View source for Template:Tests by size class

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Model
! Fine size
! Medium size
! Coarse size
|-
| Bond/Barratt
| Wi<sub>BM</sub>
| Wi<sub>RM</sub>
| Wi<sub>C</sub>
|-
| SMC
| Mi<sub>b</sub>
| Mi<sub>a</sub>
| Mi<sub>c</sub> <sup>&dagger;</sup>
|-
| SAGDesign
| Wi<sub>BM</sub>(modified)
| SAGDesign
| &mdash;
|-
| CEET 1
| Wi<sub>BM</sub>
| SPI
| &mdash;
|-
| CEET 2 <sup>‡</sup>
| Wi<sub>BM</sub>
| SPI
| CI
|-
| JK SimMet <sup>‡</sup>
| Wi<sub>BM</sub>, ta
| A, b
| &mdash;
|}
<sup>&dagger;</sup> The Mi<sub>c</sub> is not a true measurement of coarse hardness because the measurement is conducted at a medium size and extrapolated based on a database thought to consist of largely competent ores.  It is unlikely to represent the hardness of heterogeneous ores where the breakage of coarse sizes is controlled by fractures rather than by the matrix of rock.

<sup>‡</sup> JK SimMet is actually a population-balance model rather than regular power model.  CEET 2 is a hybrid having properties of a population-balance model and a power model.  Both tend to be more complicated and have more "tuning factors" that are appropriate to fitting mill surveys as opposed to initial design.  Specialized software is needed to operate both models.