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.

Leave the eccentric at the 1.000-inch mark for a starting point, but you’ll want to try various lengths and positions of toggling points. That’s how you’ll achieve the action of the machine.

For example, if you want to close this machine down to a 1.000-inch discharge setting, you’ll want it to toggle in such a manner as to provide an open position setting of 2.000 inches. Most crushers of this feed opening and approximate width have jaws slightly over 24.000 inches long. Toggle the machine in such a manner that the discharge match points align somewhere between the open and closed side settings, perpendicular to the back of the moving jaw. If you’re building something from scratch, you’ll have a little trial and error in your preliminary modeling.

Although the part is not of Columbia Steel’s manufacture, it is still a viable part. We make that bowl liner and still have a few users of that profile.

That bowl liner is classified as a “medium crushing liner -- long conventional”. It’s most commonly used with mantle OEM # 5013-9268. The optimum sizing range for this liner set is reducing 3.000-inch top size material with a blend of 2.000-inch x 1.000-inch mean size at .250-inch to .500-inch discharge setting.

The only odd lot consideration of the use of this part is that it fits “fine” bowl frames only. The majority of Symons crusher bowl frames are of the “coarse” variety. So those surplus liners you got a hold of will have a more limited range of use, simply due to what bowl frame they fit.

We’ve made available several different subsequent profiles for 7-foot Symons S.H. cones that are designed to work in that sizing range, and which react differently to different materials and offer more extended life spans than the profile we’re discussing here. However, the short answer to your question is: yes, that is still a viable liner profile, although not optimum for every application -- and take care with which bowl frame it fits.

A review of our master parts catalog shows there are nearly 50 models of crushers in that approximate size range, with few likely sharing a common mainshaft eccentric stroke. Each manufacturer of these machines will incorporate their own eccentric geometry, relative to the depth of their crushing chamber, toggle position and length, power and speed chosen to run the crusher, and the overall stoutness of the crusher’s construction. With the variables that can be incorporated into a jaw crusher, we don’t believe a “standard” for eccentricity exists, except within a given manufacturers own standards. That is -- crusher manufacturers Cedarapids and Kue-Ken will have different views than Metso.

You’ve described a rather small crusher. Normal callout for crusher sizing is that the first number stands for the feed opening and the second number calls out the width. The smaller number generally comes first and identifies the feed opening, although several manufacturer and model exceptions exist. If you’re dealing with a specific model crusher, you’d best contact the manufacturer for their prescribed eccentric specifications.

To address your question as asked -- if one were to build a crusher with a 12.000-inch feed opening and a 7.000-inch width (not typical order of dimensions), the depth should be 30.000-inches minimum (creating an odd sized crusher), with an eccentric of 1.000-inch (2.000-inch stroke). That’s where we’d start with what we’ve seen. A good deal of the “action” of the crusher can be altered by the length and position of the toggle plate, relative to the chosen stroke.

There are a lot of variables that go into the design of a jaw crusher, and calling for a standard stroke for given sizes isn’t something that can be arrived at. Further discussion of your question would be in order to offer a more specific and relative answer.