Power-based Comminution Calculations Using

Ausgrind
Greg Lane1, Bianca Foggiatto2 & Marcos Bueno3*
1. Ausenco Services Ltd., Brisbane, Australia, Chief Technical Officer, +617 31697221,
greg.lane@ausenco.com
2. Technical Solutions, Ausenco Services Ltd., Brisbane, Australia, Graduate Process Engineer,
+617 31697465, bianca.foggiatto@ausenco.com
3. Technical Solutions, Ausenco Services Ltd., Brisbane, Australia, Process Engineer, +617
31697310, marcos.bueno@ausenco.com

ABSTRACT
Ausgrind is Ausenco’s in-house program used for power-based comminution calculations.
Proprietary calculations have been developed and reconciled with unit process operation and
benchmarked with plant performance.
Ore breakage data from characterisation and variability testwork, equipment geometry, flowsheet
configuration, efficiency factors and operating conditions are inputs. Ausgrind contains a database
of operating data and circuit types from many operations and over a wide range of ore types and
throughputs. These are referenced when developing flowsheets and circuit efficiency factors which
correct the specific energy required to grind from the nominated feed size to the specified product
size. As circuit efficiency factors are determined in Ausgrind, correction factors such as those listed
by Bond and Rowland are not employed.
The principal outputs are the total circuit specific energy and the specific energy for each of the
components in the comminution circuit. Ausgrind provides a valuable tool for evaluating
comminution options and optimising circuit and equipment configurations.
Comminution is a pivotal and critical component in most mineral processing operations for several
reasons: it liberates the valuable mineral rendering it amenable to subsequent processes; it
represents one of the highest capital cost investments for unit processes in the treatment plant; and
it contributes a significant component to operating cost due to its high energy requirements.
Therefore, determining the most cost-effective circuit and predicting the energy requirement for
each unit process to achieve the desired size reduction in the product stream from the comminution
circuit are critical tasks for circuit design.
This paper describes the Ausgrind approach for estimating power and design of comminution
circuits and compares its outcomes to other published approaches. Practical examples are also
presented, showing applications for different circuit configurations for comminution operations,
such as multi-stage crushing, SAG and ball mill-based circuits.

*Corresponding author: Ausenco Services Ltd., Process Engineer, 144 Montague Road, South Brisbane QLD
4101 Australia. Phone: +61 07 31697310. Email: marcos.bueno@ausenco.com

–1–
 1. Introduction

The progressive decrease in ore grades in the past decades has led the minerals industry to process
ore at higher rates to achieve the same metal production, driving significant increases in energy
consumption. Determining the most cost-effective circuit and predicting the energy requirement for
comminution circuits has become an even more critical task in concentrator design.
Von Rittinger (1867 apud Bond, 1961) and Kick (1885 apud Bond, 1961) proposed theoretical
comminution equations based on surface area and particle volume respectively, while Bond (1952)
suggested an empirical relationship that related the power requirement to the length of new cracks
formed. Bond’s equation was developed for the purpose of designing conventional crushing and
grinding circuits (crush-rod-ball mill or crush-ball mill). By the 1970s, the application of
conventional circuits tended to be limited to relatively low capacities. Since then, circuits featuring
autogenous (AG) and semi-autogenous (SAG) mills, often combined with ball mills, have
developed a prominent status in the minerals industry. Several methodologies have been
established for designing AG/SAG based grinding circuits and predicting their energy
requirements.
The most frequently used methodologies for calculating energy requirements of comminution
circuits including AG/SAG mills are briefly described in the following section. This paper focuses
on the description of the Ausgrind approach and also compares its outcomes to other published
approaches. Practical examples are presented, showing measured power draw and Ausgrind
predictions for different SAG and ball mill-based circuit configurations.

