Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, Vol. 39, No.

2, 2017
DOI: 10.1515/sgem-2017-0012

ANALYSIS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF CRUSHING PROCESSES

– COMPARISON OF ONE-STAGE AND TWO-STAGE PROCESSES

PAWEŁ CIĘŻKOWSKI, JAN MACIEJEWSKI, SEBASTIAN BĄK

Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Automotive and Construction Machinery Engineering,

Institute of Construction Machinery,
e-mail: pawel.ciezkowski@simr.pw.edu.pl, jan.maciejewski@simr.pw.edu.pl, sebastian.bak@simr.pw.edu.pl

Abstract: This paper presents experimental comparison of two machine crushing technologies: one-stage and two-stage. The study
was carried on a model double-toggle jaw crusher which allows crushing forces, energy and toggle displacement to be measured.
The main aim of the work was to determine the energy consumption of crushing process assuming a given level of fragmentation.
Studies were performed on three rocks: granite “Strzegom”, limestone “Morawica” and sandstone “Mucharz”. The material tested
had a cubic shape and average dimension of 90 mm. One-stage crushing was carried out for outlet slot er = 11 mm, and two-stage
crushing for er = 24 mm and 11 mm. In the tests special design of variable profile moving jaw was used and fixed jaw was flat. The
analysis of the results shows that taking into account energy consumption, it is better to use two-stage crushing process. For given
materials energy consumption in the two-stage crushing process was reduced by 30%.

Key words: rock crushing, jaw crusher, crushing efficiency, two stage crushing process

1. INTRODUCTION operating and maintenance costs and simple mainte-

nance.
When reviewing literature it can be noticed that
The main aim of processing rock raw materials is to there are many devices for crushing of fragile materials.
prepare and process the rocks to a condition that meets These machines are characterized by different capaci-
the commercial requirements for quality parameters as ties, construction, energy consumption and destination
well as the production of suitable products in accordance (Tromans [16], Foszcz and Gawenda [7], Ciężkowski
with the requirements of the standards. Due to the signif- [2],[3], Ciężkowski and Maciejewski [4], Ciężkowski
icant development of road and rail infrastructure and to et al. [5], Foszcz and Włodarczyk [9], Kobiałka and
growing demand for high quality aggregates, methods of Naziemiec [12], Rumpf [14], Klushancev et al. [11]).
crushing should be sought which ensure high product These devices are individually selected for specific
quality and low cost of production. technological processes. One thing is certain: the process
Growing demand for aggregates of various frac- of crushing entails high energy consumption (Tęsio-
tions often leads to situations in which producers, rowski [15], Numbia et al. [19]), and wear off the crush-
companies selling aggregates, have to adapt fast to er components (Mierzwa et al. [18]), which aggravates
requirements of individual customers. In addition, the their efficiency. Strength parameters of the feed (Ak-
economics of production requires a comprehensive barnezhad et al. [1]) and physical characteristics such as
and optimal use of the raw material. Hence, it is be- moisture content (Fuerstenau and Abouzeid [10]) also
coming more and more common for the aggregate avert influence on the process of crushing.
manufacturer to further refine its current product to In the present study, the machine crushing pro-
meet the specific customer requirements. This in- cess were performed on doubble-toggle jaw crusher,
volves the need to expand technological lines by using shown schematically in Fig. 1a. Fig. 1b presents the
additional processing equipment, different from that outlet slot er measurement principle adopted in the
operating in the main technological line. experiment.
In aggregate processing plants, jaw, cone and im- The most important operational and technical pa-
pact crushers are most commonly used. At the initial rameters of the jaw crushers are the dimension of the
stages of crushing, jaw or cone crushers are usually inlet slot a  b, the displacement of the moving jaw s
used. The advantages of the jaw crusher are the low (distance between the plates at the narrowest point of

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/16/18 12:42 PM
18 P. CIĘŻKOWSKI et al.

