Ball Mill Optimization PDF

Ball mill optimization
Dhaka, Bangladesh
21 March 2010
1
Introduction
Mr.Peramas Wajananawat
Experience: 13 Years (2 y in engineering,11 y in production)
Engineering department Kiln and Burning system
Siam Cement (Ta Luang) Kiln system, Raw material grinding and Coal grinding
Siam Cement (Lampang) Cement grinding and Packing plant
The Siam Cement (Thung Song) Co,Ltd
Production Engineer
Cement grinding 7 lines
2 x Conventional mill 150 t/h (OPC) KHD
2 x Pre-grinding 100 t/h (OPC) Fuller
2 x Semi-finish grinding 270 t/h (OPC) KHD
1 x VRM 120 t/h Loesche (LM46.2 +2C)
Cement bag dispatching
Contact e-mail: peramasw@scg.co.th
2
Contents
1. Objective of Ball mill optimization
2. Mill performance test
3. Air flow and diaphragm
4. Separator performance test
3
Objective
1. Audit performance of grinding system
2. Show the key areas for optimization the ball
mill system
3. Provide the basic information for changes or
modifications within grinding system
4. Reduce power consumption, Quality
improvement or Production improvement
4
Mill charge Air flow & Diaphragm Separator
1. Mill sampling test 1. Mill ventilation 1. Tromp curve

2. Charge distribution 2. Water injection 2. Separator air flow
3. Regular top-ups 3. Diaphragms 3. Separator sealing
5
When: Do optimization
1. In some period (1 month, 1 Quarter, 1 Year or ???)
2. To assess the reason/cause of disturbance
When abnormal operation
Poor performance of grinding system
Low mill output or poor quality product
High operation or maintenance costs
3. Keep operation in a good efficiency
6
Conventional grinding system
Clinker Gypsum Limestone
To Cement Silo
Main Machine
1. Feeding system
2. Tube mill
3. Dynamic separator
4. Dedusting (BF/EP)
Cement Mill
5. Transport equip.
7
Mill charge optimization
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
8
What is function of mill?
Size reduction along the mill

-Coarse grinding 1st compartment
Normal feed size 5% residue 25 mm.
Max feed size 0.5% residue 35 mm.
-Fine grinding 2nd compartment
9
Coarse material grinding Fine material grinding
Piece weight (or knocking weight) Specific surface

Average weight/piece of grinding Average surface area of (ball)
media in each compartment grinding media in each compartment
(g/piece) (m2/t)
Piece weight Impact force Specific surface Attrition force
Need small ball size
Need large ball size

