Impact On Production if Sizer Speed is Reduced

Does the entity who made the suggestion have any basis for the recommendation?

What are you making? I can't see it from here.

What does the sizer manufacturer have to say? Did you ask them?

Yes, things will change.

I suggest hiring a process engineer to help you.

Maybe someone here, with time to spare, will take pity on you.

Maybe not.

The suggestion was made solely to mitigate the rapid wear, however, no consideration was given so far to the impact on throughput rates.

We make Iron Ore, I sent a query to Manufacturer (MMD) and just curious if someone here already experienced issues like that.

'....We make Iron Ore...'

.

Neat! What do you make it out of?

Get some iron. Bury it. Wait 5,000 years. Presto, iron ore.

There isn't necessarily a close correlation between speed and throughput. The slowed sizer could be fuller, with longer dwell time, and still have the same throughput as before.

Manufacturer should have spec out the max. rotational speed. If there is abnormal wear at the OEM specified speed you need to look for the cause. Sure slowing it down will reduce the wear on the crushing rotors. Will also reduce thru put of the crusher. So now you do same volume of ore over a longer period of time before it wears out.

The problem is that the relationship between wear and speed is non linear. There are so many possible combinations that it would be impossible to to quote even a small proportion here.

You are making the assumption that excessive wear is caused by the throughput speed. Your fist task is to challenge this assumption. Go back to the manufacturing specifications of your machinery and find out what the design life is for any given throughput. Are your machine components meeting this life? Is the wear even or are you feeding one side of the input hopper more than the other side? Then work out how much down time you have changing out the worn parts. A machine that works 100% but requires 10% down time to repair is more productive than a machine that works at 94% with only 5% down time to repair. But unless the added production will re-coop the additional replacement parts cost, that extra production is of no benefit.

A machine that runs that 100% for 4 days a week to meet production will always wear out quicker than a machine that runs at 80% for 5 days a week to meet the same production. However if running it 5 days leaves no time for maintenance so it has to be done at premium weekend rates, or if you can gainfully employ the machine operators on some other task on the fifth day, there may not be a cost benefit to extending the machine life.