3A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

3A.1 Ball Mill Dynamics

The basic objectives of ball milling
is the size reduction of materials,
called comminution. Size reduction
in a ball mill is achieved primarily by
the motion of the balls in the mill.
By rotation, the mill elevates the ball
charge and material and drops the
load upon itself.

3A.1.1 Comminution Mechanisms

Three types of particle breakage or comminution can occur:
A) Fracture
This is a massive impact in which the particle disintegrates into many very
much smaller particles. (In roll presses, it's done using extreme pressure.)
However fracture does not produce a lot of very fine particles. Researchers using
a drop/shatter procedure indicate that although direct impact does a good job of
crushing, it only produces about 10% of very fine dust.

B) Chipping
This is a glancing blow which chips a corner off an irregular shaped
particle. The result is a large particle almost the same size as the original and a
very much smaller "chip". This mechanism rounds irregular rock into roughly
spherical shapes, for example the pebbles formed in autogenous grinding.

C) Abrasion
This is the wear of surfaces by rubbing. Again in autogenous grinding
this produces the smooth "beach" pebbles. The products are once more the main
particle, with little change in size, and very minute particles.

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

These last two mechanisms are what are commonly referred to as attrition
and the first we observe as crushing. In any mill these mechanisms overlap to
produce particle size distribution. However by studying the particle size
distributions produced, researchers have concluded that the last two
1

mechanisms of attrition account for the majority of size reduction which occurs
in a ball mill. Some fracture occurs in the first compartment.

3A.1.2 Bed Movement

Cascading
At slow speeds the mass of balls are carried by friction up the side of the
mill but immediately slide down in the form of a locked mass with a slip surface.
As the mill begins to turn faster the ball mass surface appears inclined as
tumbling action of the balls increases. The tumbling action results in balls
emerging, rolling down and re-entering the surface. The bed is expanded
allowing material to penetrate the voids. The series of collisions which occurs as
the ball cascades down the surface (or streamline) transfers stress to the material
"nipped" between two balls.

Cataracting
As the mill speed is increased (or lifters installed) the balls are lifted
higher and more are ejected from the surface at the top of the mill and a cataract
is formed. These balls fall freely and impact at the toe with great force, some of
which is recovered as they strike the "downhill" side of the mill. The fraction of
critical speed at which cataracting onsets is a function of the filling ratio and lifter
design.

At the 75% of critical speed, at which most of our mills run, cascading is
the primary movement as this is optimum for the chipping and abrasion
mechanisms which are the most efficient for normal particle sizes. Lifters in the
first compartment assist in the cataracting to increase the fracture mechanism
necessary for large particles.
3A.1.3 Factors Influencing Size Reduction

1
L. G. Austin, R. R. Klimpel, P. T. Luckie, Process Engineering of Size Reduction: Ball Milling,
Society of Mining Engineers, New York, 1984.

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

The efficiency of the size reduction in a ball mill is a function of many

factors. In no particular order they are:

A. The mill rpm or % of its critical speed.

B. The mill liners.
C. Air sweep
D. Mill Mass Transport
- Permeability and Retention Time
- Material Filling Ratio
- Discharge Grates
E. Material characteristics (size, grindability, etc.).
F. Grinding aids.
G. The size, design and volume loading of the grinding media.

3A.2 Mill Critical Speed

The critical speed of a ball mill is that speed of rotation at which
centrifugal forces overcome the force of gravity. At that speed, the balls no
longer fall or cascade but ride on the liners around the full revolution of the mill.
Obviously in order to grind we must operate at a speed below this. As operators
we generally cannot change the mill's speed. However when working with liner
and grinding media suppliers, they need to know the rotational speed relative to
critical, to properly design the liner and media. (See also section - Internal Ball
Mil Parts - Liners.) Suppliers can alter the media release point in the
compartment to help improve your grinding, designing the liner shape to suit
your mill's actual RPM and knowing the mill's critical speed.
To calculate a ball mill's critical speed use the following equation:

In Feet: Vc = or In Meters: Vc =

where Vc = mill critical speed in RPM

Du = useful internal diameter

For Example: if the useful diameter of a mill was found to be 12 feet then:
Vc = = 22.1 RPM

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

For the mill speed of 16.6 RPM, means that this ball is running at (16.6 ÷ 22.1) X
100 = 75 % of its critical speed. Bear in mind that feed material type, ball volume
loading, ball charge gradation and liner types can also affect the grinding
conditions as well. (Note: there are, arguably, more precise equations than the
one used here, but they all take a similar form.)

3A.3 Ball Mill Liners

(See also section: Internal Ball Mill Parts - Liners)

In general balls will cascade (or cataract) within a rotating mill; even with
a perfectly smooth interior surface provided that the RPM is close enough to
critical and the right volume loading exists. Recognize that the cascading action
also depends somewhat on the grinding media sizes used and the nature of the
material being ground as well.
The purpose of mill liners is not only to protect the mill shell but they
must also "grip" the grinding balls and release them at the right height to obtain
the tumbling action that maximizes the grinding rate. If the balls are carried too
high they will get thrown against the mill liners on the opposite side where the
balls or liners may break. If the grinding action is limited to the toe of the mill
load, we'll get good crushing but it won't generate enough fines. This is OK for a
first compartment grinding very coarse feed, but inappropriate for any other
scenario. If the balls are not carried high enough then the impact energies while
tumbling are greatly reduced, thus retarding the grinding action. In addition,
that some sliding contact will occur which will increases liner wear.
Liner design is critical to good grinding action and wear life. Careful
consideration must be given to ball charge design, material load and the grinding
action required in that compartment in order to design the appropriate liner.
Good installation is just as important. Occasionally the liners get installed
backwards and then the plant wonders why production went down or worse,
every single ball is broken. Usually this results from the lack of good training.

3A.4 Mill Sweep Influence on Grinding

The mill air sweep (ventilation) affects the transport of material through
the mill. Basically, as the mill air sweep is increased, the retention time of

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

material in the mill is shortened. Increasing the mill air sweep in the finish ball
mills will provide for the removal of fines from the mills as they are created.
This serves to unload the mill and prevents the fines from being overground.
Moreover, the removal of fine particles from the mill as they are created
and enter the mill air sweep has a positive influence on the size reduction
function of the mill. It has been shown that as a mill material load becomes finer,
it becomes more difficult to accomplish additional grinding work. Therefore,
removing fines promotes additional grinding work. Also, fine particle removal
inhibits ball coating. Therefore, for several reasons, high ventilation provides for
a more efficient size reduction. In fact, in very high sweep conditions such as
those found in Demopolis the better grinding allows for a finer ball charge,
(according to Slegten).
Other effects could be summarized as follows:
a) Higher mill sweeps will cool the mill requiring less water spray (less
chance of hydration), but depending on spray configuration it may suck the
spray onto the discharge grates and plugging them.
b) Higher mill sweeps will reduce the quantity of superfines and may lead to
longer setting times and lower 1 and 3 day strengths.
c) Increased sweep on mills will also vent moisture and lowers humidity.
This is an important consideration on raw mills and for plants grinding masonry
cements.
d) For mill circuits not equipped with grit separators, a higher sweep will
increase circulating loads by coarsening the dynamic separator feed. Production
may decrease as a result, if the mill circuit is already over loaded. In many mill
systems featuring highly air swept mills, the sweep air and material goes from
the mill to a static separator. The rejects from the static separator is transported
by the mill system bucket elevator to the separator where further classification
takes place. The fines are swept to the mill baghouse which discharges to the
finished product stream and, thus, to the pump. With a grit separator, the
dynamic separator feed will be coarser, corrective action, such as adding more
blades to a Sturtevant will be required. If the circuit has a conventional
separator, then adding a grit separator will globally improve the 325 mesh.
Production will rise.

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

In a extreme case. Demopolis added very large mill sweep fans and grit
separators. Production rose about 12%, from 66 stph to 74 stph. The static grit
separator accounted for up to 60% of the circuit's total production.
In Exshaw, they went economical by installing an extremely large dropout
box, (a poor man's static separator). Production rose by an estimated 5%.
Generally speaking increasing the air sweep on a mill equipped with a
static separator will cause higher fan power consumption but due to the higher
net tonnage the overall kWh / ton should drop. To avoid excessively large fans,
one should consider larger center screens on the partition and discharge (e.g..
Slegten design) and modifying the feed chute and trunnions to allow more air
through. Unfortunately most mills in Lafarge, North America have trunnions
which were not designed for high sweeps and therefore are limited, (except
Aerofall mills).
Mill sweeps are generally quoted as velocity above the charge which is the
measured mill sweep duct flow (Nm3/s) divided by the cross sectional area
above the charge. The general rule of thumb is that mill sweep must be above 0.5
m/s. The target every tries (or designs) for is 1 m/s. Here are examples of what
we would consider as well swept finish mills:

Demopolis FM1,2: 1.6 to +2 m/s

Alpena FM21: 0.663 m/s
Bath FMB: 0.6 m/s

As of 1993 the following Lafarge Corp. finish mills have static grit separators on
the mill sweep:
Alpena FM 19, 20, 21
Balcones FM 1, 2
Exshaw FM2 (dropout box only)
Fredonia (Nordberg)

The schematic below shows how static separators on mill sweep are typically
installed.

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

3A.5 Ball Mill Mass Transport

If the mass transfer of material through the mill is inhibited by plugging,
loss of grinding aid, loss of mill ventilation, or a ball charge which is too fine (too
many small balls), backspilling can result. This can limit the system circulating
load to a suboptimal level, which can cause overgrinding in the mill and
suboptimal production.
Mass transfer in a ball mill is a very complex process. The following are
properties and conditions that contribute to the mass transport function:
A) When the mill rotates, the ball motion makes the material behave very
much like a fluid.
B) When the material begins to flow, it becomes viscous; and, thus, its
movement is hampered by any fixed surface, (liners, grates, ball charge).
C) The ball charge itself stands in the way of material flow. It is the key source
of resistance in the transfer process.
D) The flow of the material through the mill is due to a head of material
created by the feed to the mill (mainly); the pumping action of the partition
and discharge assembly; and mill sweep.
E) As the total mill feed increases (fresh feed plus circulating load), the amount
of material in the mill increases and the ball load expands to a certain limit.
Beyond the limit, mill bypass occurs, (see figure 3A.5.1). Therefore, for a

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

Figure 3A.5.1: given ball load, there is an optimum

Effect of High Throughput quantity of material that the
dynamic (in motion) ball load can
contain.

3A.5.1 Ball Charge Permeability and

Retention Time
(See also section on Grinding Media)
The mill ball charge is the major factor in
loss of material head or resistance to
material flow in the mill. Big balls have a
low specific surface area (ft2/ton, or
m2/tonne) and therefore, offer less
resistance to material flow; while small
balls have a higher specific surface and are responsible for most of the resistance.
For example, 5/8" diameter balls have about six times more surface per ton of
balls than do 3 1/2" diameter balls.
Therefore, the second compartment of a ball mill offers significantly more
resistance to material flow than does the first compartment. Thus, it also has a
greater influence on the mill retention time.
The use of a finer ball charge results in a higher mill retention time and
finer grinding giving a lower mill throughput (and separator circulating load). A
fine ball charge cannot tolerate a high throughput without risking mill bypass.
As stated previously, mill bypass begins to occur past a certain mill material
loading. If mill bypass occurs operational problems will be encountered,
including:
1) accumulation of spitzers, gravel, grits especially if you classifying liners.
2) low 325 mesh
3) loss of production
Tests carried out at the Lafarge Plant in St. Constant in Canada, utilizing
the same mill with two different ball charges, have shown that for an equal mill
throughput the finer ball charge had the higher mill retention time. Mill
throughput could be easily increased with the coarser, more permeable ball
charge. But with the finer, less permeable charge, mill bypass was encountered
at a mill throughput of 280 TPH. These experiments proved that a permeable

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

ball charge is required in the second compartment of a finish grind mill to

accommodate high mill throughput and high circulating load levels, if this is
what the plant wants to do on the circuit.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that mill retention is highest at low
throughput and decreases as throughput increases. The shortest retention time is
when bypass occurs.

3A.5.2 Material Filling Ratio

Related to permeability is also the material filling ratio, (some will
calculate the "steel to clinker ratio" which expresses the same concept but
produces different numbers). Production is also affected by the material filling in
the ball charge. Slegten and others sell expensive adjustable partitions for just
this purpose. Ciment Lafarge (France) has expended a lot of effort on first
compartment charge design and slot fiddling to get just the right level of material
in the charge.
The graph shown in figure 3A.5.2a compares the breakage rate against
material filling ratio for various ball volume loads. The definition of material
filling ratio is:

Material Filling Ratio =

What the graph says is that no matter what kind of volume loading of
grinding media you use, the void spaces must be filled between 60% and 110% to
maximize grinding. (The peak looks about 80 to 85%.)
At low material filling ratios there is a reduced number of ball-to-material
contacts, due simply to an absence of material in the nip points, therefore
breakage rates are reduced. Also the dynamics of breakage are modified as the
breakage occurring is preferential on the fine material, resulting in overgrinding
of the fines. At the same time, the coarser particles may migrate into the emptier
voids. This explains the tendency observed by some plants of low 325 mesh
coupled with high blaines when a mill is under fed severely.