10
Ball charge composition
Calculation (for steel ball)

Piece weight : i = [3.143/6] x d3 x 7.8 ;g/pcs.
Specific surface : o = 123 / i (1/3) ; m2/ton
Note : d = size of ball (cm)
11
Check piece weight and specific surface
Compartment
Charge calculation
1
Specific surface,
Fraction Weight, W weight Piece weight, I no., n Surface, O
o
(mm), d (t) % (g) pcs. (m2/t) (m2)
90 5.0 9% 2,989 1,673 8.5 43
80 11.0 21% 2,099 5,240 9.6 106 Piece weight: 976 g/piece
70 13.6 26% 1,406 9,671 11.0 149 Specific surface: 11.8 m2/t
60 15.3 29% 886 17,277 12.8 196
50 5.6 11% 512 10,927 15.4 86
40 2.5 5% 262 9,528 19.2 48
Total #1 53.0 100% 976 54,317 11.8 628
Compartment
Charge calculation
2
Specific surface,
Fraction Weight, W weight Piece weight, I no., n Surface, O
o
(mm), d (t) % (g) pcs. (m2/t) (m2)
50 0.0 0% 512 0 15.4 0
40 0.0 0% 262 0 19.2 0 Piece weight: 32 g/piece
30 5.0 4% 111 45,170 25.6 128 Specific surface: 37.6 m2/t
25 48.0 35% 64 749,309 30.7 1,476
1,143,35
20 37.5 27% 33 38.4 1,441
4
2,308,58
17 46.5 34% 20 45.2 2,102
5
4,246,41
Total #1 137.0 100% 32 37.6 5,147
7
12
General we use (Product Blaine 4,500 cm2/g) for “Conventional”
Cpt.1 : Piece weight 1,500-1,600 g./piece
Cpt 2 : Specific surface 30-35 m2/t
For “Pre-grinding system” “R/P + Conventional”
Cpt.1: PW ~1,100-1200 g/pc
Cpt.2: SS ~35-40 m2/t
**depend on product fineness!!
13
Maximum steel ball size (Bond equation)
B=36 x (F80)1/2 x [(SgxWi)/(100xCsxDe1/2)]1/3 Example;
Where Given
B : Maximum ball size (mm.) • Feed size = 5% res. 25 mm.
F80 : Feed material size for 80% pass (µm) • Wi = 13.0 kWh/t
W i : Bond work index (kWh/t) • Cs = 0.7
C s : N/Nc (normally ~ 0.7-0.75)
• Sg = 3.0 t/m 3
Sg : Specific gravity of raw material (t/m3)
• De = 4.0 m.
D e : Effective diameter of mill (m.)
F80 = log [(0.20) size residue(mm.)]/log(%residue) • F80 = log(0.20)25/log(0.05)
• F80 = 13.4 mm.
Find : Maximum ball size
1/2 1/2 1/3
B = 36x(13.4) x[(3x13)/(100x0.7x4 )]
Maximum ball size = 86 mm.
14
Maximum steel ball size
Maximum ball size (mm.) : Clinker Wi 13.0 kWh/t, Cs 0.7, Sg 3

180
160
Max Ball Size (mm.)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
2 5 10 15 20 25 30
Feed Size (mm.), F80
** Typical fresh clinker : 5% residue 25 mm. or F80 = 13.4 mm.
15
Example
Given
• Feed size = 5% res. 20 mm.
• Wi = 12.0 kWh/t
• Cs = 0.7
• Sg = 3.0 t/m3
• De = 2.5 m.
Find: required maximum ball size
F80
Maximum ball size (mm.)
16
Mill performance test
Steps
1. Recording of related operational data
2. Air flow measurement
3. Crash stop and visual inspection in mill
4. Sampling in mill
5. Evaluation of test
17
Tube Mill
Feed rate, Return, Grinding aids, Water injection, Mill drive
power (kW)
Static separator
Vane position
Mill ventilation fan
Damper position, Air flow rate (if have instrument), Pressure
Fan drive power
18
Air flow measurement

Air flow rate
Temperature
Mill ventilation air
Static pressure
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
19
Mill ventilation air
Purpose
Forward movement of the material retention time
Take out fine particles and so diminish the risk of coating
Cooling of the material in mill Diminish coating / dehydration
of gypsum
Usual ranges of ventilation:
Air speed in mill
Open circuit : 0.8 to 1.2 m/sec m/sec M
Closed circuit : 1.2 to 1.5 m/sec
**Min 0.5 m/s tend to result inefficient over grinding and excessive
heat generation with possible coating problem.
**Max > 1.4 m/s drag particle out of mill before they have been
sufficiency ground.
20
Agglomeration and ball coating
Cause:
Temperature too high tendency of the
material forming agglomerates/coating on
grinding media and liner plates
Grinding efficiency will be reduce
Temperature outlet mill range 110-120 C.
21
Test 2
Mill dimension
Inside diameter 3 m.
Degree of filling 28% in both compartment
Mill ventilation check
Flow 22,000 m3/h
Check Air ventilation speed in mill ?
m/sec M
22
3. Crash stop and visual inspection
Stable operation before crash stop

