INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Copyright © 2007 Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers

Vol. 49 No. 2 April-June 2007, pp. 143-150

Resistance of Limestone to Size Reduction

G. Prabhulingaiah,1 S.R. Jakhar,2 M.S. Shekhawat,2

P.S. Ranawat2 and D.M.R. Sekhar1*
1Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., Bikaner - 334 001, India
2Department of Geology, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur - 313 001, India

Abstract: High-grade limestone (+ 53% CaO) from Gotan and Jaisalmer in India differs
in the resistance offered to size reduction during loading (railway siding of the mine),
transportation and unloading (railway siding of the steel plants). Compressive strength
and Bond’s Work Index (BWI) of limestone samples from these mines are studied. BWI
better represents resistance of limestone to size reduction during loading, transportation
and unloading. Jaisalmer limestone is mechanically isotropic and, hence, shows reasonable
correlation between BWI and compressive strength.

Keywords: Bond’s Work Index (BWI), Compressive strength, Mechanically isotropic,

Process setting.

Introduction
Laboratory tests carried out at Bhilai Steel Plant [1] of the Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(SAIL) showed crushing (compressive) strengths of 320 and 358 kg/cm2 for steel melting
shop (SMS) grade limestone samples from Jaisalmer and Gotan, respectively. These
results are unexpected in view of the fact that Jaisalmer limestone (JLS) showed superior
physical properties as compared to Gotan limestone (GLS) in terms of their suitability for
SMS. It was observed during commercial operations that size degradation of – 80 mm,
+ 40 mm sized lumps is more during loading, transportation and unloading in the case of
GLS as compared to JLS.

Resistance to Size Reduction

Size reduction of ores is an important operation in mineral process engineering. Each type
of ore/material resists size reduction and energy is spent during the reduction process.
The postulates independently developed by Rittinger, Kick and Bond are inter-related [2].
Bond’s work index (BWI) is a measure of the resistance of a type of material to size
*Author for Correspondence. E-mail: dmrsekhar@rsmm.com
Paper received: 10/01/2007; Revised paper accepted: 10/04/2007
144 PRABHULINGAIAH ET AL

reduction and is used in designing size reduction equipments. Determination of BWI,

using a laboratory-sized ball mill (BM) is a time consuming method. BWI is the energy
required to reduce a material from a theoretically infinite size to 80% passing through a
screen of 100 aperture, expressed as kWh per short ton. The procedures followed to
determine: (a) hardgrove grindability index (HGGI), (b) drop weight crushing index (DWCI)
(Rittinger’s constant) and (c) friability index etc., are shorter and use different equipments
and methods. All these indices are essentially measures of resistance to size reduction
of ores/minerals/materials. Premkumar et al. [3] have reported good correlation between
BWI/Rittinger’s constant (DWCI) and HGGI. The feed sizes of the materials for determining
DWCI, BWI and HGGI are, – 6 + 10 mesh, – 6 mesh and –16 + 30 mesh (BSS), respectively.
Ozkahraman [4] has reported similar relations between friability value as well as grindability
and brittleness indices. The size of feed material tested for friability value by Ozkahraman
is 11.2-12 mm.
In civil engineering, the compressive strength of a material is measured to check the
suitability (load bearing capacity) of the material under test for construction purposes.
Compressive strength is also used [5] in estimating specific energy consumption while
sizing primary crushers such as jaw crushers. The test materials are, generally, cut to or
cast into cubes of 50.8 mm size or above. Pressure is applied along an axis, using universal
testing machine and the pressure at which the cube breaks (fails) is noted. The compressive
strength is expressed as kg/cm2, which also, in a way, is a measure of resistance to size
reduction.

