Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013

______________________________________________________________________________________

SHREDDER IMPROVEMENTS

By

LG SANTAROSSA1, SI ANDERSON2
1
Sucrogen – Cane Products, Townsville
2
Rockfield Technologies, Townsville
[email protected]

KEYWORDS: Grid Bar, Hammer, Rotor,

Shredder, Tungsten Carbide, FEA.

Abstract
CONTINUAL DEVELOPMENT OVER more than 20 years has delivered a revised shredder
design that is better performing with lower associated life cycle costs. Sucrogen now
operates eleven shredders installed at the eight sugar mills from Macknade in the north
to Plane Creek in the south. Due to historical acquisitions of sugar mills there are
variations in the configurations of these eleven machines. While previous attempts have
been made to standardise components, there were seven different hammers required for
the eleven different machines. There were also two different rotor designs with seven
standard Walkers type shredders and four Goninan type shredders. No detailed analysis
had been conducted to compare the merits of the various shredder designs with respect
to performance and whole of life cost. The objectives for the revised shredder design
were to improve group shredding performance, resulting in improved sugar recovery,
and to reduce total life cost for shredders in the group. This paper presents design
improvements for the shredder grid, rotor, hammers and hammer tips to realise these
objectives. Finite element analysis was used to predict the stress distribution in the
shredder hammers and discs.
Introduction
The shredder consumes the most power of all prime movers directly driving process
equipment in a sugar mill and has the capacity to have the largest effect on mill extraction and
costs.
Sucrogen owns and operates eleven shredders installed at eight mills. There is variation in
the configuration of these machines. The mix includes seven standard Walkers type shredders and
four Goninan type shredders with five being 1.52 m (5 ft) swing diameter and six being 1.83 m (6
ft) swing diameter.
Previous attempts have been made to standardise components resulting in seven different
hammer designs being used across the group.
Prior to this work, no detailed comparison had been conducted to compare the merits of a
particular shredder design with respect to performance and whole of life cost.
The objectives in consolidating the best features of all these machines was to improve group
shredding performance resulting in improved sugar recovery and reduced total life cost for
shredders in the group. Improvement areas for the revised shredder design included:
o standardised grid design
o rotor improvements
 standardise rotor design to Walkers type
 change number of hammer rows from 8 to 12 for the 1.52 m (5 ft) diameter
and 12 to 16 for the 1.83 m (6 ft) diameter shredders to:
1
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

• reduce tip wear caused by first impact with cane billets entering
shredder, and
• improve cane preparation due to more hammer blows per revolution.
o hammer improvements
 set hammer eye region dimensions to 80 mm diameter x 60 mm width to
reduce localised wear
 set hammer bar diameter to 80 mm to match hammer design
 Adopt CrMo cast steel for hammers to reduce operational wear
o hammer tip improvements
o stationary plates.
Details of these improvements and associated results are presented in the following sections
of this paper.
For all installations a tramp iron magnet must be positioned correctly and as a minimum,
monitored by the crushing station control system to confirm effective operation with cool oil to
ensure that shredder performance and costs are optimised. The installation of feeder rollers to the
shredder is seen as an effective investment provided that there are no physical dimensional
constraints.
Grid design
Cullen and McGinn (1974) stated that the mechanism of shredding cane can be considered
as consisting of two distinct phases. The impact phase occurs with the initial contact of the
vertically falling cane billets and the rotating hammers. Two impacts occur in this region with the
hammer making the initial contact and then the cane has a second impact on the grid bars’ initial
face plate. The remainder of the cane preparation occurs in the grid bar region. This work was
further substantiated by Schembri (2003) where it was determined that 81% of the preparation
occurred during the initial impact by the hammers, 9% against the front wall/anvil bar and 10% in
the grid with a setting of almost 0 mm.
The above findings, combined with inter-mill comparisons of the variations in operational
performance over 10 machines across Sucrogen factories started by Batley (1996), suggested that
four equi-spaced deep pocket (300 mm) grids over a 95o wrap were the most effective factory scale
arrangement. This arrangement is shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1—Standard shredder grid.