Emergency stop or Crash stop
Tube mill / All auxiliary equipment
Mill Ventilation
Disconnect main circuit breaker (Safety !)
Preparation of sampling equipment (shovel, scoop, plastic bag, meter,
lighting etc.)
23
Preparation of sampling equipment
Lock switch
Plastic bag
PPE
Crash stop
Meter
Lighting Shovel
Meter
Scoop
24
Visual inspection
Liner and Diaphragm condition wear, block
Ball size distribution along the mill classify liner
Water spray nozzle condition clogging
Foreign material ?
Ball charge condition agglomeration, coating
Liner Diaphragm
Ball charge Clogging

Clean block slot
25
Material level in compartment #1 and #2
26
Ball charge quantity (Filling degree)

Measurement by free height
Measure average internal diameter, Di
Measure height, h, in three different points along axis for each grinding
compartment
Effective length, L
Free height, h
Inside diameter, Di
27
Ball charge quantity (Filling degree)
60.0
De
Degree of filling (%)

H 50.0
h
40.0
Ball level
30.0 N ormal range 28-32%
h = H- (De/2)
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500
Meter
h/De
28
4. Sampling inside mill (mill test)
Sampling of material
Take ~1 kg sample every 1 m along mill axis
Each sample collected from 3 point in the same cross section
Deep 20 cm.
Removed some balls and taken sample
First and last sample in each compartment should be taken
from 0.5 m off the wall or diaphragms
0.5 1m 1m 1m 0.5 0.5 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 0.5
1.1
1.1 1.2
1.2 1.3
1.3 1.4
1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
Material sampling point in mill Take sampling
29
0.5 1m 1m 1m 0.5 0.5 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 0.5
1.1
1.1 1.2
1.2 1.3
1.3 1.4
1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
Side view Front view
0.5 m. 0.5 m.
1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 •Get total 11 collected

0 1
samples along the mill
•1 kg per sample
Take 1 sample
Top view
30
4. Sampling inside mill (mill test) –cont.
After work inside the mill

Calculation quantity of ball charge and filling degree
Sample sieve analysis
1st compartment
◊ Sieve : 16 , 10 , 6 , 2 , 1.25 , 0.5 , 0.2 mm
2nd compartment
◊ Sieve : 1.25 , 0.5 , 0.2 , 0.12 , 0.09 , 0.06 mm., Blaine Fineness
Plot size reduction chart (graph)
31
Sieve test equipment
32
Results: Sieve and Fineness analysis from mill test
Sample Location % residue on sieve (by weight)
Blaine 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.50 0.20 0.09
Position m. cm2/g mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Compt 1 pt.1 0.5 7.00 18.00 34.00 47.00 57.00 64.00 71.00 81.00 90.50
1.0 9.00 21.00 36.00 45.00 52.00 60.00 69.00 79.00 89.00
2.0 3.00 7.00 13.00 18.00 20.50 31.00 48.00 67.00 83.00
3.0 0.50 1.00 3.00 5.50 8.00 19.50 29.50 52.00 71.00
pt.2 4.0 0.10 3.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.50 22.00 46.00 65.00
pt.3 4.5 0.05 4.00 7.50 9.00 10.50 12.50 28.00 48.50 68.00
Partition **
Compt 2 pt.1 0.5 940 1.00 8.00 32.00 56.00
pt.2 1.0 1080 2.00 9.00 33.00 59.00
2.0 1260 0.50 7.00 24.00 50.00
3.0 1300 0.01 4.00 18.00 42.00
4.0 1500 0.00 1.50 12.00 39.00
5.0 1600 0.00 1.00 9.00 32.00
6.0 1700 0.00 0.50 5.00 27.00
pt.3 7.0 1880 0.00 0.22 4.00 21.00
pt.4 8.0 2000 0.00 0.01 3.00 19.50
9.0 2120 0.00 0.01 1.50 18.50
pt.5 9.5 0.00 0.00 2.00 19.00
33
0.5 1 2 3 4 4. 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9.5
5 5
Typical grinding diagra m : OPC 3000 cm2 /g 0.5 m 0.5 m
Size Reduction Progress
100 2800 32.000 mm
90 2600 16.000 mm
80 2400 8.000 mm
% Residue on sieve
70 2200
Blaine (cm^2/g)
4.000 mm
60 2000
50 1800 2.000 mm
40 1600 1.000 mm
30 1400 0.500 mm
20 1200 0.200 mm
10 1000
0.090 mm
0 800
Blaine cm2/g
0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 ** 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.5 Length (m.)
Comp. 1 Comp. 2
34
5. Evaluation of performance test
Grinding efficiency
Data for evaluation
Result from visual inspection inside tube mill
Sample analysis from longitudinal sampling inside tube mill Size
reduction graph
Cement Mill
35
Evaluation of mill test standard reference
Size reduction along mill axis
Sieve residues and Blaine value in front of the diaphragms
Compartme Particle size FLSmidth Holderbank Slegten
nt
+0.5 mm. 15-25% 12-25% -
+0.6 mm. 10-20% - -

