Benchmarking: BondBarratt - Detour Lake - Revision history

Alex Doll: /* Discussion */

2015-11-05T01:12:48Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 5 November 2015
Line 111:		Line 111:

	Trying the Raw Bond/Barratt model and comparing to the April/May 2015 values, the model predicts:		Trying the Raw Bond/Barratt model and comparing to the April/May 2015 values, the model predicts:
	* Etotal : 19.7 kWh/t, model 1% high		* Etotal : 18.3 kWh/t, model 1% high
	* t/h : ~~2750~~ t/h, model 2% high		* t/h : 2992 t/h, model 2% high

Alex Doll: /* Design Criteria */

2015-09-27T21:25:07Z

Design Criteria

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:25, 27 September 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	* Wi<sub>RM</sub> use 50<sup>th</sup> percentile = 18.0 kWh/tonne.		* Wi<sub>RM</sub> use 50<sup>th</sup> percentile = 18.0 kWh/tonne.
	* Wi<sub>C</sub> use 50<sup>th</sup> percentile = 14.8 kWh/tonne.		* Wi<sub>C</sub> use 50<sup>th</sup> percentile = 14.8 kWh/tonne.
	* Plant availability = ~~94.4~~%		* Plant availability = 87%

	Mill criteria		Mill criteria

Alex Doll: /* Discussion */

2015-09-27T21:23:42Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 27 September 2015
Line 110:		Line 110:
	The ultimate capacity of this circuit hasn't been established yet, so it could very likely continue to improve and approach the model numbers.		The ultimate capacity of this circuit hasn't been established yet, so it could very likely continue to improve and approach the model numbers.

	Trying the Raw Bond/Barratt model, the model predicts:		Trying the Raw Bond/Barratt model and comparing to the April/May 2015 values, the model predicts:
	* Etotal : 19.7 kWh/t, model 1% high		* Etotal : 19.7 kWh/t, model 1% high
	* t/h : 2750 t/h, model 2% high		* t/h : 2750 t/h, model 2% high

Alex Doll: /* Discussion */

2015-09-27T21:23:21Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 27 September 2015
Line 105:		Line 105:

	If we claim that 7% difference between April/May and the 2015 data, then the differences become:		If we claim that 7% difference between April/May and the 2015 data, then the differences become:
	* Etotal : model 7% low		* Etotal : actual = 19.5 kWh/t, model 7% low
	* t/h : model 13% high		* t/h : actual = 2700 t/h, model 13% high

	The ultimate capacity of this circuit hasn't been established yet, so it could very likely continue to improve and approach the model numbers.		The ultimate capacity of this circuit hasn't been established yet, so it could very likely continue to improve and approach the model numbers.

	Trying the Raw Bond/Barratt model, the model predicts:		Trying the Raw Bond/Barratt model, the model predicts:
	* Etotal : 19.7 kWh/t, model 6% ~~low~~		* Etotal : 19.7 kWh/t, model 1% high
	* t/h : 2750 t/h, model 2% high		* t/h : 2750 t/h, model 2% high

Alex Doll: /* Discussion */

2015-09-27T21:22:09Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 27 September 2015
Line 109:		Line 109:

	The ultimate capacity of this circuit hasn't been established yet, so it could very likely continue to improve and approach the model numbers.		The ultimate capacity of this circuit hasn't been established yet, so it could very likely continue to improve and approach the model numbers.

			Trying the Raw Bond/Barratt model, the model predicts:
			* Etotal : 19.7 kWh/t, model 6% low
			* t/h : 2750 t/h, model 2% high

Alex Doll: /* Results */

2015-09-27T21:17:51Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 27 September 2015
Line 60:		Line 60:

	== Results ==		== Results ==
			[[file:Benchmarking-DetourLake.png\|thumb]]

	Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt model conditions:		Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt model conditions:
	{\| class="wikitable" border="1"		{\| class="wikitable" border="1"
Line 99:		Line 99:
	\| model 20% high		\| model 20% high
	\|}		\|}


	==Discussion==		==Discussion==

Alex Doll: Created page with "category:benchmarking category:Bond/Barratt Model category:Bibliography ==Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SAG Mill Specific Energy Consumption - Detour Lake == * ''J. T..."