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of laboratory jaw crusher:

1 – fixed jaw, 2 – moving jaw, 3a, 3b – toggle plates, 4 – pitman, 5 – eccentric shaft,
a, b – width and length of the inlet slot, 6 – flywheel, 7 – rear wall, 8 – outlet slot er adjusting device,
(b) methodology of outlet slot width measurement, s – moving jaw displacement, er – outlet slot dimension

the working chamber), nip angle  (angle between the et al. [5]). The purpose of the experiments carried out
surfaces of the fixed and moving jaw in the reverse in this work is to compare the comminution of the feed
position, when the moving jaw is as close as possible in a two-stage and a single-stage crushing process and
to the fixed one), the angular velocity of the drive to determine technological parameters of the latter, i.e.,
shaft n (no-load running), the dimension of the outlet performance, effective energy and crushing forces.
slot er, the cross and longitudinal profiles of crushing
plates (Kobiałka and Naziemiec [12], Zawada and
Pawlak [17]). Under industrial conditions, the outlet 2. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
slot er and the moving jaw displacement s are regulat-
ed. Other parameters are selected at the design stage
for a given process line (Gawenda [8]). The object of the study was a double-toggle jaw
The present paper is a continuation of the work on crusher (Ciężkowski (ed.) [6]). The test machine fully
optimization of the crushing process at the Institute corresponds structurally and functionally to double-
of Construction Machinery Engineering (Ciężkowski toggle jaw crushers used for industrial purposes, dif-

Table 1. Strength parameters of the feed

Material
Strength parameters
Limestone Sandstone Granite
Young’s modulus E [GPa] 23.13 16.96 9.73
Cohesion c [MPa] 20 31.82 18.91
Internal friction angle  [] 56 34 44
Uniaxial tensile strength Sr [MPa] 8.03 11.05 8.74
Uniaxial compressive strength Sc [MPa] 158.45 122.78 95.09

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. Examples of feed specimens from mines in Poland with average dimension of 90 mm used in the tests:
(a) limestone “Morawica”, (b) sandstone “Mucharz”, (c) granite “Strzegom”

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/16/18 12:42 PM
 Analysis of energy consumption of crushing processes – comparison of one-stage and two-stage processes 19

fering from them almost exclusively by dimensions. It crushing stage (C, B). After the first stage of crush-
is characterized by the following technical parameters: ing, the material was sieved in order to perform our
the dimension of the inlet slot a  b = 100  200 mm, analysis of the product grain. To complete sieve
height of the crusher’s working chamber h = 250 mm, analysis a set of control sieves was used.
the outlet slot er = 20÷30 mm, the angular velocity of A set consisting of 10 screens of mesh square size 0.063,
the drive shaft (no-load running) n = 388 rpm, moving 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 31.5 mm was placed on
jaw displacement s ≈ 6 mm, gear ratio of V belt 3.2, a mechanical shaker WSU-BB according to Polish
rated engine power (type SZJe 34b) Nzn = 4 kW. Standard (PN-EN 933-1: 2012). Feed used in the
The material used in the tests (feed) was a lime- second stage had grain sizes of 8, 16, 31.5 mm (C)
stone “Morawica”, sandstone “Mucharz” and gran- and 16, 31.5 mm (D). The final stage of the research
ite “Strzegom” from mines in Poland (Fig. 2) with was sieve analysis of the product. The second crush-
strength parameters given in Table 1. ing process proceeded in a single step (A), shown
Figure 3 shows research testing scheme. The first schematically in Fig. 3b. For this process, the outlet
crushing process (Fig. 3a) was implemented in two slot was set to er = 11 mm. The feed used in both pro-
crushing stages, with outlet slot dimension er = 24 mm cesses had a similar mass (~10 kg) and particle size
(B) in the first stage and er = 11 mm in the second d = 90 mm.