Experimental Study
Several lots of lump-sized SMS grade limestone samples were collected from different pits
of Jaisalmer and Gotan mines. Cubes of 76.2 mm were cut from each lot for testing the
compressive strength and the rest of the material was size reduced to – 4 mm for
determining BWI. Compressive strength is determined using a compression testing machine.
BWI of limestone samples were determined following standard procedure using 300 mm
diameter × 300 mm length laboratory BM, which operated at 52.21% of critical speed of
BM. The mill had a load of 21.355 kg of steel balls. The charge of the limestone feed was
700 ml, which weighed 1.37 and 1.41 kg in the case of JLS and GLS, respectively. The
results obtained in the case of JLS with respect to compressive strength and the
corresponding BWI are shown in Table 1. The results of Table 1 are plotted in Fig. 1. The
results of compressive strength and the corresponding BWI of GLS samples are shown
in Table 2. The results shown in Table 2 are plotted in Fig. 2.
The compressive strength and BWI data show a reasonable correlation in the case
of JLS samples (Fig. 1), whereas data of GLS samples show a scattered plot (Fig. 2).
Removing the 1st outlier from the data (of GLS) improves R2 value (correlation) to 0.839
and removal of 1st and 2nd outliers improves R2 value to 0.9723. Attempts to correlate BWI
values of GLS to compressive strength applying pressure in only one direction (either
perpendicular or parallel to the bedding planes) also resulted in scattered plots.

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 2 April-June 2007

 Resistance of Limestone to Size Reduction 145

Table 1. Jaisalmer SMS grade limestone

S. No. Compressive BWI (kWh Specific Pressure applied with

strength (kg/cm2) per short ton) gravity respect to bedding planes

1 347.89 3.88 2.68 Absence of macro structures

2 354.56 4.14 2.69 -do-
3 432.36 5.68 2.70 -do-
4 459.63 5.66 2.70 -do-
5 468.78 6.54 2.67 -do-
6 473.37 6.13 2.68 -do-
7 484.22 6.51 2.69 -do-
Mean 431.54 5.51 2.69 -
Standard deviation (Sd) 57.19 1.082 - -
Sd as % of mean 13.25 19.65 - -

500
Compressive strength

y = 51.653x + 147.16
450 R2 = 0.9558
(kg/cm2)

400

350

300
3 4 5 6 7
BWI (kWh per short ton)
Fig. 1. Jaisalmer limestone.

Table 2. Gotan SMS grade limestone

S. No. Compressive BWI (kWh Specific Pressure applied with

strength (kg/cm2) per short ton) gravity respect to bedding planes

1 347.16 5.69 2.68 Parallel

2 355.56 3.50 2.66 Irregular shear planes
3 477.10 5.52 2.66 Diagonal
4 504.40 4.69 2.60 Parallel
5 555.45 6.63 2.67 Perpendicular
6 556.62 6.18 2.66 Perpendicular
Mean 466.05 5.37 2.67 -
Standard deviation (Sd) 93.95 1.13 - -
Sd as % of mean 20.15 20.95 - -

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 2 April-June 2007

146 PRABHULINGAIAH ET AL

600

Compressive strength
550 y = 52.175x + 185.96
R2 = 0.3903
500 2nd outlier

(kg/cm2)
450
400
350 1st outlier
300
3 4 5 6 7
BWI (kWh per short ton)
Fig. 2. Gotan limestone.

Discussion
Alex et al. [6] examined extensive data of samples from several mines to find if there was
any correlation between unconfined compressive strength and BWIs (crushing, rod mill
and BM). They have not reported any correlation and the plots were found to be highly
scattered except in the case of one mine from Chile where the fracture frequency of the
ore was reported to be very low.
Field and hand specimen (mega and macroscopic) observations of JLS samples show
that the samples are massive, i.e. uniform in all the three directions (absence of any
noticeable structure) except voids in some samples. The average (mean) grain size, as
noted [7] from the photomicrograph using
optical microscope of JLS sample is 17.41 40
. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 35
images [7] of JLS also show micro-voids. 30
Frequency

The size distribution curve (Fig. 3) of the 25

grains is steep and symmetric, which 20
indicates that the geological process 15
setting, which resulted in the formation 10
of JLS (SMS grade) deposit, is uniform. 5
Absence of noticeable macrostructure will 0
impart uniform physical properties to the
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
0

material/mineral in all the directions and Size ( )

such material/mineral is said to be Fig. 3. Grain size distribution in JLS [7].
mechanically isotropic.
Macroscopic observation of GLS samples shows that the deposition has thin bedding
layers. One sample (S. No. 2 of Table 2), out of the six samples tested, has fractured
structure with very thin intercalated layers of hydrated iron oxides. Grain size distribution,
as noted [7] from photomicrographs of optical microscope, is a multimodal curve (Fig. 4)
having major peaks at, approximately, 30, 50, 70, 82, 140 and 170 amounting to an average
(mean) grain size of 68.81 . Multimodal grain size distribution curve indicates that the
geological process settings, which resulted in the deposition of limestone at Gotan, varied

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 2 April-June 2007

 Resistance of Limestone to Size Reduction 147

40
35
30

Frequency
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
0

Size ( )
Fig. 4. Grain size distribution in GLS [7].

over a time scale. This is confirmed by the layered (bedding planes) structure of GLS
noted from macroscopic observation.
Preferential fracturing during crushing/grinding may be expected [8], in general, at the
grain boundaries. The causes of fracturing [8] may be due to the following:
(i) Macro structural weaknesses such as bedding planes;
(ii) Micro structural weaknesses such as schistosity; and
(iii) Micro structural differences in physical properties of constituent minerals such as
hardness, brittleness, cleavability etc.

The average BWI of JLS is higher than that of GLS by 2.6%, while average grain sizes
of GLS and JLS are 68.81 and 17.41 , respectively. The d80 of the product particle size
in the grinding tests is 100 , i.e. larger than the average grain sizes of GLS and JLS. It
appears that neither the grain sizes (micro structure) nor the bedding planes (macro
structure in the case of GLS) influenced the average BWI values of GLS and JLS. This
may be an indication that the physical characteristics of the grains and the matrix do not
differ much in each sample of GLS and JLS as both are of high grade that have calcite
as the most abundant [7] mineral (in the grains and the matrix).
Compressive strength of a sedimentary rock having layered (bedded) structure is
higher when the pressure is applied perpendicular to the bedding planes than when the
pressure is applied parallel to the bedding planes i.e. they are mechanically anisotropic.
The average (of readings given at S. Nos. 1 and 4 of Table 2) compressive strength of
GLS is 425.78 kg/cm2 when pressure is applied parallel to the bedding planes, whereas
the average (of readings given at S. Nos. 5 and 6 of Table 2) compressive strength of GLS
when pressure is applied perpendicular to the bedding plane is 556.04 kg/cm2, which is
higher by 130.26 kg/cm2 or 30.6%. The compressive strength of JLS is higher than that
of GLS by 1.35%, if we consider the compressive strength of GLS while pressure is applied
parallel to the bedding planes. Otherwise, randomly determined (ignoring bedding planes)
compressive strength (average) of GLS is higher than that of (average compressive
strength) JLS by 7.99%.

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 2 April-June 2007

148 PRABHULINGAIAH ET AL

It is a matter of observation that the resistance to size reduction of limestone during

loading, transportation (by railway) and unloading (of millions of tons over the years) is
lower (Table 3) in the case of GLS as compared to JLS (noted as % increase of – 40 mm
fraction between loading point and the destination) by few percent of the total limestone
loaded into wagons.
Table 3 shows that an increase of – 40 mm fraction of the limestone due to handling
(loading, transportation and unloading) is higher in the case of GLS by 2 to 4% than that
of JLS. Which property of limestone will be useful in assessing size degradation during
handling? The results of this study indicate that BWI may explain the resistance to size
reduction of limestones better during handling as compared to compressive strength.
However, BWI values determined in this study varied widely (as expected, since the
samples are natural products and drawn from different blocks of the mines) in both the
cases of GLS and JLS. This is the case even with compressive strength.

Table 3. Size reduction during loading, transportation and unloading: field data

S. No. – 40 mm fraction JLS GLS Approximate

% increase

1 At loading point, railway sidings 2 to 3% 4 to 5% 2

nearer to mines maximum
2 At destination, railway sidings of 5 to 6% 8 to 10% 3 to 4
steel plants maximum

The other physical properties tested [9] for GLS and JLS by SAIL at RDCIS, Ranchi
are given in Table 4. It may be noted that the difference in the physical properties of
limestone samples of Gotan and Jaisalmer (Table 4) is 2% with respect to Tumbler Index
and 0.12% with respect to Shatter Index, which suggests that resistance to size reduction
of JLS is higher to that of GLS. In comparison, the BWI values indicate that JLS offers
2.6% higher resistance to size reduction compared to GLS. BWI values determined for a
particular smaller block of limestone deposit may reduce the variation in the values of BWI
and the average of BWI for that particular block may truly represent the resistance (of
limestone from that block) to size reduction during loading, transportation and unloading.
The data, thus generated for various blocks of the mine, will be of help in controlling
quality of SMS grade limestone. As it is known [2, 3], BWI correlates with Rittinger’s

Table 4. Physical properties of SMS grade limestone

S. No. Property Gotan Jaisalmer % difference

1 Tumbler Index (%, + 6.5 mm) 87.33 89.33 2.00

2 Abrasion Index (%, – 0.5 mm) 4.81 6.66 1.85
3 Shatter Index (%, + 10 mm) 95.38 95.50 0.12
4 Crushing strength (kg/cm2) 358 320 11.88

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 2 April-June 2007

 Resistance of Limestone to Size Reduction 149

constant and HGGI, one of these indices might also be useful as a tool of quality control
(instead of BWI) for mining SMS grade limestone.
Abrasion Index and crushing (compressive) strength of GLS (Table 4), however,
indicate that GLS may offer higher resistance to size reduction compared to JLS. As we
have seen, compressive strength may give a misleading idea about resistance to size
reduction if the presence of macro structures is ignored. Macro structural influences might
be homogenised/randomised in most tests of BWI as the size of test material is – 4 mm,
which is much smaller than the size of 50.8 mm (minimum size) cubes used in compressive
strength tests. Transparent, natural crystals of calcite (analysing 54.89% CaO, 0.3% MgO,
0.28% SiO2, 0.06% Fe2O3, 0.48% Al2O3 and 43.50% loss on ignition) that are large in size
(several centimetres), having easily cleavable planes (macro structure, in this case),
showed BWI value of 6.4 and the sample has 2.71 specific gravity.

Conclusion
Between compressive strength and BWI, the latter appears to be better in estimating the
probable resistance to size reduction of limestone during loading, transportation and
unloading.
Compressive strength and BWI of limestone may or may not show reasonable
correlation depending on the absence or presence of macro structures. The correlation
noted in the case of JLS is attributed to the absence of macro structures such as bedding
planes, shear planes, joints, rock fractures etc. In other words, mechanically isotropic
materials/minerals are likely to show a good correlation between compressive strength and
BWI. The grain size distribution curve of JLS indicates that the deposit probably has
resulted under uniform geological process setting, which might be the reason for the
absence of macro structures.

Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the management of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.
(RSMML) for permission to carry out the present study. Thanks are due to Mr. Rajat
Kumar Misra, Managing Director, RSMML for the encouragement given to the authors.
The help extended by Mr. R.P. Sharma and Mr. Rakesh Ojha in preparing the manuscript
is thankfully acknowledged. We thank Mr. Shyam Siroya of Kalpana Minerals and Chemicals,
Udaipur for providing calcite from Vishama mines. The authors are indebted to Mr. T.V.
Vijaya Kumar, Scientist, National Metallurgical Laboratory, Chennai for providing valuable
information.

References
1. Prabhulingaiah, G., Gosh, J., Sen, P. and Sekhar, D.M.R., “Test for Steel Melting Shop Grade
Limestone”, Trans. Indian Inst. Met., Vol. 59, No. 1 (2006).
2. Venkatachalam, S. and Degaleesan, S.N., Laboratory Experiments in Mineral Engineering,
Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi (1982).

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 2 April-June 2007

 150 PRABHULINGAIAH ET AL

3. Premkumar, G., Kar, D.D. and Mukharjee, D., “Crushing Indices of Different Minerals and
Relations Amongst Them”, Indian Chem. Engr., Section A, Vol. 44, No. 3 (2002).
4. Ozkahraman, H.T., “A Meaningful Expression Between Bond Work Index, Grindability Index
and Friability Value”, Minerals Engineering, 18 (2005).
5. Momber, A.W., “The Fragmentation of Cementitious Composites in a Jaw Breaker”, Theoretical
and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 38 (2002).
6. Alex, D., Derek, B. and Ken, W., “Comparison of UCS to Bond Work Indices”, www.sagmilling.
com/articles/ucs_wi_paper.pdf
7. Sen, P., Gosh, J., Prabhulingaiah, G. and Sekhar, D.M.R., “Internal Morphology of SMS
Grade Limestone Samples”, Trans. Inst. Min Metall. C., Vol. 115, No. 3, www.ingentaconnect.
com/content/maney/mpem (2006).
8. Gaudin, A.M., Principles of Mineral Dressing, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd.,
New Delhi (1977).
9. Chakravorty, R. et al. (members), Report of the Task Force on Economic Gains of using
Jaisalmer Limestone, Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi (1989).

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 2 April-June 2007

View publication stats