Figure 3A.5.2a

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

As the amount of material is increased the collision spaces between the

balls are filled and higher rates of breakage are obtained. When all the effective
spaces in which collisions between tumbling balls are occurring are filled with
powder the rates of breakage reach a maximum. Further increases in material
does not give increased breakage as the collision zones are already saturated.
The excess powder simply reservoirs inside the charge. A plateau of almost
constant breakage occurs, between 60% and 110% of the calculated void volume.
(U = 0.6-1.1).
Overfilling the charge expands the load and the collisions become
cushioned, reducing breakage rates, (figure 3A.5.2b). Of course, mill bypass
occurs at ratios above 1.1.
It is clear that an optimum is found between 60% and 110% of the ball
charge voids. The lower end of the optimum should be avoided as the low
material filling results in increased ball-to-ball contact and the resulting higher
ball wear. Therefore mills are usually run at the higher end of the range,
between 90% and 110% of the voidage. This is evidenced in a crash-stopped mill
by material at, slightly above (2-3"), or slightly below the ball level.
Figure 3A.5.2b

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

Steel to Clinker Ratio

Although the idea of material filling ratio is easy to understand it is
extremely impractical to measure. Instead it is easier to calculate the steel to
clinker ratio (sometimes called C/M ratio, for ball charge / material weight). The
ratio is the total grinding media weight divided by the total material load weight
at any instant in time. Material load is calculated by:

Material Load = Feed Rate X X

(where feed rate is in tph and retention time is in minutes)

Steel to clinker ratio of 8 roughly corresponds to material filling ratios of 1.1 and
a steel to clinker ratio of 12 corresponds to a filling ratio of 0.6. Bypass occurs
when the steel to clinker ratio is less than 7 and the mill is badly underfed with
steel to clinker ratios greater than 12. The problems with using the steel to
clinker ratio are:
a) poor accuracy - test is subject to big errors.

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

b) it's an average - it can't tell you if you've got a problem in one or the other
compartment, or both.

3A.5.3 Discharge Grate

(See also Internal Ball Mill Parts - Partitions)
The discharge grate acts as a drain and function in the same way as a fully
liftered double wall partition. In general, it is not a limiting factor in the flow of
material. This can be observed in the mill after a shutdown. It can be seen that
the level of material does not drop near the discharge grate of the mill, although
it does drop near the mill partition (if it's a conventional type).
The drain effect of the partition can be felt in the first compartment
because big balls offer little resistance to flow. However, the drain effect of the
discharge grate is hardly felt in the second compartment because the balls offer
the dominant resistance to flow. The limiting factor is the permeability of the
ball charge and not the slot area of the discharge grate. However it is of vital
importance to a partition.
It has been observed in plants that a mill can operate perfectly with three
quarters of the discharge grate plugged. If plugging of the slots progressively
continue, the mill will suddenly fill up completely. When this happens, the slots
are found usually 99% closed. To minimize this, we should always ensure that
the slot sizes in the discharge grates are slightly larger than the partition slots.
This will pass the chips through - to be recycled in the first compartment.

3A.6 Effect of Clinker Material Variations

3A.6.1 Coarse and Fine Clinker
It is accepted that coarse clinker is in many cases easier to grind than fine
clinker. Yet, when clinker from the same kiln system is screened into coarse and
fine fractions, lab testing is unable to determine significant differences in terms of
energy requirements at high fineness (see also clinker grindability). On the other
hand, some plants can tell when their clinker breaker has worn out. The
oversized clinker causes the mill to choke and lose production.
In general, a mill system is set up to accept clinker of a certain size (or
PSD) and if it receives anything different, then production rates are usually
affected.

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

Clinker segregation is another well known situation which is a result of

poor stockpiling practices (end piles especially) and poor bin design and bin
filling practices. If segregation is occurring, the mill feed can swing from coarse
to fine and back again. When the mill is receiving clinker that's too coarse,
retention in the first compartment rises (and sometimes backspills) and the
second empties and starts to over grind. If the clinker becomes too fine then it
flushes through immediately to the second compartment and overwhelms it.
Mill outlet fineness suddenly drops and the circulating load jumps up rapidly.
Some spectacular mill cycles have resulted from clinker segregation problems.

3A.6.2 SO3 Effects

The clinker SO3 content has been recognized as having an impact on
grindability. Higher SO3 in clinker results in a reduction in grindability and
increases specific power consumption per ton. Also, increasing SO 3 (above
optimum) content in clinker results in a decline of the 28 day cube strengths at a
constant Blaine. It is important to watch for this as a lot of plants switch to
higher sulfur (and cheaper) fuels.

3A.6.3 Weathered or Stored Clinker vs. Fresh Clinker

It has not been proven conclusively that the grindability of weathered or
stored clinker is significantly different than that of fresh clinker. The greater
impact seems to be from the condition of the weathered or stored clinker (i.e. wet
or dry, fine or lumpy, warm or cold, etc.) and its effect on the mill system.
For instance, if the clinker is wet, the production rate will drop if the mill
system cannot accept additional or replacement moisture. If the clinker is stored
outdoors, it may be very fine as a result of it being passed over many times with
a bulldozer; or it may be chunky from hydration effects, or a combination of the
two. In this case, the first compartment ball charge may not be capable of
accepting a feed size which varies greatly from that of fresh clinker without a
corresponding loss of production. On the other hand, a comparatively large
amount of fines have been known to result in a production rate increase. As a
rule with weathered clinker, it is necessary to increase blaine to maintain
strengths and this will cause a plant to lose production. This also depends on the
addition rate.

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

In summary, the mill system limitations have more impact on production

rates relating to weathered or stored clinker versus fresh clinker than does the
grindability of the clinker itself.

3A.6.4 Clinker Grindability and Burning

Most grinding tests (and there are many) try to measure mill motor energy
required per ton to get to a certain blaine, (kWh/mt). In Lafarge we use the BB10
test. The higher the value the harder to grind it is. Since our motor sizes are
fixed, this means production falls.
With the increasing use of clinker microscopy techniques, we are
beginning to understand what affects grindability. To date research indicates
that grinding energy for up to 3,000 blaine rises with:

1) increasing alite crystal size

2) increasing C2S content
3) fewer number of pores

Item [2] relates to raw mix chemistry. Items [1] & [3] relates to overburning.
Large alites means over burnt clinker thus it's harder to grind. Clinker with a lot
of pores are easier to crush. Some (not all) plants can monitor their grindability
by watch the clinker literweights. As it rises, the clinker becomes over burnt;
sometimes balls up into bigger pieces; and sometimes it gets very dense (no
pores). Good literweights are usually between 1250 and 1350. Watch out if gets
above 1400. Note that some plants make a very fine yet seemingly hard to grind
clinker. The researchers have observed that a high proportion of big alite crystals
can be found in the fine sizes, in these cases.
On the other hand for fine grinding (> 3,000 blaine), the main factors
become:
1) alite size, as before
2) C2S content , as before
3) grinding aid

As the cement particle gets smaller the pores disappear and no longer become a
factor. Increasing the amount of grinding aid will make the cement easier to
grind.

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

3A.7 Grinding Aids

In a ball mill, there are many factors that will affect the grinding efficiency,
some of which are undersized balls, oversized balls, insufficient ball charge,
improper mill speed and ball coating. Let us assume that the ball size and
quantity and mill speed are properly set to produce the maximum quantity of
feed at the desired fineness. This leaves us with the problem of ball coating.
The present theory concerning ball coating is that as the particles of feed
shatter under the impact of the ball charge, the surface equilibrium becomes
unbalanced. This unbalanced condition causes an attraction between the
individual particles of feed and between the feed particles and balls resulting in
ball and liner coating, material agglomeration in the mill and "pack set". Ball and
liner coating cushions the impact of balls, and in severe cases can affect lift.
Material agglomeration affects grinding as well as separation and classification.
Pack set is that condition where bulk cement, after being compacted by
vibration, requires considerable mechanical effort to start initial flow. Actually,
pack set bears much the same relationship with cement flowability, as starting
friction bears to moving friction. Pack set, like starting friction, requires more
force to start material flow than that required to keep the material flowing. Pack
set has become a serious problem in recent years because of the cement
industry's use of large diameter mills which causes a higher material surface
unbalance and the increased transportation of cement in bulk quantities.
The addition of a grinding aid in the mill causes dispersion of the ground
material; i.e. it spreads the feed particles farther apart, thus exposing more
surface area to the grinding media, resulting in increased production. The
grinding aid adheres to the individual particles, thereby restoring the particles to
a balances state, thus reducing agglomeration, ball coating and pack set. With
currently available grinding aids in North America, production increases 10 to
15% as compared with mills using no grinding aid. A new generation of
grinding aids are currently being tested which appear to be able to increase
production by an additional 10 to 15%. Experiments at Woodstock showed the
following results:

No Grinding Aid 59.5 mtph

HEA2 65 mtph

3A -
 A: Ball Mill Fundamentals

Chryso ADM-1 72.9 mtph

The quantity of grinding aid used in a particular mill is dependent on the

size of the mill, feed size, product size, type of clinker being ground, etc. For
instance, in large diameter ball mills, the impact force of the grinding media is so
great, that a high material surface unbalance prevails in the mill when grinding
all types of clinker, thus requiring a grinding aid at all times. The higher the
fineness, the more grinding aid that must be used to restore the feed particles to a
balances state. Normally, grinding aids are added in a 15% concentrated
solution (1:7 grinding aid to water - helps the dispersal of grinding aid in mill), at
approximately 2-2.5 Lb./Ton for medium fineness and 3-4 Lb./Ton for high
fineness cement. (Check with your supplier).
One drawback in mill operation, with the addition of grinding aids, is the
occurrence of flushing in the mill. Due to the dry dispersing action of the
grinding aid, the fluidity of the dry material being ground may be greatly
increased, causing the material to flush rapidly through the mill. Normally this
sort of problem is related how the grinding aid is injected and/or that there is a
metering problem (i.e.. flushes of grinding aid). Usually too much grinding aid
can't hurt, except for cost and leaky liner bolts.
Some experimentation is required to determine whose grinding aid to use
and how much.

3A -
3B: Grinding Media
3B.1 Ball Types and Wear Rates
There are two major types of grinding media (balls) used in North
America. Generically they are called "forged steel" and "high chrome". To clarify
some metallurgical terms you should know about:
Steel: Iron based with alloying elements, but has a carbon content of less
than 1% (usually)
Cast Iron: The difference between steel and cast iron is that the carbon content
is greater than 2%
Rc Hardness: One of many hardness tests, this is very common in North
America. Stands for Rockwell C test. The hardest know steel
reaches 65 Rc.
Martensite: It a name for a steel's microstructure. It's the hardest (and most
brittle) form of steel and is made by rapid quenching (with the right
alloys present).
Austenite: Another steel microstructure. It means that all of the alloying
elements exist homogeneously (stays mixed). None of them have
precipitated out in another form. Common in 300 series stainless
steels.
Grain Size: For abrasion resistance the best kind is a fine grain size metal. The
larger grains almost always do not perform as well. Fine grains can
be achieved by heat treating then rapid cooling.

Forged Steel Media

The least expensive type of balls are high carbon steel forgings, usually
called forged steel balls. The hot forging gives fine grains and eliminates flaws
like bubbles found in casting. They tend to be more uniformly made (except in
large Ø's). The high carbon steel through forging and heat treating is
transformed into martensite, to get the highest possible hardness. 1"Ø balls have
average through hardness of 60 to 64 Rc. However with large diameter balls,
rapid cooling to get martensite in the center is difficult to do. Thus the centers
tend to be soft. Usually this is only a problem with 3"Ø and greater. Be careful if
you are in the habit of sorting and recycling your forged steel balls. For example,
on a 3"Ø ball, you can be down to the soft center when that ball is 2" - 1.5"Ø. The
softer balls will deform and reduce grinding efficiency.

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

The mill liners are usually slightly softer than the grinding media, so they
do not crack from constant impact, Rc of 50 - 58. As a rule of thumb, the center
hardness should be greater than your liner hardness.

WARNING: suppliers make forged steel balls for SAG mills in mining which are
very large diameter. In this case, they make a soft center ball on purpose, to
make the ball less brittle so it doesn't split. This type is not recommended, unless
you have a large diameter mill. If you're not sure then consult with the supplier -
they can tell you (almost all of our mills are not in what they consider to be the
large diameter class). If you don't specify the type of forged balls, the supplier
may send you some "high impact" media with soft centers since they're more
likely to stock this grade.

Forged steel media is generally economical in wet slurry mills, or where the
material is extremely hard such as pure quartz sand or soft coals.

High Chrome Media

The other type found in most cement finish mills are the high chrome
white iron castings, normally referred to as cast or high chrome balls. This is the
most predominant type in clinker grinding. Foundries start with a white cast
iron base and add 10% to 25% chrome to it. Through heat treatment, part of the
carbon combines with the chrome to make chromium carbide grains which are
extremely hard and excellent for abrasion resistance. The surrounding metal
becomes a high carbon steel. Properly treated it will become martensite.
Again large Ø cast balls will have the same soft center problem because
it's much more difficult to make martensite here. This is somewhat off set by the
carbide grains present. If the treatment was done too slowly then the grains
sizes, carbides in particular will be very large. In these circumstances, the metal
immediately surrounding carbide is devoid of carbon and it becomes a milder
steel. Balls can deform or become pitted. In slurry mills wear is accelerated by
corrosion. All high chrome media are not corrosion resistant. To get it corrosion
resistant, the chrome has to be in austenite form ( like austenitic stainless steel),
not as a carbide.
Also supplier will provide different grades of chrome media. Magotteaux,
for example, markets two types: Maxichrome and Hardalloy. The former has a

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

higher chrome content, which makes more carbide, but softens the surrounding
steel. Average hardness is about 60 Rc. This grade is sold for first compartment
balls where there's more cataracting taking place. The slightly softer metal,
keeps it from splitting but the extra carbide makes up for the wear. The latter has
less chrome, but average hardness is 64 Rc, which is ideal for second
compartment attrition effects.

Ball Wear Rates

The ball volume load can change because of the ball wear. Wear is due to
abrasion, which results from contact between the ball and the mill feed, between
the ball and the liners, and between the ball and other balls. Abrasion depends
upon such factors as the amount of mill feed, mill speed and diameter, the
material characteristics, the ball size, and chiefly the ball metallurgy.
In general, cast balls last longer than forged balls in cement grinding.
Typical figures are as follows:
High Wear Resistant Balls:.07 - .15 kg/MT of Cement
(Cast) .14 - .3 Lbs/Ton
Ordinary Balls: .2 - .4 kg/MT of Cement
(Forged) .4 - .8 Lbs/Ton

However recent studies and plant experiences suggest that for very
abrasive materials (more commonly experienced in the mining industry) there
will be a smaller to no difference in wear rates between the two types. Wear
rates will vary from plant to plant and given the traditionally higher cost of
chrome media, some experimenting is recommended before switching from one
type to another.
In general, it is not good practice to mix forged and cast balls, or to mix
balls of differing metallurgy. Harder balls will cause softer balls to wear more
rapidly than is usually expected and causes the overall charge gradation to
deteriorate.
Ball destruction, that is, deformation, splitting, or spalling, can occur as a
result of a number of factors. Most ball problems occur as a result of metallurgy
and/or heat treating problems. If you suspect this there are numerous
independent labs that can test ball samples.

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

Ball splitting is normally the result of a ball hardness problem or from

problems with the forgings or castings, such as voids inside the ball; or
improperly heat treated to relieve internal stresses. Most hardness related
splitting is a result of balls being too hard, especially if the smaller balls in a
compartment are harder than the large balls. Then, the smaller balls will tend to
split.
Ball deformation is usually a result of too soft of a metallurgical
composition; or a heat treatment problem; or you've worn it down to a soft
center. Spalling is most often a problem associated with the forging and casting
of balls, such as voids or remaining oxides in the metal. Interestingly, recent
studies show that minor ball deformation (i.e. the ball is slightly out of round)
does not affect grinding efficiencies. In other words researchers could not detect
a production difference when using a ball charge consisting of perfectly round
balls versus a charge with imperfections. However most plants do agree that
when balls become squared off, badly deformed; concaved; or double coned, it's
time to change the charge. (If there's an appreciable quantity of these, that's bad
news. They promote the rolling of balls instead of tumbling. More rolling can
lead to more deformed balls.)
In all cases, ball manufacturers should be able to help troubleshoot ball
problems and should stand ready to correct problems resulting from the ball
manufacturing process or metallurgy specification.

Ball (and Liner) Coating

In dry process grinding, ball and liner coating can occur in raw as well as
finish grinding. The coating softens or cushions impacts and cause the loss of
liner lift. Either way production rates can drop off. In one severe case, in the
second compartment, the coating had filled in valleys of the liner corrugation,
leaving it virtually smooth. It can also lead to slots being filled in with cake,
blocking airflow and material flow. Ball coating can be a result of the
following conditions:

1. Inadequate Grinding Aid.

2. Poor Mill Ventilation.
3. Mill Overheating.
4. Too Much Moisture Input.

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

5. Mill Overloading.

Adequate ventilation will help alleviate persistent problems. Mill

ventilation can serve two purposes to reduce ball coating in mill temperature
problem situations. It can take heat away from the mill as it is created by the
grinding, and it can take water vapor away from introduction with the material
or from water sprays which provide additional cooling.

3B.2 Ball Charge Design Objectives and Considerations

The matching of grinding media size to particle sizes in the correct
location to obtain the most efficient grinding is what ball charge design is all
about. In the view of many it seems to be more art that science, although this
seems to be changing. However the design can profoundly affect production
rates and quality significantly and should not be taken lightly. It will require, in
all cases, a lot of follow-up, patience and detailed record keeping to find the
correct design.
In general, the ball charge design must produce the maximum output of
different types of optimum quality cement from the mill department. Of course
different types of cement must be considered, and the charge should be adjusted
to the type most used.

To do this (in no particular order):

A) Match the charge to the material particle size. This is a well-known
theory, but difficult to achieve in practice.
B) Adjust the mill charge porosity, or permeability, to the amount of
circulating load and throughput chosen to be the best. In other words, the type
of separator and the type of partition has to be taken into account.
C) Adjust the level of charge, or volume loading, thought to be most
effective.
Of where possible, the design should try to minimize the risk of metal to
metal contact and thereby the wear rate of components.

3B.2.1 Matching Ball Sizes

The specific breakage rate is defined as the rate at which a given particle
size range disappears from the mill, by being reduced to smaller sizes. This

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

breakage rate is optimized at a certain size particle depending on the ball size,
material characteristics, mill diameter, mill RPM and lining design. As we as
plant operators don't change mill geometry, speed or material characteristics, we
are left with ball size selection and lining types.
Researchers, like J. P. Bombled, have performed testing on a specific
clinker to find the optimum ball size based on the size of the clinker particles
present to be ground at a particular spot in the mill. His laboratory results are
summarized as follows:

What this data says is that for a given size of material to be ground there is
an optimum ball size for a given material and mill characteristics. This ball size
decreases with the particle sizes to be ground.
The reasons for the optimum are as follows. If the balls are too small then
they don't have the inertia to properly nip the material and break it. For
example; grits (or spitzers) in the second compartment, the cascading small balls
don't hit with enough force to fracture the grains so they are worn smooth at a
slow rate and retained in the mill, causing material transport problems.
If the balls are bigger than the optimum for the feed size then the lower
number of contact (nip) points reduces the specific breakage rate. Note that if a
particle size is smaller than either the optimum for both the smaller or larger ball

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

the specific breakage rate of the smaller ball is superior, this is why finer balls in
the second compartment work well.
All balls must be bigger than the optimum, (for example, according to
Bombled, a 1/4" ball would optimum for 45 µm particles. As these balls wouldn't
stay in the mill, this size is obviously impractical.) Generally, the inefficiency of a
small ball isn't as bad as a larger one on that size particle.