1 ‐limestone, 2 ‐sandstone, 3 ‐granite feed 90 [mm] Crushing plates

a) b)
B –Ist crushing stage, er = 24 [mm]
A ‐one crushing stage, er = 11 [mm]

B
B A

 0,063÷31,5 [mm]
 0,063÷31,5 [mm]
 0,063÷8 [mm]

fraction 8÷31,5 [mm]  
fraction 16÷31,5 [mm]  
C C:  crushing 
IInd D: IInd crushing 
stage, er = 11 [mm] stage, er = 11 [mm]
D

product: fraction 0÷8 [mm]
 0,063÷8 [mm]
 0,063÷8 [mm]
product: fraction 
0÷4 [mm]

product: fraction 0÷8 [mm] product: fraction 0÷8 [mm]

Fig. 3. Research testing scheme: (a) two-stage, (b) one-stage

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Crushing plates used in the tests:

(a) crusher’s working space – view from the top on crushing plates, (b) a set of flat and profiled plates

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/16/18 12:42 PM
20 P. CIĘŻKOWSKI et al.

Figure 4 a shows a view of crusher’s working The results of product sieve analysis are given in
space. In this work flat crushing plate for fixed jaw Tables 2–4 and Figs. 5–7. Tests were performed on
and moving plate with variable pitch and triangular four series. Results of product particle size distribution
profile were used. This set is advantageous for reasons are averaged from all tests. The tables show values
of performance and energy consumption of the ma- of masses each fraction for one-stage process A, B
chine crushing process (Ciężkowski and Maciejewski with the dimension of the outlet slot of consists of er =
[4]). During the experiments, moving jaw displace- 11 mm and er = 24 mm and for second stage of crush-
ment and crushing forces were recorded by measure- ing process C and D for feed size d = 8÷31.5 mm and
ment of forces on toggle plate 3a, shown in Fig. 1. d = 16÷31.5. Columns labeled as 1 and 2 contain
a summary results of each two-stage crushing process
B + C and B + D. The final results of the one- and
two-stage sandstone, limestone and granite crushing
3. RESULTS processes are compared in Figs. 5–7. Product particle
size distribution analysis shows that the one-stage
process has a similar composition as two-stage pro-
Product particle size distribution is one of the most cess B + C, where in the second stage the feed size
important indicator of the process. The percentage of d = 8÷31.5 mm was used. In the case of B + D pro-
each product fraction is defined as cess (feed d = 16÷31.5 mm) there are many more
mn fractions of d = 8 mm in relation to one-stage process A
fn  (1) or two-stage B + C.
m
In order to compare the effects of one- and two-
where m – specimen mass, mn – mass of fraction “n”. stage processes, a group of indicators was introduced.

Table 2. Results of sieve analysis for “Mucharz” sandstone, 1 = B + C, 2 = B + D

Dimension of the sieve Mass of the rock left on the sieve [g]
– substitute diameter [mm] A B C 1 D 2
<0.063 0.11 0.04 0.14 0.18 0 0.04
0.063 0.65 0.12 0.48 0.6 0.08 0.2
0.125 0.93 0.14 0.57 0.71 0.28 0.42
0.25 0.57 0.11 0.44 0.55 0.38 0.49
0.5 0.79 0.19 0.78 0.97 1.13 1.32
1 1.26 0.4 0.51 0.91 1.15 1.55
2 1.39 0.48 1.18 1.66 1.18 1.66
4 3.78 0.92 2.78 3.7 1.54 2.46
8 0.79 1.66 0.74 0.74 0.22 1.88
16 0 5.58 0 0 0 0
31.5 0 0.38 0 0 0 0
m   mi 10.27 10.02 7.62 10.02 5.96 10.02

Table 3. Results of sieve analysis for “Morawica” limestone

Dimension of the sieve Mass of the rock left on the sieve [g]
– substitute diameter [mm] A B C 1 D 2
<0.063 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03
0.063 0.1 0.04 0.3 0.34 0.04 0.08
0.125 0.42 0.09 0.72 0.81 0.12 0.21
0.25 0.45 0.1 0.65 0.75 0.29 0.39
0.5 1.2 0.2 1.19 1.39 0.56 0.76
1 2.3 0.3 1.35 1.65 1.15 1.45
2 1.82 0.41 1.23 1.64 1.31 1.72
4 3.52 1.08 1.97 3.05 1.45 2.53
8 0.49 2.42 0.27 0.27 0.37 2.79
16 0 4.29 0 0 0 0
31.5 0 1.02 0 0 0 0
m   mi 10.32 9.96 7.7 9.96 5.31 9.96

