Comparative Study on the Effect of HPGR and Conventional Crushing on the Ball Mill Energy

Requirement, Milling Kinetics and Degree of liberation: A case study of UG2 Platinum Ore
Titus Nghipulile1; Sandile Nkwanyana1; Kirsten Youlton2; Jonathan Desebrook2; Niyoshaka Lameck1
1Mineral Processing Division, Mintek, South Africa
2Mineralogy Division, Mintek, South Africa

Abstract
It is claimed that the micro-cracks in HPGR products reduce energy requirements in ball mills and improve degree
of liberation. Comparative pilot-scale tests with the HPGR and cone crusher were conducted using UG2 platinum-
bearing ore. HPGR crushing was conducted at 1.6, 2.3 and 3.3 N/mm2. The cone crusher product was reconstituted
into the same size distributions as the HPGR products. A qualitative analysis of the degree of micro-cracking on
the HPGR and cone crusher products were performed using SEM and image analysis software. Similar
distributions of cracks in the chromite and silicates for HPGR and cone crusher products. Due to fine grained
nature of the sulphides, in addition to the coarse nature of the overall sample the sulphides could not feasibly be
characterised at this stage. The HPGR and cone crusher products were milled to achieve d 80 = 300 µm, d80= 150
µm and d80 = 75 µm. Size specific energy consumption indices were calculated for four grind sizes (38, 75, 150
and 300 µm). For both kWh/t new -300 µm and kWh/t new -150 µm, the energy requirements during ball milling
were similar for the two crushing methods. For the kWh/t new -75 µm, the HPGR product required more energy
during grinding (especially for input energy below 20 kWh/t). In terms of the kWh/t new -38 µm, more energy
was required to produce new 38 µm for the whole range of input energy considered (5 to 40 kWh/t) when the
UG2 ore was pre-crushed using the cone crusher. The kinetic parameter k in the cumulative rate kinetic model
was similar for the mill products crushed using HPGR and cone crusher. The results suggest that the crushing
method had no significant impact on the milling kinetics for the UG2 platinum-bearing ore. The QEMSCAN was
used to determine the degree of liberation of various mineral phases in the mill products. At coarser grind (d80 of
300 µm), the sulphides in the mill products pre-crushed using the cone crusher have consistently poorer liberation
than in the equivalent HPGR pre-crushed sample. However, on further investigation of the liberation of the
sulphides at fine grind size (d80 of 75 µm), the key minerals tend to have very similar liberation regardless of the
crushing method. On this basis, it seems likely that HPGR is better able to liberate BMS phases at a coarser grind
size. At finer grind sizes, this advantage is no longer evident.

Keywords: HPGR; micro-cracks; liberation; milling energy; UG2 ore; mineralogy

1. Introduction
Comminution accounts for about 30 to 50% of the direct electrical energy usage in a typical concentrator
(Wills & Finch, 2016). To lower the operating costs (not only due to high energy consumption, but also
attributed to steel media consumption in the circuits with tumbling mills and other costs such as
maintenance cost associated with liner replacement in comminution equipment), and thereby ensuring
the sustainability of the minerals industry, there is a need to optimize existing comminution circuits.
One way to do this is by leveraging the operational benefits of individual comminution machines.
Secondly, mining companies are expected to contribute to the reduction of carbon footprint as part of

1
their sustainability strategies. Among others, the chief goal must always be to develop simple and
energy efficient comminution circuits.

Comminution circuits incorporating the high pressure grinding rolls (HPGR) can potentially reduce the
minerals industry’s CO2 emissions by up to 43.5% when compared to the established Autogenous
(AG)/Semi-Autogenous (SAG)/Ball mill circuit alternatives (Daniel et al., 2010; Morrell, 2022). The
HPGR technology is proving to be the future alternative to secondary and tertiary conventional cone
crushing or primary milling (replacing the Autogenous (AG) and semi-Autogenous (SAG) mills) as its
application for various ore commodities is slowly taking momentum. It is now being utilized for various
commodities such as copper, iron and gold (Barani & Balochi, 2016; Michaelis, 2009; Van Der Meer
& Maphosa, 2012) and Platinum Group Metals (PGM)(Rule et al., 2009).

The HPGR has traditionally been used in the cement industry where the application of a competing
comminution device known as vertical roller mill (VRM) is also popular. The HPGR and VRM employ
the inter-particles comminution mechanism to crush/grind the particles. The inter-particle breakage
mechanism was reported to be characterized by high energy efficiency as the crushing/grinding force
is directly applied to the particles (Schönert, 1988, 1996). Energy savings ranging between 10 - 30%
have been reported for the circuits incorporating HPGR compared to the conventional SABC (SAG
mill, ball-mill and recycle crusher) circuit (Van Der Meer & Gruendken, 2010; Van Der Meer &
Maphosa, 2012). Several studies have also reported that the HPGRs are associated with improved
degree of liberation (Rosario et al., 2011; Saramak et al., 2017). A higher degree of liberation is
attributed to the presence of residual micro-cracks in the HPGR progeny particles as the result of high
stresses applied during comminution (Ozcan & Benzer, 2013). The micro-cracking along grain
boundaries ensures preferential liberation of valuable minerals and thus the product from HPGR is
expected to respond favourably in the downstream processes such as leaching (Ghorbani et al., 2013).
Studies to understand the effect of HPGR comminution on flotation have also been undertaken (Palm
et al., 2010; Solomon et al., 2011; von Michaelis, 2005), although the results have been inconclusive.
The presence of micro cracks also suggests the likelihood of fast milling kinetics in the subsequent
milling stage (Barani & Balochi, 2016; Genç & Benzer, 2016).

Despite all the research effort that has gone into HPGR technology, there are still some questions that
need to be answered, e.g., what is the relationship between the pressure force and the degree of micro-
cracking on the HPGR product, what is the relationship between the degree of micro-cracking and the
overall energy requirements on the milling stage, and what is the relationship of the degree of micro-
cracking and the degree of liberation? This study was undertaken to investigate how the residual
microcracks in the HPGR products affects energy consumption and degree of liberation in the
subsequent ball milling stage.

2
 2. Theoretical Background
The milling kinetics of batch grinding (as the case in this study) and continuous grinding with a plug
flow assumption can be modelled using the cumulative kinetic model that was developed by Laplante
et al. (1987) as a solution to the differential equation earlier proposed by Loveday (1967). One of the
main advantage of this model is its simplicity (defined by only two parameters) and that those
parameters determined at the laboratory-scale can be directly applied at pilot and industrial scales. The
cumulative kinetic model can be described by the following equation.

W(x, t) = W(x, 0)e−kt (1)

Where W(x,t) is cumulative percentage of oversize material for sieve size x at time t, W(x,0) is the
cumulative percentage of oversize material of size x in the feed, k is the breakage rate constant, min-1
and t is the time in minutes.

The breakage rate (velocity) k and particle size x is described by the following equation.

k = Cx n (2)

Where C and n are constants that are dependent on mill and material characteristics, respectively
(Ersayin et al., 1993).

Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) yields the following equation which can be used to calculate the product
size distribution if C and n are known.
n
W(x, t) = W(x, 0)e−Cx t
(3)

Eq. (3) was applied in this study to evaluate the milling kinetic parameter k which was compared for
HPGR and cone crusher products. This made it possible to investigate the effect of the crushing
technology on the ball milling kinetics.

3. Methodology
The procedure is shown in Figure 1. Approximately 4 tons Upper-Group 2 (UG2) platinum-bearing ore
with the top size of 200 mm was jaw crushed to -19 mm (see Figure 2A). The crushed ore was
homogenized using the mechanical blender (Figure 2B) and split into two equal 2 tons batches which
were used for HPGR and cone crushing test work respectively. The HPGR and cone crusher feed (-19
mm) was mineralogically characterized using the scanning electron microscope (SEM). The purpose of
this investigation was to (1) identify phases with microcracks and (2) measure and quantify the
identified microcracks using a combination of energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS) and back-scattered
electron (BSE) images using the Carl Zeiss Evo MA15 SEM. Backscattered electron (BSE) images
were taken to illustrate the mode of occurrence of each phase and microcracks present in the various
crushing products, these images were then processed using Stream Essentials® software package to
measure and count the amount of cracks present in each mineral phase. The HPGR and cone crusher

3
feed were also sampled using the rotary splitter to get a 1 kg sample which was pulverised to 95%
passing 20 µm and chemically assayed for base metals, PGMs and other metallic gangue elements.