For us to match ball size to particle size, we used multi-compartmented

mills and/or classifying liners. Today with closed loop systems, we've found that
a minimum of two is all that's needed. Unfortunately making each compartment
the right size remains mostly art than science. Classifying liners work in the
right circumstances, but not all mills have then yet simply because it take 10 to 15
years (or longer) to replace 2nd compartment liners.

Therefore we design ball charges, trying to match size to size and taking
into account the good and bad aspects of the mill and circuit as it's designed.

3B.2.2 Adjusting Ball Charge Porosity

(Taking separators and partitions into account)
When we consider what sort of ball charge porosity is needed, we need to
know what sort of mill throughput and separator circulating loads do we want to
work with. The general topic of optimum circulating loads and separators are
well covered in section "Separators Circulating Loads" & "Separator Efficiency".
So how do we measure porosity so we can design correctly?

Measuring Media Porosity

Europeans have used simple calculation as an index to relate a given ball
charge's porosity. It's called the average ball weight. One simply calculates the
total weight of balls in a given compartment and divide by the total number of
balls. This is a useful index in designing ball charges because one can clearly see
the changes in porosity at the same time one changes the average crushing force;
to ensure that the ball charge is not too porous or too restrictive.

WARNING: Average ball weights can be calculated using suppliers data or by

sampling. However values can vary. If you are calculating and comparing

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

average ball weights be sure that you are using the same data otherwise you will
get misleading results. All average ball weights given in the handbook are
calculated using the following table:

Diameter mm # of Balls /mt Diameter inches # of Balls /mt

90 334 3.5 350
80 474 3.0 570
70 709 2.5 990
60 1125 2.0 1920
50 1946
(it can be expressed as lbs/ball as well)

In North America, average ball weights for the first compartment varies
considerably from 1.3 kg/ball to 1.7 kg/ball, (with a few exceptions) and averages
at about 1.5 kg/ball. In general, plants with soft clinkers use a smaller average
ball weight and plants with harder clinkers use a larger one. Ciment Lafarge
says that mills with adjustable partitions can use a coarser first compt. ball
charge and their average ball weights vary between 1.85 and 2.3 kg/ball.
Moreover recognize that reducing the average ball weight tightens the ball
charge and increases the mill's tendency to overfill and backspill. For example
one plant had a 1st compt. avg. ball weight of 1.31 kg/ball and increased it
progressively to 1.58 kg/ball to reduce backspillage.
However to be technically correct we had said earlier that flow resistance
in the mill is due to the total steel surface area, including the ball charge. The
concept of average ball weight is easy to understand appropriate in the first
compartment where we are more concerned with the ability to crush. In the fine
grinding second compartment, the surface area is more important to know.
Recognize that for the same average ball weight one can have slightly different
steel areas. Therefore, in terms of permeability and grinding rate in the second
compartment, it is better to use the avg. area per ton of ball mixture, (m2/mt mix
or ft2/st mix). No average Lafarge Corp. values will be shown since there's such
a wide range of different mill circuit designs used.

Taking the Partition into Account

Mills with Simple Intermediate Partitions without Lifters

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

In this case, the charge porosity is the only corrective action possible to
adjust the material level in the whole mill and the mill throughput. Therefore the
right porosity is critical in mills with this type of partition.

Mills with Intermediate Double Partitions Equipped with Lifters

Non-adjustable liftered partitions tend to over pump from first to second
compartment. GREAT CARE must be taken if you choose to tighten the porosity
in the first compartment to increase retention in the first compartment. The
tighter you make it, the greater the risk of backspillage if the material suddenly
becomes hard to grind. However there are plants that do this very successfully.
On the other hand, the second compartment may have to be coarser since
it always too full. If the charge is too fine, then the plant runs the risk of mill
bypass. The coarser ball charge will be able to absorb the extra material.
For mills with adjustable partitions, the most effective means of
controlling the level of the material is the partition itself. The permeability of the
charge in the first compartment is not the essential criteria for the determination
of the ball charge, in this case. However your charge design should reflect the
ability to control flow by other means. The wrong design can negate any
possible benefit of having an adjustable partition.

3B.2.3 Ball Volume Loading

A basic question asked is, "what is the optimum ball loading?" There are
two answers to this. One is related to maximum production from a mill and the
other to minimize kWh/t.

Maximum Production
The maximum production of a mill will occur at up to 40% volume loading,
depending on the given mill's drive power, trunnion design and partition design.
This is shown on the following graph from Austin's Process Engineering...Ball
Milling.

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

This graph shows that maximum production occurred at 40% volume

load. However, production fell only slightly on either side of the optimum. At
35% and 45% volume load production fell only 1.5%, therefore since we know
that at 35% the mill would draw significantly less power this would improve the
kWh/ ton. Many older American designed mills were designed for 40%
maximum volume loading. European makers were more conservative and built
them for 30 to 35% maximum volume loading.

Minimum Grinding Energy (kWh/t)

In general, the specific grinding energy is the worst (highest) at around
40% volume load. On the other hand, the specific grinding energy is lowest in
the 25% volume load range.
In a review of 11 mills (Energy Input for Cement Grinding, von H.-G.
Ellerbrock and B. Schiller, Dusseldorf, ZKG - Nr. 2/1988) the authors showed the
following results. They used kWh/t of mill throughput as a bench mark given
that they were grinding to a mill exit of 1800 cm 2/g. All mills were running at
55% to 75% of critical speed.

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

Here this research indicates that for optimal specific grinding energy, a volume
loading of 26% should be used.
However, there are other considerations one must take into account.
Firstly, liner wear is accelerated at low volume loads. Secondly, the capital costs
are increased because for a given mill power a larger (longer) mill will be used to
produce the same output. To build mills running at 20-25% volume loads would
mean very large mills for the power they consume and the cement they produce.
In a given mill system the production will drop if the volume load is reduced.

Conclusions
Therefore if power is cheap, as it has been, up until recently in the North
America, then a small, low cost mill with high volume loads is traditionally used
to obtain maximum production, but at poor specific grinding energies. In
Europe, where power is expensive, the mills are larger, higher cost units running
with reduced volume loads and better specific power consumptions.
The conclusion is that a mill should be run with the minimum charge
(over 26%) that will allow production targets to be met, if power costs are a
factor. At reduced capacity due to market down turns, some plants have taken
advantage of this. If maximum production is the target, load the mill to the

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

maximum allowable (below 40%) by power available and trunnion and partition
designs.

Rules of Thumb for Volume Loading

In Europe experience indicates that the best volume loading for cement mills is:
• 1st compartment : 30 to 35%
• 2nd compartment: 28 to 32%.
Other recommendations:
Slegten: 34%
Fuller: 40% (only if the mill allows)

A mill compartment can be overfilled if the primary need is mill

production rate. The upper limits then are the maximum absorbed power
allowed by the drive, and the maximum level of the grinding charge with respect
to the trunnions and to the central partition vent opening. The lower limit is
determined by the amount of wear on the balls and liners for a given level of
grinding charge.

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

3B.3 First Compartment Ball Charge Design

The General Objectives
The sizing of the grinding charge in the first compartment is determined by three
constraints:
• The highest crushing force needed which corresponds to the number of
large balls 3.25 to 3.5" Ø (80 to 90 mm) required.
• A charge porosity such that the level of material is equal to that of the
grinding charge.
• The sizing is an “equilibrium charge”, that is a charge where the porosity
is little changed during the life of the balls, providing that the largest size
balls are added as needed (90 mm, 3 1/2 in).

3B.3.1 Choosing the Largest Ball in the First Compt.

The vast majority of cement plants in North America use 3.5" diameter
balls as the largest ball in cement finish mills. Plants who regularly deal with
lumps, very hard or oversized feed materials, might use 4" diameter balls. On
the other hand, plants which grind screened clinkers or very fine clinkers might
find themselves grinding with 3" maximum ball sizes.
Care must be taken if you choose to use a 4"Ø ball because they are
thrown farther in the mill. If it misses the load and hits the liner it could crack
the liner or the balls.

3B.3.2 Choosing the Smallest Ball in the First Compt.

-With adjustable diaphragm partition
In this case, the level of the material with respect to the ball level is adjustable
by the partition. The balls in the first compartment can be very large. The
smallest ball will usually be 2 .75 in. (70 mm).
- With Non-Adjustable Diaphragm Partitions
The impossibility of controlling the level of the material requires a fine, yet
permeable charge. The smallest ball then, is usually 2-3/8 in. (60 mm), and
even 2 in. (50 mm). However great care must be used if 2" balls are to be
added to a charge, in that permeability and even the effectiveness of the 3.5'Ø
size can be adversely affected.

3B.3.3 How Much of Each Size?

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

Table A: Typical Design Except in unusual cases, most

3.5" diameter45% by weight plants in North America use 3 sizes:
3.0" 30% 3.5". 3.0", 2.5" diameters, (in Europe
2.5" 25% balls come in 10 mm increments and
average ball weight = 1.74 kg/ball can have more sizes within the same
range). According to Slegten most
(It's linear if you plot size vs. #of balls in
100 mt mix, Fuller still recommends this plants in North America still use a
as the starting design.) linear charge design such as shown in
Table A.
However most plants within
Lafarge (especially Europe), through years of trial and error are moving away
from this design and are moving closer to an "equilibrium" ball charge design.

Equilibrium Ball Charge Design

Developed for the mining industry, this charge design works very well in
mills, grinding extremely abrasive materials. It is possible to design the charge
such that the charge will maintain the exact same size distribution, permeability
and surface area as the balls wear down from maximum to minimum (almost
nothing) and provided one tops up the ball charge regularly with just the largest
size. Such a design works very well where wear rates are extremely high and if
the mill has only one chamber. It minimizes the need to dump, screen and sort
the ball charge. However in the cement industry most mills are partitioned due
to the very different grinding actions required and thus equilibrium charge
formulas (if used) are usually applied to just the first compartment.
Consequently such first compartment designs for cement mills are never true
equilibrium charges. It might be better
if we were to call them "truncated"
Table B: Example of a
equilibrium ball charge designs. An
truncated equilibrium design
example is shown in Table B.
3.5" Diameter 28.7% by weight
However equilibrium charges
3.0" 43.7%
are difficult to calculate. Instead
2.5" 27.6%
Ciment Lafarge uses a simple method
average ball weight = 1.6 kg/ball
(promoted by Slegten will give a
similar result): Determine the amount
3.5" needed to crush, then keep the total number (not the % weight) of balls in

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

Table C: each of the remaining sizes the

Comparison of Starting 1st Compt. Designs: same. This approximates an
3.5" 3.0" 2.5" equilibrium charge for the
Traditional 45% 30% 25% larger sizes. This method is
Lafarge 39.5% 38.4% 22.1% used to determine the starting
ball charge design but then it is
average ball weight = 1.74 kg/ball adjusted (over the years) to
(both) optimize performance.
(Equations are available in
Volume 3, that follows these rules and calculates your ball charge based on a
specified average ball weight. Or use Table D.)

Discussion: Which is Better?

If we held the average ball weight the same we can then compare the traditional
design vs. the method Lafarge prefers, (see Table C).
From the comparison there are a couple of observations we can make:
a) The traditional design gives a coarse design (1.74 vs. 1.5 Lafarge North
American average, kg/ball). Given the large percentage of 3.5" balls it was
designed probably to ensure good crushing and no backspillage. Unless the
plant has very hard feed materials the traditional design will likely "over"
succeed and will wear balls faster (from too much steel to steel contact and
higher impact energy) and show very little grinding for it.

b) The traditional design also has much more 2.5" diameter balls than the
Lafarge design. Therefore one can expect the traditional design to choke itself off
faster as the balls wear. This may be one of the reasons why the traditional
design is coarser to begin with.

c) The Lafarge design will likely give a longer useful charge life and a more
effective and uniform grinding performance over that life.

Here are some starting designs using the method preferred by Lafarge.
Table D: 1st Compt Starting Ball Charge Designs
(%'s are by weight)
Avg. Ball Wt. 3.5" 3.0" 2.5"

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

1.75 kg/ball 40.71% 37.63% 21.66%

1.70 36.21% 40.48% 23.31%
1.65 31.44% 43.51% 25.05%
1.60 26.36% 46.73% 26.91%
1.55 20.97% 50.16% 28.88%
1.50 15.21% 53.81% 30.98%
1.45 9.05% 57.72% 33.23%
Caution: the designs listed in Table D are not optimum designs. Trial and error
modifications will be required to determine which combination of porosity and
crushing force works best. Don't forget to take into account the partition and
your separator.

3B.4 Second Compartment Ball Charge Design

3B.4.1 Choosing the Largest Ball in the Second Compartment
-With Classifying Liners
Using classifying liners allows the use of large (2.5"Ø to 2.25"Ø) and small
(5/8"Ø) balls in the same compartment. The size of the largest ball depends on
the amount of crushing work done by the charge in the first compartment. When
the first compartment and partition is working correctly, there are not many
large particles entering the second compartment. If you do a mill granulometry,
you should find less than 5% retained on a 8 mesh sieve, (2.36 mm or 0.094 in.),
leaving the first compartment. Such a mill will not need balls over 2"Ø (50 mm)
in the second compartment. If there are more than 5% retained on 8 mesh, it will
need balls up to 2.5" diameter.
-With Non-Classifying Liners
Here, the grinding efficiency and the manufacturing technology for the
balls do not allow one to use a large variety of ball sizes. Usually, the range in Ø,
(from largest to smallest) should not exceed 0.75 inches (~20 mm). One must
make a compromise then, between using very large Ø's or very small Ø's in the
second compartment. Your choice must take into account the effect of porosity
will have on throughput and the separator.
If you work with too many sizes in such a compartment, then you'll
experience reverse or double reverse classification and a drop in production. It is
better to work with a fairly flat gradation of ball sizes.

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

3B.4.2 Choosing the Smallest Balls in the Second Compartment

The choice of the smallest ball (or other grinding body such as cylpebs),
strongly influences the porosity of the charge. Your choice depends on whether
your circuit needs a “fine and impermeable” charge, or a “coarse and permeable”
charge. Often practical considerations such as wear rates; longest useful life
before sorting; minimal risk of plugging slots; are just as important as optimum
grinding.

Experience clearly points in the following directions:

1) Open Circuit Finish Mill (Europe mainly)
The requirement to greatly reduce the rejects on 100 µm in the product requires
15 to 17 mm (9/16 to 11/16 in) Ø range.
2) Closed Circuit Finish Mill
The basic rules are:
[2.1] With separate cyclone separators (ZUB-WEDAG...) or high
efficiency separators (O'SEPA...), smallest recommended is 5/8 inch Ø,
(17 mm), balls.
[2.2] With first generation separators (TURBO or STURTEVANT),
smallest recommended is: 3/4 inch, (20 mm), Ø balls.
Rules [2.1] and [2.2] can be modified to a different size if:
(M1) the mill product shows a strong tendency to agglomerate (coating):
use 1 inch Ø, (25 mm), balls.
(M2) the mill is poorly ventilated with an air speed above the load less
than 0.5 m/s (100 fpm): the smallest ball will be greater in diameter. Use a
0.75 inch Ø, (20 mm), balls with a cyclone or high efficiency separator, or
1 inch Ø, (25 mm), with a Raymond or Sturtevant.
(M3) the mill is very well ventilated, usually by a static separator, at 1.1
m/s (215 fpm): the smallest ball can be 5/8 inch Ø, (17 mm), with a first
generation separator.
(M4) you have slurry mills that experiences very high wear rates, use 1.5"
to 1.25" Ø balls. as the smallest size.

These are rules of thumbs based on the collective experience of many plants.

3B.4.3 Ball Charge Size Distribution in the Second Compartment

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

- With Non- Classifying Liners

Again the distribution has to be fairly flat to avoid reverse or
double reverse classification. Mills equipped with non-classifying liners
are becoming rare. An example of the ball sizing is as follows:

1.5" Ø = 8% by weight
1.25" Ø = 32%
1.0" Ø = 35%
0.75" Ø = 25%

- With Classifying Liners

In general, there are two design models used by Lafarge; Polysius and
Slegten. Equations and rules to follow will generate a design curve; ball size
versus "effective" mill length. On these graphs a % of the mill (or compartment)
length is made proportional to the weight % of balls. Connecting the midpoints
gives us the curves shown in figure 3B.4. The idea is based on the experience
that as particles get smaller and smaller, they get to be harder and harder to
grind. Numerous studies, grindability tests etc. prove this. Thus as the particle
travels down the mill's length we need to first match ball size to particle size.
Second provide for enough of that size to ensure that the grinding rate remains
about the same - everywhere. For example, let's say we didn't install enough 1"Ø
balls ahead of the 3/4" Ø's. Not all of the grits will get ground, which will then
accumulate in zone containing mainly 3/4" sizes. The accumulated grits won't
grind here and if left unchecked can lead to a host of problems. These curves
help to ensure that we properly proportion amount of balls needed to ensure
good grinding rates.

Figure 3B.4

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

Many references are made to these models when designing a ball charge. The
actual equations are tedious and laborious to calculate and therefore are not
discussed here, (see Volume 3). To recap, the sizing of the charge in the second
compartment is determined by:

• Crushing work left over from the first compartment.

• Sufficiently fine to be effective.
• Sufficiently dense to retain the material.
• Allows the separator to function correctly.
• Discourages agglomeration (coating).

The SLEGTEN design curve is more popular. It is better suited to lower

circulating loads and thus it can be greatly influenced by the rules for Smallest
Size Selection. The lower the efficiency of the separator, the larger, more
permeable the charge must be. In this case, sizing can best be modeled after
POLYSIUS. POLYSIUS appears better suited to monochamber raw mills with
high circulating loads. SLEGTEN favors low circulating loads with great
separators and 2 chambers.
EXAMPLE: Bath FB Mill 2nd Compt. (with O'SEPA)

2.5" diameter 7% by weight

2.0" 7%

3B -
 B: Grinding Media

1.5" 7%
1.25" 8%
1.0" 21%
0.75" 49%

(This design is plotted on the comparison graph as "Actual")

3B.5 Ball Sorting and Replacement

As a rule of thumb, this must be done at most:

- every 5,000 hours for the first compartment.

- every 10,000 hours for the second compartment.

Of course sorting frequency will vary somewhat with material ground,

market demand, budget constraints, etc. WORN BALL CHARGES ARE TOO
FINE. When it becomes too fine, through put goes down; production is lost (5% -
15%); and the tendency to backspill is significantly increased.
Detailed records and histories must be kept. Records will enable you to
better plan top-ups, replacements, and sorting frequency and stay within budget.

Ball Charge Addition

Things that indicate the need for adding balls:
a) Low motor power.
b) Low ball level (internal check of mill).
c) Increase in 100 µm rejects in the case of an open-circuit mill.
d) Reduced production
e) Greater tendency to backspill, plus one of the above.
NOTE: It has been shown that by topping up frequently in smaller amounts
extends the life of the ball charge longer than topping up in large amounts less
frequently. (E.G. Its better to do it every week or every other week than once
per month.)

3B -