BREAKAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF CEMENT COMPONENTS …

BREAKAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF CEMENT COMPONENTS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED

SCIENCES OF

THE MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

ÇAĞATAY AVŞAR

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING

SEPTEMBER 2003

Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences.

Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Prof. Dr. Tevfik Güyagüler Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

Prof. Dr. Çetin Hoşten Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Prof. Dr. Çetin Hoşten

Prof. Dr. M. Ümit Atalay

Prof. Dr. Mustafa Tokyay

Prof. Dr. Yaşar Uçbaş

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ali İhsan Arol

ii

iii

ABSTRACT

BREAKAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF CEMENT COMPONENTS

Avşar, Çağatay Ph.D., Department of Mining Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Çetin Hoşten

September 2003, 140 pages

The production of multi-component cement from clinker and two additives such as trass and blast furnace slag has now spread throughout the world. These additives are generally interground with clinker to produce a composite cement of specified surface area. The grinding stage is of great importance as it accounts for a major portion of the total energy consumed in cement production and also as it affects the quality of composite cements by the particle size distribution of the individual additives produced during grinding.

This thesis study was undertaken to characterize the breakage properties of

clinker and the additives trass and slag with the intention of delineating their grinding properties in separate and intergrinding modes. Single particle breakage tests were conducted by means of a drop weight tester in order to define an inherent grindability for the clinker and trass samples in terms of the median product size ( 50X ). In addition, a back-calculation procedure was applied to obtain the breakage rate parameters ( ii dk ) of perfect mixing ball mill model using industrial data from a cement plant. Kinetic and locked-cycle grinding tests were performed in a standard Bond mill to determine breakage rates and

iv

distribution functions for clinker, trass and slag. Bond work indices of these cement components and of their binary and ternary mixtures were determined and compared. Attempts were made to use back-calculated grinding rate parameters to simulate the Bond grindability test.

The self-similarity law was proved to be true for clinker and trass that their

shapes of the self-similarity curves are unique to the feed material and independent of the grinding energy expended and overall fineness attained. The self-similar behaviour of tested materials will enable process engineers to get useful information about inherent grindability and energy consumption in any stage of the comminution process. The parameters, 10t and 50X indicating the degree of size reduction were defined with different theoretical approaches as a function of energy consumption by using single particle breakage test data of clinker and trass. The breakage distribution functions were found to be non-normalizable. On the other hand, the breakage rate functions were found to be constant with respect to time but variable with respect to changing composition in the Bond ball mill. These variations are critical in computer simulation of any test aiming to minimize the experimental efforts of the standard procedure. As a result of the back calculation of breakage rate parameters for clinker and trass samples in the Bond mill, no common pattern was seen for the variation of the rate parameters. Therefore, computer simulation of the Bond grindability test did not result in an accurate estimation of the Bond work index.

Keywords: Cement, particle breakage kinetics, Bond grindability test

v

ÖZ

ÇİMENTO BİLEŞENLERİNİN KIRILMA KARAKTERİSTİKLERİ

Avşar, Çağatay Doktora, Maden Mühendisliği Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Çetin Hoşten

Eylül 2003 , 140 sayfa

Klinker ve iki katkı malzemesi tras ve yüksek fırın curufu kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen çok bileşenli çimento üretimi şu an bütün dünyada yaygındır. Bu katkı malzemeleri genellikle belirli bir yüzey alanına sahip kompozit çimento üretmek amacı ile klinker ile beraber öğütülmektedir. Çimento üretiminde toplam enerjinin önemli bir bölümünün öğütme esnasında tüketildiği, ayrıca çimento kalitesinin yine bu esnada her katkı malzemesi için oluşan tane boyu dağılımından etkilendiği gözönüne alındığında öğütme evresi büyük önem kazanmaktadır. Bu tez çalışması, klinker ve katkı malzemesi olarak kullanılan tras ve yüksek fırın curufunun ayrı ayrı ve beraber öğütülmeleri durumundaki boyut indirgeme özelliklerini karakterize etmek amacı ile yürütülmüştür. Tek tane kırma deneyleri, klinker ve trasın öz öğütülebilirliğini ortalama ürün tane boyu ( 50X ) açısından tanımlamak amacı ile ağırlık düşürme yöntemi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ek olarak, bir çimento fabrikasının endüstriyel verileri kullanılarak, mükemmel karışımlı bilyalı değirmen modelinin öğütme hız parametrelerinin ( ii dk ) elde edilmesi için bir geri hesaplama yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Klinker, tras ve yüksek fırın curufunun öğütme hız ve dağılım

vi

fonksiyonları standart Bond değirmeni kullanılarak bulunmuştur. Bu çimento bileşenlerinin tek başlarına ve ayrıca ikili ve üçlü karışımları için Bond iş indeksleri belirlenmiş ve karşılaştırılmıştır. Geri hesaplama yöntemi ile bulunmuş öğütme hız parametreleri kullanılarak Bond öğütülebilirlik testinin bilgisayarlı benzetişimi için denemeler yapılmıştır. Klinker ve tras için öz benzeşim kuralının açığa çıkan öğütme enerjisi ve elde edilen tüm boyutlardan bağımsız olarak, sadece beslenen malzemeye özgü olduğu kanıtlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada kullanılan malzemelerin öz benzeşim davranışı göstermeleri, proses mühendislerinin öğütmenin herhangi bir safhasında malzemeye özgü öğütülebilirlik ve enerji tüketimi hakkında faydalı bilgiler edinmelerini sağlayacaktır. Klinker ve tras için tek tane kırma deneyi verileri kullanılarak, boyut indirgeme seviyesini gösteren 10t ve 50X parametreleri farklı teorik yaklaşımlarla enerji tüketim fonksiyonu olarak tanımlanmıştır. Test edilen üç çimento bileşeni için öğütme dağılım fonksiyonlarının normalize edilemediği görülmüştür. Diğer taraftan öğütme hız fonksiyonlarının zamana göre sabit olduğu fakat bilyalı değirmen içerisindeki kompozisyon değişimi ile farklı değerler aldığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu değişim standart prosedüre sahip ve deney sürecinin azaltılması amaçlanan Bond testi için yapılacak simulasyon çalışmaları açısından oldukça kritiktir. Sonuç olarak Bond değirmeninde öğütülen klinker ve tras için geri hesaplama yöntemiyle bulunan öğütme hız parametrelerindeki değişimlerde ortak bir çizgi tespit edilememiştir. Bu nedenle, Bond öğütülebilirlik testinin simulasyonu, Bond iş indeksinin tahmininde doğru sonuçlar vermemiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Çimento, tane öğütme kinetiği, Bond öğütülebilirlik testi

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Ι would like to express my great appreciation to Prof. Dr. Çetin Hoşten for his guidance, concern, friendship and continual encouragement throughout my thesis. Ι wish also to express my appreciation to Prof. Dr. Ümit Atalay, Prof. Dr. Mustafa Tokyay and Assoc. Prof. Ali İhsan Arol for their suggestions and comments in the preparation of this thesis. I gratefully acknowledge the scholarship granted by Turkish Cement Manufacturers’ Association and I would like to thank the Directors of Yibitaş-Lafarge Cement Plant and Ereğli Iron and Steel Works for their kind permission to collect samples used in this thesis. I would like to express my appreciation to General Manager Selçuk Barhana and Exploration Manager Memet Ziya Ateş of Camiş Mining Co. for their support during my doctoral study. Ι wish to thank Cengiz Ötüş and my colleagues in the Department of Mining Engineering for sharing their ideas with me and their friendship. I wish also express my gratitude to the technical staff of the department for their help in various stages of my thesis. Ι would like to sincerely thank my family for their support, help and patience throughout this tedious job.

Finally, Ι would like to sincerely thank Pınar Arpınar for her irreplaceable

encouragement and valuable friendship in the hard times of my thesis preparation.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii ÖZ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-------------------------------------------------------------vii TABLE OF CONTENTS---------------------------------------------------------------viii LIST OF TABLES------------------------------------------------------------------------- x LIST OF FIGURES ----------------------------------------------------------------------xv CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2. LITERATURE SURVEY ---------------------------------------------------------- 4

2.1. General---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 2.2. Comminution in Mineral Processing ----------------------------------------- 5 2.3. Energy-Size Relationship in Comminution---------------------------------- 6 2.4. Comminution Models----------------------------------------------------------- 9 2.4.1. Matrix Model ------------------------------------------------------------10 2.4.2. Kinetic Model -----------------------------------------------------------12 2.4.2.1. Phenomenological Models-----------------------------------12 2.4.2.1.1. Population Balance Model ----------------------13 2.4.2.1.2. Perfect Mixing Ball Mill Model -----------------13 2.4.2.1.3 Multi-segment Ball Mill Model ------------------15 2.4.2.2. Fundamental Models ------------------------------------------16 2.5. Estimation of Model Parameters ----------------------------------------------17 2.6. Direct Determination of Model Parameters ---------------------------------19 2.7. Single Particle Breakage -------------------------------------------------------22 2.7.1. Slow Compression Test-------------------------------------------------23 2.7.2. Impact Test ---------------------------------------------------------------24 2.7.2.1 Twin Pendulum Test--------------------------------------------24 2.7.2.2. Drop Weight Test ----------------------------------------------25 2.8. Data Evaluation from Single Particle Breakage Tests ---------------------27

ix

2.9. Cement----------------------------------------------------------------------------29 2.10. Cement with Inter-ground Additives----------------------------------------31 2.10.1. Trass --------------------------------------------------------------------32 2.10.2. Blast Furnace Slag----------------------------------------------------33 2.10.3. Fly Ashes --------------------------------------------------------------34

3. EXPERIMENTAL MATERIAL AND METHODS ------------------------36 3.1. Materials -------------------------------------------------------------------------36 3.2. Methods--------------------------------------------------------------------------37 3.2.1. Plant Survey -------------------------------------------------------------37 3.2.2. Single Particle Breakage Tests ----------------------------------------38 3.2.3. Laboratory Ball Mill Tests---------------------------------------------38

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION--------------------------------------------------42 4.1. Evaluation of Single Particle Breakage Test -------------------------------42 4.1.1. Family Curves (t10) -----------------------------------------------------42 4.1.2. Self-Similarity Curves (X50)-------------------------------------------51 4.2. Breakage Rate Function -------------------------------------------------------62 4.3. Breakage Distribution Function ----------------------------------------------64 4.4. Laboratory Ball Mill Test -----------------------------------------------------68 4.5. Variation of Breakage Rate Parameters -------------------------------------72

5. CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------77 REFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------79 APPENDICES -----------------------------------------------------------------------------82

A. SINGLE PARTICLE BREAKAGE TESTS’ DATA ---------------------------82 B. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS OF KINETIC EXPERIMENTS --- 114

C. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS OF FEED MATERIAL FOR BOND BALL MILL TESTS-------------------------------------------------------------- 122

D. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS OF PRODUCTS FOR BOND TESTS AND TEST DATA------------------------------------------------------ 123 CURRICULUM VITAE--------------------------------------------------------------- 140

x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. Comparison of pendulum and drop weight energy operating range ------------------- 27 2. Principal constituents of composite cements.---------------------------------------------- 32 3. Chemical composition of samples ---------------------------------------------------------- 36 4. Particle size range and number of particle tested in single particle breakage tests --- 38 5. Distribution of ball charge in Bond ball mill ---------------------------------------------- 41 6. Error estimates for grinding circuit of Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant ----------------- 47 7. Particle Size distributions of Yibitaş-Lafarge grinding circuit streams after mass

balancing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48 8. Discharge rate parameters for clinker and trass at energy levels ( 10t ) of 20,30 and

40------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 49 9. Bond Work Indices and parameters of Clinker, Trass, Blast Furnace Slag and three

mixtures of these test samples --------------------------------------------------------------- 71

10. Back-calculated breakage rate parameters (sn, z1, z2) from monosize feed grinding - 73 11. Back-calculated breakage rate parameters for the Bond test cycles -------------------- 75 12. Experimental and simulated grindability test results ------------------------------------- 76 13. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (57.15x44.45 mm) at

energy level of 12.5 cm----------------------------------------------------------------------- 82 14. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (57.15x44.45 mm) at

energy level of 25 cm------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83 15. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (57.15x44.45 mm) at

energy level of 37.5 cm----------------------------------------------------------------------- 84 16. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (57.15x44.45 mm) at

energy level of 50 cm------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85 17. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (44.45x31.75 mm) at

energy level of 12.5 cm----------------------------------------------------------------------- 86

xi

18. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (44.45x31.75 mm) at energy level of 25 cm------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87

19. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (44.45x31.75 mm) at energy level of 37.5 cm----------------------------------------------------------------------- 88




23. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (31.75x25.40 mm) at energy level of 37.5 cm---------------------------------------------------------------------- 92

24. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (31.75x25.40 mm) at energy level of 50 cm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 93



27. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (25.40x22.23 mm) at energy level of 37.5 cm---------------------------------------------------------------------- 96


29. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (22.23x19.00 mm) at energy level of 12.5cm----------------------------------------------------------------------- 98


31. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (22.23x19.00 mm) at energy level of 37.5cm----------------------------------------------------------------------100

32. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (22.23x19.00 mm) at energy level of 50 cm------------------------------------------------------------------------101




xii


37. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (12.70x9.53 mm) at energy level of 12.5 cm----------------------------------------------------------------------106

38. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (12.70x9.53 mm) at energy level of 25cm-------------------------------------------------------------------------107

39. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (12.70x9.53 mm) at energy level of 37.5 cm----------------------------------------------------------------------108

40. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (12.70x9.53 mm) at energy level of 50cm-------------------------------------------------------------------------109

41. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (9.53x6.35 mm) at energy level of 12.5 cm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------110

42. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (9.53x6.35 mm) at energy level of 25cm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------111

43. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (9.53x6.35 mm) at energy level of 37.5 cm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------112

44. Single Particle Breakage Test results of Clinker and Trass (9.53x6.35 mm) at energy level of 50cm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------113

45. Size distribution of 15 second ground clinker --------------------------------------------114 46. Size distribution of 30 second ground clinker --------------------------------------------114 47. Size distribution of 60 second ground clinker --------------------------------------------114 48. Size distribution of 90 second ground clinker --------------------------------------------115 49. Size distribution of 2 minute ground clinker ---------------------------------------------115 50. Size distribution of 3 minute ground clinker ---------------------------------------------115 51. Size distribution of 4 minute ground clinker ---------------------------------------------116 52. Size distribution of 8 minute ground clinker ---------------------------------------------116 53. Size distribution of 10 second ground trass-----------------------------------------------116 54. Size distribution of 30 second ground trass-----------------------------------------------117 55. Size distribution of 60 second ground trass-----------------------------------------------117 56. Size distribution of 90 second ground trass-----------------------------------------------117 57. Size distribution of 2 minute ground trass ------------------------------------------------118 58. Size distribution of 3 minute ground trass ------------------------------------------------118 59. Size distribution of 4 minute ground trass ------------------------------------------------118 60. Size distribution of 8 minute ground trass ------------------------------------------------119 61. Size distribution of 5 second ground blast furnace slag---------------------------------119 62. Size distribution of 10 second ground blast furnace slag -------------------------------119

xiii

63. Size distribution of 30 second ground blast furnace slag -------------------------------120 64. Size distribution of 30 second ground blast furnace slag (pre-ground) ---------------120 65. Size distribution of 60 second ground blast furnace slag -------------------------------120 66. Size distribution of 2 minute ground blast furnace slag---------------------------------121 67. Size distribution of 4 minute ground blast furnace slag---------------------------------121 68. Size distribution of 8 minute ground blast furnace slag---------------------------------121 69. Feed size distribution of clinker for Bond ball mill experiment -----------------------122 70. Feed size distribution of trass for Bond ball mill experiment --------------------------122 71. Feed size distribution of blast furnace slag for Bond ball mill experiment -----------122 72. Size distribution of clinker after 1st SET --------------------------------------------------123 73. Size distribution of clinker after 2nd SET -------------------------------------------------123 74. Size distribution of clinker after 3rd SET--------------------------------------------------123 75. Size distribution of clinker after 4th SET--------------------------------------------------124 76. Size distribution of clinker after 5th SET--------------------------------------------------124 77. Size distribution of clinker after 6th SET--------------------------------------------------124 78. Size distribution of clinker after 7th SET--------------------------------------------------125 79. Size distribution of clinker after 8th SET--------------------------------------------------125 80. Size distribution of clinker after 9th SET--------------------------------------------------125 81. Size distribution of clinker after 10th SET ------------------------------------------------126 82. Bond test data for clinker at test sieve of 75 µm -----------------------------------------126 83. Size distribution of trass after 1st SET -----------------------------------------------------126 84. Size distribution of trass after 2nd SET ----------------------------------------------------127 85. Size distribution of trass after 3rd SET-----------------------------------------------------127 86. Size distribution of trass after 4th SET-----------------------------------------------------127 87. Size distribution of trass after 5th SET-----------------------------------------------------128 88. Size distribution of trass after 6th SET-----------------------------------------------------128 89. Size distribution of trass after 7th SET-----------------------------------------------------128 90. Size distribution of trass after 8th SET-----------------------------------------------------129 91. Size distribution of trass after 9th SET-----------------------------------------------------129 92. Size distribution of trass after 10th SET ---------------------------------------------------129 93. Bond test data for trass at test sieve of 75 µm--------------------------------------------130 94. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 1st SET -------------------------------------130 95. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 2nd SET-------------------------------------130 96. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 3rd SET -------------------------------------131 97. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 4th SET -------------------------------------131 98. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 5th SET -------------------------------------131

xiv

99. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 6th SET -------------------------------------132 100. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 7th SET -------------------------------------132 101. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 8th SET -------------------------------------132 102. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 9th SET -------------------------------------133 103. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 10th SET------------------------------------133 104. Bond test data for blast furnace slag at test sieve of 75 µ-------------------------------133 105. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) after 1th SET----------------134 106. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) after 2nd SET ---------------134 107. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) after 3rd SET----------------134 108. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) after 4th SET----------------135 109. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) after 5th SET----------------135 110. Bond test data for (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) at test sieve of 75 µm-------135 111. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Trass) after 1th SET ----------------------------136 112. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Trass) after 2nd SET----------------------------136 113. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Trass) after 3rd SET ----------------------------136 114. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Trass) after 4th SET ----------------------------137 115. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Trass) after 5th SET ----------------------------137 116. Bond test data for (65%Clinker+35%Trass) at test sieve of 75 µm -------------------137 117. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Slag) after 1th SET -----------------------------138 118. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Slag) after 2nd SET-----------------------------138 119. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Slag) after 3rd SET -----------------------------138 120. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Slag) after 4th SET -----------------------------139 121. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Slag) after 5th SET -----------------------------139 122. Bond test data for (65%Clinker+35%Slag) at test sieve of 75 µm --------------------139

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Schematic illustration of structure of multi- segment model ---------------------------- 15 2. Graph of primary fragment distribution ---------------------------------------------------- 20 3. Typical Primary Breakage Distribution Function showing the procedure for

evaluation of the parameters α, β and Φ --------------------------------------------------- 22 4. Twin pendulum device ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 5. Drop weight tester----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 6. One-parameter family curve, nt vs. degree of breakage, 10t ---------------------------- 28

7. Flowsheet of Cement Production ----------------------------------------------------------- 30 8. Schematic illustration of typical clinker secondary grinding circuit ------------------- 31 9. Flowsheet of grinding circuit at Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant------------------------- 37 10. Energy Levels vs t10 Parameter-------------------------------------------------------------- 43 11. One Parameter ‘t’ Family Curves for Clinker --------------------------------------------- 44 12. One Parameter ‘t’ Family Curves for Trass------------------------------------------------ 45 13. Grinding rate variation of Yibitas-Lafarge ball mill for sample of clinker ------------ 50 14. Grinding rate variation of Yibitas-Lafarge ball mill for sample of trass --------------- 50 15. Size distributions of clinker at 8 different size range comminuted singly in Drop

Weight Tester (left) and their self-preserving size distribution curves (right) -------- 53 16. Size distributions of trass at 8 different size range comminuted singly in Drop

Weight Tester (left) and their self-preserving size distribution curves (right) -------- 55 17. Self-preserving size distribution curve of comminuted clinker of eight different feed

sizes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 18. Self-preserving size distribution curve of comminuted trass of eight different feed

sizes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 19. Linear relationship between logarithmic median size and fines produced in the case

of clinker samples ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58

xvi

20. Linear relationship between logarithmic median size and fines produced in the case of trass samples-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59

21. Reduction ratio as a function of specific grinding energy for clinker samples-------- 60 22. Reduction ratio as a function of specific grinding energy for trass samples----------- 61 23. First-order mono-sized (1680x1200 µm) feed breakage rate plot for Clinker -------- 62 24. First-order mono-sized feed (1680x1200 µm) breakage rate plot for Trass ----------- 63 25. First-order mono-sized feed (1680x1200 µm) breakage rate plot for Blast Furnace

Slag---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63 26. First-order mono-sized feed (1200x850 µm and 850x600 µm) breakage rate plots for

Blast Furnace Slag ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 27. Direct determination of breakage distribution parameters from monosized feed short-

time grinding data ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 28. Normalization of jiB , values of Clinker and Trass sample------------------------------ 66 29. Normalization of jiB , values of granulated Blast Furnace Slag sample --------------- 67

30. Intercept of breakage distribution functions vs. dimensionless size plots, φ as a function of mean size being broken--------------------------------------------------------- 67

31. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the clinker sample--------- 68 32. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the trass sample ----------- 69 33. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the blast furnace slag

sample ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 69 34. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the

65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Blast Furnace Slag sample -------------------------------- 70 35. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the 65%Clinker+35%Trass

sample ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 70 36. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the 65%Clinker+35%Blast

Furnace Slag sample -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71 37. Breakage rate versus particle size curves with different sets of parameter values---- 74

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A modern industrial civilization does not exist without utilizing a wide

range of comminution technologies, from the coarse crushing of mined ore and quarry rock to very fine grinding for the production of paint, cement, pharmaceuticals, ceramics, and other advanced materials. Indeed, there is increasing evidence that integrating the comminution stages of various production technologies and mineral processing in an appropriate way, rather than seeing them as decoupled or even competitive elements of the production process, can produce substantial economical benefits; this is an exciting field of current research.

Generally, the objective of comminution, at least in mineral industry, is to achieve liberation of the mineral species so that separation of the desired minerals can be attained. In certain instances in the process industries, for example cement production, the product particle-size distribution must remain relatively constant to assure product uniformity and conform to commercial specifications. In this case the comminution process is operated to achieve the desired goal of uniform particle-size distribution in the finished product.

Although the importance of comminution has been accepted in modern

society, U.S. National Materials Advisory Board report in 1981 on approach improving the energy consumption of comminution processes estimated that 1.5% of all electrical energy generated in the U.S. was consumed in such processes including the energy required to produce the steel media used in comminution. The report estimated that realistic improvements in the energy

2

efficiency of comminution, including aspects of classification and process control, could result in annual energy saving in the U.S. exceeding 20 billion kWh [NMAB, 1981].

These statistics are still valid today. Also, another research explained more specifically that current world production of cement is about 1billion t/year and nearly 1% of the electrical energy produced in the whole world is used in cement grinding. In terms of electricity consumption in cement manufacturing plants, about 60% is used for grinding of inter-ground additives and clinker alone [Zhang Y.M., 1988], so there is much to be gained from improving the practice of comminution. Improvements can be well organized in two categories: • Fundamental changes in the technology, or introduction of novel technology. • Incremental improvements in the technology. Its application and operating

practices.

Although many researchers have focused on the improvement of the equipment used in the comminution stages for more than 50 years, the power consumption for comminution process is still very high and permanent fundamental changes in comminution technology have not been achieved yet. So it would be better to improve the performance of widely used ball mills, rod mills and etc. Therefore, the second category of improvement is aimed in this study. It essentially implies optimizing the performance of the comminution machines, i.e. ensuring that the installed capital asset is used as efficiently as possible in an economical sense. The benefits of optimization may be summarized as:

• Reduced unit operating costs, • Increased throughput, and thus value of production, • Improved downstream process performance as a result of an improved feed

size specification, or some combination of these.

Improvements in the comminution technology provides the information to assist the process engineer to realize the benefits of optimization, through a methodical and technically sound approach to understanding and analyzing his comminution circuit. Optimization implies the engineering process of adjusting machine and circuit variables to attain some improved operating condition.

3

The qualitative and quantitative results of particle breakage tests performed in laboratory scale establish guidelines not only for understanding mill models and comminution practice but also for improving mill technology.

Therefore, optimization of ball mill performance is proposed by

determining the breakage characteristics of cement components in this study. Then, single particle and intergrinding with cement components, namely clinker, trass and blast furnace slag were performed in laboratory to generate data for studying comminution kinetics and determining model parameters.

The single particle breakage tests accomplished by means of drop weight

tester were performed with the use of eight size ranges of clinker and trass particles at four different energy levels to define useful back-calculation procedure by estimating convenient breakage distribution functions for each sample and by collecting representative circuit data from the industrial scale ball mill. In addition, the validity of self-similarity law was investigated for clinker and trass under impact force in order to define energy utilization and inherent grindability in terms of median size, 50X which is a meaningful one-parameter measure of fineness.

The laboratory ball mill tests were performed in two ways by using standard Bond ball mill, namely kinetic tests and locked-cycle tests (standard Bond grindability test). The breakage characteristics represented by breakage rate and breakage distribution functions were determined from the grinding events of monosize feed at different residence time in the Bond mill. In addition, the variation of the back-calculated breakage rate parameters through cycles of the standard Bond grindability test as well as during monosize-feed batch grinding at varying times by using constant breakage distribution parameters obtained from short-time grinding data. A cumulative-basis batch grinding kinetic model was used to back-calculate the rate parameters from grinding experiments performed in the Bond mill. Attempts were made to use back-calculated rate parameters to simulate the Bond grindability test, and its shortcomings were discussed.

4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1. General Theories are proposed to explain consistently a class of phenomena

and are established with experiences, hypotheses and laws. A comminution theory incorporates fracture physics, particle breakage, stressing events in crushers and mills, material transport and comminution kinetics and models. Theory and practice do not face each other as an opponent because a theory must also be based on experience. This is what Helmholtz meant when he wrote, “Nothing is more practical use than a good theory”.

A mere approximation of experimental results is not a theoretical

contribution. However, if the fitting parameters can be explained or derived by fundamental considerations, then the approximation develops a theoretical flavour. Two classes of fitting parameters exist: parameter that posses a dimension and others that are dimensionless numbers. The search for appropriate physical variables for expressing the parameters is the first step in transferring an approximation to a good theory.

A meaningful discussion of comminution theory delineate classes of

phenomena need to be explained. Two broad areas are distinguished: one dealing with the mechanical engineering aspects of comminution machines and the other dealing with comminution processes. The major question for comminution process theory to answer how a given material is comminuted to a product of required characteristics, which generally is the size distribution itself. However, other characteristics or properties determine the product quality, for example, particle shape, specific surface, degree of liberation, solubility, sintering behaviour, colour, taste, magnetizability, etc. Although these properties also depend on the size distribution, other factors

5

influence the result, particularly the mode, intensity and velocity of stressing. Comminution process theory explaining the breakage of a given

material to the required size distribution is available in literature. The theory is capable of optimising the process with regard to different operating parameters, especially minimising the operating costs. However, comminution is the most complex process encountered in particle technology because the feed particles are divided into many pieces by a series of stochastic breakage events, and each of which discontinuously changes the state of the system. In principle, a particle breakage event cannot be described in terms of differential calculus. On the other hand, the huge number of particles involved in a comminution process allows us to apply differential terms for considering changes in the average values representing the dividing of the feed mass into the size classes. Theoretical approaches to comminution consider, at different levels, not only fundamentals but also technological aspects of particle breakage and also include such phenomena as particle movement and agglomeration behaviour. Thus, objectives of comminution theory include:

• particle failure in terms of fracture physics, • particle breakage as the elementary process of the comminution, • evaluation of the active volume in mills where the particles are stressed

and subjected to breakage, • material transport into and out of the active volumes, • comminution kinetics and models, • residence time distribution of the material in the mill, • role of fluids in comminution, • evaluation of mill performance and energy utilisation.

2.2. Comminution in Mineral Processing

Raw materials and mineral products are crushed, ground or pulverized. All of these processes are called in general as comminution for various reasons. Some of the most important reasons of comminution are: • to satisfy the liberation of one or more economically important minerals

from the gangue components in one ore matrix, • to increase the surface area per unit mass of material to facilitate some

specific chemical reaction, • to reduce the raw material to the desired size for subsequent processing or

6

treatment, and, • to provide market prerequisites concerning particle size specifications.

