Bibliography: Benchmarking

From SAGMILLING.COM
Revision as of 01:39, 18 November 2012 by Alex Doll (talk | contribs) (Benchmarking: Ball Mill Power Draw - Fimiston)
Jump to: navigation, search

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%

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.
    • Diameter inside shell = 10.970 m (36 ft)
    • Diameter inside liners = 10.797 m (35.42 ft, 3.5 inch effective liner thickness)
    • Belly length inside liners (EGL) = 4.417 m (14.5 ft)
    • Centre-line length = 6.920 m

Table 4 presents results of several SAG surveys at different speed and load conditions. The survey measured motor input power. Drives are assumed to have an efficiency of 0.96 and pinion efficiency of 0.985, so the model shell power draw is converted to motor input power by dividing by 0.9456. 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.

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%.

The SAG mill belly length reported can be achieved with a 16.5 degree head angle and 2.47 m trunnion diameter.

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.
    • SAG mill diameter inside liners = 12.024 m (40 ft, 3.3 inch effective liner thickness)
    • SAG mill effective grinding length = 6.072 m (19.9 ft)
    • SAG mill centre line length = 9.212 m
    • Maximum ball size = 125 mm
    • Ore density = 2.60 kg/L
    • Ball density given as 7.85 kg/L.
    • Pulp density not given. Assuming 70% solids by weight.

Table III gives details of six SAG mill surveys:

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

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: SAG Mill Power Draw - Santa Rita

  • Faria, E. & Latchireddi, S., Commissioning and Operation of Milling Circuit at Santarita Nickel Operation, SAG 2011 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
    • Diameter inside shell= 30 ft
    • Effective grinding length= 15.4 ft
    • Motor power= 8900 kW (induction with slip-energy recovery)


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.

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 66.7 68.3 38.7 72.0 3,933 / 3,776 3,592 / 3,345

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 & 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]