Benchmarking: Bond - Meadowbank - Revision history

Munashe Kurisa: /* Sick circuit simulation */

2020-05-22T17:32:38Z

Sick circuit simulation

Munashe Kurisa: /* Healthy circuit simulation */

2020-05-22T17:26:21Z

Healthy circuit simulation

Alex Doll: /* Sick circuit simulation */

2014-01-25T23:54:00Z

Sick circuit simulation

Alex Doll: /* Design criteria */

2014-01-25T23:44:31Z

Design criteria

Alex Doll: /* Healthy circuit simulation */

2014-01-25T23:42:41Z

Healthy circuit simulation

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Meadowbank */

2013-01-27T03:07:05Z

Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Meadowbank

Alex Doll: Created page with "category: Benchmarking category: Bond/Barratt Model category:Bibliography ==Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Meadowbank== * ''Mute..."

2013-01-27T00:44:34Z

Created page with "category: Benchmarking category: Bond/Barratt Model category:Bibliography ==Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Meadowbank== * ''Mute..."

New page

[[category: Benchmarking]]
[[category: Bond/Barratt Model]]
[[category:Bibliography]]
==Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt 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". A survey was conducted on the "sick" mill in May, 2012 reported the following the following:

* A×b 38.6
* Ball mill work index 10.9 kWh/t
* Ore density 2.93 kg/L (contains magnetite)
* SAG mill feed F80 38 mm (pre-crushing)
* Cyclone overflow P80 79 µm
* Throughput 446 tonnes/hour

To run the Bond/Barratt model requires work index values for rod milling and crushing. The reported A×b (38.6) is similar to the "Design Criteria" sample at Phoenix (A×b of 37.5) published by J.Seidel et al, SAG 2006. Seidel also reported the following work index values that will be used as proxies for the Meadowbank ore:

* WiRM 17.2 kWh/t
* WiC 17.6 kWh/t

In the benchmarking table below, the "sick" mill corresponds to the May 2012 survey and the "healthy" mill corresponds to the September 2012 conditions in Figures 7 and 8. The following tables back-calculate the "Essbm contingency" model fitting parameter for the Bond/Barratt SABC model (which includes allowance for phantom cyclone effects). Specific energy references the "mill shell" kW values.

{|class="wikitable" border="1"
! "Sick" SAG !!SAG!!BM!!Etotal
|-
| DCS kW||3,374||4,341||
|-
| Shell kW||3,190||4,105||
|-
| Throughput, t/h||446||446||
|-
| Specific Energy, kWh/t||7.15||9.20||16.36
|-
| Essbm||||||13.23
|-
| contingency||||||24%
|}

Note that no survey was done in this period, so the Essbm is assumed to be the same as the May 2012 value (the ore is the same hardness).

{|class="wikitable" border="1"
! "Healthy" SAG !!SAG!!BM!!Etotal
|-
| DCS kW||3,350||4,341||
|-
| Shell kW||3,168||4,105||
|-
| Throughput, t/h||500||500||Etotal
|-
| Specific Energy, kWh/t||6.34||8.21||14.55
|-
| Essbm||||||13.23
|-
| contingency||||||10%
|}

The default contingency for a Bond/Barratt SABC model is 10%. The "healthy" mill work out to exactly 10% - the model Etotal value fits perfectly.

Combining the Bond/Barratt specific energy model, the Austin SAG model described in the [[Benchmarking: Meadowbank SAG|bibliography]] and the Nordberg ball mill model described in the [[Benchmarking: Meadowbank ball mill model|bibliography]] results in the following throughput predictions for a "healthy" milling circuit using the work index values above:

* 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: 535 tonnes/hour (+6% difference)

{|class="wikitable" border="1"
! !!SAG!!BM!!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%
|}

The specific energy consumption estimates are very close. The difference in the throughput estimate is due more to the power draw estimates for the mills than it is the specific energy consumption estimates.

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 * Actual SAG/ball motor powers (at shell): 3,374 kW / 4,341 kW
 * Actual daily average throughput: 446 tonnes/hour
-* Predicted SAG/ball motor powers (at shell):  3,112 kW / 4,186 kW
+* Predicted SAG/ball motor powers (at shell):  3,085 kW / 4,186 kW
-* Predicted nominal throughput: 428 tonnes/hour (-4.1% difference)
+* Predicted nominal throughput: 405 tonnes/hour (-9.2% difference)
 {|class="wikitable" border="1"
@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 | Measured specific energy consumption, kWh/t||7.15||9.20||16.36
 |-
-| Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t||7.27||9.78||17.06
+| Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t||7.62||10.33||17.95
 |-
-| Difference, kWh/t||+0.12||+0.58||+0.70
+| Difference, kWh/t||+0.47||+1.13||+1.59
 |-
-| Difference, %||+1.7%||+6.3%||+4.3%
+| Difference, %||+6.6%||+12.3%||+9.7%
 |}

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 * 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):  3,112 kW / 4,186 kW
+* Predicted SAG/ball motor powers (at shell):  3,085 kW / 4,186 kW
-* Predicted nominal throughput: 501 tonnes/hour (no difference)
+* Predicted nominal throughput: 500 tonnes/hour (no difference)
 {|class="wikitable" border="1"
@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 | Measured specific energy consumption, kWh/t||6.34||8.21||14.55
 |-
-| Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t||6.21||8.35||14.55
+| Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t||6.18||8.38||14.55
 |-
-| Difference, kWh/t||-0.13||0.14||0.00
+| Difference, kWh/t||-0.16||0.17||0.00
 |-
-| Difference, %||-2.1%||1.7%||0.0%
+| Difference, %||-2.5%||2.1%||0.0%
 |}

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 ==Sick circuit simulation==
 [[File:Benchmarking-Meadowbank-Sick.png|thumb|Screenshot of the "sick" Meadowbank circuit simulation]]
-Modelling the "sick" SAG mill is more difficult.  The transfer size is forced to match the survey value by setting the upper limit to the surveyed value 1240 &micro;m (and neglecting a phantom cyclone effect as it can not be calculated without a full size distribution).  This forces the circuit into a SAG-limited situation which will restrict the throughput.  The ball mill is modelled with a variable speed (slowing to maintain the target P<sub>80</sub>), but is not important to the overall throughput.  In reality, the ball mill is probably operating inefficiently under these conditions and will be very difficult to model.
+Modelling the "sick" SAG mill is more difficult.  The transfer size is forced to match the survey value by setting the upper limit to the surveyed value 1240 &micro;m (and neglecting a phantom cyclone effect as it can not be calculated without a full size distribution).  This forces the circuit into a SAG-limited situation which will restrict the throughput.  The ball mill is modelled with a fixed speed (overgrinding versus the target P<sub>80</sub>), but is not important to the overall throughput.  In reality, the ball mill is probably operating inefficiently under these conditions and the product will be coarser than predicted.
 * Actual SAG/ball motor powers (at shell): 3,374 kW / 4,341 kW
 * Actual daily average throughput: 446 tonnes/hour
-* Predicted SAG/ball motor powers (at shell):  3,190 kW / 3,132 kW
+* Predicted SAG/ball motor powers (at shell):  3,112 kW / 4,186 kW
 * Predicted nominal throughput: 428 tonnes/hour (-4.1% difference)
@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 | Measured specific energy consumption, kWh/t||7.15||9.20||16.36
 |-
-| Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t||7.24||7.32||14.56
+| Predicted specific energy consumption, kWh/t||7.27||9.78||17.06
 |-
-| Difference, kWh/t||+0.09||-1.88||-1.80
+| Difference, kWh/t||+0.12||+0.58||+0.70
 |-
-| Difference, %||+1.2%||-22.8%||-11.6%
+| Difference, %||+1.7%||+6.3%||+4.3%
 |}

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 * Wi<sub>C</sub> 17.6 kWh/t
 The "sick" mill corresponds to the May 2012 survey and the "healthy" mill corresponds to the September 2012 conditions in Figures 7 and 8.
 ==Model parameter fitting, sick & healthy circuits==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 * ''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".  A survey was conducted on the "sick" mill in May, 2012 reported the following the following:
+Paper describes a "sick" SAG mill and the changes made to "bring it to health".
 * A&times;b 38.6
@@ Line 20: / Line 24: @@
 * Wi<sub>C</sub> 17.6 kWh/t
-In the benchmarking table below, the "sick" mill corresponds to the May 2012 survey and the "healthy" mill corresponds to the September 2012 conditions in Figures 7 and 8.  The following tables back-calculate the "Essbm contingency" model fitting parameter for the Bond/Barratt SABC model (which includes allowance for phantom cyclone effects).  Specific energy references the "mill shell" kW values.
+The "sick" mill corresponds to the May 2012 survey and the "healthy" mill corresponds to the September 2012 conditions in Figures 7 and 8.
 {|class="wikitable" border="1"
@@ Line 58: / Line 65: @@
 The default contingency for a Bond/Barratt SABC model is 10%.  The "healthy" mill work out to exactly 10% - the model E<sub>total</sub> value fits perfectly.
 Combining the Bond/Barratt specific energy model, the Austin SAG model described in the [[Benchmarking: Meadowbank SAG|bibliography]] and the Nordberg ball mill model described in the [[Benchmarking: Meadowbank ball mill model|bibliography]] results in the following throughput predictions for a "healthy" milling circuit using the work index values above:
@@ Line 63: / Line 72: @@
 * Actual daily average throughput: 500 tonnes/hour
 * Predicted SAG/ball motor powers (at shell):  3,096 kW / 4,182 kW
-* Predicted nominal throughput: 535 tonnes/hour (+6% difference)
+* Predicted nominal throughput: 500 tonnes/hour (no difference)
 {|class="wikitable" border="1"
@@ Line 77: / Line 86: @@
 |}
-The specific energy consumption estimates are very close.  The difference in the throughput estimate is due more to the power draw estimates for the mills than it is the specific energy consumption estimates.
+The total specific energy consumption is exactly the same in the simulation as is observed in the plant, and the estimates for E<sub>SAG</sub> and E<sub>ball</sub> are very close to the plant observation.  The model throughput prediction exactly matches the plant measurement.