First comp.
+1.0 mm. 7-14% - -
+2.0 mm. Max 4% Max 3% Max 5% (at 2.5

mm.)
+0.2 mm. 20-30% 20-30% 15-25% (at 0.1

mm.)
Second comp. +0.5 mm. Max 5% Max 5% -
Blaine - 2,100 -
(cm2/g)
36
Evaluation of mill test 100
Size Reduction Progress
2800 32.000 mm
90 2600 16.000 mm
80 2400
8.000 mm
% Residue on sieve
70 2200
Blaine (cm^2/g)
4.000 mm
60 2000
50 1800 2.000 mm
40 1600 1.000 mm
30 1400 0.500 mm
20 1200 0.200 mm
10 1000
0.090 mm
0 800
Blaine cm2/g
0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 ** 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.5
Length (m.)
Comp. 1 Comp. 2
Compartm Particle FLSmidth Holderban Slegten Mill test Result OK?

ent size k
+0.5 mm. 15-25% 12-25% - 28% Little much
+0.6 mm. 10-20% - - - coarse
First comp. particle size
+1.0 mm. 7-14% - - 12.5% from
compartmen
+2.0 mm. Max 4% Max 3% Max 5% (at 2.5 10.5% t1
mm.)
+0.2 mm. 20-30% 20-30% 15-25% (at 0.1 2%

mm.)
Second +0.5 mm. Max 5% Max 5% - 0% Good!

comp.
Blaine - 2,100 - 2,120
(cm2/g)
37
Evaluation of mill test
Test result : provide information to
Improvement of ball charge composition
Maximum ball size and composition
Charge composition (PW and SS)
Modification/Replace inside grinding compartment
Liners
Diaphragms
Operation
Mill ventilation
Clear diaphragm slot
38
Good condition liner
Broken liner
Inspection
Bad condition step liner Slot blockage
39
Common problems!
Compartment Result Ball charge Liner/Diaphragm Operation Mill vent.
Over limit of -Increase impact -Low lifting -Feed too much -Too high velocity
particle size in force in 1 st comp. efficiency (visual (visual (check air flow)
front of diaphragm -Revise ball inspection) inspection)
1 st comp. charge and need -Clean block at
First comp.
larger ball size diaphragm (nib)
(piece weight)
Over limit of -Wait for revise -Wait for improve

particle size in charge in 1 st liner in 1 st comp.
front of diaphragm comp.
2 nd comp.
1 st comp. OK but -Revise ball -Check ball -Feed too much -Too high velocity
2 nd comp. over charge and may charge (visual (check air flow)
Second comp. limit of particle size need to increase distribution along inspection)
in front of specific surface the mill
diaphragm or Piece weight -Classifier liner
efficiency
-Clean block at
diaphragm
40
Case mill test, CM6 STS (Aug,2008)
80.0 2500
2,333 2,314
% residue
Blaine (cm2/g)
70.0 2,058
abnormal 1,927
2000
1,807
60.0 1,739
1,626
50.0 1,487
Diaphragm
Diaphragm
1500
40.0
1000
30.0
20.0
500
10.0
0.0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
5.6 mm. 2 mm. 0.5 mm. 0.212 mm. 0.09 mm. 0.075 mm. 0.045 mm. blaine
41
Evaluate and correction
Reference standard
Compartme Particle Holderba Mill

FLSmidth Slegten Result OK?
nt size nk test
Abnormal size reduction
+0.5 mm. 15-25% 12-25% - 31% (in front of diaphragm),
should clear blockage
diaphragm slot
+0.6 mm. 10-20% - - -
First comp.
+1.0 mm. 7-14% - - -
Max 5%
+2.0 mm. Max 4% Max 3% (at 2.5 mm.) 23%
Abnormal size reduction
15-25% (in front of diaphragm),
+0.2 mm. 20-30% 20-30% (at 0.1 mm.) 52%
should clear blockage
Second diaphragm slot
comp. +0.5 mm. Max 5% Max 5% - 51%
Blaine
- 2,100 - 2,314
(cm2/g)
42
Case Mill test from : VDZ congress 2009
Cement plant in Europe
• Chamber 1 : good size reduction efficiency

• Chamber 2 : 45 micron shown results that grinding has
stopped midway through the 2nd chamber
43
Evaluate and correction
• Average ball size in chamber 2 is too small (average 16 mm, PW 17 g.)

• Take charge distribution more coarse to increase PW and average ball
size diameter (to 42 g. and 22 mm.)
44
Separator performance test
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
45
What is separator?
• Advantage of grinding system

with separator
• Reduce the number of fine particle to
be ground in mill
• Increase production capacity and
Reduce mill power consumption
• Increase % of Active particle in fine
particle of Cement
46
Advantage of grinding system with separator
“Maximized separator performance” “Maximized power saving”
47
Separator performance test
Steps
3. Sampling within grinding system
4. Evaluation of test
48
Tube Mill
Feed rate, Return, Grinding aids, Water injection, Mill drive
power (kW)
Dynamic separator
Rotor speed, Damper/vane position
Separator drive power (kW)
Separator circulating fan & Separator ventilation
Flow rate (if have instrument), Damper position
Separator fan power (kW)
49
Air flow measurement

Air flow rate
Temperature
Static pressure Separator circulating air
To Cement Silo
Cement Mill
50
Dynamic Separator circulating air
Purpose Separator feed
Distribute and disperse cement dust (t/h)
Classify cement dust at rotor

Take out fine particle from separator to be product
Usual ranges of circulating air
Depend on separator feed and production rate
Separator load 1.8-2.5 kg feed / m3
= Separator feed / Circulating air Circulating air
flow (m³/h)
Dust load (fine) less than 0.75-0.8 kg fine / m3
= Fine product / Circulating air
Fine
product
Return (t/h)
51
3. Sampling within grinding system
Operation period
Determined suitable sampling point
Stable operation
6-12 hours duration of performance test
Taking samples every ~1 hour
52
Sampling plan (stable operation period)
1

3
2
To Cement Silo
Sampling
Cement Mill
53
Sampling point in process
Return (reject) Fine product
Separator feed
Scoop
or mill output
54
Sampling test
Point Sampling point Weight Required sieve analysis
1 Separator feed “m” 0.5 kg PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)
2 Separator return “g” 0.5 kg PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)
3 Separator fine “f” 0.5 kg PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)
55
PSD analysis equipment
Particle size distribution analysis
56
Thung Song Plant
Result: from “Laser analysis”
-Range 1.8-350 um
-Test time <5 mins/sampling
57
Particle Size Distribution (PSD)
Rm Rf Rg
Feed Fines Rejects
Size (um) 100
%residue %residue %residue
90
1 96.4 95.1 98.1
80
2 93.9 91.7 96.5
70
4 89.0 85.3 93.7
% Residue
60
8 81.5 74.6 89.9
50
16 68.8 55.1 85.6 40
24 60.3 41.2 83.9 30
32 52.2 28.9 80.9 20
48 39.4 13.0 71.9 10
64 32.3 7.4 62.9 0
96 18.2 0.0 40.5 1 10 100 1000
200 4.9 0.0 11.0
Sieve size (um)
Feed %residue Fines %residue Rejects %residue
TOTAL: 636.9 492.3 814.9
58
Rm Rf Rg
Feed Fines Rejects Meaning sieve size 32 um
Size (um)
%residue %residue %residue 52.2% of separator feed
1 96.4 95.1 98.1 residue on sieve size 32 um
2 93.9 91.7 96.5
4 89.0 85.3 93.7
8 81.5 74.6 89.9
16 68.8 55.1 85.6
24 60.3 41.2 83.9
32 52.2 28.9 80.9
80.9% of reject residue on
48 39.4 13.0 71.9 sieve size 32 um
64 32.3 7.4 62.9
96 18.2 0.0 40.5
200 4.9 0.0 11.0
TOTAL: 636.9 492.3 814.9
59
4. Evaluation of performance test
Separator efficiency
Data for evaluation
Particles size analysis of sample within grinding system
◊ - Separator feed Rm
◊ - Separator fine Rf
◊ - Separator tailing or Reject Rg
Tromp curve or Fractional recovery

The tromp curve shows what fraction of particles of different sizes in the
feed material is going in to the coarse fraction (often called Return or
Tailing)
Separator specific loads / Dust Load
60
Tromp curve
Calculation
Circulation factor (CF)
CF = (Rf - Rg)/(Rm - Rg)
where
Rf = % residue on sieve of fine
Rg = % residue on sieve of coarse
Rm = % residue on sieve of feed
In this case (size 48 um)
Circulation Factor = 1.81
61
Tromp curve
Calculation
Tromp value
Tromp (range d1,d2) = [(Rg1-Rg2)/(Rm1-Rm2)]x[1-(1/CF)]x100
where
Tromp (range d1,d2) : Fraction of particles size between d1 and d2
Rg = % residue on sieve of coarse (return/reject)
Rm = % residue on sieve of separator feed
In this case
Tromp value (32-48 um) = 31.5%
62
Example
Rm Rf Rg
Find Circulation factor (CF) of
Feed Fines Rejects
particle size 32 um and 48 um
Size (um) CF = (Rf - Rg)/(Rm - Rg)
%residue %residue %residue
where
1 96.4 95.1 98.1 Rf = % residue on sieve of fine
Rg = % residue on sieve of coarse
2 93.9 91.7 96.5
Rm = % residue on sieve of feed
4 89.0 85.3 93.7
Find Tromp value of size in range
8 81.5 74.6 89.9 32-48 um
16 68.8 55.1 85.6 Tr (d1,d2)=[(Rg1-Rg2)/(Rm1-Rm2)]x[1-
(1/CF)]x100
24 60.3 41.2 83.9
where
32 52.2 28.9 80.9 Tromp (range d1,d2) : Fraction of particles size
between d1 and d2
48 39.4 13.0 71.9 Rg = % residue on sieve of coarse (return/reject)
Rm = % residue on sieve of separator feed
64 32.3 7.4 62.9
96 18.2 0.0 40.5
200 4.9 0.0 11.0
TOTAL: 636.9 492.3 814.9
63
Tromp value meaning “Tromp value (32-48 um) = 31.5%”
For separator feed size between 32-48 um = 100 %

“Separator feed”
Separator
31.5% to coarse fraction 68.5% to fine fraction

“Reject/Return” “Fine product”
64
Tromp value Plot “Tromp curve”
Rm Rf Rg
Feed Fines Rejects Size avg Tromp
Size (um) CF
%residue %residue %residue (um) value
1 96.4 95.1 98.1 1.76 0.5 22.9
2 93.9 91.7 96.5 1.85 1.5 29.3
4 89.0 85.3 93.7 1.79 3 25.2
8 81.5 74.6 89.9 1.82 6 22.8
16 68.8 55.1 85.6 1.82 12 15.2
24 60.3 41.2 83.9 1.81 20 8.9
32 52.2 28.9 80.9 1.81 28 16.6
48 39.4 13.0 71.9 1.81 40 31.5
64 32.3 7.4 62.9 1.81 56 56.9
96 18.2 0.0 40.5 1.82 80 71.4
200 4.9 0.0 11.0 1.80 148 98.8
TOTAL: 636.9 492.3 814.9 1.81 TOTAL:
65
Plot “Tromp curve”
100 Particle size in range 32-48 um
90 -31.5% go to be “Return”
% recovery to return (reject)
80
-68.5% go to be “Fine product”
70
Particle size in range 8-16 um
60
-15.2% go to be “Return”
50 -84.8% go to be “Fine product”
40
30 Particle size in range 2-4 um

20
-25.2% go to be “Return”
-74.8% go to be “Fine product”
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Sieve size (um)
66
Tromp curve of “Ideal and Actual separator”
100
90
Ideal separator
80
No coarse in product and No fine in
70 return/reject
60
Actual separator
50
Have some coarse in product and Have
40 some fine in return/reject
30
20
10
0
1
Sieve size (um)
Actual separator Ideal separator
67
Tromp curve
100
90 Cut size : d50 = 60 um

80
•The cut size of the separation
being made is the particle size
70
where the tromp value is 50%
60
•Meaning : Size 60 um has an
50 equal chance to go either to
40 product or to rejects
30
20
10
0
1 10 d50 100 1000
Sieve size (um)
68
Tromp value meaning Cut size (d50)
For separator feed size between 48-64 um = 100 %

“Separator feed”
Size ~ 60 um: equal chance to go

Separator either to product or to rejects
50% to coarse fraction 50% to fine fraction

“Reject/Return” “Fine product”
69
Tromp curve
100
90 Sharpness = d25/d75
80
•Sharpness = 0.38
•Steeper tromp curve, the better
70
the separation
60
50 •Ideal separator sharpness = 1

40
30
20
10
d75
0
1 10 d25 100 1000
Sieve size (um)
70
Tromp curve
100
90 Bypass = 8.9%
80
•Meaning : Bypass is an
indication of the amount of
70
material that essentially
60
bypasses the separator.
50 •The lower the bypass, the more
40 efficiency the separation.
30
20
•3rd generation bypass < 15%
10
Minimum value
0
1 10 100 1000
Sieve size (um)
71
Evaluation of separator performance test
Item Units Typical range Result Evaluate
Circulation factor - 2-3 1.81 little less
depend on rotor speed
Cut size(d50) micron and fineness level 60 micron seems high
Sharpness (d25/d75) - 0.5 0.38 little less
Bypass % 5-15% 8.90% OK
Separator load kg/m3 1.8-2.5 1.7 OK
Product load kg/m3 0.75 0.6 OK
Action :
1. Increase circulation factor (CF) Separator load has available
2. Need to increase speed of rotor (due to higher CF coarser separator feed)
3. Tromp curve move to finer side and d50 change to be less than 60 um.
4. Bypass slightly increase
5. Power consumption of mill went down.
72
Improvement Tromp curve
100
1. Improve product: Reduce cut size
90 -Increase circulation factor to 2-3
80 -Increase rotor rotation speed

-%Bypass may slightly increase OK
70
-Check separator load and dust load ?
60
50 1
Result:
-Better active particle size of product
40
-Strength improve
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Sieve size (um)
73
Improvement Tromp curve
100
2. Improve production rate: Reduce
90 %bypass
80 -Improve separator feed distribution