2015-09-27T21:11:58Z

Created page with "category:benchmarking category:Bond/Barratt Model category:Bibliography ==Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SAG Mill Specific Energy Consumption - Detour Lake == * ''J. T..."

New page

[[category:benchmarking]]
[[category:Bond/Barratt Model]]
[[category:Bibliography]]
==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.

Operating data from 2015, A×b looks similar to 50th percentile from the October 2012 NI43-101 report.

"Current value" data, table 7 from the reference
* Throughput = 2×1,258 = 2,516 dry tonnes per hour
* SAG circuit F80 = 90.7 mm (pre-crusher product)
* circuit P80 = 90 µm

* SAG power draw (at motor input, per mill) = 13,424 kW (at mill shell = 12,694 kW)
* SAG mill ball charge = 17 % vol
* SAG mill total charge = 24.3 % vol
* SAG mill discharge % solids = 70% weight
* SAG mill speed 80.24% of critical
* ESAG at mill shell = (2×12,694)/2,516 = 10.1 kWh/t

* pebble crushers typically draw 322 kW
* Epeb = (2×322)/2,516 = 0.26 kWh/t

* ball mill power draw (at motor input, per mill) = 13,982 kW (at mill shell = 13,221 kW)
* ball mill % solids = 80% weight
* ball mill total charge = 25.4
* ball mill speed = 79.61% of critical
* Ebm at mill shell = (2×13,221)/2,516 = 10.5 kWh/t

==Design Criteria==
* Ore A×b = 26.6, between 25th and 50th percentiles
* WiBM use 50th percentile = 14.3 kWh/tonne.
* WiRM use 50th percentile = 18.0 kWh/tonne.
* WiC use 50th percentile = 14.8 kWh/tonne.
* Plant availability = 94.4%

Mill criteria
* SAG mills: two 36 foot nom diam by 17.25 foot effective grinding length (EGL)
* ball mill: two 25 foot nom diam by 38.0 foot EGL (flange-to-flange length 38.5)
* SAG mills, each twin variable speed motor 7000 kW (each mill)
* Ball mill, each twin (assumed variable speed) motors 7500 kW (each mill)

==Modelling==

SAG mill is modelled using following:
* Austin SAG model
* ore density 2.9 t/m³
* SAG liners nominal 4 inch liner thickness
* liner thickness based on JK Simulation in Table 3
* effective dimensions 10768 mm diam × 5334 mm EGL
* predicted SAG power draw at mill shell = 13,448 kW (5.9% higher than actual)

Ball mill is modelled using following:
* Nordberg ball mill wet overflow with density correction
* ore density 2.9 t/m³
* ball mill nominal 90 mm liner thickness
* liner thickness based on JK Simulation in Table 3
* effective dimensions 7439 mm diam × 11581 mm EGL
* predicted ball mill power at mill shell = 13,273 kW (0.4% higher than actual)

== Results ==

Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt model conditions:
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
!
!Esag
!Epeb
!Ebm
!Etotal
!t/h
|-
| Predicted
| 9.0
| 0.2
| 8.8
| 18.0
| 3004
|-
| 2015 data
| 10.1
| 0.3
| 10.5
| 20.9
| 2516
|-
| Difference
| 1.1
| 0.1
| 1.7
| 2.9
| 508
|-
| Difference
| model 12% low
| model 33% low
| model 16% low
| model 14% low
| model 20% high
|}

==Discussion==

The mill is in the final stages of ramp-up, and has not reached its ultimate capacity. Figure 5 shows they are consistently exceeding 2,700 t/h in April & May of 2015, suggesting they can do 7% more than the data in Table 7.

If we claim that 7% difference between April/May and the 2015 data, then the differences become:
* Etotal : model 7% low
* t/h : model 13% high

The ultimate capacity of this circuit hasn't been established yet, so it could very likely continue to improve and approach the model numbers.