Benchmarking: Specific Energy Consumption Models
Contents
- 1 Benchmarking: Amelunxen SGI - Agnico Eagle Laronde
- 2 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt - Cadia East (underground)
- 3 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt - Cadia
- 4 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Copper Mountain
- 5 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SAG Mill Specific Energy Consumption - Detour Lake
- 6 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SAG Mill Specific Energy Consumption - Esperanza
- 7 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Fort Knox
- 8 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Kanowna Belle
- 9 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Meadowbank
- 10 Benchmarking: Amelunxen SGI SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Macraes
- 11 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Macraes
- 12 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt ABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Santa Rita
- 13 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SAB Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Selbaie
- 14 Benchmarking: Bond/Rowland SSBM Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Boddington
- 15 Benchmarking: Bond/Rowland SSBM Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Tropicana
- 16 Benchmarking: Morrell Mih model Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Tropicana
- 17 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Single Stage SAG model Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Yanacocha
- 18 Benchmarking: Morrell Mi Single Stage SAG model Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Yanacocha
- 19 Benchmarking: Private surveys
Benchmarking: Amelunxen SGI - Agnico Eagle Laronde
Starkey, J., Robitaille, J., Cousin, P., Jordan, J. and Kosick, G., Design of the Agnico-Eagle Laronde Division SAG mill. Proceedings of SAG 2001, pages III-165 to III-178.
- Survey conducted for six months after start-up
- Specific energy values corrected to "mill shell" basis (motor input basis given in the reference)
Result for default Amelunxen SGI SAB model conditions:
Esag | Epeb | Ebm | Etotal | t/h | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predicted | 6.5 | - | 6.9 | 13.4 | 196 |
Survey | 6.1 | - | 6.4 | 12.5 | 210 |
Difference | 0.4 | - | 0.5 | 0.9 | 14 |
Difference | model 7% high | - | model 8% high | model 7% high | model 7% low |
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt - Cadia East (underground)
Engelhardt, D., Robertson, J., Lane, G., Powwel, M.S. and Griffin, P., Cadia Expansion - From open pit to block cave and beyond. Proceedings of MetSoc 2012.
- Design criteria and plant trial of underground Cadia East ore
- Ore was blasted underground and had F_{80} = 80 mm on surface
Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt SABC model conditions:
E_{SAG} | E_{ball} | E_{total} | t/h | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Model | 12.2 kWh/t | 15.1 kWh/t | 27.7 kWh/t | 1294 t/h |
Measured | 10.6 kWh/t | 13.2 kWh/t | 23.8 kWh/t | 1482 t/h |
Difference | 1.6 kWh/t | 1.9 kWh/t | 3.9 kWh/t | -188 t/h |
Difference | 15% | 14% | 16% | -13% |
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt - Cadia
Dunne, R., Morrell, S., Lane, G., Valery, W. and Hart, S., Design of the 40 foot diameter SAG mill installed at the Cadia gold copper mine. Proceedings of SAG 2001, pages I-43 to I-58.
Lane, G., Foggiatto, B. and Bueno, M, Power-based comminution calculations using Ausgrind. Proceedings of Procemin 2013, Chapter 2, paper 2.
- Survey conducted shortly after start-up
Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt SABC model conditions:
Esag | Epeb | Ebm | Etotal | t/h | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predicted | 8.6 | 0.3 | 8.5 | 17.4 | 2000 |
Survey | 8.6 | - | 8 | 16.6 | 2065 |
Difference | 0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | -65 |
Difference | 0% | - | 6% | 5% | -3% |
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Copper Mountain
- Morrison, R., Current Plant Conditions at Copper Mountain. Presentation to the BC/Yukon Branch Canadian Mineral Processors, November 29, 2012; Vancouver, Canada.
- van de Vijfeijken, M., Filidore, A., Walbert, M. and Marks, A., Copper Mountain: Overview on the Grinding Mills and their Dual Pinion Mill Drives. Proceedings of the SAG 2011 Conference, September 25-28, 2011; Vancouver, Canada.
- Marks, A., Sams, C. and Major, K., Grinding Circuit Design for Similco Mines. Proceedings of the SAG 2011 Conference, September 25-28, 2011; Vancouver, Canada.
Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt model conditions:
Tonnage | |
---|---|
Model | 1455 t/h |
Measured | 1600 t/h |
Difference | 145 t/h |
Difference | 9.5% |
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SAG Mill Specific Energy Consumption - Detour Lake
- J. Torrealba-Vargas, J.-F. Dupont, J. McMullen, A. Allaire and R. Welyhorsky, The successful development of the detour lake grinding circuit: from testwork to production. Proceedings of the SAG 2015 Conference, September 2015, Vancouver, Canada, Paper 38.
The mill is in the final stages of ramp-up, and has not reached its ultimate capacity. If we use the April/May 2015 values from Figure 5, the results look like:
- Etotal : model 7% low
- t/h : model 13% high
The throughput is likely to continue to increase as the ramp-up continues, so the difference between the model and the actual plant is likely to reduce.
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SAG Mill Specific Energy Consumption - Esperanza
- Villanueva, F. and Soto, L., SEC and the impact on a mills selection for DMC project. Proceedings of the XXVII International Mineral Processing Congress, October 2014, Santiago, Chile. C14-23.
Paper describes modelling of two expansion cases (Esperanza Sur and Encuentro). Some operating data for the current Esperanza pit & plant are provided as they were used to tune the comminution models used for the expansion cases.
Average ore | |
---|---|
Measured SAG specific energy consumption, kWh/t | 5.5 |
Predicted SAG specific energy consumption, kWh/t | 5.9 |
Difference, kWh/t | 0.4 |
Difference, % | model predicts 7% high |
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Fort Knox
- Magnuson, R.; Hallow, J.; Mosher, J.; Major, K., The Fort Knox Mill: Design, Commissioning and Operation. Proceedings of the SAG 2001 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
Optimized Bond/Barratt SABC circuit (10% Essbm calibration factor).
Result for default model conditions:
E_{total} | Wi_{O} | Tonnage | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | 11.43 | 15.90 | kWh/t | 1,607 | t/h |
Measured | 10.50 | 14.61 | kWh/t | 1,733 | t/h |
Difference | 0.93 | 1.29 | kWh/t | 126 | t/h |
Difference | 8.9% | 8.8% | 7.3% |
Model predicts 8.9% harder than survey resulting in predicted throughput 7.3% lower than survey.
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Kanowna Belle
Lunt, D.J., Thompson, A. and Ritchie, I. The Design and Operation of the Kanowna Belle Milling Circuit, SAG 1996, Pages 81-96.
Survey | Optimized Model |
Difference | |
---|---|---|---|
E_{SAG} | 12.55 kWh/t | 13.27 kWh/t | +5.7% |
E_{ball} | 9.70 kWh/t | 10.24 kWh/t | +5.6% |
E_{peb} | 0.99 kWh/t | 1.04 kWh/t | +5.2% |
E_{total} | 23.24 kWh/t | 24.55 kWh/t | +5.6% |
Two possible circuit models were tested, and the Optimized Bond/Barratt SABC model better matches the survey than the Raw Bond/Barratt model.
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Meadowbank
- Muteb, P. & Allaire, J., Meadowbank Mine Process Plant Throughput Increase, Proceedings of the Canadian Mineral Processors Annual General Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, January 2013.
Paper describes a "sick" SAG mill and the changes made to "bring it to health". The "healthy" mill conditions benchmark as follows:
- Actual SAG/ball motor powers (at shell): 3,168 kW / 4,105 kW
- Actual daily average throughput: 500 tonnes/hour
- Predicted SAG/ball motor powers (at shell): 3,096 kW / 4,182 kW
- Predicted nominal throughput: 500 tonnes/hour (0% difference)
SAG | Ball Mill | total | |
---|---|---|---|
Measured specific energy consumption, kWh/t | 6.34 | 8.21 | 14.55 |
Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t | 6.19 | 8.36 | 14.55 |
Difference, kWh/t | -0.15 | 0.15 | 0.00 |
Difference, % | -2.3% | 1.8% | 0.0% |
Benchmarking: Amelunxen SGI SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Macraes
Barns, K., Lane, G., Osten, K. & Scagliotta, N., Benchmarking Energy Efficiency - A Case Study at Macraes Gold Mine, Proceedings of the AusIMM MetPlant conference, Perth, Australia, September 2004.
Survey 5 | Survey 4 | Survey 3 | Survey 2 | Survey 1 | Overall Average | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SAG specific power | 7.1% | 7.6% | 23.4% | 5.0% | 9.4% | 10.5% | |
ball mill specific power | 7.1% | 7.7% | 16.6% | 4.9% | 11.4% | 9.6% | |
total specific power | 7.1% | 7.7% | 19.0% | 5.0% | 10.8% | 9.9% | |
CF_{ball} | -17.5% | 16.9% | 0.5% | 10.6% | 8.3% | 3.8% |
The overall specific energy consumption predictions of the model are conservative by about 10%. The CF_{ball} predictions are within 4% overall, but can be wildly different on any particular sample. Circuit feed sizes were varied during the surveys, ranging between 51 and 107 mm; the SGI equation doesn't have a explicit F_{80} term, so feed sizes may be confusing the method.
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Macraes
Barns, K., Lane, G., Osten, K. & Scagliotta, N., Benchmarking Energy Efficiency - A Case Study at Macraes Gold Mine, Proceedings of the AusIMM MetPlant conference, Perth, Australia, September 2004.
Difference between model results and plant surveys:
Survey 5 | Survey 4 | Survey 3 | Survey 2 | Survey 1 | Overall Average | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SAG specific power | -5.3% | -5.0% | 6.3% | 0.5% | 2.2% | -0.2% | |
ball mill specific power | -6.3% | -4.7% | 3.6% | 1.9% | 3.2% | -0.5% | |
total specific power | -6.8% | -3.8% | 5.4% | 1.4% | 2.9% | -0.2% |
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt ABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Santa Rita
Latchireddi, S. & Faria, E., Achievement of High Energy Efficiency in Grinding Mills at Santa Rita, Proceedings of the Canadian Mineral Processors Annual General Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, January 2013.
Faria, E. & Latchireddi, S., Commissioning and Operation of Milling Circuit at Santa Rita Nickel Operation, Paper #137: Proceedings of the International Autogenous Grinding, Semiautogenous Grinding and High Pressure Grinding Roll Technology Conference, Vancouver, Canada, September 2011.
FAG | BM | Pebble Crusher |
total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Measured specific energy consumption, kWh/t | 9.55 | 7.28 | 0.34 | 17.18 |
Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t | 9.78 | 8.33 | 0.39 | 18.50 |
Difference, kWh/t | 0.23 | 1.05 | 0.05 | 1.32 |
Difference, % | 2.4% | 14.4% | 14.7% | 7.7% |
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SAB Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Selbaie
Duval, L. and Wood, K., Testing, Design and Operation of SAG Circuit at Les Mines Selbaie, Proceedings of the SAG 1989 Conference, Vancouver, Canada, September 1989.
Wood, K. and Duval, L., Mill Expansion at Les Mines Selbaie, Proceedings of the 25th Anniversary Issue of the Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, Canada (Paper № 8), January 1987.
- SAB circuit
- SAG feed F_{80} = 117 mm
- cyclone overflow, P_{80} = 45 µm
SAG | BM | total | |
---|---|---|---|
Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t | 11.99 | 12.37 | 24.37 |
Predicted operating work index, metric | 20.3 | 14.2 | 16.7 |
Measured operating work index, metric | 20.0 | 13.8 | 16.0 |
Difference, metric Wi units | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
Difference, % | 2% | 3% | 4% |
Benchmarking: Bond/Rowland SSBM Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Boddington
The Bond/Rowland SSBM model was fit to the observed operation of the Boddington HPGR circuit. The fitting parameters are:
- E_{ssbm} calibration factor: (-0.13)
- Mechanical efficiency of HPGR crushers: 0.28.
