Difference between revisions of "Benchmarking: Yanacocha Single-stage SAG Mill"
(→Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Yanacocha) |
(→Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Yanacocha) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[category:Bibliography]] |
[[category:Bibliography]] |
||
==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Yanacocha== |
==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. |
+ | * ''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''', Paper № 127 in 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. |
| − | + | Single-stage SAG mill geometry given as: |
|
* mill nominal diameter (inside shell): 32 ft |
* mill nominal diameter (inside shell): 32 ft |
||
* mill effective grinding length: 32 ft |
* mill effective grinding length: 32 ft |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
Simplified Morrell SAG mill model was run, default ''k''=1.26 (motor input basis) used. Austin model also used default fitting factors ''K''=10.6 and ''A''=1.03. |
Simplified Morrell SAG mill model was run, default ''k''=1.26 (motor input basis) used. Austin model also used default fitting factors ''K''=10.6 and ''A''=1.03. |
||
| − | === |
+ | ===Specific Energy Consumption=== |
| + | The Burger et al, 2011 paper gives results of two mill circuit surveys, the first from May 12, 2010 and the second from June 9, 2010. It reports that the mill was not operating efficiently during the first survey — "Grate pegging was significantly more severe during the first survey, and is considered to be a major contributing factor to the difference in performance for the two surveys." Also "Significant slurry pooling was observed in the Yanacocha SAG mill during both of the surveys." |
||
| + | |||
The reported throughputs and specific energy consumption (E<sub>SAG</sub>) |
The reported throughputs and specific energy consumption (E<sub>SAG</sub>) |
||
* Survey 1: 620 tonnes/hour; 19.8 kWh/t |
* Survey 1: 620 tonnes/hour; 19.8 kWh/t |
||
* Survey 2: 779 tonnes/hour; 18.0 kWh/t |
* Survey 2: 779 tonnes/hour; 18.0 kWh/t |
||
| + | '''Grindability measurements''' of survey samples are are given as: |
||
| − | Bond ball mill work index is reported as 17.53 kWh/t (106 µm closing). The reported DWI and A×b values suggest a rod mill work index of approximately 12.5 (metric) and an impact crushing work index of approximately 8.0 (metric). Running these ore hardness values through the Bond/Barratt single-stage SAG model results in the following: |
||
| + | * Bond ball mill work index is reported as: |
||
| + | ** 17.53 kWh/t (106 µm closing screen; close to plant target P<sub>80</sub>), |
||
| + | ** 16.52 kWh/t (212 µm closing screen; ignore, too coarse). |
||
| + | * Point Load Index (PLI) average Is<sub>50</sub> is 2.62 MPa. |
||
| + | ** Assume an impact crushing work index of approximately 8.0 (metric). |
||
| + | * Bond abrasion index (Ai): 0.528 |
||
| + | * SMC test results: DWi 3.47 kWh/m³, Mia: 12.3 kWh/t, Mih, 8.0; Mic 4.1 kWh/t; A: 82.8; b: 0.88; density: 2.52 t/m³; t<sub>a</sub>: 0.75 |
||
| + | ** Assume a rod mill work index of approximately 12.5 (metric). |
||
| + | |||
| + | The Bond/Barratt single-stage SAG model results in the following: |
||
* Survey 1: F<sub>80</sub>=79.1 mm; P<sub>80</sub>=152 µm; E<sub>asag</sub>=16.4 kWh/t (20% low) |
* Survey 1: F<sub>80</sub>=79.1 mm; P<sub>80</sub>=152 µm; E<sub>asag</sub>=16.4 kWh/t (20% low) |
||
* Survey 2: F<sub>80</sub>=72.4 mm; P<sub>80</sub>=154 µm; E<sub>asag</sub>=16.3 kWh/t (10% low) |
* Survey 2: F<sub>80</sub>=72.4 mm; P<sub>80</sub>=154 µm; E<sub>asag</sub>=16.3 kWh/t (10% low) |
||
| − | |||
| − | The Burger et al, 2011 paper reports that the mill was not operating efficiently during the first survey — <i>Grate pegging was significantly more severe during the first survey, and is considered to be a major contributing factor to the difference in performance for the two surveys.</i> Slurry pooling was also noted. |
||
Revision as of 16:23, 31 October 2016
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, Paper № 127 in 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.
Single-stage SAG mill geometry given as:
- mill nominal diameter (inside shell): 32 ft
- mill effective grinding length: 32 ft
- liner effective thickness: 175 mm (7 inches), eyeballed from new liner diagram
Ore density is 2.52 t/m3
Not stated in the paper is that the 16.5 MW motor is gearless with DCS indication assumed to be motor output power.
| Shell Power, kW | Mill Speed, RPM (%crit) |
Ball charge, %v/v | Filling, %v/v | Feed %solids | Simplified Morrell model, kW |
Loveday/Barratt, kW | Austin model, kW cylinder + 5% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Survey | 12,286 | 8.9 (64.5†) | 16.5 | 17.9 | 73 | 11,587 (-5.7% difference) | 15,005 (22.1% difference) | 13,020 (6.0% difference) |
| Second Survey | 13,992 | 8.7 (63.1†) | 19.1 | 22.9 | 80 | 13,067 (-6.6% difference) | 15,858 (13.3% difference) | 14,496 (3.6% difference) |
† The %critical speed values given in the text do not appear to account for the liner. The RPM values are assumed to be correct and the %critical speed values have been back-calculated.
Simplified Morrell SAG mill model was run, default k=1.26 (motor input basis) used. Austin model also used default fitting factors K=10.6 and A=1.03.
Specific Energy Consumption
The Burger et al, 2011 paper gives results of two mill circuit surveys, the first from May 12, 2010 and the second from June 9, 2010. It reports that the mill was not operating efficiently during the first survey — "Grate pegging was significantly more severe during the first survey, and is considered to be a major contributing factor to the difference in performance for the two surveys." Also "Significant slurry pooling was observed in the Yanacocha SAG mill during both of the surveys."
The reported throughputs and specific energy consumption (ESAG)
- Survey 1: 620 tonnes/hour; 19.8 kWh/t
- Survey 2: 779 tonnes/hour; 18.0 kWh/t
Grindability measurements of survey samples are are given as:
- Bond ball mill work index is reported as:
- 17.53 kWh/t (106 µm closing screen; close to plant target P80),
- 16.52 kWh/t (212 µm closing screen; ignore, too coarse).
- Point Load Index (PLI) average Is50 is 2.62 MPa.
- Assume an impact crushing work index of approximately 8.0 (metric).
- Bond abrasion index (Ai): 0.528
- SMC test results: DWi 3.47 kWh/m³, Mia: 12.3 kWh/t, Mih, 8.0; Mic 4.1 kWh/t; A: 82.8; b: 0.88; density: 2.52 t/m³; ta: 0.75
- Assume a rod mill work index of approximately 12.5 (metric).
The Bond/Barratt single-stage SAG model results in the following:
- Survey 1: F80=79.1 mm; P80=152 µm; Easag=16.4 kWh/t (20% low)
- Survey 2: F80=72.4 mm; P80=154 µm; Easag=16.3 kWh/t (10% low)
