Quarry fines minimisation:

Can we really have 10mm aggregate with no fines?

C.J.Mitchell1, P. Mitchell2 & R. Pascoe3

1. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG

Tel. +44(0)115 936 3257 Fax. +44(0)115 936 3520 Email: cjmi@bgs.ac.uk
2. Green Horizons Environmental Consultants Ltd, PO Box 137, Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex,
TN40 1YA
3. Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter in Cornwall, Tremough Campus, Treliever
Road, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ

Word total (max. 10,000): 4035

Abstract (100-200 words)

In 2005, 216 million tonnes of saleable aggregate was produced in the UK; a
corresponding 55 million tonnes of quarry fines and 24 million tonnes of quarry
waste were also produced. The need to minimise fines production is driven by the
Aggregates Levy (which has priced quarry fines out of the market in favour of
recycled aggregate) and the Landfill Tax (which has made it expensive to dispose
of fines). Attempts to reduce fines production often start with a process
optimisation audit; the case study presented illustrates how fines production can
be reduced, in this instance by up to 30%. Application of good practice in the
crushing plant also helps to reduce fines production, including: reducing the
crushing ratio to 6:1 or lower; maintaining uniform feed distribution; choke
feeding (for compression crushers); reducing the speed of impact crushers; and
reducing the degree of recirculation by increased screening efficiency. Future
developments are likely to be driven by the need to respond to climate change.
New crusher designs will be more automated, offer improved energy efficiency,
have a greater production capacity and improved reliability.

Keywords: quarry fines; industrial minerals; crushing; fine particle processing;

process optimisation; simulation
 INTRODUCTION
Production and process technologies are a key aspect of any aggregate operation.
The type of equipment and process configuration used is largely dependent upon
the local market for construction materials, company experience and preferences,
acceptance of new ideas and attitudes towards capital investment, the legacy of
past production (especially in older operations) and the nature and geology of the
mineral exploited. The information given in this paper is a summary of that
available in new sections on the GoodQuarry website (www.qoodquarry.com):
‘Production technology’ and ‘Quarry fines and waste’.

Primary crushed rock aggregate is produced from hard, strong rock formations
including igneous (andesite, basalt, diorite, dolerite, gabbro, granite, rhyolite,
tonalite and tuff), metamorphic (hornfels, gneiss, quartzite and schist) and
sedimentary (sandstone and limestone) rock. It is produced from quarries with
outputs typically in the range of 100,000 to 5 million tonnes per annum (tpa).
Primary aggregate is produced by extraction and processing to produce the
desired physical properties of the end-product.

Production of hard rock aggregate involves screening (‘scalping’) to remove fines

and waste material followed by crushing and screening to produce material with
specified size grades. Crushing is carried out to reduce the size of the ‘as
quarried’ mineral from large blocks (up to a metre across) to a size finer than 20
to 50 mm. This size reduction is carried out in stages, typically with a low size
reduction ratio (<6:1) and is characterised by the use of certain types of crushing
equipment (Table 1).

Table 1 Quarry process crushing stages: typical equipment and products

Maximum feed Maximum crushed

Crushing stage Crushing equipment
size (mm) product size (mm)

Jaw crusher
Primary 700 – 1000 100 – 300
Gyratory crusher

Cone crusher
Secondary HSI crusher 100 – 250 20 – 100
Jaw crusher (rarely)

Cone crusher
Tertiary 14 – 100 10 – 50
VSI crusher

Quaternary VSI crusher

(& subsequent 10 – 40 10 – 20
stages)
Cone crusher

HSI = Horizontal Shaft Impact; VSI = Vertical Shaft Impact

Products from quarries include aggregate, asphalt, industrial minerals, lime,
mortar ready mixed concrete and concrete products. Aggregates are the primary
output from quarries in the UK and are used to manufacture other construction
products such as ready-mixed concrete, asphalt, lime and mortar. Aggregates are
used in road construction, as railway ballast, in private housing, public
infrastructure and industrial construction. A factsheet on aggregate supply in the
UK is available from the British Geological Survey website (BGS, 2007). The
quality of UK quarry products is controlled by the European standards for
aggregate; information on these is available from the Quarry Products
Association website (QPA, 2007).

QUARRY FINES AND WASTE

In the past, quarries produced a range of “single-size” aggregate products up to 40
mm in size. The trend for highly specified aggregate has meant that products have
become increasingly finer. In the UK demand is highest for aggregate with a top
size of 10mm. The decrease in aggregate size has meant an increase in the
amount of fines produced; production of 40 mm aggregate results in around 5–
10% fines, 20 mm aggregate, 15–20% fines and 10 mm aggregate, 35–40% fines.
This paper examines the dilemma posed by the production of fine aggregate
products; meeting the current demand for 10 mm aggregate results in a
significantly higher proportion of quarry fines than in the past.

Quarry fines, defined by the BS EN aggregate standards, are the inherent fraction
of an aggregate passing 0.063 mm (63 microns). Many quarries also refer to their
(sub-economic) fine aggregate (finer than 4 mm) as ‘quarry fines’ or ‘quarry
dust’. The term is used here to denote both fine aggregate and quarry fines. The
proportion of quarry fines produced depends on the:

• mineral composition and texture of the rock

• explosive energy used in blasting
• crusher types used and the number of stages
• reduction ratios used in crushing
• use of closed or open crushing circuits
• subsequent handling, transfer and transport of aggregate products

Quarry waste is generally inert and non-hazardous. It is produced from

overburden/ interburden materials, from washing of sand and gravel to remove
fines, and from scalping, crushing and dry screening. To some extent it has
become waste because no market currently exists for it, due to its location with
respect to potential markets and market economics.

Estimated annual production figures for aggregate, quarry fines and quarry waste
are shown in Table 2. Total annual production of quarry fines is estimated at 55.1
million tonnes; this is based on estimates of fines production of 20% for
limestone, igneous and metamorphic rock, and sand and gravel, and 25% for
sandstone. The total annual production of quarry waste in the UK is estimated at
24.1 million tonnes (based on a waste to saleable product ratio of 1:9).
Table 2 Production of aggregate, quarry fines and quarry waste in the UK

Annual production
(million tonnes, 2005)
Rock type
Saleable
Quarry finese Quarry waste4
aggregate1

Sandstone 11.6 3.9 1.3

Limestone 2 76.3 19.1 8.5

Igneous and
46.0 11.5 5.1
metamorphic

Sand and gravel 3 82.4 20.6 9.2

Total 216.3 55.1 24.1

1 Estimated aggregate production from Annual Minerals Raised Inquiry (Office of National
Statistics, 2006)
2 Limestone including dolomite and chalk 3 Land- & marine-won sand and gravel
4. Estimated quarry waste modified from Defra mineral waste statistics (Defra, 2007)
e = estimated

Influence of crushing stage and rock type on fines production

The amount of fines produced increases as feed material progresses from primary
to secondary and subsequent stages. The amount of fines arising from the primary
crushing stage is strongly influenced by the blasting process; if rock can be
removed without blasting this will reduce the amount of fines produced. The
amount of fines generated during blasting may be as high as 20%. At some sites,
the demand for quarry fines exceeds supply; typically, this is addressed by
recrushing single-size aggregate, reducing the closed side settings (CSS) on jaw
and cone crushers or increasing the feed rate to vertical shaft impact crushers.
Table 3 indicates the fines content generated at each crushing stage; the
proportion of fines produced varies with the type of rock and also the type of
crusher used.
Table 3 Quarry fines produced in hard rock aggregate operations

Proportion of quarry fines produced

Production stage Rock type
(weight %)

Sandstone 1 – 2% (Jaw) to 15-20% (Impact & gyratory)

Limestone 6 – 7% (Jaw) to 20% (Impact)
Primary crushing
Igneous & 3 – 6% (Jaw) to 10 – 15% (Gyratory)
metamorphic

Sandstone 10 –15% (Cone)

Limestone 15 – 25% (Cone) to <30% (Impact)
Secondary crushing
Igneous & 10 – 23% (Cone)
metamorphic

Sandstone ~15% (Cone) to 40% (Impact)

Tertiary crushing Limestone <20% (Impact) to 40% (Hammer mill)
(& subsequent stages) Igneous & 5 – 30% (Cone) to 40% (Impact)
metamorphic
NB The proportion of quarry fines produced is attributed to specific crushers (in brackets)

Sandstone quarries: Sandstone quarries mainly produce crushed rock aggregate

and roadstone (coated and uncoated, including high PSV roadstone), as well as
building stone. The process plants have crushing circuits with up to four stages
with primary jaw crushers, secondary cone crushers and cone or impact crushers
in subsequent stages. Production of quarry fines is up to 35% of throughput and is
utilised wherever possible in asphalt, concrete blocks, in Bentonite Enhanced Soil
and as inert fill material.

Limestone quarries: Limestone quarries mainly produce crushed rock aggregate

and roadstone (coated and uncoated), as well as agricultural lime, armourstone,
concrete blocks, ready mixed concrete, lime and mineral filler. The process plants
have crushing circuits with up to four stages with primary jaw, gyratory or HSI
crushers, and HSI crushers, cone crushers, or hammer mills in the subsequent
stages. Limestone quarries typically produce 14 to 20% quarry fines; this is
mainly used in concrete block manufacture and asphalt, or Type 1 sub-base.

Igneous and metamorphic rock quarries: Igneous and metamorphic rock quarries
mainly produce crushed rock aggregate and roadstone (coated and uncoated), as
well as railway ballast, armourstone, ready mixed concrete, gabion basket and
drainage stone, and Type 1 sub-base. The process plants have crushing circuits
with up to five stages with primary gyratory crushers or jaw crushers, secondary
cone crushers or jaw crushers, and cone crushers or VSI crushers in the later
stages. They typically produce 25 to 35% quarry fines. The quarry fines are used
in concrete products or washed for use as building or concrete sand.
 MINIMISATION OF QUARRY FINES
In the last five years the market for aggregates in the UK has changed. The
Landfill Tax and Aggregates Levy have encouraged the use of recycled and
secondary material and reduced the use of quarry fines and waste in lower value
construction applications. However, quarry fines and waste continue to be
produced at the same level as before and stockpiles of these sub-economic
materials are increasing at some locations. Consequently, there is a growing need
to minimise the production of quarry fines and wastes. Business-related drivers
include the need to comply with the planning process (BGS, 2007) and
regulation, the need to maximise revenue in the form of saleable products and the
need to avoid resource sterilisation within the quarry boundary due to excessive
fines stockpiling. Other drivers include the environmental and social
consequences of managing quarry fines and waste and the costs of complying
with UK legislative regulations.

Process optimisation

The amount of quarry fines produced can be minimised by process optimisation;

this typically starts with an audit of the production process, including throughput
tonnages, crusher and screen settings, and product gradings. Flowsheet analysis is
aided by the use of proprietary computer software such as AggFlow 2006
(aggflow.com) and JKSimMet (www.jktech.com.au) or equipment manufacturers
software (such as Bruno as used by Metso Minerals). The behaviour of the
crushers can be modelled using theoretical, laboratory or process plant data.
Adjustments made to the settings or by changing the type of equipment may
optimise the process to give maximum aggregate production and minimise fines
production. A case study, using the process optimisation software Bruno, is
summarised below:

Sandstone Case Study: This sandstone quarry is located in southwest England and
it produces high polished stone value (PSV) roadstone and horticultural sand.
This case study represents a simulated process change. The original process plant
has a four stage crushing circuit with a primary jaw crusher and cone crushers in
the secondary, tertiary and quaternary stages (Figure 1). Production of quarry
fines is 55 tph. The existing circuit was modelled using Bruno software and it was
found that the model produced a sensible mass balance and equipment loadings.
The aim of the simulated process change was to increase the production of
saleable aggregate and reduce quarry fines production. The simulated process
change involved replacing the tertiary and quaternary cone crushers with a single
tertiary vertical shaft impact (VSI) crusher (Figure 2). This was predicted to
reduce quarry fines production to 39 tph (a 29% reduction) and would enable a
18% increase in the production of saleable aggregate.
Crushing plant technology

The most common types of crushing technology used are compression crushers
and impact crushers. Many crushers incorporate a component of abrasion and
attrition, which leads to the production of fine material. Compressive crushing
produces material that consists of two distinct size ranges; coarse particles formed
by tensile fracturing and fine particles formed by compressive fracturing. Impact
crushing produces material with a more cubical shape but typically also produces
more fine particles. Table 4 summarises the key good practice for minimisation of
quarry fines in aggregate production plants.

Jaw crusher good practice: Jaw crushers are mainly used in primary crushing to
prepare rock for subsequent processing stages and are rarely used as secondary
crushers. They do not produce large amounts of quarry fines; at a closed side
setting (CSS) of 40 mm a jaw crusher will produce less than 10% of quarry fines
and at a CSS of 200 mm, less than 1%. Attempts to minimise fines production at
the primary stage have little effect as most fines are produced in later stages.

