Bibliography: Specific energy consumption models

From SAGMILLING.COM
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Bibliography: Specific Energy Consumption Models

Specific Energy Consumption is the most common way of describing how much energy is used by grinding, and is the basis of the throughput estimations in SAGMILLING.COM. It is usually expressed as kWh/t (kilowatt-hours per tonne).

Models of this type generally assume a standard particle size distribution and use a single position on that particle size distribution to characterize the entire curve. The most common way to express this is the 80% passing size, which can be expressed as F80 (feed stream 80% passing size), P80 (product stream 80% passing size), or K80 (generic stream 80% passing size).


Bond/Barratt Model Bibliography

  1. Bond, Fred C, The Third Theory, Transactions AIME, May 1952, Pages 484 - 494 OneMine link
  2. Rowland, Chester A, Bond's Method for Selection of Ball Mills, Advances in Comminution, ed. S. K. Kawatra, SME 2006, Pages 385 - 397
    1. EF factor formulae are taken from Rowland, Chester A, Selection of Rod Mills, Ball Mills and Regrind Mills, Mineral Processing Plant Design, Practice & Control, SME 2002, Pages 710-754.
  3. Barratt, Derek J, Semi-autogenous grinding: a comparison with the conventional route, CIM Bulletin, Nov 1979, Pages 74 - 80. [1]
  4. Barratt, Derek J, An Update on Testing, Scale-up and Sizing Equipment for Autogenous and Semi-autogenous Grinding Circuits, Proceedings of the SAG 1989 Conference, Vancouver, Canada, Pages 25 - 46,

SMC Model Bibliography

  1. Morrell, Stephen, An alternative energy—size relationship to that proposed by Bond for the design and optmisation of grinding circuits, International Journal of Mineral Processing, Vol 74 (2004), Pages 133 - 141
  2. smctesting.com, Using the SMC® Test to Predict Comminution Circuit Performance, Published to the Internet
  3. Morrell, Stephen, The appropriateness of the transfer size in AG and SAG mill circuit design, SAG 2011 Conference, Paper #153. Vancouver, Canada.
  4. Global Mining Standards Group, Guideline description: Morrell method for determining comminution circuit specific energy and assessing energy utilization efficiency of existing circuits, revision dated April 07, 2016 (issued for approval).


Starkey SAGDesign Model Bibliography

  1. Starkey, John H; Meadows, David; Senchenko, Arkady; & Thompson, Phillip, SAGDesign Testing Review - Case Studies, 24th International Mineral Processing Conference, Bejing 2008, [[2]]


Amelunxen SGI Method

The generic SAG Grindability Index (SGI) and specific energy formula published by Aminpro:

  1. Amelunxen, P., Berrios, P. & Rodriguez, E.; The SAG grindability index test, Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) Pg 42-51.
  2. Becerra, M. & Amelunxen, P.; A comparative analysis of grinding circuit design methodologies, Procemin 2012, Santiago, Chile.


SPI/Minnovex Method

The following describe the original CEET power-model methodology:

  1. Starkey, J.; Dobby, G.; Kosick, G., A New Tool for SAG Hardness Testing; AGM of the Canadian Mineral Processors, 1994
  2. Kosick, G. & Bennett, C., The Value of Orebody Power Requirement Profiles for SAG Circuit Design; AGM of the Canadian Mineral Processors, 1999
  3. Custer, S.; Garretson, P.; McMullen, J.; Bennett, C.; Dobby, G.; Application of CEET at Barrick's Goldstrike Operation; AGM of the Canadian Mineral Processors, 2001.
  4. Bennett, C., Dobby, G. & Kosick, G., Benchmarking and Orebody Profiling - The Keys to Effective Production Forecasting and SAG Circuit Optimization; SAG 2001 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

The following describe the newer CEET2 hybrid methodology (partly power-based, partly population-balance):

  1. Dobby, G.; Bennett, C.; Kosick, G.; Advances in SAG Circuit Design and Simulation Applied to the Mine Block Model; SAG 2001 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

Bibliography of Other Useful Documents

  1. Taggart, A. F., Handbook of Mineral Dressing, Wiley Engineering Handbook Series, original 1927, republished 1945, 1948, 1950, 1953
  2. Charles, R.J., Energy-Size Reduction Relationships in Comminution, Transactions AIME, January 1957, Pages 80 - 88 OneMine link
  3. Hukki, R. T., Proposal for a Solomonic Settlement Between the Theories of Von Rittinger, Kick and Bond, Transactions AIME, Vol 223, 1962, Pages 403 - 408 OneMine link
  4. Levin, J., Indicators of grindability and grinding efficiency, Journal of South African Inst. of Mining & Metallurgy, vol. 92, no. 10. Oct 1992. pp. 283-290.
  5. Bird, D.S., Heig, R.A., Harper, R.W. and Berges, A.M., Kennecott's Copperton Concentrator Fourth Line Expansion, Plant Performance to Date and Ongoing Continuous Improvement Projects, Proceedings of the SAG 1996 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
  6. Vanderbeek, J., Grinding circuit evolution at Chino Mines Company, Proceedings of the SAG 1996 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
  7. Lynch, A. J. and Rowland, C. A, The History of Grinding, SME, 2005
  8. ed. Kawatra, S. K., Advances in Comminution, SME, 2006
  9. Doll, A.G., A simple estimation method of materials handling specific energy consumption in HPGR circuits, Proceedings of the AGM of the Canadian Mineral Processors, January, 2015, Ottawa, Canada. (republished as a poster in Procemin 2015, Santiago, Chile). https://www.sagmilling.com/articles/23/view/?s=1

Levin (1992) describes three different circuit designs (RM/PM, BM/PM, SAG) on similar Wits. gold ores. WiO difference between SAG and RM/PM is about 10%.

Vanderbeek (1996) describes the effect of pebble crushing and SABC-AB operation as reducing the Esag between 10% and 35% at Chino, but at a cost of coarser ball mill product.

Bird et al. (1996) describes the effect of pebble crushing operation at Kennecott as increasing throughput by 10% to 15%.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools