Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling

Integrated Comminution Modelling

Toni Kojovic and Pat Walters
JKMRC, The University of Queensland

3.0 Executive Summary tests. A simple protocol has been defined for the inte‐
gration of the ELF meter within the Ci test, which in‐
In 2010, the Theme 3 research team has worked on
cludes a no‐load calibration at the key crusher gaps
three separate tasks, as outlined below:
used in Ci testing for each machine. Power meter in‐
stallations have been adopted by JKtech and external
Theme Task Status
• Three labs have installed ELF labs using the Ci test, and other laboratories are ex‐
Improvements pected to follow. There are still limitations in dealing
power meter; protocol avail‐
to
CP3a able. with friable core samples, and further work is re‐
GeM Comminu‐
• Latest results from CdA con‐ quired to investigate the most appropriate way of
tion Index
firm value of power meter.
managing such cases.
• A*b Express method con‐
Use of non‐core firmed.
CP3b drilling • Bond proxy model validation RBT A*b Express Concept and RBT Bond Proxy
products complete; final report
The A*b Express test concept has been confirmed as a
drafted.
rapid means of quantifying the impact resistance of
• Experimental work delayed;
Comminution • Modelling approach shown core samples, using only one test at a single low RBT
CP3c
blend response to be viable for Bond (ball energy. Once calibrated to RBT Lite or full RBT test
mill) and AG/SAG milling. results, the A*b Express method should be able to
provide a robust mapping tool with a minimal sam‐
The team has largely completed its objectives and is ple requirement. This is ideally suited to hardness
now moving to a phase of applications support and characterisation at pre‐feasibility level. Alternatively,
method validation/refinement. New ideas, such as the integration with routine assaying of blast chips offers
A*b Express concept, will be evaluated once a suitable a number of potential applications suited to short‐
prototype device is made available in 2012. The im‐ term planning:
plications of the Theme 3 developments to date are
• Reconciliation of block model hardness estimates;
discussed below.
• Adjustment of cut‐off grade based on grade and
hardness of each hole;
Improvements to GeM Comminution Index • Optimisation of ore blending from different
The GeM Ci has been shown to be ideally suited for benches; or
high volume hardness mapping. With the addition of • Adjustment of explosive addition/strength to op‐
timize powder factors.
a simple power meter, the Ci test provides more use‐
ful information on the hardness of the core material, The A*b Express concept has been under develop‐
particularly the A*b index in the harder samples ment within the Amira P9O project and a prototype
design by RME is in progress. Field units are expected
where the Ci was previously unable to resolve the
by June 2012.
difference between two samples. The improvement
was not as significant when applied to Bond predic‐ Theme 3 has finalized the development of a Bond
tion, with the lowest error being around 10%. This is grindability proxy test, based on the high energy ap‐
comparable with commercial ore hardness ‘modified’ plication of the RBT. The results on 296 samples from

GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 38


8 ore deposits suggest the Bond ball mill work index
can be reliably estimated using the product size dis‐
tribution from the 2.0 kWh/t RBT test on the
11.2+9.5mm fraction. Hence the test adds additional
value to the routine GeM RBT Lite test (only requiring
2.0 kWh/t product to be fully sized – via mechanical
or optical means). The Bond proxy test is also appli‐
cable to non‐core samples which previously were not
suitable for GeM Ci testing (e.g. blast hole samples),
and combines easily with RBT A*b Express method‐
ology (0.2 kWh/t). The rapid turn‐around time (~20
minutes) and small sample mass requirement (~100g
for RBT Lite ‐11.2+9.5mm) makes the test ideally
suited to the geometallurgical testing toolkit.
Comminution Blend Response
The theme has established two options to generate
comminution ‘blend response curves’. For ball mill‐
ing, small‐scale physical testing and modelling car‐
ried out using the Bond ball mill appears to be the
most practical method. Initial results suggest that the
blend response is variable and needs to be calibrated
to provide reliable predictions of ball mill through‐
put. However, impact hardness A*b values generated
using the JKRBT or JKDWT are more decoupled from
the milling process and assessing blend additivity
requires a different approach.
A novel to generate A*b blend response curves which
may estimate the effect of varying blend proportions
on AG/SAG mill throughput has been developed us‐
ing JKSimMet. In operational practice the number of
response curves required will be determined by the
number of distinct ore types each having a unique
impact resistance and density.
JKSimMet may also be a viable tool for estimating the
Bond BMWi blend response for a given set of ore
components. The proof‐of‐concept results suggest
that the Bond test can be reliably simulated in
JKSimMet, given the results from the full Bond test.
The results suggest simulation may provide an alter‐
native to the more costly experimental investigation
using a Bond ball mill.
3.1 Introduction
In 2010 the Theme 3 research team has been
providing support across several case study
39
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
initiatives and consolidation of the three core research
activities, highlighted in this chapter.
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Addition of Power Measurement in the Ci Test
Preliminary trials using granite suggest the specific
work required to crush the samples at the Ci gap, and
resulting product size distribution, should provide a
more reliable link to the impact resistance as
expressed by the standard Drop Weight Test index
A*b. To confirm this potential, an experimental study
using Ernest Henry and Cadia East core samples was
initiated. A total of 138 samples were subjected to Ci
and RBT testing on the 11.2x9.5mm survivor
fragments post crushing.
The power meter was placed between the wall socket
and crusher plug, as shown in Figure 3.1, so that the
unit can measure the power draw directly without
influencing the crushing equipment in any way. The
current methodology requires that the crusher is
warmed up prior to starting the crushing tests as
there is a significant warm up period associated with
the equipment. To ensure only the crushing energy is
measured the power reading is zeroed before the
crushing tests are carried out. This step takes into
account the vibrating feeder and splitter equipment
attached to the Boyd crusher assembly.
Figure 3.1. Photograph of power meter installation with
Boyd crusher at Sumner Park laboratory
A series of quick timed runs, ranging from 1 to 3
minutes, and their associated energy draws are used
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011