Bulk
Crushing,
Sample Preparation blending,
splitting, PSD,
and
SEM,
Feed Characterization chemical
analysis

SEM
HPGR analysis of Cone crusher
products

PSD and
QEMSCAN
Milling Milling
analysis of
mill product

Size analysis Size analysis

Data analysis
and
interpretation

Draw conclusions

Figure 1: A schematic representation of the procedures

(A) (B)

Figure 2: (A) Crushing of the UG2 ore using the jaw crusher; (B) Blending of the -19 mm using the mechanical
blender

4
Figure 3 shows the experimental program for the HPGR test work and auxiliary tests/analyses. The
semi-pilot pilot-scale HPGR testing unit (see Figure 4 and Table 1) was used for the test work. The
HPGR is equipped with studded rolls. After each single pass, the product, which was mainly cakes was
de-agglomerated, sampled for size and mineralogical analysis while the remainder was reserved for the
milling tests.

HPGR feed

Pilot-scale
Mineralogical Chemical
BBWI HPGR
characterization analysis
crushing

low Medium
Highest
pressure pressure
pressure
(65 (93
bar/1.60 bar/2.35 (130 bar/3.32
N/mm2) N/mm2) N/mm2)

Milling SEM Miling Milling SEM

Closed- d80 = 150 µm d80 = 75 µm Closed- Closed-

d80 = 300 µm d80 = 150 µm d80 = 75 µm d80 = 300 µm d80 = 300 µm d80 = 150 µm d80 = 75 µm
circuit test circuit test circuit test

Figure 3: HPGR-ball milling test work; the samples in the shaded boxes were submitted for mineralogical
characterization including liberation determination

Figure 4: Semi-pilot scale HPGR used for the test work

Table 1: Pilot-scale HPGR technical data and test conditions

Parameter Unit Value

Roller diameter mm 500
Roller width mm 300
No load shaft power kW 0.60
Specific pressing forces N/mm2 1.60, 2.35 and 3.32
Roll speed rpm 7
Feed system - Gravity
Moisture content % 1
Feed top size mm 19
Sample mass per single pass run kg 100

5
The 2 tons batch, reserved for the cone crushing test work, was crushed to have the same top size as the
HPGR product (i.e., 13.2 mm) using the pilot-scale cone crusher. The crusher product was dry screened
using the root two sieves ranging between 13.2 mm and 75 µm. The samples for various size fractions
were used to reconstitute the cone crusher products into three HPGR products’ PSDs (at lowest, medium
and highest pressures). Reconstitution was done to have similar mill feed PSDs for the two crushing
equipment and thus allowing the study of the effect of the residual micro-cracks on ball milling energy
requirement, milling kinetics and degree of liberation. Figure 5 shows the PSDs of HPGR and
reconstituted cone crusher products.

Figure 5: PSDs of HPGR and cone crusher products (PSD 1 corresponds to 1.60 N/mm2, PSD 2 corresponds to
2.35 N.mm2 and PSD 3 corresponds to 3.32 N/mm2)

The HPGR and cone crusher products having the three different size distributions (PSD 1, PSD 2 and
PSD 3) in Figure 5 were independently homogenized and sub-divided to get 1 kg sub-samples that were
reserved for mineralogical analyses and 4 kg sub-samples for the milling test.. The comparative ball
milling and mineralogical characterization test work were conducted as shown in Figure 6. The samples
in the shaded boxes were submitted for mineralogical characterization (using QEMSCAN to get the
degree of liberation). The same characterization procedures applied to the HPGR feed sample were used
on the HPGR and cone crusher products

6
 Cone crushed material

PSD 1 PSD 2 PSD 3

Milling SEM Miling Milling SEM

Closed- Closed- Closed-

d80 = 300 µm d80 = 75 µm d80 = 300 µm d80 = 150 µm d80 = 75 µm circuit
d80 = 300 µm d80 = 150 µm d80 = 75 µm circuit d80 = 150 µm circuit
test test test

Figure 6: Cone crusher-ball milling test work

Milling was performed using the laboratory ball mill, the design specifications and operating parameters
of which are listed in Table 2. The mill is well instrumented to accurately measure the rotational speed
and drive torque to allow the calculation of the mechanical power. The mill discharge was sampled for
particle size analysis and mineralogical characterization using Quantitative Evaluation of Materials by
Scanning Electron Microscopy (QEMSCAN). Automated image analysis utilizing Backscattered
Electron (BSE) and Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) signals from a SEM was used to create digital
images in which each pixel corresponds to mineral species in the corresponding region under the
electron beam. Specific mineral search (SMS) mode was employed to characterize the sulphides
present.

Table 2: Design and operating parameters of the laboratory mill

Parameter/Property Unit Value

Internal diameter m 0.265
Effective length m 0.305
Number of rectangular lifters - 8
Mill speed rpm 62
Mill speed as a fraction of critical speed % 75
Total specific input energy kWh/t 5, 10, 20 and 40
Ore mass kg 3.9
Ore SG - 5.83
Slurry density % solids (v/v) 45
Steel ball mass
(60 mm diameter = 7.96 kg, 50 mm diameter
= 4.38 kg, 40 mm diameter = 2.08 kg, and kg 15.4
30 mm diameter = 0.95 kg)

7
 4. Results and discussions

4.1 Chemical and mineralogical characterization of the feeds to the crushers

The chemical composition analysis results of the UG2 platinum ore are listed in Table 3. It is observed
that the PGMs (Pt and Pd) collectively constitutes 2.19 ppm of the ore. The ore was also mineralogically
examined using the SEM, the BSE images are shown in Figure 7. It was observed that the sample
predominantly consists of chromite, pyroxene, and plagioclase and to a lesser extent chalcopyrite and
pentlandite.

Table 3: Chemical composition of the UG2 ore

Element Concentration Unit

Al 6.05
Ca 2.27
Co <0.05
Cr 9.57
Cu <0.05
Fe 11.2
Mg 9.67
Mn 0.15 %
Ni 0.095
Pb <0.05
Si 16.3
Ti 0.28
V <0.05
Zn <0.05
Au 0.03
Pd 0.91 ppm
Pt 1.28
As <0.01

Figure 7: BSE SEM micrographs of the feed; identified phases: chromite (1, 39 and 44), plagioclase (2, 4, 38
and 43), and pyroxene (3, 40 and 42)

From the SEM analysis, typical UG2 features were observed. It was observed that breakage/fracture
was non-random, meaning that breakage is dependent on the ore texture, which includes some of the

8
following properties: size and shape of the mineral grains, grain bonding and the nature of the grain
interfaces, orientation, and recrystallization and formation of secondary minerals (Malvik, 1988).
Larger grains tend to have wider (25 µm) and pervasive cracks as compared to the smaller grains.
Chromite, which occurs as rounded grains, both liberated and within the silicate phases, had the least
amount of microcracks as compared to the coarser plagioclase and pyroxene. Evident from BSE images
is that there is no crack diversion from the chromite to the silicates. However, crack diversion can be
observed between respective silicates (pyroxene and plagioclase). Crack diversion occurs when the
micro-cracks from one mineral propagates into the associated mineral. It was also observed that
breakage typically occurs along the chromite-silicate phase boundaries.

Figure 8 shows the typical dimensions of some of the identified microcracks in the sample. The
summary is provided in Tables 4 and 5. About 62% of the cracks were in the grains of silicates (see
Table 4). The minimum and maximum lengths of cracks in chromite and silicates are not significantly
different.

Table 4: Distribution of 471 microcracks in the HPGR feed

Phase Cracks Distribution (%)

Chromite 38

Plagioclase 14

Pyroxene 48

Table 5: Characteristics of microcracks and grains in crusher products with PSD 3

Dimensions of identified cracks Dimensions of grains
Phase Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Maximum
length (µm) length (µm) width (µm) length (µm) length (µm)

Chromite 13 421 25 11 340

Plagioclase 19 594 75 20 500
Pyroxene 7 1471 75 20 2400

9
Figure 8: Microcracks measurements in the UG2 ore which was pre-crushed to -19 mm using the jaw
crusher (feed to to the HPGR and cone crusher)

4.2 Effect of crushing technology on the intensity of microcracks

The crusher products with PSD 3 (corresponding to 3.32 N/mm2 in the case of HPGR crushing) were
mineralogically examined using the SEM. The BSE images are shown in Figures 9 and 11 for the HPGR
and cone crusher products respectively. Observations similar to what was deduced in the feed sample
were made in the HPGR and cone crusher products.

The qualitative investigation of the microcracks (see Figures 10 and 12) was also done as for the feed
and the results are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. The main observation from Table 6 is the same
distributions of cracks in the chromite and silicates for HPGR and cone crusher products. From Table
7, it was observed that dimensions of the cracks in the chromite phase are comparable for the products
of the two crushing technologies. This is contrary for the silicates’ microcracks, with maximum length
being high by a factor of close to 2 for the cone crusher product. However, in this instance the chromite
and silicate phases’ liberation/micro-cracking is not the key phase of interest, but rather the sulphide
liberation. However, due to fine grained nature of the sulphides, in addition to the coarse nature of the
overall sample the sulphides could not feasibly be characterised at this stage but will be investigated
later.

10
 Table 6: Summary of microcracks in crusher products with PSD 3

Cracks Distribution
Equipment
Chromite Silicate

HPGR product 13 87
Cone crusher product 12 88

Table 7: Characteristics of microcracks and grains in crusher products with PSD 3

Dimensions of identified cracks Dimensions of grains
Equipment Phase Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Maximum
length length width (µm) length length (µm)
(µm) (µm) (µm)
Cone crusher Chromite 37 343 40 10 353
Silicates 14 6437 70 22 6444
HPGR product Chromite 36.7 497 60 2 400
Silicates 89 3504 94 20 2200

Figure 9: BSE SEM micrographs for the HPGR product with PSD 3 (highest pressure); plagioclase (1,
5, 16, 19), pyroxene (2, 17), chromite (6, 15, 18)

11
 Figure 10: Microcracks measurements in the HPGR product for 3.32 N/mm2

Figure 11: BSE SEM micrographs for the cone crusher product with a PSD 3; plagioclase (2, 3, 6), pyroxene (1,
4, 5, 8, 12), altered pyroxene (5), (4), chromite (7), and chalcopyrite (13)

12
Figure 12: Microcracks measurements in the cone crusher product with PSD 3 (corresponding to 3.32
N/mm2 PSD of HPGR)
4.3 Evaluating milling energy requirement in terms of size specific energy consumption index
The PSDs of the mill products are shown in Figure 13. It can be observed that, for a specific energy
targeted (5, 10, 20 and 40 kWh/t), milling of material prepared using a HPGR and a cone crusher
resulted in products with indifferent PSDs. Figure 14 presents the size-specific energy consumption
indices (kWh/t new -300 µm, kWh/t new -150 µm, kWh/t new -75 µm and kWh/t new -38 µm)
calculated from the four tests (@ 5, 10, 20 and 40 kWh/t). For both kWh/t new -300 µm, kWh/t new -
150 µm, kWh/t new -75 µm and kWh/t new -38 µm (Figures 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D respectively), it
can be observed that the energy requirements during ball milling was similar for the two crushing
methods. The only exception to that that trend can be observed with PSD 3 (HPGR pressure of 3.32
N/mm2) in terms of kWh/t new -75 µm (i.e., the HPGR product required more energy during grinding
(especially for input energy below 20 kWh/t) and kWh/t new -38 µm (i.e., more energy was required to
produce new 38 µm for the whole range of input energy considered (5 to 40 kWh/t) when the UG2 ore
was pre-crushed using the cone crusher). Comparable size specific energy consumption indices agree
with similar mineralogical features observed for the HPGR and cone crusher products. Similar milling
behaviour is amplified in section 4.4 which discuss the ball milling kinetics.

13
 5 kWh/t 10 kWh/t
100 100

90

80
Cumulative Mass Passing (%)

Cumulative Mass Passing (%)

80

70

60
60
50

40

40
30

20

10 20
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000
Particle size (µm) Particle size (µm)

PSD 1_Cone crusher PSD 2_Cone crusher PSD 3_Cone crusher PSD 1_Cone crusher PSD 2_Cone crusher PSD 3_Cone crusher
PSD 1_HPGR PSD 2_HPGR PSD 3_HPGR PSD 1_HPGR PSD 2_HPGR PSD 3_HPGR

(A) (B)
20 kWh/t 40 kWh/t
100 100

Cumulative Mass Passing (%)

Cumulative Mass Passing (%)

80
80

60

60
40

20 40
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
Particle size (µm) Particle size (µm)

PSD 1_Cone crusher PSD 2_Cone crusher PSD 3_Cone crusher PSD 1_Cone crusher PSD 2_Cone crusher PSD 3_Cone crusher
PSD 1_HPGR PSD 2_HPGR PSD 3_HPGR PSD 1_HPGR PSD 2_HPGR PSD 3_HPGR

(C) (D)

Figure 13: Mill product size distributions for various specific input energies, (A) 5 kWh/t, (B) 10
kWh/t, (C) 20 kWh/t and (D) 40 kWh/t

14
 80 80

60 60
kWh/t new -300 µm

kWh/t new -150 µm

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Specific input energy (kWh/t) Specific input energy (kWh/t)

PSD 1_Cone crusher PSD 2_Cone crusher PSD 3_Cone crusher PSD 1_Cone crusher PSD 2_Cone crusher PSD 3_Cone crusher
PSD 1_HPGR PSD 2_HPGR PSD 3_HPGR PSD 1_HPGR PSD 2_HPGR PSD 3_HPGR

(A) (B)
80 100

80
60
kWh/t new -75 µm

kWh/t new -38 µm 60

40

40

20
20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Specific input energy (kWh/t) Specific input energy (kWh/t)

PSD 1_Cone crusher PSD 2_Cone crusher PSD 3_Cone crusher PSD 1_Cone crusher PSD 2_Cone crusher PSD 3_Cone crusher
PSD 1_HPGR PSD 2_HPGR PSD 3_HPGR PSD 1_HPGR PSD 2_HPGR PSD 3_HPGR

(C) (D)

Figure 14: Size-specific energy for various specific input energies

4.4 Effect of crushing technology on the milling kinetic parameter

Experimental data were fitted to Eq. (3) and the model parameters were estimated. The parameters are
listed in Table 8. A fair degree of fitness between experimental and model PSDs is shown in Figure 15.
The kinetic parameter k for various input energies are plotted in Figure 16. It is observed from Figure
16 that the kinetics parameters for the material at various input energies are comparable for the two
crushing technologies, with an exception of HPGR crushed ore with PSD 1 (lowest pressure, 1.6
N/mm2). The similar grinding kinetics is also reflected in the constant n values in Table 8 which are
comparable. The results suggest that the crushing technology had no significant impact on the milling
kinetics.

15
 Table 8: Cumulative rate breakage model fitting parameters

Model constants
Feed PSD Equipment
C (x1000) n
HPGR 0.406 1.112
PSD1
Cone crusher 0.130 1.377
HPGR 0.104 1.386
PSD 2
Cone crusher 0.116 1.389
HPGR 0.089 1.421
PSD 3
Cone crusher 0.113 1.378

(B)
(A)

Figure 15: Experimental versus model size distributions fitted to equation 3; (A) HPGR product PSD
1, (B) Cone crusher product PSD 1

Figure 16: Kinetic parameter k versus sieve size for various mill feed size distributions

4.5 Effect of crushing technology on the degree of liberation

Both the HPGR and cone crushed milled products with PSD 3 (HPGR pressure of 3.32 N/mm2) were
mineralogically characterised using the using a QEMSCAN, which provided both mineral abundances

16
but also more importantly spatial data from which important characteristics, particularly liberation were
determined. The analysis was done on the mill products with d80 sizes of 75 and 300 µm to derive the
liberation data at coarse and fine grind sizes.

In all the samples investigated, the major BMS phases present are pentlandite, chalcopyrite and
pyrrhotite, as is typical for the UG2. Figure 17 indicates the cumulative liberation curves of the mill
products with the d80 of 300 µm. The individual phases for both samples range from poorly to
moderately liberated. The pyrite in the mill product, pre-crushed using the cone crusher (see Figure
17A, has particularly poorly liberated with only 13.4% (w/w) better than 80% liberated, while
pentlandite is the best liberated, with 41.4% (w/w) better than 80% liberated. When considering all
BMS phases together - grouped BMS phase - has 39.8% (w/w) better than 80 % liberated.

This contrasts with the liberation results of the HPGR pre-crushed mill product (see Figure 17B) which
tends to have better liberated sulphides. The sample has poorly liberated pyrite with only 19.8% (w/w)
better than 80% liberated, while pentlandite is the best individually liberated sulphide with 54.1% (w/w)
better than 80% liberated. When considering all BMS phases together - grouped BMS phase - has 57.4%
(w/w) better than 80% liberated.

100
90
80
Pentlandite
70
Mass %

60 Chalcopyrite
50
40 Pyrrhotite
30
20 Pyrite
10
Grouped BMS
0

Liberation Classes

A.

100
90
80
70 Pentlandite
Mass %

60
Chalcopyrite
50
40 Pyrrhotite
30
Pyrite
20
10 Grouped BMS
0

Liberation Classes
B.

17
 Figure 17. Cumulative free surface liberation of the base metal sulphides (BMS) of mill products
with d80 of 300 µm, A) pre-crushed using the cone crusher and B) pre-crushed using the HPGR

Figure 18 indicates the cumulative liberation curves of the mill products with the d80 of 75 µm. From
Figure 18A, it can be observed that the individual phases in the cone crushed mill product are
moderately well liberated (pyrite has 39.3% (w/w) better than 80% liberated, while chalcopyrite has
62.4% (w/w) better than 80% liberated). The grouped BMS phases has 60.3% (w/w) better than 80%
liberated. This liberation is extremely similar to that of the HPGR pre-crushed mill product with the d80
of 75 µm (see Figure 18B), this is the case both for individual phases such as pyrite (which has 39.2%
(w/w) better than 80% liberated) and also in the case of the case of the grouped BMS phases where
59.9% (w/w) is better than 80% liberated.

100
90
80
70
Mass %

60 Pentlandite
50
40 Chalcopyrite
30
Pyrrhotite
20
10 Pyrite
0
Grouped BMS

Liberation Classes

A.

100
90
80
70 Pentlandite
Mass %

60
Chalcopyrite
50
40 Pyrrhotite
30
Pyrite
20
10 Grouped BMS
0

Liberation Classes
B.
Figure 18. Cumulative free surface liberation of the base metal sulphides (BMS) of mill products
with d80 of 75 µm, A) pre-crushed using the cone crusher and B) pre-crushed using the HPGR

5. Conclusions

18
The effect of crushing method (HPGR versus cone crusher) on the ball mill energy requirement, milling
kinetics and degree of liberation was investigated.

The qualitative investigation of the microcracks feed and products of the crushers. Similar distributions
of cracks in the chromite and silicates for HPGR and cone crusher products. However, in this instance
the chromite and silicate phases’ liberation/micro-cracking is not the key phase of interest, but rather
the sulphide liberation. However, due to fine grained nature of the sulphides, in addition to the coarse
nature of the overall sample the sulphides could not feasibly be characterised at this stage.

Milling energy requirements was evaluated using the size specific energy consumption indices
calculated based on four grind sizes (300, 150, 75 and 38 µm). For both kWh/t new -300 µm and kWh/t
new -150 µm, the energy requirements during ball milling was similar for the two crushing methods.
Effect of crushing method on the ball mill energy requirement could only be observed at fine grind sizes
(38 and 75 µm). For the kWh/t new -75 µm, the HPGR product required more energy during grinding
(especially for input energy below 20 kWh/t). In terms of the kWh/t new -38 µm, more energy was
required to produce new 38 µm for the whole range of input energy considered (5 to 40 kWh/t) when
the UG2 ore was pre-crushed using the cone crusher.

The kinetic parameter k in the cumulative rate kinetic model was similar for the mill products crushed
using HPGR and cone crusher. The results suggest that the crushing method had no significant impact
on the milling kinetics for the UG2 platinum-bearing ore. The results may not be generalized for other
ores at this stage.

While the mineralogical analysis and breakage of the chromite and gangue phases are not necessarily
definitive the quantitative sulphide characterisation has confirmed that, specifically at coarser grind (d80
of 300 µm, the sulphides in the mill products pre-crushed using the cone crusher have a consistently
poorer liberation than in the equivalent HPGR pre-crushed sample. However, on further investigation
of the liberation of the sulphides at fine grind size (d80 of 75 µm), the key minerals tend to have very
similar liberation regardless of the crushing method. On this basis, it seems likely that HPGR is better
able to liberate BMS phases at a coarser grind size. At finer grind sizes, this advantage is no longer
evident. To confirm this pattern remains consistent, additional samples will be analysed.

19
References
Barani, K., & Balochi, H. (2016). A comparative study on the effect of using conventional and high
pressure grinding rolls crushing on the ball mill grinding kinetics of an iron ore.
Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing, 52(2), 920–931.
https://doi.org/10.5277/ppmp160231
Daniel, M., Lane, G., & McLean, E. (2010). Efficiency, economics, energy and emissions-emerging
criteria for comminution circuitdecision making. XXV International Mineral Processing
Congress 2010, IMPC 2010, 5(March 2019), 3523–3531.
Ersayin, S., Sönmez, B., Ergün, L., Akasani, B., & Erkal, F. (1993). Simulation of the grinding circuit
at Gümüsköy Silver Plant, Turkey. Trans. Instn Min. Metall. (Sec. C: Mineral Process. Extr.
Metall.), 102, C32–C38.
Genç, & Benzer, A. H. (2016). Effect of High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR) pre-grinding and ball
mill intermediate diaphragm grate design on grinding capacity of an industrial scale two-
compartment cement ball mill classification circuit. Minerals Engineering, 92, 47–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2016.02.009
Ghorbani, Y., Mainza, A. N., Petersen, J., Becker, M., Franzidis, J. P., & Kalala, J. T. (2013).
Investigation of particles with high crack density produced by HPGR and its effect on the
redistribution of the particle size fraction in heaps. Minerals Engineering, 43–44, 44–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2012.08.010
Laplante, A. R., Finch, J. A., & del Villar, R. (1987). Simplification of grinidng equation for plant
simulation. Trans. Instn Min. Metall. (Sec. C: Mineral Process. Extr. Metall.), 68, C108–C112.
Levin, J. (1992). Indicators of grindability and grinding efficiency. Journal of The Southern Africa
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 92(10), 283–290.
Loveday, B. K. (1967). An analysis of comminution kinetics in terms of size distribution parameters.
Journal of Southern Africa Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 68, 111–131.
Malvik, T. (1988). Relations between mineralogical texture and comminution characteristics for
rocks and ores. Elsevier Science Publisher BV.
MICHAELIS, H. VON. (2009). How energy efficient is HPGR? World Gold Conference, 7–18.
http://www.saimm.co.za/Conferences/WorldGold2009/007-018_vonMichaelis.pdf
Morrell, S. (2022). Helping to reduce mining industry carbon emissions: A step-by-step guide to
sizing and selection of energy efficient high pressure grinding rolls circuits. Minerals
Engineering, 179, 107431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2022.107431
Ozcan, O., & Benzer, H. (2013). Comparison of different breakage mechanisms in terms of product
particle size distribution and mineral liberation. Minerals Engineering, 49, 103–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013.05.006
Palm, N. A., Shackleton, N. J., Malysiak, V., & O’Connor, C. T. (2010). The effect of using different
comminution procedures on the flotation of sphalerite. Minerals Engineering, 23(11–13), 1053–
1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2010.08.001
Rosario, P., Hall, R., Grundy, M., & Klein, B. (2011). A preliminary investigation into the feasibility
of a novel HPGR-based circuit for hard, weathered ores containing clayish material. Minerals
Engineering, 24(3–4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2010.09.011
Rule, C. M., Minnaar, D. M., & Sauermann, G. M. (2009). HPGR — revolution in platinum ? The
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, JANUARY, 6–9.
Saramak, D., Wasilewski, S., & Saramak, A. (2017). Influence of copper ore comminution in HPGR

20
 on downstream minerallurgical processes. Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, 62(3), 1689–
1694. https://doi.org/10.1515/amm-2017-0258
Schönert, K. (1988). A first survey of grinding with high-compression roller mills. International
Journal of Mineral Processing, 22(1–4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-7516(88)90075-
0
Schönert, K. (1996). The influence of particle bed configurations and confinements on particle
breakage. In International Journal of Mineral Processing (Vols. 44–45, Issue SPEC. ISS., pp.
1–16). https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-7516(95)00017-8
Solomon, N., Becker, M., Mainza, A., Petersen, J., & Franzidis, J. P. (2011). Understanding the
influence of HPGR on PGM flotation behavior using mineralogy. Minerals Engineering, 24(12),
1370–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2011.07.015
Van Der Meer, F. P., & Gruendken, A. (2010). Flowsheet considerations for optimal use of high
pressure grinding rolls. Minerals Engineering, 23(9), 663–669.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2009.09.012
Van Der Meer, F. P., & Maphosa, W. (2012). High pressure grinding moving ahead in copper, iron,
and gold processing. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 112(7),
637–647.
von Michaelis, H. (2005). Real and potential metallurgical benefits of HPGR in hard rock ore
processing. Proceedings of the Randol Innovative Metallurgy Forum Held in Perth, WA,
Australia, 21–24 August, 31–39.
Wills, B. A., & Finch, J. (2016). Wills’ mineral processing technology: An introudtcion to prcatical
aspects of ore treatment and mineral recovery (8th ed.). Elsverier; Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wilson, C. J. L., & Bell, I. . (1979). Deformation of biotite and muscovite: optical microstructure.
Tectonophysics, 58(1–2), 179–200.

21