2.3. Energy-Size Relationship in Comminution

The relationship between energy consumption and size reduction has been taken into account to understand comminution process much better. The known hypotheses proposed to describe the energy-size reduction relationships in comminution process come from a common origin. It was observed experimentally that, in comminution, size change produced was proportional to the energy expended per unit weight of particles, and the energy required to bring about the same relative size change was inversely proportional to same function of the initial particle size [Charles, R.J., 1957]. The relationship between energy and size reduction of a particle may be stated mathematically as follows:

nxdxCdE −= (1)

where: dE : infinitedesimal energy change dx : infinitedesimal size change x : initial particle size C : constant n : constant

This equation was adapted to the comminution process by several scientists and four acceptable theories were delineated. First, in 1867 Rittinger postulated that the energy required for size reduction of a solid would be proportional to new surface area created during comminution [Austin L.G.,1964]. Rittinger’s theory can be stated mathematically by integrating general energy-size reduction equation assigning, exponent 2=n ;

∫ ∫ −=rE x

x xdxCdE

02

2

1

,

−=

12

11xx

CEr (2)

7

where: rE : energy input per unit volume

C : constant 1x : feed size

2x : product size Second, in 1885 Kick proposed the theory that equivalent amounts of energy should result in equivalent geometrical changes in the sizes (volume) of particles [Austin L.G.,1964]. The Kick concept may be expressed mathematically by integrating general energy-size relationship equation, assigning exponent 1=n :

∫ ∫ −=kE x

x xdxCdE

0

2

1

,

=

−=

2

1

2

1 log3.2lnxxC

xxCEk (3)

where:

kE :energy input per unit volume C : constant 1x : feed size

2x : product size Application of Rittinger’s and Kick’s theories to comminution has met with varied success. Experimentation on these theories showed that, Rittenger’s theory is valid for size reduction of coarse particles, but Kick’s theory is valid for production of very fine particles (less that 1µm). Therefore, for the practical case of crushing and grinding, neither of the above theories has received general acceptance. Third, in 1952 Bond proposed a theory that energy required is proportional to the new crack tip length produced during comminution. In particles of similar shape, the surface area of unit volume of material is inversely proportional to the diameter. The crack length in unit volume is considered to be proportional to one side of that area and therefore inversely proportional to the square root of the diameter [Bond F.C., 1943; Bond F.C., 1947]. Since neither Kick’s nor Rittinger’s theories seem correct for plant design work, an energy- size relationship somewhere between the two would be more applicable. The fundamental statement of Bond’s theory is stated mathematically by integrating general energy-size relationship equation,

8

assigning exponent 5.1=n ;

∫ ∫ −=bE x

x xdxCdE

05.1

2

1

,

−=

12

112xx

CEb (4)

where:

bE : energy input per unit volume C : constant 1x : feed size

2x : product size The Kick, Rittinger and Bond hypotheses of comminution may be derived as special cases of the general equation. None of the special cases holds true for all comminution systems. However, the equation associate the energy input to the system as a function of the size reduction was obtained by R.J. Charles for all comminution processes. In other words, the Charles Law is the extension of the other laws [Charles R. J., 1957]. The Charles equation was determined from mathematical derivation of the general comminution equation. The exact form of the equation relating energy input vs. size reduction is calculated from simple experimental tests. For materials following the Schuhmann equation for size distributions the form of the general Charles energy-size reduction equation is derived as follows:

α−= mCXE (5) where: E : Energy consumed per unit mass of mineral (kWh/ton)

mX : Size modulus α : Distribution modulus C : Constant for that particular material and mill system A number of experimental results from the crushing and grinding of minerals and ores have been cited to illustrate the validity of the above equation. Results from these tests show that ‘n’ values in this extended energy-size reduction relationship were obtained within the range of 1.32 to

9

2.4. These values fall within the above range according to the other laws, it can be concluded that owing to the fairly wide range values ‘n’, the Charles Law is valid for all comminution systems instead of Kick, Rittinger and Bond Laws. 2.4. Comminution Models

Historically, attempts have been made to develop models of comminution process based on empirical energy-size reduction relationships or laws of comminution were highly oversimplified descriptions of the fracture process. In some instances, these relationships provide crude basis for the correlation of experimental data, but, invariably, this approach is inadequate for meaningful process simulation. The control and optimum design of comminution circuits require a mechanistic approach capable of depicting the size reduction behavior of every size fraction for grinding conditions of technological importance. Energy-size relationships do not provide this detailed information. The mechanistic approach entails the formulation of a mathematical model is phenomenological in nature in that it lumps together the entire spectrum of stress application events which prevail in a system under a given set of operating conditions. The appropriately defined average of these individual events is then considered to characterize the overall breakage properties of the device. Thus, in order to analyze the performance of a tumbling mill, the manner in which the particles of particular size or size fraction are stressed, must not be distinguished. Instead, a single parameter is assumed to represent the resistance of that size to fracture, given the average grinding environment exists in the mill. The isolation of such a parameter and related set of quantities, which constitute the breakage product size distribution for the average event in this size fraction, allows the formulation of physically meaningful descriptive equations capable of yielding precise and detailed information for simulation [Herbst J. A., 1968; Lynch A. J., 1977]. This basic idea underlying mechanistic models was proposed by Epstein. He described a statistical model of a breakage process depended on two basic functions: • Pn(y), the probability of breakage of a piece of size ‘y’ in the nth step of a

10

breakage process, • F(x, y), the distribution by weight of particles of size ‘x’ less than or equal

to ‘y’ arising from breakage of a unit mass of size ‘i’. He showed that the distribution function after ‘n’ steps in a repetitive breakage process of this form is asymptotically logarithmic-normal, and this conforms to a frequently observed characteristic of sizing distributions of comminuted products. This concept has been used in what have come to be known as the matrix and kinetic models. In the matrix model comminution is considered as a succession of breakage events, the feed to each event being the product from the preceding event. In the kinetic model comminution is considered as a continuous process and the longer the period of grinding the greater is the size reduction attained. Both models are based on the concepts of; • Probability of breakage, and this has been called a selection or a breakage

rate function. • Characteristic size distribution after breakage, and this has been called a

breakage distribution or appearance function. • Differential movement of particles through or out of a continuous mill.

This is generally size-dependent and has been called a classification or discharge rate function, or size dependent diffusion coefficient.

2.4.1. Matrix Model The concept of probability of breakage of each size range and size distribution of each broken product was embodied in a matrix model of comminution, although the terms breakage and selection functions were used instead of distribution and probability functions [Herbst J.A., 1968; Lynch A.J., 1977]. In this model, the feed to and the product from a size reduction process may be expressed as sizing distribution in terms of ‘n’ size ranges. During a grinding process, particles in all size ranges have some probability of being broken and the products of breakage may fall in that size interval and in any smaller size interval. It will be noted that a particle may

11

undergo minor breakage or chipping which is insufficient to ensure that all fragments are smaller than the original lower size of the size range. Consequently, a mass balance of a grinding process may be written as follows:

Size range Feed Product 1 f1 p1,1 + 0 + 0 . 0 + 0 p1 2 f2 p2,1 + p2,2 + 0 . 0 + 0 = p2 3 f3 p3,1 + p3,2 + p3,3 . 0 + 0 p3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n fn pn,1 + pn,2 + pn,3 . pn,n + 0 pn pn+1,1 + pn+1,2 + pn+1,3 . . . pn+1

The elements in the product have been written in the form;

ijiji fXp ,, = (6) where: i : refers to the size range in which the element occurs, j : refers to the size of the feed particle from which it came,

jiX , : represents the mass fraction of the particles in the jth size range in the feed which falls in the ith size range in the product.

As a result, the simple matrix equation may be written as;

pXf = (7)

This equation may be extended by recognizing the fact that the product is made up of the particle pass through the process unbroken and the fragments of the broken particles. If 1S is the proportion of particles in the largest size range which is selected for breakage, then the mass of particles in that size range which is broken is 11 fS . Similarly, the mass of particles broken in the nth size range is

nn fS and, if the selection elements are written as a diagonal matrix and represented by S , the broken particles may be represented by the function Sf . The remainder of particles will pass through the process unbroken and for the nth size range the unbroken fraction will be ( ) nn fSi − . The total mass of unbroken particles passing through the process may be represented by the

12

product, [ ] fSI − . Where X refers to those particles in the feed which are actually broken and not to the entire feed mass it may be replaced by B which is the breakage function and the equation for a breakage process may be written;

[ ] fSIBSfp −+= p (8)

2.4.2. Kinetic Model

The kinetic approach is to consider comminution as a continuous

process in which the rate of breakage of particles in a particular size is proportional to the mass present in that size.

Useful kinetic models of comminution process must find a way of

representing the application of energy by a breakage machine to an ore. The kinetic model therefore has to describe two elements of the problem: • The breakage properties of the rock - essentially the breakage occurs as a

result of the application of a given amount of specific energy. • The features of the comminution machine - the amount and nature of

energy applied, and the transport of the rock through the machine.

Kinetic model of comminution can be divided into two main classes:

• Phenomenological Models, • Fundamental Models. 2.4.2.1. Phenomenological Models

Those consider a comminution device as a converter between a feed

and product size distribution. This type of models such as: • population balance model [Austin L.G., 1984], • perfect mixing ball mill model [Narayanan S.S., 1985], and • multi-segment ball mill model [Kavetsky A., 1982], is now in common

use. A black box model aims to predict the product size distribution from

13

an feed size distribution, breakage characterisation and experience with similar devices. It is phenomenological in the sense that it seeks to represent the phenomenon of breakage, rather than the underlying physical principles. 2.4.2.1.1. Population Balance Model

The population balance model is to consider comminution as a continuous process in which the rate of breakage of particles in a particular size is proportional to the mass present in that size [Austin L.G., 1984]. If the rate of comminution is first order the process may be described by the equation:

iii mk

dtdm

−= (9)

where:

im : mass fraction of materials in the ith size interval ik : specific breakage rate parameter of size i , the fraction of materials in the

ith size range that will be selected for breakage per unit time.

The difficulty in applying this model to the solution of real problems is in obtaining a satisfactory definition of the continuous function for the distribution of particle sizes. This problem may be overcome by using discrete values to describe the size distributions, that is, a size discritized form of the grinding equation. For the case of a batch mill the basic differential equations may be written for successive size fractions, starting with the coarsest and so on . The net rate of change of material in size range ’i’ may be written:

jjjiiii mkbmk

dtdm ∑+−= , (10)

2.4.2.1.2. Perfect Mixing Ball Mill Model The perfect mixing model is quite similar to the population balance model, and can be considered a special case. Most of the complexities in the population balance model arise from a consideration of mixing. The

14

assumption of a perfectly mixed mill removes these complications.

The perfect mixing ball mill model considers a ball mill as a perfectly mixed tank with contents described by a vector size distribution m .

The product vector p is produced by a discharge rate d for each size

fraction, that is

mdp .= (11)

Within the mill, two factors control the breakage:

• the first is the rate of selection of each size for breakage • the second is the way in which the selected particles are broken (or

appear) in the mill contents.

mkSelected .= , k : diagonal matrix of rates (12)

mbBreakage .= , b : triangular matrix of breakage functions (13)

At any time one can consider a simple mass balance for a particular size fraction, ‘i’, within a mill with transport into a breakage zone, breakage and transport out as described below:

Feed in + Breakage in = Product out + Breakage out

f + mb. = md. + mk. At steady state,

0... =−+− mdmbmkf

01

, =−+− ∑=

iijj

i

jjiiii mdmkbmkf (14)

and iii mdp = , substituting for im yields:

01

, =−

+

− ∑

=ij

j

ji

jjii

i

ii pp

dk

bpdk

f (15)

15

where the ratio i

i

dk can be calculated for each size fraction from a set of

actual feed and product measurements, subject to a reasonable form of the breakage function. When a suitable breakage function is defined, the perfect mixing mill model can be used to describe almost any grinding device. If the breakage characterization method can relate breakage energy to breakage function, then the model can be used estimate effective comminution energy [Narayanan S.S., 1985].

2.4.2.1.3. Multi-segment Ball Mill Model As it is mentioned in other models, the following functions are used in

this model to describe breakage and transport mechanisms. Breakage Distribution Function, jiB , describes the distribution of daughter fragments resulting from breakage of particles; Breakage Rate Function, ik describes the rate at which particles of various sizes are broken; and Material Transport Function, id describes the size dependent rate at which material is transported through and discharged from the mill. All three functions are continuous functions of particle size, but discrete values are readily obtained to correspond to the narrow (e.g. 2 series) size ranges that are normally used. In the multi-segment model the effects of breakage rate, differential transport of the ore and the variation of contents along the mill are described by dividing the mill into a number of perfectly mixed segments as shown in Figure.1. The breakage rate factor, ik of a size fraction i is assumed to be the same for all segments. However, the discharge rate factor, id of the thi size fraction varies from segment to segment depending on the amount of coarse (+2 mm) material present in each segment. Furthermore, the contents of each segment are influenced by the forward and backward mixing between adjacent segments.

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of structure of multi-segment model.

FEED PRODUCT

Segment n-1 n 1 2

Breakage Rate ki ki ki ki

Bi,j Bi,j Bi,j Bi,j Breakage Distribution

Flow and mixing

di(1) di(2) Discharge Rate di(n-1) di(n)

16

The amount of broken (t/h) of the thi size fraction in the thj segment, ( )jiY is proportional to the amount of thi size fraction material present in that

segment, ( )jiM (ton). This can be expressed as:

( ) ( )jiiji MkY = (16) Similarly, the thi size fraction material discharged from segment j ,

( )jiP (t/h) can be determined from:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )jkk

i

kkijiijijijijji MkBMkFMdzP ∑

=

−−==1

, (17)

where: ( )jk : dimensionless constant (adjusted to maintain appropriate segment

volume), ( )jid : normalized discharge rate factor of the thi size fraction in segment j ,

( )jiF : amount of thi size fraction in the feed segment j (t/h). Both segments’ feed and discharge contain the mixing and transport components. The breakage rate function parameters determined by means of these breakage distribution and material transport functions can be related to ball mill diameter to develop a scale up relationship for mills that operate under similar process conditions and treat a range of ore types [Kavetsky A., 1982].

2.4.2.2. Fundamental Models Those deal with each element within the process. These models can

be classified as:

• discrete element and • computational fluid dynamic approach [Mishra B. K., 1976] They consider directly the interactions of ore particles and elements within the machine, largely on the basis of Newtonian mechanics; they are also referred to as mechanistic. Adequate computer power for fundamental modeling has only become affordable since 1990, and such models are much less developed than the phenomenological variety. The fundamental models described are the way of the future, but are

17

limited at present by computational power and the understanding of mechanical force and particle interactions. However these models are likely to become more common over next decade. Phenomenological models are mature technology. With today’s computers they are easy to use. Their strongest feature is data reduction - that is, an ability to reduce a complex operation to a few numbers or parameters. These parameters can be made independent of ore type and operational factors to some degree, which helps make real world data easier to interpret. The numbers provide both guidance to improved performance (via simulation) and a better basis for decision-making, because the effects of ore type changes and operational factors (e.g. tonnage, overflow density, etc.) are reduced.

2.5. Estimation of Model Parameters The mathematical model selected for estimating the breakage

parameters is the general size-discretized cumulative batch grinding equation for first-order breakage in the matrix form given by Das. [Das et al., 1995]:

CAFdF+=

dt (18)

where: F : column vector with n-1 elements, n being the number of size intervals,

and the elements ( )1,......,2,1, −= niFi : cumulative mass fraction of particles of size less than or

equal to the upper size limit of the thi size interval.

Unlike the conventional indexing of the size intervals, the thn size interval corresponds to the top size interval in the above equation. A : ( ) ( )11 −−−− nbyn upper triangular matrix, and C : column vector of dimension ( )1−n .

The elements of the matrices A and C are given by

18

>

==

<

= ++

++

ji 0

1-n . . 2,. 1,i ji Bs-

ji Bs-Bs

A 1ji,1j

1ji,1jijj

ij (19)

Ci,1 = snBi,n i = 1, 2, . . . n-1 (20)

where: is : breakage rate (selection function) of the thi size interval,

jiB , : cumulative breakage distribution function for the thj parent size interval.

An exact analytical solution for the above model has been given by Das et al., 1995 in terms of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrix A . Das, 2001 proposed the use of their solution for back-calculating breakage parameters from experimental grinding data since the attractive feature of the cumulative-basis model is to absorb the noise present in individual mass fraction data so as to minimize variability of estimated parameters [Das P.K. et al., 1995; Das P.K., 2001].

It has been seen from the direct estimation of breakage parameters that

the following functional forms are good representatives of breakage rates [Rajamani R.K., 1984] and breakage distribution functions [Austin L.G., 1984].

( ) ( )( )ni2

2ni1ni d/dlnzd/dlnzexpss += (21)

( ) ji xx-1

xxB

1-j

i

1-j

iij <

Φ+

Φ=

βγ

(22)

where: sn : the breakage rate of the top size interval, di : is the geometric-mean size for the interval having the size limits xi

(upper) and xi-1 (lower), xn being the maximum size in the particulate assembly.

These two functional forms reduce the number of parameters to be

estimated to six: sn, z1, z2 for the breakage rates and Φ, γ, β for the normalizable breakage distribution functions.

19

2.6. Direct Determination of Model Parameters

In studying size reduction process, two basic components are considered. One is the fracture process represented by Breakage Rate Function (ki), and the other is fracture event represented by Breakage Distribution Function (Bij). Batch tests are the most accurate method for obtaining Breakage Rate and Breakage Distribution Functions of materials for grinding in laboratory scale mills because there are no effects of residence time distribution or variation of hold-up to complicate the analysis. The basic batch grinding equation for expressing the rate at which material from size class ‘i’ disappears due to comminution is written in the following form [Austin et al., 1984]:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )tmBtktmtkdt

tdmjij

i

jiii

i ∑−

=

+−=1

1

(23)

where: ( )tmi : the mass fraction of material in the thi size class at time t , ( )tki : the breakage rate function at time t for material in the thi size class

ijB : the breakage distribution function which gives the fraction of material in the thj class is comminuted.

Breakage Rate Functions of materials are mostly determined by using first order grinding hypothesis. In order to apply the hypothesis, batch tests at successive grinding times are performed by assuming the test mill to be a perfectly mixed container and holding an w amount of mono-sized feed. This feed is ground for a set time 1t and sample is removed and the fraction still within the original size interval determined by sieving and weighing. Then, w amount of fresh mono-sized feed is ground for additional time 2t and sample is reanalyzed, and so on. Breakage Rate Function, ik for the top size of material can be easily obtained from a semi-log plot of the fraction of original feed remaining vs. time by reducing Equation 23 to the following form:

( ) ( )tmkdt

tdmii

i −= (24)

By integrating the Equation 24 between the limits of 0=t and tt = ,

( )( ) tk

mtm

ii

i −=

0

ln (25)

Equation 25 indicates that slope of such a semi-log plot yields the value of Breakage Rate Function ( )ik .

20

Grinding of a mono-sized feed produces a whole range of doughter fragments. In order to describe the grinding process it is necessary to determine this distribution of fragments. The important point to describe reliable distribution of doughter fragments is estimation of the primary breakage. Material breaks and the fragments produced are mixed the general mass of powder in the mill. If this distribution of fragments can be measured before any of the fragments are reselected for further breakage, then the result is the primary breakage (Figure 2). The term primary breakage does not necessarily mean that the fragments are produced by a single fracture propagation, but only that they are produced by breakage actions occuring before they are remixed back into the bulk. There are two symbolisms convenient for characterising the primary progeny fragment distributions:

• Weight fraction of the products which then occur in the size interval i is called jib , .

• Cumulative weight fraction of material broken from size 1 which appears less than the upper size of size interval i is called jiB , .

In general, a complete matrix of jiB , values is required for complete characterization of all breakage action. These values are determined from the size distributions at short ginding times where there is mainly size 1 material breaking and only small amounts of smaller sizes to rebreak. The smaller the amount of material broken out of size 1, the more accurate are the jiB , estimates, especially if the incomplete sieving correction is also small. Experience suggests that good results are obtained when the time of grinding is chosen to give an amount of material broken out of the top size interval of about 20 to 30 %.

Figure 2. Graph of primary progeny fragment distribution.

b7,1 b8,1

Wei

ght f

ract

ion

in in

terv

al, b

i,1

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

b2,1

b3,1

b4,1

b5,1 b6,1

b9,1 b10,1

Sink Interval

2 Size Interval

21

Then the rate of production of size i from breakage of larger size j can be written in the following form:

( ) ( )tmkB

dttdm

jjjii

,= (26)

Determination of the matrix of jiB , values might not be seem an

complicated task for all materials under all milling conditions. However, it has been found that jiB , values are insensitive to precise mill conditions, at least in the normal operating range of milling and jiB , values for all materials show similar general form. In addition, it is often found that the jiB , values are dimensionally normalizable; that is, the fraction which appears at sizes less than the starting size is independent of the initial size. Ploting jiB , values against dimensionless size in logarithmic scale is common practice to determine whether the Breakage Distribution Functions are normalizable or not.

• If the jiB , values are found to be normalizable, the matrix of jiB , values is

reduced to a vector and it can be fitted by an expression of the form of

( ) 10,111

, ≤Φ≤

Φ−+

Φ=

−−j

j

ij

j

ijji x

xxxB

βα

(27)

and can be called as the primary breakage distribution function (Figure.3) where: ix : doughter fragment size jx : initial particle size (defined as the lower sieve aperture of the size

fraction) jΦ : intercept on the righthand ordinate of the cumulative plot of jiB , vs.

dimensionless size βα , : size distribution parameters of the materials.

• If the jiB , values are found to be non-normalizable, the degree of non-

normalization can often be characterized by the additional parameter δ defined by:

0,1 ≥Φ=Φ −

+ δδRjj (28)

22

0,0010

0,0100

0,1000

1,0000

0,010 0,100 1,000Dimensionless size, xi/x50

Cum

ulat

ive

Bre

akag

e Pa

ram

eter

s, B

i,j

α

β

Cleavage

Shatter

Total

Φ

1−jxx

where: R : geometric sieve intervals of ratio = uppersize

lowersize = 2

1

δ : slope of the intercept of B (Φ) plots as a function of size being broken,

( ) ( )00

logloglog Φ+

−=Φ x

x jj δ , 0x is a standard size of one mm.

Figure.3. Typical Primary Breakage Distribution Function showing the procedure for

evaluation of the parameters α, β and Φ.

2.7. Single Particle Breakage

Comminution of particles by impact loading is one of the principal

mechanisms of size reduction in media mills. Many research workers have studied the breakage of single particles under impact for obtaining a greater understanding of this important mode of grinding and hence into the grinding process as a whole. From single particle breakage data:

• the distribution of particles in fracture strength • the ore-specific and energy-dependent breakage distribution functions • ideal grinding path or impact energies for the most efficient utilization of

the energy invested can be obtained.

23

In brief, single particle impact grinding studies show that nominally identical, or very similar particles exhibit wide variations in their fracture strength, and the probability of breakage of a particle increases with the impact intensity or energy. Moreover, higher impact energy results in a finer size distribution of the crushed product or progeny particles due to re-breakage by residual stresses and kinetic energy in fragments through successive generations of crack propagation. A strong particle that survives an impact, nevertheless, becomes progressively weaker with repeated impact cycles and breaks eventually. However, the total energy required to break all particles in a large population depends strongly on the level of single impact energy employed.

These findings raise an interesting question: whether it is possible to optimize media mills by controlling the spectrum of impact energies prevailing therein. Another important implication is that the widely invoked assumptions of time-invariant breakage rate function and energy dependent breakage distribution function in the linear population balance models of grinding cannot be reconciled with the single particle impact grinding data, except by resorting to some kind of gross statistical averages. Consequently, as pointed out, these models have inherent limitations for true predictive capabilities, especially for the important task of optimisation of comminution processes.

Basically three types of breakage systems are distinguished: • slow compression, • impact, and • shear.

Several single particle breakage tests as a means of determining the breakage function were investigated [Awachie S.E.A., 1983]. The products from slow compression and impact (drop weight or drop shatter and pendulum) tests were compared and found to be similar.

2.7.1. Slow Compression Test

In the compression test, a single particle is loaded in a confined volume between two platens. The platens are constrained for each test by an insert corresponded to a selected degree of reduction. The loading rate is low at 0.021 mm per second. Although the results gathered from single particle breakage tests were found to be similar, the compression test was chosen for crusher simulation because it was considered that this breakage mechanism

24

most closely resembled the breakage mode in an operating crusher [Awachie S.E.A., 1983].

2.7.2. Impact Test

In these tests, the particle is crushed between two hard surfaces. One mostly used arrangement is the twin pendulum in which the input pendulum is released from a known height to swing down and break a particle attached to the rebound pendulum. Another is the drop weight (drop shatter) apparatus in which a particle resting on a hard surface is struck by a falling weight.

The ore parameters (breakage distribution or appearance function) can be determined from this single particle breakage ore characterisation tests on representative samples. The machine parameters (breakage rates or selection function) are calculated from plant survey data. Once the models have been customised to an existing circuit, the behaviour of that circuit over a wide range of operational conditions can be accurately predicted.

2.7.2.1 Twin Pendulum Test

It is used for conducting single particle breakage tests from which the comminution energy defined as the energy available for the breakage of a particle, can be determined, together with the resultant product size distribution [Narayanan S.S., 1985]. Two pendulums of different sizes are available for breaking different particle size ranges at different energy ranges. The ‘large pendulum’ is used to relate the energy consumption in single particle breakage to industrial crushers and semi-autogenous / autogenous mills (-31.5 mm + 11.2 mm particle size), while the ‘small pendulum’ is used to relate energy consumption in single particle breakage to industrial rod and ball mills (-11.2 mm + 4.75 mm particle size).

Each device consists of an input and a rebound pendulum suspended from a rigid frame, as illustrated in Figure 4. The rebound pendulum swings between a laser source and a detector which are mounted on an optical bench at right angles to the plane of swing of the pendulum. The motion of the rebound pendulum is monitored with a computer, which records the time taken for a multiple fin arrangement (attached to the pendulum) to pass through the laser beam. 25 swings of the rebound pendulum are monitored to

25

determine the period. The particle selected for testing is fixed to the rebound pendulum by a piece of tape, or a similar arrangement, and the input pendulum is released from a known height to swing down and collide with the particle. The energy transmitted to the rebound pendulum, tE , is determined from the computer logged timing signals. This is calculated from:

( )θcosLLME rt −= (29) where θ is the angle of displacement of the rebound pendulum from its equilibrium position, rM is the mass of the rebound pendulum and L is the length of the pendulum.

Figure 4. Twin pendulum device

Although the twin pendulum is a simple device for estimating the energy used in particle breakage, its operation and the results obtained have limitations. The device is restricted in its energy and particle size range and additionally is time consuming in its operation. Also calculation of the breakage energy is sometimes imprecise due to secondary motion of the rebound pendulum. In view of these limitations, the drop weight tester was developed as an alternative to the twin pendulum.

2.7.2.2. Drop-Weight Test The drop-weight tester was introduced to replace the twin pendulum

apparatus for assessing impact breakage characteristics of ores. It consists of a steel drop weight mounted on two guide rails and enclosed in perspex, as shown in Figure 5. An electric winch is used to raise or lower the weight to a known height. The weight is released by a pneumatic switch and falls under

Impact pendulum

Rebound Pendulum

Particle Collection Box

26

gravity to crush a single particle placed on a steel anvil. The device is built on a heavy steel frame is mounted and bolted on to a concrete block. By changing the release height as well as the mass of the drop weight, a wide range of input energy range generated is wider than that of pendulum device as shown in Table 1.

Perpex enclosure

5 kg lead weights

Guide rail

Particle Adjustable

Steel anvil height (energy)

Large concrete base

Figure 5. Drop-Weight Tester

The standard drop-weight device is fitted with a 20 kg mass, which can be extended to 50 kg. The effective range of drop heights is 0.05 to 1.0 m, which represents a wide operating energy range, from 0.01 to 50 kWh/t (based on 10 to 50 mm particles). These masses were designed for testing hard rock ores, whose specific gravity ranges from 2.8 to over 4 g/cm3. In coal, the breakage energies of interest are much lower, which necessitated the re-design of the device to include a light impact breakage head of 2 kg. This effectively lowered the base breakage energy to 0.001 kWh/t, which is equivalent to a 0.35 m drop under gravity.

Table 1. Comparison of pendulum and drop-weight energy operating range

Particle Size (mm) Pendulum (kWh/t) Drop-Weight (kWh/t)

-45.0 + 38.0

0.01 – 0.09

0.001 – 1.07

-13.2 + 11.2

0.41 – 3.30

0.041 – 41.2

The drop-weight tester provides exactly analogous data to the twin pendulum. It has several advantages, however:

27

• Extended input energy range • Shorter test duration • Extended particle size range • Greater precision • Possibility to conduct particle bed breakage studies.

2.8. Data Evaluation from Single Particle Breakage Test

A key concept in analyzing data from the pendulum and drop weight tests and in establishing ore breakage functions is that the product size distributions are a function of the size reduction or specific comminution energy, Ecs (kWh/ton). In order to model this breakage process, a simple way of relating energy to geometric size reduction is employed. A set of cubic spline curves is used to describe the size distribution produced by breakage events of increasing size reduction or energy input. If a single particle of known size (e.g. lying in a narrow sieve range) is broken, one might consider the resulting size distribution as cumulative percent passing a 2 series of screen apertures. Next some marker points on the size distribution are selected, defined as the percentage passing, t , a fraction, y, of the original particle size. Thus 2t is the percentage passing an aperture of half the size of the original particle size, 4t is the percentage passing one quarter of the original aperture and 10t percentage passing one tenth of the original particle size. 10t is employed as a characteristic size reduction. For a slightly broken particle, 10t is a few percent. In crusher breakage 10t is typically 10 to 20%. Tumbling mills probably operate over a broad range of 10t values. However models of tumbling mills tend to use 10t values in the range 20 to 50%.

In order to make use of this description of ore breakage, marker points

75502542 ,,, andttttt are stored in matrix form against 10t . These same data can be represented graphically as shown in Figure 6 covers a wide range of ore types. Figure 6 is a useful graph. Each vertical line (or value of 10t ) represents a complete size distribution, expressed as cumulative weight percent passing. Therefore if the data represented in Figure 6 can be measured for a particular ore type, it can be used to predict the size distribution will result at any known degree of breakage, or 10t value.