To maintain extraction performance for the duration of the season and to ensure that the grid
components endure at least one season under continuous crushing conditions, the materials for
various parts were substituted with white iron. Typically the white iron material is an ASTM A532
17-2 Cr-Mo with a hardness of 700+ BHN. The most significant stationary white iron part, called
the ‘knee block’ (Figure 2), was developed in 1990 at Pioneer.
2
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 2—Shredder grid bar knee-block.

The anvil plate cladding was also changed from ‘Dua-Plate’ to white iron tiles (Figure 3) to
maintain preparation performance for continuous crushing operations.

Fig. 3—Shredder grid bar anvil-plate tile.

Continuous crushing required more durability in the grid bars. This durability was achieved
by replacing the hardfaced grid bars’ with white iron enhanced replaceable grid segments of various
designs as shown in Figure 4.

Fig. 4—Shredder grid bar wear blocks.

Rotor improvements
With seven standard Walkers type shredders and four Goninan type shredders in the group,
there was sufficient data to compare one design against the other and form an engineering
judgement as to the more effective machine design, based on POC and maintenance costs.
3
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

Sucrogen has been working on improving the Walkers shredder rotor design since 2003,
when the Macknade shredder rotor was rebuilt with 3Cr12 discs. Projecting current wear trends, it
is proposed that this rotor will achieve at least 10 years’ service before requiring a rebuild. Minor
repairs after 5 years operation were required where ‘309’ stainless steel welding consumable was
used to return the discs to their original geometry in the hammer swing zone. Figure 5 shows the
discs refurbished in this zone during a maintenance period.

Fig. 5—Macknade 3Cr12 shredder rotor.

The 3Cr12 discs can typically be manufactured from a plate thickness of 25 mm to 32 mm

depending on the required geometry width constraints and the number of hammers required for the
rotor. The mass moment of inertia of the Goninan rotor is typically higher than that of the Walkers
shredder but this moment of inertia can be increased in the Walkers shredder by increasing the
diameter of the spacer discs.
The two elements of the comparison between the shredder types were performance and
maintenance, measured by POC and $/t fibre respectively. The two different shredder designs that
were closest in characteristics for processing cane were the Pioneer Goninan shredder and the
Invicta B Walkers shredder.
When comparing shredder performance across the group it became apparent that more linear
metres of tungsten carbide (WC) that contacts the cane per second, implied that the shredder had
more capability for preparing cane, particularly when considering that 90% of the preparation
occurs during the initial impact with the hammers, front wall and anvil bar (Schembri, 2003).
To capture the performance measures, the shredder ‘preparation capability index’ (PCI) and
the shredder ‘preparation capability parameter’ (PCP) were developed. PCI is expressed as:

(Rotor speed × number of hammers / chute width) × tip width

where rotor speed is in r/min/60 and chute width and tip width are in m. This equation gives metres
of WC strike per second per metre chute width.
4
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

When comparing actual performance, tonnes fibre per hour requires consideration. The
shredder PCP is the shredder PCI divided by the tonnes fibre per hour per metre width of chute.
A ranking of the capability of shredders operated by Sucrogen is shown below in Table 1.
‘Before’ means prior to the change to the standard design and ‘After’ is after the implementation of
standard design.

Table 1—Sucrogen shredder preparation capability.

PREPARATION
PREPARATION CAPABILITY
CAPABILITY INDEX PARAMETER
Ranking Shredder Before After Improvement Before After
1 Kalamia 186 191 3% 6.0 6.2
2 Pioneer 186 191 3% 5.5 5.7
3 Proserpine 84 191 129% 2.2 5.0
4 Victoria B 107 149 38% 3.5 4.9
5 Plane Creek 127 138 8% 4.3 4.7
6 Invicta B 111 149 33% 3.3 4.4
7 Macknade 111 111 0% 3.5 3.5
8 Invicta A 85 95 13% 3.0 3.4
9 Victoria A 107 111 4% 3.2 3.3
10 Inkerman B 53 58 10% 3.0 3.3
11 Inkerman A 56 58 5% 2.7 2.8

There correlation between PCP and POC (r = 0.7) when comparing PCP and POC average
annual results across the Sucrogen machines for the last ten years. Two factors that diminish the
correlation are:
• the Plane Creek shredder has the capability to do good preparation but this is
compromised by using white iron shredder hammer tips
• a district influence where the data indicates that a machine with the same PCP in the
Herbert and Burdekin district will perform better in the Burdekin.
The theory and the data confirm that adoption of the standard design will improve shredder
performance across the group.
The capital cost of the 3Cr12 Walkers style rotor is 25% less expensive than the capital cost
of the Goninan style rotor.
Regarding maintenance costs over 10 years, the Goninan style rotor requires approximately
$60 000 of maintenance compared to $5 000 for the 3Cr12 rotor. Analysing all detailed cost for the
rotors over 10 years (in approximately the same duty), the Goninan style rotor costs around $0.09
per t fibre whereas the 3Cr12 Walkers style rotor costs $0.04 per t fibre.
The proposed standardised rotor was designed such that there was no further need for wing
hammers and tips. Depending on the shredder dimensions, plate work in the feed chute may be
needed to ensure that the feed is directed away from the wall/hammer gap to avoid accelerated wear
of the side hammers and tips.
Figure 6 shows the Invicta 3Cr12, B shredder rotor, one of the first shredders to convert
over to the standardised design.
Figure 7 is an extract from Anderson (2009) and shows the predicted stress distribution in a
32 mm thick shredder disc during typical operations.
5
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 6—Invicta 3Cr12, B shredder rotor.

Fig. 7—Invicta 3Cr12, B shredder rotor analysis. Left: FE model showing mesh
discretisation of hammer bar and disc section. Right: predicted stress distribution in
32 mm disc section under typical operating conditions.

It is proposed that the irregular profile of the discs in the Goninan shredders absorbs energy
due to windage thus consuming power without realising work as opposed to Walker style
continuous discs that have a more aerodynamic presentation. A subtle design consideration for
various shredder rotor configurations is the noise that is generated. A quadrant of the rotor was
modelled with the varying load of the hammers during a working rotation and it was predicted that
the sound pressure level was reduced by around 15% by increasing the number of hammer rows
from 8 to 12.
Hammer improvements
At the start of this project there were seven different hammer profiles in the eleven different
machines (Figure 8). A combined effort between Sucrogen and Rockfield (Anon., 2009) analysed
all current Sucrogen shredders and associated hammers to propose the most effective hammer
design for use in all machines. Further properties for the hammers and tips are given in Table 2.
The main objectives in rationalising the seven hammer types were:
• Maximise the rake angle of the hammer tip as seen by the entering cane to promote
feeding. This angle can be achieved by considering the centre of gravity of the
hammer assembly and tip geometry.
• Minimise wear in the hammer’s eye region and hammer bar, by reducing bearing
stress.
• Minimise hammer wear by using a material with more wear and corrosion resistance
that does not require hardfacing, as hardfacing is expensive and known to initiate
fatigue cracks.
6
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 8—Variation in shredder hammer design across Sucrogen.

Table 2—Sucrogen shredder hammer dimensional details.

Eye Eye to Tip Width at
Hammer Diameter Distance Eye Tip Size
Shredder Mass (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Tip Type

MKD 18.9 85.85 349 50 90 x 90

VRA A 18.9 85.85 349 50 90 x 90

VRA B 19.5 70.85 299 58.5 90 x 90

INV A 21.2 64.03 312 65 90 x 90

INV B 21.2 64.03 312 65 90 x 90

PNR 20.6 70.55 248 52 100 x 75

KAL 20.6 70.55 248 52 100 x 75

INK A 16 70.45 246 50 90 x 90

INK B 16 70.45 246 50 90 x 90

PRO 17 64.1 311 65 90 x 90

PCK 21 89.13 364 48 90 x 90

• Minimise the risk of fatigue failure by reducing stress concentration at geometric

details in the hammer’s profile (achieved by placing material in the correct areas and
maximising blending fillet radii).
• Incorporate a swing limit stop feature to:
 avoid hammer clash during shredder start-up and slow-down,
 allow sufficient hammer lay-back to allow tramp iron passage between
hammer tip and grid bar.
• Reduce tip cost without compromising performance, by adopting the most
economical and practical to change tip size (90 mm × 90 mm).
7
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

The methodology used to assess the rake angle of the hammer tip as seen by the entering
cane is shown in Figure 9. The original Invicta B shredder hammer design is used as an example.
The ‘initial tile surface’ means the state where the hammer shank centerline is drawn horizontal, as
in a manufacturing drawing for the hammer. The ‘aligned tiled surface’ means the state at which the
hammer aligns, acted on by the centrifugal force at operating speed. If the centre-of-gravity (c.o.g.)
of the hammer is on the centre-line then ‘initial’ and ‘aligned’ are the same.
The resulting operational rake angle for the tip on the original Invicta B shredder hammer
was –6.3 degrees, which was not conducive to effective performance. A sharper rake angle (i.e.
more positive) is more conducive to better performance, in particular, feeding. A negative rake
angle is basically blunt. A worn tip is blunt and feeding is hindered as the force vectors generated
by the tip attempt to push the cane back up the feed chute instead of cutting the cane and dragging it
in the rotor.

Fig. 9—Free body diagram of candidate hammer design used for assessing tip rake angle.

By considering the operational experience of shredders across the group, the availability of
shredder hammer bar material into the future and calculations of working bearing stress in the eye
region, it was concluded that an 80 mm bar diameter was the best compromise for this duty.
The use of hard-facing on hammers and shredder discs should be avoided as it introduces
hairline cracks into a very dynamic and corrosive environment.
There have been many instances in the Australian sugar industry of hammers (even ones
with deep shank sections) failing at the edge of hard-facing. At 1000 r/min, a shredder rotor
completes more than 1.4 million revolutions per day.
This high cycle environment is why the design of and maintenance procedures for shredder
hammers need to consider fatigue resistance.
Figure 10 shows examples of the application of hardfacing on hammer bodies. The approach
taken to eliminate hardfacing was to investigate material options for the hammer, which are
discussed later in this paper.
The design of the Victoria B shredder hammer was reviewed at the end of the 2006 crushing
season following several failures. Several changes were made to the design to improve fatigue
resistance of the hammer. The new design proved effective under operational conditions and as
such was selected to be the design basis for the standardised hammer.
8
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 10—Typical hardfacing on previous hammers showing new and worn conditions.

Figure 11 overlays the standard hammer profile and the proven Victoria B shredder hammer
profile. The most notable changes include the eye hole/pin diameter increase from 70 mm to 80
mm, an increase in material depth around the eye region, and adjustment of the limit stop feature, to
achieve the desired lay-back and lay-forward angles.
Note that a few minor changes have been made to the design including a trapezium shape
section (not shown in the figure) added to the rear of the eye region to allow balancing of the
hammers without compromising either the fatigue resistance or steady state layback angle of the
standard hammer.

Fig. 11—The overlaid profiles of the standard hammer and Victoria B hammer.

The lay-back and lay-forward angles become more important in shredders with a higher
number of hammers used (not necessarily a full complement). With excessive lay-back and lay-
forward, neighbouring hammers (Figure 12) can contact each other during start-up and slow-down
when they flop back and forth. Lay-back and lay-forward was an issue in a northern shredder where
numerous outside tungsten carbide tiles on the 120 mm wide tips were being destroyed.
The solution in this instance was a redesign of the hammer with a revised limit stop position
on the shank of the hammer, to control lay-back and lay-forward movement to avoid hammer clash.
The number of cracked or missing tiles dramatically reduced. Once a tile is damaged the hammer is
more vulnerable to accelerated erosion.
During the design phase of the development of the standard hammer, the design and location
of the swing limit stop feature was deemed critical to avoid hammer clash during shredder start-up
and slow-down procedures and to allow sufficient hammer lay-back to allow tramp iron to pass
between hammer tip and grid bar.
9
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

Also considered, was the effect that wear in both the eye hole and outer disc diameter had on
the possible lay-back and lay-forward movement of the hammers. Figure 12 shows the hammer
arrangement in Invicta A shredder. 3D CAD was used to assess the potential lay-back and lay-
forward angles.

