Impact crushing adopts the principle of impact crushing, and materials are repeatedly impacted and crushed between the plate hammer and the impact plate.

Cone crushing adopts layered crushing, and the rolling mortar wall keeps moving towards the crushing wall, squeezing the materials sandwiched between them and crushing them.

Impact crushing structure diagram cone crushing structure diagram

2, the scope of application is different

Both impact crushing and cone crushing can be used as secondary crushing equipment, but the hardness of the materials crushed by them is different. Generally speaking, cone crushers mainly crush some hard materials, such as granite, basalt, tuff, river pebbles and so on. While the impact crusher is used to crush less hard materials such as limestone and limestone.

In a word, the impact crusher is suitable for crushing low-toughness and brittle materials with medium hardness and below, and the cone crusher is suitable for crushing hard materials.

3. The discharging granularity is different

The particle size of the materials crushed by the two crushing equipment is also different. Generally speaking, conical crushing is finer than anti-crushing materials. In actual production, cone crushing is more common in mineral processing, and counter crushing is more common in building materials and construction projects.

4. The finished products have different particle types.

The particle shape of impact crushing is good, the finished product has fewer edges and corners and more powder;

The cone-broken finished product has many needles and flakes, and the grain shape is not good.

5. Different throughput

Compared with anti-crushing, cone crushing has the characteristics of low energy consumption, large output and stable production, so cone crushing is often used in large-scale and high-yield production line operations.

6. Different input costs

Cone crusher is more expensive than impact crusher, but its wearing parts have a longer life, which avoids the trouble of frequent replacement of parts. In the long run, cone-breaking is more cost-effective than counterattack.

In other words, the early purchase cost of counterattack is low, and the later maintenance cost is high; The initial cost of cone breaking is high, and the later input cost is low.

7. Different pollution levels

The noise pollution and dust pollution caused by counterattack are great; Cone crushing has less pollution.

Generally speaking, when we configure the actual production line, we should decide whether to choose cone-breaking or anti-breaking according to our actual needs, including parameters such as materials, particle size of incoming and outgoing materials, output and so on. Bian Xiao suggested that counterattack is suitable for small stone production lines; If it is a large stone production line and the material is hard, it is better to choose cone crushing. If the grain size is very strict, you can add a shaper. In addition, if you have any questions about broken sand, you can learn more about it.