chancadoras metso
Post on 02-Apr-2018
263 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 1/37
Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAGmill and HPGR
Walter Valery and Alex J ankovicMetso Minerals Process Technology Asia-Pacific
Crushing and Grinding 2004
29 March 2004
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 2/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 20042
Presentation Outline
• Fundamental Considerations• Case Study - Optimum crushing product
size• Case Study - Circuit/Scale Comparison• Stirred Milling Potential
• Conclusion
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 3/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 20043
Fundamental Considerations
• Efficiency of comminution is less than 1% !• NO!
• Efficiency of comminution should be based on sum of strainenergy and the surface energy.
• Baseline for assessing should be energy determined fromsingle-particle fracture experiments.
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 4/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 20044
Schonert ranking
• Single particle compression, 100%• HPGR 80%
• Crushing 50%• Milling 30%
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 5/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 20045
Fuerstenau & Vazquez-Favela, 1997
Single particlecomminution
Confined particlebed grinding
Ballmilling
Energy sink 1 1.5-3 3-10
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 6/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 20046
Fuerstenau & Vazquez-Favela, 1997
• HPGR are more efficient than ball mills at low reductionratios, but lose advantage at high reduction ratios.
Energy expended(kWh/t)
Relative energyexpenditure
Ball mill 1.7 1HPGR 1.0 0.59Single-particle roll mill 0.7 0.41
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 7/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 20047
Lo, 2000
• The magnitude of efficiencies varies depending on productsize.
E
f f i c i e n c y
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 8/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 20048
In Practice Efficiency means:
• get the target rock into a place where it will be broken
• apply a force large enough to break it• discharge the products• do all of the above at a high rate
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 9/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 20049
How do they compare?
Crusher Mill HPGR
• Getting rock into right place good bad good
• Apply force to break good good excellent
• Discharging products good good good• Doing it at high rate bad good good
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 10/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200410
SAG Mills
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 11/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200411
Ball Mills
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 12/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200412
How detailed is our understanding?
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 13/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200413
How detailed is our understanding?
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 14/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200414
High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR)
Fixed roll
Feed
Moveable rollOil cylinders
Product
Nitrogen cylinder
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 15/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200415
Published HPGR potential
• The most energy efficient comminution machine• No grinding media cost
• Preferential breakage/liberation• Conditioning for downstream ball milling
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 16/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200416
Bond ball mill work index reduction after HPGROre Crusher
Type
HPGR
SpecificGrindingForce
(N/mm 2)
Rolls Speed
(m/s)
Bond Work
Index
(kWh/t)
Level of
Significanceof WIReduction
(%)Pyritic Gold CRC 17.4Ore HPGR 1.5
4.34.65.25.46.17.47.4 *
0.380.381.500.690.383.000.380.38
17.917.016.716.416.416.015.815.7
9795989999
>99>99>99
Siliceous CRC 15.6Gold Ore HPGR 2.7
7.50.380.38
15.313.8
93>99
Bauxite CRC 18.3HPGR 1.4
5.80.380.38
17.919.1
<90<90
Lamproite CRC 22.0HPGR 1.3
10.30.380.38
22.021.9
<90<90
Haematite CRC 16.1HPGR 3.5
9.50.380.38
16.115.7
<90<90
After I. Stephenson, 1997
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 17/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200417
Effect of HPGR Processing on WI of PyriticGold Ore
15
16
17
18
19
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8HPGR Specif ic Grinding Force (N/mm²)
B o n
d W o r
k I n d e x
( k W h / t )
Conventional Rolls
HPGR Roll Speed = 0.38 m/s
HPGR Roll Speed = 0.69 m/s
HPGR Roll Speed = 1.50 m/s
HPGR Roll Speed = 3.00 m/sLeast squares fit to HPGR
After I. Stephenson, 1997
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 18/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200418
Effect of HPGR Processing on WI of HematiteOre
After I. Stephenson, 1997
14
15
16
17
18
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10HPGR Specific Grinding Force (N/mm²)
B o n
d W o r k
I n d e x
( k W h / t )
Conventional Rolls
HPGR
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 19/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200419
Published HPGR limitations
• High capital cost (60 t/h unit ~ A$ 2M and 2000 t/h unit ~ A$ 10M)
• High maintenance cost (high wear)
• Low availability (long down time)• Requires ancillary equipment (feed preparation, dry processing, dust
extraction/control, de-agglomeration, screening)
• Perceived high risk
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 20/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200420
Latest about HPGR
• Potential applications are steadily increasing• Reliability increased significantly:
- wear life of studs on roll surface have increased significantly- improved availability of cheek plate and shoulder protection
• Wear increases dramatically with feed size
• Secondary crushed feed required• This technology is mature for treating hard competent andabrasive rock in the minerals industry
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 21/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200421
Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill andHPGR
• Grinding cost consist of:- Capital
- Maintenance materials- Power- Labor- Consumables
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 22/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200422
Total comminution costs - After Koivistoinen et all, 1996
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 23/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200423
Option 1: Three stage crushing + ball mills
Primarycrusher
Stockpile
SecondaryCyclones
Secondary ball mill
Muckpile
Primary ball mill
PrimaryCyclones
Secondarycrushing
Tertiary
crushing
Screening
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 24/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200424
Option 2: SAG + Ball Mill
SAG
Primarycrusher
Stockpile
Cyclones
Ball mill
Muckpile
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 25/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200425
Option 3: HPGR + ball mills
Primarycrusher
Stockpile
SecondaryCyclones
Secondary ball mill
Muckpile
Primary ball mill
PrimaryCyclones
MMD
HPGR
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 26/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200426
620 t/h throughput
Option Equipment Estimated Operating Power Draw
Total power drawMajor equipment costOperational cost
1
1 x Primary crusher = 0.1MW1 x Secondary crusher = 0.2MW2 x Tertiary crusher = 0.75MW
2 x Screens = 0.1MW1 x Primary ball mill = 4.3MW1 x Secondary ball mill = 7.5MW
12.95MW16.5 M $A
13.0 $A/t
2
1 x Primary crusher = 0.1MW1 x SAG mill = 9.0MW
1 x Ball mill = 5.5MW
14.60MW13.1 M $A
7.2 $A/t
3
1 x Primary crusher = 0.1MW1 x Secondary crusher = 0.2MW1 x Screen = 0.05MW1 x HPGR = 1.2MW1 x MMD = 0.2MW1 x Screen = 0.05MW1 x Primary ball mill = 4.0MW1 x Secondary ball mill = 6.3MW
12.15MW
14 M $A5 $A/t
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 27/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200427
1250 t/h throughput
Option Equipment Estimated Operating Power Draw Total power drawMajor equipment costOperational cos t
1
1 x Primary crusher = 0.15MW1 x Secondary crusher = 0.4MW4 x Tertiary crusher = 1.5MW4 x Screens = 0.2MW1 x Primary ball mill = 8.6MW1 x Secondary ball mill = 15.0MW
25.85MW33.3 M $A
11 $A/t
2
1 x Primary crusher = 0.15MW
1 x SAG mill = 18.0MW1 x Ball mill = 11.0MW
29.15MW
28.2 M $A6.1 $A/t
3
1 x Primary crusher = 0.15MW1 x Secondary crusher = 0.5MW
1 x Screen = 0.05MW1 x HPGR = 2.4MW1 x MMD = 0.25MW2 x Screen = 0.2MW1 x Primary ball mill = 8.0MW1 x Secondary ball mill = 12.6MW
24.15MW27.8 M $A
4.3 $A/t
2 00 h h h
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 28/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200428
2500 t/h throughputOption Equipment Estimated Operating Power Draw Total power draw
Major equipment costOperational cos t
1
1 x Primary crusher = 0.25MW2 x Secondary crusher = 0.8MW8 x Tertiary crusher = 3.0MW8 x Screens = 0.4MW
2 x Primary ball mills = 17.2MW3 x Secondary ball mills = 30.0MW
51.65MW65.8 M $A
9 $A/t
2
1 x Primary crusher = 0.25MW2 x SAG mill = 36.0MW
2 x Ball mill = 22.0MW
58.25MW56.2 M $A
5.5 $A/t
3
1 x Primary crusher = 0.25MW1 x Secondary crusher = 0.75MW1 x Screen = 0.1MW
2 x HPGR = 6.8MW1 x MMD = 0.3MW4 x Screens = 0.4MW1 x Primary ball mills = 12.5MW2 x Secondary ball mills = 25.2MW
46.30MW
48.3 M $A3.9 $A/t
C i f i l d i f
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 29/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200429
Comparison of capital and operating costs for the different circuits
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
SAG + Ball Mill 3 Stage Crush + Ball Mills HPGR+Ball Mills
Capital Expense (Million A$)
Operational Cost (A$/t)
C i f E ti d GHG
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 30/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200430
Comparison of Energy consumption and GHGEmission for the different circuits
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SAG + Ball Mill 3 Stage Crush + BallMills
HPGR+Ball Mills HPGR+BallMills+Vertimills®
Energy (kWh/t)
CO2 Emission (power and steel)
HPGR + B ll Mill + Sti d Mill
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 31/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200431
HPGR + Ball Mill + Stirred Mill
Primarycrusher
Stockpile
Secondary
Cyclones
Muckpile
Primary ball mill
PrimaryCyclones
MMD
HPGR
Verti mi ll
Vertimill® potential
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 32/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200432
Vertimill® potential
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
80% passing s ize (mm)
e n e r g y c o n s u m p
t i o n (
k W h / t )
crushing
milling
Ball mill
Vertimill ®
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 33/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200433
Closed circuit AG
Secondary CyclonesPrimary Cyclones
AG
Vertimill
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 34/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200434
Closed circuit SAG
Secondary CyclonesPrimary Cyclones
SAG
Vertimills
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 35/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200435
Open SAG
Primary Cyclones
SAG
Secondary Cyclones
Vertimill
Ball mill
Current coarse grinding
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 36/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004
Current coarse grindingapplications
Chino (US) - tertiary millingSAG - Ball mill- Vertimill®
Williams mine (Canada) - secondary millingMcArthur River - secondary milling
SAG - Vertimill ®
Cannington - secondary millingAG - Vertimill ®
Comminution starts here!
7/27/2019 Chancadoras Metso
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chancadoras-metso 37/37
© Metso Minerals, Inc. 2004 Multi-Stage Crushing versus AG/SAG mill and HPGRDate 29 March 200437
Comminution starts here!
top related