Bibliography: 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%

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	Austin Model, kW at input / shell
Survey 1	9,255	72.5	13	21.6	65.9	9,268 / 8,764	10,372 / 9,808	9,664 / 9,138
Survey 2	10,374	77	13	25.2	63.3	10,481 / 9,911	11,238 / 10,636	10,553 / 9,979
Survey 3	8,395	75	15	16.1	70	9,193 / 8,693	10,818 / 10,230	9,122 / 8,626
Survey 4	8,299	78	11.5	13.5	60	7,766 / 7,344	can't do	8,867 / 7,628
Survey 5	10,976	80	11.5	22.2	60	9,877 / 9,340	10,322 / 9,760	10,639 / 10,060
Survey 6	8,616	74	11.5	13.6	63	7,394 / 6,992	can't do	7,675 / 7,258
Survey 7	11,684	82	14	20	75	10,782 / 10,195	11,037 / 10,437	10,158 / 6,605
Survey 8	11,610	78	13	28.6	75	11,415 / 10,794	11,125 / 10,520	10,801 / 10,214
Survey 9	11,571	78	13	25.8	75	10,990 / 10,392	11,668 / 11,033	10,455 / 9,886
Survey 10	9,408	80	12	19	75	9,655 / 9,130	10,309 / 9,749	9,256 / 8,752

• 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 overall average difference between the Austin model motor input predictions and the measurements are -2.7%, and range from -14.0% to +8.3%.

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	Austin Model, kW at shell
Survey 1	11,189	79	0	28.8	11,868	12,126	12,848
Survey 2	10,321	79	0	28.5	11,787	12,039	12,770
Survey 3	10,824	78	4	25	12,762	13,390	13,430
Survey 4	14,945	78	4	40.7	15,806	15,096	16,234
Survey 5	17,586	74	12	31.6	17,351	18,216	17,466
Survey 6	17,963	78	12	26.1	17,298	18,505	17,212

• Morrell model predicts, on average, 6% high.
• Loveday/Barratt model predicts, on average, 9% high.
• Austin model predicts, on average, 10% 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]