Minerals Beneficiation - Sampling and Testing of Sinter - Discussion

M. O. Holowaty (Inland Steel Co., Chicago)—Messrs. Stephenson and Carney should be commended on the presentation of this very interesting paper. They have introduced new ideas on sampling of sinter and have thereby made a valuable contribution to the qualitative evaluation of sinter. The paper undoubtedly presents a novel approach to the problem of sinter sampling and this is to be regarded as its main value. Sampling of sinter from the pallets prior to the discharge is by no means new. This sampling procedure was used in the past by Philbrook; Hamilton and Ameen and others. The sampling basket used by the authors of this paper, however, permits one actually to obtain a good sample of the sintering mixture. The basket which can also be described as a removable pallet goes then through the entire process of sintering and thus offers a sample which is positively representative of the batch in question. The authors' method of evaluating physical properties of sinter seems to be not altogether clear, however. It is felt that the following points should be clarified: I—In the section describing the shatter test the authors state that a 5-lb sample was used in the actual tests. There is no mention of the initial size of sinter particles used and the method of obtaining this 5-lb sample from the sinter cake weighing about 100 to 120 lb. It is also surprising that the sample was dropped from a height of 3 ft instead of the conventionally used 6 ft. Unfortunately there is no mention of the number of drops to which the sample was subjected. 2—The tumbler test used by Messrs. Stephenson and Carney in testing the samples of iron ore sinter was performed in a standard ASTM coke tumbling drum. The drum measures 3 ft in diam and is equipped with two 3-in. lifter bars. The distance of fall in this testing drum is identical with the distance used in the previously described shatter test. The number of drops in the tumbling drum is approximately double the number of revolutions. The basic difference then between the drop-shatter test used by Stephenson and Carney and the tumbling test seems to be the number of drops to which the sample is subjected and the abrasive action to which the sinter particles are exposed in the rotating drum. In any case, the choice between the shatter test and the tumbler test seems to be only a matter of taste and convenience. 3—The authors of the paper state that "in order to insure getting results that were representative . . . the entire sample obtained by means of the sampling basket was used as the starting material for the tumbler test. If the sample broke in pieces, all the pieces were used regardless of their size." The initial size of the material is known to be a very important factor, influencing seriously the final size of the particles. This should be particularly important in case of hard sinters. It seems also very troublesome and inconvenient to charge 12-in. cubes of sinter weighing about 100 lb into the testing drum. This could be eliminated by taking a standard fraction of somewhat smaller particles.