234 posts
TimePosted 20/06/2012 04:52:25
xxxx says

### BLAINE AND POWER AND TPH RELATIONSHIP

DEAR ALL

FLS GIVES A FORMULA TO CONVERT TPH WITH CHANGE IN BLAINE .

SIMILARLY FOR VARIATION IN POWER WITH CHANGE IN BLAINE & TPH.

BOTH FORMULAS ARE SEPARATE FOR OPEN & CLOSED CKT.

WHAT IS THE LOGIC OF CALCUALTION MEANS HOW WE CAN GENERATE THE FORMULAS OF BLAINE,POWER & TPH RELATIONSHIP ?

HOW THE POWER OF 1.3 FOR OPEN & 1.4 FOR CLOSE CKT IS OPTAINED?

PLEASE TELL ME THE DERIVATION OF THE SAME

THANKS

ENGINEER

Know the answer to this question? Join the community and register for a free guest account to post a reply.

138 posts
TimePosted 21/06/2012 06:57:59
lalbatros says

### re BLAINE AND POWER AND TPH RELATIONSHIP

Also try to explain your question in more detail, and maybe provide some numerical data for clarity.

Otherwise, I must say that, in closed circuit, it is not a bad approximation to assume that power consumption is proportional to the specific surface. In this case, the hourly production should be inverse-proportional to the specific surface, assuming constant mill power absorption.

234 posts
TimePosted 22/06/2012 07:30:00
xxxx says

### re BLAINE AND POWER AND TPH RELATIONSHIP

the formulas are attached in the sheet

engineer

Attached files

138 posts
TimePosted 22/06/2012 08:56:21
lalbatros says

### re BLAINE AND POWER AND TPH RELATIONSHIP

Hello,

Could you tell me what are the sources for Formula-2 and Formula-4 ?
Could you also explain what is meant by "Residue" in Formula-4, is that the residue on 30µm ?

As a first comment, I would question first which fineness measurement is the best suited to predict power consumption. Would it be the Blaine, or would it be the residues? Or, maybe, is the correlation between Blaine and Residue so strong that both are equivalent?

Intuitively, I would prefer the Blaine to correlate with power consumption.
That's because, I spnotaneaously think that grinding is about creating surface and this is what the power consumption goes to ... but with a very bad efficiency!

On the other side, first-order laws for Residues ( Rout=RIn exp(-E/Z) ) are -apparently- a well established point of view. More precisely the Austin model is the most accepted and can be approximated as a first order law on residues.

Finally, let me observe that it is possible to have rather different Blaines for the same residues, specialy if the slope of the Rosin-Rammler curve is different. Would it mean that residues and blaine do correlate well only on ball mills and in certain conditions that ensure a standard slope of the RMM curve?

Experimental data needed !