2. Existing Power-based Calculations for Comminution Circuits

Most modern grinding circuits consist of a primary SAG mill and secondary ball mill. Bond’s
method is widely used for determining the specific energy (Ecs) for crushers, rod mills and ball
mills, whilst for AG/SAG mills, several methodologies have been proposed over recent decades.
Bond’s approach consists of determining the ore characteristics via standardised laboratory
testwork, then calculating the Ecs and the power requirement based on throughput, and finally
sizing the industrial machine. Similar to Bond’s approach, most methodologies for sizing AG/SAG
mills involve bench scale testwork for determining Ecs and empirical equations for calculating mill
power and throughput. Some of those methodologies are briefly described as follows:
 MacPherson (1978) created a grinding test that was conducted in a continuous laboratory
mill in closed circuit with a classifier until steady state was achieved. At test completion,
size analyses were carried out and the Ecs computed using power draw and throughput
information. The test also provided insight into how the harder components built up in the
mill charge.
 Barratt and Allan (1986) proposed the utilisation of Bond comminution work indices and an
efficiency factor (fSAG) for determining the AG/SAG circuit Ecs. Using a pilot plant and
operating plant database, Barratt (1989) developed an empirical formula to determine the
power requirements for circuits including SAG and ball mills. The method required a
proposed F80 feed size to the SAG mill, the final grind size and an estimate of the transfer
size between the two mills. This methodology was incorporated into a computer-based
program for the sizing and selection of grinding circuits called GrindPower (Matthews and
Barratt, 1991).

–2–
  The JKMRC methodology is based on the use of the JKSimMet program (Napier-Munn et
al., 2005). The program includes comminution “black box” models that are calibrated with
equipment and survey data, as well as ore specific parameters such as the drop weight test
(JKDWT) “Axb” and the Bond ball mill work index. The SAG and ball mills power draw is
calculated using semi-empirical equations, as a function of mill geometry, speed and load.
 The SAG Power Index (SPI) test was developed by Starkey and Dobby (Starkey and Dobby,
1996) as the AG/SAG equivalent to the work index test. A SAG mill is operated in closed
circuit and the time required to grind the material to a P80 of 1.7 mm is used to predict
AG/SAG Ecs using power-based models available within CEET (Comminution Economic
Evaluation Tool).
 The SAGDesign test was developed by Starkey, Dawson Lab and Outotec to overcome
technical limitations of the SPI (Starkey et al, 2006). The SAGDesign test procedure adopted
a laboratory SAG mill operated in closed circuit. The ground material generated by the
SAG mill is used in a subsequent ball mill Bond-style work index test. By conducting these
two tests, the total grinding energy can be calculated.
 Morrell (2004) developed a methodology for predicting grinding circuit Ecs that used two
work indices: one related to a coarse range (stages prior to ball milling) and the other to a
fine range (conventional ball milling). The size selected as the threshold between coarse and
fine grinding was 0.75 mm. SMC test results are used to determine drop-weight indices
(DWi). The work index related to coarse grinding (Mia) is calculated from the data output
of the SMC test. The Bond ball mill work index test is used to calculate the work index
related to fine grinding (Mib). Mia and Mib are used to calculate Ecs for the coarse (Wa)
and fine (Wb) components according to the equations published by Morrell (2009). The sum
of Wa and Wb results in the total Ecs to reduce the crusher product to the ball mill product.
 Sidall and Putland (2007) published the OMC (Orway Mineral Consultants) method to
calculate grinding power requirement, based on laboratory tests that defined the high and
low energy breakage characteristics. High energy breakage tests such as the autogenous
media competency test (AMCT), JKDWT, SPI or SAGDesign test are twinned with a low
energy breakage test such as Bond ball work index. Standardize feed and product sizes are
used to calculate the overall energy requirements using Bond’s formula and a f SAG efficiency
factor. The OMC database is then used to select viable options of circuit configuration for
detailed analysis.
 Burgess (2012) developed the DBC (Don Burgess Consulting) methodology for calculating
grinding energy using Bond’s comminution theory, which is used to calculate the Ecs of
individual comminution ranges using breakage characterisation indexes obtained from
Bond’s crusher, rod and ball mill tests and the JKDWT. The parameters obtained from the
JKDWT are converted to grindability work indexes and AG/SAG Ecs is calculated and
corrected when variations occur to standard parameters such as specific gravity, Axb
values and mill aspect ratio.

3. AG/SAG Circuit Specific Energy (Ecs) and Efficiency Factors

The methods available for determining the Ecs requirements for AG/SAG based circuits rely on
combinations of ore breakage tests and Bond-style power based models. The JKMRC methodology
is the only commonly used method that uses a breakage/classification model with empirical factors.