Because the model is specifically fit to the Boddington data, it doesn't make any meaningful throughput predictions, but the following predictions are available:
- Ball mill operating work index reduction versus laboratory: 5% (microcracking/phantom cyclone effect)
- Secondary crusher WiO is 18.1 kWh/tonne (versus laboratory determination 27.7 kWh/t).
Benchmarking: Bond/Rowland SSBM Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Tropicana
The Bond/Rowland SSBM model was fit to the observed operation of the Tropicana HPGR circuit. The fitting parameters are:
- E_{ssbm} calibration factor: (0%)
- Mechanical efficiency of HPGR crushers: 0.44.
Benchmarking: Morrell Mih model Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Tropicana
The Morrell Mi model (SMC test & recalibrated ball mill work index) was compared to the observed operation of the Tropicana HPGR circuit:
Model Prediction | Survey Actual | Difference | |
---|---|---|---|
E_{secCr} | 0.52 kWh/t | 0.40 kWh/t | model 30% high |
E_{hpgr} | 2.83 kWh/t | 2.60 kWh/t | model 9% high |
E_{ball} | 18.36 kWh/t | 16.77 kWh/t | model 9% high |
E_{total} | 21.70 kWh/t | 19.77 kWh/t | model 10% high |
The Morrell model is about 10% conservative versus the survey results.
The throughput determined by the ball mill treatment rate is 710 t/h, versus observed 734 t/h (model is 3% conservative).
Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Single Stage SAG model Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Yanacocha
Two surveys were published, the first survey was noted that "the circuit was not operating efficiently", so the model predictions are expected to be optimistic.
Survey Actual | Model Prediction | Difference | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Survey 1 E_{ASAG} | 19.8 kWh/t | 16.4 kWh/t | model 20% low | Ignore survey, mill operating poorly |
Survey 2 E_{ASAG} | 18.0 kWh/t | 16.3 kWh/t | model 10% low | Survey probably OK |
The first survey has significantly higher energy consumption than the model predicts. The author of the reference paper says that the mill was not operating well, so it is reasonable to ignore this survey and not use it as a valid "benchmark" as we are only interested in benchmarking against circuits that are operating "well".
The second survey is operating better, and can be assumed valid basis for benchmarking.
Benchmarking: Morrell Mi Single Stage SAG model Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Yanacocha
The same two surveys as the Bond/Barratt model (above) give the following:
Survey Actual | Model Prediction | Difference | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Survey 1 E_{ASAG} | 19.8 kWh/t | 12.7 kWh/t | model 56% low | Ignore survey, mill operating poorly |
Survey 2 E_{ASAG} | 18.0 kWh/t | 12.5 kWh/t | model 43% low | Significant difference |
Both these predictions are significantly different from the surveys. Either the circuit is performing much worse than the Bond/Barratt model predicts or else there is something in Yanacocha that is confusing the Mi method.
Benchmarking: Private surveys
Private surveys that do not include details, but the difference between plant performance and model predictions are provided below:
- Project 0082, using Optimized Bond-Barratt model.
- SAB survey: E_{total}: actual = 6.72 kWh/t, predicted = 6.78 kWh/t, difference 0.9%
- ABC survey: E_{total}: actual = 7.75 kWh/t, predicted = 8.14 kWh/t, difference 4.8%
- Project 0104, SABC-A survey
- Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E_{total}: actual = 20.8 kWh/t, predicted = 20.7 kWh/t, difference 0.0%
- Morrell Mi (SMC) model : E_{total}: actual = 20.8 kWh/t, predicted = 20.2 kWh/t, difference 2.9%