SIZE REDUCTION

November 3, 2015

Abad, Abegail
Omega, Victor Alvin
Tandingan, Wayne

12/11/1
4
7

2/5/15
9

2/12/15
10

12/18/1
4
2

1/29/15
1

2/19/15
6

1/8/15
4

1/15/15
8

2/26/15
5

Objectives
1. Investigate how the net energy requirement of a jaw crusher varies
with the mean particle size of the product.
2. Compare the actual relative energy consumption with theoretical
relative energy consumption estimated using Kicks Law and Rittingers
Law.
3. Determine how the product size distribution varies with respect to the
size of the outlet screen of the hammer mill and with respect to the throat
opening of the jaw crusher.

Industrial Applications
Crude ore to workable size
Synthetic chemicals to powder
Sheets of plastic into tiny cubes or diamonds

Purpose of the Operation

To meet stringent specifications regarding the size and sometimes the shape of
the particles
It increases the reactivity of solids
It permits separation of unwanted ingredients by mechanical methods
It reduces the bulk of fibrous materials for easier handling and for waste
disposal

Mechanisms
Compression nutcracker
- Coarse reduction of hard solids
to give relatively few fines

Impact hammer
- Gives coarse, medium, or fine products

Mechanisms
Attrition file
- Yields very fine products from soft,
nonabrasive materials

Cutting pair of shears

- A definite particle size and a definite
shape, with few or no fines

An Ideal Crusher or Grinder

1. Has a large capacity
2. Require a small power input per unit product
3. Yield a product of the single size or size distribution desired

Jaw Crusher
Classified under
crushers:

Crushing by
compression

doing the heavy work of

breaking large pieces of
solid material into
lumps and accepting
anything that comes
from the mine face and
breaking it into 6-10 in.
lumps

Hammer Mill

Classified under
grinders:
Reduce by
attrition combined
with shear and
impact reduction

Reduces crushed feed

to powder

Product Size
-

Dictate the cost of power for size reduction operation

A unit area of solid has a definite amount of surface energy, the creation
of a new surface requires work which is supplied by the release of energy
of stress when the particle breaks

Rittingers Law

- Proposed by Rittinger in 1867

- States that the work required in crushing is proportional to the new
surface created
- Rittingers law is more applicable to fine grinding operations where
the increase in surface per unit material is large

Kicks Law

- The energy required for crushing is directly related to the

reduction ratio D1/D2
- Kicks law is more accurate than Rittingers law for coarse
crushing where the amount of surface produced is considerably
less

Product Size Distribution

-

In many cases, it is necessary to use a product of the desired size or size

range

Screening and classification is done

The effectiveness of size reduction operation

can be evaluated on the basis of the
laboratory screen analysis of the product

Experimental Data
8-mm

4-mm

Groups

Feed Mass
(g)

Time of
Crushing (s)

Feed Mass
(g)

Time of
Crushing (s)

507.65

120

508.16

252

501.70

72

501.86

228

498.42

84

500.28

188

503.87

228

501.04

416

499.97

280

499.36

412

500.03

152

500.51

224

458.09

224

482.4

328

625.81

288

625.23

156

499.76

116

499.38

132

10

499.67

160

504.4

416

Objective 1

Experimental Data
8-mm

4-mm

Mean
Particle
Diameter
(mm)

Net Energy
Requiremen
t (kJ)

Mean
Particle
Diameter
(mm)

Net Energy
Requiremen
t (kJ)

3.094

17.940

2.188

32.240

2.413

6.811

1.494

26.708

2.056

7.552

0.764

18.377

4.636

9.906

2.104

19.255

1.921

5.035

0.840

17.481

3.945

12.175

2.815

20.749

5.601

14.985

1.138

23.794

4.244

20.674

1.981

53.196

4.485

8.105

1.012

9.139

Groups

Objective 1

Experimental Data
60

50

40

8-mm Throat Opening

Net Energy Requirement (kJ)

30

4-mm Throat Opening

Average for 8-mm Throat
Opening
Average for 4-mm Throat
Opening

20

10

0
0

Mean Particle Diameter Dm (mm)

Objective 1

Experimental Data
Theoretical vs. Actual Relative Energy Requirement
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

10

Objective 2

Experimental Data
Theoretical vs. Actual Relative Energy Requirement
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0

% difference
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0

10

Objective 2

Experimental Data
8-mm Throat Opening

4-mm Throat Opening

0.6

1.0

0.5
0.8

2
0.6

0.4

4
5

Mass Fraction (kg/kg)

Mass Fraction (kg/kg)

0.3

0.4

8
9

7
8

0.2

10
0.2

0.0 0

10
0.1

Particle Diameter Dp (mm)

0.0 0

Particle Diameter Dp (mm)

Objective 3

10-mm Output Screen

6-mm Output Screen

0.40

0.50

0.35

0.25

0.35

0.30

0.25

Mass Fraction (kg/kg)

0.15

0.05

0.20

0.15

0.10

3
5

0.20

0.40

0.30

Mass Fraction (kg/kg)

0.45

0.10

10

0.05

10

0.00

0.00
0

Particle Diameter Dp (mm)

Particle Diameter Dp (mm)

0.75-mm Output Screen

0.7
0.6

1
2

0.5

3
4

0.4

Mass Fraction (kg/kg)

5
6

0.3

7
8

0.2

9
0.1
0.0

10
0

Particle Diameter Dp (mm)

Objective 3

Experimental Data
Average Size Distribution using the Jaw Crusher

Average Size Distribution using the Hammer Mill

0.9

0.60

0.8
0.50
0.7
0.40

0.6
0.5

Mass Fraction (kg/kg)

8-mm Throat Opening

4-mm Throat Opening

0.4

10-mm Output Screen

Mass Fraction (kg/kg)

0.30

6-mm Output Screen

0.75-mm Output Screen

0.20

0.3
0.2

0.10

0.1
0.0

Particle Diameter Dp (mm)

0.00
0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

Particle Diameter Dp (mm)

8.000

Objective 3

Conclusion
The net energy requirement increases if the mean particle
diameter of the product is smaller.
Rittingers law prevails in the jaw crusher but the possibility
that it is Kicks law that dictates the energy requirement still
remains. Percent differences range from 0.5 to 412%
The equipment and its setting affect the particle size
distribution, the jaw crusher being more reliable in giving a
particular particle size. The hammer mill preferably yields
finer particles, the distribution being affected by screen size.

Victor Alvin A.
Omega

Abegail B. Abad

Wayne Lorenz B.
Tandingan

THANK YOU