–3–
The use of Bond work indices associated with other breakage tests has become a standard for
measuring ore hardness and establishing comminution energy requirements. Nevertheless, all these
methods rely on the use of efficiency factors to correct the comminution circuit energy
requirements. Ausgrind also uses the Bond work indices, along with JKDWT, SMC, SPI or
MacPherson index, as inputs for calculating the comminution circuit Ecs.
The empirical equations for determining the efficiency factor (fSAG) in Ausgrind calculations were
derived from Ausenco’s database (Bueno and Lane, 2011). The fSAG relationships are ore-dependent
and specific to the selected circuit configuration. They may also be adjusted when secondary
crushing or intensive blasting practices are in place (i.e. for finer circuit feed sizes, F80). Figure 1
shows the Ausgrind fSAG relationships for different circuit configurations and feed sizes. Likewise,
an fSAG relationship was calculated for Morrell’s method (2009) as the ratio between the total Ecs
using SMC results and Bond’s formula; and is plotted in Figure 1 for comparison. In contrast to
Ausgrind, the published methodology used by Morrell (2009) assumed the same circuit efficiency
(fSAG) for different circuit configurations, but also varied with ore hardness (DWi).

Figure 1. Ausgrind fSAG and efficiency improvement due to size reduction.

4. The Ausgrind Approach

Ausgrind is a method used by Ausenco for designing comminution circuits. It contains published
and in-house empirical formulae for calculating the specific energy of the equipment featured in
comminution circuits. The Ausenco approach is summarized in a block diagram shown in Figure 2,
and described in the following sections.

Figure 2. Ausenco methodology for comminution circuit design.

–4–
 4.1. Project Concept Definition

Determining the project concept is a fundamental activity that establishes the operating basis and
precedes all other tasks when designing a comminution circuit. Initial considerations to define the
project concept must contemplate the location of the orebody, nature of the ore (preliminary
characteristics), local environmental restrictions, product specifications as well as water availability
and energy costs. Based on such considerations, a conceptual processing route to obtain the plant
final product is established. Table 1 shows a matrix for preliminary circuit selection which is reflects
plant size (throughput) and ore competency relationships.
Table 1. Matrix for circuit selection based on throughput and competency.
(Updated from Lane et al., 2002)
Throughput High Competency Moderate Competency Low Competency
One or two stage crush to SAG or
<0.5 Mt/a Stage crush with ball mill Single stage SAG mill
ball mill
Stage crush with ball mill or Single stage SAG mill or
0.5 to 2 Mt/a SAG and ball mill
SAG and ball mill with pebble crush SAG and ball mill
SAG and ball mill or Single stage SAG mill or
1 to 5 Mt/a SAG and ball mill with pebble crush
AG and ball mill with pebble crush SAG and ball mill
SAG and ball mill or
5 to 10 Mt/a SAG and ball mill with pebble crush SAG and ball mill
AG and ball mill with pebble crush
SAG and ball mill with pebble crush or SAG and ball mill with pebble
>10 Mt/a SAG and ball mill
Stage crush, HPGR and ball mill crush
This matrix is used as an indication for circuit selection. However, it must be carefully adapted
when problematic ore types present in the deposit can influence the performance of specific stages
of the plant.

4.2. Sample Selection

Once the preliminary project concepts are defined, the next step is to establish the attributes of the
testwork program. The testwork program must include appropriate ore characterisation tests that
are chosen to describe the orebody breakage properties. A detailed evaluation of geology through
the inspection of drill cores and geological sections is required when defining the comminution
testwork program. These inspections allow identification of relationships between the variability of
ore competency/hardness and the lithologies, rock types and mineralisation.
The number and type of samples is dependent on the size and status of the project, project risk
profile, acceptable contingencies in defining equipment sizes, capital cost and operating cost.
Typically, the testwork program is divided into three phases. The first phase occurs during the
scoping and prefeasibility studies and samples are selected on the basis of major known rock types.
The second and third phases occur during the feasibility study. The second phase focusses on
variability analysis across the orebody where discrete samples are tested and compared with
geometallurgical indicators. Throughput and operating costs are forecasted more accurately with a
relatively higher amount of samples. For the third phase, samples are composited on the basis of
spatial representativity, mine period production, or hard wired ore typing. Table 2 shows the
recommended number of samples for the last phase of the testwork.

