limestone

81.94

3.68

Granite

125.00

8.61

Table 2

Results of crushing time of rock samples

Rock samples

Quantity crushed (kg)

Crushing time (s)

Marble

5

14.0

Dolomite

5

5.0

Limestone

5

11.0

Granite

5

21.0

Table 3

Results of particle size distribution of marble sample

Sieve range ( m)

Nominal aperture ( m)

Sieve fraction

Cumulative undersize

Cumulative oversize

logN

logM

Wt (g)

Wt (%)

(%)

(%)

+4700

4700

2420

40.33

59.67

40.33

3.68

1.78

4700 ~ +2000

2000

696

11.60

48.07

51.93

3.30

1,68

2000 ~ +1700

1700

546

9.10

38.97

61.03

3.23

1,59

1700 ~ +1180

1180

600

10.00

28.97

71.03

3.07

1.46

1180 ~ +850

850

576

9.60

19.37

80.63

2.93

1.29

850 ~ +600

600

610

10.17

9.20

90.08

2.78

0.96

600 ~ +425

425

192

3.20

6.00

94.00

2.63

0.78

425 ~ +212

212

140

2.33

3.67

96.33

2,33

0.56

212

220

3.67

 

Table 4

Results of particle size distribution of dolomite sample

 

Sieve range ( m)

Nominal aperture ( m)

Sieve fraction

Cumulative undersize

Cumulative oversize

logN

logM

Wt (g)

Wt (%)

(%)

(%)

+4700

4700

2340

39.00

61.00

39.00

3.68

1.79

4700 ~ +2000

2000

830

13.83

47.17

52.83

3.30

1.67

2000 ~ +1700

1700

380

6.33

40.84

59.16

3.23

1.61

1700 ~ +1180

1180

410

6.83

34.01

65.99

3.07

1.53

1180 ~ +850

850

190

3.17

30.84

69.16

2.93

1.49

850 ~ +600

600

230

3.84

27.00

73.00

2.78

1.43

600 ~ +425

425

280

4.67

22.33

77.67

2.63

1.35

425 ~ +212

212

380

6.33

16.00

84.00

2.33

1.20

212

960

16.00

 

Table 5

Results of particle size distribution of limestone sample

 

Sieve range ( m)

Nominal aperture ( m)

Sieve fraction

Cumulative undersize

Cumulative oversize

logN

logM

Wt (g)

Wt (%)

(%)

(%)

+4700

4700

4300

71.67

28.33

71.67

3.68

1.45

4700 ~ +2000

2000

570

9.50

18.83

81.17

3.30

1.27

2000 ~ +1700

1700

100

1.67

17.16

82.84

3.23

1.23

1700 ~ +1180

1180

190

3.16

14.00

86.01

3.07

1.15

1180 ~ +850

850

110

1.83

12.17

87.84

2.93

1.09

850 ~ +600

600

130

2.17

10.00

90.01

2.78

1.00

600 ~ +425

425

160

2.67

7.33

92.68

2.63

0.87

425 ~ +212

212

245

4.08

3.25

96.76

2.33

0.51

212

195

3.25

OLALEYE B M

Influence of some rock strength properties on jaw crusher performance in granite quarry

207

Table 6

Results of particle size distribution of granite sample

Sieve range ( m)

Nominal aperture ( m)

Sieve fraction

Cumulative undersize

Cumulative oversize

logN

logM

Wt (g)

Wt (%)

(%)

(%)

+4700

4700

3800

63.33

36.67

63.33

3.68

1.56

4700 ~ +2000

2000

940

15.67

21.00

79.00

3.30

1.32

2000 ~ +1700

1700

118

1.97

19.03

80.97

3.23

1.28

1700 ~ +1180

1180

210

3.50

15.53

84.47

3.07

1.19

1180 ~ +850

850

160

2.67

12.86

87.14

2.93

1.11

850 ~ +600

600

200

3.33

9.53

90.47

2.78

0.98

600 ~ +425

425

170

2.83

6.70

93.30

2.63

0.83

425 ~ +212

212

210

3.50

3.20

96.80

2.33

0.51

212

190

3.20

Note: logN and logM are the logs of sieve range and cumulative oversize (retained) respectively.