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/16/18 12:42 PM
Analysis of energy consumption of crushing processes – comparison of one-stage and two-stage processes 21

Table 4. Results of sieve analysis for “Strzegom” granite

Dimension of the sieve Mass of the rock left on the sieve [g]
– substitute diameter [mm] A B C 1 D 2
<0.063 0.11 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.10 0.12
0.063 0.24 0.1 0.29 0.39 0.13 0.23
0.125 0.43 0.16 0.48 0.64 0.23 0.39
0.25 0.48 0.19 0.52 0.71 0.29 0.48
0.5 1.07 0.36 1.2 1.56 0.59 0.95
1 1.56 0.4 1.18 1.58 0.68 1.08
2 1.75 0.48 1.17 1.65 0.75 1.23
4 3.46 0.85 2.04 2.89 1.37 2.22
8 0.89 1.48 0.23 0.23 1.63 3.11
16 0 4.91 0 0 0.00 0
31.5 0 0.86 0 0 0.00 0

m  mi 9.99 9.81 7.25 9.81 5.77 9.81

Fig. 5. Sieve analysis. Comparison of one-stage and two-stage sandstone crushing process

Fig. 6. Sieve analysis. Comparison of one-stage and two-stage limestone crushing process

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/16/18 12:42 PM
22 P. CIĘŻKOWSKI et al.

Fig. 7. Sieve analysis. Comparison of one-stage and two-stage granite crushing processes

These indicators are pertaining to forces, energy and Fi 1  Fi


k
performance, namely: Le  i 1
( si 1  si ) , (3)
2
 Fmax – average value of the maximum crushing
forces given by  specific crushing energy – the crushing energy
related to feed mass
1

k
Fmax  Fi max , (2)
k i 1 Le
Ls  . (4)
m
where: Fimax are maximum values in subsequent cy-
cles of operation, k – number of subsequent cycles of In Table 5, results obtained for analyzed processes
operation. This definition means the average of the of three types of rock crushing are presented. There
maximum values recorded for each portion of feed, are shown values of average forces Fmax, effective and
 Wt – technical performance – feed mass to crush- specific energy, technical performance for one-stage
ing time ratio Wt = m/t, process A and two-stage processes B + C and B + D.
 effective energy Le – is equal to the amount of Comparing the force values it can be seen that the
work generated in subsequent crushing cycles. Ef- crushing forces are strongly related to outlet slot di-
fective energy of one cycle is equal to the area mension. In the case of crushing sandstone and gran-
shown in Fig. 8. ite, the force is three times less for er = 24 mm (pro-
cess B) than for process A, where er =11 mm. For
210 approaching movement of moving to fixed jaw
plates approaching motion limestone crushing, the force is 7 times less for er =
180
return movement of moving jaw
return motion of the mowing jaw
next working cycle
24 mm (processes C and D).
seria
In the second stage with outlet slot er = 11 mm
Toggle plate force F [kN]

150
values of forces are similar to results obtained for one-
120 Fj‐1 stage process A despite the significant difference
Fj of feed size (A d = 90 mm, C – d = 8÷31.5 mm,
90
D = 16÷31.5 mm). Comparing the effective energy of
60
Le both processes, we see that the two-stage process is
Fi‐1
30
advantageous compared to the single one. Two-stage
Fi
sj sj‐1
process B + C, where in the second stage a fraction
0
si 1 si‐1
of 8÷31.5 mm was crushed, gives 8.8% lower energy
0 2 3 4 5
Moving  jaw displacement s [mm]
consumption for sandstone and 40% for granite but
5% higher for limestone.
Fig. 8. Selected work cycle of sandstone crushing by In the case of two stage process B + D the ad-
flat plates. Force vs. displacement diagram vantage in terms of energy is much larger, and is

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/16/18 12:42 PM
 Analysis of energy consumption of crushing processes – comparison of one-stage and two-stage processes 23

Table 5. Crushing force, crushing energy and technical performance – experiment

One-stage Two-stage
Process
A B C B and C D B and D
Material Sandstone “Mucharz”
Feed [mm] 90 90 8, 16, 31,5  16, 31,5 
Outlet slot er [mm] 11 24 11 24 and 11 11 24 and 11
Effective energy Le [kJ] 104.62 28.41 67.75 96.16 52.81 81.22
Specific energy Ls [kJ/kg] 10.19 – – 9.60 – 8.11
Average forces Fmax [kN] 346.09 112.87 359.68 – 329.14 –
Technical performance Wt [kg/s] 0.14 0.56 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19
Crushing time t [s] 69.49 17.86 49.85 67.71 35.43 53.29
Material Limestone “Morawica “
Effective energy Le [kJ] 94.55 19.24 80.31 99.55 49.79 69.03
Specific energy Ls [kJ/kg] 9.16 – – 9.99 – 6.93
Average forces Fmax [kN] 354.82 51.49 377.83 – 284.59 –
Technical performance Wt [kg/s] 0.11 0.41 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.15
Crushing time t [s] 72.11 21.2 50.2 71.4 36.21 57.41
Material Granite “Strzegom”
Effective energy Le [kJ] 90.86 16.88 36.51 53.39 32.31 49.19
Specific energy Ls [kJ/kg] 9.10 – – 5.44 – 5.01
Average forces Fmax [kN] 190.92 67.02 244.40 – 184.28 –
Technical performance Wt [kg/s] 0.16 0.45 0.30 0.22 0.31 0.22
Crushing time t [s] 56 21.50 24.34 45.84 23.44 44.94

equal to 22% for sandstone, 26% for limestone and case of crushing sandstone and granite, the force is
45% for granite. three times less for er = 24 mm (process B) than
A comparison of technical performance shows that for process A, where er = 11 mm. For limestone
the two-stage process is preferred. The technical per- crushing, the force is 7 times less for er = 24 mm
formance of the process (B + D) is 30% higher rela- (processes C and D).
tive to the one-step process A.  Comparing the effective energy of both processes,
we see that the two-stage process is advantageous
compared to the single one. In the analysed pro-
4. CONCLUSIONS cesses energy consumption was lower from 8 to
45% in the case of two-stage processes.
 The technical performance of the two-stage pro-
In the paper, the experimental comparison of two cess (B + D) is 30% higher relative to the one-step
machine crushing technologies – one-stage and two- process A or two-stage process B + C.
stage was presented. The laboratory tests were carried The results were obtained using the laboratory
out on a model double-toggle jaw crusher on the three jaw crusher, with a special design of the jaw with
rocks: granite “Strzegom”, limestone “Morawica” and variable profile and pitch. In earlier studies (Ciężkow-
sandstone “Mucharz”. ski et al. [5]) it was demonstrated that this type of
Analyzing the result, the following conclusions jaws is preferred due to the force value and energy
can be drawn: consumption.
 Product particle size distribution analysis shows Since the results obtained in this research are prop-
that the one-stage process A has a similar compo- mising, its continuation is fully justified.
sition to two-stage process B + C, where in the
second stage the feed size d = 8÷31.5 mm was
REFERENCES
used. In the case of two-stage process B + D (feed
size d = 16÷31.5 mm) there are many more frac-
tions of d = 8 mm in relation to one-stage process [1] AKBARNEZHAD A., ONG K.C.G., TAM C.T., ZHANG M.H.,
Effects of the parent concrete properties and crushing pro-
A or two-stage B + C. cedure on the properties of coarse recycled concrete aggre-
 The average crushing forces values Fmax are gates, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2013, (12)
strongly related to outlet slot dimension. In the 25, 1795–1802.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/16/18 12:42 PM
24 P. CIĘŻKOWSKI et al.