28

Figure 6. One-parameter family curve, nt vs. degree of breakage, 10t

This convenient representation of breakage data is commonly referred to as the one-parameter family curves [Narayanan S.S. and Whiten W.J., 1988]. The parameter, 10t is defined as the cumulative percent passing 10Y where Y is the geometric mean of the size interval for the test particles. Knowing the curves for a particular material, and given a 10t (from a given

csE , or from a model), the full product size distribution can then be reconstructed. Extensive measurements have shown that the same family of curves describes the breakage of a wide range of ores, with harder or softer ores having lower and higher values of 10t respectively for a given comminution energy.

Such information forms the essential ore-specific information

necessary for accurate modeling and simulating mineral comminution processes, such as rod and ball milling, autogeneous and semi-autogeneous mills and crushers. These breakage product size distributions also known as breakage distribution function, therefore constitute an integral part of the mathematical models of industrial comminution equipment. The amount of breakage or breakage index, 10t is related to the specific comminution energy as follows:

( )[ ]csbEeAt −−= 110 (30)

where: 10t : is the percentage passing 1/10th of the initial mean particle size, csE : is the specific comminution energy (kWh/t), and bA, : are the ore impact breakage parameters.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60parameter (y/10)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n

) t2

t4

t10

t25

t50

t75

29

2.9. Cement

Cement is the bonding agent consisting essentially of compounds of calcium oxide with silica, alumina and iron oxide, which can harden in air when mixed with water and are stable in water after hardening.

In the production of cement (Figure 7), first the raw materials, mainly limestone and clay are ground to have residues of about 17% at 90µm. Then, this raw meal are burned at high temperature until sintering occurs (1400-1450°C). During this burning process, at temperatures between 700 and 1000°C carbon dioxide is driven out of the limestone (calcium carbonate) and thereby calcium carbonate is transformed into calcium oxide.

CaCO3 ⇒ CaO + CO2↑ (31)

This latter material is a strongly basic oxide directly gets into reaction

with the other materials in the raw meal when temperature rises. As a result of these reactions, calcium silicates and aluminates are formed. At 1350°C sintering of the material begins, and between about 1400 and 1450°C it normally undergoes considerable sintering which is initiated by the formation of calcium aluminate ferrites. This sintering process is also called clinkering process due to formation of clinker (calcium aluminate ferrite).

(3% - 6%) clay

17% at 90 µm

up to1450°C Trass, Blast Furnace Slag, Fly ash etc. 3 - 32 µm

Figure 7. Flowsheet of Cement Production

Limestone Clay

Primary Grinding

Burning Process

Clinker

Secondary Grinding

Cement

Interground additives

30

Typical secondary grinding circuit at the cement plant is shown in Figure 8. It consists of two-compartment, air swept ball mill in closed circuit with an air classifier. The raw materials of cement for grinding is fed into the ball mill and discharged to a bucket elevator, which delivers it into the air classifier. The material is separated in the classifier into coarse particles (oversize), which return to the mill, and fines, which make up the final product of the circuit. The air drawn through the mill and classifier is supplied by a fan located downstream of the classifier. Air flows can be controlled through a series of dampers at the main fan and/or the classifier.

The circuit generally has two control loops. One is an automatic loop that controls the circulating load, ton/hour, to a fixed value by adjusting fresh feed rate. The other is a manual loop, in which the classifier speed is adjusted by the operator to meet the required final product surface area. The surface area of the product is measured by the operators off-line using the Blaine test.

Surface Area Output

Measurement

Final Product

Total Air

Output Weight Measurement

Return

Air

Feed Product

Figure 8. Schematic illustration of typical clinker secondary grinding circuit

In general, the following types of cement may be distinguished

according to its components:

BALL MILL

AIR

SEPARATOR

Manual Control

PID Controller

31

• Portland cement, is made from a suitable mixture of limestone and clay or from marls which are materials of intermediate composition. The raw mixture is ground and burned at sintering temperature, and the clinker thus obtained is ground to a fine powder.

• Natural cement, is produced from lime marl of suitable composition found in the natural state, the material being burned at sintering temperature and the clinker ground to a fine powder.

• Multi-component cement, the same procedure is followed up to final grinding like natural and portland cements. After that blast furnace slag, fly ash, trass etc. (puzzolanic material) is added in suitable ratio to the prepared clinker and ground to a fine powder.

The production of cements with inter-ground additives has now spread

throughout the world. In recent years, particularly European Community has produced these cements heavily. The advantages of these cements shortly arise from the followings: • The production and use of multi-component cements contributes towards

relieving the load on the environment. • In many cases it is possible to save natural raw materials and to make

appropriate use of industrial by-products instead. • The proportion of clinker used in the production is reduced, which saves

fossil fuel energy and reduces emissions [Schmidt M., 1992]. They also develop the quality of concrete by: • improving workability • improving durability • improving strength • lowering porosity • lowering heat of hydration

2.10. Cement with Inter-ground Additives Cements with inter-ground additives (or blended cements) consist of clinker and differing proportions of various inert, latent hydraulic, or pozzolanic materials. This type of cements classified according to inter-ground additive type and weight percentage in cement is shown in Table 2.

32

Table 2. Principle constituents of composite cements

Principal constituents in weight percentage Pozzolans Cement

Type Portland Cement

Granulated Blast furnace Natural Fly Ash Limestone

Fly Ash Cement 77.5 + 7.5 - - 22.5 + 7.5 -

Blastfurnace Slag Cement ≥ 65 15 + 5 - 15 + 5 -

Phonolite Cement 72.5 + 7.5 - 27.5 + 7.5 - -

Vulcanite Cement 67.5 + 82.5 - 32.5 + 17.5 - -

Trass Blastfurnace

Cement 55 + 7.5 30 + 7.5 15 + 7.5 - -

Portland Limestone

Cement 85 + 5 - - - 15 + 5

The production and use of blended cements contributes towards

relieving the load on the environment. In many cases it is possible to save natural raw materials and to make appropriate use of industrial by-products instead. The proportion of clinker used in the production is reduced, which saves fossil fuel energy and reduces emissions [ Schmidt M., 1992].

2.10.1. Trass

Generally, trass is a puzzolonic-basis material. Puzzolonas are materials which, although do not possess as such any cementing properties, contain components that, at ordinary temperatures and in the presence of water, combine with lime to form insoluble and stable compounds endowed with cementing properties. This behavior is the characteristic feature of puzzolanas. They are chiefly sedimentary rocks of volcanic origin that have undergone more or less extensive alteration, but they also include materials of other origin. The prevailing component of puzzolonas is silica in various amounts (40 - 90% SiO2); the lime content is generally very low and alkalis (Na2O and K2O) are present in appreciable quantities. The chemical composition of puzzolonas is somewhat variable, but also the mineralogical one changes from type to type. They are;

• Volcanic sediments • Incoherent sediments • Compact rocks • Sediments of non-volcanic origin

33

Trass which is compact volcanic tuffs, that after being finely ground are used as puzzolanas. This is more or less deeply altered trachyte tuff consisting in an isotropic matrix mass mixed with different crystalline minerals such as feldspar, leucite, quartz, hornblend, augite, mica, etc. The matrix mass is about 50% of the trass, consists of variable quantities of glass and zeolitic compounds in proportions indicative of the duration of the hydrothermal action to which the original volcanic deposit has been subjected. It is obvious that between the pozzolonas, incoherent and prevalently vitreous, and the compact tuffs have had origin from these materials through a phenomenon of zeolitization or clayification and cementing, there is a whole series of materials with intermediate characteristics that depend on the type and depth of the alteration. it is understood that these materials possess different degrees of pozzolanic activity.

2.10.2. Blast Furnace Slag In the production of iron; iron ore, iron scrap and fluxes (dolomite and/or dolomite) are charged into a blast furnace along with coke for fuel. The coke is combusted to produce carbon monoxide, which reduces the iron ore to a molten iron product. This molten iron product can be cast into iron products, but is most often used as a feedstock for steel production. Blast furnace slag is a non-metallic co-product produced in the process. It consists primarily of silicates, aluminosilicates and calcium-alumina-silicates. The molten slag which absorbs much of the sulfur from the charge comprises about 20 % by mass of iron production. Different forms of slag product are produced depending on the method used to cool the molten slag. These products include air-cooled, expanded or foamed, palletized and granulated blast furnace slags.

• Air-cooled blast furnace slag: If the liquid slag is poured into beds and slowly cooled under ambient conditions, acrystalline structure is formed, and a hard, lump slag is produced, which can subsequently be crushed and screened.

• Expanded or foamed blast furnace slag: If the molten slag is cooled and solidified by adding controlled quantities of water, air, or steam, the process of cooling and solidification can be accelerated, increasing

34

the cellular nature of slag and producing a lightweight expanded or foamed product. Foamed slag is distinguishable from air-cooled blast furnace slag by its relatively high porosity and low bulk density.

• Pelletized blast furnace slag: If the molten slag is cooled and solidified with water and air quenched in a spinning drum, pellets, rather than solid mass can be produced. By controlling the process, the pellets can be made more crystalline which is beneficial for aggregate use or vitrified (glassy) which is more desirable in cementitious applications. More rapid quenching results in greater vitrification and less crystallization.

• Granulated blast furnace slag: If the molten slag is cooled and solidified by rapid water quenching to a glassy state, little or no crystallization occurs. This process results in the formation of sand size fragments, usually with some friable clinkerlike material. The physical structure and gradation of granulated slag depend on the chemical composition of the slag, its temperature at the time of water quenching and the method of production. When crushed or milled to very fine cement-sized particles, ground granulated blast furnace slag has cementitious properties which make a suitable partial replacement for or additive to Portland cement. Granulated blast furnace slag is a glassy granular material that varies, depending on the chemical composition and method of production, from coarse, popcornlike friable structure greater than 4.75 mm in a diameter to dense, sand-size grains passing a 4.75 mm sieve.

It is estimated that approximately 14 million metric tons of blast

furnace slag is produced annually in the United States [M.C.S., 1993]

2.10.3. Fly Ashes When pulverized fossile fuel (bituminous coals, lignites or subbituminous coals) is burnt in thermal power plants, very fine ashes are obtained that melt as a result of the high temperatures achieved. If the chemical composition allows it, the subsequent cooling transforms the tiny particles of molten material into vitreous particles having an approximately spherical or vacuolar shape. The surface of these ashes, called fly ashes because they are easily dragged along by combustion gases, varies from 2000 to 5000 cm2/g, but even higher values are no exception. The composition of

35

fly ashes varies to a noticeable extent, since it is strictly linked to the nature of the waste that accompanies the coal or lignite, while the properties depend also on the combustion process. The main component that ranges from 60 to 90% is glass, while the most important crystalline components are quartz, mullite, hematite, magnetite, in addition to variable quantities of unburnt material. The ashes originating from the combustion of lignite and sub-bituminous coal contain relatively high percentages of lime. This makes it possible to utilize them directly, i.e. without any further additions, as hydraulic bonds, after slaking the free calcium oxide. When large quantities of calcium sulfate are contained, they can also be used as gypsum based binder. ASTM C 618 classifies fly ashes in two classes, depending on the type of coal they originate from and on the chemical composition: class F : antracite or bituminous coal ashes SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 > 70% class C: lignite or sub-bituminous coal ashes SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 > 50%

36

CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1. Materials Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant raw material of clinker, trass and blast

furnace slag was used as feed material for laboratory test works. Therefore, the sample materials were collected from storage area of Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant at Hasanoğlan in Ankara. The clinker sample consisted of approximately 730 kg of nominally plus 10 cm material and the trass sample consisted of approximately 205 kg of nominally plus 15 cm material. In addition to these samples, 500 kg of granulated blast furnace slag sample was delivered from Erdemir Iron and Steel Works Co.’s plant in Ereğli.

All of the materials were representatively sampled into 5- and 10-kg lots by using the coning-and-quartering method. Then, they were divided into smaller lots for the specific experimental usage by means of riffles. Samples were comminuted for laboratory works by passing them through laboratory scale jaw crusher and roll crusher successively until feed top sizes of 6 mesh (3323 µm) and 10x14 mesh (1680x1200 µm) were reached for locked cycle grinding tests and kinetic tests respectively. Samples were also tested by 8 channel Philips X-Ray Spectrometer for chemical composition and the results are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Chemical composition of samples

Element Clinker (%) Trass (%) B.F. Slag (%) CaO 64,18 4,06 38,04 SiO2 20,60 62,85 36,75 Al2O3 5,79 15,33 15,81 Fe2O3 2,84 4,24 0,5 MgO 2,61 1,48 6,27 SO3 1,39 0,00 0,43 K2O 1,10 1,94 0,48 Na2O 0,44 1,80 0,08

37

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Plant Survey

Once the models have been customized to an existing circuit, the behaviour of that circuit over a wide range of operational conditions can be accurately predicted. Grinding circuit of Hasanoğlan, Yibitaş-Lafarge Cement Plant were surveyed in this study for the desired goal. Therefore, the samples were collected periodically from plant survey of Yibitaş-Lafarge Cement Plant over several hours of reasonably steady-state circuit operation to form a representative sample. After making sensitive size analysis, the data were inspected by using JKSimMet Mass-Balancing software in order to understand whether the data were accaptable for model application or not.

In this plant, multi-component cement has been produced by mixing

clinker, trass, blast furnace slag (Ereğli), clay and limestone in the following ratios:

62% Clinker, 23% Trass, 8% Blast furnace slag, 3% Limestone, 4% Gypsum

These materials have been automatically weighed by weightometers according to the above ratios before mixing and ground by using roller-press and two-compartment, air-swept ball mill as shown in Figure 9. The samples were collected periodically from the points marked with “x” over several hours of reasonably steady-state circuit operation to form a representative sample.

Feed

Air

Roller-Press Separator 89.95 t/h Recycle + -

67 t/h

Ball Mill 156.95 t/h 67 t/h

Final Product

Figure 9. Flowsheet of grinding circuit at Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant

38

Representative smaller amount of the sample obtained by passing riffles repeatedly to make size analysis. It was carried out by using standard sieve series up to 38 µm. Small sizes (<150µm) were carried out manually one by one (batch screening) to get precise size classification for fine particles.

3.2.2. Single Particle Breakage Test

The single particle breakage tests were accomplished by means of two

drop weight testers designed in Mining Engineering Department of METU to determine the breakage distribution functions of raw materials and to estimate the energy consumption of ball milling action. One of the drop weight testers had 20 kg of breakage head weight and the other had 2 kg of breakage head weight. The latter one was used to test the smaller particles. These were performed with the use of several size ranges of clinker and trass particles at four different energy levels (12.5, 25, 37.5 and 50 cm) as indicated in Table 4. It was observed that above the 2.6 kWh/t energy level, the drop weight rebounded. Therefore, the energy level of 2.6 kWh/t was not exceeded while evaluating the experimental results. The size classifications of the two raw materials were carried out by using the standard sieve series. Table 4. Particle size range and number of particle tested in single particle breakage test

Particle Size Range Number of Particle Tested +57.15 – 44.45 mm 20 +44.45 –31.75 mm 30 +31.75 – 25.40 mm 50 +25.40 – 22.23 mm 60 +22.23 – 19.00 mm 100(Clinker), 75(Trass) +19.00 – 12.70 mm 150 +12.70 –9.53 mm 200 +9.53 –6.35 mm 250

3.2.3. Laboratory Ball Mill Test

The laboratory ball mill tests may be performed in two ways. The fixed amount of crushed

feed is ground in a ball mill and the mill product is screened on a prescribed mesh of grind. The

oversize is combined with a new make up feed and grinding cycle is repeated. This procedure is being

continued until steady state is reached when the weight of recycle, screened product and new feed

become sensibly constant. On the other hand, in order to simulate the dynamics of a closed-circuit

39

mill, the grinding time of all cycles held constant and the recycle is permitted to find its invariant level as the system converges to steady state. These tests simulate the laboratory scale tumbling mill operating under plug flow condition (all elements of the feed stream have an equal residence time in the tumbling mill) in closed-circuit with a perfect classifier. In this study, the former method of locked-cycle test was selected and standard Bond ball mill (30.5 cm in diameter and 30.5 cm in length) was used as it is operated in Standard Bond Work Index Test to generate data for determining relevant model parameters for three raw materials, namely clinker, trass and blast furnace slag. The Standard Bond Test is a locked-cycle batch grinding test is performed until reaching the steady state condition. It is based on Bond’s comminution theory that the work input is proportional to the new crack tip length produced in particle breakage. The crack length in unit volume is considered to be proportional to the square root of the diameter. For practical calculations the size in microns which 80% passes is selected as the criterion of particle size. This theory is explained by the following equation:

−=

8080

1110FP

WW i (32)

where; W : energy input to the mill (kwh/st) iW : work index (kwh/st)

80F : test sieve size passing 80% of the feed before grinding (µm)

80P : test sieve size passing 80% of the last cycle sieve undersize product (µm)

Correspondingly, the work index is calculated by the following equation after achievement of steady-state condition during the test [Bond F.C., 1943]:

−

=

8080

82,023,0 1010

5,44

FPGP

W

c

i (33)

where: iW : Bond work index (kWh/st) cP : test sieve mesh size (µm) G : weight of the test sieve fersh undersize per mill revolution (g min-1)

80F : test sieve size passing 80% of the feed before grinding (µm)

80P : test sieve size passing 80% of the last cycle sieve undersize product (µm)

40

Note: If wet screening is preferred, the Bond equation will be multiplied by 1.1.

The Standard Bond Test has the advantage that it can be empirically related to the energy required for comminution and is thus useful for the design and selection of crushing and grinding equipment. Although it involves an arduous and tedious laboratory procedure, it is widely accepted test method in the mineral industry to measure the ease of the comminution displayed by materials.

As it has been already known that despite the limitations of Bond’s technique, it remains a very valuable tool for the ball mill circuit designer, particularly as a means for comparing the grindability of ores. Hence the huge data bases of Bond ball work indices that have been built up by various organisations around the world will most likely ensure that the Bond laboratory test remains a standard for a long time to come. With this in mind it was decided to use Bond’s laboratory ball work index test to generate data for determining relevant model parameters.

The ball charge of this mill consists of 285 steel balls weighing about 20 kg and it is rotated at 70 rpm. The distribution of the ball charge which was used in the experiments is given in Table 5. Standard Bond test’s work index (Wi) was found by simulating dry grinding in a closed circuit in a Bond ball mill until the 250% circulating load had been achieved. 700 cm3, minus 3.327 mm (6 mesh) feed was prepared. The first grinding test was started with an arbitrarily chosen number of mill revolutions. At the end of the each grinding cycle, the entire product was discharged from the mill and was screened on a test sieve.

Fresh feed material was added to the oversize to bring the total weight back to that of the original charge. This charge was then returned to the mill. The number of revolutions in the second grinding cycle was calculated so as to gradually produce the 250% circulating load. After the second cycle, the same procedure of screening and grinding was continued until the test sieve undersize produced per mill revolution became constant for the last three grinding cycles. This gave the 250% circulating load. The Bond test took 5-10 cycles. The test sieve undersize from the last grinding cycle was analyzed by screening.

41

Table 5. Distribution of ball charge in Bond ball mill.

Number of Balls Diameter (mm) Weight (gr) 43 35.00 9685 67 31.75 8575 10 25.40 670 71 19.05 2000 94 15.70 1580

TOTAL = 285 TOTAL = 22510

However, blast furnace slag sample was directly screened to minus 6 mesh without passing through any crusher due to its smaller feed particle size. After drying screened samples at 75-100°C, approximately 15 kg of representative samples were taken for the ball mill experiments by means of riffles. Size distributions of these samples determined by dry sieving were given in Appendix.

Prescribed 10 cycles of Standard Bond ball mill method at 200 mesh (75 micron) was performed for clinker, trass and blast furnace slag sample. The same procedure was applied to the mixture of these three samples in ratios below: 65% Clinker + 25% Trass + 10% Blast Furnace Slag 65% Clinker + 35% Trass 65% Clinker + 35%Blast Furnace Slag

The same ball mill was used to grind the monosize (1680x1200 µm) material for the cumulative times of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0 minutes in order to obtain breakage properties of each material with different approach.

42

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Evaluation of Single Particle Breakage Test 4.1.1. Family Curves (t10) The results from the drop weight tests provide an energy/feed size/product size relationship; therefore this relationship was firstly analyzed by using a set of curves to describe the size distribution produced from breakage events of previously mentioned eight size ranges for clinker and trass particles in different input energy levels.

The descriptor employed in this approach is the 10t parameter. It is the percentage of the original particle which passes through an aperture 10% of the size of the original particle. In order to make the use of the description of ore breakage, marker points t2, t4, t25, t50, t75, t100, t150, t200 were stored in matrix form against t10. The same data are represented graphically in Figure 11 for clinker samples and Figure 12 for trass samples. Each vertical line (or value of t10) on these graphs represents a complete size distribution, expressed as cumulative weight percent passing. This convenient representation of breakage data is commonly referred to as the one-parameter family of curves. By knowing the curves of a particular material, and by calculating a t10 from a given comminution energy, then the full product size distribution can be reconstructed in order to estimate the breakage distribution functions of clinker and trass.

As noted earlier, it has been found that the relationship between t10 and

the specific comminution energy Ecs(kWh/t) is best described by Equation 30.

43

Therefore, the single particle breakage tests made with several size ranges of clinker and trass particles at different energy level resulted in following exponential equations. The parameters of these equations were obtained by using non-linear regression analysis of SPSS software package. Graphically, these relationships were also shown in Figure 10 for clinker and trass sample of Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant.

( )csEClin et 96,0

ker,10 158 −−= (34)

( )csETrass et 85,1,10 166 −−= (35)

The t10 is interpreted as a fineness index with larger values of t10 indicating a finer product size distribution. The value of parameter ‘A’ (Equation 30) is the limiting value of t10. This limit indicates that at higher energies little additional size reduction occurs as the Ecs is increased, ie. The size reduction process becomes less efficient. A steeper gradient of the t10-Ecs curve indicates a softer ore, then as it is usual trass sample was seen to be softer than clinker sample (Figure 10). It is shown in literature that ‘A’ value remains constant at around 50 for various hard ores. For example, similar pattern was obtained for primary gold bearing ore with the parameters of ‘A’= 49.1 and ‘b’=0.87 [Narayanan S.S., 1985].

Figure 10. Energy Levels vs t10 Parameter

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3Energy Levels (Ecs, kWh/t)

t10

(%)

ClinkerTrass

44

Figure 11. One Parameter ‘t’ Family Curves for Clinker

CLINKER (-57,15+44,45 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3 5 7 9 11parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

CLINKER (-44,45+31.75 mm)

0102030405060708090

100

5 10 15 20parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

CLINKER (-31.75+25.40 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

CLINKER (-25.40+22.23 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

10 20 30 40 50parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

CLINKER (-22.23+19.00 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

15 25 35 45 55parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

CLINKER (-19.00+12.70 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

4 9 14parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

CLINKER (-12.70+9.53 mm)

0102030405060708090

100

10 15 20 25 30 35parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

CLINKER (-9.53+6.35 mm)

0102030405060708090

100

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

t2t4t10t25t50t75t100t150t200

10y 10y

10y

10y 10y

10y

45

Figure 12. One Parameter ‘t’ Family Curves for Trass

TRASS (-57.15+44.45 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

TRASS (-44,45+31,75 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

15 20 25 30 35 40parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

TRASS (-31.75+25.40 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

28 33 38 43 48 53parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

TRASS (-25.40+22.23 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

37 42 47 52 57parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

TRASS (-22.23+19.00 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

45 50 55 60 65parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

TRASS (-19.00+12.70 mm)

0102030405060708090

100

15 20 25 30 35parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

TRASS (-12.70+9.53 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

20 25 30 35 40 45 50parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n)

TRASS (-9.53+6.35 mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

33 38 43 48 53 58 63parameter (y/n)

tn (%

pas

sing

y/n) t2

t4t10t25t50t75t100t150t200

10y 10y

10y 10y

10y 10y

10y 10y

46

Here, the important point is the determination of energy level. With a standard input energy level it is possible to compare the relative characteristics of different ores. However, different mill diameters may generate different energy levels for breakage. The use of a fixed input energy level may not be appropriate and input energy level should be a function of mill dimensions. As a result of this, tumbling mills probably operate over a broad range of t10 values or energy input. However it was proven that tumbling mills tend to use t10 values in the range of 20–50 % [Narayanan S.S. and Whiten W.J.]. Therefore, 10t values or fixed input energy levels of 20, 30 and 40 % were selected in order to determine the 1,ib values. One parameter family curves of (25.40 x 22.23 mm) for clinker and (44.45 x 31.74 mm) for trass were used for 1,ib determination because these graphs includes all selected

10t values (Figure 11 and 12). After determining 1,ib values corresponding to each 10t values, accurate plant survey was completed for back-calculation of

ii dk values.

The plant survey and data evaluation procedure was explained in detail as follows:

The samples were collected periodically from plant survey of Yibitaş-Lafarge Cement Plant over several hours of reasonably steady-state circuit operation to form a representative sample. After making sensitive size analysis with a standard sieve series, the data were inspected by using JKSimMet Mass-Balancing software in order to understand whether the data were accaptable for model application or not. Collection of grinding circuit data involved a degree of data redundancy so that cross checks applied to the sizing results of the stream data after mass-balancing. In order to accomplish this with JKSimMet, one reference stream is required to be assumed accurate (ie. contain zero error). Therefore, the final product stream was selected as reference stream after drawing flowsheet of Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant grinding circuit and entering the collected stream data to the software screen. Then, mass-balance program was executed and acceptable results were obtained. It means that the data were consistent and the error estimates were in agreement (Table 6). The SSQ was also decreased to 0.001 by making successive cross-checks. In other words errors in size distribution analysis were eliminated by using cross-checks procedure of JKSimMet.

47

If it were found that the sizing balance disagreed, the samples would unlikely to be representative or some error would have been occurred. The concept of weighing the measured data in JKSimMet can be regarded as the inclusion of previous experience in the calculation procedure. The mathematical equivalent of previous experience is the estimate of variance. JKSimMet minimizes the sum of weighed squared errors, that is

SSQXij xijij

Ai aiij

N

i

L

i

L

=−

+

−

= = =

∑ ∑ ∑1 1

2

1

2

σ σ (36)

with respect to xij and ai and subject to prevailing material balance constraints. Here ‘N’ is the number of measurements, ‘L’ is the number of streams, ‘X’ is a measurement (e.g. solids, assay, size), ‘x’ is the adjusted measurement, ‘A’ is the measured flow and ‘a’ is the adjusted flow. ‘σij’ and ‘σI’ are the weights or standard deviations for the measurements and flows, respectively.

Table 6. Error estimates for grinding circuit of Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant

Flow (tph) Standard Deviation SSQ

Feed 67 0.004

Ball-Mill Product 156.95 0.03 4.31→ 0.001

Recycle 89.95 0.03

Final Product 67 0.004

These results showed that the samples collected from the Yibitas-

Lafarge Cement Plant are representative and can be used as an input parameter of the perfect mixing model. The results gathered after mass-balance study were given in Table 7.

After recognizing 1,ib values from the one parameter family curves and

feed and product size distributions of plant scale ball mill, ii dk parameters of perfect mixing ball mill model (Equation 15) were easily determined by back-calculation. This was accomplished by calculating successively each of

ii dk values starting with the coarsest fraction. The key to the calculation is using the intermediate variable iy .

iii mky .= (37)

48

Table 7. Particle Size distributions of Yibitaş-Lafarge grinding circuit streams after mass-balancing

Feed Feed+Recycle Mill Discharge Recycle Final ProductSieve Size Retained Cum. Passing Retained Cum. Passing Retained Cum. Passing Retained Cum. Passing Retained Cum. Passing

25400 1.72 98.28 0.73 99.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22230 1.89 96.39 0.81 98.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19000 3.06 93.33 1.31 97.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12700 11.78 81.55 5.04 92.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9530 3.23 78.32 1.38 90.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6350 7.17 71.15 3.06 87.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4760 5.13 66.02 2.19 85.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3350 3.81 62.21 2.31 83.17 0.68 99.32 1.19 98.81 0.00 0.00 2400 4.74 57.47 2.07 81.10 0.05 99.27 0.08 98.73 0.00 0.00 1680 4.36 53.11 1.90 79.20 0.04 99.23 0.07 98.66 0.00 0.00 1200 4.71 48.40 2.07 77.13 0.06 99.17 0.10 98.56 0.00 0.00 850 7.44 40.96 3.36 73.77 0.19 98.98 0.33 98.23 0.00 0.00 600 9.05 31.91 4.30 69.47 0.44 98.54 0.77 97.46 0.00 0.00 420 9.03 22.88 5.13 64.34 1.27 97.27 2.22 95.24 0.00 0.00 300 4.66 18.22 3.75 60.59 1.77 95.50 3.08 92.16 0.00 0.00 210 4.12 14.10 5.74 54.85 3.99 91.51 6.95 85.21 0.00 0.00 150 2.50 11.60 5.60 49.25 4.72 86.79 7.91 77.30 0.44 99.56 106 1.94 9.66 7.99 41.26 7.64 79.15 12.50 64.80 1.12 98.44 75 1.70 7.96 10.92 30.34 11.52 67.63 17.79 47.01 3.09 95.35 53 1.71 6.25 13.51 16.83 16.51 51.12 22.29 24.72 8.75 86.60 45 0.72 5.53 5.41 11.42 7.66 43.46 8.90 15.82 5.99 80.61 38 0.71 4.82 4.13 7.29 7.37 36.09 6.68 9.14 8.29 72.32

4.82 7.29 36.09 9.14 72.32 TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

48

49

By substituting Equation 37 to the Equation 15,

( ) jjj

i

jjiiii ydkbpfy ∑

−

=

+−=1

1, (38)

After calculating the iy values for each size fraction, ii dk values were calculated by dividing to product values for each size fraction:

iiii pydk = (39)

Finally, discharge rate was scaled up to the discharge rate of Yibitas-Lafarge Cement Plant ball mill by using the following equation and obtained

*ii dk values were given in Table 8.

( )[ ]VLDd

d ii 4

.2* = (40)

where: D : diameter, 2.86 m L : length, 13,5 m V : volumetric flow rate, 85.33 m3/h The factor 4 is included because about 25 % of the actual mill volume was used. Table 8. Discharge rate parameters for clinker and trass at energy levels ( 10t ) of 20, 30, 40.

CLINKER (25.40 x 22.23 mm) TRASS (44.45 x 31.74 mm) Size, µm

)20(*dk )30(*dk )40(*dk )20(*dk )30(*dk )40(*dk 25400 0 0 0 0 0 0 22230 0 0 0 0 0 0 19000 0 0 0 0 0 0 12700 0 0 0 0 0 0 9530 0 0 0 0 0 0 6350 0 0 0 0 0 0 4760 0 0 0 0 0 0 3350 83.18 82.25 81.35 92.36 92.55 94.42 2400 96.42 94.61 92.87 103.26 103.59 106.07 1680 106.86 104.74 102.64 115.62 116.23 119.05 1200 115.99 113.81 111.56 124.43 125.22 128.44 850 111.65 109.63 107.50 120.55 121.48 124.79 600 91.96 90.33 88.62 99.63 100.35 103.30 420 57.34 56.23 55.09 61.87 62.38 64.20 300 38.55 37.75 36.92 41.64 42.02 43.31 210 22.52 22.03 21.52 24.49 24.75 25.56 150 15.78 15.41 15.03 17.30 17.49 18.12 106 10.85 10.58 10.29

50

Back-calculated *ii dk values for each size fraction of clinker and trass

samples at three fixed input energy levels were then plotted against particle size to describe the breakage ability of the Yibitas-Lafarge`s ball mill as shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14.

Figure 13. Grinding rate variation of Yibitas-Lafarge ball mill for sample of clinker

Figure 14. Grinding rate variation of Yibitas-Lafarge ball mill for sample of trass

As shown in Figures 13 and 14, it was found that the disappearance of

material from top size interval was not first-order, but appears to consist of a faster initial rate and a slower following rate as it was found previously for clinker and various ores [Austin et al., 1975]. In the mill, it is assumed that the smaller particles showing the first-order breakage behavior take part in normal

y = -0.0472x3 + 0.5133x2 + 0.0056x - 4.2216R2 = 0.989

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00ln(particle size), micron

ln(r/

d* )

t10: 20t10: 30t10: 40Poly. (t10: 30)

Clinker, 25.40x22.23 mm

y = -0.0448x3 + 0.4704x2 + 0.2584x - 4.6841R2 = 0.9883

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00ln(particle size), micron

ln(r/

d* )

t10: 20t10: 30t10: 40Poly. (t10: 30)

Trass, 44.45x31.75 mm

51

breakage region but the larger particles showing the non-first-order breakage take part in abnormal breakage region. The reason of abnormal breakage is explained in literature in that some of the particles are too big and strong to be properly nipped and fractured by the balls and have a slow rate of breakage. In addition, the accumulation of finer material appears to cushion the breakage of these larger particles [Austin et al., 1984]. The turning point or particle size from first-order breakage to non-first-order breakage in the ball mill was also found to be approximately 1 mm for this application (Figures 13 and 14). The same result was also seen compared with the previous studies of Austin et al. with cement clinker [Austin et al., 1975]. However, although they are completely different scale ball mills containing different sizes of balls (D: 2.5 m, max. ball size: 80 mm for Yibitaş-Lafarge’s ball mill and D: 200 mm, max. ball size: 25.4 mm for Austin’s ball mill), same grinding pattern was observed. Therefore, it can be said that the percentage of finer material in mill hold up is more dominant than the interaction between balls and particles in the region of abnormal breakage.

Consequently, the parameter ii dk were used as a function of particle

size to obtain a best fit for the observed mill product. Then, it was found that the third order polynomial equation represented the mill breakage behavior sufficiently. It can also easily said that 10t values estimated from the single particle breakage test can be used to determine the product particle size distribution of industrial scale ball mill at fixed input energy level of 20, 30 and 40 % by back-calculating the parameter, ii dk of perfect mixing ball mill model.

4.1.2. Self-Similarity Curves (X50)

The evaluation of energy utilization in single particle breakage tests was secondly analyzed by plotting self-preserving curves of clinker and trass on a log-linear scale when size distributions plotted against a dimensionless size, that is, particle size divided by the median size. As shown in Figure 15 and 16, the characteristic S-shape self-similarity curves whose upper knee invariably has more abrupt, sharper bend than the more rounded lower knee gathered for eight size ranges of clinker and trass samples respectively. These self-similar distribution curves in Figure 15 and 16 are master curves for a material particle broken singly under compression. Then, it can be said that they are master curves under impact force also. Their shapes are unique to the

52

Clinker (57,15 x 44,45 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng

( 0,047 kWh/t)( 0,080 kWh/t)( 0,115 kWh/t)( 0,134 kWh/t)

Clinker (57,15 x 44,45 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0,001 0,010 0,100 1,000 10,000Dimensionless Size (x/x50)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Clinker (44,45 x 31,75 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Clinker (44,45 x 31,75 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0,010 0,100 1,000 10,000Dimensionless Size (x/x50)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng

(0,102 kWh/t)(0,200 kWh/t)(0,289 kWh/t)(0,352 kWh/t)

Clinker (31,75 x 25,40 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng

( 0,210 k W h /t)( 0,405 k W h /t)( 0,609 k W h /t)( 0,841 k W h /t)

Clinker (31,75 x 25,40 mm)

010

2030

405060

7080

90100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Clinker (25,40 x 22,23 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000

S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng

( 0,353 kW h/t)( 0,717 kW h/t)( 1,027 kW h/t)( 1,352 kW h/t)

Clinker (25,40 x 22,23 mm)

010

2030

405060

7080

90100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


53

Clinker (22,23 x 19,00 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Clinker (22,23 x 19,00 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Clinker (19,00 x 12,70 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000

S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Clinker (19,00 x 12,70 mm)

010

2030

405060

7080

90100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng( 0,110 kWh/t)( 0,228 kWh/t)( 0,344 kWh/t)( 0,441 kWh/t)

Clinker (12,70 x 9,53 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng



1

10

100

100 1000 10000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng

( 0 ,846 k W h /t)( 1,594 k W h /t)( 2,304 k W h /t)( 3,121 k W h /t)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Figure 15. Size distributions of clinker at 8 different size range comminuted singly in Drop Weight Tester (left) and their self-preserving size distribution curves (right).

54

Trass (57,15 x 44,45 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (57,15 x 44,45 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (44,45 x 31,75 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (44,45 x 31,75 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (31,75 x 25,40 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (31,75 x 25,40 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (25,40 x 22,23 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (25,40 x 22,23 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


55

Trass (22,23 x 19,00 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (22,23 x 19,00 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (19,00 x 12,70 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000 100000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (19,00 x 12,70 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng( 0,153 kWh/t)( 0,288 kWh/t)( 0,443 kWh/t)( 0,571 kWh/t)

Trass (12,70 x 9,53 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (12,70 x 9,53 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Trass (9,53 x 6,35 mm)

1

10

100

100 1000 10000S ize (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng

( 0 ,921 k W h /t)( 1,817 k W h /t)( 2,654 k W h /t)( 3,449 k W h /t)

Trass (9,53 x 6,35 mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng


Figure 16. Size distributions of trass at 8 different size range comminuted singly in Drop Weight Tester (left) and their self-preserving size distribution curves (right).

56

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

Dimensionless S ixe, x/x50

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng

feed material, independent of the grinding energy expended and overall fineness attained. Moreover as shown in Figures 17 and 18, the self-preserving character of the distribution remained unchanged when clinker and trass of eight different feed sizes. In this part of the study, it was shown that the size distributions of the ground products are invariably self-similar when particles are crushed or comminuted under impact force by means of drop weight tester.

Figure 17. Self-preserving size distribution curve of comminuted clinker of eight different feed sizes.

Figure 18. Self-preserving size distribution curve of comminuted trass of eight different feed

sizes.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

Dimensionless S ixe, x/x50

Cum

ulat

ive

% P

assi

ng

57

This property is a consequence of the geometrically similar crack patterns generated on progressively finer scale with increasing investment of grinding energy and can be exploited to formulate an energy-size reduction ratio relationship in terms of the median size, X50 which is a consistent one parameter measure of the fineness. Therefore, median size is a meaningful one-parameter measure of the fineness of the ground product. The self-similar distributions can be described in terms of a dimensionless size, 50Xx as: ( ) ( )50, XxZExF cs = (41)

where: ( )csExF , : the cumulative fraction in the ground mass equal to or finer than

particle size x , 50X : median size, csE : the specific energy expanded, Z : the self-similar distribution function. It was shown earlier [Fuerstenau D.W. and Kapur P.C., 1995] that for a given x , and over at least a range of 50X , this expression can be written in a more explicit form as follows:

( ) `50log cFcX xx +−= (42)

where xc is the slope and `c is the intercept.

Applying above equation to the single particle breakage data of clinker and trass for eight different feed size ranges, the linear relationship between the fines produced and the logarithmic median size was satisfied adequately as shown in Figure 17 and 18 respectively. Consequently, it can be said that the product size distributions of clinker and trass samples are invariably self-similar, whether they are ground in loose mass in tumbling mills or in the single particle breakage mode in impact as shown in Figures 17 and 18. Since median size is a consistent and meaningful measure of the product fineness, its variation with grinding energy provides an accurate indication of the energy utilization in the process. It has been proven that for narrow sized feeds a reduction ratio index, defined as the ratio of feed size to product median size, increases approximately linearly with energy input (Figures 19 and 20) [Gutsche O., 1993]:

58

Cl i nker ( 57 ,15 x 4 4 ,4 5 mm)

4 . 30

4 . 32

4 . 34

4 . 36

4 . 38

4 . 40

4 . 42

4 . 44

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Cumul at i ve % P ass i ng

Cl i nker ( 31 ,75 x 2 5 ,4 0 mm)

3 . 60

3 . 70

3 . 80

3 . 90

4 . 00

4 . 10

4 . 20

0 20 40 60 80 10 0Cumul at i ve % P ass i ng

Cl i nker ( 44 ,45 x 31 , 75 mm)

3 . 9 5

4 . 0 0

4 . 0 5

4 . 1 0

4 . 1 5

4 . 2 0

4 . 2 5

4 . 3 0

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0

C u mu l at i v e % P as s i n g

Cl i nker ( 25 ,4 0 x 22 ,23 mm)

3 . 40

3 . 50

3 . 60

3 . 70

3 . 80

3 . 90

4 . 00

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Cumul at i v e % P ass i ng

Cl i nker ( 22 ,23 x 19 , 00 mm)

3 . 20

3 . 30

3 . 40

3 . 50

3 . 60

3 . 70

3 . 80


Cl i nker ( 19 ,00 x 12 , 70 mm)

3 . 70

3 . 75

3 . 80

3 . 85

3 . 90

3 . 95

4 . 00

4 . 05

0 20 40 60 80 10 0


Cl i nker ( 12 ,70 x 9 ,5 3 mm)

3 . 25

3 . 30

3 . 35

3 . 40

3 . 45

3 . 50

3 . 55

3 . 60

3 . 65

3 . 70

3 . 75



2 . 80

2 . 90

3 . 00

3 . 10

3 . 20

3 . 30

3 . 40

3 . 50


Figure 19. Linear relationship between logarithmic median size and fines produced in case of clinker samples.

59

T r ass ( 57 ,15 x 44 ,45 mm)

4 .15

4 .20

4 .25

4 .30

4 .35

4 .40

4 .45

4 .50

4 .55

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cumul at i ve % P assi ng

T r ass ( 44 ,45 x 31 ,75 mm)

3.70

3.75

3.80

3.85

3.90

3.95

4.00

4.05

4.10

4.15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Cumulative % Passing

log

(Med

ian

Size

), m

icro

n

T r ass ( 31 ,75 x 25 ,40 mm)

3 .35

3 .40

3 .45

3 .50

3 .55

3 .60

3 .65

3 .70

3 .75

3 .80

3 .85

0 20 40 60 80 100Cumul at i ve % P assi ng

T r ass ( 25 ,40 x 22 ,23 mm)

3 .20

3 .25

3 .30

3 .35

3 .40

3 .45

3 .50

3 .55

3 .60

0 20 40 60 80 100


T r ass ( 22 ,23 x 19 ,00 mm)

3 .05

3 .10

3 .15

3 .20

3 .25

3 .30

3 .35

3 .40


T r ass ( 19 ,00 x 12 ,70 mm)

3 .35

3 .40

3 .45

3 .50

3 .55

3 .60

3 .65

3 .70

3 .75

3 .80

3 .85

0 20 40 60 80 100Cumul at i ve % P ass i ng

T r ass ( 12 ,70 x 9 ,53 mm)

3 .00

3 .10

3 .20

3 .30

3 .40

3 .50

3 .60


T r as s (9, 53 x 6, 35 mm)

2 .75

2 .80

2 .85

2 .90

2 .95

3 .00

3 .05

3 .10

3 .15


Figure 20. Linear relationship between logarithmic median size and fines produced in case of trass samples.

60

Clinker (44,45 x 31,75 mm)

y = 6.4373x + 1.355R2 = 0.9965

1.001.502.002.503.003.504.00

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400S pecific E nergy, kWh/ton

C linker (57,15 x 44,45 mm)

y = 6.4215x + 1.589R2 = 0.9938

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140S pecific E nergy, kWh/ton

C linker (31,75 x 25.40 mm)

y = 6.6663x + 0.6216R2 = 0.9829

1.002.003.004.00

5.006.007.00


C linker (25,40 x 22,23 mm)

y = 5.7355x + 1.0658R2 = 0.9861

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500S pecific E nergy, kWh/ton

C linker (22,23 x 19,00 mm)

y = 4.8153x + 1.3227R2 = 0.9795

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.00


C linker (19,00 x 12,70 mm)

y = 3.458x + 1.2572R2 = 0.9768

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00


C linker (12,70 x 9,53 mm)

y = 4.0225x + 0.8346R2 = 0.9886

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500S pecific E nergy, kWh/ton

C linker (9,53 x 6,35 mm)

y = 3.1046x + 1.0231R2 = 0.9675

1.003.005.007.009.00

11.0013.00

0.002 1.002 2.002 3.002 4.002S pecific E nergy, kWh/ton

Figure 21. Reduction ratio as a function of specific grinding energy for clinker samples

ejEXX

mf +=

50

(43)

where: fX : the mean feed size,

j : the slope which has units of ton/kWh, represents the inherent grindability of the material.

e : the intercept which is approximately equal to unity.

The defined inherent grindability is independent of particle-particle interference effects, the mechanical efficiency of the grinding machine, the quantum of energy expended and, within limits, the extent of size reduction (that is, the reduction ratio) achieved. However, this grindability is by no means absolute because the slope jmay be dependent of feed size (Figures 21 and 22).

61

Trass (57,15 x 44,45 mm)

y = 12.041x + 1.0755R2 = 0.982

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200Specific Energy, kWh/ton

Trass (44,45 x 31,75 mm)

y = 15.079x + 1.1291R2 = 0.999

1.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500Specific Energy, kWh/ton

Trass (31,75 x 25,40 mm)

y = 8.5029x + 2.8191R2 = 0.9854

1.003.005.007.009.00

11.0013.00

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200Specific Energy, kWh/ton

Trass (25,40 x 22,23 mm)

y = 8.0371x + 3.2211R2 = 0.8991

1.003.005.007.009.00

11.0013.0015.00

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500Specific Energy, kWh/ton

Trass (22,23 x 19,00 mm)

y = 3.8334x + 7.0427R2 = 0.9577

1.00

6.00

11.00

16.00

21.00


Trass (19,00 x 12,70 mm)

y = 8.9814x + 1.1283R2 = 0.9996

1.002.003.004.005.006.007.00


Trass (12,70 x 9,53 mm)

y = 5.3827x + 1.8936R2 = 0.9695

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00


Trass (9,53 x 6,35 mm)

y = 2.833x + 3.3583R2 = 0.9972

1.003.005.007.009.00

11.0013.0015.00


Figure 22. Reduction ratio as a function of specific grinding energy for trass samples.

Naturally energy utilization is defined as the ratio of new surfaces created to energy invested, either on a unit volume or a mass basis. This definition can be related to a similarity law of comminution and reformulated in terms of the median size (X50) of the self-similar size distributions of the ground product. The resulting energy-size reduction ratio relationship is definitely more convenient than the energy-surface area relationship for analysis of the experimental data. As a result of this, single particle breakage data of cement raw material under impact force confirmed the similarity law means that the X50 values can be used to evaluate the energy utilization in terms of size reduction.

62

4.2. Breakage Rate Function Breakage Rate Functions of test samples were determined by using

first- order grinding hypothesis. In order to apply the hypothesis, batch tests at grinding times of 0.25, 0.50, 1, 1.50, 2, 3, 4 and 8 min. for Clinker; 0.17, 0.50, 1, 1.50, 2, 3, 4 and 8 min. for Trass and 0.08, 0.17, 0.50, 1, 2, 4 and 8 min. for granulated Blast Furnace Slag sample were performed in a Bond ball mill assumed to be a perfectly mixed container which was fed with certain amount (weight of compacted 700 cm3 volume) of monosized feed (1680x1200 µm). Operating condition of standard Bond test was satisfied while performing the experiments. Breakage Rate Functions, ik for the top size of each sample were obtained from a semi-log plot of the fraction of original feed remaining vs. time represented by Equation 25. In Figures 23, 24 and 25, it was seen that except blast furnace slag sample the first-order grinding kinetics was achieved. The slope of each line on graph of Clinker and Trass were directly accepted as ( )min11k values for each sample.

Figure 23. First-order mono-sized (1680x1200 µm) feed breakage rate plot for Clinker.

In order to understand the reasons of non-linearity in granulated blast furnace slag case, 2k and 3k were also obtained by repeating the same procedure for two smaller mono-sized feeds (1200 x 850 µm and 850 x 600 µm).

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 2 4 6 8Time (minutes)

Mas

s Fr

actio

n of

feed

rem

aini

ng

ker,1 clink

(1680x1200 µm)

63

Figure 24. First-order mono-sized feed (1680x1200 µm) breakage rate plot for Trass. Figure 25. First-order mono-sized feed (1680x1200 µm) breakage rate plot for Blast

Furnace Slag.

It was seen from the results of the experiments that the first-order grinding kinetics was satisfied in both cases (Figure 26). It can be said that the weaker formations around the slag particles at top size due to sudden cooling resulted in non-linear grinding characteristic. After eliminating them in a few minutes, the real grinding path of blast furnace slag sample was created.

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1


Mas

s Fr

actio

n of

feed

rem

aini

ng

trassk ,1

(1680x1200 µm)

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1


Mas

s Fr

actio

n of

feed

rem

aini

ng

( )1,1 slagk ( )2,1 slagk

(1680x1200 µm)

64

Figure 26. First-order mono-sized feed (1200x850 µm and 850x600 µm) breakage rate plots

for Blast Furnace Slag.

Therefore, )2(,1 slagk can be accepted as breakage rate value at top size for granulated blast furnace slag sample. The fact of comminution was also confirmed by making these additional tests on slag sample in that the particles become more resistant against breakage or grinding when they ground to smaller sizes. ik values or namely breakage rate functions of each sample were given as follows: • Clinker: 84.0ker,1 =clink • Trass: 36.1,1 =trassk • Blast Furnace Slag: ( ) 36.31,1 =slagk , 73.0)2(,1 =slagk , 69.0,2 =slagk ,

53.0,3 =slagk

The linear breakage rate plots, however, do not extend back to the ordinate value of one at zero grinding time. This has been quite frequently observed and commented by earlier studies [Venkataraman K.S., Fuerstenau D.W., 1984], and explained by imperfections and attrition of the feed material in sieving.

4.3. Breakage Distribution Function As it is mentioned before a complete matrix of jiB , values is required for complete characterization of all breakage action and they are determined from the size distributions at short ginding times where there is mainly size 1 material breaking and only small amounts of smaller sizes to rebreak. The

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1


Mas

s fra

ctio

n re

mai

ning

0.001

0.01

0.1

1


Mas

s fra

ctio

n re

mai

ning

(1200x850 µm) (850x600 µm)

slagk ,2 slagk ,3

65

smaller the amount of material broken out of size 1, the more accurate are the jiB , estimates. In order to accomplish this situation, the kinetic test made at

shortest grinding time was selected for each sample to estimate the parameters of jiB , values accurately as it was indicated in Equation 27: Figure 27. Direct determination of breakage distribution parameters from monosize feed

short time grinding data

Then, the parameters were directly determined from the curves plotted cumulative breakage function, 1,iB against normalized size, 1−ji xx by using shortest grinding time data for each sample as it is shown in Figure 27. The

1,iB values were calculated by using the Austin`s BII method defined by the following equation:

( )( ) ( )( )[ ]( )( ) ( )( )[ ] 1,

1/01log1/01log

221, ≥

−−−−

= itPPtPP

B iii (44)

The resulting cumulative breakage function equations can be written as follows:

• ( ) ( ) ( ) 6.51

81.01, 66.034.0ker −− += jijiji xxxxClinB (45)

• ( ) ( ) 8.51

78.01, 61.039.0)( −− += jijiji xxxxTrassB (46)

• ( ) ( ) ( ) 2.61

01.11, 81.019.0 −− += jijiji xxxxSlagB (47)

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.01 0.1 1Dimensionless Size, xi/xj+1

Cum

ulat

ive

Bre

akag

e Pa

ram

eter

s, B

i,j

TrassClinkerSlag

19.034.0

39.0

ker

==

=

slag

clin

trass

φφφ

78.0=trassα

81.0ker =clinα

01.1=slagα

1−ji xx

20.680.5

60.5

ker

==

=

slag

clin

trass

βββ

66

In addition, the normalization of jiB , values is also important for proper

estimation of the breakage distribution functions. Therefore, single particle breakage and kinetic tests performed for different feed size ranges were analyzed to understand whether the jiB , values of each test sample are normalizable or not. Single particle breakage test results were used to indicate the normalization of clinker and trass sample (Figure 28). On the other hand, blast furnace slag sample`s normalization was indicated by using results of the kinetic experiments performing at different feed size ranges (Figure 29). Here, the line representing the top size of blast furnace slag sample (1680 x 1200 µm) does not follow same grinding pattern with the other sizes because slag sample at top size has abnormal breakage behaviour as mentioned in previous chapter.

Figure 28. Normalization of jiB , values of Clinker and Trass sample. After again plotting the cumulative breakage functions, jiB , against

normalized size, 1−ji xx for different feed sizes; it was very easy to say the test samples are non-normalizable (Figure 28 and 29). Therefore, degree of non-normalization should also be estimated for each test sample by calculating the additional parameter δ defined by Equation 28 in order to get more accurate jiB , values. The additional parameter, δ was simply determined for each of the test sample by plotting curve between intercept, φ and mean size of the feed material, 50x . The slope of the curves directly gives the value of parameter, δ (Figure 30).

0.01

0.1

1

0.001 0.01 0.1 1Dimensionless Size, xi/xj-1

Cum

ulat

ive

Bre

akag

e Pa

ram

eter

s,Bi,1

(57.15x44.45 mm)(44.45x31.75 mm)(31.75x25.40 mm)(25.40x22.23 mm)(22.23x19.00 mm) 0.01

0.1

1

0.001 0.01 0.1 1Dimensionless Size, xi/xj-1

Cum

ulat

ive

Bre

akag

e Pa

ram

eter

s,Bi,1

(57.15x44.45 mm)(44.45x31.75 mm)(31.75x25.40 mm)(25.40x22.23 mm)(22.23x19.00 mm)

67

Figure 29. Normalization of jiB , values of granulated Blast Furnace Slag sample.

The parameter, δ representing the degree of non-normalizability for each of the test samples were found to be as shown in Figure 30 (slope of the line). Then, the values of jφ became variable for all breaking sizes of test samples according to the substitution of δ to the Equation 28.

Figure 30. Intercept of breakage distribution functions vs. dimensionless size plots, φ as a function of mean size being broken.

Consequently, it can be said that the jiB , values of clinker, trass and

blast furnace slag samples were non-normalizable dimensionally. It means that Equation 41, 42 and 43 can be used to determine the jiB , values in accuracy after calculating different jφ values for each of the breaking sizes of test samples with the substitution of parameter δ to Equation 28.

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.01 0.1 1Dimensionless Size, xi/xj-1

Cum

ulat

ive

Bre

akag

e Pa

ram

eter

s, B

i,1

(16 80 x12 00 mic.)(12 00 x85 0 mic.)(85 0x6 00 mic.)

y = -0,2802x + 0,61R2 = 0,9884

-0,74-0,72

-0,7-0,68

-0,66-0,64

-0,62-0,6

4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8Top size of feed size interval, micron

Inte

rcep

t

y = -0,4551x + 0,8122R2 = 0,9973

-0,7

-0,65

-0,6

-0,55

-0,5

2,9 3 3,1 3,2 3,3Top size of feed interval, micron

inte

rcep

t

y = -0,1554x + 0,2947R2 = 0,9853

-0,45

-0,44-0,43

-0,42

-0,41

-0,4-0,39

-0,38

4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8Top size of feed interval, micron

inte

rcep

t

68

4.4. Laboratory Ball Mill Test

Dry grinding of minus 3350 µm natural size samples of cement clinker, trass and blast furnace slag which are common constituent of composite cements, were conducted in a standard Bond ball mill (30.5cm x 30.5cm) without lifters. In each case, the mill was charged with 700 cm3 (packed volume) of the feed material. Bond grindability tests were performed with minus 3350 µm feed material and a circuit-closing sieve of 75 µm aperture by following a standard procedural outline described previously. In addition to the standard procedure, a complete size analysis of the mill contents was performed at the end of each cycle of the Bond test. All of the sizings were carried out by careful two-step dry sieving. First, the material was sieved by a mechanical shaker for 15 minutes, and this step was followed by hand sieving of the material retained on each sieve in the set until no significant amount of undersize was recovered.

Figures 31, 32 and 33 illustrate the evolution of size distribution of the mill

contents at the end of each cycle in standard Bond grindability tests of clinker, trass and blast furnace slag, respectively. The size distribution curves are positioned very close to their equilibrium forms after three locked cycles of the test.

Figure 31. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the clinker sample.

1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% U

nder

size

FEED1st. SET2nd. SET3rd. SET4th. SET5th. SET6th. SET7th. SET8th. SET9th. SET10th. SET

69

Figure 32. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the trass sample.

Figure 33. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the blast furnace slag sample.

Same procedure was also applied to the mixture of these three test samples in mentioned ratios: • 65% Clinker + 25% Trass + 10% Blast Furnace Slag • 65% Clinker + 35% Trass • 65% Clinker + 35% Blast Furnace Slag

1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% U

nder

size


1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000Size (mm)

Cum

ulat

ive

% U

nder

size


70

The evolution of product size distribution of the mixtures illustrated in Figure 34, 35 and 36 gave approximately same characteristics with the pure test samples.

Figure 34. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the 65%Clinker+25%Trass+ 10%Blast Furnace Slag sample.

Figure 35. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the 65%Clinker+35%Trass sample.

1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% p

assi

ng

FEED1st. SET2nd. SET3rd. SET4th. SET5th. SET

1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% p

assi

ng


71

The size distribution curves were also positioned very close to their equilibrium forms after three locked cycles of the test.

Figure 36. Evolution of product size distribution in the Bond test of the 65%Clinker+35%Blast Furnace Slag sample.

Although standard Bond test was not performed for estimation of work

index values of each test sample and mixtures of these, the work index values representing the grindability characteristics of materials are given in Table 9 in order to explain the behaviour of samples against comminution much better.

Table 9. Bond Work Indices and parameters of Clinker, Trass, Blast Furnace Slag and three

mixtures of these test samples.

Clinker Trass Slag 65C+25T+10S 65C+35T 65C+35S Wi (kWh/t) 15.25 14.15 21.25 14.06 14.60 17.24

Gpb (net gr./rev.) 1.034 1.1177 0.7740 1.1081 1.029 0.8989

F80 (µm) 1877.08 2145.37 1118.01 2304.43 2376.25 2064.38

P80 (µm) 60.16 61.17 63.38 60.42 58.44 62.61

P1 (µm) 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00

1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% p

assi

ng

FEED1tSET2dSETd1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000Size (micron)

Cum

ulat

ive

% p

assi

ng


72

4.5. Variation of Breakage Rate Parameters This section of the study addresses the variation of the back-calculated

breakage rate parameters through cycles of the standard Bond grindability test as well as during monosize-feed batch grinding at varying times by using constant breakage distribution parameters obtained from short-time grinding data. A cumulative-basis batch grinding kinetic model is used to back-calculate the rate parameters from grinding experiments performed in the Bond mill with its standard minus 3350 µm feed and also monosize feed. Attempts are made to use back-calculated rate parameters to simulate the Bond grindability test, and its shortcomings are discussed. Since the blast furnace slag has non-linear breakage character it was not used in this work.

Appendix 1 presents the cumulative particle size distributions generated by

dry grinding the monosize clinker and trass samples, respectively, for different grind times. Size distributions obtained with the shortest grinding time for each test sample (0.25 and 0.17 min., respectively) were used for direct determination of the breakage distribution parameters of the clinker and trass samples, as graphically shown in Figure 8. Graphical evaluation of the parameters from the figure indicates that clinker and trass have quite similar breakage distribution parameters for the 1680x1200 µm monosize feed, which were used as constant values for the back-calculation of the rate parameters of the Bond test cycles. Figure 23 and 24 verified the validity of first-order disappearance kinetics for the two monosize samples, and that the breakage rate is time-independent, at least for the time range studied. The slope of the linear disappearance plot is the breakage rate for the monosize feed. Clearly, the breakage rate (1.36 min-1) of 1680-by-1200 µm trass is significantly higher than that of clinker (0.84 min-1).

Next, the breakage rate parameters (sn, z1, and z2) were back-calculated by

using Equation 21 from the experimental product size data of the monosize feed while keeping the breakage distribution parameters (Φ, γ, β) fixed at their directly-determined values shown in Figure 27. The back-calculation scheme was applied to each experimental product size data obtained at a single grinding time to check the variation of the parameters with time, and also to the whole data set of various grind times to evaluate the lumped values of the parameters. The data

73

at the shortest grinding time, from which the distribution parameters were directly determined, were not included in the back-calculation scheme because such data contain little information on breakage rates of the non-feed size.

Table 10 indicates that the back-calculated rate parameter values exhibit

quite a variation with various grinds. There seems to be no single set of parameters to represent all of the product-size distributions that are produced at various grinding times.

Table 10. Back-calculated breakage rate parameters (sn, z1, z2) from monosize feed grinding.

Grinding time, minutes 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 From all grinds

s1 1.231 1.045 0.885 0.999 0.836 0.973 1.295 z1 0.323 0.062 -0.276 0.322 0.262 0.514 1.238

Clinker

z2 0.038 -0.160 -0.372 -0.048 -0.049 -0.018 0.210 s1 1.696 1.478 1.418 1.508 1.363 2.083 2.003 z1 -0.478 0.149 0.305 0.604 0.279 1.003 1.210

Trass

z2 -0.418 -0.156 -0.145 0.013 -0.168 0.028 0.146 The back-calculated values of the top-size-interval (1680x1200 µm) breakage rates, s1, of clinker and trass test samples are considerably higher than their directly-determined values (0.84 and 1.36 min-1, respectively). The parameter z2 is said to have always a negative value so as to give a maximum in the plot of breakage rate versus particle size. The z2 parameter back-calculated by using the combined set of data from all grinds, however, has positive value for both of the test samples, forcing the plots to have a minimum at the finer end of the particle size axis as depicted in Figure 37.

In the absence of replicate experiments and sensitivity analysis on the parameters, it is not possible to make a complete statistical analysis, but it is evident that we observe variations in breakage rates depending on size distribution within the mill and that the lumped values of rate parameters may not be representative of the whole grinding path of a mineral.

74

Figure 37. Breakage rate versus particle size curves with different sets of parameter values. Consistent with the results of the monosize experiments, we should expect

variations in the breakage rate parameters as the particle size distribution undergoes an evolution through the initial cycles of the Bond test. Table 11 presents the back-calculated rate parameters for each cycle in the Bond tests. Feed to each cycle is the reconstituted feed consisting of the test-sieve oversize from the previous cycle and the original –6 mesh fresh feed to make up for the finished product. Again the rate parameters exhibit variations especially through the initial cycles and begin to stabilize towards the closure of the Bond tests, where the size distributions also stabilize in the mill. A definite pattern cannot be deduced for the variation of the parameters except for the s1 parameter of the trass sample, which indicates rate acceleration through the cycles. Implication of such variations in the parameters is that computer simulations of the Bond test may not show any agreement with the standard experimental procedure unless the variation trend is defined for a material, which may require more efforts than the standard test itself.

0.1

1

10

0.01 0.1 1 10Particle size (mm)

Bre

akag

e R

ate

(1/m

in)

ClinkerClinkerTrassTrass

s1 z1 z2 o Clinker 1.295 1.238 0.210 + Clinker 1.045 0.062 - 0.160 • Trass 2.003 1.210 0.146 x Trass 1.419 0.305 - 0.145

75

Table 11. Back-calculated breakage rate parameters for the Bond test cycles.

Bond test cycles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

s1 0.869 0.689 0.866 0.961 0.777 0.810 0.784 z1 -1.138 -0.481 -0.181 0.106 -0.398 -0.575 -0.593

Clinker

z2 -0.458 -0.270 -0.207 -0.159 -0.255 -0.312 -0.312 s1 1.076 1.089 1.297 1.311 1.442 - - z1 -0.411 -1.546 -1.005 -0.702 -0.784 - -

Trass

z2 -0.296 -0.743 -0.579 -0.472 -0.511 - -

In order toto check if we can compute simulated work index values close enough to the experimental ones despite the observed variations in the rate parameters. The practical incentive for computer simulation of the Bond grindability test is obviously to shorten the lengthy standard procedure and to perform no more than two or three experiments. Direct determination of the breakage distribution parameters is possible with a single short-time grinding of a monosize feed. Therefore, we are to determine a representative set of breakge rate parameters, if there is any, with one or two additional tests using monosize or natural size feeds.

Table 12 presents a comparison of the experimental and simulated

grindability test results. The first and second simulation schemes shown in the table were performed with the rate parameters back-calculated from 3-minute and 4-minute grind data of –1.68+1.20mm monosize feeds, respectively. The third simulation scheme was run with the back-calculated parameters from the first cycle of the Bond test. The calculated work index values and the number of mill revolutions to reach steady-state grinding in any of the simulation schemes are significantly different than the experimental findings. It is clear that the back-calculated rate parameters depend on the shape of the mill hold-up size distribution through the Bond test cycles, and, without a prior knowledge of the parameter variation pattern, it is not likely to simulate the Bond test to obtain reliable approximations for the work index.

The breakage rate parameters back-calculated from the grinding of monosize or natural size feeds in the Bond ball mill exhibit variations depending on the grinding time or the feed size distribution. These variations are critical in computer simulation of the Bond grindability test aimed at minimizing the experimental efforts of the standard procedure. A single set of rate parameters,

76

which can be obtained from one or two cycles of the Bond test, may not apply for the whole series of the cycles, leading to incorrect simulated work index values.

Table 12. Experimental and simulated grindability test results.

Work index kWh/ton

P80 (µm) of the last cycle u’size

Grams/rev. at test closure

No. of mill revs. at test closure

Clinker Experimental 15.5 60 1.03 305

Simulated* (1) 13.8 63 1.32 232 (2) 14.5 63 1.26 244 (3) 16.2 66 1.13 270

Trass Experimental 14.4 61 1.12 240

Simulated* (1) 22.9 65 0.74 369 (2) 13.5 64 1.38 196 (3) 17.2 65 1.04 260

Although no common pattern was seen for the variation of the rate parameters with the two materials tested in this study, predicting how the rate parameters should depend on the feed size distribution requires further extensive investigations with different materials.

77

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS • A back-calculation procedure was applied to obtain ii dk parameters of

perfect mixing ball mill model by using a set of curves describing the size distribution of clinker and trass particles from single particle breakage events at different energy inputs. Possibility of obtaining grinding rate variation of a given ball mill from the back-calculation method enables process engineers to determine the particle size distribution of the mill product.

• The size distributions of the ground products of the clinker and trass samples

were found to be invariably self-similar when particles were comminuted under impact force by means of the drop-weight tester.

• Energy expended during comminution of clinker and trass was defined in

terms of the median size of the self-similar size distributions of each sample. Since the resulting energy-size reduction ratio relationship is definitely more convenient than the energy-surface area relationship for the analysis of experimental or plant data, the parameter of 50X confirmed as a meaningful one-parameter measure of the fineness for cement components, can easily be used instead of surface area measurement to determine the quality of cement.

• Since median size, 50X was found to be a consistent and meaningful measure

of the product fineness, its variation with grinding energy provides an accurate indication of the energy utilization in the process. It was shown that a reduction ratio index for narrow sized feeds, defined as the ratio of feed size to

78

product median size, increased approximately linearly with energy input. The slope of the linear plot directly gave the inherent grindability of cement components. However, this grindability is by no means absolute because the inherent grindability is dependent of feed size.

• Except blast furnace slag sample, the breakage rate functions of cement

components were found to be time independent. However, the first-order grinding kinetics was satisfied after applying the same procedure to smaller feed sizes for the blast furnace slag sample. Therefore, this phenomenon can be the result of weaker formations around the slag particles due to sudden cooling.

• The breakage distribution functions were found to be non-normalizable for

each of the cement components. • Back-calculated breakage rate parameters from the grinding of monosize or

natural size feeds in the Bond ball mill exhibit variations depending on the grinding time or the feed size distribution. These variations are critical in computer simulation of the Bond grindability test aimed at minimizing the experimental efforts of the standard procedure. A single set of rate parameters, which can be obtained from one or two cycles of the Bond test, may not apply for the whole series of the cycles, leading to incorrect simulated work index values. Although no common pattern was seen for the variation of the rate parameters with the two materials tested in this study, predicting how the rate parameters should depend on the feed size distribution requires further extensive investigations with different materials.

79

REFERENCES 1. Andrew L. M. and Gerald V. J., Design and Installation of Comminution

Circuits, Society of Mining Engineers, 1982.

2. Austin L. G.; Klimpel, R. R., The Theory of Grinding, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol.56, No.11, November 1964, pp. 18- 29.

3. Austin L. G., Klimpel R. R. and Luckie P. T., Process Engineering of Size Reduction: Ball Milling, Society of Mining Engineers, 1984.

4. Austin L. G. and Shah I., A method for inter-conversion of microtrac and sieve size distributions, Powder Technology, Vol. 35, 1983, pp. 271-278.

5. Awachie, S. E. A., Development of crusher models using laboratory breakage data, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, 1983.

6. Bapat J. D., Manufacturing blended cements for better performance, ZKG International, 1998, Vol. 12, pp. 702-706.

7. Bond, F.C. and Maxson, W.L., Standard Grindability Tests and Calculations, Transactions AIME, Vol.153, 1943, pp. 362- 3729.

8. Bond, F.C., Standard Grindability Tests Tabulated, Transactions AIME, Vol.183, 1947, pp. 313- 329.

9. Charles, R.J., Energy- Size Relationships in Comminution, Mining Engineering, Transactions AIME, January 1957, pp. 80- 88.

10. Das, P. K., Khan, A. A. and Pitchumani, B., Solution of the batch grinding equation. Powder Technol., 1995, 85, pp. 189-192.

11. Das, P.K., Use of cumulative size distribution to back-calculate the breakage parameters in batch grinding. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 2001, 25, 1235-1239.

80

12. Epstein, B., The material description of certain breakage mechanisms leading to the logarithmic- normal distributions, Franklin Institute, 1947, pp.244-471.

13. Fuerstenau D. W. and Kapur P. C., Newer energy efficient approach to particle production by comminution, Powder Technology, 1995, Vol. 82, pp. 51-57.

14. Gutsche O., Kapur P. C. and Fuerstenau D. W., Comminution of single particles in a rigidly-mounted roll mill. Part 2: Product size distribution and energy utilization, Powder Technology, 1993, Vol. 76, pp. 263-270.

15. Herbst, J.A. and Fuerstenau, D.W., The Zero-Order Production of Fines Sizes in Comminution and Its Implications in Simulation, Society of Mining Engineers, Transactions AIME, Vol.241, December 1968, pp. 538- 548.

16. Kapur P. C., Pande D. and Fuerstenau D. W., Analysis of single particle breakage by impact grinding, Int. Journal of Mineral Processing, 1997, Vol. 49, pp. 223-236.

17. Kavetsky A. and Whiten W. J., Scale up relations for industrial ball mills, Proceedings AusIMM, 1982, 282, pp. 47-55.

18. Kelly, E.G; Spottiswood, D.J., The Breakage Fuction; What is it really?, Minerals Engineering, Vol.3, No.5, 1990, pp. 405- 414.

19. Lynch A. J., Mineral Crushing and Grinding Circuits: their simulation, optimization, design and control, Elsevier, pp. 340.

20. McIntyre, A. and Plitt, L.R., The Interrelationship Between Bond and Hardgrove Grindabilities, CIM Bulletin, June 1980, pp. 149- 155.

21. Mineral Commodity Summaries, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 1993.

22. Mishra B. K. and Rajamani R. K., Analysis of media motion in industrial mills. Comminution: Theory and Practice, Ed: Kawatra, 1992, pp. 427-440Whiten W. J., Ball mill simulation using small calculators, Proceedings AusIMM,1976, 258, pp. 47-53.

23. Narayanan S. S. and Whiten W. J., Determination of comminution characteristics from single particle breakage tests and its application to ball mill, Trans. Instn. Min. Metall., 97, 1988, pp. C115-C124.

81

24. Narayanan S. S., Development of a laboratory single particle breakage technique and its application to ball mill modeling and scale up, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, 1985.

25. NMAB, “Comminution and energy consumption” report of the National Material Advisory Board of the National Research Council,1981.

26. Prasher C.L., Crushing and Grinding Handbook, John Wiley& Sons Limited, 1987.

27. Rajamani, R. K. and Herbst, J. A., Simultaneous estimation of selection and breakage rate functions from batch and continuous grinding data. Trans. Instn. Min. Metall., 1984, Vol.93, pp. C74-C85.

28. Schmidt, M., Cement with Interground Additives, ZKG, Vol.2, 1992, pp. 64-69.

29. Tavares L. M. and King R. P., Single particle fracture under impact loading, Int. Journal of Mineral Processing, 1988, Vol. 54, pp. 1-28.

30. Whiten W. J., Ball mill simulation using small calculators, Proceedings AusIMM, 1976, 258, pp.47-53.

31. Wills B.A., Mineral Processing Technology, International Series on Materials Science and Technology, 1985.

32. Venkataraman, K.S. and Fuerstenau, D.W., Application of the population balance model to the grinding of mixtures of minerals. Powder Technology, 1984, Vol. 39, 133-142.

33. Zhang Y. M., Napier- Munn and Kavetsky, Application of comminution and classification modeling to grinding of cement clinker, 1988, Trans. Instn. Min. Metall., pp. C207-C214.

82

A. Single Particle Breakage Tests’ Data Table 13. S.P.B. Test results of Clinker and Trass (57.15x44.45) at energy level of 12.5 cm.

CLINKER (- 57.15 + 44.45 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 12.5 cm Initial Weight: 2889.25 gr Final Weight: 2887.63 gr Number of Particles Tested: 20 Energy Level per ton of Clinker: 0.047 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%)

25.40 1564.37 54.17 45.83 2 25.2 45.30 12.70 957.92 33.17 12.65 4 12.6 12.53 6.35 228.62 7.92 4.73 10 5.04 3.95 2.40 68.07 2.36 2.38 25 2.02 2.15 1.20 21.11 0.73 1.65 50 1.01 1.50 0.85 7.65 0.26 1.38 75 0.67 1.23 0.60 6.08 0.21 1.17 100 0.51 1.07 0.42 5.88 0.20 0.97 150 0.34 0.86 0.21 8.16 0.28 0.68 200 0.25 0.74

19.77 0.68 TOTAL 2887.63 100.00

TRASS (- 57.15 + 44.45 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 12.5 cm Initial Weight: 2964.15 gr Final Weight: 2962.77 gr Number of Particles Tested: 20 Energy Level per ton of Trass: 0.046 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%)

25.40 2244.91 75.77 24.23 2 25.2 24.03 12.70 381.27 12.87 11.36 4 12.6 11.29 6.35 141.64 4.78 6.58 10 5.04 5.62 2.40 85.99 2.90 3.68 25 2.02 3.31 1.20 34.28 1.16 2.52 50 1.01 2.29 0.85 12.79 0.43 2.09 75 0.67 1.84 0.60 10.18 0.34 1.75 100 0.51 1.58 0.42 9.82 0.33 1.41 150 0.34 1.23 0.21 14.40 0.49 0.93 200 0.25 1.02

27.49 0.93 TOTAL 2962.77 100.00

83

Table 14. S.P.B. Test results of Clinker and Trass (57.15x44.45) at energy level of 25 cm.

CLINKER (- 57.15 + 44.45 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 25 cm Initial Weight: 3388.86 gr Final Weight: 3387.58 gr Number of Particles Tested: 20 Energy Level per ton of Clinker: 0.080 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%)

25.40 1513.10 44.67 55.33 2 25.2 54.72 12.70 1311.79 38.72 16.61 4 12.6 16.46 6.35 316.31 9.34 7.27 10 5.04 6.05 2.40 125.30 3.70 3.57 25 2.02 3.17 1.20 43.15 1.27 2.30 50 1.01 2.06 0.85 14.71 0.43 1.87 75 0.67 1.63 0.60 10.96 0.32 1.54 100 0.51 1.39 0.42 10.01 0.30 1.25 150 0.34 1.10 0.21 12.93 0.38 0.87 200 0.25 0.94

29.32 0.87 TOTAL 3387.58 100.00

TRASS (- 57.15 + 44.45 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 25 cm Initial Weight: 2874.67 gr Final Weight: 2872.65 gr Number of Particles Tested: 20 Energy Level per ton of Trass: 0.095 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%)

25.40 1190.94 41.46 58.54 2 25.2 58.09 12.70 825.12 28.72 29.82 4 12.6 29.60 6.35 396.65 13.81 16.01 10 5.04 13.66 2.40 204.04 7.10 8.91 25 2.02 7.98 1.20 84.65 2.95 5.96 50 1.01 5.39 0.85 29.99 1.04 4.92 75 0.67 4.31 0.60 24.12 0.84 4.08 100 0.51 3.68 0.42 22.74 0.79 3.29 150 0.34 2.86 0.21 31.84 1.11 2.18 200 0.25 2.39

62.56 2.18 TOTAL 2872.65 100.00

84

Table 15. S.P.B. Test results of Clinker and Trass (57.15x44.45) at energy level of 37.5 cm.

CLINKER (- 57.15 + 44.45 mm)


25.40 1365.15 38.44 61.56 2 25.2 60.93 12.70 1425.64 40.15 21.41 4 12.6 21.22 6.35 433.02 12.19 9.22 10 5.04 7.72 2.40 159.89 4.50 4.72 25 2.02 4.19 1.20 59.15 1.67 3.05 50 1.01 2.74 0.85 20.31 0.57 2.48 75 0.67 2.15 0.60 16.04 0.45 2.03 100 0.51 1.82 0.42 14.69 0.41 1.61 150 0.34 1.41 0.21 18.77 0.53 1.08 200 0.25 1.18

38.50 1.08 TOTAL 3551.16 100.00

TRASS (- 57.15 + 44.45 mm)


25.40 889.53 31.53 68.47 2 25.2 67.93 12.70 955.80 33.88 34.59 4 12.6 34.35 6.35 414.02 14.68 19.91 10 5.04 17.17 2.40 233.29 8.27 11.64 25 2.02 10.45 1.20 106.27 3.77 7.87 50 1.01 7.14 0.85 38.30 1.36 6.51 75 0.67 5.73 0.60 30.86 1.09 5.42 100 0.51 4.90 0.42 29.65 1.05 4.37 150 0.34 3.81 0.21 41.66 1.48 2.89 200 0.25 3.17

81.61 2.89 TOTAL 2820.99 100.00

85

Table 16. S.P.B. Test results of Clinker and Trass(57.15x44.45) at energy level of 50cm.

CLINKER (- 57.15 + 44.45 mm)


25.40 1376.34 33.93 66.07 2 25.2 65.40 12.70 1726.29 42.56 23.51 4 12.6 23.33 6.35 466.74 11.51 12.01 10 5.04 10.13 2.40 229.32 5.65 6.35 25 2.02 5.70 1.20 83.97 2.07 4.28 50 1.01 3.88 0.85 30.13 0.74 3.54 75 0.67 3.11 0.60 24.31 0.60 2.94 100 0.51 2.65 0.42 23.66 0.58 2.36 150 0.34 2.06 0.21 32.09 0.79 1.57 200 0.25 1.72

63.54 1.57 TOTAL 4056.39 100.00

TRASS (- 57.15 + 44.45 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 50 cm Initial Weight: 3193.82 gr Final Weight: 3191.34 gr Number of Particles Tested: 20 Energy Level per ton of Trass: 0.171 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% n y/n(mm) tn(%)

25.40 744.69 23.33 76.67 2 25.2 76.10 12.70 1140.69 35.74 40.92 4 12.6 40.66 6.35 532.84 16.70 24.23 10 5.04 20.76 2.40 333.17 10.44 13.79 25 2.02 12.35 1.20 144.37 4.52 9.26 50 1.01 8.36 0.85 53.31 1.67 7.59 75 0.67 6.64 0.60 42.00 1.32 6.28 100 0.51 5.64 0.42 40.41 1.27 5.01 150 0.34 4.34 0.21 55.69 1.75 3.26 200 0.25 3.60

104.17 3.26 TOTAL 3191.34 100.00

86


CLINKER (- 44.45 + 31.75 mm)


19.00 962.79 48.11 51.89 2 18.79 51.13 9.53 681.72 34.07 17.82 4 9.39 17.55 3.35 235.89 11.79 6.03 10 3.76 6.81 1.68 42.69 2.13 3.90 25 1.50 3.63 0.85 24.61 1.23 2.67 50 0.75 2.50 0.60 8.34 0.42 2.25 75 0.50 2.00 0.42 8.89 0.44 1.81 100 0.38 1.74 0.30 3.88 0.19 1.61 150 0.25 1.42 0.21 7.01 0.35 1.26 200 0.19 1.18

25.27 1.26 TOTAL 2001.09 100.00

TRASS Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 12.5 cm Initial Weight: 1793.00 gr Final Weight: 1792.57 gr Number of Particles Tested: 30 Energy Level per ton of Trass: 0.114 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%)

19.00 492.23 27.46 72.54 2 18.79 71.70 9.53 677.70 37.81 34.73 4 9.39 34.34 3.35 311.19 17.36 17.37 10 3.76 18.53 1.68 100.14 5.59 11.79 25 1.50 11.03 0.85 62.49 3.49 8.30 50 0.75 7.75 0.60 24.67 1.38 6.93 75 0.50 6.20 0.42 23.53 1.31 5.61 100 0.38 5.35 0.30 13.91 0.78 4.84 150 0.25 4.21 0.21 20.15 1.12 3.71 200 0.19 3.46

66.56 3.71 TOTAL 1792.57 100.00

87

Table 18. S.P.B. Test results of Clinker and Trass (44.45x31.75 ) at energy level of 25 cm.

CLINKER (- 44.45 + 31.75 mm)


19.00 526.76 25.72 74.28 2 18.79 73.20 9.53 1001.53 48.90 25.38 4 9.39 25.04 3.35 311.01 15.18 10.20 10 3.76 11.21 1.68 81.06 3.96 6.24 25 1.50 5.78 0.85 43.33 2.12 4.13 50 0.75 3.85 0.60 14.25 0.70 3.43 75 0.50 3.05 0.42 14.16 0.69 2.74 100 0.38 2.63 0.30 6.84 0.33 2.41 150 0.25 2.11 0.21 10.76 0.53 1.88 200 0.19 1.76

38.50 1.88 TOTAL 2048.20 100.00

TRASS (- 44.45 + 31.75 mm)


19.00 200.01 10.50 89.50 2 18.79 88.72 9.53 666.03 34.98 54.51 4 9.39 53.86 3.35 549.15 28.84 25.67 10 3.76 27.59 1.68 169.04 8.88 16.79 25 1.50 15.62 0.85 102.73 5.40 11.40 50 0.75 10.61 0.60 37.69 1.98 9.42 75 0.50 8.36 0.42 36.25 1.90 7.51 100 0.38 7.15 0.30 21.00 1.10 6.41 150 0.25 5.55 0.21 29.43 1.55 4.87 200 0.19 4.52

92.64 4.87 TOTAL 1903.97 100.00


88

CLINKER (- 44.45 + 31.75 mm)


19.00 243.84 11.47 88.53 2 18.79 87.39 9.53 1089.70 51.26 37.26 4 9.39 36.72 3.35 506.97 23.85 13.41 10 3.76 15.00 1.68 108.12 5.09 8.33 25 1.50 7.71 0.85 60.59 2.85 5.48 50 0.75 5.08 0.60 20.92 0.98 4.49 75 0.50 3.99 0.42 19.29 0.91 3.58 100 0.38 3.43 0.30 9.94 0.47 3.12 150 0.25 2.74 0.21 14.31 0.67 2.44 200 0.19 2.29

51.95 2.44 TOTAL 2125.63 100.00

TRASS (- 44.45 + 31.75 mm)


19.00 56.89 2.94 97.06 2 18.79 96.42 9.53 562.41 29.03 68.03 4 9.39 67.25 3.35 669.33 34.55 33.48 10 3.76 35.77 1.68 224.54 11.59 21.89 25 1.50 20.32 0.85 140.47 7.25 14.64 50 0.75 13.59 0.60 50.99 2.63 12.01 75 0.50 10.64 0.42 47.71 2.46 9.54 100 0.38 9.04 0.30 29.03 1.50 8.05 150 0.25 7.00 0.21 36.47 1.88 6.16 200 0.19 5.75

119.40 6.16 TOTAL 1937.24 100.00


89

CLINKER (- 44.45 + 31.75 mm)


19.00 203.72 8.78 91.22 2 18.79 90.23 9.53 1035.14 44.62 46.60 4 9.39 45.94 3.35 680.35 29.33 17.27 10 3.76 19.22 1.68 147.14 6.34 10.93 25 1.50 10.14 0.85 84.75 3.65 7.28 50 0.75 6.77 0.60 29.60 1.28 6.00 75 0.50 5.30 0.42 29.20 1.26 4.74 100 0.38 4.52 0.30 15.76 0.68 4.07 150 0.25 3.55 0.21 21.66 0.93 3.13 200 0.19 2.92

72.66 3.13 TOTAL 2319.98 100.00

TRASS (- 44.45 + 31.75 mm)


19.00 54.19 2.54 97.46 2 18.79 96.92 9.53 522.89 24.49 72.97 4 9.39 72.17 3.35 752.01 35.23 37.74 10 3.76 40.08 1.68 282.34 13.23 24.52 25 1.50 22.89 0.85 160.05 7.50 17.02 50 0.75 15.79 0.60 65.29 3.06 13.96 75 0.50 12.30 0.42 63.90 2.99 10.97 100 0.38 10.29 0.30 43.51 2.04 8.93 150 0.25 7.58 0.21 51.92 2.43 6.50 200 0.19 5.96

138.68 6.50 TOTAL 2134.78 100.00


90

CLINKER (- 31.75+ 25.40 mm)


12.70 822.34 50.76 49.24 2 14.20 61.33 6.35 527.12 32.54 16.71 4 7.10 20.55 2.40 142.08 8.77 7.94 10 2.84 8.91 1.20 46.90 2.89 5.04 25 1.14 4.87 0.60 27.05 1.67 3.37 50 0.57 3.26 0.42 10.48 0.65 2.72 75 0.38 2.62 0.30 5.26 0.32 2.40 100 0.28 2.29 0.21 8.13 0.50 1.90 150 0.19 1.79 0.15 5.33 0.33 1.57 200 0.14 1.51

25.42 1.57 TOTAL 1620.11 100.00

TRASS (- 31.75+ 25.40 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 12.5 cm Initial Weight: 1334.86 gr Final Weight: 1334.75 gr Number of Particles Tested: 50 Energy Level per ton of Trass: 0.255 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.%

Undersize n y/n(mm) tn(%)

12.70 169.06 12.67 87.33 2 14.20 90.35 6.35 476.24 35.68 51.65 4 7.10 55.87 2.40 327.78 24.56 27.10 10 2.84 29.83 1.20 123.18 9.23 17.87 25 1.14 17.28 0.60 78.71 5.90 11.97 50 0.57 11.56 0.42 32.64 2.45 9.53 75 0.38 9.04 0.30 19.33 1.45 8.08 100 0.28 7.66 0.21 25.22 1.89 6.19 150 0.19 5.76 0.15 17.18 1.29 4.90 200 0.14 4.69

65.41 4.90 TOTAL 1334.75 100.00


CLINKER (- 31.75+ 25.40 mm)

91


12.70 344.48 20.50 79.50 2 14.20 84.38 6.35 818.08 48.68 30.82 4 7.10 36.57 2.40 262.68 15.63 15.19 10 2.84 16.94 1.20 88.18 5.25 9.95 25 1.14 9.62 0.60 54.35 3.23 6.71 50 0.57 6.49 0.42 22.23 1.32 5.39 75 0.38 5.16 0.30 11.81 0.70 4.69 100 0.28 4.45 0.21 17.81 1.06 3.63 150 0.19 3.40 0.15 11.52 0.69 2.94 200 0.14 2.83

49.45 2.94 TOTAL 1680.59 100.00

TRASS (- 31.75+ 25.40 mm)


12.70 48.60 3.44 96.56 2 14.20 97.38 6.35 379.78 26.90 69.65 4 7.10 72.83 2.40 438.98 31.10 38.56 10 2.84 42.02 1.20 177.38 12.57 25.99 25 1.14 25.14 0.60 119.86 8.49 17.50 50 0.57 16.90 0.42 50.72 3.59 13.91 75 0.38 13.15 0.30 31.97 2.26 11.64 100 0.28 11.05 0.21 37.65 2.67 8.98 150 0.19 8.35 0.15 26.69 1.89 7.09 200 0.14 6.77

100.02 7.09 TOTAL 1411.65 100.00


CLINKER (- 31.75+ 25.40 mm)

