Bibliography: Benchmarking

From SAGMILLING.COM
Revision as of 19:06, 7 December 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: 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%


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 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

  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]