BALL CHARGE LOADING IMPACT ON SPECIFIC POWER

CONSUMPTION AND CAPACITY

By:
IEEE-IAS Cement Industry Committee
David S. Fortsch
Manager of Milling Technology - Senior Process Engineer
FLSmidth, Inc.

ABSTRACT
In determining the proper mill size required to meet a targeted production rate, many factors are
evaluated including: length to diameter (L/D) ratio, individual compartment lengths, rotational velocity,
liner type, ball gradation and percent filling degree. This paper examines the effects of changing mill filling
degree with respect to specific power consumption (kWh/ton) and product throughput as well as the
impacts that High Efficiency Separators (HES) have had on the design of cement grinding systems. The
research concludes that lowering the ball mill filling percentage negatively affects mill sizing and
increases capital and installation costs of milling equipment.
INTRODUCTION
Many theoretical approaches to comminution theory have been developed over the last century and a
half. As early as the 1860s Rittinger tried to explain the relationship between the inputted power and the
change in surface area from feed to product size material. Kick in the 1880s and then Bond, in the
1950s furthered this theory and developed a relationship between the power input to material and the
new crack tip length. Today, Bonds theory is still fairly accurate in determining power requirements in
open circuit ball mills as well as closed mill circuits with conventional separators. As separator technology
has developed, from static separators, to first generation, to todays third generation high efficiency
separators, the Bond theory has had to be modified to account for the improvements in grinding efficiency
due to the use of separator technology.
By the late 1980s high efficiency separators had been introduced to the cement industry and their effect
on specific power consumption was drastic. Consequently the theories and rules developed for open mill
circuit or conventional separator circuit required re-examination for modern mill circuit design.
Today there are over 350 ball mills installed in the USA yet there is still a deficiency in cement produced.
To meet this need there has been a resurgence in increasing the current grinding capacity of many of the
existing plants as well as new plants altogether. To this end, this paper will address modern ball mill
designs. Past ball mill studies have evaluated the importance of many factors in ball mill grinding
efficiency including ball size distribution, mill length to diameter ratio, compartment lengths, mill rotational
speed, and mill filling percentage. These areas will be addressed in this paper once again. However, the
importance of inter-relationships among the individual pieces of equipment in the complete mill system
(mill + separator) and their effect on the resultant grinding efficiency will be stressed more fully. To this
point, when mill internal designs are based solely on ball mill operation alone, instead of the complete
grinding system, they fail to achieve an optimized grinding system both physically and economically.

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

DESIGNING THE RIGHT MILL SIZE FOR THE RIGHT APPLICATION

For the remainder of the paper, a closed circuit system involving a ball mill and a high efficiency separator
(HES) will be evaluated. In order to evaluate the effects of ball mill loading on specific power
consumption and production it is necessary to discuss the actual design basis upon which the equipment
sizes in a mill system are selected. This includes the following parameters:
-

Material Grindability
Mill Power Draw Determination
High Efficiency Separator
Mill Shell Liner Design
Mill Grinding Media Size Gradation
Mill % Loading and Specific Power Consumption

Material Grindability
Input energy is required in order to reduce material from feed to product sized material. For any material
this energy can be expressed in terms of output production. This resultant term is described as a
materials grindability and is expressed in terms of specific power consumption or kilowatt-hours per ton
(kWh/ton). In order to compare various materials for grinding, a standard test using a Bond mill has been
generally used. The results of this testing are represented by index figures. Different materials can then
be compared consistently when evaluating them on the basis of a Bond Work Index (BWI).
Based on the BWI, a mill design input power is then determined by multiplying the BWI by the desired
throughput. With todays third generation high efficiency separators, the Bond Work Index has had to be
manipulated. Several mill design manufacturers have developed their own standardized testing methods
based on similar principals to Bond in order to predict specific power requirements of ball mills in circuit
with these separators.
Mill Power Draw Determination
Using the desired production rate and the expected specific power consumption figure from the
grindability testing, the net power requirement delivered by the ball mill is determined. There are several
methods of calculating the net mill power draw for an industrial mill. One such method is expressed in the
following equation:
N=kxFxnxxDxa
Where:

N = Net power (kW)

k = Constant for unit conversion
F = Amount of charge (mt)
n = Mill revolutions per minute (rpm)
= Torque factor
D = Effective inside diameter of mill compartment (m)
a = distance from mill center to center of gravity for the charge

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

The torque factor () is a dimensionless figure that correlates the power equation above to the amount of
rotational lift exerted onto the grinding media. Higher figures indicate more rotational lift and therefore
correspond to higher power draw figures. The change in this value is dependent primarily on the liner
type but also the ratio of material in the mill to the grinding media. Lifting linings (step) typically have
torque factors between 0.7 and 0.73. For corrugated lining this figure is between 0.62 and 0.69. As
compared to corrugated lining, classifying liners have a slightly lower torque factor (i.e. higher slip). In
addition, due to the thickness difference between corrugated and classifying liners there is a reduction of
available mill volume by up to 10%.
The amount of charge (F) is typically determined by using a mill filling degree between 28 and 35% of the
available mill volume. The limitation on the maximum filling is determined based upon the mill inlet and
outlet opening sizes as well as the mill shell mechanical designs. More rigidly designed mills in the past
have been capable of higher loadings (>40%) however due to the capitol costs of such mills these are not
frequently seen today.
High Efficiency Separator
One of the biggest changes in the cement grinding industry since the late 1970s is the conversion from
conventional first generation separators to High Efficiency Separator (HES) technology. The conversion
of milling systems from conventional first generation separators or even static separators to third
generation high efficiency separator has shown the tremendous interdependence between ball mill
optimization and classifier efficiency.
Since the advent of the high efficiency separator, ball mill operational efficiency has improved
dramatically and in degrees much greater than a few percent. Design rules and guidelines that were
once used for conventional separators have had to be revised.
The HES has had the following benefits on finish milling systems:
-

Increased capacity for the same mill power input

Reduced specific power consumption
Improved product characteristics
Lower product temperature
Improved quality control
Greater system flexibility

Beforehand, it was difficult to obtain consistent engineering tools (grinding theories) that applied to all
systems because the separator inefficiency decreased the mill capacity, often to a severe extent. The
HES has eliminated the separator restriction on mill system optimization and industrial theory
advancement. The HES is used in mill systems with wide ranging characteristics thus providing an
opportunity to study several variables, without separator manipulation or suppression.
Clinker grindability of course is one of the main factors in determining a throughput given a specific mill
size. By using standard grindability figures and then correlating this information with empirical data, an
improved grindability correlation was obtained as a result of the HES creating a baseline equation in
determining the specific power consumption as follows:
Y
Power Consumption (kWh/mton) = C x (Blaine) / Grindability

Where:

C and Y are a constants

Grindability is determined in standardized testing

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

Use of this formula allows the estimation of full mill capacity potential based on HES results. This yields
an end-point or goal for mill optimization. A large majority of HES retrofits achieved this result without
additional changes to the milling system. Tromp curves and particle size improvements have all been
similar, showing strength gain with very low coarse particle residues. Depending on the mill system in
question, changes to mill internal should be optimized.
Mill Shell Liner Design
There are several mill liner suppliers with numerous liner designs. Each design assures optimal grinding
efficiency depending on the grinding system. Whether it is wet or dry, single or multiple chamber,
crushing or attrition grinding, classifying or non classifying a lining system can be designed for each
application. In the cement industry, the standard modern designed closed mill circuit consists of a two
compartment mill. The first compartment is typically lined with a step or lifting liner which accentuates the
crushing action required in the first compartment. In the second compartment, the standard lining is
either a corrugated (wave) or classifying lining. The corrugated lining accentuates the tumbling motion of
the finer charge of the second compartment increasing the attrition grinding action. Classifying lining is
used to assist in classification of the media, whereby larger media is found closer to the center diaphragm
and smaller media is located toward the discharge of the mill.
Due to the introduction of the HES, classifying liners (without corrugation) have not shown to be beneficial
to mill throughput or specific power consumption. This is perhaps best exemplified by mill systems that
added classifying liners after a HES was installed. The results of this study showed that the mill
performance was not improved. In fact, there have been are several that experienced a decrease in
capacity. This phenomenon was first realized several years ago when statistical analysis did not yield
any difference for ball mills with and without classifying liners in systems that had a HES. Results from
analysis of 26 plants with HES technology are shown in TABLE 1. The table shows that the industrial
average power consumption, when it is normalized at equal grindability, is higher for classifying liners, or
certainly, at best, equal to corrugated or wave liners.
TABLE 1: Comparison of straight and classifying liners versus specific
power consumption in various plants
Straight Liners
Plant No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Average
Range

@3600 cm^2/gm
KWH/mton Actual
28.7
26.7
31.7
27.8
29.5
35.8
30.7
27.6
35.7
30.9
30.8
34.9
32.5
32.8
24.8
32.8
32.8
31.0
24.8-35.7

Classifying Liners
Plant No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

@3600 cm^2/gm
KWH/mton Actual
28.7
34.2
33.1
33.1
27.3
32.8
30.6
41.0
37.3

33.1
27.3-41.0

Classifying liners will not increase a mill system capacity above the potential of a HES. Their contribution,
if any, is not additive. In fact, they will probably decrease it for the following reasons:
Low Friction - such liners have a higher slip and thus develop a lower torque and cannot draw as
much power as other liner designs at the same volume loading. The power draw may be 4% - 10%
less with classifying liners due to the lower friction. To draw the same power they require a higher
volume loading which requires more grinding media, reduced mill air velocity and can result in
reverse classification if the volume loading is too high. This means that the full mill power potential
may not be attainable for some or all of the previous reasons. In the case of a new mill, a larger mill
would be required.
Anomalies - some mills equipped with classifying liners have an operational sensitivity which results
in unclassified or reverse-classified ball charges. These systems are sensitive to oversized clinker
pieces that have a tendency to accumulate and clog the ball charge causing the cement to flow
around or over the ball charge instead of through it. In other cases, the mill grinding condition
appears normal but the specific power consumption may be above average, e.g. more than 40 kWh/t
2
at 3600 cm /g product fineness.
Variable Porosity - the effect of the sorting or classifying creates zones of different material flowability
where the finest ball size zone controls the flow which is different for the larger ball sizes, in contrast
to a 'mixed charge' with flowability being independent of position in the mill. The low porosity zone at
the discharge of the mill is unequal compared to the other zones in the same chamber. The low
2
porosity zone may have a surface area of 45 m /t while maintaining an overall chamber average of 34
2
2
m /t. A mixed charge, as seen in a corrugated lining, can have a higher average surface of 37 m /t
and also have a higher porosity for uniform material flow and a lower tendency for clogging with a
higher potential circulation factor.
It should be noted that the classifying liner systems were successful in improving the mill performance in
the past. The explanation is that the classifying liner allowed more efficiency in grinding, by locating finer
ball charge at the discharge end of the ball. This increased media surface area increased the grinding
efficiency and reduced the transport velocity through the circuit. The end result was a mill product that
was finer in size and lower in quantity (lower circulating loads). The resultant reduction in circulating load
allowed grossly inefficient conventional separators to appear to operate more efficiently, which resulted
in higher production. The proper explanation became obvious after the HES was introduced. Modern
HES are designed with much higher efficiencies, greater than 75% as compared to conventional
separators that were 40% or lower. By improving the efficiency in the separator performance, the ball mill
does not have to re-work material that is product sized and therefore the overall mill loading is reduced.
It is possible that classifying liners can increase mill productivity for a conventional separator before a
HES is installed because the circulating load is reduced. However, the same improvement can be
reached with a finer ball charge and a corrugated lining provided the diaphragm has the proper
specifications and position. It is also important to note that an improvement with classifying liners will
later limit the potential gain with a HES for the reasons mentioned earlier.

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

Grinding Media Size Gradation

Another area of improving the grinding efficiency of a ball mill is in improving the ball mill grinding media
size gradation. Through two techniques, theoretical modeling (Bond) and empirical data, an optimum ball
size gradation which improves the operational efficiency of the ball mill can be determined.
Literature has shown that increases in media surface area increases the throughput of a mill system. For
the second compartment ball charge using a ball gradation between 30 mm and 15 mm will provide the
optimum grinding efficiency. Typically the material size distribution at the partition between the first and
second compartments of a ball mill should not be more than 0.5% retained on 2 mm sieve size. The
limitation on the smallest ball size is the discharge grate slot width opening. Typically a ball size that is
smaller than twice the size of the discharge grate slot width is not selected.
Mill % Loading and Specific Power Consumption
Ball mills are relatively simple grinding devices from an operational point of view. Typical operational
philosophy is to put as much grinding media in a rotating tube as it can take and then introduce a feed
material. If the feed material is softer than the grinding media, it will be reduced in size. If, after some
time, the grinding media is worn then a simple replacement of media is made. This paper is a proponent
of this approach. When it comes to designing milling equipment however there are some considerations
that should be evaluated. One of these is the maximum design loading of a mill.
Todays ball mills are typically designed to operate with ball charge fillings up to 35% by volume. There
are cases where this figure is higher, for example with mill shells designed for higher loadings, but these
cases are becoming more rare, with the additional cost of steel becoming prohibitory of this design. As
mill loadings are reduced there is a commensurate reduction in mill power draw per given mill size. In
order to maintain the same throughput, the mill sizes; diameter and length, are required to increase. The
result is a change in mill design. This can lead to additional cost in capital investment for the end user.
Alternative design theories have been presented which ascribe to the point that ball mill grinding
efficiency is improved with a lower grinding media level (~<22%) in the ball mill. This begs the issue:
which system is more correct, lower loading in larger mills or smaller mills and higher loadings?
45

1.50

44

1.45

Spec. Pwr. Cons. corrected to

3600 cm^2/g - Std. Dev. 2.5%

42

1.40

41

1.35

40
39

1.30

38

1.25

37
36

1.20

35

1.15

34
33

1.10

32

1.05

31
30

1.00

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

% Loading in Mill
Actual SPC

Target SPC

Underloading Multiplier

FIGURE 1: Specific Power Consumption versus % Loading in Mill

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

Underloading Multiplier

43

Spec. Pwr. Cons.- (kWh/mt)

A recent commercial mill

study
was
conducted
which evaluated the effects
of filling factor versus
grinding efficiency.
The
findings indicate that there
is a negative impact
exhibited in the specific
power consumption when
the ball mill loading
degrees is reduced below
a nominal value of 25%.
This is most certainly the
case in new systems using
high efficiency separators.
By looking at FIGURE 1
below it can be seen that
there is an Underloading
Multiplier associated with
% loadings less than
~25%.

The study showed Actual Specific Power Consumption (SPC) increases to approximately 42 kWh/mt in %
loadings less than 14%. This is as compared to % loading figures greater than 25% where the SPC is
approximately 33.5 kWh/mt. As given by the following formula:
Ec = W x C x (Sm
Where Ec =
W =
C=
Sm =
St =

1.5

1.5

St )

Net Specific Power Consumption (kWh/mt)

Material Grinding Constant (kWh/mt)
Circulating Factor
Mill Discharge Material Surface Area (km^2/t)
Mill Combined Feed Surface Area (km^2/t)

With any individual plant installation it is relatively simple to then derive the value of material grindability
(W) by evaluating circuit samples (mill discharge, mill fresh feed, separator product, and separator
rejects). This figure remains constant for the analysis of various % loadings. The factors that do change
are the values of C, Sm, and St. These figures at various loadings have been determined and the
findings show that there is a multiplier required for operating a mill circuit with a given % critical speed
and lower % loadings. This multiplier is shown on the right hand Y-axis. It should be used in the
following manner:
Field Measured SPC = Underloading Multiplier X Expected SPC at full charge
This negative impact can be seen in another way. In FIGURE 2 below it can be seen that although the
mill power draw at various % loadings in the mill matches the nominal power draw for these phases, the
actual production rate is lower than would be expected.

100%
90%

% of Expected Maximum

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

% Loading in Mill
% of Nominal Production

% of Nominal Motor Power

FIGURE 2: % Nominal Production and Power versus % Loading in Mill

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

29

As an example, with 19% loading in the mill, the mill is drawing the expected ~75% power, however the
production rate is only at ~65% production. The loss in production is due to this underloading multiplier.
The cause of this multiplier is best understood by the viewing the following FIGURE 3a and FIGURE 3b,
showing two different charge levels, with the same mill shell % critical speed:

FIGURE 3a: Critical Speed = 75%

% Fill = 40%

FIGURE 3b: Critical Speed = 75%

% Fill = 22%

The figures show an end view of the mill as it is rotating and the resultant effects on the ball charge. The
importance of these figures in regards to this multiplier is the hole or gap in the middle of the charge as
it is turned by the mill. As can be seen in Figure 3b, there is a larger gap between the charge being
thrown and the charge being lifted up the side of the mill shell as compared to the figure shown in Figure
3a. When grinding media reaches the top of its climb (as determined by mill % critical speed and lifter
arrangements) it will either be thrown back to the toe of the charge, referred to as cataracting action, or it
will tumble on itself, referred to as cascading action, or a combination of both. Of course, it is the
cascading action that provides the highest grinding efficiency since there is more contact of surfaces in
this scenario.
To further define the two actions found in
the mill, FIGURE 4 below shows the
expected cascading and cataracting
regions based upon % mill filling and %
critical speed.

80%

Mill Filling

This graph should be used in general terms

such that a mill installation can be
evaluated
as
to
degrees
of
cascading/cateracting
regions
(i.e.
operating at 75% critical speed and 22%
charge level has a higher cateracting
region than 75% critical speed and 40%
charge level).
Although the highest
grinding efficiency is found in the
cascading action of the grinding media
upon itself, there is a diminishing return
seen in the %loading. If you are found to
be highly in the cascading region you may
have larger areas of media (found in the
center of the kidney of the charge) where

100%

60%

40%
Cascading
Region
20%
Cataracting
Region
0%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% Critical Speed

FIGURE 4: Cascading versus Cataracting regions

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

not much movement is taking place. The worst scenario of cascading action would be found in a case
where the whole charge moves as one mass. This is typically referred to as slumping.
Bringing this evaluation to the study above, it can be seen that at a given mill rotational speeds (77% of
critical in this case), it would be apparent that lower mill loadings (11-19%) will show quite a bit more
cataracting action than the higher loadings (23-29%). It is for this reason an inefficiency in the grinding
process in the lower % loadings can be seen.
MILL SIZE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON VARYING % LOADING
As demonstrated above, from an operational standpoint there is no benefit to operating a mill with lower
than 25% loadings as the multiplier for doing so may cost you upwards of 25% more in specific power
consumption in the mill and therefore higher overall operating costs for the mill system.
Similarly, it also follows that reducing the % loading in the mill will increase capital costs for the milling
system. In order to produce the same quantity of cement through a mill system with a lower % loading
versus a higher % loading will result in the requirement of a larger mill system.
As shown in FIGURE 5 below, for a production rate in the range of 70 to 80 mtph changing the mill
design from 29% loading to either 19% or even 14% increases the mill diameter by 1 to 2 sizes
respectively. All production figures shown have been corrected by underloading figures as described
above. This results in an additional increase in the mill length to maintain the standard L/Di ratio giving
the client a much bigger mill than is necessary as well as the associated capital costs with the larger mill
size.
90

Assumed 3600 Blaine Product

Assumed L/Di = 3.0

80

Production (MTPH)

70

29%

19%

4.2

4.6

11%
14%

60
50

29%

40
30
20
10
0
3.8

Mill Diameter (m)

FIGURE 5: Mill Size versus % Load versus similar Production

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

5.4

In contrast, designing the mill for maximum filling degree results in mill capacity figures as shown in
FIGURE 6 below:
250

Assumed 3600 Blaine Product

Assumed L/Di = 3.0
Assumed 29% Charge

Production (MTPH)

200

150

100

50

0
3.4

3.8

4.2

4.6

5.4

Mill Diameter (m)

FIGURE 6: Mill Size versus Maximum Estimated Production

As can be seen the 5.4 m mill diameter can produce over 200 mtph if properly charged and supplied
with the sufficient motor. This as compared to producing less than 80 mtph for an 11% charge. Based on
the results shown, it does not appear to make good business sense to purchase a mill with a lower filling
percentage.
CONCLUSION
Using a larger mill size with reduced mill filling degrees will lead to a mill that is oversized, costing more in
capital. In addition the oversized mill will result in the same or higher specific power consumption figures
(higher operating costs) than a properly sized mill with the proper filling degree. Further, the effects of
reducing media loading levels in a ball mill to levels lower than 25% have not shown any grinding
efficiency improvements.
Grinding efficiency through the ball mill circuit can be optimized with the use of a high efficiency separator
and a properly sized ball mill with optimized compartment lengths and liner design.

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE

REFERENCES
1)

J. Mark Brugan: NOTES ON CEMENT MILL OPTIMIZATION WITH O-SEPA, Cement

Equipment Users Seminar

2)

J. M. Brugan and M. J. Knoflicek: CEMENT GRINDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND

PERFORMANCE, Asociacion De Productores De Cemento, 1991

3)

C. A. Rowland, Jr.: THE TOOLS OF POWER POWER, Annual Meeting of the AIME Arizona
Section, 1975

4)

R. Schnatz, O. Knobloch, Beckum: Influence of the ball filling factor on the power consumption
and throughput of ball mills in combined grinding plants, ZKG INTERNATIONAL 53 (2000) 8, PP.
438-447

5)

David S. Fortsch: Cement Grinding, 2001 F.L.Smidth Inc. Cement Production Seminar, 2001

6)

J. E. Reimers, R. Schnatz: Optimization of ball mills in combined grinding systems with particular
regard to the L/D ratio, ZKG INTERNATIONAL 55 (2002) 11, PP 58-67

7)

H.E. Rose & R. M. E. Sullivan: A Treatise on the Internal Mechanics of Ball, Tube and Rod Mills,
1958

8)

J. I. Bhatty, F. M. Miller, S. H. Kosmatka: Innovations in Portland Cement Manufacturing, 2004

9)

PCA, U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant Information Summary, December 31,
2002, 2004

1-4244-0372-3/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE