Model:Morrell Mi SMC SAG

From SAGMILLING.COM
Revision as of 20:22, 25 April 2015 by Alex Doll (talk | contribs) (Created page with "category:Models category:Specific Energy Models Category:SMC Model == Morrell SMC SAG & ball mill Model == This is a SAG or AG mill plus ball mill model that estim...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Morrell SMC SAG & ball mill Model

This is a SAG or AG mill plus ball mill model that estimates the specific energy consumption (ESAG) using the equations of Morrell (2004).


Testwork Required

  • The SMC™ test, stored in the "DWT" testwork table (Drop Weight Test).
  • Bond ball mill work index. The method requires all the elements of the ball mill work index test to be filled in:
    • Ball mill Wi test closing screen size, umclosing, µm
    • Ball mill Wi test product size, P80, µm
    • Ball mill Wi test feed size, F80, µm
    • Ball mill Wi grams per revolution at test conclusion, gpr

Formulae

The method is superficially similar to Bond (among other models), but with a variable exponent on size defined by: F(x)=0.295x106

Where x is the particle 80% passing size in µm.

Etotal=4×Mia(750F(750)F80F(F80))×CFsag+4×Mib(P80F(P80)750F(750))Morrell, 2004

ESAG=4×Mia(P80F(P80)F80F(F80))×CFsagMorrell, 2004

Eball=EtotalESAGMorrell, 2004

CFsag calibration factor

The CFsag factor is used to reflect the effect of pebble crushing and pre-crushing on the overall circuit performance. This value is automatically selected if you leave this field blank in the model configuration settings.

  • Base value, SAB circuit (no pebble crushing, ~6 inch SAG feed), CFsag = 1.00
  • Pebble crushing, SABC circuit, CFsag = 0.95


Transfer size

Morrell specifically discourages use of transfer size in calculations such as those in SAGMILLING.COM for a variety of reasons (see discussion in Morrell, 2011). Unfortunately, the alternative method proposed by Morrell is a complex equation that requires pre-selected mill sizes and a series of unpublished calibration factors. This alternative method is not practical for the calculations in SAGMILLING.COM, so a transfer size approach is used instead.

The modelled transfer sizes are probably "Bond-compatible" and not similar to what would be measured directly in a plant survey. Plant survey results would need to be subjected to a phantom cyclone calculation before they are comparable to the model predictions.