Bibliography: Benchmarking: Difference between revisions

From SAGMILLING.COM
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
Blanked the page
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Bibliography]]
[[Category:Models]]
[[Category: Benchmarking]]
==Bibliography: Benchmarking of models==
The following list of references show data useful for benchmarking against the different models.

==Benchmarking: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Bond/Barratt==
* ''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: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Bond/Barratt==

* ''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''
|-
| Survey 1
| '''9,255'''
| 72.5
| 13
| 21.6
| 65.9
| '''9,268''' / ''8,764''
| '''10,372''' / ''9,808''
|-
| Survey 2
| '''10,374'''
| 77
| 13
| 25.2
| 63.3
| '''10,481''' / ''9,911''
| '''11,238''' / ''10,636''
|-
| Survey 3
| '''8,395'''
| 75
| 15
| 16.1
| 70
| '''9,193''' / ''8,693''
| '''10,818''' / ''10,230''
|-
| Survey 4
| '''8,299'''
| 78
| 11.5
| 13.5
| 60
| '''7,766''' / ''7,344''
| '' can't do ''
|-
| Survey 5
| '''10,976'''
| 80
| 11.5
| 22.2
| 60
| '''9,877''' / ''9,340''
| '''10,322''' / ''9,760''
|-
| Survey 6
| '''8,616'''
| 74
| 11.5
| 13.6
| 63
| '''7,394''' / ''6,992''
| '' can't do ''
|-
| Survey 7
| '''11,684'''
| 82
| 14
| 20
| 75
| '''10,782''' / ''10,195''
| '''11,037''' / ''10,437''
|-
| Survey 8
| '''11,610'''
| 78
| 13
| 28.6
| 75
| '''11,415''' / ''10,794''
| '''11,125''' / ''10,520''
|-
| Survey 9
| '''11,571'''
| 78
| 13
| 25.8
| 75
| '''10,990''' / ''10,392''
| '''11,668''' / ''11,033''
|-
| Survey 10
| '''9,408'''
| 80
| 12
| 19
| 75
| '''9,655''' / ''9,130''
| '''10,309''' / ''9,749''
|}

* 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%.

[[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
|-
| Survey 1
| 11,189
| 79
| 0
| 28.8
| 11,868
| 12,126
|-
| Survey 2
| 10,321
| 79
| 0
| 28.5
| 11,787
| 12,039
|-
| Survey 3
| 10,824
| 78
| 4
| 25
| 12,762
| 13,390
|-
| Survey 4
| 14,945
| 78
| 4
| 40.7
| 15,806
| 15,096
|-
| Survey 5
| 17,586
| 74
| 12
| 31.6
| 17,351
| 18,216
|-
| Survey 6
| 17,963
| 78
| 12
| 26.1
| 17,298
| 18,505
|}

* Morrell model predicts, on average, 6% high.
* Loveday/Barratt model predicts, on average, 9% high.

[[Benchmarking: Cadia SAG mill|See details of benchmarking]]

==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia==
* ''Boghey, A.; Svalbonas, V.; Jones, S.M.'', '''Supply, Installation &amp; Commissioning of the World's Largest Grinding Mill''', Annual General Meeting of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy &amp; 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
| 18,233
|-
| 23:40
| 19,450
| 9.4
| 77.1
| 18,042
| 19,199
|-
| 23:50
| 19,550
| 9.9
| 81.2
| 19,058
| 19,868
|}

==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.
** Diameter inside shell = 5.49 m (18 ft)
** Diameter inside liners = 5.35 m (17.5 ft, 3.0 inch effective liner thickness)
** Belly length inside liners (EGL) = 7.60 m (25 ft)
** Centre-line length = 8.76 m
** Top ball size = 80 mm
Table 5 presents results of a single ball mill survey. The survey measured motor input power. Drives are assumed to have an efficiency of 0.96 and gearbox+pinion efficiency of 0.970, so the model shell power draw is converted to motor input power by dividing by 0.9312. The predicted power draw of '''Example''' project circuit number 7 (Fimiston) using sample '''MLE''', based on the KCGM paper published by Campbell, J. et al; 1998 AusIMM Annual Conference.

{| 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'''
| <del>66.7</del> 68.3 <sup>&dagger;</sup>
| 38.7
| 72.0
| '''3,933''' / ''3,776''
| '''3,592''' / ''3,345''
|}
<sup>&dagger;</sup> The appendix of the paper lists the mill speed as 12.5 RPM. The mill is fixed speed, so the %critical speed is only a function of mill effective diameter (as liners wear). Doing the math (neglecting the balls) gives a 68.3% critical speed.

The ball mill belly length can be achieved with a 18 degree head angle and 1.9 m trunnion diameter.

==Historic &amp; Other Interesting Benchmarking==
# ''Myers, J.F., Michaelson, S.D., Bond, F.C.'', '''Rod Milling&mdash;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]

Latest revision as of 18:51, 17 January 2013

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sagmilling.com/index.php?title=Bibliography:_Benchmarking&oldid=339"