[2] CIĘŻKOWSKI P., Correlation of energy consumption and [10] FUERSTENAU D.W., ABOUZEID A.-Z.M., Role of feed moisture
shape of crushing plates, Górnictwo i Geoinżynieria, 2012, in high-pressure roll mill comminution, International Journal
91–100. of Mineral Processing, 2007, Vol. 82.
[3] CIĘŻKOWSKI P., Doświadczalne badania sił kruszenia szczę- [11] KLUSHANCEV B.V., LOGAK L., BOGUCKI A.J., Wliyanie kon-
kami o różnym kształcie, Zeszyty Naukowe Instytutu Pojaz- strukcii drobyashchikh plit na effektivnost raboty, Stroit. i Do-
dów, 2012, 2, 88, 21–34. rozhn. Mash., 1971, 8.
[4] CIĘŻKOWSKI P., MACIEJEWSKI J., Badania i analiza maszy- [12] KOBIAŁKA R., NAZIEMIEC Z., Badania procesu kruszenia
nowego procesu rozdrabniania wapienia zwartego Mora- szczękami o rożnym profilu poprzecznym, Górnictwo i Geo-
wica, Przegląd Mechaniczny, 2014, nr 5, 35–41, ISSN: inżynieria, 2006, nr 30, zeszyt 3/1, 125–136.
0032-2259. [13] Standard PN-EN 933-1: 2012, Badania geometrycznych
[5] CIĘŻKOWSKI P., MACIEJEWSKI J., BĄK S., KUŚMIERCZYK J., właściwości kruszyw, Część 1: Oznaczanie składu ziar-
Study on the Efficiency of the Crushing Processes Using the nowego, Metoda przesiewania.
Model of Jaw Crusher, Machine Dynamics Research, 2015, [14] RUMPF H., Struktur der Zerkleinerungswissenschaft, Auf-
Vol. 39, No 2, 123–132. bereitungs-Technik, 1966, 8, 421–435.
[6] CIĘŻKOWSKI P. (ed.), Kruszenie skał – teoria, eksperyment [15] TĘSIOROWSKI J., Teoretyczne podstawy określania krytycznej
i zastosowania inżynierskie, (P. Ciężkowski), Instytut Tech- ilości cykli roboczych kruszarek szczękowych, Polit. Śl.
nologii Eksploatacji – PIB, Radom ul. K. Pułaskiego 6/10, Symp. Nauk. Podstawowe Problemy Procesów Rozdrabnia-
Radom, 26–600: Instytut Maszyn Roboczych Ciężkich, nia, Gliwice 1981.
2016. [16] TROMANS D., Mineral Comminution: Energy Efficiency
[7] FOSZCZ D., GAWENDA T., Analiza efektywności procesu miele- Considerations, Minerals Engineering, 2008, 21, 613–620.
nia w młynach kulowych i prętowych w zależności od zawar- [17] ZAWADA J., PAWLAK W.R., Einfluβ der Oberflachenform von
tości ziaren drobnych, Journal of Mining and Geoengineering, brechplatten für backenbrecher auf das Zerkleinerungs-
2012, Vol. 36, No. 4, 17–30. ergebnis, Aufbereitungs-Technik, 1988, Nr. 3.
[8] GAWENDA T., Rozdrabnianie surowców skalnych w kru- [18] MIERZWA P., OLEJNIK E., JANAS A., Nowoczesne materiały
szarce szczękowej typu L44.41, Surowce i Maszyny kompozytowe zastępujące tradycyjne materiały odlewnicze,
Budowlane, 2010, nr 2, 37–42, Wydawnictwo BMP, Raci- Archives of Foundry Engineering, 2012, Vol. 12, Special
bórz 10. Issue 1, 137–142, ISSN 1897-3310.
[9] FOSZCZ D., WŁODARCZYK W., Wpływ warunków rozdrab- [19] NUMBIA B.P., ZHANGA J., XIAA X., Optimal energy man-
niania dolomitów w kruszarkach szczękowych na skład ziar- agement for a jaw crushing process in deep mines, Energy,
nowy produktów, Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi, 15 April 2014, Vol. 68, 337–348, http://doi.org/10.1016/
1999, Vol. 15, Special Issue, 317–325. j.energy.2014.02.100.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/16/18 12:42 PM