Engineers comparing jaw and impact crusher capacity curves on plant

Tech Specs: Jaw vs Impact Selection with Capacity Curves

Feed size, discharge opening, vibration frequency and verified t/h — the parameters procurement managers and mechanical engineers put into tender sheets before choosing a Kleemann plant class.

We publish capacity curves we can reproduce on instrumented feed trials — every major liner revision re-validates jaw opening and impact rotor settings against the same rock UCS bands.

Selection goals for crushing plant tenders

Three outcomes engineering desks chase when comparing Kleemann jaw crushers, impact crushers and vibrating screens.

Match Feed Size First

Primary jaw opening and impact feed opening sized to blasted or demolished feed — never force oversized rock into a undersized chamber.

Lock Discharge to Product

Discharge opening and CSS-oriented secondary settings mapped to asphalt, concrete or road-base fractions before the first production shift.

Prove t/h Under Real Moisture

Dry limestone curves adjusted for wet recycled feed so vibration frequency and mesh choice protect screening efficiency.

Specification readiness dashboard

Progress against the documentation pack chief engineers expect before factory acceptance — not ESG pledges.

92% / 100%
88% / 100%
95% / 100%
100% / 100%

Jaw crusher vs impact crusher — primary technology debate

Industry dispute coverage for buyers still deciding primary reduction technology. Both sides are valid; Kleemann engineers size either path against rock UCS, tramp-metal risk and product shape targets.

Jaw Crusher Strengths

Simple chamber geometry, broad hardness tolerance (Mohs ≤ 9 class feeds), predictable discharge opening control and generally lower liner complexity for abrasive granite and basalt campaigns.

Impact Crusher Strengths

Higher cubical product rates for asphalt fractions when feed is prepared and tramp metal is controlled — preferred when finished aggregate shape drives pavement performance.

ParameterJaw PrimaryImpact Primary
Typical feed sizeup to 900–1,200 mm classup to 500–700 mm class
Product shapeAcceptable; often needs secondaryHigh cubicity potential
Tramp metal riskMore forgivingRequires magnet / detector discipline
Output capacity180–450 t/h class bands220–450 t/h class bands
ISO 9001 CE (2006/42/EC) EPA Tier 4 Final EU Stage V ISO 21873 ISO 4406 sampling

Request a capability audit of your crushing circuit

Share rock type, moisture and target gradations — receive a jaw / impact / screen recommendation with capacity curve references.

Request a Capability Audit