Jaw crushers are routinely ‘choke fed’ as this maximises production capacity and
ensures that particles are uniformly broken. It promotes ‘stone-on-stone’ crushing
which breaks up flaky or slabby particles; this probably results in a higher
proportion of fines than if operated under non-choke conditions. A reduction in
fines could be achieved by ‘trickle feeding’ material into the jaw crusher;
however this would have an adverse effect on particle shape and also reduce the
throughput capacity. Ideally, the feed rate should not be switched from choke to
non-choke, as this would have a knock-on effect on the down-stream secondary
processing plant. In practice, many jaw crushers are fed in this intermittent
fashion due to gaps in the delivery of feed material from the quarry. Many are not
fed to their design capacity because the subsequent processing plant does not
have sufficient capacity to handle the volume of material that would be produced.

Ideally, the reduction ratio of a jaw crusher should be 6:1; this is calculated as the
ratio between the particle size of the feed (F80; the size at which 80% is finer than
the top size of the feed) and the particle-size of the product (P80; the size at which
80% is finer than the top size of the crushed product). The finer the CSS the
greater the proportion of fines produced. The CSS is constrained by the need to
maintain the nip angle between plates to within 19 – 23o; larger angles cause
‘boiling’ in the crushing chamber (where the plates cannot grip the rock and it
slips up and down). Increasing the CSS in an attempt to reduce fines production
may have the opposite effect; it would lead to a greater proportion of oversize
material, which would need recrushing and this would generate more fines.
Gyratory and cone crusher good practice: Gyratory are mainly used in primary
crushing; as for jaw crushers, any attempt to minimise fines production
will have little effect as most fines are produced in later stages. Cone
crushers are mainly used in secondary and tertiary roles, where fines
production is far higher. They are often used in secondary and tertiary
roles as an alternative to impact crushers where shape is an important
requirement and fines production needs to be minimised.

Uniform distribution of feed material around the cone crusher inlet allows
production of a consistent product and consistent operation of the crusher. Choke
feeding maintains a good particle shape by facilitating an inter-particle crushing
action; trickle feeding is not a sensible option as it increases the proportion of
flaky material in the crusher product. Pre-screening of the feed to remove the
fines, especially in tertiary crushing, helps to avoid packing of material in the
chamber and maintain an effective crushing action. It is advisable to maintain
approximately 10–15% of material finer than the CSS in the feed to assist
crushing action. Pre-screening to remove 6–10mm aggregate from the feed
should be avoided as void space in the chamber results in an increased proportion
of flaky material in the product.

Impact crusher good practice: Impact crushers tend to be used where aggregate
shape is a critical requirement; especially for highly specified roadstone
and concrete aggregate applications. However, they also have the
reputation for producing excessive fines.

It is important to have an even distribution of feed material; this ensures the

maximum contact across the width of the rotor. The initial impact is responsible
for more than 60% of the crushing action; the remainder is a result of impact with
adjustable breaker bars and inter-particle collision. Efficient transfer of energy
from the rotor ensures consistent product gradation and power consumption.

Size reduction is directly proportional to the rotor speed (rotor diameter and speed
combine to give a tip speed); it controls the amount of fines produced. Slower
rotor speeds will reduce crusher wear and produce fewer fines; however it may
adversely affect the particle shape of the product. As the impact hammers and
breaker bars become worn, the products become coarser; modern crushers have
variable drives that can compensate for this by increasing the rotor speed.

Open discharge arrangements in impact crushers rely on retention of the rock

within the crushing chamber. Reducing the gap between the hammers and impact
curtain increases the particle retention in the chamber. Closed discharge
arrangements rely on a series of grids to retain the material within the crushing
chamber; these are generally not adjustable. Reducing the size of the grid
apertures has the effect of increasing the residence times of material in the
crushing chamber. In both cases, increased residence in the crushing chamber has
the effect of increasing the size reduction ratio; however it also reduces the
throughput capacity and increases the proportion of fines produced.
Table 4. Good practice for quarry fines minimisation

• Crushing should be carried out in several stages with small size reduction
ratios; the number of stages should be optimised to limit fines production.

• It is generally accepted that compression crushing (i.e. jaw and cone crushing)
produces less fines than impact crushing; to minimise fines, avoid crushing
processes that have major components of attrition and abrasion.

• Attempts to minimise fines production should be focused on the later stages

of production; primary crushing typically produces less than 10% fines
whereas secondary and tertiary crushing produces up to 40% fines

• Closed side setting of jaw and cone crushers should be set to give a size
reduction ratio of less than 6:1.

• Choke feeding is preferable; this helps to reduce impact and wear on the
crusher components, improves the throughput capacity, minimises the top size
and reduces the proportion of ‘flaky’ material produced. However, it may also
increase the proportion of quarry fines produced; crushing under non-choke
conditions (although not ideal for producing ‘good’ particle shape) will help
to minimise fines production.

• Material should be uniformly distributed as it is fed into a crusher to ensure

uniform crusher wear and product properties.

• Lowering the crusher speed will reduce the amount of fines produced;
however it also reduces crusher throughput and produces poor particle shape.

• Screening and recirculation of oversize material will improve aggregate

particle shape; however it will also increase fines production.

• Cone crushers should be considered as an alternative to impact crushers where

both good (cubical) particle shape and fines minimisation are required.
 FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
Future production trends in the UK quarrying industry will be guided by
economic and legislative developments with increasing emphasis on energy and
water consumption, recycling and waste generation and disposal issues. Climate
change is a key driver; it is likely to have a significant direct and indirect impact
on the aggregate industry. The strategic response to climate change will drive the
agenda for energy supply and consumption; voluntary and regulated responses to
climate change will affect the industries consumption of energy.

One means of assessing the amount of energy used to produce aggregate is to

determine the ‘embodied energy’ (or ‘embodied CO2’); this refers to the quantity
of energy (or CO2) required to produce and transport aggregate. The energy used
to produce a tonne of aggregate is equivalent to approximately 10kg of CO 2. It is
likely that the ‘embodied energy’ will become one of the important criteria for
future aggregate production; especially as concern over climate change is one of
the key drivers behind the sustainable development ethos of the mineral planning
system. Currently, assessment tools used to determine CO2 emissions assume that
roughly the same amount of energy is used to produce both primary and recycled
aggregate. However, it is likely that more detailed information arising from life
cycle inventories and assessments may change this in favour of recycled and
secondary aggregate. This will probably mean that there will be increased
pressure to reduce the environmental impact of primary aggregate production;
one result of this may simply be an increase in the substitution of primary
aggregate for recycled and secondary aggregate.

Modern crushers have been designed with a good understanding of feed

characteristics, machine geometry, crushing chamber, the relationship between
power draw and crushing force, speed of operation and lubrication/ hydraulic
system conditions (Trueman, 2001). Future developments of crushing technology
will be driven by the industry focus on:

• higher productivity at reduced costs per tonne

• higher size reduction ratios
• reduced stock inventory and ‘just in time’ supply
• improved reliability and availability of plant.

Current tends that will continue into the future include:

• Crusher automation: This can lead to an increase in throughput (up to 30%)

compared to manual control. The use of hydraulically activated setting
mechanisms allows crushers to be integrated into automated systems. These
ensure that the crusher always operates within ideal parameters, promoting
constant choke-feeding required for good particle shape.
• In-pit crushing: This is already well established in the UK quarrying industry.
The use of highly manoeuvrable self-propelled track-mounted crushing and
 screening plants has reduced, and in some cases eliminated, the need for
haulage. This trend will continue and new mobile plant will be developed.
• Cone crushers: These will become smaller, quieter and more energy efficient.
• ‘Smart’ crushers and screens: This equipment will become more common
and performance and condition monitoring will be conducted automatically
with data fed back to the operator or even to the equipment manufacturer for
routine maintenance or problem solving at a distance.
• Control and instrumentation: Particle-size analysers will determine the size
distribution and mass of a material stream; this will be used to control the
crusher settings in real time.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

The key benefits of quarry fines minimisation include a reduction in waste
production, an increase in mineral resource use efficiency and an increase in the
production of saleable aggregate. The need for quarry fines minimisation was
reinforced by the introduction of the Aggregates Levy in 2002, which aimed to
address the environmental costs associated with quarrying operations by reducing
the demand for primary aggregate and encouraging the use of alternative
materials. An increase in the Aggregates Levy, which rises from £1.60 to £1.95
per tonne in 2008, will strengthen the need to minimise fines production.

Quarrying operations should regularly conduct process optimisation audits to

ensure that they produce the lowest achievable proportion of quarry fines.
Ongoing process optimisation is also important including: maintaining closed
side settings and choke feeding conditions in compression crushers, using
reduction ratios of 6:1 or lower, maintaining uniform feeding conditions for
impact crushers and monitoring the condition of crusher wear parts. Where
particle shape is important, quarrying operations should consider replacing
vertical shaft impact crushers with cone crushers; this is likely to reduce fines
production by up to 50%.

As a last point, in answer to the question posed in this paper; we cannot produce
10mm aggregate without fines. However, we can minimise fines production; the
processes summarised in this paper outline how this can be done. Inevitably, over
time the products demanded by society will require raw materials with higher
quality. Aggregates will be no exception and it is up to the quarrying industry to
demonstrate that it can devise the technology to minimise fines production and
optimise resource utilisation.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper summarises much of the work carried out as part of two research
projects; ‘Quarry Fines Minimisation’ and ‘Waterless Fines Removal’; these were
part-funded by the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) through the
Mineral Industry Sustainable Technology (MIST) programme coordinated by the
Mineral Industry Research Organisation (MIRO). The remainder of the funding
was provided by the contributions of the projects partners. These included the
British Geological Survey, Green Horizons Environmental Consultants Ltd,
Tarmac Group, Aggregate Industries, Metso Minerals, Camborne School of
Mines, Bradley Pulveriser Co. Ltd and the Quarry Products Association. Much of
the research was carried out through interaction and discussion with the UK
quarrying industry and the companies producing production equipment. Our
thanks are extended to all of those who contributed to these projects and provided
their time during site visits and interviews.

Clive Mitchell publishes with the permission of the Executive Director of the
British Geological Survey (NERC).

REFERENCES
BGS, (2007) Mineral planning factsheet: Aggregates.
www.mineralsuk.com/britmin/mpfaggregates.pdf

BGS (2007) Planning4Minerals

www.bgs.ac.uk/Planning4Minerals

Defra (2007) Minerals waste.

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/wrmineral.htm - wrtb1

Office of National Statistics (2006) Mineral extraction in Greate Britain.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_commerce/PA1007_2005.xls

QPA, (2007) Aggregates.

www.qpa.org/prod_agg01.htm.

Trueman, E (2001) Process control in crushing and screening.

Quarry Management, March 2001, p.11-20.
 Feed Figure 1. Original process flowsheet
800mm coarse sandstone

Screen 80 mm
Feed 145 tph
Undersize 33tph

Jaw Crusher
Feed 112 tph Aggregate products
Setting 114mm
14/20 5 tph 4%
Cone Crushers 10/14 15 tph 10%
Screens 25 / 75 mm Setting 25 / 17 mm 6.3/10 21 tph 14%
Feed/ output 68 / 113 tph 4/6 18 tph 12%
0/4 55 tph 38%
0/20 32 tph 22%
Total 145 tph 100%

0/20
Screens 20 / 10 / 5 mm
2.2
Output 2 / 30 / 28 tph
Undersize 36 tph
Screens 17 / 12 / 8 mm Screens 30 / 20 / 10 / 5 mm
Feed 19 / 40 / 58 tph Output 12 / 19 / 46 / 17 tph
Undersize 19 tph

Cone crusher
Setting 11mm / stroke 25mm
Feed/ output 96tph

14/20 10/14 6.3/10 4/6 0/4 Quarry Fines

Copyright Metso Minerals. All rights reserved.

 Feed 800mm coarse sandstone
Figure 2. Modified process flowsheet
Screen 80 mm
Feed 145 tph
Undersize 33tph

Jaw Crusher
Feed 112 tph Aggregate products
Setting 114mm Cone Crusher
Setting 30 mm 14/20 6 tph 4%
Feed/ output 97 tph 10/14 24 tph 17%
6.3/10 24 tph 17%
3.7 4/6 20 tph 14%
Screens 25 / 40 mm 0/4 39 tph 27%
0/20 32 tph 22%
Total 145 tph 100%

0/20 Vertical Shaft Impact crusher

Feed/ output 173 tph
Tip speed 50 m/s Cascade 10%
Screens 17 / 12 / 8 mm
Feed 30 / 54 / 74 tph
Screens 20 / 10 / 5 mm
Output 59 / 43 / 31 tph
Undersize 39 tph

14/20 10/14 6.3/10 4/6 0/4 Quarry Fines

Waste

Copyright Metso Minerals. All rights reserved.