-Check separator load and dust load ?
70
-Separator ventilation flow
60 -Check mechanical seal or leak
50 -Check guide vane and rotor blade ?
40
Result:
30 -Increase production rate
20 -Reduce power consumption
10 2
0
1 10 100 1000
Sieve size (um)
74
Test result : provide information to :
Adjustment of separator settings
Circulation load
Separating air flow, fan speed ,etc
Modification inside separator
Mechanical adjustment ,etc
Mechanical seal
Dispersion plate
Guide vane and rotor
75
General separator improvement
•Separator feed chute
o 100% feed on dispersion plate
(over the rotor) good distribution
Feed point and dispersion plate
76
•Make sure symmetry feed on rotor
good distribution
KHD “Sepmaster” and Fuller “O-Sepa”
77
•Adjust guide vane good air flow
distribution to rotor
Guide vane
78
•Check rotor blade condition (wear and

deform) normal classification
Rotor blade condition
79
•Upper and Lower seal condition good
classification
•Grinding aids good
classification/reduce bypass
80
Summary
Mill charge Air flow & Diaphragm Separator
1. Mill sampling test 1. Mill ventilation 1. Tromp curve

2. Charge distribution 2. Water injection 2. Separator air flow
3. Regular top-ups 3. Diaphragms 3. Separator sealing
1. Every 6 months 1. Check and maintain 1. Every 3 months

2. Every 1 Year 2. 1,000 hours check 2. Optimized and maintain
3. 1,000 hours 3. 1,000 hours check 3. Every 3 months
81
Q&A
Performance test
Mill test and Separator test
Evaluation
Visual inspection
Size reduction graph and Tromp curve
Improvement
Charge composition, Operation, ect.
Results
Energy saving, Quality improvement
82

Ball Mill Optimization PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ball Mill Optimization PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ball mill optimization

Mill charge Air flow & Diaphragm Separator

1. Mill sampling test 1. Mill ventilation 1. Tromp curve

Clinker Gypsum Limestone

Clinker Gypsum Limestone

Size reduction along the mill

Piece weight (or knocking weight) Specific surface

Need small ball size

Need large ball size

Calculation (for steel ball)

**depend on product fineness!!

Maximum ball size (mm.) : Clinker Wi 13.0 kWh/t, Cs 0.7, Sg 3

** Typical fresh clinker : 5% residue 25 mm. or F80 = 13.4 mm.

Air flow measurement

Clinker Gypsum Limestone

Closed circuit : 1.2 to 1.5 m/sec

Stable operation before crash stop

Ball charge Clogging

Material level in compartment #1 and #2

Ball charge quantity (Filling degree)

Degree of filling (%)

30.0 N ormal range 28-32%

0.5 1m 1m 1m 0.5 0.5 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 0.5

Material sampling point in mill Take sampling

Side view Front view

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 •Get total 11 collected

After work inside the mill

Plot size reduction chart (graph)

+0.6 mm. 10-20% - -

+2.0 mm. Max 4% Max 3% Max 5% (at 2.5

+0.2 mm. 20-30% 20-30% 15-25% (at 0.1

Second comp. +0.5 mm. Max 5% Max 5% -

Compartm Particle FLSmidth Holderban Slegten Mill test Result OK?

+0.2 mm. 20-30% 20-30% 15-25% (at 0.1 2%

Second +0.5 mm. Max 5% Max 5% - 0% Good!

Bad condition step liner Slot blockage

Over limit of -Wait for revise -Wait for improve

Compartme Particle Holderba Mill

• Chamber 1 : good size reduction efficiency

• Average ball size in chamber 2 is too small (average 16 mm, PW 17 g.)

Clinker Gypsum Limestone

• Advantage of grinding system

“Maximized separator performance” “Maximized power saving”

Air flow measurement

Clinker Gypsum Limestone

Classify cement dust at rotor

Clinker Gypsum Limestone

Return (reject) Fine product

2 Separator return “g” 0.5 kg PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)

3 Separator fine “f” 0.5 kg PSD Laser test, Blaine (cm2/g)

Particle size distribution analysis

Tromp curve or Fractional recovery

For separator feed size between 32-48 um = 100 %

31.5% to coarse fraction 68.5% to fine fraction

TOTAL: 636.9 492.3 814.9 1.81 TOTAL:

30 Particle size in range 2-4 um

Sieve size (um)

Sieve size (um)

Actual separator Ideal separator

90 Cut size : d50 = 60 um

Sieve size (um)

For separator feed size between 48-64 um = 100 %