92


12.70 99.94 5.96 94.04 2 14.20 95.46 6.35 750.32 44.77 49.27 4 7.10 54.55 2.40 439.46 26.22 23.04 10 2.84 25.97 1.20 132.79 7.92 15.12 25 1.14 14.63 0.60 82.81 4.94 10.18 50 0.57 9.84 0.42 34.13 2.04 8.14 75 0.38 7.76 0.30 19.31 1.15 6.99 100 0.28 6.65 0.21 25.93 1.55 5.44 150 0.19 5.10 0.15 17.19 1.03 4.42 200 0.14 4.25

74.06 4.42 TOTAL 1675.94 100.00

TRASS (- 31.75+ 25.40 mm)


12.70 15.10 1.06 98.94 2 14.20 99.19 6.35 310.48 21.81 77.13 4 7.10 79.71 2.40 481.80 33.84 43.29 10 2.84 47.06 1.20 196.15 13.78 29.51 25 1.14 28.56 0.60 136.13 9.56 19.95 50 0.57 19.26 0.42 58.69 4.12 15.83 75 0.38 14.99 0.30 35.75 2.51 13.32 100 0.28 12.63 0.21 44.32 3.11 10.21 150 0.19 9.47 0.15 31.42 2.21 8.00 200 0.14 7.63

113.87 8.00 TOTAL 1423.71 100.00


CLINKER (- 31.75+ 25.40 mm)

93


12.70 27.17 1.68 98.32 2 14.20 98.72 6.35 492.95 30.44 67.88 4 7.10 71.47 2.40 589.27 36.39 31.49 10 2.84 35.54 1.20 168.87 10.43 21.06 25 1.14 20.39 0.60 108.32 6.69 14.37 50 0.57 13.90 0.42 45.86 2.83 11.54 75 0.38 10.96 0.30 28.29 1.75 9.79 100 0.28 9.33 0.21 33.43 2.06 7.73 150 0.19 7.24 0.15 23.59 1.46 6.27 200 0.14 6.03

101.51 6.27 TOTAL 1619.26 100.00

TRASS (- 31.75+ 25.40 mm)


12.70 2.12 0.16 99.84 2 14.20 99.88 6.35 197.27 14.53 85.31 4 7.10 87.03 2.40 496.51 36.58 48.73 10 2.84 52.81 1.20 206.47 15.21 33.52 25 1.14 32.47 0.60 142.56 10.50 23.02 50 0.57 22.26 0.42 62.43 4.60 18.42 75 0.38 17.44 0.30 40.17 2.96 15.46 100 0.28 14.69 0.21 47.10 3.47 11.99 150 0.19 11.15 0.15 34.25 2.52 9.47 200 0.14 9.05

128.56 9.47 TOTAL 1357.44 100.00


CLINKER (- 25.40+ 22.23 mm)

94


12.70 134.12 11.61 88.39 2 11.88 81.25 6.35 639.12 55.33 33.06 4 5.94 31.08 2.40 220.19 19.06 14.00 10 2.38 13.91 0.85 78.77 6.82 7.18 25 0.95 7.62 0.42 28.28 2.45 4.74 50 0.48 5.08 0.30 7.34 0.64 4.10 75 0.32 4.21 0.21 9.97 0.86 3.24 100 0.24 3.52 0.15 6.56 0.57 2.67 150 0.16 2.76 0.11 6.23 0.54 2.13 200 0.12 2.26

24.60 2.13 TOTAL 1155.18 100.00

TRASS (- 25.40+ 22.23 mm)


12.70 1.96 0.22 99.78 2 11.88 96.26 6.35 247.71 27.31 72.47 4 5.94 68.95 2.40 307.51 33.91 38.56 10 2.38 38.33 0.85 160.51 17.70 20.86 25 0.95 22.00 0.42 65.93 7.27 13.59 50 0.48 14.61 0.30 18.52 2.04 11.55 75 0.32 11.89 0.21 25.18 2.78 8.77 100 0.24 9.70 0.15 17.31 1.91 6.87 150 0.16 7.18 0.11 15.60 1.72 5.15 200 0.12 5.58

46.66 5.15 TOTAL 906.89 100.00


CLINKER (- 25.40+ 22.23 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 25 cm

95

Initial Weight: 1139.56 gr Final Weight: 1138.34 gr Number of Particles Tested: 60 Energy Level per ton of Clinker: 0.717 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%)

12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 11.88 96.13 6.35 341.08 29.96 70.04 4 5.94 65.79 2.40 465.68 40.91 29.13 10 2.38 28.95 0.85 157.07 13.80 15.33 25 0.95 16.22 0.42 59.59 5.23 10.10 50 0.48 10.83 0.30 16.29 1.43 8.66 75 0.32 8.90 0.21 21.89 1.92 6.74 100 0.24 7.38 0.15 14.89 1.31 5.43 150 0.16 5.65 0.11 13.44 1.18 4.25 200 0.12 4.55

48.41 4.25 TOTAL 1138.34 100.00

TRASS (- 25.40+ 22.23 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 11.88 99.11 6.35 68.28 6.92 93.08 4 5.94 89.01 2.40 387.19 39.24 53.84 10 2.38 53.52 0.85 239.46 24.27 29.57 25 0.95 31.13 0.42 103.19 10.46 19.11 50 0.48 20.57 0.30 31.53 3.20 15.91 75 0.32 16.44 0.21 37.03 3.75 12.16 100 0.24 13.41 0.15 25.95 2.63 9.53 150 0.16 9.97 0.11 24.35 2.47 7.06 200 0.12 7.68

69.65 7.06 TOTAL 906.89 100.00


CLINKER (- 25.40+ 22.23 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 37.5 cm Initial Weight: 1194.08 gr Final Weight: 1192.20 gr

96

Number of Particles Tested: 60 Energy Level per ton of Clinker: 1.027 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%)

12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 11.88 97.98 6.35 186.78 15.67 84.33 4 5.94 79.75 2.40 526.19 44.14 40.20 10 2.38 39.96 0.85 219.04 18.37 21.82 25 0.95 23.01 0.42 88.39 7.41 14.41 50 0.48 15.44 0.30 26.02 2.18 12.23 75 0.32 12.59 0.21 31.36 2.63 9.60 100 0.24 10.47 0.15 21.78 1.83 7.77 150 0.16 8.07 0.11 19.95 1.67 6.10 200 0.12 6.52

72.69 6.10 TOTAL 1192.20 100.00

TRASS (- 25.40+ 22.23 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 11.88 99.22 6.35 63.89 6.01 93.99 4 5.94 90.09 2.40 399.99 37.62 56.37 10 2.38 56.05 0.85 261.26 24.57 31.79 25 0.95 33.38 0.42 115.19 10.84 20.96 50 0.48 22.47 0.30 35.27 3.32 17.64 75 0.32 18.19 0.21 42.06 3.96 13.68 100 0.24 15.00 0.15 30.52 2.87 10.81 150 0.16 11.29 0.11 28.75 2.70 8.11 200 0.12 8.78

86.19 8.11 TOTAL 1063.12 100.00


CLINKER (- 25.40+ 22.23 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 50 cm Initial Weight: 1209.03 gr Final Weight: 1206.00 gr Number of Particles Tested: 60 Energy Level per ton of Clinker: 1.352 kWh/t

97

Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.% Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%) 12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 11.88 98.64 6.35 127.39 10.56 89.44 4 5.94 84.91 2.40 526.27 43.64 45.80 10 2.38 45.54 0.85 246.50 20.44 25.36 25 0.95 26.68 0.42 101.26 8.40 16.96 50 0.48 18.14 0.30 29.16 2.42 14.55 75 0.32 14.95 0.21 36.97 3.07 11.48 100 0.24 12.50 0.15 25.92 2.15 9.33 150 0.16 9.69 0.11 23.86 1.98 7.35 200 0.12 7.85

88.67 7.35 TOTAL 1206.00 100.00

TRASS (- 25.40+ 22.23 mm)

Drop Weight: 20 kg Energy Level: 50 cm Initial Weight: 1063.88 gr Final Weight: 1061.65 gr Number of Particles Tested: 60 Energy Level per ton of Trass: 1.537 kWh/t Size(mm) Weight(gr) Weight(%) Cum.%Und. n y/n(mm) tn(%)

12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 11.88 99.24 6.35 62.17 5.86 94.14 4 5.94 90.59 2.40 363.64 34.25 59.89 10 2.38 59.58 0.85 260.51 24.54 35.35 25 0.95 36.94 0.42 119.75 11.28 24.07 50 0.48 25.65 0.30 37.93 3.57 20.50 75 0.32 21.10 0.21 46.76 4.40 16.10 100 0.24 17.56 0.15 34.20 3.22 12.88 150 0.16 13.41 0.11 31.97 3.01 9.86 200 0.12 10.62

104.72 9.86 TOTAL 1061.65 100.00


CLINKER (- 22.23+ 19.00 mm)


12.70 59.28 4.58 95.42 2 10.28 79.50

98

6.35 540.19 41.76 53.66 4 5.14 43.88 2.40 413.00 31.93 21.73 10 2.06 19.52 0.85 130.32 10.07 11.65 25 0.82 11.39 0.42 49.77 3.85 7.81 50 0.41 7.72 0.30 13.69 1.06 6.75 75 0.27 6.25 0.21 19.43 1.50 5.25 100 0.21 5.25 0.15 13.06 1.01 4.24 150 0.14 4.01 0.11 11.78 0.91 3.33 200 0.10 3.10

43.02 3.33 TOTAL 1293.54 100.00

TRASS (- 22.23+ 19.00 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 10.28 97.28 6.35 51.79 7.13 92.87 4 5.14 80.56 2.40 291.53 40.16 52.71 10 2.06 47.38 0.85 176.19 24.27 28.44 25 0.82 27.74 0.42 72.88 10.04 18.40 50 0.41 18.16 0.30 20.89 2.88 15.52 75 0.27 14.32 0.21 26.24 3.61 11.91 100 0.21 11.91 0.15 18.23 2.51 9.39 150 0.14 8.81 0.11 16.98 2.34 7.06 200 0.10 6.47

51.22 7.06 TOTAL 725.95 100.00


CLINKER (- 22.23+ 19.00 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 10.28 94.47 6.35 194.85 14.51 85.49 4 5.14 71.62 2.40 607.69 45.27 40.22 10 2.06 36.15

99

0.85 249.05 18.55 21.67 25 0.82 21.17 0.42 96.62 7.20 14.47 50 0.41 14.30 0.30 27.79 2.07 12.40 75 0.27 11.50 0.21 36.30 2.70 9.70 100 0.21 9.70 0.15 25.00 1.86 7.84 150 0.14 7.41 0.11 22.76 1.70 6.14 200 0.10 5.72

82.43 6.14 TOTAL 1342.49 100.00

TRASS (- 22.23+ 19.00 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 10.28 99.21 6.35 15.58 2.07 97.93 4 5.14 87.59 2.40 253.86 33.74 64.19 10 2.06 58.04 0.85 211.05 28.05 36.14 25 0.82 35.29 0.42 91.15 12.11 24.02 50 0.41 23.71 0.30 27.94 3.71 20.31 75 0.27 18.79 0.21 34.32 4.56 15.75 100 0.21 15.75 0.15 24.92 3.31 12.44 150 0.14 11.67 0.11 23.20 3.08 9.35 200 0.10 8.58

70.37 9.35 TOTAL 752.39 100.00


CLINKER (- 22.23+ 19.00 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 10.28 98.14 6.35 62.28 4.88 95.12 4 5.14 82.69 2.40 517.28 40.55 54.56 10 2.06 49.24 0.85 309.74 24.28 30.28 25 0.82 29.61

100

0.42 122.12 9.57 20.71 50 0.41 20.46 0.30 37.85 2.97 17.74 75 0.27 16.54 0.21 45.84 3.59 14.15 100 0.21 14.15 0.15 33.27 2.61 11.54 150 0.14 10.93 0.11 31.01 2.43 9.11 200 0.10 8.50

116.16 9.11 TOTAL 1275.55 100.00

TRASS (- 22.23+ 19.00 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 10.28 99.72 6.35 5.84 0.74 99.26 4 5.14 90.37 2.40 227.66 29.01 70.25 10 2.06 63.65 0.85 236.21 30.10 40.15 25 0.82 39.23 0.42 103.90 13.24 26.92 50 0.41 26.58 0.30 31.87 4.06 22.86 75 0.27 21.14 0.21 40.43 5.15 17.70 100 0.21 17.70 0.15 28.95 3.69 14.02 150 0.14 13.14 0.11 27.35 3.48 10.53 200 0.10 9.66

82.65 10.53 TOTAL 784.86 100.00


CLINKER (- 22.23+ 19.00 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 10.28 99.36 6.35 19.56 1.67 98.33 4 5.14 87.13 2.40 427.90 36.55 61.78 10 2.06 56.02 0.85 307.62 26.28 35.51 25 0.82 34.75 0.42 126.96 10.84 24.66 50 0.41 24.38 0.30 39.33 3.36 21.30 75 0.27 19.89

101

0.21 49.47 4.23 17.08 100 0.21 17.08 0.15 35.82 3.06 14.02 150 0.14 13.30 0.11 33.61 2.87 11.15 200 0.10 10.43

130.49 11.15 TOTAL 1170.76 100.00

TRASS (- 22.23+ 19.00 mm)


12.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 10.28 99.70 6.35 6.32 0.79 99.21 4 5.14 90.65 2.40 222.85 27.92 71.29 10 2.06 64.90 0.85 232.30 29.11 42.18 25 0.82 41.26 0.42 105.41 13.21 28.97 50 0.41 28.63 0.30 33.07 4.14 24.83 75 0.27 23.10 0.21 41.49 5.20 19.63 100 0.21 19.63 0.15 31.15 3.90 15.73 150 0.14 14.81 0.11 29.47 3.69 12.04 200 0.10 11.11

96.07 12.04 TOTAL 798.13 100.00


CLINKER (- 19.00 +12.70 mm)


9.53 525.11 56.31 43.69 2 7.77 33.79 3.35 324.30 34.78 8.92 4 3.88 11.90 1.20 42.58 4.57 4.35 10 1.55 5.09 0.60 12.45 1.34 3.02 25 0.62 3.06 0.30 7.36 0.79 2.23 50 0.31 2.25 0.21 4.37 0.47 1.76 75 0.21 1.76 0.15 2.64 0.28 1.47 100 0.16 1.52 0.11 2.52 0.27 1.20 150 0.10 1.14

102

0.074 2.16 0.23 0.97 200 0.08 1.01 9.07 0.97 TOTAL 932.56 100.00

TRASS (- 19.00 + 12.70 mm)


9.53 157.23 23.70 76.30 2 7.77 62.65 3.35 317.95 47.93 28.36 4 3.88 32.47 1.20 91.76 13.83 14.53 10 1.55 16.78 0.60 31.05 4.68 9.85 25 0.62 10.00 0.30 20.82 3.14 6.71 50 0.31 6.81 0.21 9.59 1.45 5.26 75 0.21 5.26 0.15 7.27 1.10 4.17 100 0.16 4.35 0.11 6.74 1.02 3.15 150 0.10 2.92

0.074 5.44 0.82 2.33 200 0.08 2.47 15.47 2.33 TOTAL 663.32 100.00


CLINKER (- 19.00 +12.70 mm)


9.53 261.99 29.32 70.68 2 7.77 55.02 3.35 491.39 54.99 15.69 4 3.88 20.41 1.20 72.81 8.15 7.54 10 1.55 8.87 0.60 22.12 2.48 5.07 25 0.62 5.15 0.30 13.16 1.47 3.59 50 0.31 3.64 0.21 7.30 0.82 2.78 75 0.21 2.78 0.15 4.46 0.50 2.28 100 0.16 2.36 0.11 4.12 0.46 1.82 150 0.10 1.71

0.074 3.44 0.38 1.43 200 0.08 1.50

103

12.80 1.43 TOTAL 893.59 100.00

TRASS (- 19.00 + 12.70 mm)


9.53 79.27 11.20 88.80 2 7.77 75.96 3.35 319.03 45.08 43.72 4 3.88 47.58 1.20 162.56 22.97 20.74 10 1.55 24.48 0.60 51.50 7.28 13.47 25 0.62 13.71 0.30 33.24 4.70 8.77 50 0.31 8.93 0.21 14.40 2.03 6.73 75 0.21 6.73 0.15 10.37 1.47 5.27 100 0.16 5.51 0.11 9.59 1.36 3.91 150 0.10 3.61

0.074 7.61 1.08 2.84 200 0.08 3.02 20.08 2.84 TOTAL 707.65 100.00


CLINKER (- 19.00 +12.70 mm)


9.53 195.50 21.98 78.02 2 7.77 62.31 3.35 490.78 55.17 22.86 4 3.88 27.59 1.20 109.82 12.34 10.51 10 1.55 12.52 0.60 31.24 3.51 7.00 25 0.62 7.12 0.30 19.36 2.18 4.82 50 0.31 4.90 0.21 10.01 1.13 3.70 75 0.21 3.70 0.15 6.33 0.71 2.99 100 0.16 3.11 0.11 5.86 0.66 2.33 150 0.10 2.18

0.074 4.64 0.52 1.81 200 0.08 1.89

104

16.08 1.81 TOTAL 889.62 100.00

TRASS (- 19.00 + 12.70 mm)


9.53 15.71 2.28 97.72 2 7.77 85.20 3.35 303.09 43.95 53.77 4 3.88 57.54 1.20 193.38 28.04 25.72 10 1.55 30.29 0.60 62.29 9.03 16.69 25 0.62 16.99 0.30 40.34 5.85 10.84 50 0.31 11.04 0.21 17.17 2.49 8.35 75 0.21 8.35 0.15 12.73 1.85 6.51 100 0.16 6.81 0.11 11.63 1.69 4.82 150 0.10 4.45

0.074 9.21 1.34 3.48 200 0.08 3.71 24.02 3.48 TOTAL 689.57 100.00


CLINKER (- 19.00 +12.70 mm)


9.53 126.11 13.63 86.37 2 7.77 69.92 3.35 534.76 57.79 28.59 4 3.88 33.54 1.20 140.99 15.24 13.35 10 1.55 15.83 0.60 40.97 4.43 8.93 25 0.62 9.07 0.30 26.46 2.86 6.07 50 0.31 6.16 0.21 12.21 1.32 4.75 75 0.21 4.75 0.15 8.31 0.90 3.85 100 0.16 4.00 0.11 7.64 0.83 3.02 150 0.10 2.84

0.074 6.18 0.67 2.36 200 0.08 2.47

105

21.80 2.36 TOTAL 925.43 100.00

TRASS (- 19.00 + 12.70 mm)


9.53 13.80 1.94 98.06 2 7.77 88.12 3.35 248.67 34.93 63.14 4 3.88 66.13 1.20 228.62 32.11 31.02 10 1.55 36.25 0.60 76.01 10.68 20.35 25 0.62 20.70 0.30 50.31 7.07 13.28 50 0.31 13.52 0.21 21.46 3.01 10.27 75 0.21 10.27 0.15 15.93 2.24 8.03 100 0.16 8.40 0.11 14.85 2.09 5.95 150 0.10 5.48

0.074 11.91 1.67 4.27 200 0.08 4.55 30.42 4.27 TOTAL 711.98 100.00


CLINKER (- 12.70 +9.53 mm)


6.35 135.54 32.09 67.91 2 5.50 57.59 2.40 202.53 47.96 19.95 4 2.75 24.20 1.20 33.22 7.87 12.08 10 1.10 11.36 0.42 23.95 5.67 6.41 25 0.44 6.56 0.21 9.01 2.13 4.28 50 0.22 4.38 0.15 3.42 0.81 3.47 75 0.15 3.47 0.11 3.22 0.76 2.71 100 0.11 2.71

0.074 2.51 0.59 2.11 150 0.073 2.08 0.053 3.21 0.76 1.35 200 0.055 1.42

106

5.71 1.35 TOTAL 422.32 100.00

TRASS (- 12.70 +9.53 mm)


6.35 57.38 13.91 86.09 2 5.50 75.97 2.40 194.05 47.04 39.05 4 2.75 43.22 1.20 64.44 15.62 23.43 10 1.10 21.95 0.42 47.71 11.57 11.86 25 0.44 12.16 0.21 17.48 4.24 7.63 50 0.22 7.83 0.15 6.88 1.67 5.96 75 0.15 5.96 0.11 6.25 1.52 4.44 100 0.11 2.71

0.074 4.87 1.18 3.26 150 0.073 3.22 0.053 4.02 0.97 2.29 200 0.055 2.38

9.44 2.29 TOTAL 412.52 100.00


CLINKER (- 12.70 +9.53 mm)


6.35 62.85 13.42 86.58 2 5.50 74.66 2.40 259.52 55.40 31.19 4 2.75 36.09 1.20 57.40 12.25 18.93 10 1.10 17.79 0.42 41.69 8.90 10.03 25 0.44 10.26 0.21 15.71 3.35 6.68 50 0.22 6.84 0.15 6.13 1.31 5.37 75 0.15 5.37 0.11 5.54 1.18 4.19 100 0.11 4.34

0.074 4.52 0.96 3.22 150 0.073 3.17 0.053 5.48 1.17 2.05 200 0.055 2.16

107

9.62 2.05 TOTAL 468.46 100.00

TRASS (- 12.70 +9.53 mm)


6.35 3.03 0.76 99.24 2 5.50 90.93 2.40 154.43 38.61 60.63 4 2.75 64.05 1.20 95.44 23.86 36.77 10 1.10 34.43 0.42 72.81 18.21 18.56 25 0.44 19.03 0.21 27.01 6.75 11.81 50 0.22 12.13 0.15 10.44 2.61 9.20 75 0.15 9.20 0.11 9.38 2.35 6.85 100 0.11 7.16

0.074 7.56 1.89 4.96 150 0.073 4.87 0.053 7.31 1.83 3.13 200 0.055 3.31

12.53 3.13 TOTAL 399.94 100.00


CLINKER (- 12.70 +9.53 mm)


6.35 10.74 2.64 97.36 2 5.50 87.98 2.40 177.19 43.58 53.78 4 2.75 57.64 1.20 89.80 22.08 31.70 10 1.10 29.77 0.42 61.30 15.08 16.62 25 0.44 17.01 0.21 23.16 5.70 10.93 50 0.22 11.20 0.15 8.86 2.18 8.75 75 0.15 8.75 0.11 8.03 1.97 6.78 100 0.11 7.03

0.074 6.30 1.55 5.23 150 0.073 5.13 0.053 7.80 1.92 3.31 200 0.055 3.49

108

13.45 3.31 TOTAL 406.63 100.00

TRASS (- 12.70 +9.53 mm)


6.35 0.40 0.13 99.87 2 5.50 95.58 2.40 63.36 19.97 79.90 4 2.75 81.67 1.20 93.28 29.40 50.50 10 1.10 47.38 0.42 77.19 24.33 26.16 25 0.44 26.79 0.21 29.14 9.19 16.98 50 0.22 17.42 0.15 11.27 3.55 13.43 75 0.15 13.43 0.11 10.57 3.33 10.09 100 0.11 10.53

0.074 8.52 2.69 7.41 150 0.073 7.29 0.053 7.80 2.46 4.95 200 0.055 5.18

15.70 4.95 TOTAL 317.23 100.00


CLINKER (- 12.70 +9.53 mm)


6.35 5.02 1.12 98.88 2 5.50 90.31 2.40 177.60 39.79 59.08 4 2.75 62.61 1.20 104.65 23.45 35.63 10 1.10 33.46 0.42 75.79 16.98 18.65 25 0.44 19.09 0.21 27.99 6.27 12.38 50 0.22 12.68 0.15 10.68 2.39 9.99 75 0.15 9.99 0.11 9.76 2.19 7.80 100 0.11 8.09

0.074 8.17 1.83 5.97 150 0.073 5.86 0.053 10.22 2.29 3.68 200 0.055 3.90

109

16.42 3.68 TOTAL 446.30 100.00

TRASS (- 12.70 +9.53 mm)


6.35 0.65 0.18 99.82 2 5.50 95.45 2.40 72.66 20.28 79.54 4 2.75 81.34 1.20 101.46 28.32 51.22 10 1.10 48.08 0.42 87.77 24.50 26.73 25 0.44 27.36 0.21 34.03 9.50 17.23 50 0.22 17.68 0.15 13.30 3.71 13.52 75 0.15 13.52 0.11 12.24 3.42 10.10 100 0.11 10.55

0.074 10.04 2.80 7.30 150 0.073 7.18 0.053 8.85 2.47 4.83 200 0.055 5.07

17.31 4.83 TOTAL 358.31 100.00

Table 41. S.P.B. Test results of Clinker and Trass (9.53x6.35 .) at energy level of 12.5 cm.

CLINKER (- 9.53 +6.35 mm)


4.76 27.08 13.46 86.54 2 3.89 73.04 1.68 96.12 47.78 38.76 4 1.95 42.94 0.60 39.91 19.84 18.92 10 0.78 22.22 0.30 11.93 5.93 12.98 25 0.31 13.18 0.15 10.42 5.18 7.80 50 0.16 8.15 0.11 3.56 1.77 6.03 75 0.10 5.81

0.074 2.78 1.38 4.65 100 0.078 4.83 0.053 3.26 1.62 3.03 150 0.052 2.97 0.038 1.99 0.99 2.04 200 0.039 2.11

110

4.11 2.04 TOTAL 201.16 100.00

TRASS (- 9.53 +6.35 mm)


4.76 3.42 1.87 98.13 2 3.89 87.36 1.68 69.65 38.11 60.02 4 1.95 63.36 0.60 55.58 30.41 29.60 10 0.78 34.67 0.30 19.08 10.44 19.16 25 0.31 19.51 0.15 13.90 7.61 11.56 50 0.16 12.06 0.11 5.44 2.98 8.58 75 0.10 8.16

0.074 4.73 2.59 5.99 100 0.078 6.33 0.053 4.68 2.56 3.43 150 0.052 3.33 0.038 2.84 1.55 1.88 200 0.039 1.98

3.43 1.88 TOTAL 182.75 100.00


CLINKER (- 9.53 +6.35 mm)


4.76 3.31 1.56 98.44 2 3.89 88.31 1.68 76.38 35.88 62.56 4 1.95 65.71 0.60 66.57 31.27 31.29 10 0.78 36.50 0.30 20.54 9.65 21.64 25 0.31 21.96 0.15 17.66 8.30 13.34 50 0.16 13.90 0.11 6.24 2.93 10.41 75 0.10 10.03

0.074 5.07 2.38 8.03 100 0.078 8.34 0.053 6.37 2.99 5.04 150 0.052 4.91 0.038 4.05 1.90 3.13 200 0.039 3.26

111

6.67 3.13 TOTAL 212.86 100.00

TRASS (- 9.53 +6.35 mm)


4.76 0.14 0.08 99.92 2 3.89 93.31 1.68 43.68 23.41 76.51 4 1.95 78.57 0.60 69.40 37.20 39.32 10 0.78 45.52 0.30 25.24 13.53 25.79 25 0.31 26.24 0.15 18.96 10.16 15.63 50 0.16 16.31 0.11 7.40 3.97 11.66 75 0.10 11.10

0.074 6.55 3.51 8.15 100 0.078 8.60 0.053 6.34 3.40 4.75 150 0.052 4.63 0.038 3.54 1.90 2.86 200 0.039 2.98

5.33 2.86 TOTAL 186.58 100.00


CLINKER (- 9.53 +6.35 mm)


4.76 0.14 0.06 99.94 2 3.89 93.33 1.68 51.63 23.38 76.56 4 1.95 78.61 0.60 79.60 36.04 40.52 10 0.78 46.53 0.30 27.66 12.52 28.00 25 0.31 28.41 0.15 22.28 10.09 17.91 50 0.16 18.58 0.11 8.49 3.84 14.06 75 0.10 13.56

0.074 6.92 3.13 10.93 100 0.078 11.33 0.053 8.91 4.03 6.90 150 0.052 6.71 0.038 6.15 2.78 4.11 200 0.039 4.30

112

9.08 4.11 TOTAL 220.86 100.00

TRASS (- 9.53 +6.35 mm)


4.76 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 3.89 95.35 1.68 31.48 16.47 83.53 4 1.95 84.97 0.60 70.74 37.01 46.52 10 0.78 52.69 0.30 27.19 14.23 32.29 25 0.31 32.77 0.15 20.73 10.85 21.45 50 0.16 22.17 0.11 9.00 4.71 16.74 75 0.10 15.99

0.074 8.81 4.61 12.13 100 0.078 12.72 0.053 7.99 4.18 7.95 150 0.052 7.74 0.038 5.91 3.09 4.86 200 0.039 5.06

9.28 4.86 TOTAL 191.13 100.00


CLINKER (- 9.53 +6.35 mm)


4.76 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 3.89 94.69 1.68 40.92 18.79 81.21 4 1.95 82.86 0.60 79.98 36.72 44.49 10 0.78 50.61 0.30 29.30 13.45 31.04 25 0.31 31.49 0.15 23.61 10.84 20.20 50 0.16 20.92 0.11 9.23 4.24 15.96 75 0.10 15.39

0.074 7.63 3.50 12.46 100 0.078 12.91 0.053 9.59 4.40 8.05 150 0.052 7.81 0.038 7.85 3.60 4.45 200 0.039 4.69

113

9.69 4.45 TOTAL 217.80 100.00

TRASS (- 9.53 +6.35 mm)


4.76 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 3.89 95.76 1.68 29.70 15.02 84.98 4 1.95 86.30 0.60 69.17 34.97 50.01 10 0.78 55.84 0.30 27.86 14.09 35.93 25 0.31 36.40 0.15 21.72 10.98 24.95 50 0.16 25.68 0.11 10.10 5.11 19.84 75 0.10 19.10

0.074 9.05 4.58 15.26 100 0.078 15.85 0.053 8.72 4.41 10.85 150 0.052 10.58 0.038 8.27 4.18 6.67 200 0.039 6.95

13.20 6.67 TOTAL 197.79 100.00

114

B. Product Size Distribution of Kinetic Experiments

Table 45. Size distribution of 15 second ground clinker. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %

Undersize Cum. Weight %

Oversize Mass Fraction

Retained 1200.00 664.74 67.070 32.930 67.070 0.67070 850.00 201.59 20.340 12.590 87.410 0.87410 600.00 48.56 4.900 7.690 92.310 0.92310 420.00 21.90 2.210 5.480 94.520 0.94520 300.00 12.39 1.250 4.230 95.770 0.95770 210.00 10.21 1.030 3.200 96.800 0.96800 150.00 7.24 0.730 2.470 97.530 0.97530 106.00 5.75 0.580 1.890 98.110 0.98110 75.00 4.76 0.480 1.410 98.590 0.98590 53.00 3.57 0.360 1.050 98.950 0.98950 38.00 1.98 0.200 0.850 99.150 0.99150

8.42 0.850 991.12 100.00

Table 46. Size distribution of 30 second ground clinker Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200,00 530,36 53,511 46,489 53,511 0,53511 850,00 231,55 23,362 23,126 76,874 0,76874 600,00 80,12 8,084 15,043 84,957 0,84957 420,00 48,18 4,861 10,181 89,819 0,89819 300,00 21,68 2,187 7,994 92,006 0,92006 210,00 20,16 2,034 5,960 94,040 0,9404 150,00 12,19 1,230 4,730 95,270 0,9527 106,00 9,95 1,004 3,726 96,274 0,96274 75,00 7,85 0,792 2,934 97,066 0,97066 53,00 6,72 0,678 2,256 97,744 0,97744 45,00 3,26 0,329 1,927 98,073 0,98073 38,00 2,68 0,270 1,657 98,343 0,98343

16,42 1,657 991,12 100,00

Table 47. Size distribution of 60 second ground clinker. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200,00 336,41 33,942 66,058 33,942 0,33942 850,00 260,24 26,257 39,800 60,200 0,602 600,00 126,09 12,722 27,078 72,922 0,72922 420,00 83,53 8,428 18,651 81,349 0,81349 300,00 39,69 4,005 14,646 85,354 0,85354 210,00 36,67 3,700 10,946 89,054 0,89054 150,00 23,40 2,361 8,585 91,415 0,91415 106,00 19,02 1,919 6,666 93,334 0,93334 75,00 13,45 1,357 5,309 94,691 0,94691 53,00 12,62 1,273 4,036 95,964 0,95964 45,00 5,65 0,570 3,466 96,534 0,96534 38,00 5,56 0,561 2,905 97,095 0,97095

28,79 2,905 991,12 100,00

115

Table 48. Size distribution 90 second ground clinker. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 227.36 22.940 77.060 22.940 0.22940 850.00 263.44 26.580 50.480 49.520 0.49520 600.00 141.14 14.240 36.240 63.760 0.63760 420.00 103.77 10.470 25.770 74.230 0.74230 300.00 53.62 5.410 20.360 79.640 0.79640 210.00 47.97 4.840 15.520 84.480 0.84480 150.00 34.39 3.470 12.050 87.950 0.87950 106.00 28.25 2.850 9.200 90.800 0.90800 75.00 23.19 2.340 6.860 93.140 0.93140 53.00 17.64 1.780 5.080 94.920 0.94920 38.00 12.49 1.260 3.820 96.180 0.96180

37.86 3.820 991.12 100.00

Table 49. Size distribution of 2 minute ground clinker. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200,00 121,90 12,299 87,701 12,299 0,12299 850,00 210,66 21,255 66,446 33,554 0,33554 600,00 167,01 16,851 49,595 50,405 0,50405 420,00 137,11 13,834 35,762 64,238 0,64238 300,00 73,37 7,403 28,359 71,641 0,71641 210,00 69,35 6,997 21,362 78,638 0,78638 150,00 44,96 4,536 16,825 83,175 0,83175 106,00 36,31 3,664 13,162 86,838 0,86838 75,00 24,78 2,500 10,662 89,338 0,89338 53,00 26,75 2,699 7,963 92,037 0,92037 45,00 11,79 1,190 6,773 93,227 0,93227 38,00 10,60 1,069 5,704 94,296 0,94296

56,53 5,704 991,12 100,00




Retained 1200.00 66.01 6.660 93.340 6.660 0.06660 850.00 172.36 17.390 75.950 24.050 0.24050 600.00 145.99 14.730 61.220 38.780 0.38780 420.00 145.20 14.650 46.570 53.430 0.53430 300.00 90.69 9.150 37.420 62.580 0.62580 210.00 83.15 8.390 29.030 70.970 0.70970 150.00 65.71 6.630 22.400 77.600 0.77600 106.00 40.74 4.110 18.290 81.710 0.81710 75.00 40.74 4.110 14.180 85.820 0.85820 53.00 30.82 3.110 11.070 88.930 0.88930 38.00 22.40 2.260 8.810 91.190 0.91190

87.32 8.810 991.12 100.00

116




Retained 1200.00 19.59 1.977 98.023 1.977 0.01977 850.00 69.98 7.061 90.963 9.037 0.09037 600.00 114.12 11.514 79.449 20.551 0.20551 420.00 165.88 16.737 62.712 37.288 0.37288 300.00 114.20 11.522 51.190 48.810 0.4881 210.00 118.89 11.996 39.194 60.806 0.60806 150.00 78.89 7.960 31.234 68.766 0.68766 106.00 63.89 6.446 24.788 75.212 0.75212 75.00 50.28 5.073 19.715 80.285 0.80285 53.00 46.96 4.738 14.977 85.023 0.85023 45.00 18.83 1.900 13.077 86.923 0.86923 38.00 23.35 2.356 10.721 89.279 0.89279

106.26 10.721 991.12 100.00




Retained 1200.00 0.18 0.018 99.982 0.018 0.00018 850.00 0.32 0.032 99.950 0.050 0.0005 600.00 0.58 0.059 99.891 0.109 0.00109 420.00 5.19 0.524 99.367 0.633 0.00633 300.00 30.48 3.075 96.292 3.708 0.03708 210.00 137.50 13.873 82.419 17.581 0.17581 150.00 141.46 14.273 68.146 31.854 0.31854 106.00 133.50 13.470 54.677 45.323 0.45323 75.00 110.16 11.115 43.562 56.438 0.56438 53.00 99.00 9.989 33.573 66.427 0.66427 45.00 44.02 4.441 29.132 70.868 0.70868 38.00 39.10 3.945 25.187 74.813 0.74813

249.63 25.187 991.12 100.00

Table 53. Size distribution of 10 second ground trass. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 496.63 64.360 35.640 64.360 0.64360 850.00 159.42 20.660 14.980 85.020 0.85020 600.00 38.66 5.010 9.970 90.030 0.90030 420.00 23.38 3.030 6.940 93.060 0.93060 300.00 11.03 1.430 5.510 94.490 0.94490 210.00 9.65 1.250 4.260 95.740 0.95740 150.00 7.48 0.970 3.290 96.710 0.96710 106.00 6.33 0.820 2.470 97.530 0.97530 75.00 4.32 0.560 1.910 98.090 0.98090 53.00 3.32 0.430 1.480 98.520 0.98520 38.00 2.31 0.300 1.180 98.820 0.98820

9.11 1.180 771.64 100.00

117




Retained 1200.00 319.37 41.388 58.612 41.388 0.41388 850.00 179.27 23.232 35.379 64.621 0.64621 600.00 81.94 10.619 24.760 75.240 0.7524 420.00 53.35 6.914 17.846 82.154 0.82154 300.00 26.94 3.491 14.355 85.645 0.85645 210.00 25.78 3.341 11.014 88.986 0.88986 150.00 18.60 2.410 8.604 91.396 0.91396 106.00 14.97 1.940 6.664 93.336 0.93336 75.00 13.19 1.709 4.954 95.046 0.95046 53.00 10.01 1.297 3.657 96.343 0.96343 45.00 4.30 0.557 3.100 96.900 0.969 38.00 4.11 0.533 2.567 97.433 0.97433

19.81 2.567 771.64 100.00




Retained 1200.00 162.27 21.029 78.971 21.029 0.21029 850.00 189.81 24.598 54.373 45.627 0.45627 600.00 111.65 14.469 39.903 60.097 0.60097 420.00 82.29 10.664 29.239 70.761 0.70761 300.00 42.05 5.449 23.790 76.210 0.7621 210.00 41.53 5.382 18.408 81.592 0.81592 150.00 28.66 3.714 14.693 85.307 0.85307 106.00 24.17 3.132 11.561 88.439 0.88439 75.00 19.86 2.574 8.987 91.013 0.91013 53.00 16.64 2.156 6.831 93.169 0.93169 45.00 7.31 0.947 5.884 94.116 0.94116 38.00 6.52 0.845 5.039 94.961 0.94961

38.88 5.039 771.64 100.00

Table 56. Size distribution of 90 second ground trass Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 88.20 11.430 88.570 11.430 0.11430 850.00 147.92 19.170 69.400 30.600 0.30600 600.00 118.37 15.340 54.060 45.940 0.45940 420.00 105.87 13.720 40.340 59.660 0.59660 300.00 58.80 7.620 32.720 67.280 0.67280 210.00 61.11 7.920 24.800 75.200 0.75200 150.00 47.84 6.200 18.600 81.400 0.81400 106.00 33.49 4.340 14.260 85.740 0.85740 75.00 24.62 3.190 11.070 88.930 0.88930 53.00 17.44 2.260 8.810 91.190 0.91190 38.00 13.12 1.700 7.110 92.890 0.92890

54.86 7.110 771.64 100.00

118

Table 57. Size distribution of 2 minute ground trass. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 39.72 5.147 94.853 5.147 0.05147 850.00 97.39 12.621 82.231 17.769 0.17769 600.00 112.47 14.575 67.656 32.344 0.32344 420.00 121.08 15.691 51.965 48.035 0.48035 300.00 72.22 9.359 42.605 57.395 0.57395 210.00 74.96 9.714 32.891 67.109 0.67109 150.00 60.62 7.856 25.035 74.965 0.74965 106.00 37.79 4.897 20.138 79.862 0.79862 75.00 31.55 4.089 16.049 83.951 0.83951 53.00 31.95 4.141 11.908 88.092 0.88092 45.00 12.77 1.655 10.253 89.747 0.89747 38.00 11.55 1.497 8.757 91.243 0.91243

67.57 8.757 771.64 100.00




Retained 1200.00 12.65 1.640 98.360 1.640 0.01640 850.00 42.44 5.500 92.860 7.140 0.07140 600.00 65.13 8.440 84.420 15.580 0.15580 420.00 109.65 14.210 70.210 29.790 0.29790 300.00 85.81 11.120 59.090 40.910 0.40910 210.00 97.54 12.640 46.450 53.550 0.53550 150.00 71.76 9.300 37.150 62.850 0.62850 106.00 62.35 8.080 29.070 70.930 0.70930 75.00 57.64 7.470 21.600 78.400 0.78400 53.00 33.80 4.380 17.220 82.780 0.82780 38.00 30.94 4.010 13.210 86.790 0.86790

101.93 13.210 771.64 100.00

Table 59. Size distribution of 4 minute ground trass Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 3.18 0.412 99.588 0.412 0.00412 850.00 8.39 1.087 98.501 1.499 0.01499 600.00 18.88 2.447 96.054 3.946 0.03946 420.00 65.61 8.503 87.551 12.449 0.12449 300.00 90.58 11.739 75.813 24.187 0.24187 210.00 125.99 16.328 59.485 40.515 0.40515 150.00 96.05 12.448 47.037 52.963 0.52963 106.00 72.87 9.444 37.594 62.406 0.62406 75.00 61.28 7.942 29.652 70.348 0.70348 53.00 55.16 7.148 22.504 77.496 0.77496 45.00 22.99 2.979 19.525 80.475 0.80475 38.00 21.64 2.804 16.720 83.280 0.8328

129.02 16.720 771.64 100.00

119




Retained 1200.00 0.06 0.008 99.992 0.008 0.00008 850.00 0.29 0.038 99.955 0.045 0.00045 600.00 0.35 0.045 99.909 0.091 0.00091 420.00 0.96 0.124 99.785 0.215 0.00215 300.00 4.77 0.618 99.167 0.833 0.00833 210.00 54.55 7.069 92.097 7.903 0.07903 150.00 92.95 12.046 80.052 19.948 0.19948 106.00 111.76 14.483 65.568 34.432 0.34432 75.00 100.04 12.965 52.604 47.396 0.47396 53.00 76.85 9.959 42.644 57.356 0.57356 45.00 32.38 4.196 38.448 61.552 0.61552 38.00 34.52 4.474 33.974 66.026 0.66026

262.16 33.974 771.64 100.00

Table 61. Size distribution of 5 second ground blast furnace slag. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 545.80 57.758 42.242 57.758 0.57758 850.00 244.59 25.883 16.359 83.641 0.83641 600.00 82.08 8.686 7.673 92.327 0.92327 420.00 36.35 3.847 3.827 96.173 0.96173 300.00 11.88 1.257 2.569 97.431 0.97431 210.00 8.59 0.909 1.660 98.340 0.98340 150.00 4.48 0.474 1.186 98.814 0.98814 106.00 3.12 0.330 0.856 99.144 0.99144 75.00 2.33 0.247 0.610 99.390 0.99390 53.00 1.43 0.151 0.458 99.542 0.99542 45.00 0.60 0.063 0.395 99.605 0.99605 38.00 0.58 0.061 0.333 99.667 0.99667

3.15 0.333 944.98 100.00




Retained 1200.00 413.22 43.728 56.272 43.728 0.43728 850.00 303.80 32.149 24.123 75.877 0.75877 600.00 118.66 12.557 11.566 88.434 0.88434 420.00 54.20 5.736 5.831 94.169 0.94169 300.00 18.13 1.919 3.912 96.088 0.96088 210.00 13.43 1.421 2.491 97.509 0.97509 150.00 7.29 0.771 1.720 98.280 0.98280 106.00 5.17 0.547 1.173 98.827 0.98827 75.00 3.95 0.413 0.755 99.245 0.99245 53.00 2.71 0.287 0.468 99.532 0.99532 45.00 1.25 0.132 0.335 99.665 0.99665 38.00 1.02 0.108 0.228 99.772 0.99772

2.15 0.228 944.98 100.00

120




Retained 1200.00 134.01 14.181 85.819 14.181 0.14181 850.00 374.30 39.609 46.209 53.791 0.53791 600.00 216.15 22.873 23.336 76.664 0.76664 420.00 106.82 11.304 12.032 87.968 0.87968 300.00 36.68 3.882 8.150 91.850 0.9185 210.00 27.51 2.911 5.239 94.761 0.94761 150.00 14.67 1.552 3.687 96.313 0.96313 106.00 10.74 1.137 2.550 97.450 0.9745 75.00 8.66 0.916 1.634 98.366 0.98366 53.00 6.36 0.673 0.961 99.039 0.99039 45.00 2.05 0.217 0.744 99.256 0.99256 38.00 1.59 0.168 0.576 99.424 0.99424

5.44 0.576 944.98 100.00

Table 64. Size distribution of 30 second ground blast furnace slag (pre-ground). Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 199.10 21.069 78.931 21.069 0.21069 850.00 317.94 33.645 45.286 54.714 0.54714 600.00 193.22 20.447 24.839 75.161 0.75161 420.00 105.30 11.143 13.696 86.304 0.86304 300.00 40.38 4.273 9.422 90.578 0.90578 210.00 32.19 3.406 6.016 93.984 0.93984 150.00 17.82 1.886 4.130 95.870 0.95870 106.00 12.87 1.362 2.768 97.232 0.97232 75.00 9.61 1.017 1.751 98.249 0.98249 53.00 5.85 0.619 1.132 98.868 0.98868 45.00 2.66 0.281 0.851 99.149 0.99149 38.00 1.98 0.210 0.641 99.359 0.99359

606 0.641 944.98 100.00




Retained 1200.00 36.75 3.889 96.111 3.889 0.03889 850.00 270.78 28.655 67.456 32.544 0.32544 600.00 271.75 28.757 38.699 61.301 0.61301 420.00 165.65 17.529 21.170 78.830 0.7883 300.00 62.66 6.631 14.539 85.461 0.85461 210.00 48.52 5.135 9.404 90.596 0.90596 150.00 26.58 2.813 6.592 93.408 0.93408 106.00 19.34 2.047 4.545 95.455 0.95455 75.00 15.49 1.639 2.906 97.094 0.97094 53.00 11.30 1.196 1.710 98.290 0.9829 45.00 4.87 0.515 1.195 98.805 0.98805 38.00 3.21 0.340 0.855 99.145 0.99145

8.08 0.855 944.98 100.00

121

Table 66. Size distribution of 2 minute ground blast furnace slag. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 7.88 0.834 99.166 0.834 0.00834 850.00 102.06 10.800 88.366 11.634 0.11634 600.00 231.94 24.544 63.821 36.179 0.36179 420.00 235.37 24.907 38.914 61.086 0.61086 300.00 109.23 11.559 27.355 72.645 0.72645 210.00 89.71 9.493 17.862 82.138 0.82138 150.00 51.12 5.410 12.452 87.548 0.87548 106.00 36.99 3.914 8.538 91.462 0.91462 75.00 27.03 2.860 5.677 94.323 0.94323 53.00 19.73 2.088 3.589 96.411 0.96411 45.00 7.28 0.770 2.819 97.181 0.97181 38.00 6.83 0.723 2.096 97.904 0.97904

19.81 2.096 944.98 100.00

Table 67. Size distribution of 4 minute ground blast furnace slag. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 7.88 0.834 99.166 0.834 0.00834 850.00 102.06 10.800 88.366 11.634 0.11634 600.00 231.94 24.544 63.821 36.179 0.36179 420.00 235.37 24.907 38.914 61.086 0.61086 300.00 109.23 11.559 27.355 72.645 0.72645 210.00 89.71 9.493 17.862 82.138 0.82138 150.00 51.12 5.410 12.452 87.548 0.87548 106.00 36.99 3.914 8.538 91.462 0.91462 75.00 27.03 2.860 5.677 94.323 0.94323 53.00 19.73 2.088 3.589 96.411 0.96411 45.00 7.28 0.770 2.819 97.181 0.97181 38.00 6.83 0.723 2.096 97.904 0.97904

19.81 2.096 944.98 100.00

Table 68. Size distribution of 8 minute ground blast furnace slag Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %



Retained 1200.00 0.12 0.013 99.987 0.013 0.00013 850.00 0.45 0.048 99.940 0.060 0.0006 600.00 0.71 0.075 99.865 0.135 0.00135 420.00 10.17 1.076 98.788 1.212 0.01212 300.00 59.41 6.287 92.501 7.499 0.07499 210.00 183.67 19.436 73.065 26.935 0.26935 150.00 170.49 18.042 55.023 44.977 0.44977 106.00 145.15 15.360 39.663 60.337 0.60337 75.00 114.26 12.091 27.572 72.428 0.72428 53.00 87.35 9.244 18.328 81.672 0.81672 45.00 29.86 3.160 15.169 84.831 0.84831 38.00 31.01 3.282 11.887 88.113 0.88113

112.33 11.887 944.98 100.00

122

C. Particle Size Distributions of Feed Material for Bond Ball Mill Tests

Table 69. Feed size distribution of clinker for Bond ball mill experiment. Size (mm) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 187.56 22.84 77.16 22.84 1680.00 184.51 22.47 54.70 45.31 1200.00 109.13 13.29 41.41 58.59 850.00 77.91 9.49 31.92 68.08 600.00 53.22 6.48 25.44 74.56 420.00 46.26 5.63 19.81 80.19 300.00 27.45 3.34 16.47 83.53 210.00 30.17 3.67 12.80 87.21 150.00 20.73 2.52 10.27 89.73 106.00 18.85 2.30 7.98 92.03 75.00 14.13 1.72 6.26 93.75 53.00 13.90 1.69 4.56 95.44 45.00 6.36 0.77 3.79 96.21 38.00 3.98 0.48 3.31 96.70 PAN 27.15 3.31

TOTAL 821.31 100.00

Table 70. Feed size distribution of trass for Bond ball mill experiment. Size (mm) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 131.43 13.70 86.30 13.70 1680.00 177.00 18.45 67.85 32.15 1200.00 133.86 13.96 53.89 46.11 850.00 110.14 11.48 42.41 57.59 600.00 82.38 8.59 33.82 66.18 420.00 75.13 7.83 25.99 74.01 300.00 46.71 4.87 21.12 78.88 210.00 52.08 5.43 15.69 84.31 150.00 35.17 3.67 12.02 87.98 106.00 33.52 3.49 8.53 91.47 75.00 22.93 2.39 6.14 93.86 53.00 20.79 2.17 3.97 96.03 45.00 6.80 0.71 3.26 96.74 38.00 6.47 0.67 2.59 97.42 PAN 24.77 2.58

TOTAL 959.18 100.00 Table 71. Feed size distribution of blast furnace slag for Bond ball mill experiment.

Size (mm) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight % Undersize

Cum. Weight % Oversize

2400.00 9.97 0.85 99.15 0.85 1680.00 46.06 3.93 95.22 4.78 1200.00 121.39 10.36 84.86 15.14 850.00 243.37 20.76 64.10 35.90 600.00 281.29 24.00 40.10 59.90 420.00 243.31 20.76 19.34 80.65 300.00 92.19 7.87 11.48 88.52 210.00 60.49 5.16 6.32 93.68 150.00 26.93 2.30 4.02 95.98 106.00 21.17 1.81 2.22 97.78 75.00 10.42 0.89 1.33 98.67 53.00 7.67 0.65 0.67 99.33 45.00 2.43 0.21 0.46 99.53 38.00 1.91 0.16 0.30 99.70 PAN 3.54 0.30

TOTAL 1172.14 100.00

123

D. Particle Size Distributions of Products for Bond Tests and Test Data Table 72. Size distribution of clinker after 1st SET.

Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight % Undersize


2400.00 130.30 11.14 88.86 11.14 1680.00 165.81 14.18 74.68 25.32 1200.00 126.82 10.84 63.84 36.16 850.00 117.77 10.07 53.77 46.23 600.00 98.70 8.44 45.33 54.67 420.00 100.21 8.57 36.77 63.23 300.00 66.71 5.70 31.06 68.94 210.00 75.72 6.47 24.59 75.41 150.00 62.94 5.38 19.21 80.79 106.00 41.62 3.56 15.65 84.35 75.00 40.73 3.48 12.17 87.83 53.00 34.28 2.93 9.24 90.76 45.00 16.37 1.40 7.84 92.16 38.00 15.05 1.29 6.55 93.45

76.60 6.55 1169.63 100.00

Table 73. Size distribution of clinker after 2nd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 39.42 3.37 96.63 3.37 1680.00 44.28 3.79 92.84 7.16 1200.00 24.58 2.10 90.74 9.26 850.00 22.39 1.91 88.83 11.17 600.00 30.72 2.63 86.20 13.80 420.00 68.30 5.84 80.36 19.64 300.00 92.73 7.93 72.43 27.57 210.00 156.84 13.41 59.02 40.98 150.00 141.71 12.12 46.91 53.09 106.00 131.56 11.25 35.66 64.34 75.00 118.64 10.14 25.52 74.48 53.00 82.60 7.06 18.46 81.54 45.00 28.60 2.45 16.01 83.99 38.00 31.62 2.70 13.31 86.69

155.64 13.31 1169.63 100.00

Table 74. Size distribution of clinker after 3rd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 23.53 2.01 97.99 2.01 1680.00 23.63 2.02 95.97 4.03 1200.00 9.09 0.78 95.19 4.81 850.00 5.88 0.50 94.69 5.31 600.00 5.80 0.50 94.19 5.81 420.00 12.24 1.05 93.15 6.85 300.00 28.98 2.48 90.67 9.33 210.00 117.93 10.08 80.59 19.41 150.00 181.13 15.49 65.10 34.90 106.00 187.90 16.06 49.03 50.96 75.00 181.56 15.52 33.51 66.49 53.00 119.93 10.25 23.26 76.74 45.00 38.01 3.25 20.01 79.99 38.00 35.29 3.02 16.99 83.01

198.73 16.99 1169.63 100.00

124

Table 75. Size distribution of clinker after 4th SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 24.71 2.11 97.89 2.11 1680.00 23.80 2.03 95.85 4.14 1200.00 11.01 0.94 94.91 5.09 850.00 8.08 0.69 94.22 5.78 600.00 7.95 0.68 93.54 6.46 420.00 15.19 1.30 92.24 7.76 300.00 26.65 2.28 89.96 10.03 210.00 93.33 7.98 81.98 18.01 150.00 176.99 15.13 66.85 33.15 106.00 218.95 18.72 48.13 51.87 75.00 214.03 18.30 29.83 70.16 53.00 113.20 9.68 20.16 79.84 45.00 25.85 2.21 17.94 82.05 38.00 39.41 3.37 14.58 85.42

170.48 14.58 1169.63 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 28.16 2.41 97.59 2.41 1680.00 26.66 2.28 95.31 4.69 1200.00 12.41 1.06 94.25 5.75 850.00 8.86 0.76 93.49 6.51 600.00 8.53 0.73 92.77 7.24 420.00 15.29 1.31 91.46 8.54 300.00 24.96 2.13 89.32 10.68 210.00 81.75 6.99 82.33 17.67 150.00 162.18 13.87 68.47 31.53 106.00 216.92 18.55 49.92 50.08 75.00 256.28 21.91 28.01 71.99 53.00 105.46 9.02 18.99 81.01 45.00 32.88 2.81 16.18 83.82 38.00 29.24 2.50 13.68 86.32

160.05 13.68 1169.63 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 23.74 2.03 97.97 2.03 1680.00 25.21 2.16 95.81 4.19 1200.00 11.34 0.97 94.85 5.15 850.00 7.95 0.68 94.17 5.83 600.00 8.46 0.72 93.44 6.56 420.00 15.27 1.31 92.14 7.86 300.00 24.46 2.09 90.05 9.95 210.00 70.93 6.06 83.98 16.02 150.00 135.13 11.55 72.43 27.57 106.00 232.98 19.92 52.51 47.49 75.00 287.11 24.55 27.96 72.04 53.00 104.12 8.90 19.06 80.94 45.00 35.66 3.05 16.01 83.99 38.00 29.53 2.52 13.49 86.51

157.74 13.49 1169.63 100.00

125



Oversize 2400.00 22.94 1.96 98.04 1.96 1680.00 22.64 1.94 96.10 3.90 1200.00 10.01 0.86 95.25 4.75 850.00 6.71 0.57 94.67 5.33 600.00 6.69 0.57 94.10 5.90 420.00 11.59 0.99 93.11 6.89 300.00 19.71 1.69 91.43 8.57 210.00 65.91 5.64 85.79 14.21 150.00 135.40 11.58 74.21 25.78 106.00 210.49 18.00 56.22 43.78 75.00 296.86 25.38 30.84 69.16 53.00 124.69 10.66 20.18 79.82 45.00 34.05 2.91 17.27 82.73 38.00 33.40 2.86 14.41 85.59

168.54 14.41 1169.63 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 23.97 2.05 97.95 2.05 1680.00 26.17 2.24 95.71 4.29 1200.00 12.65 1.08 94.63 5.37 850.00 9.23 0.79 93.84 6.16 600.00 8.99 0.77 93.07 6.93 420.00 16.40 1.40 91.67 8.33 300.00 23.86 2.04 89.63 10.37 210.00 72.87 6.23 83.40 16.60 150.00 130.26 11.14 72.26 27.74 106.00 236.72 20.24 52.03 47.97 75.00 291.53 24.92 27.10 72.90 53.00 102.88 8.80 18.30 81.70 45.00 30.98 2.65 15.66 84.34 38.00 28.88 2.47 13.19 86.81

154.24 13.19 1169.63 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 24.04 2.06 97.94 2.06 1680.00 24.78 2.12 95.82 4.18 1200.00 10.93 0.93 94.89 5.11 850.00 8.29 0.71 94.18 5.82 600.00 7.95 0.68 93.50 6.50 420.00 14.05 1.20 92.30 7.70 300.00 21.50 1.84 90.46 9.54 210.00 69.42 5.94 84.52 15.48 150.00 125.78 10.75 73.77 26.23 106.00 229.58 19.63 54.14 45.86 75.00 304.44 26.03 28.11 71.89 53.00 104.52 8.94 19.18 80.82 45.00 34.20 2.92 16.25 83.75 38.00 31.37 2.68 13.57 86.43

158.78 13.58 1169.63 100.00

126



Oversize 2400.00 18.77 1.60 98.40 1.60 1680.00 20.16 1.72 96.68 3.32 1200.00 9.70 0.83 95.85 4.15 850.00 7.26 0.62 95.23 4.77 600.00 7.58 0.65 94.58 5.42 420.00 14.12 1.21 93.37 6.63 300.00 23.07 1.97 91.40 8.60 210.00 71.01 6.07 85.33 14.67 150.00 132.30 11.31 74.02 25.98 106.00 220.01 18.81 55.21 44.79 75.00 307.36 26.28 28.93 71.07 53.00 102.68 8.78 20.15 79.85 45.00 32.21 2.75 17.40 82.61 38.00 34.72 2.97 14.43 85.57

168.68 14.42 1169.63 100.00

Table 82. Bond test data for clinker at test sieve of 75 µ. Test No.

