3972 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
75 µm or 150 µm but can also have application at coarser
fractions (Ballantyne et al., 2014). SSE75 can be calculated
as:
(%%)/100 75 75 SSE SE
prod feed
75 1 1 =-
SSE150 can be calculated using a similar approach. Although
SSE was not used in the optimization process, it was cal-
culated for experimental test results for both CAHM and
HPGR for relative comparison. SSE results are presented
in future sections.
Optimized CAHM Design
The systematic optimization process yielded an optimized
CAHM liners design, which are CAHM’s ore processing
components, similar to that shown in Figure 5. The total
width of this geometry with four rows of teeth and pockets
is 350 mm. There are 29 teeth and 39 pockets in each row in
this geometry. The optimal geometry applies compression
force to break larger particles outside the pocket. Smaller
fragments are further ground via a compression-shear force
combination generated by the relative, scissor-like, motion
of the tooth and pocket front and side walls. This grinding
mechanism is far more efficient compared to pure compres-
sion or pure shear force-based comminution methods.
The energy efficiency of the CAHM is compared to
the HPGR in Table 2. CAHM’s specific energy is 53.6%
lower than HPGR while comminution energy is lower by
11.1%. CAHM generates a finer product with a P80 of
8,360 µm compared to HPGR with a P80 of 9,130 µm.
The optimized CAHM geometry provides guidelines for
the detailed design of the machine.
The design of the hammer and Anvil liner was further
optimized. Additional liner design optimization beyond
the results presented in this paper has included wear and
other considerations. Due to the confidential nature of
the final design, the details provided thus far can be con-
sidered as one of the optimal designs, given the objectives
of the study. The final liner design used for the detailed
mechanical design and manufacturing of the CAHM Mark
1 underwent modifications beyond the material presented
here. However, it is worth noting that the specific energy
and comminution energy of the final design are similar to
the design presented in this paper.
DEM Model: Guiding Mechanical and Detailed Design
DEM simulations played a pivotal role in guiding the
detailed design and structural integrity analysis of the
CAHM and MonoRoll machines. DEM model was not
merely used for testing comminution concepts, but also
served as a tool to estimate various parameters including
structural stresses, power train requirements, hydraulic sys-
tem design metrics, and control logic requirements.
The estimated forces and stresses derived from DEM
simulations were subsequently used as input for Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) of CAHM machine and its support
structures ensuring a robust and reliable design. Similarly,
the MonoRoll DEM simulations provided stress estimates
that guided the structural reinforcement of the retrofitted Figure 5. Optimized CAHM geometry
Table 2. CAHM and HPGR efficiency comparison
Parameter Unit HPGR CAHM Difference HPGR vs CAHM, %
Throughput t/h 23.6 26.8 13.6
Power kW 47.1 26.4 –43.9
F100 µm 32000 32000 0
P50 µm 5200 4960 –4.6
P80 µm 9130 8360 –8.4
Specific energy (SE) kWh/t 2.11 0.98 –53.6
Comminution energy (CE) kWh/m2 23.6 20.97 –11.1
75 µm or 150 µm but can also have application at coarser
fractions (Ballantyne et al., 2014). SSE75 can be calculated
as:
(%%)/100 75 75 SSE SE
prod feed
75 1 1 =-
SSE150 can be calculated using a similar approach. Although
SSE was not used in the optimization process, it was cal-
culated for experimental test results for both CAHM and
HPGR for relative comparison. SSE results are presented
in future sections.
Optimized CAHM Design
The systematic optimization process yielded an optimized
CAHM liners design, which are CAHM’s ore processing
components, similar to that shown in Figure 5. The total
width of this geometry with four rows of teeth and pockets
is 350 mm. There are 29 teeth and 39 pockets in each row in
this geometry. The optimal geometry applies compression
force to break larger particles outside the pocket. Smaller
fragments are further ground via a compression-shear force
combination generated by the relative, scissor-like, motion
of the tooth and pocket front and side walls. This grinding
mechanism is far more efficient compared to pure compres-
sion or pure shear force-based comminution methods.
The energy efficiency of the CAHM is compared to
the HPGR in Table 2. CAHM’s specific energy is 53.6%
lower than HPGR while comminution energy is lower by
11.1%. CAHM generates a finer product with a P80 of
8,360 µm compared to HPGR with a P80 of 9,130 µm.
The optimized CAHM geometry provides guidelines for
the detailed design of the machine.
The design of the hammer and Anvil liner was further
optimized. Additional liner design optimization beyond
the results presented in this paper has included wear and
other considerations. Due to the confidential nature of
the final design, the details provided thus far can be con-
sidered as one of the optimal designs, given the objectives
of the study. The final liner design used for the detailed
mechanical design and manufacturing of the CAHM Mark
1 underwent modifications beyond the material presented
here. However, it is worth noting that the specific energy
and comminution energy of the final design are similar to
the design presented in this paper.
DEM Model: Guiding Mechanical and Detailed Design
DEM simulations played a pivotal role in guiding the
detailed design and structural integrity analysis of the
CAHM and MonoRoll machines. DEM model was not
merely used for testing comminution concepts, but also
served as a tool to estimate various parameters including
structural stresses, power train requirements, hydraulic sys-
tem design metrics, and control logic requirements.
The estimated forces and stresses derived from DEM
simulations were subsequently used as input for Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) of CAHM machine and its support
structures ensuring a robust and reliable design. Similarly,
the MonoRoll DEM simulations provided stress estimates
that guided the structural reinforcement of the retrofitted Figure 5. Optimized CAHM geometry
Table 2. CAHM and HPGR efficiency comparison
Parameter Unit HPGR CAHM Difference HPGR vs CAHM, %
Throughput t/h 23.6 26.8 13.6
Power kW 47.1 26.4 –43.9
F100 µm 32000 32000 0
P50 µm 5200 4960 –4.6
P80 µm 9130 8360 –8.4
Specific energy (SE) kWh/t 2.11 0.98 –53.6
Comminution energy (CE) kWh/m2 23.6 20.97 –11.1