We don’t claim to be real knowledgeable on this subject and have had only limited involvement in parts for this application. You’ll likely find that the way they go about reduction of coal differs considerably from aggregate producing. The sizing requirement you’ve noted, is over an 18:1 ratio. Primary jaw & gyratory crushers are effective only to half that kind of reduction, & wouldn’t come near getting down to the finish size product required. We’ve made parts for some multiple stage varying toothed roll crushers that are sometimes used in the crushing of coal. They’re multi-staged, to the point of 3 or more levels of coarseness, within the same machine, to allow getting to the sizing you’ve noted. They’re certainly not oriented towards wear life efficiency. Some of the ones we’ve provided allowed only a 10 to 15% wear material ratio to the casting carcass. They are very expensive pieces of equipment, to own and operate. A couple OEM crusher manufacturer names you might look into would be Krupp-Polysius and McLanahann. We’ve not had enough to do with these kinds of machines to be of much detailed help. Good luck in your search.

I’m not familiar with that particular manufacturer name, or model of primary gyratory crusher. It’s possible this may be a more commonly known model, manufactured under license by the name you’ve noted.

We have a comprehensive history of similar machines, stretching over 70 years. Resurrecting and reconditioning these old substantial design machines is becoming a more common affair and it’s not out of the realm economically to put considerable resources into reconstructing these old machines.

We’ve been involved in providing the wear parts for several similar projects. With crushers of this size, it would be within reason to see pattern costs in excess of $70k, with the necessary wear parts including the mantle(s) and concave segments costing another $90k. The other miscellaneous wear-out parts such as the head nut, torch ring, spider covers, arm guards, etc., could easily total another $50 to $100k. This could still be viable, when you consider that the cost of new similar sized machines exceeds $2.5 m.

Collecting the information required to accomplish positive results would be a trying venture in itself. In regard to what we could supply to aid in your project, we’d either have to identify your crusher by another more commonly known manufacturer and compare dimensional information to what we may already have that suits your machine – or, we’d need complete and accurate field measurements with sketch information that would allow manufacture of the needed components.

The fitting dimension information could be taken from existing partially expended parts. This would best be done by an engineering firm hired to do that kind of work. However, I don’t have knowledge of firms in your part of the world that are capable of that kind of work, or the complicated mechanical and machine work necessary for this kind of reconstruction. There are several companies in the U.S. that specialize in this kind of work, although transportation would be too much of an issue to consider anything like that.

There’s likely someone closer that would be likewise as proficient. You may want to start out with a couple of the crusher manufacturers located in Europe, such as Metso Minerals (Finland), or Sandvik Rock Processing (Sweden). They may be able to direct you to someone experienced in that kind of work. If forwarded detailed enough dimensional information on the wear parts, Columbia Steel could be of service in that part of the project. Good luck in this worthwhile sounding project.