Product Oversize

(gr)

Product Undersize

(gr)

Added New Feed Undersize (gr)

Net grams of Product

(gr)

Revolution Net grams of Product per Revolution

(gr/rev.) 1 995.33 174.30 - 82.48 100 0.6908 2 917.87 251.79 13.68 314.41 291 0.6146 3 767.71 401.92 19.77 382.15 384 0.7276 4 843.66 325.97 31.55 294.42 304 0.7615 5 814.20 355.43 25.59 329.84 319 0.7458 6 844.15 325.48 27.90 297.58 296 0.7201 7 831.68 337.95 22.55 315.45 307 0.7803 8 831.78 337.85 26.53 311.32 297 0.7378 9 833.54 336.14 26.52 309.62 297 0.7254 10 831.34 338.29 26.38 311.91 298 0.7354

Table 83. Size distribution of trass after 1th SET.

Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight % Undersize


2400.00 42.92 4.25 95.75 4.25 1680.00 73.06 7.24 88.51 11.49 1200.00 76.25 7.55 80.96 19.04 850.00 96.36 9.54 71.42 28.58 600.00 100.29 9.93 61.49 38.51 420.00 115.36 11.42 50.06 49.94 300.00 81.04 8.03 42.04 57.96 210.00 94.33 9.34 32.70 67.30 150.00 74.31 7.36 25.34 74.66 106.00 54.15 5.36 19.98 80.02 75.00 47.91 4.74 15.23 84.77 53.00 41.49 4.11 11.12 88.88 45.00 16.32 1.62 9.51 90.49 38.00 16.91 1.67 7.83 92.17

79.08 7.83 1009.78 100.00

127

Table 84. Size distribution of trass after 2nd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 11.04 1.09 98.91 1.09 1680.00 14.94 1.48 97.43 2.57 1200.00 10.72 1.06 96.37 3.63 850.00 12.18 1.21 95.16 4.84 600.00 23.81 2.36 92.80 7.20 420.00 75.18 7.45 85.36 14.64 300.00 110.96 10.99 74.37 25.63 210.00 198.59 19.67 54.70 45.30 150.00 186.70 18.49 36.21 63.78 106.00 64.60 6.40 29.81 70.18 75.00 82.71 8.19 21.62 78.37 53.00 56.06 5.55 16.07 83.92 45.00 18.58 1.84 14.23 85.76 38.00 21.17 2.10 12.14 87.86

122.54 12.14 1009.78 100.00

Table 85. Size distribution of trass after 3rd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 4.68 0.46 99.54 0.46 1680.00 4.90 0.49 99.05 0.95 1200.00 2.38 0.24 98.82 1.18 850.00 1.77 0.18 98.64 1.36 600.00 1.95 0.19 98.45 1.55 420.00 6.10 0.60 97.84 2.16 300.00 28.32 2.80 95.04 4.96 210.00 217.61 21.55 73.49 26.51 150.00 157.49 15.60 57.89 42.11 106.00 129.35 12.81 45.08 54.92 75.00 141.96 14.06 31.02 68.98 53.00 85.06 8.42 22.60 77.40 45.00 26.93 2.67 19.93 80.07 38.00 28.07 2.78 17.15 82.85

173.21 17.15 1009.78 100.00

Table 86. Size distribution of trass after 4th SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 3.61 0.36 99.64 0.36 1680.00 4.18 0.41 99.23 0.77 1200.00 2.07 0.20 99.02 0.98 850.00 1.71 0.17 98.85 1.15 600.00 1.80 0.18 98.68 1.32 420.00 4.65 0.46 98.22 1.78 300.00 14.54 1.44 96.78 3.22 210.00 113.33 11.22 85.55 14.44 150.00 184.12 18.23 67.32 32.68 106.00 184.08 18.23 49.09 50.91 75.00 188.32 18.65 30.44 69.56 53.00 87.80 8.69 21.74 78.25 45.00 27.49 2.72 19.02 80.97 38.00 27.43 2.72 16.31 83.69

164.65 16.31 1009.78 100.00

128



Oversize 2400.00 3.31 0.33 99.67 0.33 1680.00 3.98 0.39 99.28 0.72 1200.00 2.61 0.26 99.02 0.98 850.00 1.96 0.19 98.83 1.17 600.00 2.17 0.21 98.61 1.39 420.00 5.59 0.55 98.06 1.94 300.00 15.84 1.57 96.49 3.51 210.00 86.77 8.59 87.90 12.11 150.00 185.16 18.34 69.56 30.44 106.00 203.61 20.16 49.39 50.61 75.00 207.56 20.55 28.84 71.16 53.00 92.37 9.15 19.69 80.31 45.00 28.03 2.78 16.92 83.08 38.00 26.21 2.60 14.32 85.68

144.61 14.32 1009.78 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 1.37 0.14 99.86 0.14 1680.00 2.74 0.27 99.59 0.41 1200.00 1.72 0.17 99.42 0.58 850.00 1.42 0.14 99.28 0.72 600.00 1.65 0.16 99.12 0.89 420.00 4.40 0.44 98.68 1.32 300.00 11.93 1.18 97.50 2.50 210.00 65.50 6.49 91.01 8.99 150.00 144.23 14.28 76.73 23.27 106.00 254.31 25.18 51.55 48.46 75.00 224.75 22.26 29.29 70.71 53.00 82.87 8.21 21.08 78.92 45.00 29.13 2.88 18.20 81.81 38.00 28.35 2.81 15.39 84.61

155.41 15.39 1009.78 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 2.06 0.20 99.80 0.20 1680.00 2.00 0.20 99.60 0.40 1200.00 1.44 0.14 99.46 0.54 850.00 1.27 0.13 99.33 0.67 600.00 1.35 0.13 99.20 0.80 420.00 3.39 0.34 98.86 1.14 300.00 9.17 0.91 97.95 2.05 210.00 53.22 5.27 92.68 7.32 150.00 138.26 13.69 78.99 21.01 106.00 222.34 22.02 56.97 43.03 75.00 246.35 24.40 32.57 67.43 53.00 99.54 9.86 22.72 77.29 45.00 31.93 3.16 19.55 80.45 38.00 26.46 2.62 16.93 83.07

171.00 16.93 1009.78 100.00

129



Oversize 2400.00 2.31 0.23 99.77 0.23 1680.00 4.14 0.41 99.36 0.64 1200.00 2.61 0.26 99.10 0.90 850.00 2.28 0.23 98.88 1.12 600.00 2.64 0.26 98.62 1.38 420.00 6.91 0.68 97.93 2.07 300.00 15.89 1.57 96.36 3.14 210.00 66.18 6.55 89.80 11.20 150.00 132.90 13.16 76.64 23.36 106.00 248.28 24.59 52.05 47.95 75.00 227.19 22.50 29.56 60.82 53.00 96.70 9.58 19.98 69.02 45.00 27.43 2.72 17.26 82.74 38.00 24.69 2.45 14.82 85.18

149.63 14.82 1009.78 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 3.52 0.35 99.65 0.35 1680.00 5.53 0.55 95.82 4.18 1200.00 3.22 0.32 95.50 4.50 850.00 2.63 0.26 95.24 4.76 600.00 3.48 0.34 94.90 5.10 420.00 8.93 0.88 94.01 5.99 300.00 18.90 1.87 92.14 7.86 210.00 71.70 7.10 85.04 14.96 150.00 131.72 13.04 72.00 28.00 106.00 232.62 23.04 48.96 51.04 75.00 263.99 26.14 22.81 77.19 53.00 82.92 8.21 14.60 85.40 45.00 27.54 2.73 11.88 88.12 38.00 20.13 1.99 9.88 90.12

132.95 13.17 1009.78 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 2.13 0.21 99.79 0.21 1680.00 3.71 0.37 96.68 3.32 1200.00 1.94 0.19 96.49 3.51 850.00 1.78 0.18 96.31 3.69 600.00 2.03 0.20 96.11 3.89 420.00 4.98 0.49 95.62 4.38 300.00 12.81 1.27 94.35 5.65 210.00 65.39 6.48 87.87 12.13 150.00 117.26 11.61 76.26 23.74 106.00 239.35 23.70 52.56 47.44 75.00 283.36 28.06 24.50 75.50 53.00 82.09 8.13 16.37 83.63 45.00 25.44 2.52 13.85 86.15 38.00 25.09 2.48 11.36 88.64

142.42 14.10 1009.78 100.00

130

Table 93. Bond test data for trass at test sieve of 75 µ. Test No.

Product Oversize

(gr)

Product Undersize

(gr)

Added New Feed Undersize (gr)


(gr)


(gr/rev.) 1 855.98 153.80 62.00 91.80 100 0.9180 2 791.43 218.35 9.44 208.91 304 0.6872 3 696.51 313.27 13.41 299.86 400 0.7497 4 702.41 307.37 19.23 288.14 359 0.8026 5 718.56 291.22 18.87 272.35 336 0.8106 6 714.02 295.76 17.88 277.88 334 0.8320 7 747.89 261.89 16.08 247.08 230 1.0740 8 733.89 275.89 16.94 271.57 235 1.1056 9 721.59 288.19 17.70 271.25 244 1.1117 10 723.84 275.04 17.56 268.24 240 1.1177

Table 94. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 1th SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.51 0.05 99.95 0.05 1200.00 3.31 0.32 99.63 0.37 850.00 30.05 2.92 96.71 3.29 600.00 154.65 15.02 81.69 18.31 420.00 316.17 30.71 50.98 49.02 300.00 173.66 16.87 34.11 65.89 210.00 134.86 13.10 21.01 78.99 150.00 71.42 6.94 14.07 85.93 106.00 46.99 4.56 9.51 90.49 75.00 32.38 3.15 6.37 93.63 53.00 24.20 2.35 4.01 95.99 45.00 9.16 0.89 3.12 96.88 38.00 6.21 0.60 2.52 97.48

25.96 2.52 1029.53 100.00

Table 95. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 2nd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.17 0.02 99.98 0.02 850.00 0.29 0.03 99.96 0.04 600.00 0.24 0.02 99.93 0.07 420.00 2.00 0.19 99.74 0.26 300.00 25.70 2.50 97.24 2.76 210.00 182.81 17.76 79.48 20.52 150.00 240.23 23.33 56.15 43.85 106.00 128.72 12.50 43.65 56.35 75.00 138.61 13.46 30.18 69.82 53.00 97.91 9.51 20.67 79.33 45.00 36.95 3.59 17.09 82.91 38.00 30.53 2.97 14.12 85.88

145.37 14.12 1029.53 100.00

131

Table 96. Size distribution of blast furnace slag after 3rd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.18 0.02 99.98 0.02 850.00 0.23 0.02 99.96 0.04 600.00 0.25 0.02 99.94 0.06 420.00 0.43 0.04 99.89 0.11 300.00 3.73 0.36 99.53 0.47 210.00 61.41 5.96 93.57 6.43 150.00 199.18 19.35 74.22 25.78 106.00 208.67 20.27 53.95 46.05 75.00 208.37 20.24 33.71 66.29 53.00 124.05 12.05 21.66 78.34 45.00 36.13 3.51 18.15 81.85 38.00 37.15 3.61 14.55 85.45

149.75 14.55 1029.53 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.12 0.01 99.99 0.01 850.00 0.21 0.02 99.97 0.03 600.00 0.23 0.02 99.95 0.05 420.00 0.82 0.08 99.87 0.13 300.00 6.77 0.66 99.21 0.79 210.00 65.21 6.33 92.87 7.13 150.00 181.23 17.60 75.27 24.73 106.00 232.05 22.54 52.73 47.27 75.00 249.09 24.19 28.54 71.46 53.00 107.19 10.41 18.13 81.87 45.00 33.21 3.23 14.90 85.10 38.00 29.41 2.86 12.04 87.96

123.99 12.04 1029.53 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.14 0.01 99.99 0.01 850.00 0.19 0.02 99.97 0.03 600.00 0.21 0.02 99.95 0.05 420.00 0.67 0.07 99.88 0.12 300.00 4.98 0.48 99.40 0.60 210.00 50.71 4.93 94.47 5.53 150.00 157.72 15.32 79.15 20.85 106.00 230.23 22.36 56.79 43.21 75.00 279.95 27.19 29.60 70.40 53.00 115.40 11.21 18.39 81.61 45.00 29.83 2.90 15.49 84.51 38.00 30.51 2.96 12.53 87.47

128.99 12.53 1029.53 100.00

132



Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.16 0.02 99.98 0.02 850.00 0.26 0.03 99.96 0.04 600.00 0.19 0.02 99.94 0.06 420.00 0.52 0.05 99.89 0.11 300.00 5.32 0.52 99.37 0.63 210.00 55.36 5.38 94.00 6.00 150.00 173.64 16.87 77.13 22.87 106.00 209.38 20.34 56.79 43.21 75.00 245.25 23.82 32.97 67.03 53.00 125.39 12.18 20.79 79.21 45.00 37.99 3.69 17.10 82.90 38.00 33.54 3.26 13.84 86.16

142.53 13.84 1029.53 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.21 0.02 99.98 0.02 850.00 0.22 0.02 99.96 0.04 600.00 0.30 0.03 99.93 0.07 420.00 0.74 0.07 99.86 0.14 300.00 6.33 0.61 99.24 0.76 210.00 61.12 5.94 93.31 6.69 150.00 158.34 15.38 77.93 22.07 106.00 232.87 22.62 55.31 44.69 75.00 271.31 26.35 28.95 71.05 53.00 115.33 11.20 17.75 82.25 45.00 31.21 3.03 14.72 85.28 38.00 25.24 2.45 12.27 87.73

126.31 12.27 1029.53 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.11 0.01 99.99 0.01 850.00 0.25 0.02 99.97 0.03 600.00 0.22 0.02 99.94 0.06 420.00 0.77 0.07 99.87 0.13 300.00 3.99 0.39 99.48 0.52 210.00 49.36 4.79 94.69 5.31 150.00 168.32 16.35 78.34 21.66 106.00 233.16 22.65 55.69 44.31 75.00 266.89 25.92 29.77 70.23 53.00 112.52 10.93 18.84 81.16 45.00 31.02 3.01 15.82 84.18 38.00 35.21 3.42 12.40 87.60

127.71 12.40 1029.53 100.00

133



Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.11 0.01 99.99 0.01 850.00 0.26 0.03 99.96 0.04 600.00 0.20 0.02 99.94 0.06 420.00 0.77 0.07 99.87 0.13 300.00 3.89 0.38 99.49 0.51 210.00 58.29 5.66 93.83 6.17 150.00 168.18 16.34 77.49 22.51 106.00 218.92 21.26 56.23 43.77 75.00 269.07 26.14 30.10 69.90 53.00 110.27 10.71 19.38 80.62 45.00 26.48 2.57 16.81 83.19 38.00 20.96 2.04 14.78 85.22

152.13 14.78 1029.53 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1680.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 1200.00 0.20 0.02 99.98 0.02 850.00 0.29 0.03 99.95 0.05 600.00 0.24 0.02 99.93 0.07 420.00 0.59 0.06 99.87 0.13 300.00 6.32 0.61 99.26 0.74 210.00 66.97 6.50 92.75 7.25 150.00 176.59 17.15 75.60 24.40 106.00 214.55 20.84 54.76 45.24 75.00 257.21 24.98 29.78 70.22 53.00 115.05 11.18 18.60 81.40 45.00 28.26 2.74 15.86 84.14 38.00 26.57 2.58 13.28 86.72

136.69 13.28 1029.53 100.00

Table 104. Laboratory test data for blast furnace slag at test sieve of 75 µ. Test No.

Product Oversize

(gr)

Product Undersize

(gr)

Added New Feed Undersize

(gr)


(gr)


(gr/rev.) 1 964.00 65.53 0.87 51.84 100 0.5184 2 718.77 310.76 4.13 309.89 566 0.5475 3 682.45 347.09 4.62 342.95 530 0.6471 4 735.73 293.80 3.91 289.18 447 0.6469 5 724.80 304.73 4.05 300.82 449 0.6700 6 724.70 304.83 4.05 300.78 410 0.7336 7 731.44 298.09 3.97 294.04 372 0.7904 8 723.07 306.46 4.08 302.49 388 0.7796 9 719.69 309.84 4.12 305.76 380 0.7800 10 719.96 309.57 4.12 305.45 395 0.7733

134

Table 105. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) after 1th SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 76.80 6.57 93.43 6.57 1680.00 100.95 8.63 84.80 15.20 1200.00 87.10 7.45 77.36 22.64 850.00 98.80 8.45 68.91 31.09 600.00 111.53 9.54 59.37 40.63 420.00 133.78 11.44 47.94 52.06 300.00 96.96 8.29 39.65 60.35 210.00 105.19 8.99 30.65 69.35 150.00 50.32 4.30 26.35 73.65 106.00 54.82 4.69 21.66 78.34 75.00 40.64 3.47 18.19 81.81 53.00 44.15 3.77 14.41 85.59 45.00 18.69 1.60 12.82 87.18 38.00 15.77 1.35 11.47 88.53

80.15 6.85 1115.65 95.38

Table 106. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) after 2nd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 24.74 2.12 97.88 2.12 1680.00 29.39 2.51 95.37 4.63 1200.00 18.88 1.61 93.76 6.24 850.00 19.36 1.66 92.10 7.90 600.00 29.80 2.55 89.55 10.45 420.00 81.33 6.95 82.60 17.40 300.00 124.51 10.65 71.96 28.04 210.00 142.70 12.20 59.76 40.24 150.00 149.62 12.79 46.96 53.04 106.00 145.27 12.42 34.54 65.46 75.00 99.48 8.51 26.04 73.96 53.00 65.82 5.63 20.41 79.59 45.00 30.00 2.56 17.85 82.15 38.00 22.18 1.90 15.95 84.05

132.57 11.33 1115.65 95.38

Table 107. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) after 3rd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 10.16 0.87 99.13 0.87 1680.00 9.72 0.83 98.30 1.70 1200.00 4.66 0.40 97.90 2.10 850.00 3.57 0.31 97.60 2.40 600.00 3.91 0.33 97.26 2.74 420.00 11.44 0.98 96.28 3.72 300.00 37.17 3.18 93.11 6.89 210.00 131.56 11.25 81.86 18.14 150.00 174.69 14.94 66.92 33.08 106.00 216.15 18.48 48.44 51.56 75.00 139.66 11.94 36.50 63.50 53.00 114.41 9.78 26.72 73.28 45.00 37.26 3.19 23.53 76.47 38.00 32.34 2.76 20.77 79.23

188.95 16.15 1115.65 95.38

135



Oversize 2400.00 11.70 1.00 99.00 1.00 1680.00 11.92 1.02 97.98 2.02 1200.00 7.00 0.60 97.38 2.62 850.00 5.40 0.46 96.92 3.08 600.00 6.33 0.54 96.38 3.62 420.00 15.37 1.31 95.07 4.93 300.00 32.85 2.81 92.26 7.74 210.00 101.96 8.72 83.54 16.46 150.00 177.01 15.13 68.41 31.59 106.00 245.18 20.96 47.44 52.56 75.00 182.01 15.56 31.88 68.12 53.00 95.16 8.14 23.75 76.25 45.00 32.42 2.77 20.97 79.03 38.00 27.02 2.31 18.66 81.34

164.32 14.05 1115.65 95.38



Oversize 2400.00 10.62 0.91 99.09 0.91 1680.00 11.55 0.99 98.10 1.90 1200.00 6.79 0.58 97.52 2.48 850.00 5.52 0.47 97.05 2.95 600.00 6.54 0.56 96.49 3.51 420.00 15.04 1.29 95.21 4.79 300.00 29.58 2.53 92.68 7.32 210.00 83.10 7.10 85.57 14.43 150.00 168.60 14.41 71.16 28.84 106.00 265.90 22.73 48.42 51.58 75.00 210.47 17.99 30.43 69.57 53.00 91.10 7.79 22.64 77.36 45.00 26.72 2.28 20.36 79.65 38.00 27.68 2.37 17.99 82.01

156.44 13.38 1115.65 95.38

Table 110. Bond test data for (65%Clinker+25%Trass+10%Slag) at test sieve of 75 µ. Test No.

Product Oversize

(gr)

Product Undersize

(gr)


(gr)


(gr)


(gr/rev.) 1 956.89 158.76 9.10 94.81 100 0.9481 2 865.08 250.57 14.36 241.47 278 0.8686 3 742.69 372.96 21.37 358.60 350 1.0246 4 796.73 318.92 18.27 340.29 288 1.1074 5 813.71 301.94 17.30 283.67 256 1.1088

136

Table 111. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Trass) after 1th SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 83.27 7.48 92.52 7.48 1680.00 105.68 9.49 83.03 16.97 1200.00 86.19 7.74 75.29 24.71 850.00 90.49 8.13 67.17 32.83 600.00 91.41 8.21 58.96 41.04 420.00 109.32 9.82 49.15 50.85 300.00 84.06 7.55 41.60 58.40 210.00 89.15 8.00 33.59 66.41 150.00 74.02 6.65 26.95 73.05 106.00 66.80 6.00 20.95 79.05 75.00 49.47 4.44 16.51 83.49 53.00 48.84 4.39 12.12 87.88 45.00 19.27 1.73 10.39 89.61 38.00 20.31 1.82 8.57 91.43

95.40 8.57 1113.68 100.00

Table 112. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Trass) after 2nd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 31.30 2.81 97.19 2.81 1680.00 36.41 3.27 93.92 6.08 1200.00 23.93 2.15 91.77 8.23 850.00 24.20 2.17 89.60 10.40 600.00 34.05 3.06 86.54 13.46 420.00 74.71 6.71 79.83 20.17 300.00 99.57 8.94 70.89 29.11 210.00 146.60 13.16 57.73 42.27 150.00 136.82 12.29 45.44 54.56 106.00 141.08 12.67 32.78 67.22 75.00 101.55 9.12 23.66 76.34 53.00 78.15 7.02 16.64 83.36 45.00 28.82 2.59 14.05 85.95 38.00 24.73 2.22 11.83 88.17

131.76 11.83 1113.68 100.00

Table 113. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Trass) after 3rd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 16.99 1.53 98.47 1.53 1680.00 18.73 1.68 96.79 3.21 1200.00 9.65 0.87 95.93 4.07 850.00 7.75 0.70 95.23 4.77 600.00 8.39 0.75 94.48 5.52 420.00 21.44 1.93 92.55 7.45 300.00 49.60 4.45 88.10 11.90 210.00 127.61 11.46 76.64 23.36 150.00 174.78 15.69 60.95 39.05 106.00 199.71 17.93 43.01 56.99 75.00 152.84 13.72 29.29 70.71 53.00 96.92 8.70 20.59 79.41 45.00 34.36 3.09 17.50 82.50 38.00 33.49 3.01 14.49 85.51

161.42 14.49 1113.68 100.00

137



Oversize 2400.00 15.61 1.40 98.60 1.40 1680.00 14.94 1.34 97.26 2.74 1200.00 7.42 0.67 96.59 3.41 850.00 5.80 0.52 96.07 3.93 600.00 5.72 0.51 95.56 4.44 420.00 12.63 1.13 94.42 5.58 300.00 27.93 2.51 91.91 8.09 210.00 89.13 8.00 83.91 16.09 150.00 162.44 14.59 69.33 30.67 106.00 231.01 20.74 48.58 51.42 75.00 183.60 16.49 32.10 67.90 53.00 112.96 10.14 21.95 78.05 45.00 39.88 3.58 18.37 81.63 38.00 34.83 3.13 15.24 84.76

169.78 15.24 1113.68 100.00



Oversize 2400.00 17.68 1.59 98.41 0.91 1680.00 18.74 1.68 96.73 2.59 1200.00 10.11 0.91 95.82 3.50 850.00 8.61 0.77 95.05 4.27 600.00 10.00 0.90 94.15 5.17 420.00 20.73 1.86 92.29 7.03 300.00 35.16 3.16 89.13 10.19 210.00 80.65 7.24 81.89 17.43 150.00 154.48 13.87 68.02 31.30 106.00 251.08 22.55 45.47 53.85 75.00 205.36 18.44 27.03 72.29 53.00 100.03 8.98 18.05 81.27 45.00 28.01 2.52 15.54 83.78 38.00 28.82 2.59 12.95 86.37

144.22 12.95 1113.68 100.00

Table 116. Bond test data for (65%Clinker+35%Trass) at test sieve of 75 µ. Test No.

Product Oversize

(gr)

Product Undersize

(gr)

Added New Feed

Undersize (gr)


(gr)


(gr/rev.) 1 929.86 183.82 11.43 114.54 100 1.1454 2 850.22 263.46 16.30 252.03 268 0.9404 3 787.49 326.19 20.29 309.89 321 0.9654 4 756.23 357.45 22.23 337.16 309 1.0910 5 812.60 301.08 18.73 278.85 271 1.0229

138

Table 117. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Slag) after 1th SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 58.75 5.02 94.98 5.02 1680.00 77.29 6.61 88.37 11.63 1200.00 62.64 5.36 83.01 16.99 850.00 82.15 7.02 75.99 24.01 600.00 121.90 10.42 65.57 34.43 420.00 181.08 15.48 50.09 49.91 300.00 118.61 10.14 39.95 60.05 210.00 115.78 9.90 30.05 69.95 150.00 83.09 7.10 22.94 77.06 106.00 56.85 4.86 18.08 81.92 75.00 28.58 2.44 15.64 84.36 53.00 38.72 3.31 12.33 87.67 45.00 15.28 1.31 11.02 88.98 38.00 15.59 1.33 9.69 90.31

64.29 5.50 1120.60 95.81

Table 118. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Slag) after 2nd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 19.37 1.66 98.34 1.66 1680.00 19.36 1.66 96.69 3.31 1200.00 10.12 0.87 95.82 4.18 850.00 8.86 0.76 95.07 4.93 600.00 12.62 1.08 93.99 6.01 420.00 47.77 4.08 89.90 10.10 300.00 102.21 8.74 81.16 18.84 210.00 189.23 16.18 64.99 35.01 150.00 177.18 15.15 49.84 50.16 106.00 157.71 13.48 36.35 63.65 75.00 101.58 8.68 27.67 72.33 53.00 84.59 7.23 20.44 79.56 45.00 31.30 2.68 17.76 82.24 38.00 29.60 2.53 15.23 84.77

129.10 11.04 1120.60 95.81

Table 119. Size distribution of (65%Clinker+35%Slag) after 3rd SET. Size (µ) Weight (gr) Weight (%) Cum. Weight %


Oversize 2400.00 7.38 0.63 99.37 0.63 1680.00 6.75 0.58 98.79 1.21 1200.00 3.04 0.26 98.53 1.47 850.00 2.08 0.18 98.35 1.65 600.00 1.91 0.16 98.19 1.81 420.00 5.20 0.44 97.75 2.25 300.00 21.84 1.87 95.88 4.12 210.00 107.74 9.21 86.67 13.33 150.00 189.63 16.21 70.45 29.55 106.00 238.54 20.39 50.06 49.94 75.00 168.91 14.44 35.62 64.38 53.00 116.84 9.99 25.63 74.37 45.00 40.45 3.46 22.17 77.83 38.00 38.67 3.31 18.86 81.14

171.62 14.67 1120.60 95.81

139



Oversize 2400.00 8.13 0.70 99.30 0.70 1680.00 8.48 0.73 98.58 1.42 1200.00 3.83 0.33 98.25 1.75 850.00 2.75 0.24 98.02 1.98 600.00 3.05 0.26 97.76 2.24 420.00 7.61 0.65 97.11 2.89 300.00 20.74 1.77 95.33 4.67 210.00 86.10 7.36 87.97 12.03 150.00 170.10 14.54 73.43 26.57 106.00 270.63 23.14 50.29 49.71 75.00 202.97 17.35 32.94 67.06 53.00 114.45 9.79 23.15 76.85 45.00 38.82 3.32 19.83 80.17 38.00 33.60 2.87 16.96 83.04

149.34 12.77 1120.60 95.81



Oversize 2400.00 8.42 0.72 99.28 0.91 1680.00 8.15 0.70 98.58 1.61 1200.00 3.84 0.33 98.26 1.94 850.00 3.23 0.28 97.98 2.21 600.00 3.26 0.28 97.70 2.49 420.00 7.68 0.66 97.04 3.15 300.00 18.95 1.62 95.42 4.77 210.00 70.58 6.03 89.39 10.80 150.00 153.56 13.13 76.26 23.93 106.00 288.04 24.63 51.63 48.56 75.00 236.25 20.20 31.43 68.76 53.00 113.16 9.67 21.76 78.43 45.00 38.38 3.28 18.48 81.71 38.00 29.65 2.53 15.94 84.25

137.45 11.75 1120.60 95.81

Table 122. Bond test data for (65%Clinker+35%Slag) at test sieve of 75 µ. Test No.

Product Oversize

(gr)

Product Undersize

(gr)


(gr)


(gr)


(gr/rev.) 1 986.72 133.88 6.25 81.51 100 0.8151 2 846.01 274.50 12.82 261.68 336 0.7788 3 753.02 367.58 17.17 354.76 413 0.8590 4 784.39 336.21 15.70 319.04 353 0.9038 5 801.96 318.64 14.88 302.94 337 0.8989

140

CURRICULUM VITAE

Çağatay Avşar was born in Ankara on April 24, 1970. He received his B.S. and MSc. degree in Mining Engineering from Middle East Technical University in July 1993 and in September 1996, respectively. He worked in GİMET Drilling Co. as a drilling engineer from 1993 to 1994. After that he worked as a research assistant in the Department of Mining Engineering from 1994 to 2001. Since then he has been a chief engineer in Kurucaşile Sandstone Processing Plant of CAMİŞ Mining Co. His main areas of interest are grindability determination methods in mineral processing and comminution characteristics of cement components.

Documents

BREAKAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF CEMENT COMPONENTS …