Fig. 1 Plot of strength values of the rock samples
Fig. 1
Plot of strength values of the rock samples
Fig. 2 Plots of logN against logM of the size distribution of the rock types
Fig. 2
Plots of logN against logM of the size
distribution of the rock types

The analysis of the tests results in Table 1 shows the mean Unconfined Compressive Strength values of 86.11, 34.72, 81.94 and 125.00 MPa for marble, dolomite, limestone and granite respectively; and mean point load index of 5.28, 1.98, 3.68 and 8.61 MPa for marble, dolomite, limestone and granite re- spectively. The crushing time of the rock samples as shown in Table 2 indicates 14.0 seconds for marble, 5.0 seconds for dolomite, 11.0 seconds for limestone and 21.0 seconds granite. From the results, it was observed that granite has the highest strength value and crushing time while dolomite has the least of the values. The compressive strength and crushing time follow an increasing trend and implies that the crush- ing time is directly proportional to the compressive strength of the rocks, that is, the harder the rock, the more the crushing time under the impact of the jaw crusher. The general size distribution plot in Fig. 2 is the

upward trend of each plot and the line variation of each plot is as a result of grain size retained on each sieve during the screen analysis. From the Figure, it would be observed that the size distribution of the weight retained and other parameters followed a similar trend, that is, there is a good correlation be- tween the log plots of the rock samples. Also, this is an indication that size analysis of the products can be used to determine the optimum size of the feed to the process for maximum efficiency and to determine the size range at which much fine occur in the plant so that it can be minimized. The effects of rock strength on the crusher performance can be attributed to the stiffness of rock and also refer to the state of stress at which a rock specimen or rock mass element ruptures. Rock strength generally influenced the performance of crusher in an aggregate quarry. The influence of rock strength based on the crushing time and size distribution affect crusher performance. Also, the strength parameters will indicate the rock type that has less influence on the crusher performance during crushing operation.

4

Conclusions

In correlating the strength parameters of the rock types with the corresponding crushing times, the work revealed that the higher the strength value the higher the crushing of the rock under the influence of a crusher. According to ISRM classification of rock, granite rock is considered to have very high strength and dolomite low strength and corresponding higher and lower crushing values. The work will assist to predict the efficiency and performance of crusher when used to crush different rock types as well as the influence of rock strength based on the crushing time and particle size distribution. The strength parameters will also indicate the rock type that has less influence on the crusher performance in aggregate quarry and this will assist quarry managers in the selection of appropriate rock crushing equipment.

208

Mining Science and Technology

Vol.20

No.2

References

[1]

Franklin J A, Dusseault M B. Rock Engineering. New

[2]

York: McGraw Hill Publishing Company, 1999. Harrison J P, Hudson J A. Engineering Rock Mechanics.

[3]

Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2000. Jaeger J C, Cook N G W. Fundamentals of Rock Me-

[4]

chanics. UK: Longman Groups Limited, 2004. Gaudin A M. Principle of Mineral Dressing. New York:

[5]

McGraw Hill, 1990. Hawkes I, Mellor M. Rock Strength is Characterized by Methods of Uniaxial Compressive Strength. New York:

[6]

Longman Limited, 2002. Rusnak J, Mark C. Ground control in mining. In: 19th

[7]

International Conference on Ground Control at West Vir- gina University. West Virgina, 2000. Manning K. Crushing of quarried rock. Mining Maga-

[8]

zine, 2002. Tao D, Fan M M, Jiang X K. Dry coal fly ash cleaning

[9]

using rotary triboelectrostatic separator. Mining Science and Technology, 2009, 19(5): 642-647. Adepoju S O, Olaleye B M. Assessment of gravity con-

centration of silica sand from Itakpe iron ore tailings by tabling. Nigerian Journal of Engineering Management, 2001, 2(2): 51-55. [10] International Society for Rock Mechanics Commission. Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring. UK:

Pergamon Press, 1989.