Difference between revisions of "Bibliography: Benchmarking"
m (→Benchmarking: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Bond/Barratt) |
m (→Benchmarking: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Bond/Barratt) |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
[[Benchmarking: Bond - Fort Knox|Show details of benchmarking]] |
[[Benchmarking: Bond - Fort Knox|Show details of benchmarking]] |
||
− | ==Benchmarking: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - |
+ | ==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. |
* ''Morrison, R.'', '''Current Plant Conditions at Copper Mountain'''. Presentation to the BC/Yukon Branch Canadian Mineral Processors, November 29, 2012; Vancouver, Canada. |
Revision as of 01:20, 31 December 2012
Contents
- 1 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Fort Knox
- 2 Benchmarking: Bond/Barratt Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Copper Mountain
- 3 Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Fimiston
- 4 Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia
- 5 Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia
- 6 Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Yanacocha
- 7 Benchmarking: Ball Mill Power Draw - Fimiston
- 8 Historic & Other Interesting 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:
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: 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:
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 (12% low) | 18,233 (5.7% low) |
23:40 | 19,450 | 9.4 | 77.1 | 18,042 (7.5% low) | 19,199 (1.3% low) |
23:50 | 19,550 | 9.9 | 81.2 | 19,058 (2.5% low) | 19,868 (1.6 high) |
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.
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 (4.7% low) | 14,754 (18% high) | 12,712 (3.4% high) |
SecondSurvey | 13,992 | 8.7 (63.1) | 19.1 | 22.9 | 80 | 13,298 (5.1% low) | 16,100 (14% high) | 14,017 (0.2% high) |
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
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]