Fig. 12—The standard hammer and arrangement in Invicta A shredder. Left:

schematic showing new discs and hammers and potential lay-back and lay-forward
angles. Top Right: 3D model of the partially assembled rotor. Lower Right: Photo of
hammers in shredder taken during maintenance period.

Currently in the Australian sugar industry the majority of shredder hammers are sand cast
from AS2074 L1B. To remove the need for hardfacing, other materials considered were chromium
steels like ASTM A743 and CF-8M, CrMo steels, various grades of ductile iron to ASTM A536
and various grades of austempered ductile iron. The properties of most interest in the material were
hardness, elongation, tensile strength and corrosion resistance. The best compromise selected was a
CrMo steel cast by the investment casting method having the mechanical properties in Table 3.

Table 3—Shredder hammer casting mechanical properties.

Mechanical properties ≥
Heat
Hardness
Tensile strength Yield strength Elongate rate Reduction of area Impact test treatment
HBW
MPa MPa % % J

930 785 8 22 25 320 Q+T

Hammers with the material properties shown in Table 3 have operated for two seasons in both
Invicta A and Invicta B shredders. These two seasons were a harsh test as the 2010 season was a
wet year and 2011 was a stand-over year.
A summary of the consolidated improvements to-date for the 1.83 m (6 ft) swing shredder,
including the grid with replaceable wear components, the stainless steel rotor with increased
number of hammer rows and the standard hammers are shown in the cross-section in Figure 13.
10
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 13—Standard 1.83 m (6 ft) shredder cross section.

Hammer tip improvements

With the platform of three standard shredders in Sucrogen there was now potential to
develop a standard shredder tip faster than in the past, where local variables more easily masked
trial results. Sucrogen currently uses four generic shredder hammer tip types. These types are
shown below in Figure 14 to 17.

Fig. 14—Shredder hammer tips for Fig. 15—Shredder hammer

INV A, INV B, INK A, INK B, PRO. tips for PNR, KAL.

Fig. 16—Shredder hammer Fig. 17—Shredder hammer

tips for MKD, VRA A, VRA B. tips for PCK.
11
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

