Difference between revisions of "Bibliography: Benchmarking"
(→Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia) |
(→Benchmarking: Ball Mill Power Draw - Fimiston) |
||
| Line 292: | Line 292: | ||
==Benchmarking: Ball Mill Power Draw - Fimiston== |
==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. |
* ''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" |
{| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| Line 311: | Line 305: | ||
| Survey 1 |
| Survey 1 |
||
| '''3,864''' |
| '''3,864''' |
||
| + | | 68.3 |
||
| − | | <del>66.7</del> 68.3 <sup>†</sup> |
||
| 38.7 |
| 38.7 |
||
| 72.0 |
| 72.0 |
||
| Line 317: | Line 311: | ||
| '''3,592''' / ''3,345'' |
| '''3,592''' / ''3,345'' |
||
|} |
|} |
||
| − | <sup>†</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. |
||
| + | * Morrell model predicts 2% high |
||
| − | The ball mill belly length can be achieved with a 18 degree head angle and 1.9 m trunnion diameter. |
||
| + | * Nordberg model predicts 7% low |
||
| + | |||
| + | [[Benchmarking: Fimiston Ball Mills]] |
||
==Historic & Other Interesting Benchmarking== |
==Historic & Other Interesting Benchmarking== |
||
Revision as of 19:06, 7 December 2012
Contents
- 1 Bibliography: Benchmarking of models
- 2 Benchmarking: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Bond/Barratt
- 3 Benchmarking: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Bond/Barratt
- 4 Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Fimiston
- 5 Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia
- 6 Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia
- 7 Benchmarking: Ball Mill Power Draw - Fimiston
- 8 Historic & Other Interesting 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:
| Etotal | WiO | 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: 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:
| Tonnage | |
|---|---|
| Model | 1455 t/h |
| Measured | 1600 t/h |
| Difference | 145 t/h |
| Difference | 9.5% |
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.
| Survey | Survey Power, kW at input |
Mill speed, %critical |
Ball load, %v/v |
Total load, %v/v |
Pulp %solids, w/w |
Morrell SAG Model, kW at input / shell |
Loveday/Baratt Model, 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: 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.
| Survey | Survey Power, kW at shell |
Mill speed, %critical |
Ball load, %v/v |
Total load, %v/v |
Morrell SAG Model, kW at shell |
Loveday/Baratt Model, 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: 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:
| Survey | Survey Power, kW at shell |
Mill speed, RPM |
Mill speed, %critical |
Morrell SAG Model, kW at shell |
Loveday/Barratt Model, 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.
| Survey | Survey Power, kW at input |
Mill speed, %critical |
Total load, %v/v |
Pulp %solids, w/w |
Morrell SAG Model, kW at input / shell |
Nordberg Model, 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
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. [1]