to calibrate the operating parameters of the crusher.
The resulting data essentially represent an energy
curve which can be expressed as follows:
Whrbase = a × t + b (1)
where
a = Energy consumed per min of running time
t = Running time in minutes
b = Energy used in starting & stopping crusher
The ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters need to be calculated for
each crusher gap settings as the weight distribution of
the plates changes which affects the operating energy
of the crusher. Once derived, equation 1 can be used
to determine the total input energy for a sample that
has been passed through the GeM Ci procedure. The
total specific input energy in kWh/t for a given
sample is calculated using the formula:
Whr − Whrbase
Eis =
m meter validation were subjected to the following tests:
where
Eis = Specific input energy (kWh/t)
Whr = Energy recorded on the power meter
m = Mass of crushed material in kilograms
The results from Ernest Henry and Cadia East
tests showed that the introduction of a simple power
meter during Ci crushing has shown a consistent
improvement in the A*b prediction when the specific
power terms are included in the calibration model.
The improvement was particularly significant in the
harder samples where the Ci was unable to resolve
the difference between two samples. The success of
the extended trial on 138 samples prompted two
sponsors to install an ELF power meter on the
laboratory crusher used for Ci testing (see Figure 2).
Figure 3.2. ELF power meter used in Ci testing
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
The first was Anglogold Ashanti who requested ALS
Bogota to upgrade their machine currently being used
to process samples from the la Colosa deposit. The
second is Newcrest Telfer mine who have installed a
new Boyd and power meter in their assay lab, ahead
of using the Ci test as a proxy comminution test on
their VSC ore body. The research team selected an
inexpensive power meter.
As none of these installations has managed to provide
detailed information on the core samples treated,
Teck granted permission to the Theme 3 research
team to access the data from their Andacollo geomet
comminution test program conducted by JKtech in
Sumner Park. This program is outlined in the next
section.
3.2.2 Results from Ci Tests on Andacollo Samples
The Andacollo samples selected for the Ci power
(2)
• Ci testing of 56 core samples across 6 UGs using
standard GeM protocols for HQ half core.
• Ci testing of SAG feed rock samples from 7 UGs
using standard GeM protocols for 26.5x22.4mm
fragments.
• Sub‐sampling of SAG feed and Ci products to
remove ‐11.2+9.5mm fractions for RBT Lite testing.
• RBT testing of ‐11.2+9.5mm fractions using RBT
Lite protocol on all core and SAG feed sub‐
samples.
• DWT testing of SAG feed samples from 7 UGs
using standard JKTech protocols. This data
provided the A*b size scale‐up factor for each UG,
applied to the core samples.
• Bond testing of SAG feed samples from 7 UGs
using standard and JKMRC Modified Bond
protocols. The difference between the two
protocols was around 3.3%.
• Modified Bond testing of 56 core samples.
The Ci power meter data includes several key inputs
which are used to calculate the net specific energy
(kWh/t) consumed per sample. An example of the
typical data values captured for each sample is shown
in Table 3.1. The distribution of specific energy
consumed per sample is wide, as evident in Figure
3.3. Overall the results conform to a normal
distribution. For competent samples, power data is
directly related to ore hardness. If core is friable, the
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 40
 Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
results are unable to decouple hardness and degree of confirm the most appropriate means of managing
fines in the core interval. These samples may need friable samples submitted for Ci testing.
pre‐screening to quantify the degree of as‐received
fines. This issue requires further investigation to

Table 3.1. Example of Ci Power Meter Results Collected During Gem Ci Test

LIMS Crush time No Load Net kWh/

ID Mass [g] (min) Power [Wh] [Wh] [Wh] t
0091C 5000 2.16 29.54 26.94 2.6 0.52
0093C 7600 2.24 29.91 27.76 2.15 0.28

Andacollo Ci Power Measurements using two markers from the Ci product size
0.90
distribution:
0.80
• % ‐ 4.75mm
0.70
• % ‐ 150 microns
Net Specific Energy (kWh/t)

0.60
The ratio %‐4.75mm and specific energy is essentially
0.50
a crushing related A*b term, similar to the A*b
0.40
Express calculation using RBT test results at a low
0.30
energy:
0.20
A * b = T 10 / Ecs ≈ % − 4.75 / Eis (3)
0.10

0.00 Since the best form of the correlation between the

‐4 ‐3.5 ‐3 ‐2.5 ‐2 ‐1.5 ‐1 ‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
DWT/RBT A*b and Ci behaviour was unknown,
N Score
LREG (Kojovic et al, 1989) was used in the multiple
Figure 3.3. Distribution of CdA Ci specific energy results
linear regression analysis to find the most accurate
Despite the potential disconnect between the crushing and robust relationship. The charts in Figure 3.4 show
behaviour of the core samples and impact resistance the quality of fit to the measured data for the seven
of the ‐11.2+9.5mm survivors, the specific energy SAG feed samples, with and without the inclusion of
consumed during crushing was expected to be highly the power measurement. The model accuracy
relevant. The key inputs in the regression analysis improvement is clearly evident, with a 50% reduction
were the specific energy and degree of size reduction in the relative error.
achieved during crushing. The latter was expressed

No Power Meter With Power Meter

80 80
Rel Error = ±24.0% Rel Error = ±12%
70 70

60 60
A*b (pred from Ci)

A*b (pred from Ci)

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

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

A*b (DWT) A*b (DWT)

Figure 3.4. Summary of A*b model relations for Andacollo SAG feed samples, with and without Ci Power data

41 GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011

 Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
Initial attempts at developing a single universal
relation for the 56 core samples were unsuccessful, so
specific relations were derived for each UG ore type.
The charts in Figure 3.5 show the quality of fit to the
measured data, with and without the inclusion of the
power measurement. The core results also show a
consistent improvement in the A*b prediction when
the power terms are included, though not as
significant. This may be related to another potential
source of uncertainty, the scale‐up from the RBT
11.2+9.5mm results to the DWT equivalent size. This
source of error was confirmed when the same
comparison was made between the estimated and
actual A*b values for the SAG feed samples, where
DWT, RBT Lite and SMC estimates were all available.
This simply means that the A*b values used in the
regression analysis are probably not as accurate as
first expected. Hence the best possible accuracy of the
Ci based model is unlikely to be better than 10%.
This is comparable with commercial ore hardness
‘modified’ tests.

No Power Meter With Power Meter

80 80
Rel Error = ±12.0% Rel Error = ±10%
70 70

60 60
A*b (pred from Ci)

A*b (pred from Ci)

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

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

A*b (DWT equiv) A*b (DWT equiv)

Figure 3.5. Summary of A*b model relations for Andacollo core samples, with and without Ci Power data

Another aspect from the Andacollo testwork that variables; constant, normalized Ci‐GRD index and a
warrants mention is that soft and friable core intervals material hardness index determined using the
do not generate sufficient coarse survivors for RBT measured specific energy consumed, and Ci feed and
testing post Ci crushing. This was particularly evident product sizes.
with UG7 core samples which only registered RBT
With Power Meter
samples for the harder examples in this domain, 25

having A*b values below 50. However the UG7 SAG

20
feed sample was found to be extremely soft, with a
BMWi ‐ kWh/t (pred)

DWT A*b value of 300. The RBT A*b value for the 15
SAG feed 11.2+9.5mm fraction was also very soft,
with an A*b value of 250. No material as soft as this 10

was found in any core intervals from UG7.

5
The relationship between the Andacollo Ci and
Bond test results were also investigated using LREG 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
analysis. Various model forms, including linear and
BMWi ‐ kWh/t (meas)
non‐linear expressions, were evaluated. The analysis
suggests the improvement in model accuracy with Figure 3.6. Summary of Bond BMWi model quality for
Andacollo SAG feed and core samples with Ci Power data
power measurement is not as significant as it was for
A*b, with the best possible error being around 9‐10%, 3.2.3 RBT A*b Express Concept
in line with historical P843 results. Figure 3.6 shows
The validity of A*b Express concept as a rapid
the accuracy of the Ci based model, using only three
means to estimate the A*b index was investigated

GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 42

 Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
using Ernest Henry, Cadia East and Andacollo a single test at the specific energy of 0.2 kWh/t. Figure
samples. In each instance, RBT Lite testing was 3.11 highlights the simple workflow of the A*b Ex‐
carried out to determine the A*b for the 11.2x9.5mm press test.
size fraction. The T10 value for the 0.2 kWh/t test was
Ernest Henry
then used to estimate the A*b, knowing that the A*b 120
can be approximated reliably using the slope of the
100
T10‐Ecs curve at 0.2 kWh/t (see Figure 3.7).
80
T 10
A* b ≈

A*b Lite
(3) 60
0.2
where
40
T10 = percent passing 1mm at 0.2 kWh/t
20 y = 1.0027x + 4.0318
T10 (%) R² = 0.9922
0
38.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
19.8 A*b Express

10.4
Figure 3.9. Comparison of A*b values derived from RBT
Lite and A*b Express tests on Ernest Henry samples
4.4
A*b =23 (hard ore)
Andacollo ‐ SAG Feed
0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 80
Energy (kWh/t) 70

Figure 3.7. A*b estimated using slope at Ecs=0.2 kWh/t 60

(A*b Express = 4.4/0.2 = 22) 50
A*b Lite

Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show the Cadia East and 40

Ernest Henry results respectively, confirming the 30

strong correlation between the two measures across 20

both sets of samples. 10

0
Cadia East 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
50
A*b Express

40
Andacollo ‐ Core
80
30
A*b Lite

70

60
20
50
A*b Lite

10 40
y = 0.8772x + 3.2861
R² = 0.9544 30
0
20
0 10 20 30 40 50
10
A*b Express
0
Figure 3.8. Comparison of A*b values derived from RBT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Lite and A*b Express tests on Cadia East samples A*b Express

The Andacollo results also provided the opportunity Figure 3.10. Comparison of A*b values derived from RBT
to check the validity of the A*b Express test. Figure Lite and A*b Express tests on Andacollo samples
the results from the A*b Express and RBT Lite com‐
parison on both SAG feed and core samples, which
support the previously reported finding that the A*b
Express test can provide a reliable A*b estimate using

43 GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011


M −1mm
T10 = 100 × %
M
T10
A*b =
0.2
Figure 3.11. Flowchart of A*b Express test
3.2.4 Bond Proxy Model Validation
The JKRBT is conventionally used in the predic‐
tion of an A*b hardness index for a given ore. How‐
ever, Theme CP3b investigations have found that the
size distributions produced through this mode of
breakage contained more information than first ex‐
pected, suggesting the potential to reliably derive an
equally important comminution parameter, the Bond
Ball Mill Work Index (BMWi). Figure 3.11 shows the
two test devices, JKRBT and Bond Ball Mill.
Figure 3.11. JKRBT used for A*b testing and Bond Ball Mill
used for grindability tests
Since the start of P843A, the research team has fo‐
cused on the potential link between the RBT product
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
size distribution and the corresponding Bond ball mill
work Index (BMWI) of the core sample.
Figure 3.12 compares three samples with a very
wide range in Bond grindability and corresponding
RBT product size distributions.
Figure 3.12. Comparison of RBT 2.0 kWh/t product size
distributions for 3 samples with wide range in BMWi
The investigation suggests that the BMWi can be re‐
liably estimated using the associated RBT product
size distribution from the highest energy (2.0kWh/t)
GeM RBT Lite test.
RBT Wi (kWh/t) = k1 × RBTGRD k2 (4)
where
k1, k2 = site specific constants
RBTGRD = Index calculated using RBT 2.0 kWh/t
product size distribution
The investigation found that the highest RBT Lite en‐
ergy had the strongest correlation with the BMWi.
One of the key reasons believed to be behind this cor‐
relation may be due to the similarities between the
energy inputs of the highest energy JKRBT test (2.0
kWh/t) and the standard 100 revolutions for a Bond
Test (~1.96 kWh/t). The fact that hard survivors from
any core sample tend to dominate the Bond test
grindability, would also support the strong correla‐
tion. Finally, it is well known that most ore types
show a strong correlation between the Bond Wi and
impact hardness A*b. The outcomes of this develop‐
ment provide the following benefits:
1. Potential new opportunities for testing non‐core
drill products which, conventionally, could only
be characterized using a full Bond ball test.
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 44

2. A rapid testing option for the mapping and classi‐
fication of the ore grindability ideally suited to
the high volume needs of geomet variability test‐
ing.
3. New testing applications made possible through
the minimal mass requirements of the Bond
proxy test.
The prediction of grind response from the RBT prod‐
uct size distribution, referred to as the RBT Wi, has
been validated using a comprehensive dataset con‐
sisting of 296 samples sourced from the AMIRA
GeMlll P843/P843A archives. The range of the data‐
base is illustrated in Figure 3.13.
Figure 3.13. Dataset used in validation of RBT Wi Concept
The results indicate a high level of accuracy, as illus‐
trated in Figure 3.14, believed to be sufficient for
mapping the ore deposit variability. The Bond proxy
test requires only a small sample volume and offers a
rapid turnaround time; thereby enabling processing
of a large number of samples and a significant reduc‐
tion in cost over full Bond ball mill work index test‐
ing.
Figure 3.14. Comparison of predicted versus measured
Bond BMWi values for 296 samples, across 8 sites
45
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
The results suggest that with a site specific calibra‐
tion, the relative error can be as low as 4.6% (see Table
3.3). On average, across all eight sites, the relative er‐
ror was 6.8%. The RBT Wi proxy method was not as
successful for the Los Grande and La Colosa Cu por‐
phyry deposits, reflected in the highest relative errors.
Additionally, the method had to be corrected to take
into account the coarse 300 micron closing size for Los
Grande, since the RBTGRD index is calculated using
data down to 106 microns. Fine closing sizes
(<106μm) still need to be tested.
Table 3.2. Comparison of RBT Wi Test Accuracy (Site Spe‐
cific Models)
Site Relative Error
Aqqaluk 4.6%
Bingham BHC 5.3%
Bingham Core 5.3%
Boddington 7.8%
Cowal 5.6%
La Colosa 8.2%
Los Grande 8.1%
Resolution 5.1%
Sudbury 4.7%
All Samples 6.8%
The RBT Wi proxy method is more accurate than the
GeM Ci test, and has the added benefit of already be‐
ing included in the GeM RBT Lite test. The only re‐
quirement is that the product from the highest energy
RBT test must be sized fully sized, either using me‐
chanical sieves or optical systems like the Camsizer.
The RBT Wi method, combined with the recent
JKMRC development of the A*b Express test, means
that with only two single energy RBT tests, one high
(2.0kWh/t) and one low (0.2kWh/t), the A*b and
BMWi of the ore sample can be estimated in a fraction
of the time required using standard tests. This has
historically never been possible. The two tests provide
a host of new potential characterization opportunities,
ideally suited to high volume geometallurgical test‐
ing. Figure 3.15 shows the simple workflow of the
RBT Wi proxy test.
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011

FEED
JKRBT
@ 2.0 kWh/t
Mechanical or
Optical Size
Analysis
Product Size
Distribution
GRD Index
BMWi = k 1 × GRD k 2
Figure 3.15. Flowchart of RBT Wi Proxy test
3.2.5 Modelling the Comminution Blend Response
Blend Response for Bond Ball Mill Grindability
Theme CP3c aims to develop methods to
generate comminution ‘blend response curves’. The
initial work focused on small‐scale physical testing
and modelling carried out using the Bond ball mill.
Sudbury ores were selected for the case study since
the Clarabelle operation sources ore from several
mines and has reported large throughput variability.
As the mill has little control over rock dilution in the
feed, a series of blends were tested to see if there was
a response to the ore to wall rock dilution. Four
dilution rock types were used, mixed with massive
sulphide ore, from 0 to 100% in 20% increments.
The results, summarized in Figure 3.16, suggest
that the Bond blend response is variable and needs to
be calibrated to provide reliable predictions of ball
mill throughput. However, the testing requires
significant care in sample preparation and handling,
otherwise the outcome is highly questionable.
The relatively low non‐linearity of the blend
response curves for Sudbury is not consistent with
published research on multi‐component Bond tests
(Yan and Eaton, 1993). Yan and Eaton, working with
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
two gold ores from Western Australia, having BMWi
values of 6.6 and 14.0 kWh/t, concluded that there
was a strong interaction between the components of
the blend, the harder material having the greater
influence on the overall breakage properties and
BMWi. For example, at 25% hard component, the
actual BMWi was 30% higher than expected from a
linear response. At Sudbury the effect of the hard
component is much lower, less than 7%.
Figure 3.16. Bond grindability index response curves for
the Sudbury ore and dilution rock blends
More tests were slated, but the Queensland
floods in January 2011 impacted the P843A sample
storage facilities in Sumner Park, and delayed plans
to continue this work. In the absence of additional
experimental Bond blend response data, the research
team moved their effort to an alternative approach, a
methodology to quantify the blend response using
simulation of the Bond process. JKSimMet was used
to essentially calibrate the Bond mill process using the
detailed results for the two main components that in
practice will be blended. The ‘proof‐of‐concept’ was
based on Bond test data from Vale Inco, Sudbury,
where hard waste rocks appear with the massive
sulphide ore as part of the feed to the Clarabelle
milling plant. The results from a series of Bond tests
run on selected blends of wall rock and sulphide were
reported in Feb 2010. Details of the Bond process
modelling are presented below.
Proof of Concept
Before explaining the modelling process, it is
important to highlight the key elements of the
standard Bond ball mill work index test.
The standard Bond mill is 0.305m by 0.305m. It
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 46

has a revolution counter and runs at 70rpm. The
grinding charge consists of 285 balls, the total
weighing 20.125 kg. The standard feed is prepared by
stage crushing to pass a 3.35 mm sieve. To derive a
Bond Ball Mill Work Index (BBMWi) a series of
consecutive batch grinds are conducted using the
Bond mill.
The initial feed material, equivalent to 700cm3 of
packed material, is ground for a specified number of
cycles and the material passing the nominated closing
size is removed. New feed is then added to the
oversize to maintain the initial mass, and the process
is repeated. The number of revolutions needed in
each cycle is determined from the results of the
previous period to produce sieve undersize equal to
1/3.5 of the total charge in the mill. This is continued
until a stabilization point has been reached, where the
net grams of sieve undersize produced per mill
revolution reaches equilibrium, and the mass of the
oversize is consistently 2.5 times that of the undersize
(representing the nominal 250% recirculating load in
a closed ball mill circuit).
At the end of the test, the undersize product is
screen analysed, and the average of the last three net
grams of final product size generated per revolution
(Gbp) is defined as the ball mill grindability. The ball
mill work index (kWh/t) is calculated from the
following equation (Bond, 1961):
49.1
WI = (4)
⎛ 10 ⎞ is also known, as is the final cycle recirculating load
10
P10.23 x Gbp0.82 x ⎜ − ⎟
⎜ P F80 ⎟
⎝ 80 ⎠
where
WI = Bond ball mill work index ‐ a material‐
specific constant (kWh/t)
P80 = 80% product passing size (μm)
F80 = 80% feed passing size (μm)
Gbp = grams per revolution when test stabilizes
P1 = closing screen size (μm)
Based on historical data, the average P80 for a
150 μm closing sieve size is 114 microns; at 106 μm it
is 76 microns, at 75 μm it is 50 microns, and at 45 μm
it is 26.7 microns. These relations are used in
equation 4 when the P80 is not measured.
In terms of the mechanisms in the Bond test mill,
the two key aspects that need to be modelled for a
47
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
given ore sample are:
1. Frequency of breakage and discharge rate for each
particle size ‐ (primarily a function of ore hardness
and feed size distribution/density)
2. Classification performance of the closing screen
(function of screen integrity and operator method).
The above mechanisms are easily handled using
the JKSimMet ball mill model:
1. The breakage rates are inherently combined with
the discharge rates in a normalised single
parameter represented by (R/D*) as a function of
particle size. Four size knots at 0.075, 0.15, 0.60
and 1.18mm were selected to cover the size range
of the Bond ball mill feed, as illustrated in Figure
3.17 for the Sudbury sulphide ore.
2. The closing screen can be modelled using a
simple efficiency curve described by three
parameters:
• α ‐ sharpness of the split
• C ‐ fines split to undersize
• d50c ‐ cut‐size
The efficiency curve for the final cycle Bond test
screening analysis is shown in Figure 3.17, reflecting a
very efficient process.
The calibration of the Bond test was carried out
for the final cycle, where the screen analysis is
conducted on the product. The feed size distribution
and number of revolutions. The only missing was the
actual screen oversize size distribution. The approach
used to estimate this stream was simple. Firstly, the
final cycle data was initially fitted with the oversize
recycling back to the feed, only knowing the quantity
of recycle but not the actual size distribution.
Secondly, once the size distribution of the final cycle
oversize was established, the recycle stream was
decoupled and the fitting was repeated in open
circuit, as shown in Figure 3.17. This approach was
found to give the most reliable set of parameters as
the initial calibration was too sensitive to the starting
parameter values.
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011
 Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling

breakage rate curve

100.0
Sulphide
Greenstone
10.0

R/D*
1.0

0.1

0.0
0.01 0.10 1.00
Particle Size (mm)

efficiency curve
100

80

60

% to O/Size
40

20

Sulphide 0
0.150

0.01 0.10 1.00

Particle Size (mm)

Figure 3.17. JKSimMet model representation of final cycle in the Bond test for Sulphide ore, showing ball mill model
parameters and efficiency curve for typical Bond test 150 micron closing screen

Note that the feed was normalized to 100% to parameters for the greenstone and sulphide ore
simplify the modelling process and subsequent use of samples, the next step was to construct the complete
the model in simulating the complete Bond test. And 7‐cycle Bond test flowsheet in JKSimMet, as
similarly, the JKSimMet Bond mill was assumed to be illustrated in Figure 3.19. The flowsheet was then
3m diameter x 3m long. validated for both greenstone and sulphide, using the
model as the virtual process. The calculation of the
The key question was whether the conceptual
required number of revs per cycle was carried out
model could adequately describe the actual Bond mill
using the same protocols as per the standard Bond
performance, specifically the mill product size
test (see Figure 3.20). However, the most appropriate
distribution and recycle load percentage. Figure 3.18
way to translate the number of revs into JKSimMet
shows the final calibration results suggesting the
equivalent terms was initially unknown. It was found
JKSimMet model is capable of representing the Bond
that the most convenient scaling method would be via
mill process sufficient well. The calibration included
the effective length of the mill. Hence setting 3m to
four R/D* parameters plus three screen parameters.
represent the number of revs in the final cycle was the
100

90
key. The number of revs for any cycle could then be
80 directly calculated from the number of cycles
Cumulative % Passing

70
required to reach the equilibrium.
60

50
This approach was tested on the greenstone and
40

30
sulphide data and found to be in close agreement,
20 given the inherent uncertainty in the physical Bond
10
test (see Table 3.2).
0
0.01 0.1 1
Size (mm) Table 3.2. Comparison of Bond BMWi Results derived from
FEED Exp Product Exp Product Cal SCR O/S Exp SCR O/S Cal
Actual and Virtual Bond Tests (Single Feed)
Figure 3.18. Quality of JKSimMet model fit to Bond Sample ID Actual Virtual Expected
greenstone final cycle test data kWh/t kWh/t Error
Greenstone 15.8 15.7 0.55
Having calibrated the JKSimMet model Sulphide 9.5 9.3 0.33

GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 48


Figure 3.19. JKSimMet model representation of 7‐cycle Bond test flowsheet
Figure 3.20. Excel template for Bond virtual test using the same protocols
Generating the Bond Blend Response Curve
Once the Bond mill performance was calibrated
using the JKSimMet model, and the simulation of the
complete test was shown to be viable, the approach
was extended to a blend of greenstone and sulphide.
The goal was to simulate a blended feed using only
one JKSimMet flowsheet, as keeping track of parallel
simulations would be very complex and difficult to
run. However, knowing that the mill breakage rates
were different for greenstone and sulphide presented
a problem. Could they be simply combined in a
weighted average given the feed composition?
This was not expected to work since P843 has
49
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
already shown that the contents in the Bond mill are
biased towards the hard component when treating
mixtures of ore. Therefore, the key was to find the
mixing rule for any two components when tested
under similar conditions. This rule was derived from
the Sudbury Bond data using four dilution rock types
and sulphide ore. The approach provides the
weighting factor, given the feed composition of hard
and soft components:
Pb = Ps + ( Pg − Ps ) * %G * F (5)
where
Pb = model parameter for feed blend
Pg = model parameter for greenstone
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011

Ps = model parameter for sulphide
%G = proportion of greenstone in feed
F = weighting factor
The weighting factor is a function of greenstone
and sulphide BMWi values, and the feed composition.
This approach needs further work to validate the
underlying mixing rule across other ore type
mixtures. The virtual test is also run until a
stabilization point is reached:‐
1. Grams per Rev reaches equilibrium, and
2. Mass of the Oversize is 2.5 times that of the
Undersize (the target 250% recycle load in a
closed ball mill circuit).
Figure 3.21 shows a plot of the simulated blend
response for the Bond test treating different blends of
greenstone and sulphide.
17
16
15
BBMWi (kWh/t)
14
13
12
11
10
9 confirmed as valid representations of the full scale
0% 20% 40% 60%
% Wall Rock
Actual Bond Response Bond Simulation
Figure 3.21. Blend response curve for the Bond mill
for different greenstone and sulphide feed blends
There is clearly an interaction between the
components, the harder material having the greater
influence on the overall Bond work index. For
comparison, the linear response is superimposed
showing 5‐6% under‐estimation in the expected Bond
work index at the 60/40 blend.
This bias is relatively low compared to the multi‐
component Bond tests conducted by Yan and Eaton
(1993), claiming the BMWi was 30% higher than
expected at a 25% hard blend. The higher degree of
non‐linearity seen in Yan and Eaton’s work may be a
function of the ore types and range of BMWi used in
their study (6.6 and 14.0 kWh/t). Further work is
therefore required within P843A to explore this topic.
The success of the ‘proof‐of‐concept’ study
suggests JKSimMet may be a viable tool for
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
estimating the Bond BMWi blend response for a given
set of ore components. To carry out such simulations
the full Bond test results for each ore component are
required. Ideally the final cycle screen oversize
should be sized to simplify the application. To
validate the mixing rule, one Bond test on a feed
blend should also be included.
Though the approach has limitations, it provides
a simple basis for investigating the multi‐component
behaviour of two ores of differing Bond hardness
where only the ore blend is varied. The Bond Blend
response model will be further tested using a
selection of samples to be tested as part of the P843A
case studies.
Blend Response for A*b Hardness
This theme has shown that experimental
determination of the blend response in the Bond ball
mill, treating two components of significantly
different impact resistance, is viable. However,
experimental determination of the blend response for
an AG/SAG mill treating two components of
significantly different impact resistance is challenging
for two main reasons,
1) small scale laboratory tests have yet to be
80% 100% milling environment, and
2) pilot plant testing requires 10‐20 tonnes of ore
Linear Mixing
per scenario so preclude the use of drill core.
In order to mitigate this impasse, modelling was
considered as potential way forward. However, as
JKSimMet currently has no capacity to simulate the
interaction of two ore types having different impact
resistance, density and/or feed size distributions, an
alternative modelling approach was considered. This
approach aims to essentially calibrate the AG/SAG
process under a set of given conditions for which
survey data and ore properties of the main
components are known. The ‘proof‐of‐concept’ was
based on data from an operation treating a blend of
two ore types. Details of this case study are presented
below.
Proof of Concept
The milling operation in question was surveyed
by JKMRC to generate detailed sizing and
performance data on a 21 ft. x 19 ft. autogenous (AG)
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 50

mill treating a blend of 85% soft and 15% hard ore.
The product is discharged to a trommel that screens
out the pebbles for use downstream. The fine product
is classified in a large screw classifier, with the
oversize reporting back to the mill. The fine product
reports to a pebble mill. The AG mill pebble discharge
is screened to provide the pebble feedstock. Figure
3.22 shows the JKSimMet schematic of the surveyed
AG mill circuit.
Feed
AG Mill
Trommel
Pebbles
Spiral
Fine Prod-
Oversize uct
Recycle
Figure 3.22. Schematic of AG mill circuit used in A*b
blend response proof‐of‐concept study
In terms of the mechanisms in the AG mill, the
key aspects that need to be considered in the model
include:
1. frequency of breakage events for each particle
size ‐ breakage rate (function of speed)
2. energy associated with each breakage event –
function of mill load and diameter
3. size distribution of the products from each
breakage event ‐ appearance function
4. classification performance of the grate
5. relationship between slurry hold‐up and
transport (flowrate) out of the mill ‐ discharge
function
In attempting to model an AG mill process,
either using JKSimMet or other means, the model
essentially has to quantify the above mechanisms.
This calibration step represents an opportunity to
develop a simplified model that describes the two key
aspects for a given set of mill and feed ore conditions,
namely 1) the breakage energy‐by‐size distribution,
51
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
and 2) the grate classification behaviour, as illustrated
by Figure 3.23. As an initial concept model, these two
mechanisms were represented in JKSimMet using the
simplest breakage model (T10) applied to the size
ranges defined by the standard 0.25, 4.0, 16.0, 44.8
and 128mm particle sizes. The product from each
breakage event/size range reports to the grate. The
particles finer than the grate contribute to the final
AG mill product, whereas the coarser particles are
recycled and form the mill load. This conceptual
model is illustrated in Figure 3.23.
The main question was whether the conceptual
model could adequately describe the actual AG mill
performance, specifically the mill product and load
size distributions. Figure 3.24 shows the final
calibration results suggesting the conceptual model is
capable of representing the complex mechanisms of
the AG mill process. Surprisingly, the quality of fit is
excellent for the product and mill load size
distributions. The calibration included five screen
sizes, the t10 levels for each size and grate
classification parameters.
100
90
80
Cumulative % Passing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Size (mm)
AG Feed Exp AG Product Exp AG Product Cal AG Load Exp AG Load Cal
Figure 3.24. Quality of conceptual model fit to AG
mill survey data
The quantity of recycle did not match the load
mass in the mill, but this is not surprising since the
breakage in the mill was modelled using a series of
simple impact models which assume each particle in
the feed is broken once, at the same T10 (or Ecs,
energy per unit mass).
In the real process, the breakage combines
impact, attrition and abrasion, and the applied energy
is distributed across all three mechanisms. As such,
the simulated recycle better reflects the theoretical
recycle of material in the mill should the process ever
be operated solely in impact model at six nominal Ecs
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011
 Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
levels.

Feed Grate
T10128

Product
128mm T1044.8

Recycle
T1016.0
44.8mm
Spiral
Oversize
16mm T104.4
Recycle

4.4mm T100.25

0.25mm T10-0.25

Breakage-
by-Size

Figure 3.23. Schematic diagram of AG/SAG mill process (Napier‐Munn et al, 1996), and conceptual model of the key
breakage and classification mechanisms

Generating the A*b Blend Response Curve 1.0

Once the AG mill performance was calibrated using 0.9
0.8
the conceptual model, the effective impact energy at
TPH (normalized)

0.7
0.6
each size range was determined for the mill and 0.5
calibration ore blend. This energy‐by‐size array can 0.4
0.3
then be applied to any other feed blend by simulating 0.2
0.1
the change in energy caused by the change in ore
0.0
composition in the mill load (or recycle). This requires 0 25 50 75 100
% Soft (Ore Type B)
the hard and soft ore components to be simulated
Simulated Blend Response Calibration Point Linear Mixing
separately, iterating until the combined volumetric
filling (load) reaches the target at the set feed blend. Figure 3.25. Blend response curve for the AG mill
In each iteration, the applied energy is scaled treating two ore types mixed at different blends
according to the average density of the mill load.
The above results are consistent with
The resulting energy‐by‐size trend was found to
observations made in the Multi‐Component research
be consistent with the typical form of the AG/SAG
study currently being carried out as part of the Amira
breakage rate curve (Napier‐Munn et al, 1996), which
P9O project.
is encouraging.
The success of the ‘proof‐of‐concept’ study
Figure 3.25 shows a plot of the simulated blend suggests the proposed conceptual model may be a
response for the AG mill treating different blends of viable tool for estimating the A*b blend response for a
the two ore components in the feed. There is clearly a given mill configuration. The information and data
strong interaction between the components of the required to carry out such simulations is the
blend, the harder material having the greater following:
influence on the overall breakage properties and mill
throughput. For comparison, the linear response is 1. JKSimMet model of the AG/SAG mill circuit
superimposed which shows a 30% over‐estimation in treating a known blend of two distinct ore
components.
the expected throughout at the 50/50 blend.
a. Ideally the model should be calibrated to
detailed survey data which includes

GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 52


measured feed ore parameters A*b and SG.
b. The model provides the key inputs of mill
load and product size distributions at the
survey conditions.
2. JKRBT or JKDWT ore parameters for the survey
AG/SAG mill feed sample, including SG.
3. JKRBT or JKDWT ore parameters for both ore
components, including SG.
In greenfield cases, where the circuit has yet to
be designed, a JKSimMet model scaled from an
appropriate baseline to design conditions can be
used. The feed ore hardness parameters for the design
case would need to be assumed, based on the
expected typical feed blend and nominal hard and
soft ore types in the deposit.
Though the conceptual model has limitations, it
provides a useful basis for investigating the multi‐
component behaviour of two ores of differing
hardness/SG in a given AG/SAG milling environment,
where only the ore blend is varied; a scenario typical
to geometallurgical throughput modelling
applications.
3.4 Conclusions
CP3a ‐ The introduction of a simple power meter
during Ci crushing has shown a consistent improve‐
ment in the A*b prediction when the specific power
terms are included in the calibration model. The im‐
provement was particularly significant in the harder
samples where the Ci was unable to resolve the dif‐
ference between two samples. The improvement was
not as significant when applied to Bond prediction.
Overall, measurement of energy consumed per unit
weight should become routine practice when consid‐
ering Ci testing.
CP3b/1 ‐ A*b Express has been confirmed as a
rapid means of quantifying the impact resistance of
core samples, using only one RBT test at the 0.2 kWh/t
specific energy. Once calibrated to RBT Lite or full
RBT test results, the A*b Express method should be
able to provide a robust mapping tool with a minimal
sample requirement. This is ideally suited to hardness
characterisation at pre‐feasibility level or short‐term
planning.
CP3b/2 ‐ The development of a Bond proxy test
based on the high energy application of the RBT has
53
Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
been completed. The study was based on a compre‐
hensive database consisting of 296 samples across
eight deposits. The results suggest that with a site
specific calibration, the relative error can be as low as
4.6%. On average, across all eight sites, the relative
error was 6.8%. The strong correlation appears to be
related to the similarity of the energy applied in the
Bond mill and the fact that the Bond work index is
dominated by the harder components in any given
sample. The combination of the A*b Express and RBT
Wi proxy tests offers a rapid system for mapping the
A*b and Wi, ideally suited to the geometallurgical
variability testing.
CP3c/1 – Experimental determination of the
blend response in the Bond ball mill, treating two
components of significantly different impact resis‐
tance, is viable. However, in the absence of additional
experimental Bond blend response data, the research
team has developed a JKSimMet approach to quantify
the blend response of the Bond process. The proof‐of‐
concept results suggest that the Bond test can be re‐
liably simulated in JKSimMet, given the results from
the full Bond test. The results from the case study
using Sudbury ores are very encouraging, but further
validation is warranted.
CP3c/2 ‐ The difficult task of quantifying the A*b
blend response in AG/SAG milling through physical
experiments may be resolved through a series of vir‐
tual experiments based on a simulation model of the
process on a given ore blend. The proof‐of‐concept
results suggest that a simplified model framework in
JKSimMet can reproduce the key mechanisms in the
mill expressed in terms that can be easily changed
when considering other feed blends. The resulting
blend response curve using the new conceptual
model appear to be realistic and provide a more ro‐
bust approach for investigating the multi‐component
behaviour of two ores of differing hardness/SG in a
given AG/SAG milling environment.
3.5 Acknowledgements
The information used in the development of the
conceptual model was made possible through Julius
Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre and P9O
AMIRA project.
GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011
 Core Program Theme 3 – Integrated Comminution Modelling
3.6 References
Bond, F.C., (1961). Crushing and Grinding Calcula‐
tions, Allis‐Chalmers publication, No.
O7R9235B.

Kojovic, T., and Whiten, W.J., 1989. Automated model

building in mineral processing, Proc Comp.
Tech. and Appl. Conference, Brisbane, July, 479‐
486.

Napier‐Munn, T.J., Morrell, S., Morrison, R.D. and

Kojovic, T., 1996. Mineral Comminution Cir‐
cuits: Their Design and Optimisation. JKMRC,
University of Queensland, Brisbane, 413pp.

Stark, S., Perkins, T. and Napier‐Munn, T.J., 2008. JK

Drop Weight Parameters: A Statistical Analysis
of Their Accuracy and Precision and the Effect
on SAG Mill Comminution Circuit Simulation,
published in AusIMM MetPlant Proceedings,
18‐19 August, pp 147‐156.

Yan, D & Eaton, R 1993, ʹBreakage properties of ore

blendsʹ, Minerals Engineering, vol. 7, no. 2, pp.
185‐99.

GeMIIi (Amira P843A) Technical Report 8 – December 2011 54