–5–
 Table 2. Required number of samples during feasibility studies.
Basis Number of samples Comments
spatial representativity >100 includes samples from Phase 1 and 2
mine period production 5 to 8 excludes samples from Phase 1 and 2
hard wired ore typing 10 to 30 includes samples from Phase 1 and 2

4.3. Breakage Characterisation Testwork

As described in the previous sections, several methods are available for testing breakage
characteristics. Ausgrind typically uses results from the following tests, depending on the circuit
configuration under evaluation: Bond tests (crushing - CWI, rod mill - RWI, ball mill - BWI), SMC
test and/or JKDWT.
The SMC test and the JKDWT directly yield values of DWi and Axb. The DWi is obtained from the
relationship between input energy (kWh/t), specific gravity and a size distribution index (t10)
obtained for the SMC test or JKDWT product. The DWi is directly related to the JKMRC rock
breakage parameters A and b. As the SMC test does not use particles greater than 31.5 mm, its
results can be biased when testing extremely competent ores (Axb values lower than 35). Therefore,
JKDWT data are typically used to calibrate the SMC results. If breakage characterisation testwork
was conducted using other methodologies such as the MacPherson’s autogenous milling test or SPI,
empirical formulae based on Ausenco’s database are used to correlate the outcomes with Ausgrind
model input parameters.

4.4. Comminution Circuit Energy

The Ausgrind program calculates the total Ecs for the grinding circuit as a product of the calculated
Bond Ecs and the energy efficiency factor (fSAG). The Bond Ecs is calculated using the CWi, RWi, and
BWi to determine the specify energy requirements of a crush-rod-ball mill circuit for a P80 of 150
microns as per the Bond formulae without any correction factors such as those listed by Bond,
Rowland and others. If the product size (P80) is different to 150 microns, the energy difference is
calculated as per the Bond relationship. The Ausgrind total Ecs calculation is described in the
equation below.
Total Ecs = [(Bond Ecs to 150µm) * (fSAG – F80eff)] ± [Bond Ecs to final P80]
The base case SAG mill Ecs is calculated as function of ore competency (in this case as measured by
the DWi), as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. SAG Ecs relationship with ore hardness (DWi).

–6–
A series of factors are then applied to adjust the base case SAG Ecs for the operating conditions,
mill dimensions (e.g. aspect ratio) and others. Some of these adjusting factors are shown in Figure 5
and the SAG Ecs calculation is described in the equation below.
SAG Ecs = [Base Case SAG Ecs] * [adjusting factors]

Figure 5. Adjusting factors to SAG Ecs.

The pebble crusher Ecs is calculated separately and vendor data is used for equipment selection.
The ball mill specific energy is calculated as the residual using the following equation:
Ball mill Ecs = Total grinding circuit Ecs – SAG mill Ecs
For circuits without a SAG mill, the ball mill specific energy equals to the total grinding circuit
specific energy. Similarly, for circuits without ball mills, the SAG mill specific energy equals to the
total grinding circuit specific energy. Mill shell and motor size selection considers the specific
energy requirements and the specified plant throughput, together with the expected operating
envelope of each mill.

5. Benchmarking Ausgrind

As several tests have been developed to suit the requirements of AG/SAG circuit design, the
different testwork methods and interpretation of their results can produce very different outcomes.
Differences in SAG mill Ecs determination and throughput predictions, particularly for competent
ores (Bailey et al., 2009), motivated Ausenco to benchmark the Ausgrind model. This section
includes comparisons of the Ausgrind outcomes with operational data of the SABC circuit from
Newcrest’s Cadia concentrator and also other published approaches.

–7–
 5.1. Cadia

Ausgrind was used to calculate the energy requirements of the Cadia SABC circuit using
information available in the literature (Dunne et al., 1999, Dunne et al., 2001, Hart et al., 2001). The
grinding circuit data input used for the calculation are listed in Table 3. The information on ore
characteristics in this table refers to the monzonite ore. The SAG mill operating conditions were
obtained from Dunne et al. (2001).
Table 3. Cadia grinding circuit data input for Ausgrind calculations.
Ore Value Unit SAG Mill Data Value Unit
JK or SMC parameters (Axb) 36 No Mills 1
SG 2.7 t/m3 Diameter (inside shell) 12.2 m
DWi 7.5 Aspect ratio (L/D) 0.5
Bond crusher work index 16.5 kWh/t Effective Grinding Length, EGL 6.1 m
Bond rod mill work index 19.0 kWh/t Fraction of crit. speed 0.72
Bond ball mill work index 17.1 kWh/t Ball volume (nominal design) 12 %
Total filling (nominal design) 25 %
Crusher Circuit Value Unit Discharge slurry % solids 70 %
Throughput - Primary crusher 4000 t/h
Primary crusher circuit F80 335 mm Ball Mill Data Value Unit
Primary crusher circuit CSS 120 mm No Mills 2
Crushing circuit P80 98 mm Diameter 6.7 m
Aspect ratio (L/D) 1.68
Grinding Circuit Value Unit Belly length inside liners 11.3 m
Throughput - Grinding 2065 t/h Fraction of crit. speed 0.72
Cyclone overflow P80 170 micron Ball volume 30 %
Select circuit type SABC Discharge slurry % solids 70 %

The specific energy measured during the survey (Dunne et al., 2001) and that calculated using
Ausgrind are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Ausgrind calculations for the Cadia SABC circuit.
Specific energy - Ecs (kWh/t) ∆
Method
SAG mill Ball mill Total (kWh/t)
Ausgrind 8.8 8.8 17.6 -
Survey (1998) 8.6 8.0 16.6 - 1.0

5.2. Comparison with Other Methodologies

The Ausgrind method was compared to other techniques described in this paper using values
published in journal and conference papers available in the public domain. Seven papers were
selected: Morrell, 2009; Starkey and Holmes, 2001; Marks et al., 2001; Becerra and Amelunxen, 2012;
Burgess, 2012 and Delboni et al., 2006. The results are presented in Table 5 and contain comparative
calculations for the following cases:
 Morrell’s (2009) paper describes the SMC methodology for predicting the overall Ecs of
comminution circuits. The information regarding the SABC worked example was used for
calculating and comparing Ecs.
 Starkey and Holmes’ (2001) paper shows the design of the Kubaka gold ore grinding circuit
using SPI and Bond test parameters. According to the authors, the previous characterisation

–8–
 testwork was carried out for the harder ores of the deposit and included the MacPherson
autogenous work index, Bond rod and ball mill work indices and SPI tests. Both
MacPherson and Starkey power estimates are compared to the Ausgrind calculation..
 The Similco SACB grinding circuit was designed using the JKTech and SGS characterisation
databases which included JKDWT and Bond rod and ball mill work indices (Marks et al.,
2001). For design of the circuit, the authors used the FLSmidth in-house mill selection
criteria.
 Becerra and Amelunxen (2012) published the study for the Confluencia SACB grinding
circuit at the Los Bronces copper deposit. In this study, three methodologies were used to
analyse the energy requirements: MillPower, JKSimMet and Aminpro in-house
methodology. The comminution testwork conducted included Bond rod and ball mill work
indices, Bond abrasion index, SPI and SMC testes. Median values for all the parameters
were used for comparison with the Ausgrind calculations.
 The DBC method for calculating AG/SAG Ecs uses a combination of Bond work indices and
the drop weight test parameters. The author published a paper (Burgess, 2012) comparing
his methodology with the SMC method for three ore competencies (soft, medium and hard)
and producing a final product of 0.075 mm, 0.107 mm and 0.75 mm, respectively. The single
stage SAG circuit was used for the selected three examples. Since Ausgrind does not
consider this circuit configuration for hard ores, only Ecs values for soft and medium ores
were calculated for comparison.
 The Sossego SABC grinding circuit was dimensioned under the consultancy of Delboni
(2006) using a combined method of JKSimMet and an in-house power-based empirical
model.
Table 5. Ausgrind benchmarked against other methodologies.
Circuit Specific energy (kWh/t) ∆
Example Method
configuration SAG mill Ball mill Total (kWh/t)
SMC worked Ausgrind 8.1 10.0 18.1 -
SABC
example SMC 9.6 8.4 18.3 + 0.2
Ausgrind 11.8 14.1 25.9 -
Kubaca circuit SAB MacPherson 10.9 14.0 24.9 - 1.0
Starkey 13.4 16.4 29.8 + 4.1
Ausgrind 12.0 14.6 26.6 -
Similco circuit SACB
FLSmidth 8.0 16.0 24.3 - 2.3
Ausgrind 5.7 10.4 16.1 -
Confluencia MillPower 6.2 9.2 15.7 - 0.4
SACB
circuit JKSimMet 5.5 9.5 15.3 - 0.8
Aminpro 6.3 8.3 14.9 - 1.2
DBC worked Ausgrind 16.6 - 16.6 -
example - soft SSAG DBC 17.4 - 17.4 + 0.8
ore SMC 16.8 - 16.8 + 0.2
DBC worked Ausgrind 18.0 - 18.0 -
example - SSAG DBC 17.0 - 17.0 - 1.0
medium ore SMC 17.2 - 17.2 - 0.8
Ausgrind 9.6 6.7 16.3 -
Sossego circuit SABC
Delboni 10.8 8.7 19.5 + 3.2

–9–
The delta (∆) in Table 5 is the difference in the total grinding specific energy between calculations
with Ausgrind and the other methods. According to Table 5, the lowest delta values were obtained
when comparing Ausgrind and the SMC method (+ 0.2 and – 0.8 kWh/t). The highest delta values
were obtained when comparing Ausgrind and Starkey’s method for the Kubaca circuit (+ 4.1 kW/t,
a 15% difference) and Delboni’s method for the Sossego circuit (+ 3.2 kWh/t, a 20% difference). The
specific energy predictions for the other examples resulted in delta values lower than 2.3 kWh/t,
meaning that the relative difference was within a range from 2 to 9%.

5.3. Comparison with Plant Surveys

Ausgrind specific energy predictions were compared to measured values during surveys in three
comminution circuits which processed hard ores. The results showed good agreement, and are
presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Ausgrind benchmark against plant surveys.

6. Conclusions

A number of well-established methodologies used for calculating comminution energy

requirements have been presented in this paper. The published results from these methodologies
were used to benchmark the Ausgrind program. Ausgrind reproduced the specific energy
requirements calculated by other methods for various projects within ± 10% accuracy, with only a
few exceptions, and predicted within 5% the survey data from four different operations. Therefore,
Ausgrind has demonstrated that its methodology is a suitable and reliable method for designing
AG/SAG milling circuits.
Every approach discussed in this paper relies on the use of efficiency factors (directly or indirectly)
to correct the Bond comminution circuit energy requirements for an AG/SAG circuit. Some
methods are more conservative than others, resulting in different efficiency factors and estimated
energy requirements.
Notwithstanding the merits of comminution methodologies, the representativity of sample
selection, the applicability of the testwork and the quality of testwork data are critical for the
success of any circuit design. In light of this, the Ausgrind method includes a guideline for best
practice in obtaining quality input data.

ACKNOLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Ausenco Services for the permission to publish this paper. Eddie
McLean is also acknowledged for his valuable comments and revision on the paper.

– 10 –
REFERENCES

Bailey, C., Lane, G., Morrell, S. and Staples, P. (2009). What can go wrong in comminution circuit
design? In Proceedings of the 10th Mill Operators’ Conference (pp. 143–149). Mill Ops 2009.
AusIMM: Melbourne.
Barratt, D.J. and Allan, M.J. (1986). Testing for autogenous and semiautogenous grinding: a
designer’s point of view. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing, 65– 74
Barratt, D. J. (1989). An update on testing, scale-up and sizing equipment for autogenous and semi-
autogenous grinding circuits. In Mular, A. L. and Agar, G. E. (Eds.) Proceeding of Advances in
Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous Grinding Technology (pp. 25-46). SAG 1989. UBC: Vancouver.
Bond, F.C. (1952). The third theory of comminution. Transaction of the AIME, 193, 484– 494.
Bond, F. C. (1961). Crushing & grinding calculations part I. British Chemical Engineering, 6:378-385.
Bueno, M. and Lane, G. (2001). A Review of 10 Years of AG/SAG Pilot Trials. In Major, K., Flintoff,
B. C., Klein, B. and McLeod, K. (Eds.) Proceedings of the International Autogenous Grinding Semi-
autogenous Grinding and High Pressure Grinding Roll Technology. SAG 2011. UBC: Vancouver.
Becerra, M. and Amelunxen, P. (2012). A comparative analysis of grinding circuit design
methodologies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Mineral Processing Conference (pp. 468-476).
Procemin 2012. Santiago.
Burgess, D. (2012). A method of calculating autogenous/semi-autogenous grinding mill specific
energies using a combination of Bond work indices and Julius Kruttschnitt parameters, then
applying efficiency factors. In Proceedings of the 11th Mill Operators’ Conference (pp. 37-44).
MillOps 2012. AusIMM: Hobart.
Delboni, H., Rosa, M. A. N., Bergerman, M. G. and Nardi, R. P. (2006). Optimisation of the Sossego
SAG mill. In Allan, M. J., Major, K., Flintoff, B. C., Klein, B. and Mular, A. L. (Eds.) Proceedings of
the International Conference on Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous Grinding Technology (pp. 39-
50). SAG 2006. UBC: Vancouver.
Starkey J. and Dobby, G. (1996). Application of the Minnovex SAG Power Index at five Canadian
SAG plants. In Mular, A. L., Barratt, D. J. and Knight, D. A. (Eds.) Proceedings of the International
Conference on Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous Grinding Technology (pp. 345-360). SAG 1996.
UBC: Vancouver.
Dunne, R. Chittenden, R., Lane, G. and Morrell, S. (1999). The Cadia gold copper project exploration
to start up. In SME Annual Meeting. Preprint 90-160. SME: Denver.
Dunne, R., Morrell, S., Lane, G., Valery, W. and Hart, S. (2001). Design of the 40 foot diameter SAG
mill installed at the Cadia Gold Copper Mine. In Barratt, D. J., Allan, M. J. and Mular, A. L. (Eds.)
Proceedings of the International Conference on Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous Grinding
Technology (pp. 43-58). SAG 2001. UBC: Vancouver.
Hart, S., Valery, W., Clements, B., Reed, M., Song, M. & Dunne, R. (2001) Optimisation of the Cadia
Hill SAG mill circuit. In Barratt, D. J., Allan, M. J. and Mular, A. L. (Eds.) Proceedings of the
International Conference on Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous Grinding Technology (pp. 11-30).
SAG 2001. UBC: Vancouver.
Lane, G.S., Fleay, J., Reynolds, K., and La Brooy, S., 2002. Selection of comminution circuits for
improved efficiency. In Proceedings of the Crushing and Grinding Conference. Kalgoorlie.

– 11 –
MacPherson, A. R. (1978). A simple method to predict the autogenous grinding mill requirements
for processing ore from a new deposit. Transaction of the AIME, 262, 236-240.
Marks, A., Sams, C. and Major, K. (2001). Grinding circuit design for Similco mines. In Major, K.,
Flintoff, B. C., Klein, B. and McLeod, K. (Eds.) Proceedings of the International Autogenous
Grinding Semi-autogenous Grinding and High Pressure Grinding Roll Technology. SAG 2011.
UBC: Vancouver.
Morrell, S. (2004). Predicting the specific energy of autogenous and semi-autogenous mills from
small diameter drill core samples. Minerals Engineering, 17 (3): 447–451.
Morrell, S. (2009). Predicting the overall specific energy requirement of crushing, high pressure
grinding roll and tumbling mill circuits. Minerals Engineering, 22 (6): 544-549.
Napier-Munn, T. J., Morrell, S., Morrison, R. D. and Kojovic, T. (2005). Mineral comminution circuits:
their operation and optimisation. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre: Brisbane.
Rowland, C. A. (1972). Grinding calculations related to the application of large rod and ball mills.
Canadian Mining Journal, v. 93 (6).
Siddall, B.; Putland, B. (2007). Process Design And Implementation Techniques For Secondary
Crushing To Increase Milling Capacity. In SME Annual Meeting. Preprint 07-079. SME: Salt Lake
City.
Starkey, J. and Holmes, G. (2001). Design of the Kubaca grinding circuit using SPI and Bond. In
Proceedings of the Canadian Mineral Processors Conference. CMP 2001. Ottawa.
Starkey, J., Hindstrom, S. and Nadasdy, G. (2006) SAGDesign testing – what it is and why it works.
In Allan, M. J., Major, K., Flintoff, B. C., Klein, B. and Mular, A. L. (Eds.) Proceedings of the
International Conference on Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous Grinding Technology (pp. 240-254).
SAG 2006. UBC: Vancouver.

– 12 –