Difference between revisions of "Bibliography: Benchmarking"

From SAGMILLING.COM
Jump to: navigation, search
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 - Bond/Barratt==
+
==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

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%

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:

Tonnage
Model 1455 t/h
Measured 1600 t/h
Difference 145 t/h
Difference 9.5%


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.
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%.

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.
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.

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:

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)

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.
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

See details of benchmarking

Historic & Other Interesting Benchmarking

  1. 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]