XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 3975
corresponding to a 10 mm anvil slot width, and a hydraulic
system pressure of 150 bar, exerting a total downward force
of ~310 kN on the hammer shaft.
Product Particle Size Distribution
CAHM Mark 1 Prototype testing shows that this new com-
minution device successfully and effectively breaks the feed
material into a fine product PSD. The product PSDs for all
the tests conducted in the program thus far are very similar.
Corem’s pilot HPGR was used as the benchmark for
particle size breakage and energy utilization. The prod-
uct size ranges are very similar. Because they are so simi-
lar, it is a relatively simple exercise to compare the energy
utilization between the two machines without making any
adjustments or allowances for differences in size reduction
performance.
Some of the early performance measures and energy
efficiency calculations for the CAHM Mark 1 Prototype
testing are shown in Table 4. The reduction ratio uses the
80% (or 50%) passing size of feed and product to charac-
terize the breakage. The HPGR energy data is included for
comparison.
Table 4 helps to clearly illustrate the success of the
CAHM Mark 1 Prototype as a comminution technology.
Reduction ratios are similar to those observed in the HPGR
baseline work (the CAHM feed was slightly finer so the
Figure 8. Average Feed and Product Size distribution curves for the Dry MonoRoll tests
Figure 9. MonoRoll multiple passes feed and product PSD compared to baseline ball
mill product PSD
corresponding to a 10 mm anvil slot width, and a hydraulic
system pressure of 150 bar, exerting a total downward force
of ~310 kN on the hammer shaft.
Product Particle Size Distribution
CAHM Mark 1 Prototype testing shows that this new com-
minution device successfully and effectively breaks the feed
material into a fine product PSD. The product PSDs for all
the tests conducted in the program thus far are very similar.
Corem’s pilot HPGR was used as the benchmark for
particle size breakage and energy utilization. The prod-
uct size ranges are very similar. Because they are so simi-
lar, it is a relatively simple exercise to compare the energy
utilization between the two machines without making any
adjustments or allowances for differences in size reduction
performance.
Some of the early performance measures and energy
efficiency calculations for the CAHM Mark 1 Prototype
testing are shown in Table 4. The reduction ratio uses the
80% (or 50%) passing size of feed and product to charac-
terize the breakage. The HPGR energy data is included for
comparison.
Table 4 helps to clearly illustrate the success of the
CAHM Mark 1 Prototype as a comminution technology.
Reduction ratios are similar to those observed in the HPGR
baseline work (the CAHM feed was slightly finer so the
Figure 8. Average Feed and Product Size distribution curves for the Dry MonoRoll tests
Figure 9. MonoRoll multiple passes feed and product PSD compared to baseline ball
mill product PSD