The most common hammer tip is made up of three components (Figure 18):
• the backing plate with thread, typically machined from a carbon steel forging
• the white iron, vacuum brazed to the backing plate and typically manufactured from
an ASTM A532 17-2 Cr-Mo,
• the tungsten carbide tiles, induction brazed to the white iron and manufactured from
a variety of Sandvik materials, including H6C, H11C and H15F.
Typically, tungsten carbide (WC) tip usage varies with the seasons depending on hardness
of district soil particulates, floods, cyclones, stand-over cane, local field conditions at time of
harvest and other variables.
These variables and the different grades and dimensions of the WC tile, influence the
current life of the WC shredder hammer tip in Sucrogen factories from around 105 000 tonnes of
cane to more than 400 000 tonnes of cane.
The $/tonne crushed for the shredder hammer tip is a variable that can be used when
comparing costs across group shredders (providing POC results are similar). For Sucrogen,
Inkerman is the best performer with $0.07 per tonne crushed for hammer tips while using Sandvik
H15F WC tiles (refer Figure 14).
One observation regarding shredder configuration from many years of data is that tip life
increases and performance is not compromised as the number of hammers in the shredder rotor per
tonne fibre, increases.
This observation is why the number of rows of hammers has been increased in the standard
rotor design to improve shredding performance and reduce maintenance cost. Increasing the number
of hammer rows reduces the penetration of the billet into the tip area. As an example, in the Invicta
B shredder, increasing the number of rows of hammers from 12 to 16 had the effect of reducing
billet penetration from 44 mm to 33 mm.
The cost breakdown for a typical 90 × 90 mm tungsten carbide enhanced shredder hammer
tip is 70–80% for the WC, 10–15% for the white iron and around 9% for the backing plate with
thread. This breakdown indicated that the most effective area for research and improvement was the
WC tile.
Ideally, when the shredder tip is replaced, there should be no more usable WC and no more
usable white iron remaining on the hammer tip with preparation performance starting to deteriorate.
In considering materials for the WC tiles, the range of materials in increasing values of hardness
from 800 HV to over 8000 HV and reducing values of transverse rupture strength, start with white
iron, then move to cemented carbides then ceramics, cubic boron nitride and finally polycrystalline
diamond composite materials.
Over the past 20 years Sucrogen has trialled many variations of tips in isolated shredders but
the introduction of the standard shredder design as the foundation has permitted the same tip design
to be compared across districts and machines, for more reliable data analysis. In selecting the grade
of WC to trial it is important to understand that wear resistance, hardness, compressive strength,
transverse rupture strength and fracture toughness are dependent on the cobalt (Co) content and WC
grain size. Sucrogen ‘across factory’ comparisons identified that H15F was the most effective grade
of WC. The work by Loughran et al. (2005) also proposed that H15F WC with a minimum
thickness of 14 mm for impact resistance was most appropriate. Together these conclusions guided
the starting point for the trials.
The best characteristics of the current tips in use across the industry were also assessed and
design variations were installed. As a comparison the Sandvik grade of WC H15F uses 84.3% of
extra-fine grain WC and 15% Co as a binder to give a hardness of 1400 HV30 and a transverse
rupture strength (TRS) of 3900 MPa whereas Sandvik H11C uses 89% of coarse gain WC and 11%
Co as a binder to give a hardness of 1150 HV30 and a TRS of 3200 MPa.
12
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

In 2011, hammer tip trials were conducted at Victoria and Invicta with 144 hammer tips
incorporating 30 × 25 × 14 mm H15F tiles as shown in Figure18. The wear result of these tips is as
shown in Figure 19.

Fig. 18—2011 trial hammer tip A.

Fig. 19—2011 wear results after 409 000 t for trial hammer tip A.

At Invicta in B shredder this tip processed 409 000 tonnes of cane before replacement. The
trial tips were all removed after 409 000 tonnes as the wear on the WC was nearing the limit on
most tips, the amount of wash in the white iron had become excessive and performance was at the
limit of acceptability with an R40 nose profile. The remaining carbide thickness was 0 mm at the
front and 11 mm at the rear. In comparison, the standard tip on B shredder with 30x30x12 H11C
carbide had all tips replaced after 253 000 tonnes.
The 2011 trials also ran 12 hammer tips incorporating 30x25x14 mm H15F tiles on end in
Victoria B shredder, as shown in Figure 20. The resultant wear profile after 258 000 tonnes for this
tip was as shown in Figure 21.

Fig. 20—2011 trial hammer tip B.

13
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 21—2011 wear results after 258 000 t for trial hammer tip B.

The observations from these results led to further hammer tip trials in 2012. The design for
the 2012 trial tip is shown in Figure 22.

Fig. 22—2012 trial hammer tip.

There is a clear understanding that the soils and conditions in shredding cane in the
Burdekin district are more severe (242 000 t life) than in the Herbert district (543 000 t life) with
the testing of 200 trial tips in Victoria B shredder and 445 trial tips in Invicta A shredder. The worn
profiles of the tips on both machines were similar as shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24.

Fig. 23—2012 wear results after 242 000 t in Invicta A shredder for trial hammer tip
compared to new tip with white mark-out for wear.

Fig. 24—2012 wear results after 543 000 t in Victoria B shredder for trial hammer tip.
14
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

A conclusion from these trials is that from the tip extremity, 0 to 13 mm receives the most
aggressive wear, with the zone from 13 mm to 26 mm receiving secondary wear. In increasing the
WC thickness to 20 mm at the front edge, in the fully worn state, we realised a more pronounced
back rake and nose rounding than on the 2011 trial tips, which reduced shredding performance
towards the end of life. We now understand, that to ensure shredding performance until the WC is
worn, implies a reduction in thickness of the WC tile to the 14 to 16 mm range in the most
aggressive wear zone being from 0 to 13 mm from the tip extremity. During 2012, Sucrogen also
tested two shredder hammer tips with a specific grade of polycrystalline diamond composite
material with unsuccessful results. There is a potential that variations in grade could be applied to a
10 x 10 mm corner block in the highest wear zone. Due to the rotational replacement of shredder
hammer tips with continuous crushing, the minimum life extension that has commercial
significance is 100 000 – 150 000 tonnes depending on the crushing rate of the mill.
On researching literature we are now concerned that WC using Co alone as a binder shows
poor resistance, or is not resistant to corrosion below a pH value of 5.5 to 6, as experienced in our
shredders. To improve the corrosion resistance of the WC tile, the Co binder can be alloyed with
elements such as nickel and chromium and this is considered for future work.
Stationary plate work
Typically the stationary armour plating is manufactured from a ‘Dua-Plate’ type material.
There are zones in the stationary plate work that wear faster than the remainder of the plate work.
As shredders are being rebuilt, the high wear zones are being configured with white iron replaceable
wear parts to a standard configuration from Bradken. The dimensions of the stationary armour vary
for the 1.52 m (5 ft) and 1.83 m (6 ft) swing shredders and are shown in Figure 25.

Fig. 25—Stationary plates for 1.52 m (5 ft) and 1.83 m (6 ft) shredders.

Conclusions
Continual development over the past 20 years with eleven shredders as well as previous
research conducted as part of an SRDC (Sugar Research and Development Corporation) funded
project into hammer tip improvements, has delivered a better performing and a more cost effective
item of plant.
Sucrogen now have a standard shredder design, rotor design and hammer design that will
perform better and cost less to maintain and is applicable to all shredder installations. The work of
standardising a shredder hammer tip is being facilitated by having a standard test platform in the
group standard shredder arrangement that has similar operating parameters in the 1.83 m (6 ft) and
1.52 m (5 ft) swing shredders. Sucrogen is working towards standardising on a tip design that is the
most effective in all these machines. At this stage it appears that the best commercially available
15
Santarossa LG, Anderson SI Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 35 2013
______________________________________________________________________________________

material for the WC tip in Sucrogen shredders is Sandvik H15F with a minimum thickness of 14
mm in the tramp iron impact zone.
Acknowledgements
The continual support and effort of many people in trial work and in comparing various
design changes since 1996 from Sucrogen, at all mill sites, has been significant. Input from Brian
Edwards at various stages of development is also acknowledged. Other parties outside Sucrogen
that have contributed to the development process are Rockfield Technologies Australia and
Bradken.
REFERENCES
Anderson SI (2009) FEA of proposed Invicta B-side shredder disc. Consulting report R112009D-1 -
Rockfield Technologies Australia Pty Ltd.
Anon. (2009) CSR Sugar - Standardised Shedder Hammer Design. Consulting project P112008.D -
Rockfield Technologies Australia Pty Ltd.
Batley BJ (1996) A design investigation into the mechanics of shredding with a focus on the grid
bar region. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, James Cook University.
Cullen RN, McGinn JA (1974) Shredder performance and its effect on milling, Technical Report
No 124, Sugar Research Institute Australia.
Loughran JG, Anderson SI, Camuglia J and Trapp N (2005) Enhancing the life of shredder hammer
tungsten carbide tips. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists
27, 508–518.
Schembri MG (2003) Improving the understanding of cane preparation by measuring the progress
of power usage and cane size reduction through the shredder, Technical Report 11/03, Sugar
Research Institute, Australia.

16