metals

Article
Use of the Swebrec Function to Model Particle Size
Distribution in an Industrial-Scale Ni-Co Ore
Grinding Circuit
Alfredo L. Coello-Velázquez 1 , Víctor Quijano Arteaga 1 , Juan M. Menéndez-Aguado 2, * ,
Francisco M. Pole 3,4 and Luis Llorente 5
1 CETAM, Universidad de Moa Dr. Antonio Núñez Jiménez, Bahía de Moa 83300, Cuba
2 Escuela Politécnica de Mieres, Universidad de Oviedo, Mieres 33600, Spain
3 Escola Superior Politécnica da Lunda Sul, Universidade Lueji A’Nkonde, Saurimo 161, Angola
4 Sociedade Mineira de Catoca Lda., Luanda 10257, Angola
5 Empresa Comandante Ernesto Ché Guevara., Punta Gorda 83310, Cuba
* Correspondence: maguado@uniovi.es; Tel.: +34-985-458-033




Received: 9 July 2019; Accepted: 8 August 2019; Published: 10 August 2019


Abstract: Mathematical models of particle size distribution (PSD) are necessary in the modelling
and simulation of comminution circuits. In order to evaluate the application of the Swebrec PSD
model (SWEF) in the grinding circuit at the Punta Gorda Ni-Co plant, a sampling campaign was
carried out with variations in the operating parameters. Subsequently, the fitting of the data to the
Gates-Gaudin-Schumann (GGS), Rosin-Rammler (RRS) and SWEF PSD functions was evaluated
under statistical criteria. The fitting of the evaluated distribution models showed that these functions
are characterized as being sufficiently accurate, as the estimation error does not exceed 3.0% in any
of the cases. In the particular case of the Swebrec function, reproducibility for all the products is
high. Furthermore, its estimation error does not exceed 2.7% in any of the cases, with a correlation
coefficient of the ratio between experimental and simulated data greater than 0.99.

Keywords: comminution; grinding circuit; Swebrec function; size distribution models; modelling;
lateritic ore

1. Introduction
The particle size distribution (PSD) in granular materials is one of the quality indicators of many
transformation processes. In the particular case of mining, it is a measure of effectiveness [1] from
blasting operations through to comminution. It is a crucial element of control in the processing of
materials. In the specific case of the Punta Gorda milling plant (Moa, Cuba), P80 governs the quality of
the final product, together with P95 and P70, product sizes which should correspond to 149 µm, 74 µm
and 44 µm, respectively.
The Punta Gorda industrial plant processes lateritic minerals from deposits in northeastern Cuba
by means of the ammonium-carbonate technology to obtain nickel and cobalt concentrates. Grinding
plays an important role in this technological context, ensuring an adequate contact surface of the ore to
allow the reduction of nickel and cobalt to their metallic phases and the subsequent solution of these
elements in the leaching process [2–5]
The mathematical representation of the PSD is a mandatory tool in the modelling and simulation
of processes, in addition to being crucial for controlling efficiency in comminution circuits. In most
existing PSD models, the particle size is plotted against the cumulative undersize [6], p representing
the probability that a fragment is smaller than x, the particle size.

Metals 2019, 9, 882; doi:10.3390/met9080882 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2019, 9, 882 2 of 13

In ore processing, PSD can be obtained directly through sieve analysis, or indirectly via the
processing of a digital image and the use of sensors based on artificial neural networks [7–9].
Ouchterlony [10,11] argues that these techniques based on image processing have many drawbacks,
one of which is the tendency to provide incorrect shapes of the size distribution curves. Therefore, the
integration of PSD models in the different ways in which particle sizes are experimentally determined
and the determination of the parameters of these functions is both a straightforward and satisfactory
means of characterization, control and automation in comminution processes.
In comminution and mechanical separation processes, the PSD is limited to the determination of
the F80 feed size and P80 product size diameters, as likewise occurs in the standard tests to determine
the Bond index [12]. In many cases, the process engineer uses the graphic method for this purpose.
This behaviour can have serious consequences in decision-making in the operation and control of
comminution and mechanical concentration processes.
The aim of the present study is to present the potential advantages of applying the Swebrec (SWEF)
function [10] in the modelling of the PSD of the products of the dry grinding circuit of lateritic minerals.

1.1. Models of Particle Size Distribution

In practice, the most widespread PSD models in ore processing are two-parameter mathematical
functions, one parameter being the size coefficient and the other, the distribution coefficient [13].
The Rosin-Rammler model (RRS) is usually considered the best size distribution model for ore
processing applications, although the Gates-Gauss-Schumann distribution (GGS) is preferred in certain
applications such as coal processing, especially in North America [9]. Álvarez Rodríguez et al. [12]
concluded that it is preferable to use the RRS model to determine the F80 and P80 diameters in the
Bond ball mill test.
For the characterization of the PSD of blast fragmentation, Blair [14] obtained excellent results
with the two-parameter logarithmic function for particles smaller than 0.1 mm; however, the worst
results were obtained using the RRS function. For this case, the fragmentation function that provided
the best fit was based on the Kuz-Ram model [15]. Other models exist, such as the two-parameter
model proposed by Djordjevic [16] and the crush zone model [17], which were developed for the
particle size characterization of blast fragmentation [6]. There are no known applications of these
models in ore processing.
The main drawbacks of the larger models in ore processing (GGS and RRS) reside in the respective
expansions and contractions of certain regions of the curve.

1.2. Swebrec Function

The Swebrec function (SWEF), proposed by Ouchterlony [10,18], is given by Equation (1):

1
P(x) =  b (1)
 ln( xmax ) 
x
1 +   x  

ln max
x50

where:

• P(x), cumulative undersize, u

• xmax , maximum size of ore particles, mm.
• x, size, mm.
• x50 , sieve size that retains 50% of the material, mm.

Unlike the most commonly used models in ore processing, this is a three-parameter size distribution
model. The parameters are: xmax , x50 and b. When b = 1, the inflection point tends towards x = xmax
and when b increases to 2, the inflection point tends towards x = x50 .
Metals 2019, 9, 882 3 of 13

2. Methodology
Data were obtained by carrying out a full factorial experiment in the dry grinding circuit at the
Punta Gorda plant. In this experiment, eight trials were devised with different operating conditions.
Three operational variables were studied: ore feed flow (t/h), air flow rate to the mill (m3 /h) and the
position of the air separator vanes (u), with a 45% ball load in all cases. The base levels of the variables
were: 100 t/h; 68700 m3 , and 5, respectively.
Primary samples were taken every 15 min in each operating mode, which had a duration of 8 h.
The samples were subjected to sieving analysis to determine the particle size composition: up to 1 mm
dry, and below 1 mm wet. The following sieves were used for the fresh feed material: 40.0, 25.0, 18.0,
12.0, 10.0, 6.0, 4.75, 3.5, 2.0, 1.25, 1.0, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1, and 0.074 mm. For the recirculated product in the
mill, the product discharged from the mill and final product of the circuit, the following sieve sizes
were used: 0.149; 0.074, and 0.044 mm.
The resulting data were subjected to the Coello procedure [19] in order to avoid the effect of
fluctuations in the characteristics and properties of the fresh material, and errors and anomalous
variations in the size class balance. Results are shown in Appendix A (Tables A1–A3).
The experimentally obtained PSDs of the different products of the milling circuit were fitted
to the GGS, RRS and SWEF models according to the procedures set out in [6,9,11]. The coefficient
of determination, the estimation error and Cochran’s criterion were used as quality criteria for the
fitting. The procedures were run with the help of Excel software templates prepared for such purposes.
Considering the results of the values of the Cochran and Chi-Square criteria, the average values of the
experiment were presented for each size distribution function.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Balance of the Size Class Distribution of the Grinding Circuit Minimizing Residual Errors
A simplified closed circuit scheme of lateritic ore comminution similar to that used in the grinding
plant at the Punta Gorda nickel processing plant is presented in [19,20].
The results of calculating the circulating load per equation by means of the conventional equation
appear in Table A1. As a result of the inherent fluctuations in the technological process, above all at the
scale at which the sampling took place, the values of the residuals vary considerably (Table A2), by
both excess and defect.
Table A3 shows the recalculated values of the circulating load and the PSD whose residual in
the class balance is zero. This means that the newly found values of the particle size distribution
better satisfy the calculation of the circulating load and hence the general balance of the particle size
distribution of the size classes.

3.2. Fresh Feed to the Mill

Figure 1 shows the results of the particle size distribution of the fresh feed product to the mill.
In general, the experimental PSD occupies an intermediate position between the RRS and SWEF
distributions. A more detailed analysis shows that for particles larger than 10 mm, the experimental
data is closer to the RRS distribution; i.e., this function provides a better fit to the experimental
data in this region of the curve. The mass fraction corresponding to this coarse class (>10 mm) is
approximately 8%.
Metals 2019, 9, 882 4 of 13
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

100

90 GGS
RRS
80
SWEF
Cumulative undersize (%)

70
Measured
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Size (mm)

Figure 1.
Figure Size distribution
1. Size distribution of
of the
the ore
ore particles
particles of
of the
the fresh
fresh feed
feed to
to the
the mill.
mill.

The region
The regionofof thethe
experimental
experimental distribution between
distribution sizes below
between sizes 6–8 mm 6–8
below behaves
mm very differently,
behaves very
however. This region is closer to the distribution of the SWEF, and accounts
differently, however. This region is closer to the distribution of the SWEF, and accounts up to up to 87% of particles.
87% of
In short, In
particles. theshort,
RRS thefunction best describes
RRS function the coarse
best describes size ranges,
the coarse whilewhile
size ranges, the SWEF better
the SWEF fits fits
better the
experimental
the experimental datadata
in thein fine fractions.
the fine fractions.
According to the R 2 values, the SWEF provides the best fit, the value of its coefficient of
According to the R2 values, the SWEF provides the best fit, the value of its coefficient of
determination, R 2 being lower than those presented by Ouchterlony [1] for products of fragmentation
determination, R2,, being lower than those presented by Ouchterlony [1] for products of fragmentation
by blasting
by blasting andand crushing.
crushing. ItIt should
should be be noted
noted that
that the
the fresh
fresh feed
feed to to the
the mill
mill did
did not
not undergo
undergo anyany
comminution operation after it was mined, although this product was
comminution operation after it was mined, although this product was influenced by the operations influenced by the operations
of mining,
of mining, loading,
loading, transport,
transport, unloading
unloading and and drying.
drying. Therefore,
Therefore, it it may
may bebe considered
considered aa run-of-mine
run-of-mine
material. As to the value of coefficient b, in this case it does
material. As to the value of coefficient b, in this case it does fit the range of fit the range of values
values reported
reported byby
Sanchidrián et al. [6], although it is slightly higher than the values of b reported
Sanchidrián et al. [6], although it is slightly higher than the values of b reported for crushing. for crushing.
It can
It can be
be seen
seen inin Figure
Figure 22 that
that only
only four
four values
values are
are separated
separated to to some
some extent
extent from
from the
the zero
zero error
error
line, which is an indicator of a good fit of the experimental data to
line, which is an indicator of a good fit of the experimental data to the Swebrec function.the Swebrec function.
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14
Metals 2019, 9, 882 5 of 13
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

Mill feed PSD adjust to SWEF

100
Mill feed PSD adjust to SWEF
100
90

(%) (%)
undersize 90
80
80
70
undersize

70
60
R² = 0.9774
cumulative

R² = 0.9774
60
50
cumulative

50
40
Calculated

40
30 SWEF
Calculated

30
20 SWEF
Zero error line

20 Zero error line

10
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0 20 Measured40cumulative undersize
60 (%) 80 100
Measured cumulative undersize (%)
Figure 2. Zero error graph for the SWEF.
Zero error
Figure 2. Zero error graph
graph for
for the
the SWEF.
SWEF.
3.3. Mill Discharge
3.3. Mill Discharge
3.3. Mill Discharge
Figure 3 shows the particle size distribution of the mill discharge fitted to the PSD models
Figure
studied in 3 shows
this the As
paper. particle
can besizeseen
distribution of the mill
in the figure, discharge fitted to
anthe PSD modelsposition
studied
Figure 3 shows the particle size distribution of the
the SWEF occupies
mill discharge intermediate
fitted to the PSD models
in this paper.
betweenin As
thethis
GGS can be seen
and RRS in the figure,
distributions the SWEF occupies an intermediate position between the7GGS
studied paper. As can be seen inforthesizes between
figure, 35 and
the SWEF 7 microns.
occupies For sizes below
an intermediate μm
position
and RRS distributions
between 35 μm for149
and sizes
μm,between
the 35 and
SWEF 7 microns.respectively
distribution For sizes below 7 µm and
approaches thebetween
GGS and35RRS
µm
between the GGS and RRS distributions for sizes between 35 and 7 microns. For sizes below 7 μm
and 149 µm, functions.
distribution the SWEF distribution respectively approaches the GGS and RRS distribution functions.
and between 35 μm and 149 μm, the SWEF distribution respectively approaches the GGS and RRS
distribution functions.
Mill discharge PSD
80 Mill discharge PSD
80
70
(%) (%)

70
60
undersize

60
50
undersize

50
40
Cumulative

SWEF
40
Cumulative

30 SWEF
RRS
30 RRS
20 GGS
20 GGS
10
10
0
0 0 1 10 100 1000
0 1 Size (microns)
10 100 1000
Size (microns)
Figure 3. Particle
Particle size
size distribution
distribution simulated
simulated by
by the models under study. .
Figure 3. Particle size distribution simulated by the models under study.
The reported value of b (Table 1) falls within the range of values reported in [6], although it is
somewhat lower than
The reported valuethe
of value of b1)reported
b (Table for the
falls within fresh feedof
range tovalues
the mill. The R2inis[6],
reported higher than that
although it is
somewhat lower than the value of b reported for fresh feed to the mill. The R2 is higher than that
Metals 2019, 9, 882 6 of 13

The reported value of b (Table 1) falls within the range of values reported in [6], although it
is somewhat lower than the value of b reported for fresh feed to the mill. The R2 is higher than
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14
that obtained for the latter product. Considering the value of the estimation error (σ), the best fit
corresponds
obtained fortothe
thelatter
SWEFproduct.
model. The coefficient the
Considering of determination
value of thefor the experimental
estimation data
error (σ), theand those
best fit
simulated by the SWEF model is 0.9999 (Figure 4).
corresponds to the SWEF model. The coefficient of determination for the experimental data and those
simulated by the SWEF model is 0.9999 (Figure 4).
Table 1. Studied model parameters, mill discharge.

Table 1. Studied model parameters, mill discharge.

Model Parameters
MDTP R2 σ
Slope, m K (*) Model XmaxParameters X 50 b
MDTP R2 σ
GGS 0.2792 Slope, m K (*) - Xmax
0.3461 X- 50 b - 0.9867 2.14
RRS 0.5425
GGS 0.0703 0.3461 -
0.2792 - -- - - 0.9867 0.9867
2.14 3.04
SWEF - - 0.3461 0.0353 1.3354 0.9927 1.77
RRS 0.5425 0.0703 - - - 0.9867 3.04
SWEF - (*) d62.8 RRS and d100
- —for 0.3461 —for GGS.
0.0353 1.3354 0.9927 1.77
(*) d62.8—for RRS and d100—for GGS.

Mill discharge product

100
Cummulative undersize, calculated (%)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30 R² = 0.9999

20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cummulative undersize, experimental (%)

Figure 4. Zero
Zero error
error graph for the mill discharge.

The calculated Cochran criterion (0.2858) is lower than the critical criterion (0.6798), which
indicates good homogeneity in the error made in the experimentation and the absence of significant
differences between the series of experimental data and the data simulated by this function.
function. It was
similar for the other distributions under study.
study.

3.4. Recirculated
3.4. Recirculated Product
Product in
in the
the Mill
Mill
Figure 55 shows
Figure showsthe
thesize
sizedistribution of of
distribution thethe
product recirculated
product in the
recirculated ingrinding circuitcircuit
the grinding at the at
Punta
the
Gorda plant fitted to the GGS, RRS and SWEF models.
Punta Gorda plant fitted to the GGS, RRS and SWEF models.
Metals 2019, 9, 882 7 of 13
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

PSD, recirculated product

60
SWEF
50
RRS
Cumulative undersize (%)

40 GGS

30

20

10

0
0 1 10 100 1000
Size (microns)

Figure 5. Particle size distribution of the product recirculated in the grinding circuit.
Figure 5. Particle size distribution of the product recirculated in the grinding circuit.
The configuration of the particle size distribution curve is similar to that of the mill discharge, the
The configuration of the particle size distribution curve is similar to that of the mill discharge,
value of b = 1.3206 being very similar (see Tables 1 and 2).
the value of b = 1.3206 being very similar (see Tables 1 and 2).
Table 2. Parameters of the distribution models under study, recirculated product.
Table 2. Parameters of the distribution models under study, recirculated product.
Model Parameters
MDTP Model Parameters R2 σ
MDTP
Slope, m K* Xmax X 50 b R2 σ
Slope, m K* Xmax X50 b
GGS 0.4507
GGS 0.8732
0.4507 0.8732 - - -- - - 0.9605 0.9605
1.9277 1.9277
RRS 0.6224 0.2299 - - - 0.9538 2.1163
RRS 0.6224 0.2299 - - - 0.9538 2.1163
SWEF - - 0.7787 0.1104 1.3206 0.9743 2.6468
SWEF - - 0.7787 0.1104 1.3206 0.9743 2.6468
(*) d62.8 —for RRS and d100 —for GGS.
(*) d62.8—for RRS and d100—for GGS.

The curve of the Swebrec function is always above the other distribution models, tending to
The curve
approach of theof
the curve Swebrec
the RRS function is always
distribution. This above the other
function distribution
occupies precisely models, tending to
the intermediate
approach
position. the curve of the RRS distribution. This function occupies precisely the intermediate position.
For this
For thisproduct,
product, thethe
SWEFSWEFdistribution showsshows
distribution the best-fit parameter
the best-fit value, although
parameter value, the estimation
although the
error is greater
estimation errorthan in thethan
is greater other twoother
in the distributions. However,
two distributions. the errorthe
However, is error
loweristhan
lower 2.7%
thanand
2.7% it
may be stated that the SWEF characterizes the particle size distribution of the
and it may be stated that the SWEF characterizes the particle size distribution of the mill discharge mill discharge with
sufficient
with accuracy.
sufficient accuracy.
Figure 6 shows the
Figure 6 shows the zero
zero error
error graph
graph for
for the
the case
case ofof the
the recirculated
recirculated product.
product. It It includes
includes the
the
coefficient of determination, which in this case is 0.9925, thus confirming
coefficient of determination, which in this case is 0.9925, thus confirming the model’s suitability.the model’s suitability.
The
The calculated
calculated Cochran
Cochran criterion
criterion is lower
is lower thanthan the critical
the critical criterion
criterion (0.6088
(0.6088 versus
versus 0.6798).
0.6798).
Metals 2019, 9, 882 8 of 13
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

Recirculated product
100 Recirculated product
100

(%)(%)
90
calculated
90
calculated 80
80
70
70
60
undersize,

60
undersize,

50
50 R² = 0.9925
40 R² = 0.9925
40
Cummulative

30
Cummulative

30
20
20
10
10
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20Cummulative
40 undersize,
60measured80
(%) 100
Cummulative undersize, measured (%)

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Zero
Zero error
error graph,
graph, recirculated product fitted
recirculated product fitted to
to the
the SWEF
SWEF model.
model.
Figure 6. Zero error graph, recirculated product fitted to the SWEF model.
3.5. Final Product of the Circuit
3.5. Final Product of the Circuit
The fitting
fitting of
ofthe
thesize
sizedistribution
distributionfunctions
functions evaluated
evaluated in this
in this paper
paper is presented
is presented in Figure
in Figure 7.
7. The
The The
SWEF fitting of
occupiesthe
an size distribution
intermediate functions
position evaluated
between the in
other thistwopaper is
studied
SWEF occupies an intermediate position between the other two studied distributions, tendingpresented in Figure
distributions, 7.
tending The
to
SWEF
paralleloccupies
the GGSan intermediate
model position
to a certain extent. between
Here, thetheRRSother two studied
distribution distributions,
behaves tending
quite differently to
from
parallel
otherthe
the other two
twoGGS model
models
models to a certain
towards
towards the extent.
thefiner
finer Here, although
fractions,
fractions,the RRS distribution
although allallofofthe behavesconverge
thefunctions
functions quite differently
convergefrom
from from
37 37
µm to
μm
the other
coarser
to the two
coarser models
classes. The
classes. towards the
estimation
The finer
estimationerrorfractions,
does
error although
notnot
does exceed all
2.5%
exceed 2.5% of the
forfor functions
anyany
of the converge
functions.
of the functions.from 37 μm
to the coarser classes. The estimation error does not exceed 2.5% for any of the functions.
PSD, final product
PSD, final product
100
100 SWEF
90
90 SWEF
(%)(%)

80 RRS
80 RRS
undersize

70 GGS
undersize

70 GGS
60
60
50
Cummulative

50
40
Cummulative

40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
00.001 0.010 Size (mm) 0.100 1.000
0.001 0.010 Size (mm) 0.100 1.000

Figure 7. Distribution models fitted to the experimental data.

Distribution models
Figure 7. Distribution models fitted to the experimental data.
The value of coefficient b is somewhat greater than coefficient b of the size distributions of the
The value
The value of coefficient bb is
of coefficient is somewhat
somewhat greater than coefficient bb of
greater than of the size
size distributions of the
the
products discharged from and recirculated in the mill. coefficient
This justifies thethesimilar
distributions
behaviour of of the
products discharged
products discharged from
fromand
andrecirculated
recirculated in the
in mill.mill.
the ThisThis
justifies the similar
justifies the behaviour
similar of the of
behaviour SWEF
the
SWEF distribution model for these products.
distribution
SWEF model model
for these
forproducts.
Asdistribution
expected, the maximumthesesize
products.
in the distribution is lower than that of the other products.
As expected, the maximum size
Something similar occurs with the x50 size, in the distribution is lowerthe
which constitutes than that size
cut-off of the
of other products.
the pneumatic
Something
separator. similar occurs with the x 50 size, which constitutes the cut-off size of the pneumatic
separator.
Metals 2019, 9, 882 9 of 13

As expected, the maximum size in the distribution is lower than that of the other products.
Something similar
Metals 2019, occurs
9, x FOR with the x50 size, which constitutes the cut-off size of the pneumatic9separator.
PEER REVIEW of 14
The
Metalszero
2019, error
9, x FORgraph (Figure 8) confirms the reproducibility of the SWEF model. The coefficient
PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 of
The zero
determination of error graph (Figure data
the experimental 8) confirms
and thethedata
reproducibility
simulatedofby the SWEF
this model.
model The coefficient
is 0.9925. The values
The zeroCochran
of theofcalculated
determination error
of graph (Figure 8)
the experimental
criterion andconfirms
data
theand the
thereproducibility
criticaldata simulated
criterion of
bythe
(0.2858 SWEF
this model
versus model. The
is 0.9925.
0.6798) coefficient
The
confirmvalues
the high
of determination
the calculated of the experimental
Cochran criterion data
and and
the the data
critical simulated
criterion by versus
(0.2858 this model is 0.9925.
0.6798) confirmThe values
the high
quality of the model.
of the calculated
quality Cochran criterion and the critical criterion (0.2858 versus 0.6798) confirm the high
of the model.
quality of the model.
Final product
100 Final product
(%)(%)

100
90
calculated

90
80
calculated

80
70
70
60
undersize,

60 R² = 0.9925
undersize,

50 R² = 0.9925
50
40
Cummulative

40
30
Cummulative

30
20
20
10
10
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 Cummulative
40undersize, experimental
60 (%) 80 100
Cummulative undersize, experimental (%)

Figure 8. Zero
Figure error
8. Zero graph
error graphofofthe
theexperimental dataand
experimental data andthe
thedata
data simulated
simulated by SWEF.
by the the SWEF.
Figure 8. Zero error graph of the experimental data and the data simulated by the SWEF.
Figure 9 shows
Figure the PSDs
9 shows of theofdifferent
the PSDs products
the different √ of the
products ofgrinding
the grindingcircuit simulated
circuit by the
simulated by Swebrec
the
function for normalized sizes with a sieving scale of 2. The shape of the distribution
Swebrec function for normalized sizes with a sieving scale of √2. The shape of the distribution
Figure 9 shows the PSDs of the different products of the grinding circuit for
simulated the
byproducts
the
for
Swebrec
inside
thethe function
circuitinside
products for normalized
is similar, the is
the circuit sizes
tendency with a sieving
following
similar, the tendencythe logic√2.
scale of
following of The
thethe xmax
shape
logic and x50 and
of
of the the distribution for in
sizes reported
sizes
the products
reported
Tables inside the
1–4. in Tables 1 to 4. circuit is similar, the tendency following the logic of the and sizes
reported in Tables 1 to 4.
100
100
90
90
80
(%)(%)

80
70
undersize

70
undersize

60
60
50
Cumulative

50
40
Cumulative

40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 Size0.1000
(microns) 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000
Size (microns)
Final product Recirculated product Mill discharge Feed
Final product Recirculated product Mill discharge Feed

Figure 9. Simulation of the particle size distribution for products in the grinding circuit.
Figure 9. Simulation
Figure of of
9. Simulation the particle
the particlesize
size distribution forproducts
distribution for productsin in
thethe grinding
grinding circuit.
circuit.
Metals 2019, 9, 882 10 of 13

Table 3. Parameters of the distribution models under study.

Model Parameters
Model R2
Slope, m K (*) X max X 50 b
GGS 0.2493 0.429 - - - 0.900
RRS 0.3352 1.857 - - - 0.954
SWEF - - 40.0 1.331 3.10 0.977
(*) d62.8 for RRS and d100 for GGS.

Table 4. Parameters of the distribution models for the final product of the circuit.

Model Parameters
MDTP R2 σ
Slope, m K (*) Xmax X 50 b
GGS 0.2026 0.1690 - - - 0.9763 1.4051
RRS 0.7489 0.0284 - - - 0.9869 1.1234
SWEF - - 0.1749 0.0099 1.401 0.9855 2.2193
(*) d62.8 for RRS and d100 for GGS.

4. Conclusions
The results of applying the Coello procedure [19] allowed us to obtain the particle size distribution
of the different products of the milling circuit suitably balanced with zero residual values.
For all the size distributions, no significant differences were found between the experimental data
and the data simulated by the size distribution models. In combination with the values obtained from
the coefficient of determination and the estimation error, this means that all the studied models are
reproducible. The Cochran criterion and Chi-square values confirm the above: the calculated values
are always better than the critical values of the considered statistics.
The Swebrec function characterizes the particle size distribution of the products of the grinding
circuit very accurately. The coefficient of determination for the experimental data and those simulated
by the model is greater than 0.9900. The average error of its fitting to the size distribution of the products
of the grinding circuit does not exceed 3%, demonstrating the versatility of its use. The coefficient of
determination values for the experimental data and those simulated by this function are predominantly
very high.
The b value for the products inside the grinding circuit ranges between 1.32 and 1.4. The b
value for the fresh feed (crushed product) coincides with the values reported by Sanchidrián et al. [6]
for crushing.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.M.M.-A., A.L.C.-V.; Formal analysis, V.Q.A. and F.M.P.; Investigation,
F.M.P. and R.M.A.; Methodology, A.L.C.-V. and J.M.M.-A.; Resources, V.Q.A. and F.M.P.; Supervision, V.Q.A. and
A.L.C.-V.; Validation, L.L.; Writing – original draft, A.L.C.-V.;Writing—review & editing, J.M.M.-A.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to Alexis García for his support during the carrying out of the
industrial tests and to the Technical Board of the ECCG company for the trust placed in the research team.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest
Metals 2019, 9, 882 11 of 13

Appendix A

Table A1. Calculation of the circulating load in the grinding circuit.

Flow of Content of the Class, %

Air Flow, Slope Circulating
Material, Size Class, mm Mill Recirculated Fine
m3 /h Angle Load, C (i)
m3 /h Discharge, f ’ Product, c Product, p
−0.149 + 0.074 87.58 54.66 95.66 0.25
+ + + −0.074 + 0.044 79.22 39.70 85.08 0.15
−0.044 + 0.0 64.13 39.20 75.71 0.46
−0.149 + 0.074 67.67 64.00 97.09 8.01
+ − − −0.074 + 0.044 50.41 44.66 86.92 6.35
−0.044 + 0.0 44.91 39.03 79.38 5.86
−0.149 + 0.074 81.03 62.71 97.67 0.91
− + − −0.074 + 0.044 61.31 48.54 88.16 2.10
−0.044 + 0.0 50.2 42.06 80.34 3.70
−0.149 + 0.074 85.28 49.405 94.06 0.24
− − + −0.074 + 0.044 69.21 38.41 87.3 0.59
−0.044 + 0.0 60.56 37.93 73.56 0.57
−0.149 + 0.074 85.34 65.60 97.41 0.61
+ + − −0.074 + 0.044 76.89 46.12 87.17 0.33
−0.044 + 0.0 53.49 38.73 78.77 1.71
−0.149 + 0.074 70.63 61.04 95.92 2.64
+ − + −0.074 + 0.044 52.58 46.46 84.2 5.16
−0.044 + 0.0 46.51 39.94 71.33 3.78
−0.149 + 0.074 81.93 51.51 96.29 0.47
− + + −0.074 + 0.044 66.17 43.86 86.9 0.93
−0.044 + 0.0 59.77 33.46 74.84 0.57
−0.149 + 0.074 79.46 60.08 97.02 0.91
− − − −0.074 + 0.044 61.37 22.37 85.1 0.61
−0.044 + 0.0 53.13 17.18 78.77 0.71

Table A2. Calculation of residuals.

Recalculated Circulating Load Lagrange

Residual, ε
Multiplier, λ
p-f f-c (f-c)2 (p-f)*(f-c) C (i)
8.08 32.92 1083.73 265.99 −0.16 −0,06
5.86 39.53 1562.23 231.62 3.65 1.41
11.58 24.93 621.50 288.69 −5.58 −2.15
Sum Total 3267.46 786.30 0.24
29.42 3.68 13.51 108.12 −5.84 −0,06
36.51 5.75 33.06 209.93 0.39 0.00
34.47 5.88 34.57 202.68 3.27 0.03
Sum Total 81.14 520.73 6.42
16.64 18.33 335.81 304.93 12.32 1.21
26.85 12.77 163.07 342.87 −6.67 −0.66
30.14 8.14 66.26 245.34 −17.28 −1.70
Sum Total 565.14 893.14 1.58
8.78 35.875 1287.02 314.98 6.45 2.01
18.09 30.8 948.64 557.17 −5.02 −1.56
13 22.63 512.12 294.19 -3.39 −1.06
Sum Total 2747.77 1166.34 0.42
12.07 19.74 389.67 238.26 −0.29 −0.07
10.28 30.775 947.10 316.37 8.09 2.07
25.28 14.76 217.86 373.13 −16.47 −4.22
Sum Total 1554.63 927.76 0.60
Metals 2019, 9, 882 12 of 13

Table A2. Cont.

Recalculated Circulating Load Lagrange

Residual, ε
Multiplier, λ
p-f f-c (f-c)2 (p-f)*(f-c) C (i)
25.29 9.59 91.97 242.53 8.00 0.24
31.62 6.125 37.52 193.67 −10.36 −0.31
24.82 6.57 43.16 163.07 −2.02 −0.06
Sum Total 172.65 599.27 3.47
14.36 30.42 925.38 436.83 4.27 1.07
20.73 22.315 497.96 462.59 −7.06 −1.78
15.07 26.315 692.48 396.57 1.05 0.26
Sum Total 2115.81 1295.99 0.61
17.56 19.385 375.78 340.40 −4.26 −0.99
23.73 39.005 1521.39 925.59 3.02 0.70
25.64 35.955 1292.76 921.89 −0.98 −0.23
Sum Total 3189.93 2187.88 0.69

Table A3. Recalculated values of the particle size distribution for the grinding circuit products.

Recalculated Class Content, %

Recalculated Residual, ε
Mill Discharge, f. Recirculated Product, c Fine Product, p
87.66 54.65 95.60 0
77.48 40.03 86.49 0
66.80 38.68 73.56 0
68.1 63.6 97.03 0
50.4 44.7 86.92 0
44.7 39.2 79.41 0
77.9 64.6 98.88 0
63.0 47.5 87.50 0
54.6 39.4 78.64 0
82.4 50.3 96.07 0
71.4 37.7 85.74 0
62.1 37.5 72.50 0
85.5 65.6 97.34 0
73.6 47.4 89.24 0
60.2 36.2 74.55 0
69.5 61.9 96.16 0
54.0 45.4 83.89 0
46.8 39.7 71.27 0
80.2 52.2 97.36 0
69.0 42.8 85.12 0
59.3 33.6 75.10 0
81.1 59.4 96.03 0
60.2 22.8 85.80 0
53.5 17.0 78.54 0

References
1. Ouchterlony, F. Fragmentation characterization; the Swebrec function and its use in blast engineering.
In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting—Fragblast 9,
Granada, Spain, 13–17 August 2009; pp. 3–22.
2. Coello-Velázquez, A.L. Sovershenstvovanie tecnologii izmilchenii lateritobij pud na zabode “Punta Gorda”.
Ph.D. Thesis, IMS, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 1993.
3. Aguado, J.M.M.; Velázquez, A.L.C.; Tijonov, O.N.; Díaz, M.A.R. Implementation of energy sustainability
concepts during the comminution process of the Punta Gorda nickel ore plant (Cuba). Powder Technol. 2006,
170, 153–157. [CrossRef]
Metals 2019, 9, 882 13 of 13

4. Coello Velázquez, A.L.; Menéndez-Aguado, J.M.; Brown, R.L. Grindability of lateritic nickel ores in Cuba.
Powder Technol. 2008, 182, 113–115. [CrossRef]
5. Chalkley, M.E.; Collins, M.J.; Iglesias, C.; Tuffrey, N.E. Effect of magnesium on pressure leaching of Moa
Laterite ore. Can. Metall. Q 2010, 49, 227–234. [CrossRef]
6. Sanchidrián, J.A.; Ouchterlony, F.; Moser, P.; Segarra, P.; López, L.M. Performance of some distributions to
describe rock fragmentation data. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2012, 53, 18–31. [CrossRef]
7. Sbarbaro, D.; Ascencio, P.; Espinoza, P.; Mujica, F.; Cortes, G. Adaptive soft-sensors for on-line particles
estimation in wet grinding circuits. Control Eng. Practice. 2008, 16, 171–178. [CrossRef]
8. Ko, Y.-D.; Shang, H. A neural network-based soft sensor for particle size distribution using image analysis.
Powder Technol. 2011, 212, 359–366. [CrossRef]
9. Wills, B.A.; Finch, J.A. Wills’ Mineral Processing Technology: An Introduction to the Practical Aspects of Ore
Treatment and Mineral Recovery, 8th ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; p. 498.
10. Ouchterlony, F. The Swebrec function: Linking fragmentation by blasting and crushing. Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy. Min. Technol. 2005, 114, 29–44. [CrossRef]
11. Ouchterlony, F.; Moser, P. Likenesses and differences in the fragmentation of full-scale and model-scale
blasts. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting–Frag blast 8,
Santiago, Chile, 7–11 May 2006; pp. 207–220.
12. Álvarez Rodríguez, B.; González García, G.; Coello-Velázquez, A.L.; Menéndez-Aguado, J.M. Product size
distribution function influence on interpolation calculations in the Bond ball mill grindability test. Int. J.
Miner. Process. 2016, 157, 16–20. [CrossRef]
13. Kelly, E.G.; Spottiswood, D.J. Introduction to Mineral Processing; John Willey and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
1982.
14. Blair, D.P. Curve-fitting schemes for fragmentation data. Fragblast. Int. J. Blast. Fragment. 2004, 8, 137–150.
15. Kuznetsov, V.M. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock. Sov. Min. Sci. 1973, 9, 144–148.
[CrossRef]
16. Djordjevic, N. Two-component model of blast fragmentation. In Proceedings of the 6th International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannesburg, South Africa, 8–12 August 1999; pp. 213–219.
17. Kanchibotla, S.S.; Valery, W.; Morell, S. Modelling fines in blast fragmentation and its impact on crushing
and grinding. In Proceedings of the Conference on Rock Breaking, Kalgoorlie, WA, USA, 7–11 November
1999; pp. 137–144.
18. Osorio, A.M.; Menéndez-Aguado, J.M.; Bustamante, O.; Restrepo, G.M. Fine grinding size distribution
analysis using the Swebrec function. Powder Technol. 2014, 258, 206–208. [CrossRef]
19. Coello-Velázquez, A.L. Procedimiento para la determinación de la carga circulante en circuitos cerrados de
trituración y molienda. Minería y Geología 2015, 31, 66–79.
20. Menéndez-Aguado, J.M.; Coello, A.L.; Tikjonov, O.N.; Rodríguez, M. Implementation of sustainable concepts
during comminution process in Punta Gorda nickel ore plant. Powder Technol. 2006, 170, 153–157. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).