Difference between revisions of "Bibliography: Benchmarking"
(→Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia) |
(Blanked the page) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Category:Bibliography]] |
||
| − | [[Category:Models]] |
||
| − | [[Category: Benchmarking]] |
||
| − | ==Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Fort Knox== |
||
| − | * ''Magnuson, R.; Hallow, J.; Mosher, J.; Major, K.'', '''The Fort Knox Mill: Design, Commissioning and Operation'''. Proceedings of the SAG 2001 Conference, Vancouver, Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Result for default model conditions: |
||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | ! E<sub>total</sub> |
||
| − | ! Wi<sub>O</sub> |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | ! Tonnage |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Model |
||
| − | | 11.95 |
||
| − | | 16.60 |
||
| − | | kWh/t |
||
| − | | 1,522 |
||
| − | | t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Measured |
||
| − | | 10.50 |
||
| − | | 13.97 |
||
| − | | kWh/t |
||
| − | | 1,733 |
||
| − | | t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Difference |
||
| − | | 1.45 |
||
| − | | 2.63 |
||
| − | | kWh/t |
||
| − | | 211 |
||
| − | | t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Difference |
||
| − | | 12.9% |
||
| − | | 17.2% |
||
| − | | |
||
| − | | 12.9% |
||
| − | | |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Bond - Fort Knox|Show details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Copper Mountain== |
||
| − | |||
| − | * ''Morrison, R.'', '''Current Plant Conditions at Copper Mountain'''. Presentation to the BC/Yukon Branch Canadian Mineral Processors, November 29, 2012; Vancouver, Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Result for default model conditions: |
||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | ! Tonnage |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Model |
||
| − | | 1455 t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Measured |
||
| − | | 1600 t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Difference |
||
| − | | 145 t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Difference |
||
| − | | 9.5% |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Bond - Copper Mountain|Show details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Fimiston== |
||
| − | |||
| − | * ''Nelson, M; Valery, W; Morrell, S'', '''Performance Characteristics and Optimisation of the Fimiston (KCGM) SAG Mill Circuit''', Page 233 - 248, SAG 1996 Conference, Vancouver, Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! Survey |
||
| − | ! Survey Power,<br>kW at input |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>%critical |
||
| − | ! Ball load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Total load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Pulp %solids,<br>w/w |
||
| − | ! Morrell SAG Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | ! Loveday/Baratt Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | ! Austin Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 1 |
||
| − | | '''9,255''' |
||
| − | | 72.5 |
||
| − | | 13 |
||
| − | | 21.6 |
||
| − | | 65.9 |
||
| − | | '''9,268''' / ''8,764'' |
||
| − | | '''10,372''' / ''9,808'' |
||
| − | | '''9,664''' / ''9,138'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 2 |
||
| − | | '''10,374''' |
||
| − | | 77 |
||
| − | | 13 |
||
| − | | 25.2 |
||
| − | | 63.3 |
||
| − | | '''10,481''' / ''9,911'' |
||
| − | | '''11,238''' / ''10,636'' |
||
| − | | '''10,553''' / ''9,979'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 3 |
||
| − | | '''8,395''' |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | 15 |
||
| − | | 16.1 |
||
| − | | 70 |
||
| − | | '''9,193''' / ''8,693'' |
||
| − | | '''10,818''' / ''10,230'' |
||
| − | | '''9,122''' / ''8,626'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 4 |
||
| − | | '''8,299''' |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 11.5 |
||
| − | | 13.5 |
||
| − | | 60 |
||
| − | | '''7,766''' / ''7,344'' |
||
| − | | '' can't do '' |
||
| − | | '''8,867''' / ''7,628'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 5 |
||
| − | | '''10,976''' |
||
| − | | 80 |
||
| − | | 11.5 |
||
| − | | 22.2 |
||
| − | | 60 |
||
| − | | '''9,877''' / ''9,340'' |
||
| − | | '''10,322''' / ''9,760'' |
||
| − | | '''10,639''' / ''10,060'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 6 |
||
| − | | '''8,616''' |
||
| − | | 74 |
||
| − | | 11.5 |
||
| − | | 13.6 |
||
| − | | 63 |
||
| − | | '''7,394''' / ''6,992'' |
||
| − | | '' can't do '' |
||
| − | | '''7,675''' / ''7,258'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 7 |
||
| − | | '''11,684''' |
||
| − | | 82 |
||
| − | | 14 |
||
| − | | 20 |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | '''10,782''' / ''10,195'' |
||
| − | | '''11,037''' / ''10,437'' |
||
| − | | '''10,158''' / ''6,605'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 8 |
||
| − | | '''11,610''' |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 13 |
||
| − | | 28.6 |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | '''11,415''' / ''10,794'' |
||
| − | | '''11,125''' / ''10,520'' |
||
| − | | '''10,801''' / ''10,214'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 9 |
||
| − | | '''11,571''' |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 13 |
||
| − | | 25.8 |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | '''10,990''' / ''10,392'' |
||
| − | | '''11,668''' / ''11,033'' |
||
| − | | '''10,455''' / ''9,886'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 10 |
||
| − | | '''9,408''' |
||
| − | | 80 |
||
| − | | 12 |
||
| − | | 19 |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | '''9,655''' / ''9,130'' |
||
| − | | '''10,309''' / ''9,749'' |
||
| − | | '''9,256''' / ''8,752'' |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | * The overall average difference between the Morrell model motor input predictions and the measurements are -3.4%, and range from -15.3% to +9.1%. |
||
| − | * The overall average difference between the Loveday/Barratt model motor input predictions and the measurements are +4.8%, and range from -6.1% to +25.2%. |
||
| − | * The overall average difference between the Austin model motor input predictions and the measurements are -2.7%, and range from -14.0% to +8.3%. |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Fimiston SAG|See details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia== |
||
| − | * ''Radziszewski, P.; Valery, W'', '''Cadia SAG Mill Simulated Charge Behaviour''', Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, 1999. |
||
| − | |||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! Survey |
||
| − | ! Survey Power,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>%critical |
||
| − | ! Ball load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Total load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Morrell SAG Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Loveday/Baratt Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Austin Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 1 |
||
| − | | 11,189 |
||
| − | | 79 |
||
| − | | 0 |
||
| − | | 28.8 |
||
| − | | 11,868 |
||
| − | | 12,126 |
||
| − | | 12,848 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 2 |
||
| − | | 10,321 |
||
| − | | 79 |
||
| − | | 0 |
||
| − | | 28.5 |
||
| − | | 11,787 |
||
| − | | 12,039 |
||
| − | | 12,770 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 3 |
||
| − | | 10,824 |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 4 |
||
| − | | 25 |
||
| − | | 12,762 |
||
| − | | 13,390 |
||
| − | | 13,430 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 4 |
||
| − | | 14,945 |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 4 |
||
| − | | 40.7 |
||
| − | | 15,806 |
||
| − | | 15,096 |
||
| − | | 16,234 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 5 |
||
| − | | 17,586 |
||
| − | | 74 |
||
| − | | 12 |
||
| − | | 31.6 |
||
| − | | 17,351 |
||
| − | | 18,216 |
||
| − | | 17,466 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 6 |
||
| − | | 17,963 |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 12 |
||
| − | | 26.1 |
||
| − | | 17,298 |
||
| − | | 18,505 |
||
| − | | 17,212 |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | * Morrell model predicts, on average, 6% high. |
||
| − | * Loveday/Barratt model predicts, on average, 9% high. |
||
| − | * Austin model predicts, on average, 10% high. |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Cadia SAG mill|See details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia== |
||
| − | * ''Boghey, A.; Svalbonas, V.; Jones, S.M.'', '''Supply, Installation & Commissioning of the World's Largest Grinding Mill''', Annual General Meeting of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME), 2000. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Mill filling level 33% v/v. Ball charge not measured, but expected to be in 12% to 13% v/v range. Ore density not indicated, assuming 2.65 kg/L. Ball density given as 7.85 kg/L. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Survey conducted during late commissioning, Figure 8 yields: |
||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! Survey |
||
| − | ! Survey Power,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>RPM |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>%critical |
||
| − | ! Morrell SAG Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Loveday/Barratt Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | 23:30 |
||
| − | | 19,300 |
||
| − | | 8.99 |
||
| − | | 73.7 |
||
| − | | 17,148 <small>(12% low)</small> |
||
| − | | 18,233 <small>(5.7% low)</small> |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | 23:40 |
||
| − | | 19,450 |
||
| − | | 9.4 |
||
| − | | 77.1 |
||
| − | | 18,042 <small>(7.5% low)</small> |
||
| − | | 19,199 <small>(1.3% low)</small> |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | 23:50 |
||
| − | | 19,550 |
||
| − | | 9.9 |
||
| − | | 81.2 |
||
| − | | 19,058 <small>(2.5% low)</small> |
||
| − | | 19,868 <small>(1.6 high)</small> |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Yanacocha== |
||
| − | * ''Burger, B., Vargas, L., Arevalo, H., Vicuna, S., Sidel, J., Valery, W., Jankovic, A., Valle, R. and Nozawa, E.'', '''Yanacocha Gold Single Stage SAG Mill Design, Operation, and Optimization''', Proceedings of the International Conference on Autogenous Grinding, Semiautogenous Grinding and High Pressure Grinding Roll Technology (SAG 2011) held September 25 – 28, 2011 in Vancouver, B.C., Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | ! Shell Power, kW |
||
| − | ! Mill Speed, RPM (%crit) |
||
| − | ! Ball charge, %v/v |
||
| − | ! Filling, %v/v |
||
| − | ! Feed %solids |
||
| − | ! Morrell model, kW |
||
| − | ! Loveday/Barratt, kW |
||
| − | ! Austin model, kW |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | First Survey |
||
| − | | 12,286 |
||
| − | | 8.9 (64.5) |
||
| − | | 16.5 |
||
| − | | 17.9 |
||
| − | | 73 |
||
| − | | 11,716 <small>(4.7% low)</small> |
||
| − | | 14,754 <small>(18% high)</small> |
||
| − | | 12,712 <small>(3.4% high)</small> |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | SecondSurvey |
||
| − | | 13,992 |
||
| − | | 8.7 (63.1) |
||
| − | | 19.1 |
||
| − | | 22.9 |
||
| − | | 80 |
||
| − | | 13,298 <small>(5.1% low)</small> |
||
| − | | 16,100 <small>(14% high)</small> |
||
| − | | 14,017 <small>(0.2% high)</small> |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Yanacocha Single-stage SAG Mill|Details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: Ball Mill Power Draw - Fimiston== |
||
| − | * ''Nelson, M; Valery, W; Morrell, S'', '''Performance Characteristics and Optimisation of the Fimiston (KCGM) SAG Mill Circuit''', Page 233 - 248, SAG 1996 Conference, Vancouver, Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! Survey |
||
| − | ! Survey Power,<br>kW at input |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>%critical |
||
| − | ! Total load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Pulp %solids,<br>w/w |
||
| − | ! Morrell SAG Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | ! Nordberg Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 1 |
||
| − | | '''3,864''' |
||
| − | | 68.3 |
||
| − | | 38.7 |
||
| − | | 72.0 |
||
| − | | '''3,933''' / ''3,776'' |
||
| − | | '''3,592''' / ''3,345'' |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | * Morrell model predicts 2% high |
||
| − | * Nordberg model predicts 7% low |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Fimiston Ball Mills|See details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Historic & Other Interesting Benchmarking== |
||
| − | # ''Myers, J.F., Michaelson, S.D., Bond, F.C.'', '''Rod Milling—Plant and Laboratory Data''', Technical Publication No. 2175, American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 1947. [http://www.onemine.org/search/summary.cfm/Rod-MillingPlant-And-Laboratory-Data?d=655D010DD9E32C42324054B43931E04C552207CAB9653233F0AC73A4C8F07C4928898&fullText=Myers%20Michaelson%20Bond] |
||
