A Comparison of Liquid Binders For Limestone Pelletizing
A Comparison of Liquid Binders For Limestone Pelletizing
A Comparison of Liquid Binders For Limestone Pelletizing
Robert Hinkle
Director of Agglomeration – Mars Mineral, Mars, PA
1. ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to give some direct comparisons of usage rates and
physical properties for 11 binders used in a controlled test environment for 2 grades of
limestone fines. Some of the common binders used in the production of limestone
pellets are Lignosulfonates, Brewex, and Molasses. This study was performed using
different types of these binders (plus blends which may be candidates for use). During
the testing the binders were not identified by name or supplier and all results were
tabulated before revealing the type and source of binder.
Results of this study can be used to compare binder properties for selection of a
binder to meet requirements of individual limestone pelletizing operations. Results also
include properties of the finished pellets with respect to tested binders for pelletizing,
drying, sizing, abrasiveness, hardness, and strength.
2. BACKGROUND
The mineral (rock) source and grinding specification are two important parameters in
the pelletizing process and can certainly affect the final product. After grinding, the
pelletizing process is further defined by 3 common equipment categories (in order of
material flow):
Pelletizing (with binder application)
Drying (with heat)
Screening
The type of binder affects the operation of each of the above processes and
associated equipment design as well as other process (handling) systems such as
recycling and dust collection. Most pellet production plants, however, may not be
familiar with binders until they begin operations. (Published data comparing binder
properties that would allow the best selection for a particular plant or material is not
readily accessible). Also, many binder suppliers may or may not have data comparisons
for their binder in relation to both types of limestone. The processing facility or plant
must consider all logistic parameters for binder usage (cost, handling, and supply
reliability) as well as usage rate and physical properties of the binder (odor, corrosion,
abrasion, and other binder properties). Cost, handling, and supply reliability are location
dependent and must be reviewed and selected by the plant or processor; they are not
addressed in this study.
To properly compare binders, a binder test should be run multiple times varying
the binder dilution rate and application rate each time and testing pellets after the run to
optimize pellet characteristics. Performing this test sequence would be cumbersome
and time consuming, thus preventing data in this paper from being easily presented.
This study tested each binder at approximately the same dry solids percentage in the
finished pellet to allow comparisons to other binders under the same conditions.
3. DESCRIPTION OF BINDERS
Binders and their properties have been previously described in detail in various
articles including previous Mars Mineral papers (see reference list). Below is a brief
description of general binder types:
Blends - Blends of molasses, whey, and lignin are available and some have been
included in these tests.
4.1 GENERAL
Test runs were conducted first with Dolomitic limestone using each of the 11
binders. Similar tests were then run with the Calcitic limestone dust using each of the 11
binders. The pelletizing tests were set up with the following process equipment in order
of material flow (See flowsheet FIG. 1 at end of this section):
Bag dumping – 50# bags of pulverized Dolomitic and Calcitic limestone dust were hand
dumped into a hopper above a screw feeder.
Feeding – Dumped material was processed through a volumetric screw feeder designed
to accurately feed material to the Pin Mixer.
Pin Mixer - MM model 12D54L Pin Mixer Disc Pelletizer - MM model P30 Disc Pelletizer
Pin size – 5/8” dia Pan diameter – 3’
Pin clearance (off liner) – 3/16” Pan depth – 8”
Motor – 40 HP Motor – 1 HP
Rotor speed range – 560-1120 rpm Pan speed range – 12.5-37 rpm
Liner – Natural rubber Angle range (from horizontal) – 40-60 degrees
Binder application – Each binder tested was batch mixed with water to give a similar
application rate in lbs. of solids applied per lb. of dry lime processed. (All tests were set
up to add binder solids at 2% by wet pellet weight and assuming 8% moisture content in
pellets. The binder spray was increased or decreased until proper size pellets were
seen discharging from the Disc Pelletizer). The solution components were weighed to
make a 10 gallon batch and dumped in a 30 gallon polyethylene tank. The solution was
pumped through a centrifugal pump with a recirculation loop back into the tank (to
ensure sufficient mixing and to provide sufficient pressure (40 psi) for the pelletizer
sprays).
Samples from pelletizing (off the Disc Pelletizer discharge belt conveyor) were dried,
screened, and tested below.
Bulk Density – Weight of material per cubic foot volume. Measured with scale and
graduated cylinder (1000 ml sample).
Drop Strength – 6 by 10 mesh pellet samples individually dropped from 18” height to
determine average number of drops the pellets can withstand before breaking apart.
Moisture Content – Wet pellet samples are put in a moisture balance which
measures starting “wet” weight, evaporates off moisture, and measures finished
“dry” weight during a recorded time period. The % moisture is a “wet” weight = wt. of
water evaporated/wt. of wet product. (Moisture Balance – Mettler Instrument Corp., NJ model
LP-16/PM480 delta range - 320 deg. F - 50 gram sample size).
Particle Size – Pellet samples passed through 4, 6, 16, 20, 30, and 40 mesh screen
sizes in a mechanical shaker. Used US standard sieves on Ro-tap shaker (400 gram
sample).
Abrasion Test – The purpose of this test was to obtain relative comparison of the
pellet samples to determine abrasive differences caused by the binder. (Similar to
ASTM Specification #G65 – Standard Test Method for Measuring Abrasion using the
Dry Sand/Rubber Wheel test.) 10 # pellet samples were screened to –4 mesh and
then passed between a rubber wheel and a metal specimen. The rubber wheel was
rotated through a mechanical drive. The pellets were forced between the metal
specimen and wheel with a counterweight. The metal specimen was weighed before
and after the test run to determine mass loss from abrasion. For these tests,
aluminum was used as the metal specimen material.
Solubility – A small sample of dry pellets put in a container with water to confirm their
ability to break down and dissolve.
Note: % solids and density based upon binder vendor supplied data.
4.4.2 Set-up Parameters for Pelletizing
Wet samples were tested for bulk density (lbs/cf), drop strength, compression
strength, and attrition loss.
Wet samples were dried in a moisture balance to determine moisture content (%
water of wet weight) and drying time (for comparison of drying rate).
Wet samples were dried in a fluid bed dryer to determine drying characteristics.
Dry samples were tested for bulk density (lbs/cf), drop strength, compression
strength, attrition loss, sieve analysis, abrasion, and solubility.
6. TEST SUMMARY
Listed below are conclusions as interpreted by the test run data previously
shown. In general, all of these binders may be suitable for limestone pelletizing with
adjustments to binder solids application rate by varying the concentration (dilution).
Using the time required to produce and maintain pellets in the required size range,
the Dolomitic test runs were “easier” to pelletize.
Calcium based Lignins produced stronger pellets for Dolomitic lime, and Sodium
based Lignins produced stronger pellets for Calcitic lime.
All Dolomitic test runs pelletized at a lower moisture content than the Calcitic test
runs – a conclusion from this is that the binder dose may have to be higher for
Dolomitic lime applications, in direct comparison to Calcitic lime applications, to
maintain the same % solids applied to the pellets. However, satisfactory pellet
strengths were achieved in most cases and the tests proved that a 2 % application
rate is sufficient for some binders.
Although the Calcitic limestone required more moisture to pelletize, and therefore
more binder solids applied, it was evident that the binder applied (app. 2 %) was not
sufficient for proper pellet bonding.
6.1.2. Drying – Binders were ranked for total change in moisture over the sampling
times (which produced drying curves). Final moisture content is also important, but it
depends upon the starting moisture which varied for each test. The pellet temperatures
(when measured at the sample times) did vary for the different binders suggesting that
the binder affects the specific heat of the material. The Dolomitic lime pellets seemed to
have steeper drying curves than the same binders with the Calcitic lime pellets.
6.1.3. Drop Strengths - All dry samples averaged 50 + pellet drops. All green samples
varied as shown on the Test Run Data. Drops were higher for most binders with the
Dolomitic lime.
6.1.4. Crush Strength – Using an acceptable level of 4.0 # crush, some binders
exceeded and some failed at 2 % concentration. Crush strengths were generally greater
for most binders with Dolomitic lime than those of Calcitic lime.
6.1.5. Attrition Loss – All dry Dolomitic tests had attrition losses less than 0.6 %. All dry
Calcitic tests had attrition losses less than 1.7 % with the exception of binder #8. All wet
Dolomitic tests had attrition losses less than 1.4 %, while all wet Calcitic tests had
attrition losses much higher (this is confirmed by the fact that more fines were captured
in the dryer exhaust cyclone for the Calcitic tests).
6.1.6 Pellet sizing - As noted above, it was easier for the pellets to form in the required
size range for all the binders tested with the Dolomitic lime.
6.1.7. Abrasiveness – All Dolomitic lime samples were tested as well as 3 calcitic lime
samples (1 with Lignin binder, 1 with Molasses binder, and 1 with Brewex binder) for
comparison. The Dolomitic samples had a much higher abrasion rate on the metal
specimen. No other correlations comparing binders could be made.
6.1.8. Solubility – All samples were tested, and they dissolved in water.
The 3 “best” binders are ranked below in relation to testing parameter. Due to the
minute differences in some of the measured parameters and associated inaccuracies of
measurements in the tests, we have taken only the top three from the test run data.
From this table we suggest that binder #6 and #2 (both Calcium based Lignins) were
the best overall for the Dolomitic Test Runs. Binder #1 and binder #7 were the best
overall for the Calcitic Test Runs.
Note: While we did not measure for hygroscopic (absorption of moisture into the pellet)
parameters, some pellet strengths did seem to weaken after exposure to air – binders
8,9, and 10 (which are all Molasses based) had much lower crush strengths when re-
tested.
This paper is not designed to examine all binders used in the agglomeration process.
Certainly other dry and wet binding agents are used for various materials throughout the
industry, but the ones tested here seem to be most applicable to limestone pelletizing.
The binder selection relates to long term operating costs of a limestone pelletizing
system. Capital costs for purchasing binders may be compared for a site specific plant,
but costing data has not been included in this study because operating costs can offset
capital costs.
Assume cost of binder @ $50/ton, density @ 10.0 #/gal, and 50 % solids in solution
($ 50/ton) x (1 ton/2000#) / (10 #/gal) = $ 0.25 /gal
9 Wes Las 79.5 79.5 Brix Cane Molasses* Westway Trading Corporation
Sieve Analysis
Chemical – CaCO3 and MgCO3 1.9 % retained on 45 mesh screen
Material source – Raymond mill 7.1 % retained on 80 mesh screen
Calcium Carbonate equivalent (CCE) = 93 % 14.1 % retained on 120 mesh screen
Effective Neutralizing value (ENV) = 84 % 49.9 % retained on 200 mesh screen
Moisture content – 0.1 % 21.2 % retained on 325 mesh screen
Bulk density – 83-110 #/cf 5.8 % retained in pan
Sieve Analysis
Chemical – CaCO3 1.0 % retained on 45 mesh screen
Material source – Hammermill 13.2 % retained on 80 mesh screen
Calcium Carbonate equivalent (CCE) = 98.9% 11.1 % retained on 120 mesh screen
Effective Neutralizing value (ENV) = 93.0 % 37.6 % retained on 200 mesh screen
Moisture content – 0.01 % 26.5 % retained on 325 mesh screen
Bulk density – 91-112 #/cf 10.6 % retained in pan
REFERENCES
IBA 1993 Pelletizing Limestone Fines - A Study of the Benefits of Pelletized
Limestone Fines in the Commercial and Agricultural Market
IBA 1991 Of Beer, Leather, and Beets – A Study of Alternative Binders in Agitation
Pelletizing
CONTRIBUTORS
Mars Mineral would like to thank the following contributors who assisted with developing
this study: