Revisiting gouging abrasion test for jaw crushers

Giuseppe Pintaude,Nilson Mar Bartalini

doi:10.1590/0370-44672017710060

Giuseppe Pintaude, Nilson Mar Bartalini

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/0370-44672017710060

Copy DOI

Abstract

Abstract The use of a gouging abrasion test to evaluate the wear of jaw crushers is revised in terms of its procedures, considering the effects of the most significant variables, such as the minimum amount of crushed material and the minimum opening between the jaws during the crushing cycle (minimum discharge aperture). A correlation between the work hardening of jaws and the amount of crushed material is presented. The wear of stationary and movable jaws is compared, being the results dependent on the jaw's material and the discharge aperture. The abrasiveness of several rocks was evaluated, showing a good correlation with their Mohs hardness.

Highlights

Around 40 per cent of the total energy used in mineral processing operations is due to the crushing and grinding steps
Considering the wear performance of a wide range of materials and hardfacing deposits during gouging abrasion test, the findings described by Llewellyn et al (2006) can be considered a very useful guide
This article summarizes results obtained in a gouging abrasion test obtained with a lab jaw crusher machine

Summary

Introduction

Around 40 per cent of the total energy used in mineral processing operations is due to the crushing and grinding steps. Most of wear data was produced by two research groups: the US Bureau of Mines (closed in March 1996) in EUA (Blickensderfer et al, 1985; Tylczak et al, 1999; Hawk et al, 1999), and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia (Sare et al, 1980; Sare and Arnold, 1989; Sare and Constantine, 1991; Sare and Arnold, 1995; Sare and Constantine, 1997) Before these publications, the Climax Molybdenum Company presented significant investigations for the interpretation of results obtained in tests to estimate the wear of jaw crushers (Borik and Sponseller, 1971a; Borik and Sponseller, 1971b).

Methods

Results

Conclusion