Benchmarking: Specific Energy Consumption Models - Revision history

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Private surveys */

2026-02-11T12:52:40Z

Benchmarking: Private surveys

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Private surveys */

2023-08-29T17:31:40Z

Benchmarking: Private surveys

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt - Cadia East (underground) */

2023-08-29T17:01:39Z

Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt - Cadia East (underground)

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt - Cadia East (underground) */

2023-08-29T17:00:09Z

Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt - Cadia East (underground)

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Private surveys */

2022-03-05T23:59:13Z

Benchmarking: Private surveys

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Private surveys */

2022-02-27T19:43:36Z

Benchmarking: Private surveys

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Private surveys */

2022-02-27T19:38:09Z

Benchmarking: Private surveys

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Copper Mountain */

2020-05-20T16:02:03Z

Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Copper Mountain

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Copper Mountain */

2020-05-20T16:01:13Z

Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt SABC Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Copper Mountain

Alex Doll: /* Benchmarking: Private surveys */

2018-02-03T22:52:07Z

Benchmarking: Private surveys

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:52, 11 February 2026
Line 530:		Line 530:
	# Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 6.42 kWh/t, predicted = 7.04 kWh/t, difference 9.7%		# Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 6.42 kWh/t, predicted = 7.04 kWh/t, difference 9.7%
	# Morrell Mi (SMC) model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 6.42 kWh/t, predicted = 7.27 kWh/t, difference 13.2%		# Morrell Mi (SMC) model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 6.42 kWh/t, predicted = 7.27 kWh/t, difference 13.2%
		+
		+	* Project 0203, SAB (Andean porphyry, all kWh/t at mill shell)
		+	# SAB survey: E<sub>total</sub> = 11.3 kWh/t, E<sub>SAG</sub> = 4.8 kWh/t, E<sub>ball</sub> = 6.5 kWh/t, WiO = 16.1
		+	# Optimized Bond/Barratt model: E<sub>total</sub> = 10.2 kWh/t (-11%), E<sub>SAG</sub> = 4.1 kWh/t (-17%), E<sub>ball</sub> = 6.1 kWh/t (-6.7%), WiO = 14.9 (-7.5%)
		+	# Morrell Mi model: E<sub>total</sub> = 12.0 kWh/t (+5.6%), E<sub>SAG</sub> = 4.8 kWh/t (-0.5%), E<sub>ball</sub> = 6.5 kWh/t (+9.7%), WiO = 17.5 (+8.7%)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 29 August 2023
Line 462:		Line 462:

	[[Benchmarking: Yanacocha Single-stage SAG Mill\|Show details of benchmarking]]		[[Benchmarking: Yanacocha Single-stage SAG Mill\|Show details of benchmarking]]
		+
		+	==Benchmarking: More Single-stage SAG surveys==
		+	* See the Procemin 2017 paper '''Power-based modelling of single-stage AG and SAG mill circuits''', A. Doll & M. Becerra [https://www.sagmilling.com/articles/33/view/17PRM-GMT_DollBecerra-SingleStageSAG.pdf?s=1 PDF download]
		+	{\| style="border-spacing:0;margin:auto;width:17.59cm;"
		+	\|- style="border-top:0.05pt solid #000000;border-bottom:0.05pt solid #000000;border-left:none;border-right:none;padding:0.097cm;"
		+	\| align=center\|
		+	\| align=center\| '''Barratt model'''
		+	\| align=center\| '''Morrell model'''
		+	\| align=center\| '''Amelunxen model '''
		+	\| align=center\| '''El Soldado model '''
		+	\|- style="border-top:none;border-bottom:0.05pt solid #000000;border-left:none;border-right:none;padding:0.097cm;"
		+	\| align=center\| Qty of parameters:
		+	\| align=center\| 3
		+	\| align=center\| 2
		+	\| align=center\| 2
		+	\| align=center\| 1
		+	\|- style="border:none;padding:0.097cm;"
		+	\|\| El Soldado
		+	\| align=center style="color:#008000;" \| 5%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#008000;" \| -1%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#008000;" \| -4%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#008000;" \| -5%
		+	\|- style="border:none;padding:0.097cm;"
		+	\|\| Palabora
		+	\| align=center style="color:#008000;" \| 3%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#800000;" \| -28%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#800000;" \| -21%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#800000;" \| -34%
		+	\|- style="border:none;padding:0.097cm;"
		+	\|\| Tarkwa
		+	\| align=center style="color:#008000;" \| -1%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#008000;" \| 6%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#808000;" \| 11%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#800000;" \| 125%
		+	\|- style="border:none;padding:0.097cm;"
		+	\|\| Degrussa
		+	\| align=center\| E<sub>SAG</sub>: <span style="color:#800000;">28</span><span style="color:#800000;">%</span>
		+	E<sub>total</sub>: <span style="color:#808000;">17</span><span style="color:#808000;">%</span>
		+	\| align=center\| E<sub>SAG</sub>: <span style="color:#008000;">4</span><span style="color:#008000;">%</span>
		+	E<sub>total</sub>:<span style="color:#008000;"> </span><span style="color:#008000;">2</span><span style="color:#008000;">%</span>
		+	\| align=center\| E<sub>SAG</sub>: <span style="color:#008000;">7</span><span style="color:#008000;">%</span>
		+	E<sub>total</sub>: <span style="color:#808000;">1</span><span style="color:#808000;">5</span><span style="color:#808000;">%</span>
		+	\| align=center\| E<sub>SAG</sub>: <span style="color:#808000;">13%</span>
		+	\|- style="border:none;padding:0.097cm;"
		+	\|\| Yanacocha
		+	\| align=center style="color:#808000;" \| -18%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#800000;" \| -33%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#800000;" \| -25%
		+	\| align=center style="color:#800000;" \| -40%
		+	\|-
		+	\|}
		+

	==Benchmarking: Private surveys==		==Benchmarking: Private surveys==

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 * Design criteria and plant trial of underground Cadia East ore
 * Ore was blasted underground and had F<sub>80</sub> = 80 mm on surface
 * This ore breaks the Bond/Barratt models, the combination of work index values is not a good fit for Barratt's original calibration of his model.

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 * Design criteria and plant trial of underground Cadia East ore
 * Ore was blasted underground and had F<sub>80</sub> = 80 mm on surface
 Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt SABC model conditions:

@@ Line 474: / Line 474: @@
 * Project 0149, SAB survey (BC Cu porphyry, without Josefin correction)
-# Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 7.04 kWh/t, predicted = 6.61 kWh/t, difference 6.0%
+# Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 6.42 kWh/t, predicted = 7.04 kWh/t, difference 9.7%
-# Morrell Mi (SMC) model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 7.04 kWh/t, predicted = 7.24 kWh/t, difference 2.8%
+# Morrell Mi (SMC) model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 6.42 kWh/t, predicted = 7.27 kWh/t, difference 13.2%

@@ Line 468: / Line 468: @@
 # SAB survey: E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 6.72 kWh/t, predicted = 6.78 kWh/t, difference 0.9%
 # ABC survey: E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 7.75 kWh/t, predicted = 8.14 kWh/t, difference 4.8%
 * Project 0104, SABC-A survey
 # Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 20.8 kWh/t, predicted = 20.7 kWh/t, difference 0.0%
 # Morrell Mi (SMC) model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 20.8 kWh/t, predicted = 20.2 kWh/t, difference 2.9%
-*Project 0149, SAB survey (BC Cu porphyry)
+* Project 0149, SAB survey (BC Cu porphyry, without Josefin correction)
 # Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 7.04 kWh/t, predicted = 6.61 kWh/t, difference 6.0%

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 27 February 2022
Line 471:		Line 471:
	# Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 20.8 kWh/t, predicted = 20.7 kWh/t, difference 0.0%		# Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 20.8 kWh/t, predicted = 20.7 kWh/t, difference 0.0%
	# Morrell Mi (SMC) model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 20.8 kWh/t, predicted = 20.2 kWh/t, difference 2.9%		# Morrell Mi (SMC) model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 20.8 kWh/t, predicted = 20.2 kWh/t, difference 2.9%
		+
		+	*Project 0149, SAB survey (BC Cu porphyry)
		+	(without Josefin correction)
		+	# Optimized Bond-Barratt model : E<sub>total</sub>: actual = 7.04 kWh/t, predicted = 6.61 kWh/t, difference 6.0%

@@ Line 143: / Line 143: @@
 * ''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.
 Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt model conditions:

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 20 May 2020
Line 142:		Line 142:

	* ''Morrison, R.'', '''Current Plant Conditions at Copper Mountain'''. Presentation to the BC/Yukon Branch Canadian Mineral Processors, November 29, 2012; Vancouver, Canada.		* ''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.

	Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt model conditions:		Result for default Optimized Bond/Barratt model conditions: