Ubc 2011 Spring Drozdiak Jeffrey

A Pilot-Scale Examination of a Novel High Pressure Grinding Roll / Stirred Mill
Comminution Circuit for Hard-Rock Mining Applications

by

J effrey Adam Drozdiak

B.A.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 2006

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE

in

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

(Mining Engineering)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Vancouver)

April 2011

J effrey Adam Drozdiak, 2011
ii

Abstract
The mining industry will be faced with new challenges as the need to develop lower grade ore
deposits expands to meet the rising demand for raw resources. Low-grade deposits require a
substantially increased tonnage to achieve adequate metal production and have caused the
consumption of energy in mining practices such as comminution to rise dramatically. If
improvements could be made in the processes employed for metal extraction, the mining
industry could remain sustainable for future generations. This research focused on the
development of a novel comminution circuit design to addresses these issues. The circuit
design incorporated two, known energy efficient technologies, the High Pressure Grinding Roll
(HPGR) and the horizontal high-speed stirred mill, and examined the technical feasibility of a
circuit operating without the need for a tumbling mill.
The main objectives of this research were to setup pilot-scale research equipment and develop
the design criteria necessary to operate an HPGR / stirred mill circuit. Testing consisted of
using a copper-nickel sulphide ore from Teck Limiteds Mesaba deposit to evaluate a circuit
comprised of two stages of HPGR comminution followed by stirred mill grinding. To evaluate
the potential energy benefits of this novel circuit arrangement, energy consumption related to
comminution was calculated for the circuit using power draw readings off the main motor and
the throughput recorded during testing. To provide a basis for comparison, the energy
requirements for two conventional circuits, a cone crusher / ball mill and an HPGR / ball mill,
were determined through HPGR pilot-scale testing, Bond grindability testing and J K SimMet

flowsheet simulation.
Results from this research showed that operating the first-stage HPGR in open circuit and the
second stage in closed circuit with a 710m screen, resulted in a circuit energy requirement of
14.85kWh/t, a reduction of 9.2 and 16.7% over the HPGR / ball mill and cone crusher / ball mill
circuits, respectively. To assist in future HPGR / stirred mill studies, a refined testing procedure
was developed with a reduced sample commitment and the ability to perform an energy
comparison with a Semi-Autogenous Grinding (SAG) mill / ball mill circuit.

iii

Preface
The work presented in the following thesis was performed solely by the author. Some of the
information provided in Chapter 4 was published in the following paper:
Drozdiak, J ., Nadolski, S., Bamber, A., Klein, B., & Wilson, S. (2010). A Comparison of the
energy requirements of an HPGR / stirred mill circuit and conventional grinding circuits
for the comminution of mesaba ore. 42
nd
Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral
Processors, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
The co-authors made contributions regarding the structure and layout of the paper and all
experimental testing was carried out by the principle author.
My research committee, consisting of Dr. Bern Klein, Dr. Andrew Bamber, Dr. Marek Pawlik,
J osh Rubenstein, and Mike Larson, provided input into design of the test program and provided
advice on the research project.
Stefan Nadolski, of Koeppern Machinery Australia, provided assistance during HPGR pilot-scale
testwork and provided a summary for HPGR operating data.

iv

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii
Preface ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... xii
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 High Pressure Grinding Rolls ......................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Technology Overview .............................................................................................. 6
2.1.3 HPGR Operating Parameters .................................................................................. 8
2.1.4 Energy Efficient Comminution ............................................................................... 10
2.1.5 HPGR Flowsheet Considerations .......................................................................... 13
2.1.6 Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................................ 16
2.2 Stirred Media Mills ........................................................................................................ 21
2.2.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2 Vertical Stirred Mill Technology ............................................................................. 22
2.2.3 Horizontal Stirred Mill Technology ......................................................................... 24
2.2.4 Horizontal Stirred Mill Operating Parameters ........................................................ 27
2.2.5 Energy Efficiency for Stirred Media Mills ............................................................... 29
2.2.6 Horizontal Stirred Mill Flowsheet Options ............................................................. 32
2.2.7 Process Benefits of Horizontal Stirred Mills........................................................... 35
2.3 HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit ............................................................................................ 37
2.4 Literature Summary ...................................................................................................... 43
3 Experimental Procedure ...................................................................................................... 44
3.1 Definition of Comminution Circuits ............................................................................... 45
3.1.1 Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit ............................................................................. 45
3.1.2 HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit ......................................................................................... 46
3.1.3 HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit ..................................................................................... 46
3.2 Sample Description ...................................................................................................... 49
3.3 Equipment .................................................................................................................... 51
3.3.1 High Pressure Grinding Roll .................................................................................. 51
3.3.2 Horizontal Stirred Mill ............................................................................................ 53
3.3.3 Vibrating Screen .................................................................................................... 55
3.3.4 Bond Test Ball Mill ................................................................................................. 55
v

4 Testing and Simulation Results ........................................................................................... 57
4.1 Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit Results ........................................................................ 58
4.1.1 Flowsheet Simulation ............................................................................................ 58
4.1.2 Specific Energy Calculations ................................................................................. 60
4.2 HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit ................................................................................................. 62
4.2.1 HPGR Pilot-Scale Testing ..................................................................................... 62
4.2.2 Flowsheet Simulation ............................................................................................ 71
4.2.3 Specific Energy Calculations ................................................................................. 74
4.3 HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit ............................................................................................ 76
4.3.1 The Stirred Mill Circuit ........................................................................................... 76
4.3.2 The HPGR Circuit .................................................................................................. 84
4.3.3 Circuit Energy Summary ....................................................................................... 91
5 Discussion of Results .......................................................................................................... 92
5.1 Assessing Operating Parameters for Pilot-Scale Testing ............................................. 93
5.1.1 HPGR Operating Parameters ................................................................................ 93
5.1.2 Stirred Mill Operating Parameters ......................................................................... 94
5.2 Comparison of Comminution Circuits ........................................................................... 97
5.3 Preliminary HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit Flowsheet ...................................................... 102
5.4 Refined Procedure for Future Testing ........................................................................ 104
6 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 107
References ................................................................................................................................ 111
Appendix A J K SimMet
Data ................................................................................................ 122

Appendix B Bond Work Index Data ....................................................................................... 154
Appendix C HPGR Data ........................................................................................................ 171
Appendix D Stirred Mill Data .................................................................................................. 220

vi

List of Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of Energy Consumption for Comminution .................................................. 11
Table 2-2 Summary of Grinding Media Wear Rates ................................................................... 26
Table 2-3 Normalized Effect of Decreasing Ball Size ................................................................. 28
Table 2-4 Summary of Ball Mill Size Over the Years .................................................................. 30
Table 2-5 Summary of Power Density for Grinding Mills ............................................................ 31
Table 3-1 HPGR Machine Specifics ........................................................................................... 51
Table 4-1 Equipment Selection for Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit ............................................ 58
Table 4-2 Bond Work Indices for Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit .............................................. 60
Table 4-3 Feed Conditions for Pressing Force Tests ................................................................. 62
Table 4-4 Results for Cycle Four of Closed Circuit Testing ........................................................ 70
Table 4-5 Equipment Selection for HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit ........................................................ 71
Table 4-6 Summary Bond Ball Mill Work Indices for Cone Crusher and HPGR Product ............ 74
Table 4-7 Test Conditions for the 355m Signature Plot ............................................................ 77
Table 4-8 Test Conditions for the 710m Signature Plot ............................................................ 78
Table 4-9 Summary of Mill Operating Conditions for 1.2mm Testing ......................................... 79
Table 4-10 Revised Test Conditions for 710m Signature Plots ................................................ 82
Table 4-11 Summary of HPGR Results for First Stage Open and Closed Circuit Testing .......... 86
Table 4-12 Comparison of Wet and Dry Screening .................................................................... 91
Table 4-13 Summary of HPGR / Stirred Mill Energy Requirements ........................................... 91
Table 5-1 Statistics Summary of Circuit Energy Values ............................................................. 99
Table C-1 HPGR Pilot-Scale Test Key ..................................................................................... 172
Table C-2 HPGR Operating Data Phase One .......................................................................... 173
Table C-3 HPGR Operating Data Phase One (continued) ....................................................... 174
Table C-6 HPGR Operating Data Phase Two .......................................................................... 177
Table C-7 HPGR Operating Data Phase Two (continued) ....................................................... 178
Table C-10 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase One ............................................................ 181
Table C-11 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase One (continued) ......................................... 182
vii

Table C-12 T1A01 Product Size Distributions .......................................................................... 183
Table C-23 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase Two ............................................................ 205
Table C-24 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase Two (continued) ......................................... 206
Table C-25 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase Two (continued) ......................................... 207
Table C-27 T2B01 Product Size Distributions .......................................................................... 210

viii

List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Diagram of HPGR Comminution ................................................................................. 6
Figure 2-2 Flowsheet for Cerro Verde ........................................................................................ 15
Figure 2-3 Flowsheet Comparison for Peasquito ...................................................................... 16
Figure 2-4 Standard Photographic Evidence of Micro-cracking .................................................. 18
Figure 2-5 Example of Gravity-Induced Vertical Stirred Mill Technology (Vertimill
) .................. 23
Figure 2-6 Examples of Fluidized Vertical Stirred Mill Technologies .......................................... 24
Figure 2-7 IsaMill
TM
Layout ......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-8 IsaMill
TM
Grinding Mechanism ................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-9 Flowsheet for Mount Isa Mines .................................................................................. 33
Figure 2-10 Flowsheet for Regrind Circuit at Kumtor Mine ......................................................... 34
Figure 2-11 Original Flowsheet for McArthur River ..................................................................... 35
Figure 2-12 Modified McArthur River Flowsheet with Coarse IsaMill
TM
Grinding ........................ 35
Figure 2-13 HPGR Flowsheet for Fines Production in the Cement Industry .............................. 38
Figure 2-14 HPGR Flowsheet the Sukhoy Gold Plant ................................................................ 39
Figure 2-15 Example of an HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit ............................................................... 40
Figure 2-16 A Proposed HPGR / IsaMill
TM
Circuit ....................................................................... 40
Figure 2-17 Anglo Platinums HPGR Test Circuit ....................................................................... 41
Figure 2-18 Anglo Platinums HPGR / Stirred Mill Testing Flowsheets ...................................... 42
Figure 3-1 Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Flowsheet ........................................................................... 45
Figure 3-2 HPGR / Ball Mill Flowsheet ....................................................................................... 46
Figure 3-3 HPGR / Stirred Mill Flowsheet (Open Circuit) ........................................................... 47
Figure 3-4 HPGR / Stirred Mill Flowsheet (Closed Circuit) ......................................................... 47
Figure 3-5 Geographic Location of Mesaba ................................................................................ 49
Figure 3-6 Mesaba Feed Size Distribution .................................................................................. 50
Figure 3-7 Pilot-Scale HPGR Installation .................................................................................... 52
Figure 3-8 M20 Stirred Mill Installation ....................................................................................... 53
Figure 3-9 M20 Stirred Mill with Mixing Tanks ............................................................................ 54
Figure 3-10 ZS40 SWECO
Vibrating Screen ............................................................................ 55

Figure 3-11 Bond Test Ball Mill ................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4-1 Cone Crusher / Ball Mill J K SimMet
Flowsheet ....................................................... 59
Figure 4-2 Comparison of Specific Pressing Force and Product Size ........................................ 63
ix

Figure 4-3 Comparison of Specific Pressing Force and Specific Throughput ............................ 63
Figure 4-4 Comparison of Specific Pressing Force and Specific Energy Consumption ............. 64
Figure 4-5 Comparison of Moisture Content and Product Size .................................................. 65
Figure 4-6 Comparison of Moisture Content and Specific Throughput ....................................... 65
Figure 4-7 Comparison of Moisture Content and Specific Energy Consumption ........................ 66
Figure 4-8 Comparison of Roller Speed and Product Size ......................................................... 67
Figure 4-9 Comparison of Roller Speed and Specific Throughput ............................................. 67
Figure 4-10 Comparison of Roller Speed and Specific Energy Consumption ............................ 68
Figure 4-11 Product Size for Closed Circuit Testing ................................................................... 69
Figure 4-12 Specific Throughput for Closed Circuit Testing ....................................................... 69
Figure 4-13 Specific Energy Consumption for Closed Circuit Testing ........................................ 70
Figure 4-14 HPGR / Ball Mill J K SimMet
Flowsheet ................................................................. 73
Figure 4-15 Summary of Bond Work Indices .............................................................................. 74
Figure 4-16 Signature Plot for Top Size Testing of 355m ......................................................... 77
Figure 4-17 Signature Plot for Top Size Testing of 710m ......................................................... 78
Figure 4-18 Stirred Mill Dynamic Classifier Pegs ........................................................................ 79
Figure 4-19 Summary of Mill Parameters for 1.2mm Test #1 ..................................................... 80
Figure 4-22 Replacement of Grinding Disc with Spacer ............................................................. 82
Figure 4-23 710m Signature Plot Results with Revised Operating Conditions ......................... 83
Figure 4-24 Malvern and Screening Comparison for T1 ............................................................. 84
Figure 4-25 Malvern and Screening Comparison for T2 ............................................................. 84
Figure 4-26 Particle Size Distributions for Option A .................................................................... 87
Figure 4-27 Particle Size Distributions for Option B .................................................................... 87
Figure 4-28 Product Size for Second Stage Closed Circuit Testing ........................................... 89
Figure 4-29 Specific Throughput for Second Stage Closed Circuit Testing ................................ 89
Figure 4-30 Specific Energy Consumption for Second Stage Closed Circuit Testing ................. 90
Figure 5-1 Summary Layout for Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit ................................................ 97
Figure 5-2 Summary Layout of HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit ............................................................. 97
Figure 5-3 Summary Layout of HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit ......................................................... 98
Figure 5-4 Summary of Specific Energy Consumption for Each Circuit ..................................... 99
Figure 5-5 Product Size Distributions for Each Comminution Circuit ........................................ 101
x

Figure 5-6 Preliminary Layout for an HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit .............................................. 103
Figure 5-7 Scoping Level Testing Procedure for HPGR / Stirred Mill Evaluation ..................... 106
Figure B-1 Bond Work Index Data Crusher Product (150m) .................................................. 155
Figure B-2 Bond Work Index Data Crusher Product (150m) (continued) ............................... 156
Figure B-3 Bond Work Index Data 3N/mm
2
HPGR Product (150m) ....................................... 157
2
HPGR Product (150m) (continued) .................... 158
2
HPGR Product (150m) ....................................... 159
2
2
HPGR Product (150m) ....................................... 161
2
Figure B-9 Bond Work Index Data Crusher Product (106m) .................................................. 163
Figure B-10 Bond Work Index Data Crusher Product (106m) (continued) ............................. 164
2
HPGR Product (106m) ..................................... 165
2
HPGR Product (106m) (continued) .................. 166
2
HPGR Product (106m) ..................................... 167
2
2
HPGR Product (106m) ..................................... 169
2
Figure C-1 T1A01 Particle Size Distributions ............................................................................ 184
Figure C-10 T1A10 Particle Size Distributions .......................................................................... 202
Figure C-13 T2B01 Particle Size Distributions .......................................................................... 211
xi

Figure D-1 355m Top Size Test Signature Plot Data .............................................................. 221
Figure D-2 355m Top Size Test Particle Size Distributions .................................................... 222
Figure D-3 710m Top Size Test Signature Plot Data .............................................................. 223
Figure D-4 710m Top Size Test Particle Size Distributions .................................................... 224
Figure D-5 T2C02 Signature Plot Data (T1) ............................................................................. 225
Figure D-6 T2C02 Particle Size Distributions (T1) .................................................................... 226
Figure D-7 T2C03 Signature Plot Data (T2) ............................................................................. 227
Figure D-8 T2C03 Particle Size Distributions (T2) .................................................................... 228

xii

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Xstrata Technology and the National Science and Engineering Research
Council (NSERC) for their generous financial support for my research. Special thanks are given
to J osh Rubenstein and Mike Larson for their indispensable advice and technical knowledge,
which has allowed me to better understand the fundamentals of stirred milling.
Special thanks are also given to Dr. Andrew Bamber and BC Mining Research for their
continued support of my research and their role in introducing me to the field of high-pressure
grinding. The ability to complete a Masters degree while running a business unit was a
challenge, but the skills I have taken out of it will help me immensely as I move forward.
I would like to thank my research committee and especially my faculty advisor Dr. Bern Klein for
helping me through the process and providing invaluable advice and guidance along the way. I
would also like to thank Pius Lo and UBC for providing me the facilities to complete my
research.
I would like to acknowledge Teck Ltd. and especially Steve Wilson for supporting my research
and allowing me access to samples. I hope the results of this thesis will help in making Mesaba
an economically viable mine in the future.
Special thanks go out to Stefan Nadolski, of Koeppern Machinery Australia, for his assistance
with this research and for his support as both a friend and a colleague. The help in refurbishing
the M20, provided by both himself and Darcy Houlahan, allowed this research to happen and for
that I am truly grateful.
Most of all, I would like to thank my family for their continuing support of my endeavours and for
allowing me to be the best that I can be.

1

1 Introduction
The mining industry will be faced with new challenges in the years ahead. The exponentially-
increasing global population has resulted in an increased demand for raw resources. With the
known rich, coarse-grained deposits depleted, attention has turned to development of low-grade
deposits requiring increased tonnages to achieve adequate metal production. This increased
tonnage has resulted in an increased energy demand associated with metal extraction.
Coupled with this, society is becoming increasingly conscious of their footprint on the
environment, and serious attempts have begun, to reduce carbon emissions and increase
energy efficiency (Norgate and Haque, 2010). To adapt to this changing landscape, the mining
industry must begin to accept and adapt new, more energy-efficient technologies and begin to
focus on developing flowsheets capable of addressing the above issues.
Comminution, the process of crushing and grinding ore to liberate valuable minerals, is the most
energy-intensive part of the processing flowsheet, and accounts for upwards of 75-80% of the
overall energy consumption of the processing plant (Abouzeid and Fuerstenau, 2009; Tromans,
2008). In addition, the main unit operations employed in this process, tumbling mills, are as low
as 1% efficient (Fuerstenau and Abouzeid, 2002).
Currently, the main comminution circuits employed in the mining industry to process hard-rock,
low-grade deposits include some form of tumbling mill. This equipment utilizes steel balls (ball
mills), competent ore (Autogenous Grinding (AG) mills) or the combination of the two (Semi-
Autogenous Grinding (SAG) mills) to fracture rock using the breakage mechanisms of impact
and abrasion. The rotation of these large, cylindrical mills requires a considerable amount of
energy. Although their established circuit design and ability to process high tonnages is a huge
benefit, the increased energy demand and inability to efficiently grind to liberation sizes below
45m could slowly decrease their role in flowsheet designs of the future.
In the past 20 years, new, more energy-efficient technologies have been developed and
adapted for hard-rock mining comminution. High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR), an
innovative technology adapted from the cement and briquetting industries, have begun to be
considered for more base metal projects now that roll surfaces have been developed to treat
hard, abrasive ores (Dunne, 2006). Operating with two counter-rotating rolls, HPGRs create a
compressive bed of particles between the rolls, utilizing the process of inter-particle breakage.
2

This form of breakage results in improved comminution performance with a decreased demand
on energy (Klymowsky et al., 2006). Additionally, unlike tumbling mills, which require steel balls
to act as an energy transfer medium, HPGRs transfer energy directly from the rolls to the bed of
material, resulting in an increase in energy efficiency (Fuerstenau and Kapur, 1995). Another
technology, known as a horizontal stirred mill or IsaMill
TM
, was adapted from the pharmaceutical
industry in the early 1990s to help effectively process fine-grained ore bodies (J ohnson et al.,
1998). The IsaMill
TM
consists of a cylindrical tube with a centrally-rotating shaft, mounted with
evenly-spaced grinding discs. Loaded with small ceramic grinding media (2-6mm) and operated
at high speeds, the equipment utilizes high-intensity attrition breakage to reduce particles in
size. The rotation of a central shaft, as opposed to the entire grinding chamber (tumbling mills),
results in decreased energy requirements; while the combination of small grinding media and
increased media velocity, has been shown to improve the energy efficiency of grinding in
particle sizes below an f80 of 150m (Burford and Clark, 2007).
The goal of this research was to examine the possibility of incorporating the above-mentioned
energy-efficient equipment into a single flowsheet and eliminating the need for a tumbling mill.
The biggest obstacle surrounding this research was that the proposed circuit would be operating
both pieces of equipment outside of their normal operating range. As HPGRs began being
adapted to the hard-rock mining sector, they found the most functionality in a tertiary crushing
role, preparing feed for the ball mill (Morley, 2006a). Therefore, the process envelope for an
HPGR operating in hard-rock circuits typically has feed sizes of up to 70mm, and products
normally no finer than 4mm (Gruendken et al., 2010). At the same time, horizontal stirred mill
technologies such as the IsaMill
TM
have begun to be well-established in ultrafine grinding as a
regrind mill, providing a more energy-efficient alternative for processing rougher concentrates
with an f80 no larger than 100m (Gao and Holmes, 2007). To design the proposed circuit, a
suitable transfer size needed to be established, to utilize both pieces of equipment effectively. A
review of the literature found that a suitable circuit layout would comprise of two stages of
HPGR, followed by stirred milling (Daniel, 2007b). The literature provided very little operating
data for this circuit layout and therefore, optimization of operating parameters was fundamental
in making this circuit technically feasible.

3

The following were the proposed research objectives for the work summarized in this thesis:
The organization and setup of appropriate pilot-scale research equipment, capable of
testing the proposed circuit. Included in this objective was a complete refurbishing of a
Netzsch M20 stirred mill, complete with an appropriate mixing system capable of
handling the coarse particle sizes tested.
Determination of a suitable transfer size between the second-stage HPGR and the
stirred mill.
Examination of possible circuit layouts for the two stages of HPGR comminution. This
included assessing changes in operating parameters and their effects on comminution
performance.
Determination of the potential specific energy requirements necessary to operate the
proposed circuit.
Comparison of the determined energy requirements with two conventional circuits
currently being used in the industry, a cone crusher / ball mill circuit and an HPGR / ball
mill circuit. This analysis included a combination of testing and simulation to gain an
appropriate baseline for comparison.
Development of a preliminary HPGR / stirred mill circuit flowsheet.
Formulation of a practical testing procedure, which could be applied for future
examination of the proposed circuit with other ore types.

4

2 Literature Review
The following chapter will review the current literature related to high pressure grinding rolls,
stirred media mills, and the combination of the two. This review will include a summary of the
fundamentals, an explanation for energy efficiency, the current flowsheet design for the
equipment, and the potential advantages and disadvantages of each technology.

5

2.1 High Pressure Grinding Rolls
2.1.1 Background
The technology of high pressure grinding and its adaptation to comminution was first realized by
Professor Klaus Schoenert in the late 1970s, with fundamental work on fracture physics in
comminution (Schoenert, 1979). His results concluded that increased energy efficiency was
possible with the use of compressive beds and the effects of inter-particle breakage. Using a
similar machine design to those used for the briquetting of coal, he adapted this concept into the
technology now known as High Pressure Grinding Rolls, or HPGRs for short (Schoenert, 1988).
HPGRs initially found considerable success being used to grind soft clinker material in the
cement industry. Converting closed circuit ball mills to semi-finish grinding circuits and
incorporating HPGRs for feed preparation, the industry was able to reduce energy consumption
by 15-30% (Patzelt, 1992). After its establishment in the cement industry, advocates of the
technology began to look for new applications. In 1990, the Argyle diamond mine of Australia
adopted the HPGR technology to help process the increased ore hardness of their deeper,
competent, un-weathered lamproite (Lane et al., 2009). Due to its ability to select pressures
strong enough to break the host rock, but weak enough to leave the valuable stones intact, the
applications of the HPGR in the diamond industry have become well-established (Anguelov et
al., 2008). Since then, HPGRs have also found a niche application crushing iron ore for pellet
feed preparation (Pyke et al., 2006).
The first attempt to apply the HPGR technology in hard-rock, base metal mining, occurred at the
Cyprus Sierrita mining complex near Green Valley, AZ in J uly 1995 (Thompsen et al., 1996).
The plant trials conducted on the copper-molybdenum ore resulted in important findings in the
areas of circuit design and wear rates for continuous operation. Although this application of
HPGRs was not successful in becoming a lasting operation, the trials presented a success in
further understanding the challenges that lay ahead, before the HPGR technology could
successfully be adapted to hard-rock mining (Morley, 2008).
Over the next decade, continuous improvements in roller wear, especially in the area of studded
lining, allowed HPGRs to become a more viable option for base metal mining. The
improvements of roller wear life, inter alia, allowed the successful installation of the HPGR
technology at the Cerro Verde copper mine in 2007, becoming the first large-scale HPGR
6

installation in hard-rock mining (Vanderbeek et al., 2006). Since then, installations at
Boddington (gold), PT Freeport Indonesia (copper, gold) and Amplats Potgietersrust (platinum)
have incorporated the HPGR technology into their flowsheets (Rosario and Hall, 2010).
2.1.2 Technology Overview
The technology of HPGRs is comprised of two counter-rotating rolls mounted on a sturdy frame
(refer to Figure 2-1). One roll is fixed, while the other is allowed to float and move horizontally.
Unlike the rolls crusher typically found in the coal industry, a force is exerted on the floating
roller by a hydraulic oil cylinder system, exposing material to pressures as high as 300N/mm
2

(Daniel, 2002; Schoenert, 1988). Material is choke-fed between the two rolls, creating a
compressive bed of particles and reducing the material in size through inter-particle breakage.
To cushion the constant shock on the rollers, a set of nitrogen accumulators is installed behind
the floating roller, providing a smooth operating gap. To maintain high pressures between the
rolls, removable cheek plates are installed in the transverse direction. Due to this arrangement,
a pressure profile is created along the rolls, resulting in a finer crush at the centre and a coarser
crush along the edge.

Figure 2-1 Diagram of HPGR Comminution
(Daniel and Morrell, 2004; Napier-Munn et al., 1996)
Due to the high compressive forces exerted on the material, the product tends to agglomerate,
producing what is commonly referred to as flake. The competency of this flake varies
depending on material type and although publications refer to flake competency testing (Morley,
2008); no quantitative method has been developed. Due to the presence of flake in the product,
7

some form of de-agglomerator, such as an impact crusher or scrubber, may need to be
considered when designing HPGR circuits (Schoenert, 1988).
Another feature unique to HPGR comminution is the concept of the floating operating gap.
Unlike other crushing equipment, there is no closed side setting when operating an HPGR.
Since the roller is floating, the operating gap varies during operation and the actual distance
between the rolls is dependent on the material and the frictional forces between itself and the
roll surface. Due to this unique operating gap, it is difficult to produce accurate throughput
models for HPGRs without performing pilot-scale testing (Klymowsky et al., 2006).
Normally, HPGRs are sized using the width and diameter of the rolls. Different aspect ratios
between the diameter and width are used, depending on the supplier. The main supplier of
HPGRs, Krupp-Polysius, uses a high aspect ratio, which is more expensive, but produces
longer wear life, since a smaller roller width allows less contact with the material. The other two
suppliers, KHD and Koeppern, utilize a smaller aspect ratio, which increases roller width,
creating a relatively finer product, due to a decreased edge effect and an increased pressure
near the centre of the roll (Morley, 2008). The roller size also dictates the allowable top size of
the feed. Since HPGRs promote compressive bed breakage, too large a top size will result in
single particle breakage, thus eliminating the benefits of HPGR comminution. According to
Polysius website, the largest HPGR has a throughput upwards of 3,000tph, with a feed top size
of 75mm (Polysius, 2011).
Currently, the only reliable way to scale-up, and properly size and select an HPGR, is to perform
pilot-scale testing. Unfortunately, this requires a large quantity of material and usually poses a
challenge to greenfield operations, since normally; only expensive drill core is available. The
lack of a reliable small-scale suite of tests that can be used for accurate size and selection is
one of the biggest hindrances preventing HPGRs from being explored in more projects (Daniel,
2002; Morrell et al., 1997).
HPGRs are mechanically very reliable, with typical availability as high as 98% (Morley, 2008).
The main reason for downtime remains the wear-life of different parts of the equipment. The
main wear components of HPGRs are typically the parts in direct contact with the material.
These parts include the feed chute, the cheek plates, and the roller surface (Dunne, 2006). The
roller surface is the most problematic, and a majority of downtime is associated with roller
8

change-out. Currently, the two main profiles used for roller surface are a smooth tyre and
studded lining.
The smooth surface roll profile was initially made of a Ni-hard, wear-resistant steel (Oberheuser,
1996), but over time, newer surfaces, such as Koepperns Hexadur
wear lining, have been

developed. Hexadur
consists of a hard, abrasive-resistant material set into a matrix of softer

material. This softer material wears quicker and creates a grooved profile that promotes the
formation of an autogenous layer. In the cement industry, Hexadur
has been found to last for

30,000 hours of continuous operation, but currently the only example of Hexadur
lining being
used for processing hard ore is at the Bendigo gold mine in Australia and no wear rates are
available (Pyke et al., 2006). Hexadur
can operate at pressing forces up to 6N/mm

2
for
industrial applications (Morley, 2008).
The more applicable roll liner for hard-rock applications is the studded lining. Consisting of
tungsten carbide studs mounted on to a tyre, studded lining improves wear life through
formation of an autogenous layer developed between the studs. This autogenous layer reduces
contact between the roller surface and the abrasive material, and allows a wear life of between
4,000 and 8,000 hours (Klymowsky et al., 2006). The literature has suggested that not only
does studded lining promote longer wear life, it also improves throughput, although at the price
of increased energy consumption and higher grinding forces (Lim and Weller, 1999). Studded
lining is limited to a specific pressing force of 1-4.5N/mm
2
, after which the pressing force will
cause damage to the metal studs (Morley, 2008).
2.1.3 HPGR Operating Parameters
The two main operating parameters available when running an HPGR are the rotational speed
of the rolls and the horizontal pressing force applied by the floating roll. These two parameters
provide flexible control to an HPGR operator. A change in roller speed allows the operator to
adjust the throughput of the machine, up to a certain point. Increasing the roller speed will
subsequently increase throughput, decreasing operating gap and specific throughput, and
resulting in a narrower product size distribution (Lim et al., 1997). Koeppern recommends that a
nominal roller speed of 19.1 RPM or the equivalent of 1 roll diameter per second, be employed
for optimal results. By selecting the appropriate pressing force to be exerted by the floating
roller, operators have the ability to vary product size and control the p80 for downstream
processing. A decrease in pressing force will result in a coarser product, while an increase will
9

result in a finer product. Unfortunately, past a certain point, an increase in force produces little
size reduction, and results in an increase in wasted energy attributed to heat (Djordjevic, 2010;
Schoenert, 1988). To ensure effective operation of an HPGR, too high a pressing force should
not be used, as this would prevent the floating roller from floating. In this situation, an unknown
amount of force is being applied directly to the frame, considerably reducing the effectiveness
and efficiency of the machine. Therefore, determining the optimal pressing force is critical, since
this value varies depending on the properties of the ore.
To properly scale-up and size HPGR machines, a number of parameters have been developed
over the years. The following is a list of the main terms used in HPGR sizing and selection.
Process Specific Throughput Constant (m-dot)
The specific throughput constant, or m-dot, of the HPGR provides a normalized value allowing
for throughput comparison of different-sized roller presses. The m-dot is a function of roller
width, roller diameter, roller speed, and press throughput. The m-dot corresponds to the
throughput (t/h) of an HPGR fitted with roller dimensions of 1m width, 1m diameter and rotating
at 1m/s. The m-dot is material specific and used to size the HPGR roller dimensions for a given
press throughput (Klymowsky et al., 2006).
m-dot = W___
D * L * v
(1)

Where: m-dot (ts/hm
3
) =Specific throughput
W (t/h) =Press throughput
D (m) =Roller diameter
L (m) =Roller width
v (m/s) =Roller peripheral speed
Specific Pressing Force (F
sp
)
The specific pressing force refers to the amount of force being applied by the floating roller to
material located between the rolls, as a function of roller width and roller diameter. The specific
pressing force is independent of roller size, allowing for comparison of process performance for
HPGRs that vary in size (Klymowsky et al., 2006).

10

F
sp
= F__
D * L
(2)

Where: F
sp
(kN/mm
2
) =Specific pressing force
F (kN) =Total pressing force exerted
Net Specific Energy Consumption (E
sp
)
The net specific energy consumption is the amount of energy transferred to the material running
through the HPGR. This value can be calculated by recording the average power consumption
of the machine before and after a test, and subtracting it from the power being consumed during
a test. The net power consumption is then divided by the throughput (t/h) of the machine during
stable operating conditions. Net specific energy consumption is used for motor sizing and was
the value used for comminution energy requirements in HPGR testing.
E
sp
= P
t
- P
i
W
(3)

Where: E
sp
(kWh/t) =Net specific energy consumption
P
t
(kW) =Total main motor power draw
P
i
(kW) =Idle main motor power draw
2.1.4 Energy Efficient Comminution
The process of comminution has been well-documented as a very energy-intensive process.
Tromans (2008), using energy figures collected by national energy departments, summarized
the actual figures related to this demand on energy. Tromans found that upwards of 39% of the
overall energy consumption for mining activities is spent in the processing plant, and of that
figure, 75% can be attributed to the process of comminution. Table 2-1 summarizes the
authors findings for the energy consumption of mining between 2001 and 2002, for the USA,
Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

11

Table 2-1 Summary of Energy Consumption for Comminution
(Tromans, 2008)
Country
Annual Energy Consumption
For Mining (PJ*)
Percentage of Total National Energy
Usage Consumed by Comminution
United States 1.343 x 10
3
~0.39%
Canada 7.89 x 10
3
~1.86%
Australia 260.9 ~1.48%
South Africa 309.5 ~1.8%
* 1 PJ =1 x 10
15
J
Overall, the demand for energy in mining is considerable, and the ability to reduce this
consumption by even a fraction would be very beneficial. To improve mining economics of the
future, focus should be on improving the energy efficiency of circuit flowsheets. It follows from
the above discussion, that comminution represents an area for potentially larger energy savings.
The fracture of rock in comminution occurs when compressive forces cause pre-existing flaws in
the rock to experience tensile stresses normal to the crack length (Hu et al., 2001; Tromans and
Meech, 2002). Failure results once an increased propagation of these cracks produces new
surface area, and a release of strain energy at the crack tip (Rumpf, 1973).
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines efficiency as the ratio of the useful energy
delivered by a dynamic system to the energy supplied by it (Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
2011). For comminution, and tumbling mills in particular, this could be defined as the energy
required for the breakage and size reduction of rock, over the mechanical energy delivered to
the system by rotating the mill. If this definition is used, efficiencies for comminution in the
range of 0.1-2% have been well-documented in the literature (Fuerstenau and Abouzeid, 2002;
Tromans and Meech, 2002; Tromans and Meech, 2004).
To provide a more meaningful number for the efficiency of comminution, other definitions have
been put forward by researchers. Some have argued that the output energy used in efficiency
calculations is not reflective of the process itself. Fuerstenau and Kapur (1995) argued that,
traditionally, only the surface energy required in the generation of new surfaces has been used,
ignoring the strain energy required for the growth of crack length. With the inclusion of strain
energy, the authors suggested that the baseline for comminution efficiency should be
determined by the energy resulting from single-particle fracture experiments. This argument
12

stems from claims that the energy utilization of comminution for single particle breakage is the
most efficient (Schoenert, 1979). If this definition were used for comminution efficiency, then
ball milling has efficiencies lying mostly within the range of 7 and 12%, with some as high as
17%, while HPGR comminution can be as high as 45% (Fuerstenau et al., 1996; Gutsche and
Fuerstenau, 1999).
Tromans (2008) hypothesized that comminution efficiency must have some maximum ideal
limiting efficiency. Using a theoretical analysis of fracture mechanics, the author found a value
somewhere between 5 and 10%, depending on Poissons ratio. Tromans summarized that
using this limiting efficiency, relative efficiencies ratios for comminution are between 3 and 26%,
depending on the material.
Whittles et al. (2006) found that in terms of fracture mechanics, the most efficient forms of
comminution are slow compression of single particles, followed by compression of a bed of
particles. Although slow compression of a single particle, which minimizes energy loss due to
heat and noise, is the most efficient form of comminution, this is not practical for large-scale
applications. Instead, Schoenert (1988) determined that, for continuous operations, the
application of a compressive force to a bed of particles was the most effective process. This
concept allowed for the development of the HPGR technology, improving upon the inefficiencies
inherent in ball milling. Although one of the main mechanisms in ball mill comminution is
through particle bed breakage, the low probability of particle collisions makes ball milling
inefficient (Gutsche and Fuerstenau, 1999). Ball milling involves a considerable waste of
energy in the lifting and dropping of steel balls, resulting in imperfect collisions which may or
may not actually produce enough impact force to result in particle breakage. Coupled with this,
a large quantity of energy is put into the wasted generation of heat, and the adverse wear of
liners and steel balls (Fuerstenau and Kapur, 1995).
Compared to ball mills, the breakage in HPGR comminution is a much more direct consequence
of the process. No medium is required in the transfer of energy to the material. The
compression exerted by the rolls is transferred directly to the material, resulting in an improved
utilization of energy (Fuerstenau and Kapur, 1995). Breakage results due to very high stresses
generated at the contact points between particles in the confined compressive bed. Because of
this inter-particle interaction, the pressure is amplified within the bed of particles, resulting in
pressures high enough to exceed the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of the rock. This
13

process results in improved energy efficiency over traditional tumbling mills (Fuerstenau et al.,
1991; Fuerstenau et al., 1996). Although wasted heat is generated in HPGR processing,
Djordjevic (2010) found this to be unavoidable in rock fragmentation, due to the activation of
material friction and shear stresses acting along the fractured surface.
Regardless of the definition used for comminution efficiency, HPGR comminution has been well-
documented as improving energy utilization in comparison to conventional grinding practices;
however HPGR circuit configurations require an increased reliance on materials handling
equipment and the overall energy benefits associated with HPGR comminution are reduced.
Even with the increased energy demand of auxiliary equipment, several publications have
documented the overall energy benefit of HPGR circuits over conventional hard-rock circuits
such as the SAG Ball Mill Comminution Circuit (SABC). Oestreicher and Spollen (2006)
conducted a comparative study between an SABC circuit and an HPGR / ball mill circuit using a
combination of testing results, operational data, and simulation. The authors found an overall
reduction in energy of 19.6%. Rosario and Hall (2010) presented a study comparing two case
studies examining SABC and HPGR / ball mill circuits. The authors concluded that if only
specific energy consumption of the comminution process was compared, then Case A had a
reduction in energy of 25.1% and Case B had a reduction in energy of 30.2%; however if the
overall circuit was examined, including all auxiliary equipment, then the energy reduction
dropped by only 11.7% and 18.4%, respectively. Finally, Anguelov et al. (2008) summarized a
number of trade-off studies performed by Wardrop Engineering for various mining projects. An
average energy savings of 25% was determined when incorporating the HPGR into hard-rock
flowsheets.
2.1.5 HPGR Flowsheet Considerations
Several flowsheets options have been developed to capitalize on the energy benefits associated
with the HPGR technology summarized in Section 2.1.4. One of the most important aspects to
consider when designing an HPGR circuit is that as pressure (energy) is increased in an HPGR,
there is a limiting factor where the generation of fines begins to clog pores, preventing further
breakage. At this threshold, an increased amount of energy is wasted in the form of heat
(Djordjevic, 2010). Therefore, when designing an HPGR circuit, final preparation of product
must incorporate a grinding mill to produce the adequate amount of fines for further processing.
14

When HPGRs were first introduced into the cement industry, their role in the flowsheet was to
perform much of the work that was traditionally being done by a ball or tube mill (Aydogan et al.,
2006). In most circumstances, the introduction of an HPGR before the ball mill, acting as a
booster, helped improve throughput and reduce specific energy consumption (Fuerstenau et
al., 1991). As HPGRs began to be adapted to hard-rock mining, the best use for the technology
was found to be in replacing a cone crusher (tertiary crushing role) in a standard three-stage
crushing circuit. This arrangement typically requires a feed top size of between 50 and 70mm,
and produces a product size between 4 and 6mm. When operating an HPGR for this duty, the
industry developed some guidelines after the Cyprus Sierrita plant trials of the mid 1990s, the
most important of which was the careful preparation of feed for the circuit (Morley, 2006b). The
presence of tramp metal in the feed can be detrimental to the roller lining, and a metal detector
should be placed on the conveyor prior to the HPGR feed chute. Also, the feed top size should
be no larger than the operating gap. This prevents the possibility of single particle breakage or
the damaging of metal studs. To achieve this, the secondary crusher should be placed in
closed circuit with a screen prior to the HPGR.
Possible circuit configurations for HPGRs include:
Open Circuit

A possibility if employing two-stage grinding or designing a grinding
circuit that could handle the coarse fraction. This configuration is the simplest, since no
recycle feed is required, and is ideal for products with hard competent flake. The
drawback of this circuit could be increased energy demand (Gruendken et al., 2010).
Closed Circuit with Dry Screening

A possibility if flake competency is weak and
efficient screening can be achieved. This configuration is ideal over wet screening,
since it prevents unwanted water from entering the circuit. The main drawback of this
configuration is excessive dust generation (Morley, 2006a).
Closed Circuit with Wet Screening

The most likely circuit when dealing with more
competent flake, or with less efficient screening (Morley, 2006a). Unfortunately,
increasing moisture content in the feed leads to lower throughput and higher energy
consumption (Fuerstenau and Abouzeid, 2007). Therefore proper circuit design must
compensate for these limitations.
Closed Circuit with Product Splitter This involves taking a split of the product,
preferably the edge product, and recycling the coarser material without the need for
classification. This configuration is ideal since no screening is required; however, since
15

HPGR product will still contain a fraction of coarse particles when entering the ball mill,
the situation could arise where the ball mill is unable to effectively break these particles
and a critical build-up could ensue (Gruendken et al., 2010).
HPGRs have an advantage over conventional crushers when operating in closed-circuit
operations. HPGRs can still produce an effective crush of oversize material, since unlike
crushers, there is no closed side setting, limiting the probability of breakage (Gruendken et al.,
2010).
Morley and Daniel (2009) examined what future HPGR flowsheets should entail. The authors
believe that the next generation of HPGR flowsheets should attempt to eliminate the need for
auxiliary equipment, and allow the secondary crusher or the HPGR to operate in some form of
open circuit. This would greatly decrease the capital cost and complexity of HPGR circuits.
Although several ideas are put forward, each suggestion is met with substantial operating
problems, making these flowsheet concepts unrealistic at the present time.
The role of an HPGR as a tertiary crusher has thus placed it in direct competition with the SAG
Ball Mill Comminution (SABC) circuit currently being used as the standard for ball mill feed
preparation (Gruendken et al., 2010). Although an SABC circuit is currently the industry
standard, an HPGR circuit could provide increased operating benefits for hard-rock, high-
tonnage operations. The advantages that an HPGR circuit has over an SABC circuit (refer to
Figure 2-2) were first observed with the HPGR installation at Cerro Verde in Peru (Vanderbeek
et al., 2006).

Figure 2-2 Flowsheet for Cerro Verde
(Rosario et al., 2011; Vanderbeek et al., 2006)
16

Another application currently being implemented at Gold Corps Peasquito operation in
Mexico, utilizes an HPGR to treat pebble crusher product in their SABC circuit (refer to Figure 2-
3). The purpose of this arrangement is to improve the overall throughput of the comminution
circuit, by further reducing the size of the pebble crusher product. The authors estimated that a
30% increase in total capacity can be achieved, with only an additional 4.8kWh/t of energy
expenditure (Dixon et al., 2010).

Figure 2-3 Flowsheet Comparison for Peasquito
(Dixon et al., 2010)
2.1.6 Advantages and Disadvantages
When applying HPGRs to a process flowsheet, there are several benefits that make this
technology more appealing than the conventional SAG / ball mill and three-stage crushing
circuits. A review of the literature has suggested that proper design of HPGR circuits can lead
to the following advantages:
Decreased Operating Costs Due to the reduction in energy consumption provided by
HPGR comminution, lower energy costs will lead to lower overall operating costs. The
elimination of steel grinding media can also lead to cost savings. Morley (2008) stated
that, although roll tyre replacement is still required, the cost is approximately the same
as SAG mill liners. Vanderbeek et al. (2006) estimated that a reduction in operating
costs of $0.368/t was achievable by implementing an HPGR based circuit in place of an
SABC circuit.
17

Inter-Particle Breakage

The unique compressive bed and increased production of
fines created in HPGR comminution provides an advantage over conventional crushers
(cone) for preparation of ball mill feed. This benefit could lead to an increase in overall
circuit throughput, providing an improvement in ball mill circuits (Danilkewich and
Hunter, 2006).
Lower Sensitivity to Ore Variability

Unlike SAG mill operations, HPGRs can handle a
large change in ore hardness, with little effect on throughput and comminution
performance. Due to the ability to adjust the specific pressing force, an operator can
directly account for increased ore hardness (Rosario, 2010).
Small Machine Footprint

With the size of an HPGR being considerably smaller than
that of the SAG mills currently in operation, a reduced machine footprint can increase
available space in the mill, increasing flexibility for operations (Danilkewich and Hunter,
2006).
Short Equipment Lead Time
The above advantages provided by HPGRs are hard to dispute, but the other main advantages
resulting from the production of micro-cracks within the product, have yet to be fully proven.
Due to the high stresses created within the compression bed, some of the product does not
fracture, but does contain several micro-cracks. This can weaken the material and potentially
improve downstream processes, such as flotation and leaching.
HPGRs have a relatively short lead time in comparison to
SAG mills, with differences between 6 and 14 months (Morley, 2008).
After a review of the literature, a standard photograph (Figure 2-4) was presented when the
topic of micro-cracking was discussed. No background on experimental procedure could be
found. Daniel (2007a) provided the first detailed account that HPGR product exhibits micro-
cracking. In Daniels doctoral dissertation, photographic existence of micro-cracking was
provided for a number of different ore types, using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).
18

Figure 2-4 Standard Photographic Evidence of Micro-cracking
(Morley, 2008)
Several publications have reported that micro-cracks result in a reduction in the Bond ball mill
work index of 10-25%, in comparison to conventional crusher product (Daniel, 2007a;
Danilkewich and Hunter, 2006; Muranda, 2009; Norgate and Weller, 1994; Rule et al., 2008).
Some have argued this is due to the higher presence of fines in HPGR product, providing the
illusion that HPGR product is weaker than conventional crusher product. To prove this concept
wrong, Rule et al. (2008) performed regular Bond work index tests, as well as a modified Bond
work index test, where fines were removed from the HPGR product to create a comparable size
distribution to the crusher product. A reduction of 12% was obtained for the unaltered HPGR
product, while a reduction of 7% resulted from the modified product.
According to the literature, increasing the specific pressing force results in an increased
reduction in the Bond work index. Norgate and Weller (1994) performed Bond work index
testing on zinc and gold ores at specific pressing forces, ranging between 1 and 12N/mm
2
. The
reduction was greatest between 4 and 8N/mm
2
, with little difference resulting from higher
pressures. The authors concluded from the results that the reduction in Bond work index should
be used as additional criteria when selecting an optimum specific pressing force. In addition to
size reduction and specific throughput, specific energy consumption of both HPGR, and ball mill
grinding, should be evaluated.
Tavares (2005) performed a comparative study between the HPGR and conventional crushing
equipment (roll crusher and hammer mill), to evaluate the reduction of impact energy necessary
to break particles. Copper and gold ores were tested at narrow size fractions using an impact
load cell. Particle weakening occurred in HPGR product, but diminished with decreasing
particle size. Tavares concluded that, below 1.5mm, particle weakening became insignificant
19

between the different pieces of equipment. Although this could be considered proof that particle
weakening does not occur at finer size fractions, the impact load cell may not be the ideal way
to test the strength of small particles. Daniel (2007a) found that extensive micro-cracking is still
present in fractions finer than 850m.
To demonstrate that particle weakening leads to a reduction in the energy demand in ball mill
grinding, HPGR and conventional crusher (cone) product could be processed through a pilot-
scale ball mill. Under continuous operation, energy requirements for grinding to a specified
product size could be compared for each feed preparation method. So far, no literature was
found that incorporates this approach.
Unlike the presence of micro-cracking and the reduction of ball mill energy, the benefits micro-
cracking provides to downstream processing are less clearly understood. Micro-cracks are
believed to create a more porous material, leading to better leaching characteristics for gold and
silver ores. In a report by Golden Queen Mining, for their Soledad Mountain Project in Southern
California, bottle roll and column leach tests were performed to compare the HPGR with a
Vertical Shaft Impact (VSI) crusher. Higher recoveries and shorter leach times were achieved
with HPGR product, and subsequently, the choice of HPGR comminution was selected for their
heap leach operation (Klingmann, 2005). In the case of flotation, no conclusive evidence has
been put forth to confirm that HPGR product improves flotation kinetics and increases metal
recovery (Palm et al., 2010).
Hosten and Ozbay (1998) speculated that compressive bed breakage leads to material
fracturing along grain boundaries, resulting in liberation of mineral grains at coarse size
fractions. Daniel (2007a) attempted to answer the question of preferential liberation created by
HPGR comminution. The authors work found no conclusive proof of this phenomenon.
Although HPGRs provide a veritable array of benefits, there are a few drawbacks to this
technology. The following are the main disadvantages associated with HPGR technology:
Circuit Complexity Due to the stipulations placed on the feed requirements for HPGRs,
circuit design typically includes a secondary crusher in closed circuit with a screen, a
metal detector to prevent tramp metal from damaging the rolls, and a screening circuit to
handle HPGR product prior to feeding the ball mill. These specifications require an
20

increased amount of materials handling equipment and increased capital costs
associated with the circuit (Morley, 2008).
Increased Capital Cost

Due to the present limitation on bearing size, and thus roller
size, an HPGR machine is limited to a maximum throughput of 2,500-3,000tph. For
larger operations, multiple machines are required to perform the same duty as one SAG
mill. Coupled with the increased auxiliary equipment mentioned above, HPGR circuits
typically have higher capital costs. Vanderbeek et al. (2006) estimated that Cerro Verde
capital costs for the complete HPGR comminution circuit (primary crushing through ball
milling) were ~29% higher than a complete SABC circuit. Although higher in capital, the
decrease in overall operating costs produced approximately 1.5% higher internal rate of
return for the project.
No Standard Energy and Throughput Model

Although not a disadvantage of the
technology, currently, there are no standard small-scale tests available to accurately
predict energy and throughput for a given ore. Until small-scale tests are available that
require a small quantity of material, HPGRs will not be considered in early stage circuit
designs.
Industry Acceptance

Due to the mining industrys reluctance to embrace new
technology, HPGRs are not considered as a primary option in circuit design. Although
examples of HPGRs operating in hard-rock, high-tonnage operations are beginning to
materialize, until this technology is successfully introduced in a Canadian mining
operation, the status quo will remain in effect on this.
Inability to Process Clayish Ore

HPGRs are unable to process sticky clayish ores, due
to slippage on the rolls, reduced throughput, and production of unreasonably large and
competent flakes. Although this is the current situation, work has been done on a circuit
design to handle such ores (Rosario et al., 2011).
Poor Performance with Increasing Moisture Content
Although there are limitations to the HPGR technology, proper circuit design and continuing
research and development should lead to the mitigation of the associated risks.
When high moisture content is
present in the feed, poor performance in terms of throughput and wear rates can be
experienced. When processing wet material, the inability to produce a continuous
autogenous layer on the roller surface can drastically decrease roller life (Fuerstenau
and Abouzeid, 2007; Morley, 2008).
21

2.2 Stirred Media Mills
2.2.1 Background
Stirred mill technology, or the concept of a centrally rotated shaft to agitate media, was first
developed during the 1950s in J apan. This technology utilized a vertical orientation, and was
used for grinding in the minerals industry. In 1979, the Metso grinding division (then known as
Koppers) acquired the license, with the intention of applying it to base metal mining operations.
Unfortunately, the design was not suitable for the rigors of hard and abrasive ore, and
subsequent work was done to improve grinding efficiency, minimize maintenance and
downtime, and improve wear rates. These developments led to the creation of Svedalas
Vertimill
, a tower mill with the ability to process material as coarse as 6mm, and produce
product as fine as 20m (Allen, 2009).
In the early 1990s, Mt. Isa Mines Limited (now a part of Xstrata) was investigating technologies
to economically process two of their fine-grained lead/zinc deposits: Mount Isa in Queensland
and McArthur River in the Northern Territory. The McArthur River deposit was originally
discovered in 1955, but no company had been able to economically process the fine-grained
deposit with the grinding technology available. In the case of Mount Isa, the gradual decrease
in metallurgical performance in the mid 1980s, due to finer liberation size, resulted in recoveries
dropping to 50% by the early 1990s (Anderson and Burford, 2006; Burford and Niva, 2008).
High media costs, impractical energy requirements, and poor flotation performance from steel
media contamination, led to the decision that the available grinding technologies, ball mills and
tower mills, were unsuitable for ultrafine grinding to sub-10m, and new technology was needed
to address this challenge. After researching other industries that require ultrafine grinding, the
process team at Mount Isa settled on the horizontal stirred mill technology, manufactured by
Netzsch of Germany. The technology was being used to process high value manufactured
products, such as printer inks, pharmaceuticals, paint pigments, and chocolate. These
applications required small mills, run in batch operation, using high cost, sanitary grinding
media. To adapt the mill to the metals industry, work was done to increase the mill capacity,
allow for continuous operation, and apply low-cost grinding media (Pease, 2007). This
development work resulted in the creation of the M3,000 IsaMill
TM
, leading to its installation at
Mount Isa in 1994 and McArthur River in 1995 (Burford and Clark, 2007).
22

Since the mid 1990s, the development of inert ceramic grinding media and increased mill size to
the M10,000 have allowed the IsaMill
TM
to move away from ultrafine grinding (<10m) and
establish itself as a regrind mill, producing product with a p80 between 20 and 40m. The
ability to further liberate rougher concentrate, without contaminating mineral surfaces, has led to
successful installations at Kumtor (gold), Western Limb (platinum tailings), Prominent Hill
(copper/gold), and Potgietersrust (platinum) (Anderson and Burford, 2006; Burford and Clark,
2007; Curry et al., 2005).
2.2.2 Vertical Stirred Mill Technology
There are two main orientations for stirred mill technology: vertical and horizontal. Each
orientation has its own advantages and disadvantages, but both use attrition as the main
breakage mechanism for size reduction.
Vertical stirred mill technologies can be classified into two sub-categories, gravity-induced and
fluidized, depending on how the grinding media is circulated within the mill and the speed at
which the shaft operates. In the case of gravity-induced circulation, a centrally-mounted,
double-helical screw is suspended into the cylindrical grinding chamber, and rotated at a low
speed in the range of 100 RPM (Sinnott et al., 2006). The chamber is filled with grinding media,
typically steel for coarse applications, and ceramic for fine applications. As the screw rotates,
media is drawn up the centre of the mill, and eventually cascades off the edge of the screw,
creating a gravity-induced, downward flow of media along the mill perimeter (Allen, 2009;
Sinnott et al., 2006). Material, fed as slurry, enters at the top of the mill and circulates down
along the perimeter, being drawn back upwards with the aid of the rotating screw (Cleary et al.,
2006). This action creates continuous contact with grinding media, initiating size reduction
through attrition. As material is ground finer, it overflows the mill and is sent to a classifier,
where coarse material is re-circulated back to the mill, and finer material is sent on as final
product. Figure 2-5 shows an example of particle flow in the Vertimill
. Examples of gravity-
induced stirred mills include the tower mill and the Vertimill
. Lichter and Davey (2006) stated

that tower mills are more efficient at a coarser feed size; however most installations operate in
regrind circuits at fine particles sizes (Allen, 2009).
23

Figure 2-5 Example of Gravity-Induced Vertical Stirred Mill Technology (Vertimill
)
(Metso, 2010)
For fluidized stirred mill technology, a centrally-rotating shaft is suspended within a cylindrical
grinding chamber, but unlike gravity-induced circulation, the shaft is equipped with either pins or
grinding discs and operates at a high speed in the range of 250 RPM (Sinnott et al., 2006). The
rotating shaft agitates the grinding media, creating a fluidized bed. Slurry is fed in at the bottom
(Deswik) or top (Stirred Media Detritor) of the mill, and passes through the fluidized bed of
media, resulting in high intensity media particle interactions. Product then passes through the
media retention screens and overflows the mill as product. Typically, these mills operate with
ceramic or sand grinding media, and are best suited for ultrafine grinding applications (Metso,
2010; Rule et al., 2008). Examples of fluidized vertical stirred mill technologies include Imerys
Stirred Media Detritor (SMD) (pin configuration) and the Deswik mill (disc configuration). Both
of these technologies are shown in Figure 2-6.
Vertical stirred mill technology is a more efficient comminution technology compared with
conventional tumbling mills, and Metso has claimed that a 30-50% reduction in energy can be
achieved, depending on how fine a grind is required (Metso, 2010). Since a ball mill relies on
rotation of the entire grinding chamber to create slurry media interactions, a greater
expenditure of energy is required. Size reduction is usually achieved by attrition and impact, but
impact is not as effective, due to the probability that media will collide with other media or the
mill lining, resulting in wasted energy. Allen (2009) proposed that the most efficient zone in the
24

ball mill is what is referred to as the kidney, in reference to its shape. In this zone, media and
particles are in constant contact with each other, resulting in an increased rate of attrition. A
similar zone of intense attrition is consistent throughout the stirred mill chamber, resulting in
improved grinding efficiency. Although this restricts the top size fed to the mill because this
zone reduces impact breakage, limiting fracture of coarse particles.

Figure 2-6 Examples of Fluidized Vertical Stirred Mill Technologies
Stirred Media Detritor (Left) and Deswik Mill (Right)
(Capstick, 2010; Metso, 2010)
2.2.3 Horizontal Stirred Mill Technology
In the metal mining industry, the main example of a horizontal stirred mill technology is the
IsaMill
TM
. This technology is comprised of a centrally-rotating shaft, enclosed by a fixed
cylindrical grinding chamber (refer to Figure 2-7). The shaft is installed with 7-8 evenly-spaced
polyurethane grinding discs, and operates at very high speeds, between 1,200 and 2,000 RPM
(Larson et al., 2008). The rotation of the grinding discs creates tip speeds of 19-23m/s, while a
tower mill and the SMD operate at 3m/s and 8m/s, respectively (Anderson and Burford, 2006;
Parry, 2006). Material is fed as slurry at one end of the mill and passes through the fluidized
media zone, where high-intensity attrition reduces the particles in size (Arburo and Smith,
2009). High-intensity attrition allows the IsaMill
TM
to process fine particles at a high throughput.
Attached to the end of the rotating shaft is a dynamic classifier that utilizes centrifugal forces to
retain grinding media and coarse particles, while allowing fine particles to exit the mill. A
25

diagram detailing this process is shown in Figure 2-8. Currently, the largest IsaMill
TM
available
is the M10,000, which is equipped with a 3MW motor.

Figure 2-7 IsaMill
TM
Layout
(Burford and Clark, 2007)

Figure 2-8 IsaMill
TM
Grinding Mechanism
Originally, IsaMill
TM
operations used close-proximity grinding media, including slag, ore gravel,
and sand. This grinding media was beneficial because it was cheap and in constant supply.
Unfortunately, this type of media is not hard enough to produce efficient grinding, and suffers
26

from high wear rates. Kwade and Schwedes (2002) stated that the stress intensity exerted by
grinding media, adheres to the following relationship:
SI = d
3
* * v
2
(4)

Where: SI (N*m) =Stress intensity per media particle
d (m) =Media diameter
(kg/m
3
) =Media density
v (m/s) =Media velocity
Since an IsaMill
TM
already operates at high speeds, to improve the effectiveness of grinding
media, an increase in diameter or density is required. The original grinding media had a low
Specific Gravity (SG) (2.4) and small diameter (<1mm), leading to milling inefficiencies and
limitation of feed size. With the introduction of ceramic grinding media, exhibiting higher SG
(3.7) and larger diameter (3.5mm), the IsaMill
TM
can operate at a coarser feed size (<150m)
while providing a lower media wear rate (Burford and Niva, 2008). Table 2-2 shows typical wear
rates for different grinding media, including MT1, a ceramic grinding media manufactured by
Magotteaux International.
Table 2-2 Summary of Grinding Media Wear Rates
(Curry and Clermont, 2005)
Media Type
Consumption
Rate (g/kWh)
Relative
Consumption
MT1 (-4 +3 mm) 15 1.0
Alumina 1 (-4 +3 mm) 128 8.5
Alumina 2 (-4 +3 mm) 295 19.7
Australian River Pebble (-4 +3 mm) 200 13.3
Australian Silica Sand (-6 +3 mm) 781 52.1
Ni Slag (-4 +1 mm) 1305 87.0
The energy requirements for a full-scale IsaMill
TM
can be determined using a laboratory mill.
Gao et al. (1999) determined that a 1:1 energy scale-up exists between a lab-scale M4 mill and
industrial-scale M4,000 mill. This ratio is attributed to the grinding mechanism shown in Figure
2-8, which prevents short-circuiting in the mill, allowing for uniform grinding. Curry et al. (2005)
reported that results obtained in an M4 can accurately scale-up to an M10,000.
27

2.2.4 Horizontal Stirred Mill Operating Parameters
When running a horizontal stirred mill, several operating parameters pertain to performance in
the mill. Some parameters are related to the feed conditions entering the mill (feed density and
volumetric flow rate), while others relate to the operating conditions of the mill (mill speed,
media volume, and media size). The following section will discuss each of these parameters
and their effect on mill performance.
Feed Density
The feed density is related to the density of the solids component and the percentage by weight
occupied in the slurry. Several publications reported that operating at low percent solids, below
30-40%, results in lower energy efficiency (Gao et al., 1999; Lichter and Davey, 2006); however
this limit may be material-dependent, depending on SG of the ore (Larson et al., 2008). Larson
et al. (2008) suggested that operating at 50% solids results in optimal energy efficiency and
greater than 65% may result in poor efficiency due to viscosity issues. Feed density is a main
parameter used to control retention time in the mill. An increase in solids content allows the mill
to operate at the same throughput, but decreases the amount of energy transmitted to the
material.
Volumetric Flow Rate
The volumetric flow rate refers to the amount of slurry passing through the mill in a given time
interval. Larson et al. (2008) found that the effect of flow rate has little influence on energy
efficiency and only affects residence time in the mill. This residence time will affect the size
reduction of the product, but the energy usage will adhere to the same curve.
Mill Speed
The mill speed refers to the rotational speed of the agitator. Typical values for operation vary
depending on mill size (disc diameter), but result in tip speeds of 19-23m/s. Larson et al.
(2008), using a lab-scale M4 mill, determined that mill speed has very little effect on energy
efficiency, and a linear relationship exists between speed and mill power draw. Parry (2006)
suggested that varying mill speed can control the stress intensity exerted by the grinding media
and could be used to process soft and hard minerals.
28

Media Volume
The media volume refers to the percentage of bulk media occupying the grinding chamber when
the shaft and disc volume are removed. The generally accepted operating range for media
volume is between 60 and 80%. When operating below this range, insufficient media is
available for grinding and the possibility of unbroken solids can lead to clogging of the mill
(Larson et al., 2008). The adjustment of media volume is one of the options available to
operators to prevent over-grinding when a decrease in throughput is experienced. Termed turn
down, operators can decrease the media volume in the mill to reduce the energy input into the
material and operate at a lower throughput with the same grind (Curry et al., 2005).
Media Size
The media size, measured by the diameter, is the most critical parameter available to optimize
energy efficiency. The selection of media size is crucial, since coarse media is required to
break the larger particles, but must be small enough to provide efficient grinding for finer
particles. J ankovic (2003) found a difference in energy efficiency of 40% when poorly selected
media size was tested. The impact of media size is shown in Table 2-3, where a decrease in
media size leads to an increase in media surface area, resulting in an increase in media
particle collisions.
Table 2-3 Normalized Effect of Decreasing Ball Size
(Lichter and Davey, 2006)
Ball Size
(mm)
Surface Area
(m
2
/t)
Number of Balls
(per tonne)
Number of Balls
Normalized
20 83.3 66,3125 1
15 111.1 157,190 2.4
10 166.7 530,516 8
5 333.3 4,144,132 62
3 555.6 19,648,758 296
2 833.3 66,314,560 1,000
Mankosa et al. (1986) suggested a selection ratio for media size to mean (80% passing) particle
size of 20:1 for fine grinding. Using this ratio, a feed f80 of 300m would require a media top
size of 6mm. This ratio provides a balance between an increased probability of media particle
29

interaction and the capability for media to catch and break particles. Yue and Klein (2006)
confirmed these assumptions using a geometric analysis and suggested that this ratio allowed
for the capture of 4 to 5 particles within bead voids. So far no literature was found related to
media selection for coarse stirred milling and this ratio may be lower for coarser applications.
2.2.5 Energy Efficiency for Stirred Media Mills
As discussed in Section 2.1.4, operation of conventional tumbling mills requires a substantial
amount of energy to rotate large cylindrical mills filled with steel media and slurry. This rotating
action creates the lift for steel balls to tumble, thereby reducing coarse particles in size through
impact breakage, while providing the motion necessary to grind particles between steel balls for
attrition breakage. The combination of these mechanisms allows ball mills to be applicable to a
wide range of sizes from an f80 of 4mm down to a p80 of 45m, below which these
mechanisms lose an increasing amount of energy to ball ball and ball liner collisions. These
two mechanisms of breakages are effective; however the low probability of particle ball
collisions leads to low energy efficiency (Fuerstenau and Abouzeid, 2002). Section 2.1.4
referred to the kidney zone in a ball mill. In this zone, constant ball particle collisions results in
high fines generation through attrition. Unfortunately, this zone is not consistent throughout the
mill, because an open volume is still required for media to tumble and to create impact
breakage. Due to these shortcomings, over the years, compensation for low efficiencies has
resulted in the installation of larger ball mills, increasing the power requirements for grinding
(refer to Table 2-4). Stirred mill technology has evolved over the years to help improve upon
this increased energy requirement. The energy benefits associated with increased media
particle interactions, resembling the kidney zone in a ball mill, accompanied with lower power
draw necessary to rotate a central shaft, has led stirred milling to become a viable option for
regrind mills (Lichter and Davey, 2006).

30

Table 2-4 Summary of Ball Mill Size Over the Years
(Daniel, 2007a; Lynch and Rowland, 2005)
Year
Diameter
(m)
Length
(m)
Power
(kW)
1909 1.2 2.1 11
1912 1.9 2.3 41
1927 2.4 2.4 168
1940 3.1 2.8 447
1963 3.9 5.5 1,491
1970 5.6 6.4 3,169
1990 6.1 9.3 5,593
1997 7.3 10.5 11,440
Kwade and Schwedes (2002) stated that the stress intensity exerted by media is proportional to
the velocity squared. The speed of media in tumbling mills is limited by the speed at which
centrifuging of mill contents begins and effective breakage from cascading media ceases,
referred to as critical speed (Kapur et al., 1992). This limits the size of the grinding media in a
ball mill because a smaller media size cannot subject particles to the high-stress intensities
required for breakage (Wang and Forssberg, 2007).
Breakage characteristics in stirred mills are dependent on the stress intensity exerted on the
particle and the number of stress events experienced by feed particles and their resulting
daughter fragments (Kwade and Schwedes, 2002). For grinding of coarse particles, the stress
frequency is high because larger particles have a higher probability of making contact with
media. In addition, coarse particles also exhibit a higher degree of flaws, resulting in lower
required stress intensity for breakage (Wang and Forssberg, 2007). If an appropriate-sized
media were selected, then it should be possible to efficiently grind coarse particles in a stirred
media mill.
As particles are reduced in size, they require a higher number of collisions and increased stress
intensity to cause further breakage. To achieve this, stirred mill technology, such as the
IsaMill
TM
operates at high impeller speeds and small media size, resulting in increased energy
intensity and a higher frequency of collisions. Table 2-5 compares the power density in an
IsaMill
TM
to other grinding mills. The power density in a stirred mill is considerably higher than in
31

a tower mill. If this extra energy is utilized effectively through the optimization of operating
parameters, then increased energy efficiency should be achievable.
Table 2-5 Summary of Power Density for Grinding Mills
(Burford and Niva, 2008)
Mill Type
Installed Power
(kW)
Mill Volume
(m
3
)
Power Density
(kW/m
3
)
Autogenous Mill 6,400 353 18
Ball Mill 2,600 126 21
Regrind Mill 740 39 19
Tower Mill 1,000 12 42
IsaMill
TM
M10,000 3,000 10 300
Several publications found that for fine size ranges up to 150m, the mechanisms mentioned
above result in stirred mill technology being a more energy-efficient option over ball mills,
independent of orientation (Allen, 2009; Anderson and Burford, 2006; Anyimadu et al., 2007;
Lichter and Davey, 2006; Pease, 2007). As the feed increases in particle size, the effectiveness
of the ball mill becomes more apparent. Shi et al. (2009) conducted a study to determine
whether stirred mills could achieve higher energy efficiency than ball mills at coarse particle
sizes. The first test examined the energy comparison between a vertical stirred mill and a Bond
ball mil for processing material with a feed top size of 3.35mm down to a p80 of 75m. The
stirred mill achieved energy reductions of 25%, 37%, and 27% for the three ore types tested.
These results are similar to other researchers suggestions that vertical stirred mills are more
energy-efficient than ball mills for primary grinding applications (Lichter and Davey, 2006). Allen
(2009) noted that although Vertimills
have been applied to regrind applications, they are best

suited for primary grinding.
The second test by Shi et al. (2009) investigated the energy requirements of an M4 IsaMill
TM

and a batch ball mill (300mm x 300mm) for processing a sample with a feed top size of 1mm
down to varying product sizes. The ball mill was able to achieve slightly lower energy
requirements for coarser grinds (p80 >40m), but became less efficient with finer grinds.
Although the ball mill was more efficient at coarser particle sizes, it is evident that operating
conditions for testing were not optimized. Testing conditions consisted of operating at 30%
solids, using 3.5mm ceramic grinding media. Section 2.2.4 mentioned that media size plays an
32

important role in the effectiveness of breakage at coarse sizes. The recommended media size
ratio of 20:1 was not used, which may explain the ineffectiveness of grinding at coarse sizes.
More energy was required by the smaller media to break the coarse particles, resulting in a
lower efficiency. Based on the 20:1 ratio, a media top size of 6-8mm should have been used.
Other publications have examined the energy efficiency between tower mills and the IsaMill
TM

and found that the IsaMill
TM
operates more effectively at finer sizes while a tower mill becomes
more efficient at coarser sizes (Burford and Niva, 2008; Harbort et al., 2010). Parry (2006)
performed a comparative study between tower mills installed at the Red Dog mine in Alaska and
lab-scale stirred mills. Using an IsaMill
TM
and a Stirred Media Detritor, Parry found a 50%
reduction in energy for grinding from an f80 of 29m to a p80 of 22m. Although the tower mill
may function more effectively at coarse sizes, its orientation poses considerable problems in
scale-up. When designing vertical stirred mills, the motor selection is dependent upon the
required torque necessary to rotate the media from rest. With larger units, this torque begins to
dominate the mechanical design, requiring a substantially larger motor and support frame. Due
to the orientation of the stirrer in a horizontal configuration, scaling up does not result in this
problem and the design of larger mills is more feasible (Pease, 2007).
Overall, there are benefits and limitations to both stirred mill orientations, but the use of stirred
mill technology has the potential to improve the energy efficiency of grinding and with proper
flowsheet design, could be a viable option over conventional ball milling.
2.2.6 Horizontal Stirred Mill Flowsheet Options
Originally the IsaMill
TM
was developed for ultrafine grinding applications, to efficiently process
finely-disseminated ores. Typical flowsheets place the IsaMill
TM
in the regrind circuit, accepting
rougher concentrate product from the regrind ball mill, at an f80 of 25m, and further liberating
minerals by grinding to below a p80 of 10m (Gao et al., 2002). An example of this is shown in
Figure 2-9 where the IsaMill
TM
is installed at Mount Isa Mines to treat the lead and zinc
concentrate for further liberation.

33

Figure 2-9 Flowsheet for Mount Isa Mines
(Gao et al., 2002)
After establishing itself as an energy-efficient alternative for ultrafine grinding to sub 10m, the
IsaMill
TM
is now being considered for coarser applications, accepting feed sizes up to an f80 of
150m. Combining the increased grinding effectiveness of harder, higher SG ceramic media
with an overall increase in mill size, design of regrind circuits are beginning to incorporate
IsaMiIls
TM
as the mill accepting feed directly from rougher flotation (Burford and Clark, 2007).
An IsaMill
TM
installed at the Kumtor gold mine in Kyrgyzstan was originally designed to process
product from a regrind ball mill, but during ball mill maintenance, the M10,000 was used as its
replacement (refer to Figure 2-10). During this time, the IsaMill
TM
was required to accept an f80
of 130-150m and produce a product p80 of 60-65m. Although there was insufficient time to
optimize media top size and other operating conditions, the circuit was able to operate
effectively. Had these conditions been optimized, plant operators believed that a reduction in
power draw and a decrease in product size could have been achieved as well (Anderson and
Burford, 2006).

34

Figure 2-10 Flowsheet for Regrind Circuit at Kumtor Mine
The Phu Kham copper/gold mine in Laos, currently in development, will utilize an M10,000
IsaMill
TM
for regrinding flotation concentrate. The circuit will operate at a throughput of 168tph,
processing an f80 of 106m and producing a product p80 of 38m (Burford and Clark, 2007).
IsaMill
TM
technology is beginning to be applied to coarse grinding applications. Pease (2007)
presented a summary of an IsaMill
TM
at McArthur River operating as a secondary grinding mill,
treating SAG mill product. Originally the IsaMill
TM
was installed to grind 50m concentrate down
to a p80 of 7m, while a SAG mill was used to prepare feed for flotation (p80 of 45m). To
increase tonnage a tower mill was installed to process a portion of the SAG underflow stream
(refer to Figure 2-11). Lab and pilot-scale tests were carried out on SAG underflow product to
determine the potential grinding limits for coarser IsaMill
TM
applications. With the plus 1mm
fraction screened out, the IsaMill
TM
achieved a finer product for the same energy input as the
installed tower mill. Unfortunately a build-up of steel scats and coarse particles provided
problems for continuous operation. The IsaMill
TM
was subsequently tested using minus 1mm
cyclone overflow with a reduced f80 of 300m. Plans are now underway to increase throughput
at McArthur River by installing two M10,000 mills to treat SAG screened product (f80 of 300m)
and grind to a flotation feed p80 of 45m (refer to Figure 2-12).
35

Figure 2-11 Original Flowsheet for McArthur River
(Pease, 2007)

Figure 2-12 Modified McArthur River Flowsheet with Coarse IsaMill
TM
Grinding
(Pease, 2007)
2.2.7 Process Benefits of Horizontal Stirred Mills
There are several process benefits available for horizontal stirred mills which can help improve
the economics of the circuit. The following are the main advantages offered:
Small Machine Footprint

Although not a process benefit, the compact size and energy
intensity offered by stirred mills allows for a small footprint, resulting in an increase in
available space, in case plant expansion and an increased throughput is desired.
Inert Grinding Media The use of ceramic grinding media eliminates the potential for
steel contamination of mineral surfaces, a problem that may hinder flotation kinetics.
Several publications have noted, especially in the precious metals sector, that the use of
36

inert ceramic grinding media can help improve flotation response for fines flotation (Rule
et al., 2008). The use of steel media can lead to deposits of iron hydroxide on the
surface of sulphide minerals, resulting in poor flotation selectivity and increased reagent
dosage. The use of ceramic grinding media has eliminated this problem and can allow
for cleaner liberated mineral surfaces at finer sizes, improving the economic benefits of
fine-grained mineral deposits (Arburo and Smith, 2009; Pease et al., 2006).
Internal Classification

The dynamic classifier installed at the end of the mill agitator
shaft, allows the mill to operate in open circuit, producing a sharper product size
distribution. This configuration leads to the elimination of a recycle stream, reducing
maintenance costs, and increasing throughput capacity. The uniform grinding action
experienced throughout the mill, leads to a reduction of over-grinding and the prevention
of ultrafines, which may prove problematic in the flotation circuit (Burford and Clark,
2007).

37

2.3 HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit
To take advantage of the two energy efficient technologies summarized in Sections 2.1.4 and
2.2.5, an appropriate circuit flowsheet must be developed. Section 2.1.5 stated that an HPGR is
limited in the size reduction achievable from one pass through the rolls. To create a product
fine enough to process through a stirred mill, a second stage of HPGR comminution is
necessary. Several publications have documented the effects of processing material through
multiple passes of an HPGR. Norgate and Weller (1994) performed tests on a gold ore to
determine whether operating several stages of HPGR at a lower specific pressing force could
be more energy-efficient than single-stage operation at a higher specific pressing force. The
results showed that with subsequent passes through the mill, the specific energy consumption
trended downward. By pass four, specific energy consumption began to flatten out. The largest
decrease, at 31%, was experienced between pass one and two. In terms of size reduction, a
positive linear relationship was found between the total specific energy consumed for all passes
and the reduction ratio. It should be noted that this test was also repeated with a de-
agglomeration step performed between each pass, resulting in no significant change in results.
The data presented by Norgate and Weller (1994) shows that the operation of multiple HPGRs
in series can lead to an increased size reduction, producing the feed range acceptable for
stirred milling.
Daniel (2007b) conducted tests on a pilot-scale HPGR to assess whether several HPGRs in
series could produce a similar grind size to a ball mill, at a lower specific energy consumption.
The first two passes through the HPGR produced the highest size reduction ratios and
subsequent passes became less efficient. Daniel concluded that two passes through the mill is
the limit for efficient crushing of hard ores.
Rule et al. (2008) conducted testwork on a Labwal HPGR to determine the effect of passing
material through two open-circuit stages of HPGR comminution, while varying the specific
pressing force in the second stage. Good size reduction was achieved between the first and
second pass, but no significant difference in size reduction resulted from increasing the specific
pressing force in stage two. To optimize the specific energy consumption for operation of a two
stage HPGR circuit, an increase in specific pressing force in stage two is unnecessary.
Fuerstenau et al. (1999) summarized work showing the benefits that an HPGR / ball mill circuit
can achieve by optimizing the ball size. The characteristics of HPGR product, including fines
38

content and micro-cracking, allows for the ability to improve the efficiency in the ball mill by
reducing ball size. The authors predicted that optimization may be reached when 50-60% of the
total energy load is handled by the HPGR.
Pease (2007) found that the IsaMill
TM
can process particles sizes as coarse as 1mm. If the
main attributes of HPGR product, including the high proportion of fines and the presence of
micro-cracking, are also considered, a successful transition between the two pieces of
equipment should be feasible. To prevent coarse particles from entering the stirred mill and
causing critical build-up, either a screen or air classifier, is required. Since HPGR product tends
to form a cake, depending on the competency, either an impact style de-agglomerator or wet
screening is required. HPGRs operating in closed circuit to achieve a fine product cut size can
be found in the cement industry. An example of this circuit design is shown in Figure 2-13. An
impact style de-agglomerator is employed to break up flake and an air classifier is used to
prepare a fine product for ball milling (Aydogan et al., 2006).

Figure 2-13 HPGR Flowsheet for Fines Production in the Cement Industry
(Aydogan et al., 2006)
The Sukhoy gold plant in Russia, shown in Figure 2-14, operates an HPGR in closed circuit with
a 1.4mm screen and utilizes a scrubber for product de-agglomeration. The main challenge
experienced in operating this circuit, was proper control of the moisture content in the HPGR
feed (Gruendken et al., 2010).
39

Figure 2-14 HPGR Flowsheet the Sukhoy Gold Plant
(Gruendken et al., 2010)
Wang et al. (1998) and Wang et al. (2006) performed testing on an HPGR / stirred mill
combination using lab-scale equipment. Calcium carbonate and limestone wet filter cake
(<150m) were subjected to multiple passes through a lab-scale HPGR and processed through
a horizontal stirred mill or attrition mill. Increasing the number of passes through the HPGR
resulted in improved throughput and size reduction in the stirred mill. The authors concluded
that the breakage mechanisms in HPGR comminution can lead to a subsequent increase in the
breakage rates in stirred milling.
Valery and J ankovic (2002) proposed the first concept of a combination HPGR / stirred mill
circuit in a study examining the need for a reduction in the energy requirements of comminution.
Simulating results for a more energy efficient circuit, a high-intensity blasting, two stage HPGR /
Vertimill
circuit (refer to Figure 2-15) was compared to a conventional blasting, SAG / ball mill
circuit. The simulation results predicted an energy savings of 45%, but no actual testwork was
conducted.
40

Figure 2-15 Example of an HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit
(Valery and J ankovic, 2002)

Figure 2-16 A Proposed HPGR / IsaMill
TM
Circuit
(Pease, 2007)
Pease (2007) presented the concept of an HPGR / IsaMill
TM
circuit in his discussion of coarse
stirred milling at McArthur River (refer to Figure 2-16). No testing was carried out but Pease
predicted that this circuit could be an example of comminution flowsheet design of the future.
41

Ayers et al. (2008) described the first operation of an HPGR / IsaMill
TM
circuit using pilot-scale
equipment. The authors documented Anglo Platinums research into applying the IsaMill
TM
to
coarser feed applications. A test rig was set up, incorporating two 5tph HPGRs in series with
screens (refer to Figure 2-17).

Figure 2-17 Anglo Platinums HPGR Test Circuit
(Ayers et al., 2008)
A continuously operating circuit was establishing using the coarse HPGR in closed circuit with a
dry screen, followed by wet screening of the undersize, at a cut size of 850m (refer to Figure 2-
18). The screen product was fed to an M250 IsaMill
TM
operating with 3.5mm MT1 ceramic
grinding media. With an f80 of 300m and a product p80 of 45m, the IsaMill
TM
circuit achieved
1.3tph, with a specific energy consumption of 75kWh/t and a total circuit energy consumption of
80kWh/t.
Another circuit tested in this research project incorporated a ball mill before the IsaMill
TM
(refer
to Figure 2-18) and resulted in improved IsaMill
TM
circuit performance, but at a higher total
circuit specific energy consumption of 85kWh/t. In both cases the optimal media size was not
used and improved circuit energy requirements could have been achieved with an increased
media size.

42

Figure 2-18 Anglo Platinums HPGR / Stirred Mill Testing Flowsheets
(Ayers et al., 2008)
The authors concludes with examples of future circuit arrangements to be tested by Anglo
Platinum, but as of the writing of this thesis, no published literature summarizing this work can
be found in the public domain.

43

2.4 Literature Summary
The HPGR can achieve improved energy efficiency over a SAG mill due to the application of
inter-particle breakage, and the ability to transfer input energy directly to the material via the
grinding rolls (Section 2.1.4). A stirred mill can achieve improved energy efficiency over a ball
mill, at fine particle sizes, due to reduced energy requirements associated with utilizing a
centrally-rotating shaft and the ability to grind efficiently with high speeds and small grinding
media (Section 2.2.5). The incorporation of these two energy-efficient comminution devices
could result in an overall reduction in the specific energy requirements for comminution. HPGR
product, with a high percentage of fines and micro-cracks, could successfully be transferred to a
stirred mill circuit with two successive passes through the HPGR. Since very few operating
examples were found (Section 2.3), pilot-scale testing would be required to successfully
determine appropriate design criteria.
Overall, combining an HPGR and a stirred mill to produce a more energy-efficient circuit has the
potential for a wide variety of processing and operating advantages. With the benefits of lower
operating costs related to reduced energy consumption and operation of an open-circuit
grinding configuration, coupled with the flexibility available to grind efficiently to finer particle
sizes with inert grinding media, this combination has the potential to be the future for energy-
efficient comminution.

44

3 Experimental Procedure
This chapter describes the methodology and the equipment used to address the objectives of
this research. The main objective was to examine the technical feasibility of combining an
HPGR and a stirred mill into a novel flowsheet. To achieve this objective, a pilot-scale testing
program was carried out on a copper-nickel sulphide ore from Teck Limiteds Mesaba deposit in
Minnesota.
Evaluation of the potential energy benefits for the proposed circuit design required a basis for
comparison. Lab and simulation work was carried out on two alternate comminution circuits, a
cone crusher / ball mill circuit and an HPGR / ball mill circuit. Results from this study were used
to draw conclusions on which of the three circuits required the lowest specific energy
consumption for comminution.

45

3.1 Definition of Comminution Circuits
The three circuits examined for the energy comparison study were: a cone crusher / ball mill
circuit, an HPGR / ball mill circuit and the novel HPGR / stirred mill circuit. The feed size to
each circuit was fixed at an f80 of 21mm, and a product p80 of 75m was chosen as a suitable
feed size for flotation. The circuits were evaluated solely on the power consumed per tonne of
material in order to achieve an equivalently sized product from an equivalently sized feed.
Energy requirements of material handling equipment such as conveyors, pumps and screens
were not taken into account.
The approach in all cases was to determine an appropriate set of design criteria for each
flowsheet and to calculate the specific work index for each stage of comminution based on the
work index determined and the transfer sizes selected.
3.1.1 Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit
The first circuit examined was a cone crusher / ball mill circuit, typically found in a three-stage
crushing flowsheet. This circuit was the industry standard for hard-rock comminution prior to the
establishment of SAG mill technology. The circuit comprised of a cone crusher in closed circuit
with a screen followed by a ball mill in closed circuit with a cyclone. The flowsheet of this circuit
is shown in Figure 3-1. Data for the circuit was generated from a combination of Bond
grindability testing and simulation using J K SimMet
software.

Figure 3-1 Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Flowsheet
Feed
Product
p80 =75m
Cone
Crusher
4mm Screen
Ball Mill
Cyclone
f80 =21mm
46

3.1.2 HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit
The second circuit examined was an HPGR / ball mill circuit. This circuit mimics the standard
HPGR comminution flowsheet currently being used in the hard-rock mining sector (refer to
Section 2.1.5). The circuit comprised of a high pressure grinding roll in closed circuit with a
screen followed by a ball mill in closed circuit with a cyclone (refer to Figure 3-2). Data for this
circuit was generated using a combination of HPGR pilot-scale testing, Bond grindability testing
and simulation using J K SimMet
software.
.
Figure 3-2 HPGR / Ball Mill Flowsheet
For HPGR pilot-scale evaluation, tests were carried out to assess the influence of different
process parameters on comminution performance. These tests included the variation of specific
pressing force, roller speed and feed moisture content, as well as closed-circuit testing with a
4mm screen. Data from this study was entered into J K SimMet
to model fit an appropriate

HPGR model for Mesaba ore. The T10H and HPGR power coefficient model parameters were
fitted using the procedure outlined by Daniel and Morrell (2004). After calibration of the HPGR
model, simulation was carried out for the HPGR / ball mill circuit.
3.1.3 HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit
The final circuit tested comprised of two stages of HPGR followed by a horizontal stirred mill.
Since no operating examples were found in the literature, pilot-scale testing on both pieces of
equipment was performed to determine appropriate transfer sizes between each stage of

Feed
f80 =21mm
Product
p80 =75m
HPGR
4mm Screen
Ball Mill
Cyclone
47

comminution. From these tests, an appropriate circuit design and layout was generated for
comparison to the above mentioned circuits.
The appropriate transfer size between each stage of HPGR comminution was evaluated using
two separate flowsheet options. Option A examined the first-stage HPGR in open circuit (Figure
3-3), while Option B examined the first-stage HPGR in closed circuit with a 4mm screen (Figure
3-4). Each option was evaluated to assess how a change in transfer size between HPGRs
affected specific throughput, specific energy consumption and size reduction.

Figure 3-3 HPGR / Stirred Mill Flowsheet (Open Circuit)

Figure 3-4 HPGR / Stirred Mill Flowsheet (Closed Circuit)
For determination of transfer size between the second-stage HPGR and the stirred mill, three
different top sizes (355m, 710m and 1.2mm) were evaluated. These particle sizes tested the
limits for stirred mill grinding and an evaluation was based on the specific energy requirements

Feed
Product
f80 =21mm
p80 =75m
HPGR
Fine Screen
Stirred Mill
HPGR

Feed
Product
Fine Screen 4mm Screen
HPGR
HPGR
f80 =21mm
p80 =75m
Stirred Mill
48

for comminution and whether the stirred mill could operate and grind effectively. Once a
transfer size of 710m was selected, pilot-scale testing was performed to generate data for the
circuit.
49

3.2 Sample Description
The Mesaba copper-nickel deposit is located in the Mesabi Range of the Duluth intrusive
complex located in North-eastern Minnesota (refer to Figure 3-5). This complex is comprised of
mafic volcanics (tholeiitic basalt) with layered intrusions of primarily a gabbro-troctolite
composite (Minnesota Geological Survey, 2010). Mineralogy of the Mesaba deposit comprises
mainly of massive and disseminated sulphides with the main minerals of interest being
chalcopyrite (copper), cubanite (copper) and pentlandite (nickel). The inferred resource stands
at 700Mt, with a grade of 0.46% Cu and 0.12% Ni (Infomine, 2001).

Figure 3-5 Geographic Location of Mesaba
(Mayhew et al., 2009)
The samples used for this study were originally excavated as part of a bulk sample taken in
2001 after Teck Limiteds acquisition of the property. The majority of the sample was used to
create a bulk flotation concentrate for hydrometallurgical testing, while the remaining material
was kept stored on site. As part of hydrometallurgical testing, the head grade of the bulk
sample was determined to be 0.32% Cu and 0.12% Ni (Teck, 2010).
In December 2009, approximately 5 tonnes of sample, at nominally 100% minus 100mm, was
shipped to UBC. The material was screened and crushed in a laboratory jaw crusher to 100%
minus 32mm and homogenized and split into sixteen 45 gallon drums using a rotary sample
splitter. A representative sample was taken for size distribution, bulk density and moisture
50

content determination. A moisture content of 1% and a bulk density of 2.16t/m
3
were
established for the ore. The particle size distribution of the sample is shown in Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-6 Mesaba Feed Size Distribution

51

3.3 Equipment
The following section describes the main pieces of test equipment used and the methodology
used for calculating specific energy consumption.
3.3.1 High Pressure Grinding Roll
HPGR testing was conducting using a pilot-scale unit manufactured by Koeppern. The pilot unit
is custom made for obtaining design information for sizing and selection of industrial-scale units.
Table 3-1 summarizes the technical data provided by Koeppern for the machine.
Table 3-1 HPGR Machine Specifics
Roller Diameter 750 mm
Roller Width 220 mm
Press Drive Dual Output Shaft Gear Reducer
Feed System Gravity
Wear Surface Hexadur
WTII
Installed Power 200 kW
Maximum Pressing Force 1800 kN
Maximum Specific Pressing Force 8.5 N/mm
2
Variable Speed Drive up to 40 RPM (1.55 m/s)
Experimental data was recorded every 200ms through the programmable logic controller (PLC)
data logger and downloaded to a laptop. The computer system measures: time, roller gap (left
and right), pressing force (left and right) and power draw. A picture of the HPGR pilot unit is
shown in Figure 3-7.
.
.

52

Figure 3-7 Pilot-Scale HPGR Installation
A pilot test with the HPGR comprises the crushing of one 45 gallon drum of material (~375kg).
The material is loaded into a feed hopper with the use of an overhead crane and drum tipper.
Once the machine conditions are stabilized, the slide gate of the feed hopper is opened and the
test begins. The material flows with the aid of gravity through the HPGR rollers and drops on to
the product conveyor located below the rolls. Using the equations presented in Section 2.1.3,
specific throughput and specific energy consumption are then determined for the test.
Since the HPGR does not grind uniformly across the roller width, a splitter gate is installed on
the end of the product conveyor to separate the product into centre, edge and waste streams.
The centre portion is finer than the edge portion and during testing a particle size distribution is
performed on each to accurately predict size distributions for full-scale operations. For square
rollers, where roll diameter is equal to roll width, the proportion of centre and edge product is
observed to be approximately 85% centre and 15% edge for industrial units. All of the HPGR
product size distributions presented in Chapter 4 account for this through scaling of centre and
edge size distributions at a ratio of 85:15. Material collected during unstable operation, initial
response and material run-out periods, was designated as waste material and only material
which has been crushed during stable press operation was collected for analysis.
53

3.3.2 Horizontal Stirred Mill
Stirred mill testing was carried out using Netzschs M20 horizontal stirred mill. The mill has a
capacity of 20 litres and installed with an 18.6kW motor. The mill was upgraded to include a
new mechanical seal, updated grinding disc configuration and the replacement of a hand-crank,
variable-speed pulley system with a fixed pulley system and Variable Frequency Drive (VFD).
The installation of the VFD allowed for direct readings of mill power and mill speed. To monitor
the mill, sensors were installed for feed pressure, and both feed and product temperature. A
PLC interface and data logger was also installed to control the mill settings and record all
important mill parameters during testing. A picture of the upgraded mill is shown in Figure 3-8.
The mill configuration, including grinding disc design, was based on recommendations from
Xstrata Technology and allowed for the ability to scale-up results to what would be expected for
industrial units.

Figure 3-8 M20 Stirred Mill Installation
A Watson-Marlow and Bredel SPX 25 hose pump and corresponding VFD were used to feed
the mill. The pump has a capacity of 25L/min and was designed to handle viscous slurries. The
installation of a VFD for the 1.5kW pump motor allowed for accurate monitoring and control of
mill flow rate.
54

The mixing system was comprised of two 180L-capacity mix tanks with corresponding 250W
variable speed agitators and it was designed to mix slurries at upwards of 60% solids with a
particle top size as coarse as 1.2mm. The piping system for the circuit was setup so that each
mix tank could easily be switched from product to feed with little hesitation. The final setup is
shown in Figure 3-9.

Figure 3-9 M20 Stirred Mill with Mixing Tanks
For testing of the stirred mill energy requirements, a graph of specific energy consumption and
p80 grind size was generated. This graph, known as a signature plot, is the common method
used in industry for accurate sizing of full-scale IsaMills
TM
and has a scale-up ratio of 1:1 (Gao
et al., 1999). The procedure entails running the material through the mill a select number of
times and recording the energy requirements and product size after each pass. The passes are
carried out consecutively in order to observe the energy consumption as the size of the product
decreases. The results provide a series of points plotted on a log log graph that shows the
relationship between energy input and product size (p80).
55

Particle sizing for this work was done using a Malvern Mastersizer 2000. This laser sizing
equipment utilizes the principle that grains of different sizes diffract light at different angles; a
decrease in size produces an increase in diffracted angle. This equipment has become the
standard for analyzing size ranges unrealistic for screening (Larson et al., 2008).
3.3.3 Vibrating Screen
All screening work carried out for HPGR closed-circuit testing was performed using a SWECO

Vibro-Energy
Separator. This vibrating screen, model ZS40, is equipped with a 373W motor
and a counterweight system to produce both vertical and horizontal vibrating motion. The
screener is equipped with 1m diameter wire mesh screens. A picture of the equipment is shown
in Figure 3-10.

Figure 3-10 ZS40 SWECO
Vibrating Screen
3.3.4 Bond Test Ball Mill
Energy requirements for ball mill grinding were determined using Bond ball mill work indices for
cone crusher and HPGR product. Representative samples were screened at minus 3.35mm
and processed through a standard Bond ball mill measuring 305mm in length and 305mm in
56

diameter, with a 285 ball charge weighing 20,125 g (refer to Figure 3-11). Testing was carried
out using the standard Bond Ball Mill Grindability Test procedure developed by Bond (1961).
For the crushing work index, insufficiently sized material was available to perform impact
testing; therefore a traditional approach was taken and the Bond work index was used. The
resulting indices were then used with the Bond equation to calculate specific energy
consumption for both crushing and grinding.

Figure 3-11 Bond Test Ball Mill

57

4 Testing and Simulation Results
The following chapter summarizes the results obtained for each circuit described in Section 3.1.
Simulation and lab results from each circuit are presented and the specific energy consumption
for comminution is calculated.

58

4.1 Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit Results
4.1.1 Flowsheet Simulation
The specific energy consumption of comminution for the circuit was determined with a flowsheet
developed using J K SimMet
software. The circuit was designed for 250tph capacity and

equipment was sized based on a product p80 of 75m. Table 4-1 summarizes the equipment
sized for the circuit.
Table 4-1 Equipment Selection for Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit
Closed Side Setting (mm)
Cone Crusher
2.8
Re-circulating Load (%) ~30%
Aperture Size (mm)
Product Screen
4
Diameter (m)
Ball Mill
5
Length (m) 10
Critical Speed (%) 70%
Media Charge (%) 40%
Media Top Size (mm) 35
Quantity
Hydrocyclones
6
Cyclone Diameter (mm) 420
Inlet Diameter (mm) 175
Vortex Finder Diameter (mm) 150
Apex (Spigot) Diameter (mm) 113
Length (mm) 500
Cone Angle (degree) 20
A flowsheet was simulated to determine the appropriate transfer size between the cone crusher
and the ball mill. The flowsheet generated in J K SimMet
is shown in Figure 4-1. Simulation

results determined that the appropriate transfer size between the crushing circuit and the ball
mill circuit would be 80% passing 2.12mm. For a summary of J K SimMet
results refer to
Appendix A.

59

Figure 4-1 Cone Crusher / Ball Mill JK SimMet
Flowsheet
60

4.1.2 Specific Energy Calculations
To calculate the overall specific energy consumption for the cone crusher and ball mill, work
indices were determined for the material. In the case of the cone crusher, no material was
available for the size requirements, 50-75mm, necessary to perform impact testing (Tavares
and Carvalho, 2007); therefore a traditional approach was taken and the Bond ball mill work
index was used. Locked-cycle testing was performed using two sieve sizes (106m and
150m), to allow for the comparison of different product sizes. The results for the work indices
of the circuit are shown in Table 4-2. For a complete breakdown of results refer to Appendix B.
Table 4-2 Bond Work Indices for Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit
Ball Mill Work Index
(kWh/t)
150 m 15.9
106 m 16.5
Using the Bond work indices and the transfer size determined in Section 4.1.1, the theoretical
energy requirements were calculated for the proposed circuit using the Bond equation (Bond,
1961).
=

(5)
Where: W (kWh/t) =Specific Energy Consumption
BWi (kWh/t) =Bond Work Index
p80 (m) =80% Passing Product Size
f80 (m) =80% Passing Feed Size
Calculation of the cone crusher energy requirements used the Bond work index at a sieve size
of 150m. This coarser screen size provided a lower estimate for the energy requirements of a
cone crusher and provides a best-case scenario for the crushing circuit. Calculation of the ball
mill energy requirements used the Bond work index at a sieve size of 106m. The final product
for the circuit was set at a p80 of 75m and the Bond work index, at a sieve size of 106m,
better reflects the grinding energy requirements to grind to this finer particle size.

61

Cone Crusher Circuit
= 10 15.9
1
2,120

1
21,000

Specific Energy Consumption for Crushing =2.36kWh/t
Ball Mill Circuit
= 10 16.5
1
75

1
2,120

Specific Energy Consumption for Grinding =15.47kWh/t
TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION = 17.83kWh/t

62

4.2 HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit
This section summarizes the testing and simulation work carried out to determine the specific
energy consumption required for an HPGR / ball mill circuit.
4.2.1 HPGR Pilot-Scale Testing
Section 2.1.2 stated that the only reliable method for assessing a materials response to HPGR
comminution, and determining scalable operating parameters, is to perform pilot-scale testing.
The first parameter evaluated was the appropriate specific pressing force that achieved the
optimum balance of specific throughput, specific energy consumption and size reduction. Once
identified, testing was done using this pressing force to assess the effect of different operating
conditions on HPGR performance. A complete summary of HPGR operating data, including
particle size distributions, can be found in Appendix C.
Identifying Specific Pressing Force
Four initial tests were done to determine the effect of specific pressing force on the material.
Pressures of 2N/mm
2
, 3N/mm
2
, 4N/mm
2
and 5N/mm
2
were chosen and comparisons were
made with respect to product size, net specific energy consumption and m-dot. The feed
conditions for each test are shown in Table 4-3. All tests were performed at a roller speed of
0.75m/s.
Table 4-3 Feed Conditions for Pressing Force Tests
Moisture Content 2.5%
Bulk Density 2.16 t/m
3
f80 21.32 mm
f50 13.96 mm
The comparison of product particle size at different specific pressing forces is shown in Figure
4.2. As the pressing force increased, both the p50 and p80 decreased, although the effect on
p80 was more pronounced than the effect on p50. This result is due to an increased force being
exerted on the particles as they flow through the rolls. An increased force would promote
increased breakage and the effect would be more pronounced on larger sized particles, hence
the steeper trend for p80.

63

Figure 4-2 Comparison of Specific Pressing Force and Product Size
The comparison of specific throughput (m-dot) at different specific pressing forces is shown in
Figure 4-3. As the pressing force increased, the specific throughput decreased. This trend is
due to the gap between the rollers decreasing slightly with increasing pressing forces, resulting
in the reduction of throughput in the machine.

Figure 4-3 Comparison of Specific Pressing Force and Specific Throughput
64

The comparison of specific energy consumption at different specific pressing forces is
summarized in Figure 4-4. As the pressing force increased, the energy consumption also
increased. This is typical of the process because more energy is being transmitted into the
material at higher pressures.

Figure 4-4 Comparison of Specific Pressing Force and Specific Energy Consumption
A specific pressing force of 4N/mm
2
was selected for the remainder of pilot-scale testing. The
results indicated that a pressing force of 4N/mm
2
provided a fine balance between energy
consumption and size reduction without a significant change in specific throughput.
Variation of Moisture Content
Section 2.1.6 described that moisture can have an adverse effect on HPGR comminution.
Testing was performed to assess the effect of moisture on size reduction, specific throughput
and energy consumption. Both drier (1%) and wetter (5%) tests were performed at the selected
specific pressing force (4N/mm
2
) with a roller speed of 0.75m/s. The effect on size reduction is
shown in Figure 4-5. An increase in moisture tends to increase the product size, although not to
a significant degree. This trend may result from the presence of moisture causing slippage on
the rolls and a slight decrease in the effectiveness of the compression bed.

65

Figure 4-5 Comparison of Moisture Content and Product Size
The comparison of specific throughput (m-dot) at different feed moisture contents is shown in
Figure 4-6. An increase in moisture content had a drastic effect on the specific throughput,
dropping it to 276.58ts/hm
3
. This may result from moisture acting as a lubricant, decreasing the
frictional forces between the material and the roll surface, and decreasing the operating gap.

Figure 4-6 Comparison of Moisture Content and Specific Throughput
66

The comparison of specific energy consumption at different feed moisture contents is shown in
Figure 4-7. An increase in moisture content caused an increase in energy consumption. This
may be caused by the wet material requiring more power to draw it through the rolls, coupled
with the decreased operating gap, reducing flow through the rolls.

Figure 4-7 Comparison of Moisture Content and Specific Energy Consumption
The results indicate that increased moisture content had a negative effect on HPGR
comminution performance and drier material produced better results. Unfortunately in
operations, dry material requires a complex dust suppression system, and therefore, a
compromise on moisture content must be made. The remainder of pilot-scale tests were
conducted at 2.5% moisture as a compromise.
Varying Roller Speed
The effect of roller speed on comminution performance was assessed using two tests at higher
(0.9m/s) and lower (0.6m/s) speeds. The effect on size reduction is shown in Figure 4-8. The
graph shows that roller speed has very little effect on size reduction.

67

Figure 4-8 Comparison of Roller Speed and Product Size
The comparison of roller speed with specific throughput is shown in Figure 4-9. An increase in
roller speed caused an increase in throughput. This should be expected, since a faster rotation
of the rolls causes an increase in the amount of material that can be processed in a given time
interval.

Figure 4-9 Comparison of Roller Speed and Specific Throughput
68

The effect on specific energy consumption at different roller speeds is shown in Figure 4-10.
The change in roller speed had no effect on the specific energy consumption.

Figure 4-10 Comparison of Roller Speed and Specific Energy Consumption
Closed Circuit Testing
To test the effect of closed-circuit operation, locked-cycle testing was conducted using a 4mm
screen. Material was processed through the HPGR at 4N/mm
2
and the product screened at
4mm using a SWECO
1m vibrating screen. Using the product size distributions from testing,

the percentage of minus 4mm was calculated (at 90% screening efficiency) and then combined
with fresh feed and re-run through the HPGR. This process was repeated two more times to
simulate closed-circuit operation. Results were generated to determine size reduction, specific
throughput and specific energy consumption for each cycle. The resulting product size for each
cycle is shown in Figure 4-11. The chart shows that the introduction of a re-circulating load
decreased the product size and began to stabilize by cycle four.

69

Figure 4-11 Product Size for Closed Circuit Testing
The effect on specific throughput for closed-circuit testing is shown in Figure 4-12. Closed-
circuit operation had little effect on specific throughput. The variation between each cycle can
probably be attributed to testing error.

Figure 4-12 Specific Throughput for Closed Circuit Testing

70

The results for specific energy consumption are displayed in Figure 4-13. The closed-circuit
testing had little to no effect on specific energy consumption.

Figure 4-13 Specific Energy Consumption for Closed Circuit Testing
Results from the last cycle of testing are summarized in Table 4-4. These results will be used
for energy calculations, as well as the experimental data required for model fitting with J K
SimMet
.
Table 4-4 Results for Cycle Four of Closed Circuit Testing
F80 21.77 mm
F50 13.38 mm
p80 6.61 mm
p50 1.91 mm
Percentage Passing -4 mm 67.4%
Net Specific Energy Consumption 1.45 kWh/t
(-4 mm) Net Specific Energy Consumption 2.15 kWh/t
Specific Throughput 304 ts/hm
3

71

4.2.2 Flowsheet Simulation
Using the results from the last cycle of HPGR closed-circuit testing, model fitting of an HPGR
circuit was performed using J K SimMet
. The T10H and HPGR power coefficient model

parameters were fitted using the model fit tool in J K SimMet
. This tool uses an iterative

function to fit experimental data to simulated data by adjusting model parameters until a
correlation can be achieved. The T10h and HPGR power coefficient parameters relate to the
breakage mechanisms in the compression zone of the HPGR and the product size for closed-
circuit testing was used as the experimental data. The procedure used for calibrating the HPGR
model was outlined by Daniel and Morrell (2004). The resulting model fit was able to simulate a
product size distribution similar to the one generated experimentally.
Once an HPGR model was calibrated for use with Mesaba ore, a flowsheet was designed for
250tph capacity with a product p80 of 75m. The equipment sized for the flowsheet is
summarized in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Equipment Selection for HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit
Roller Diameter (mm)
High Pressure Grinding Roll
1,200
Roller Width (mm) 1,000
Aperture Size (mm)
Product Screen
4
Diameter (m)
Ball Mill
5
Length (m) 9.1
Critical Speed (%) 70%
Media Charge (%) 40%
Media Top Size (mm) 27.5
Quantity
Hydrocyclones
7
Cyclone Diameter (mm) 350
Inlet Diameter (mm) 175
Vortex Finder Diameter (mm) 150
Apex (Spigot) Diameter (mm) 113
Length (mm) 450
Cone Angle (degrees) 20
72

A flowsheet was simulated to determine the appropriate transfer size between the HPGR and
the ball mill. The flowsheet generated in J K SimMet
is shown in Figure 4-14. Simulation

results determined a transfer size of 80% passing 1,6mm between the HPGR circuit and the ball
mill circuit. For a summary of J K SimMet
results, refer to Appendix A.

73

Figure 4-14 HPGR / Ball Mill JK SimMet
Flowsheet
74

4.2.3 Specific Energy Calculations
Section 2.1.6 described that one of the benefits of HPGR comminution is particle weakening
and the subsequent reduction in energy requirements for ball mill grinding. To confirm this
advantage, Bond ball mill work indices were determined for HPGR product at different specific
pressing forces. Samples were taken from HPGR centre product and screened at 3.35mm with
no additional crushing. As with Bond work indices for cone crusher product, two separate
screens sizes (106m and 150m) were tested to allow for the comparison of different product
sizes. The results, including cone crusher product for comparison, are summarized in Table 4-6
and shown in Figure 4-15. For a complete breakdown of results, refer to Appendix B.
Table 4-6 Summary Bond Ball Mill Work Indices for Cone Crusher and HPGR Product

Bond Ball Mill Work Indices (kWh/t)
Locked Cycle
Screen Size
(m)
Cone
Crusher
Product
HPGR Product
3 N/mm
2
4 N/mm
2
5 N/mm
2

150 15.9 14.5 14.5 13.3
106 16.5 15.8 15.7 15.7

Figure 4-15 Summary of Bond Work Indices
A reduction in Bond work index was achieved between cone crusher and HPGR product;
however the reduction went from 8.8% to 4.8% with a decrease in screen size. Results also
showed a reduction in Bond work index with increasing specific pressing force, although this
75

effect is reduced with a decrease in screen size. The reduction in screen size may have caused
a decrease in the effectiveness of product micro-cracking and a relatively higher amount of
energy was required to produce the finer product.
Using the results in Table 4-6, coupled with HPGR tests data, specific energy consumption can
be calculated for the circuit.
HPGR Circuit
Results from closed-circuit HPGR testing (Section 4.2.1) produced an HPGR Specific Energy
Consumption equal to 2.15kWh/t
Ball Mill Circuit
Using the Bond work index resulting from a specific pressing force of 4N/mm
2
and a screen size
of 106m, coupled with the transfer size determined in Section 4.2.2, the following energy
calculation can be made:
= 10 15.7
1
75

1
1,600

Specific Energy Consumption for Grinding =14.2kWh/t
TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION = 16.35kWh/t

76

4.3 HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit
The HPGR / stirred mill circuit required considerably more pilot-scale testing than the previous
two circuits, since very few operating examples could be found in the literature. The results of
pilot-scale testing determined the appropriate transfer size between each step of comminution
and provided the corresponding specific energy consumption for circuit energy summation.
4.3.1 The Stirred Mill Circuit
Section 2.2.6 described that the typical f80 for an IsaMill
TM
ranges from 30-150m, usually
operating with 3.5mm or finer ceramic grinding media. Only a few examples were found of the
IsaMill
TM
grinding a coarser feed size; however these examples did not employ a large enough
media size (Ayers et al., 2008; Shi et al., 2009). Design of an HPGR / stirred mill flowsheet
requires selection of an effective feed top size for stirred mill grinding. Using properly sized
grinding media, transfer sizes were tested to achieve a balance between energy consumption
and practicality. Once an appropriate transfer size was selected, additional pilot-scale testing
was performed with improved operating conditions in order to assess the specific energy
requirements for grinding to a p80 of 75m.
Three feed top sizes were chosen to cover a range from fine to coarse and included 355m,
710m and 1.2mm. Each feed size was run through an IsaMill
TM
to produce a signature plot to
compare the energy versus size reduction relationships.
Traditionally signature plots are performed using an M4 IsaMill
TM
, due to a small sample
requirement of only 15kg. The results from these tests have been found to accurately scale-up
1:1 to industrial sized units (Curry et al., 2005). Tests are typically conducted with a media top
size no larger than 3.5mm, but when running coarse grinding tests, a larger media size is
required. Unfortunately size constraints in the mill chamber prevent an M4 from operating
effectively with a larger media size. Therefore, when running tests at coarse particle sizes
above a p80 of 200m, signature plots can no longer be run with an M4 unit and testing
requires a larger mill to operate effectively with media size above 3.5mm. For analysis of the
355m sample, an M4 could still be used, but for the 710m and 1.2mm samples, an M20 was
employed.
Testing of the 355m sample was performed using a graded charge (57.5% 3mm, 30% 2mm
and 12.5% 3.5mm) of MT1 ceramic grinding media manufactured by Magotteaux International.
77

The operating conditions for the test followed the standards laid out in Section 2.2.4 and are
summarized in Table 4-7. An f80 of 204m was determined for the feed. This corresponds to a
media to mean (80% passing) particle size ratio of 17.5:1. Had the 20:1 ratio suggested by
Mankosa et al. (1986) been applied, the media top size would have been 4mm. For a complete
breakdown of test results, refer to Appendix D.
Table 4-7 Test Conditions for the 355m Signature Plot
f80 204 m
Feed Wt. 15 kg
Solids Content 43%
Flow Rate 2.5 L/min
Media Volume 70%
Mill Speed 1,215 RPM
A graph of the resulting signature plot is shown in Figure 4-16. The graph shows that grinding
to a product p80 of 75m required 14.17kWh/t.

Figure 4-16 Signature Plot for Top Size Testing of 355m
Testing of the 710m sample was performed using a composite of two types of media: 70% by
volume 8mm diameter ceramic media manufactured by Rojan Advanced Ceramics and 30% by
volume 3mm diameter MT1 ceramic media manufactured by Magotteaux International. In
retrospect, this mixture may not have been ideal for testing. The media top size appears to
78

have been oversized for the application, as well as a combination of two different types of
ceramic media, with different sizes and SGs, may not have been as efficient as a graded charge
comprising of a single type of media. The test conditions used for the signature plot are shown
in Table 4-8. An f80 of 321m corresponds to a media to particle size ratio of 25:1. Had the
20:1 ratio suggested by Mankosa et al. (1986) been applied, the media top size would have
been 6.4mm. For a further breakdown of results, refer to Appendix D.
Table 4-8 Test Conditions for the 710m Signature Plot
f80 321.4 m
Feed Wt. 75 kg
Solids Content 40%
Flow Rate 12.15 L/min
Media Volume 70%
The resulting signature plot is shown in Figure 4-17. The graph shows that the first pass
produced a very fine product (p80 of 38m) and that extrapolation was necessary for calculating
the specific energy consumption to grind to a p80 of 75m. With extrapolation, an estimated
specific energy consumption of 14.72kWh/t was required.

Figure 4-17 Signature Plot for Top Size Testing of 710m
y = 3839.1x
-1.289
R = 0.9916
y = 10469x
-1.232
R = 0.9715
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10.0 100.0
N
e
t

S
P
e
c
i
f
i
c

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
k
W
h
/
t
)
Parti cl e Si ze (m)
p80 p98
79

For testing the 1.2mm sample, the same ratio of 8mm Rojan Ceramic media and 3mm
Magotteaux media was used. This testing was expected to approach the limits of feasibility for
coarse grinding in a stirred mill, and as a result, numerous tests were conducted at a variety of
test conditions. Since coarse particles may have trouble passing through the dynamic classifier
and exiting the mill, a test was conducted to assess whether removal of dynamic classifying
pegs (refer to Figure 4-18) helped improve coarse grinding. Table 4-9 summarizes the
operating conditions for each test.

Figure 4-18 Stirred Mill Dynamic Classifier Pegs
Six Classifying Pegs (Left) and Three Classifying Pegs (Right)
Table 4-9 Summary of Mill Operating Conditions for 1.2mm Testing
Test No.
f80
(m)
Solids
Content
(%)
Media
Volume
(%)
Mill
Speed
(RPM)
Mill Flow
Rate (L/min)
Number of
Dynamic
Classifier Pegs
1 500 40 70 1,200 14.6 6
2 500 40 70 1,050 12.1 6
3 500 40 70 1,050 11 3
The first test was unable to grind coarse particle sizes with the operating conditions selected.
The first pass through the mill recorded a power draw 56% higher than the allowable power
rating for the motor. The VFD safety featured shut down the mill at the 75 second mark to
prevent damage to the motor. The stirred mill was attempting to grind material from a feed top
size of 1.2mm to a product p80 of 50m in one pass, requiring more power than was available.
A summary of key mill parameters is shown in Figure 4-19.
80

Figure 4-19 Summary of Mill Parameters for 1.2mm Test #1
The second test was also unable to successfully grind coarse particle sizes, with similar results
to test one. The VFD safety feature shut down the mill at the 2 minute mark because the mill
was drawing 26% more power than the motor could handle. A summary of key mill parameters
is shown in Figure 4-20.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 25 50 75 100
Time (s)
M
i
l
l

S
h
a
f
t

S
p
e
e
d

(
r
p
m
)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
o
t
o
r

P
o
w
e
r

(
k
W
)

,

F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e

(
l
/
m
)

,

P
r
o
d
u
c
t

T
e
m
p

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s

C
)
Shaft Speed (shaft sensor) Product Temp Flowrate (pump spd) Motor Power
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Time (s)
M
i
l
l

S
h
a
f
t

S
p
e
e
d

(
r
p
m
)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
o
t
o
r

P
o
w
e
r

(
k
W
)

,

F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e

(
l
/
m
)

,

P
r
o
d
u
c
t

T
e
m
p

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s

C
)
81

The third test was carried out to assess whether removal of the dynamic classifier pegs helped
improve coarse grinding. The mill recorded a dramatic drop in power draw during the first pass;
however an increase in feed pressure at the 380 second mark resulted in the mill shutting down.
The main mill parameters plotted in Figure 4-21 show that during testing, the motor power
slowly increased and the shaft speed slowly decreased. This is consistent with a hypothesis
that, due to a decrease in energy input, critical sized particles were being retained in the mill;
slowly building up until the mill chamber was full, triggering an increase in pressure at the feed
inlet.

For the range of operating conditions tested, grinding a feed size of 1.2mm was not possible;
however if a higher rated motor was installed, the possibility of operating at these conditions
may have been successful.
With the results presented above, a transfer size of 710m was selected as the most feasible
option for an HPGR / stirred mill circuit. Although a transfer size of 355m produced the lowest
energy requirement for grinding to a p80 of 75m, the savings of 0.5kWh/t was not sufficient to
overcome the increased energy requirements for operating an HPGR in closed circuit with a
355m screen.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425
Time (s)
M
i
l
l

S
h
a
f
t

S
p
e
e
d

(
r
p
m
)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
o
t
o
r

P
o
w
e
r

(
k
W
)

,

F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e

(
l
/
m
)

,

P
r
o
d
u
c
t

T
e
m
p

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s

C
)
82

After designating 710m as the transfer size between the second-stage HPGR and the stirred
mill, two additional pilot-scale tests were performed to attempt to reduce the specific energy
requirements for the circuit. Operating conditions were chosen to target a specific energy input
of 7-9kWh/t per pass through the mill. This would create a coarse first pass for the signature
plot, eliminating the problem of extrapolation experienced with the original test. The first
grinding disc on the mill shaft was replaced with a spacer (refer to Figure 4-22) to reduce the
energy input of the mill. A summary of the revised operating conditions for testing are shown in
Table 4-10. For a complete summary of results, refer to Appendix D.

Figure 4-22 Replacement of Grinding Disc with Spacer
Table 4-10 Revised Test Conditions for 710m Signature Plots
f80 340 m
Feed Wt. 100 kg
Percent Solids 57%
Flow Rate 20.4 L/min
Improvements were also made in the selection of grinding media for the tests. A graded charge
(40% 4-6mm, 30% 2-4mm, 20% 2.8-3.2mm and 10% 2-2.2mm) of Cenotec ceramic grinding
media was used at a media charge volume of 70%. The ratio of media top size (6mm) to f80
(340m) was adjusted, representing a ratio of 17.6:1. The results for both tests are shown in
Figure 4-23. The graph shows that substantially reduced energy consumption was achieved
with properly sized media and revised operating conditions.
83

Figure 4-23 710m Signature Plot Results with Revised Operating Conditions
Testing showed an average specific energy consumption of 9.73kWh/t was required to grind to
a p80 of 75m, an improvement of 34% over the original test. This value was selected to be
used for energy calculations of the HPGR / stirred mill circuit.
The size measurements used to generate the signature plots in Figure 4-23 were performed
using a Malvern Mastersizer 2000. For a comparison, pass one product was also sized using
screens. Since Malvern sizing is based on volume, while screening is based on weight, results
will not be identical. All other testwork performed for this flowsheet relied on size results from
screening; therefore a comparison should be made. Malvern and screening comparisons for T1
and T2 are shown in Figure 4-24 and Figure 4-25, respectively. The screening results indicated
a finer product than the Malvern results. These results show that the signature plots generated
using Malvern sizing, can be considered a conservative estimate for energy consumption, since
size results may have been finer using screens. Unfortunately screening is impractical below
38m (the product size after pass two), so Malvern sizing was used for all stirred mill products in
order to remain consistent.

84

Figure 4-24 Malvern and Screening Comparison for T1

Figure 4-25 Malvern and Screening Comparison for T2
4.3.2 The HPGR Circuit
Pilot-scale testing was conducted to produce suitable data for the HPGR section of the HPGR /
stirred mill circuit. Since size reduction is limited with one stage of HPGR comminution (refer to
Section 2.3), design of an HPGR / stirred mill circuit required at least two consecutive stages of
85

HPGR comminution to produce a particle size acceptable for stirred milling. With the transfer
size between the second-stage HPGR and the stirred mill determined in Section 4.3.1, work
was done to determine the appropriate transfer size between each stage of HPGR crushing.
Two options were examined to find the appropriate circuit layout. In Option A, the first-stage
HPGR was placed in closed circuit with a 4mm screen, while in Option B, the first stage
remained open circuit and the second stage accepted product directly from stage one.
For Option A, product from closed-circuit testing in Section 4.2.1 was processed again through
the HPGR at the same roller speed (0.75m/s) and specific pressing force (4N/mm
2
). The use of
the same specific pressing force for second-stage HPGR crushing stems from work performed
by Rule et al. (2008), in which they found that no difference was observed when changing the
specific pressing force in the second stage of two-stage HPGR crushing. For Option B, fresh
feed was processed through two consecutive stages of HPGR comminution using the same
roller speed and specific pressing force as Option A. The results for both options are
summarized in Table 4-11. The size distributions for Options A and B are presented in Figure
4-26 and Figure 4-27, respectively. For a complete breakdown of results, refer to Appendix C.

86

Table 4-11 Summary of HPGR Results for First Stage Open and Closed Circuit Testing

OPTION A OPTION B
HPGR
Stage 1
f80 21.77 mm 21.54 mm
f50 13.38 mm 13.7 mm
HPGR p80 6.61 mm 7.68 mm
HPGR p50 1.91 mm 1.88 mm
Circuit p80 1.86 mm 7.68 mm
Circuit p50 489 m 1.88 mm
Circuit Reduction Ratio 11.7 2.8
Net Specific Energy Consumption 1.45 kWh/t 1.54 kWh/t
Percentage Passing 4 mm 67.4%
(-4 mm) Net Specific Energy Consumption 2.15 kWh/t
3
307 ts/hm
3

HPGR
Stage 2
f80 1.86 mm 7.68 mm
f50 489 m 1.88 mm
HPGR p80 1.12 mm 2.79 mm
HPGR p50 222 m 462 m
Circuit p80 332 m 339 m
Circuit p50 124 m 142 m
Circuit Reduction Ratio 5.6 22.6
Percentage Passing 0.71 mm 71.3% 56.5%
(-0.71 mm) Net Specific Energy Consumption 1.68 kWh/t 2.18 kWh/t
3
311 ts/hm
3

TOTAL SPECIFIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION 3.83 kWh/t 3.72 kWh/t
87

Figure 4-26 Particle Size Distributions for Option A

Figure 4-27 Particle Size Distributions for Option B

88

Operating the first stage of HPGR crushing in open circuit required less energy compared with
operating in closed circuit with a screen. If looked at strictly from an energy perspective, very
little difference is gained choosing one circuit over the other, but if design and operating factors
are considered, the choice of operating the first stage in open circuit becomes the better option.
The ability to operate the circuit without a screen allows for the elimination of extra auxiliary
equipment such as screens and conveyors, while the absence of an additional stage of wet
screening would help to reduce the adverse effects that increased moisture content would have
on HPGR performance. Although the increased re-circulating load resulting in the second stage
would require an increase in tonnage and machine size, this would be countered by the
decreased machine size required for stage one. Overall, the reduced complexity offered by
open circuit configuration led to selecting this configuration for further testing.
Once the open circuit configuration was selected for stage one, additional pilot-scale testing was
performed to evaluate how comminution performance would be affected by operating the
second sage in closed circuit with a 710m screen. Testing was conducted in a similar manner
to Section 4.2.1. Product from Option B was screened at 710m and a calculated split of
oversize was mixed with fresh product from stage one and processed through the HPGR. This
procedure was repeated two more times in order to simulate closed-circuit operation. The
resulting product size for each cycle is shown in Figure 4-28. The product size increased
slightly with the introduction of a re-circulating load. This is in contrast to the results in Section
4.2.1, where the introduction of a re-circulating load caused a decrease in product size. This
increase may have been the result of a finer re-circulating load reducing the breakage within the
compressive bed. For a complete breakdown of results, refer to Appendix C.

89

Figure 4-28 Product Size for Second Stage Closed Circuit Testing
The results for the effect of closed-circuit operation on specific throughput are displayed in
Figure 4-29. The introduction of a re-circulating load had no effect on specific throughput.

Figure 4-29 Specific Throughput for Second Stage Closed Circuit Testing
90

The results for the effect of closed-circuit operation on specific energy consumption are
summarized in Figure 4-30. As with specific throughput, the introduction of a re-circulating load
had no effect on specific energy consumption.

Figure 4-30 Specific Energy Consumption for Second Stage Closed Circuit Testing
To achieve efficient screening at 710m for an industrial operation, the practice of wet screening
is necessary. Section 2.1.6 showed that the introduction of moisture to an HPGR circuit leads
to adverse effects on throughput and energy consumption. The effect of moisture on second-
stage HPGR crushing was tested using product from the final closed-circuit cycle. The sample
was wet screened over a 710m screen to determine the potential moisture content for oversize
in a closed-circuit operation. The saturated oversize, with a measured moisture content of
10.5%, was then used to run an additional closed-circuit cycle. A summary of the results are
presented in Table 4-12 To allow for a direct comparison of the effects of wet screening, the
results from cycle four (dry) are presented as well. For a complete breakdown of results, refer
to Appendix C.
As expected, the results show an adverse effect on throughput and energy consumption,
although the product size became considerably finer. The data generated for the wet screening
cycle represents the worst-case scenario, and thus will be used for the energy calculations for
the circuit.
91

Table 4-12 Comparison of Wet and Dry Screening

Dry Cycle Wet Cycle
Feed Moisture Content 2.4% 5.8%
F80 5.69 mm 6.41 mm
F50 1.79 mm 1.95 mm
p80 3.16 mm 2.88 mm
p50 718 m 523 m
Percentage Passing -710m 49.8% 54.8%
(-710m) Net Specific Energy Consumption 2.91 kWh/t 3.58 kWh/t
3
232 ts/hm
3

4.3.3 Circuit Energy Summary
The results obtained from pilot-scale testing and the resulting specific energy consumption for
the circuit are summarized in Table 4-13. For a comparison, results from dry and wet screening
for second-stage HPGR are included. Results show that the implementation of wet screening
would result in a 4.7% increase in specific energy consumption for the circuit.
Table 4-13 Summary of HPGR / Stirred Mill Energy Requirements
Comminution
Circuit
Section
Reference
Specific Energy
Consumption with
Dry Screening
(kWh/t)
Specific Energy
Consumption with
Wet Screening
(kWh/t)
First Stage HPGR 4.32 1.54 1.54
Second Stage HPGR 4.32 2.91 3.58
Stirred Mill 4.31 9.73 9.73

Total Specific Energy Consumption 14.18 14.85

92

5 Discussion of Results
The following chapter describes research outcomes based on results presented in Chapter 4.
With these results, conclusions are reached on the choice of operating parameters for pilot-
scale testing and what changes could be made for future testing. This chapter will also discuss
which circuit required the lowest specific energy consumption for comminution; while preliminary
design work is presented of a potential flowsheet for an HPGR / stirred mill circuit. The chapter
concludes with a refined testing procedure for future HPGR / stirred mill studies.

93

5.1 Assessing Operating Parameters for Pilot-Scale Testing
Operating parameters used to conduct HPGR and stirred mill testing were chosen based on a
review of the literature and recommendations made from industry. This section will review the
main parameters used for testing and comment on future variations to be studied.
5.1.1 HPGR Operating Parameters
The main operating parameters identified in Section 4.2.1 as having the most influence on
comminution performance were specific pressing force and feed moisture content.
Specific Pressing Force
The specific pressing force selected for testing of Mesaba ore was 4N/mm
2
. This force provided
a balance of size reduction and specific energy consumption without drastically changing the
specific throughput. This force also approaches the limits for safe operation with studded lining.
Morley (2008) indicated that the safe operating range for studding lining is 1-4.5N/mm
2
and
anything higher risks damaging the metal studs. Therefore selection of 4N/mm
2
can be safely
operated in industrial units and provides good size reduction at low specific energy
consumption.
The choice to keep specific pressing force constant for second-stage HGPR crushing was
based on results presented by Rule et al. (2008) and summarized in Section 2.3, in which
varying specific pressing force had little effect on size reduction for second-stage HPGR
crushing in a Labwal. Further testing could be done to confirm this conclusion with pilot-scale
results.
Feed Moisture Content
The feed moisture content used during testing was 2.5% by weight. The moisture content was
selected taking into account results obtained in Section 4.2.1. Lower moisture content resulted
in improved HPGR comminution performance; however dust suppression must be accounted
for. The optimum results occurred at 1%, when specific throughput was high, specific energy
consumption was low and product size was finer. With increasing moisture content, a decrease
in comminution performance was observed. Unfortunately operating at 1% moisture is
unfeasible due to excessive dust generation. In both pilot-scale testing and industrial
94

operations, dust suppression is an issue and higher moisture content mitigates these risks. The
selection of 2.5% provided a good balance in comminution performance and a substantial
reduction in dust generation. For industrial applications, moisture content is rarely as low as 1%
and values above 2-3% are more realistic.
Moisture content testing for second-stage HPGR crushing (Section 4.3.2) showed a
considerable increase in specific energy consumption when addition of saturated oversize was
used for closed-circuit testing. The effect of wet screening resulted in an increase in moisture
content to 5.8%. The data generated for this test provide an indication of what is expected
when an HPGR operates in closed circuit with wet screening. Further testing could be done to
examine a full range of moisture contents for second-stage HPGR crushing.
5.1.2 Stirred Mill Operating Parameters
The main operating parameters discussed in Section 2.2.4 for stirred milling were feed density,
flow rate, mill speed and media size. Section 4.3.1 found that mill geometry also has an effect
on grinding.
Feed Density
The average solids content used for 710m stirred mill testing was ~57% by weight and the SG
of the ore was measured to be 3.0. This resulted in a solids content by volume of 30.6% and a
slurry SG of 1.61. This solids content was chosen to reduce grinding, by decreasing the amount
of energy transmitted per pass through the mill. Normally a solids content of 50% is
recommended to achieve optimum results. Larson et al. (2008) claims that operating with
higher solids content reduces efficiency due to increased viscosity. For testing Mesaba ore,
viscosity issues were negligible because power draw dropped with subsequent passes through
the mill. High viscosity would have caused power draw to remain constant or increase with finer
size. The sharp product size distribution produced during testing resulted in a lower ultrafines
content (<15m), which allowed solids content to remain high without clogging the mill. Further
testing could be performed to determine whether a decrease in solids content has an improved
effect on grinding efficiency.

95

Mill Flow Rate
The flow rate chosen for feeding slurry to the mill was 20.4L/min. This flow rate was chosen to
reduce the grinding residence time in the mill. An increased flow rate resulted in a coarser
product, a desirable characteristic when generating results for grinding to a p80 of 75m. Mill
flow rate does not have an effect on grinding efficiency because feed and mill properties are not
changing. The only change is the speed at which particles travel through the mill. The only
circumstances where mill flow rate would affect stirred mill operations are at very high and very
low flows. If too high a flow rate was selected, material may have a hard time exiting the mill,
resulting in clogging the mill. If too low a flow rate was selected, solids would have time to settle
in the feed line, resulting in blockage. The flow rate chosen for testing exhibited neither
situation and no further testing is required to assess different flow rates.
Mill Speed
The speed chosen for testing was set at 1,200 RPM with 1,169 RPM achieved, the maximum
attainable speed for the mill with the currently installed motor and drive system. This
corresponds to a tip speed of ~11m/s. Larson et al. (2008) found that mill speed has little
influence on grinding efficiency at high speeds. The authors claim that mill speed affects the
power draw of the mill and the energy transmitted to the material but does not affect the grinding
efficiency. Further testing could be done to validate this claim for coarse stirred milling by
running tests at higher and lower speeds.
Media Size
The size of grinding media used in testing was a graded charge with a top size of 6mm. The
recommended ratio for fine grinding is 20:1 media size to mean particle size (80% passing).
The f80 for 710m testing was 340m, corresponding to a ratio of 17.6:1. Had a 20:1 ratio been
used, the media would have had a top size of 6.4mm. Since only one media size was used,
further testing could be done to confirm an optimum bead size. Different media top sizes could
be tested, ranging from 3-8mm, improving the media selection guidelines for coarse stirred
milling.

96

Mill Geometry
The mill geometry was varied during stirred mill testing by removing the first grinding disc and
reducing the number of classifying pegs. The former resulted in a decrease in grinding energy,
while the latter resulted in a drop in grinding efficiency. Further work could be done to examine
the spacing of grinding discs and the effect on grinding efficiency.
Feed Top Size
The maximum feed top size tested for coarse stirred milling was 1.2mm. The operating
conditions chosen for these tests did not result in effective grinding. Further work could be done
to evaluate this top size with a larger-sized motor. With the use of a larger motor size,
increased power draw could be achieved and some of the operating conditions selected could
be fully explored. Further testing could also be done on an intermediate top size of 1mm.

97

5.2 Comparison of Comminution Circuits
From the conclusions reached in Chapter 2, it was predicted that the incorporation of both an
HPGR and a stirred mill into a novel circuit design, could lead to a reduction in the specific
energy requirements for comminution. In Chapter 4, lab and simulation work was done to
investigate whether these conclusions were valid. The resulting transfer sizes, operating work
indices and circuit layout are summarized in Figures 5-1 to 5-3.

Figure 5-1 Summary Layout for Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit

Figure 5-2 Summary Layout of HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit

Feed
Product
f80 =21mm
WI =15.47 kWh/t
t80 =2.12mm
p80 =75m
WI =2.36 kWh/t
Feed
f80 =21mm
WI =2.15 kWh/t
Product
WI =14.2 kWh/t
t80 =1.6mm
p80 =75m
98

Figure 5-3 Summary Layout of HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit
Using the results presented above, a bar graph was generated to summarize the specific
energy consumption for each stage of comminution (refer to Figure 5-4). The graph shows that
the HPGR / stirred mill circuit required the lowest specific energy consumption and achieved a
reduction of 9.2% and 16.7% over the cone crusher / ball mill and HPGR / ball mill circuits,
respectively.
The results presented in this thesis were obtained from pilot-scale testing on a single test for
each operating variable. Since pilot-scale testing required a significant quantity of material per
test, 350kg for HPGR and 100kg for stirred mill, the reproducibility and standard deviation could
not be determined for each changing variable; however some repeatability testing was
performed on pilot-scale HPGR testing using 5 homogenized drums. Results showed that
specific energy consumption had a standard deviation of 0.0167 and specific throughput a
standard deviation of 11.43. For stirred mill testing, since only two signature plots were
generated at similar conditions, the standard deviation could not be calculated and instead the
median of 0.23 was considered. The energy figures associated with Bond grindability testing
were found to have a standard deviation of 0.0548, when comparing the three results of HPGR
product at a screen size of 106m. With these results, testing errors were calculated for each
circuit at a 95% confidence interval. Table 5-1 summarizes the statistics related to each circuit
energy result.

Feed
Product
t80 =0.34mm
WI =3.58 kWh/t
f80 =21mm t80 =6.4mm
p80 =75m
WI =9.73 kWh/t
WI =1.54 kWh/t
99

Figure 5-4 Summary of Specific Energy Consumption for Each Circuit
Table 5-1 Statistics Summary of Circuit Energy Values

The error values displayed in Table 5-1 show that the HPGR / stirred mill circuit contained the
most potential for a variation in reported results. With the inclusion of testing error, the HPGR /
stirred mill circuit still required the lowest specific energy consumption for comminution. The
testing error presented here can be considered only an approximation because the results are
based on only a few tests and the accuracy of J K SimMet
modelling is not accounted for.

Although J K SimMet
is a sophisticated tool for process simulation; the outputs are still dictated
by a mathematical model and are not a result of actual testing.
Sample
Set
Mean
(kWh/t)
Standard
Deiation
Standard
Deviation of the
Mean
95%
Confidence
Interval
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Cone Crusher Specific Energy Value 3 2.36 0.0548 0.0316 0.0620 2.42 2.30
Ball Mill Specific Energy Value 3 15.47 0.0548 0.0316 0.0620 15.53 15.41
HPGR Energy Value 5 2.15 0.0167 0.00747 0.0146 2.16 2.14
Ball Mill Energy Value 3 14.2 0.0548 0.0316 0.0620 14.26 14.14
Stage 1 HPGR Energy Value 5 1.54 0.0167 0.00747 0.0146 1.55 1.53
Stage 2 HPGR Energy Value 5 3.58 0.0167 0.00747 0.0146 3.59 3.57
Stirred Mill Energy Value* 2 9.73 0.23 0.163 0.319 10.05 9.41
*Median used intead of standard deviation
17.83 +/- 0.09
16.35 +/- 0.06
14.85 +/- 0.32
Cone Crusher / Ball Mill Circuit
HPGR / Ball Mill Circuit
HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit
Total Specific Energy Consumption
With 95% Confidence Interval
100

The energy values determined in this study did not take into account any auxiliary equipment for
the circuits. Each circuit would require additional energy requirements for feeders, conveyors,
screens, pumps and cyclones. Additional energy requirements for the cone crusher / ball mill
circuit would result from screens and conveyors for the crushing circuit and pumps and cyclones
for the ball mill circuit. For the HPGR / ball mill circuit, increased energy requirements would
result from screens and conveyors in the HPGR circuit and pumps and cyclones in the ball mill
circuit. The energy requirements for the HGPR / stirred mill circuit would increase with a feed
conveyor for first-stage HPGR crushing, screens and conveyors for second-stage HPGR
crushing and pumps for the stirred mill circuit. The extra energy required for the increased
quantity of conveyors would be counteracted by the reduction in energy related to an open-
circuit grinding configuration. The energy requirements for a de-agglomerator were not
necessary for Mesaba ore due to a low flake competency; however this energy requirement
would need to be considered for an ore that produced more competent flake. Overall, the
increased energy requirements for all three circuits when incorporating auxiliary equipment
should not affect the results significantly.
The product size distribution generated from each circuit is shown in Figure 5-5. The cone
crusher / ball mill circuit and HPGR / ball mill circuit were created from J K SimMet
simulation of
the cyclone overflow product; while the HPGR / stirred mill circuit was generated from product
obtained from pass one of 710m testing. The graph shows that the product from each circuit
resembles the same trend. The stirred mill product is shown to be a bit coarser; however the
product produced in pass one had a p80 of 83.8m, so only the shape of the curve should be
compared. Although these size distributions resemble a similar trend, the size distributions of
different mineral phases could be considerably different. A softer material, possibly the valuable
sulphide minerals, could be much finer than is shown here.
101

Figure 5-5 Product Size Distributions for Each Comminution Circuit

102

5.3 Preliminary HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit Flowsheet
A preliminary design of an HPGR / stirred mill circuit is based on pilot-scale testing summarized
in Section 4.3, coupled with HPGR flowsheet requirements presented in Section 2.1.5. The
current status of HPGR flowsheet design incorporates a closed-circuit crusher prior to HPGR
processing. This step prevents oversized material from entering the HPGR circuit, ensuring the
prevention of single particle breakage and damage of the metal studs. A metal detector must
be installed on a conveyor prior to entering the HPGR circuit to protect the HPGR roller lining
from tramp metal.
For configuration of the HPGR circuit, Section 4.3.2 concluded that two stages of HPGR
comminution were required to produce a product fine enough to grind efficiently in a stirred mill.
Section 4.3.2 also concluded that the feasible layout for these two stages would place the first
stage in open circuit and the second stage in closed circuit with a screen. This layout would
provide the advantage of reducing circuit complexity, while similarly reducing the water addition
to the circuit. To achieve efficient screening for the second stage, inclusion of both a de-
agglomeration step and wet screening could be incorporated to handle competent flake.
To ensure optimum feed density for efficient stirred milling, undersize from the HPGR circuit
would be fed to a mixing tank, where water would be added to control pulp density. Section
2.2.4 stated that ideal operating conditions for stirred milling require a solids content of 40-50%.
This could be achieved with a simple process control loop installed between the water addition
tank and the IsaMill
TM
feed tank. For operation of the IsaMill
TM
circuit, the simplicity available
with the dynamic classifier and open-circuit configuration would limit any need for a recycle
stream. A preliminary design of the circuit is shown in Figure 5-6. The design of the secondary
crushing circuit was similar to the configuration installed at Cerro Verde (Section 2.1.5). A cone
crusher is placed in a reversed closed-circuit arrangement, which would reduce throughput and
improve crushing efficiency for the cone crusher by screening out fine particles from the feed.

103

Figure 5-6 Preliminary Layout for an HPGR / Stirred Mill Circuit

Coarse Ore
Stockpile
Cone
Crusher
Metal
Detector
HPGR
Coarse Screen
HPGR
Impact
De-agglomerater
Fine Screen
IsaMill Feed
Tank
IsaMill
Product
Water
Addition
104

5.4 Refined Procedure for Future Testing
Chapter 4 showed that a considerable amount of testing was conducted to arrive at conclusions
on which circuit required the lowest specific energy consumption for comminution. This large
volume of testing required a considerable amount of material, a quantity not often available for
greenfield operations. Reducing sample requirements would allow greenfield operations to
conduct a preliminary estimation of the energy benefits possible for an HPGR / stirred mill
configuration. To this end, a refined testing program was developed with a reduced sample
commitment of four 45 gallon drums or 1,200kg.
The refined procedure would require a feed particle size of minus 150mm. This would provide
the size specifications necessary to perform J K Drop Weight testing, an impact test performed
to provide a, b and t
a
parameters. These parameters measure the impact energy for breakage
(Napier-Munn et al., 1996) and supply the data necessary to simulate crusher and SAG mill
circuits in J K SimMet
. This inclusion allows for the estimation of an SABC circuit for

comminution energy comparison. The revised procedure also retains testing of crusher and
HPGR product for Bond work index determination, since these values are necessary for
predicting the energy requirements for grinding.
As for HPGR testing, estimation of energy benefits would only require four specific pressing
force tests. The results from these tests would provide valuable performance data for sizing an
HPGR, beneficial to a project even if adoption of an HPGR / stirred mill circuit is not pursued
further. With these results, an optimal specific pressing force would be selected and the product
from that test would be re-run through the HPGR and standard test data recorded to determine
energy requirements for second-stage HPGR crushing. The remaining product from the other
three tests would be re-run through the HPGR, solely for production of feed for stirred mill
testing. An option is available to use this material to assess the effect of moisture on second-
stage HPGR crushing. All second-stage products would then be screened at 710m.
Undersize from screening would be blended and two 100kg splits would be run through an M20
stirred mill, producing two signature plots for energy calculations.
Upon completion of testing, results would be used to perform J K SimMet
simulation for three

comparative circuits: a cone crusher / cone crusher / ball mill circuit, a cone crusher / HPGR /
ball mill circuit and an SABC circuit. Each circuit would be simulated for a feed top size of
105

125mm and a product p80 of 75m. A summary of energy requirements for these circuits would
then be compared to a circuit similar in design to the layout developed in Section 5.3.
The resulting study would provide a preliminary estimation of the potential energy benefits
associated with exploring an HPGR / stirred mill option. Overall, this procedure could be looked
at as a scoping level study for whether further HPGR / stirred mill testing is desirable. Summary
of a testing flowsheet is shown in Figure 5-7.
106

Figure 5-7 Scoping Level Testing Procedure for HPGR / Stirred Mill Evaluation
1,200kg
@ 100% -150mm
Screen
32mm
J aw
Crusher
100kg
J K Drop Weight
Testing
Drum
#1
Blend Sample
Drum
#2
Drum
#3
Drum
#4
Particle Size
Distribution
Bulk Density
HPGR
Pressing
Force #1
HPGR
Pressing
Force #4
OPTIMAL
HPGR
Pressing
Force #3
HPGR
Pressing
Force #2
Stage Crushing
10kg
Bond Work Index
Testing
Crusher Product
@ -3.35mm
Tested
Product
Tested
Product
Tested
Product
Tested
Product
Centre Particle Size
Distribution
Edge Particle Size
Distribution
Flake Density
Bond Work Index
Testing
HPGR Product
10kg
Screened @ 3.35mm
HPGR HPGR HPGR HPGR
710m
Screen
M20 Stirred Mill Testing
Signature Plot
Generation
Tested
Product
Centre Particle Size
Distribution
Edge Particle Size
Distribution
Flake Density
107

6 Conclusions and Recommendations
The research summarized in this thesis focused on the first steps necessary in the development
of a novel HPGR / stirred mill circuit. A review of the literature found that, separately, HPGRs
and stirred mills offered higher energy efficiency over existing tumbling mills and incorporating
them into a novel circuit layout could lead to eliminating the need for a tumbling mill. This could
result in an improvement in comminution efficiency for hard-rock mining applications. The
literature review found that very little operating examples of such a circuit were available, thus
pilot-scale testing was used to assess its technical feasibility. Section 2.3 concluded that a
layout would need to consist of two stages of HPGR comminution to achieve an acceptable feed
size for coarse stirred milling.
The first step necessary in designing the circuit was to develop appropriate design criteria and
feasible transfer sizes between each stage of comminution. The following were the critical
design considerations for the circuit:
Specific Pressing Force

The specific pressing force for Mesaba ore was determined to
be 4N/mm
2
. This force provided a balance between size reduction and specific energy
consumption with no significant drop in specific throughput.
HPGR Moisture Content

The moisture content for testing was 2.5%. This value
provided a balance between dust suppression and comminution performance.
HPGR Circuit Configuration

Two stages of HPGR comminution were selected to
produce adequate feed size for stirred milling. Two configurations were evaluated,
operating the first-stage HPGR in open circuit or in closed circuit with a 4mm screen.
Open circuit configuration was determined to be the better option for the circuit.
Stirred Mill Geometry

The first grinding disc for the stirred mill was removed to produce
a coarser grind per pass through the mill. This resulted in accurate energy figures for
coarse grind sizes.
Grinding Media Size The grinding media top size used for stirred mill testing was 6mm
ceramic. The selection of this top size provided effective grinding for coarse stirred
milling.
108

Stirred Mill Flow Rate

The stirred mill flow rate of 20.4L/min was selected to help
ensure a short residence time in the mill. This helped improved prediction of grinding
energy for coarser products.
Mill Feed Solids Content

The solids content for the feed was tested at 57%. This
produced lower specific energy consumption per pass through the mill, helping achieve
an accurate signature plot with evenly spaced data points.
Mill Speed

The mill speed was set at 1,200 RPM and achieved an actual recorded
value of 1,169 RPM. This corresponded to a disc tip speed of 11m/s.
HPGR / Stirred Mill Transfer Size
Energy data was recorded during testing, and specific energy consumption was summarized for
the proposed HPGR / stirred mill circuit. To evaluate whether this circuit provided the energy
benefits suggested in the literature, a combination of testing and J K SimMet
simulation was
conducted on cone crusher / ball mill and HPGR / ball mill circuits. The results provided data
used to calculate specific energy requirements for comparison.
Three separate transfer sizes were evaluated,
355m, 710m and 1.2mm. Results showed that 710m was the most suitable option
for the operating conditions tested.
Results showed that an HPGR / stirred mill circuit required a specific energy consumption of
14.85kWh/t to reduce a feed f80 of 21mm down to a product p80 of 75m. Upon comparison to
the conventional circuits, this corresponded to 9.2 (HPGR / ball mill circuit) and 16.7% (cone
crusher / ball mill circuit) reduction in the required energy for comminution. With results from the
study, a proposed circuit flowsheet was generated and a revised testing procedure
recommended, establishing a basis for moving forward. The revised testing procedure reduced
the testing sample requirements to 1,200kg. Results from this procedure would provide data to
compare the specific energy requirements for the following circuits:
Cone crusher / cone crusher / ball mill circuit
Cone crusher / HPGR / ball mill circuit
SAG / ball mill circuit
HPGR / stirred mill circuit
Overall, this research provided a valuable addition to the body of knowledge for potential
comminution circuit designs of the future. Chapter 1 stated that if the mining industry was to
109

remain sustainable for future generations, a shift was needed to implement more energy
efficient practices. Establishing the technical feasibility of an HPGR / stirred mill circuit is a first
step in the ascension towards adopting a more effective use of energy for comminution. With
the establishment that combining HPGRs and stirred mills together can reduce specific energy
consumption for comminution, the foundation has been created to allow future engineers to
adopt this concept to a larger sample set.
Future work is recommended for further evaluation of an HPGR / stirred mill circuit:
1. Application of the refined testing procedure with different ore types. The results
presented here represent only one ore deposit and it is recommended that more ore
types be tested to increase the database on the energy benefits of HPGR / stirred mill
comminution. Evaluation of different base metal and precious metal deposits will help
determine whether further energy benefits are achievable. The inclusion of a SAG mill /
ball mill component will help determine whether the energy benefits achieved in this
study are similar when an SABC circuit is included.
2. Examination of the total specific energy requirements for the circuit. Future studies
should include analysis of materials handling equipment to determine total specific
energy requirements for each circuit. This would help finalize whether the energy
benefits determined in this study can translate to energy improvements in a complete
comminution circuit.
3. Evaluation of different grinding media sizes for coarse stirred milling. Further work
should be done in establishing media selection criteria for coarse stirred milling. A
media size ranging between 3-8mm should be tested on a 710m feed top size and
signature plot comparisons should be performed to determine which size produced the
highest grinding efficiency.
4. Further evaluation of feed top size testing for coarse stirred milling. The coarsest
particle size tested in the stirred mill was 1.2mm. The operating conditions used for this
study resulted in a power draw higher than the 18.6kW motor could handle. Using a
larger motor size may help successfully grind 1.2mm material. Further work should be
done on assessing whether sizes between 0.71 and 1.2mm can be effectively processed
through a stirred mill.
110

5. Testing the variation in operating conditions on coarse stirred milling. Other operating
conditions, including increasing mill speed, reducing feed solids content and changing
mill geometry, should be examined to confirm their affects on grinding efficiency.
6. Further design work on the second-stage HPGR screening circuit. The screening circuit
prior to the stirred mill should be explored further, including testing the technical
feasibility of screening a fine product while still achieving high comminution performance
for a continuously-operating HPGR.
7. Establishing a continuously operating pilot-scale circuit. This would help improve the
identification of potential bottlenecks in the circuit and provide valuable data for scaling
up to a full-scale circuit.

111

References
Abouzeid, A. M., & Fuerstenau, D. W. (2009). Grinding of mineral mixtures in high-pressure
grinding rolls. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 93(1), 59-65.
Allen, J . (2009). Advances in stirred milling: Improving profitability of copper ore processing.
Proceedings of the VI International Mineral Processing Seminar, Santiago, Chile.
Anderson, G. S., & Burford, B. D. (2006). IsaMill - the crossover from ultrafine to coarse
grinding. Metallurgical Plant Design and Operating Strategies, 18-19 September 2006, (pp.
10-32).
Anguelov, R., Alexander, J ., & Ghaffari, H. (2008). High pressure grinding rolls (HPGR) an
alternative technology versus SAG milling. MEI Comminution08 Conference, Falmouth,
Cornwall, UK.
Anyimadu, A. K., Rule, C. M., & Knopjes, L. (2007). The development of ultra-fine grinding at
anglo platinum. Journal-South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 107(1), 15.
Arburo, K., & Smith, S. (2009). Recent applications of inert regrinding to improve efficiency of
base and precious metals extraction. Proceedings of the VI International Mineral
Processing Seminar, Santiago, Chile.
Aydogan, N. A., Ergun, L., & Benzer, H. (2006). High pressure grinding rolls (HPGR)
applications in the cement industry. Minerals Engineering, 19(2), 130-139.
Ayers, C., Knopjes, L., & Rule, C. M. (2008). Coarser feed applications of MIG IsaMilling. MEI
Comminution08 Conference, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK.
Bond, F. C. (1961). Crushing and grinding calculations part I and II. British Chemical
Engineering, 6(6,8).
Burford, B. D., & Clark, L. W. (2007). IsaMill technology used in efficient grinding circuits. VIII
International Conference on Non-Ferrous Ore Processing, Wroclaw, Poland. (pp. 21-23).
112

Burford, B. D., & Niva, E. (2008). Comparing energy efficiency in grinding mills. MetPlant 2008 -
Metallurgical Plant Design and Operating Strategies, 18-19 August 2008, (pp. 45-64).
Capstick, D. J . (2010). Is fine grinding an appropriate technology for the optimal extraction of
refractory gold ores? MEI Comminution10 Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.
Cleary, P., Sinnott, M., & Morrison, R. (2006). Analysis of stirred mill performance using DEM
simulation: Part 2 - coherent flow structures, liner stress and wear, mixing and transport.
Minerals Engineering, 19(15), 1551-1572.
Curry, D. C., Clark, L. W., & Rule, C. M. (2005). Collaborative technology development
design and operation of the Worlds largest stirred mill. Randol Innovative Metallurgy
Forum, Perth, Australia.
Curry, D. C., & Clermont, B. (2005). Improving the efficiency of fine grinding developments in
ceramic media technology. Randol Innovative Metallurgy Forum, Perth, Australia.
Daniel, M. (2002). HPGR model verification and scale-up. (Master of Engineering Science, The
University of Queensland).
Daniel, M. (2007a). Energy efficient mineral liberation using HPGR technology. (Doctor of
Philosophy, The University of Queensland).
Daniel, M. (2007b). Triple pass HPGR circuit concept. CSRP07 Delivering Sustainable
Solutions to the Minerals and Metals Industries, Melbourne, Australia.
Daniel, M., & Morrell, S. (2004). HPGR model verification and scale-up. Minerals Engineering,
17(11-12) 1149-1161.
Danilkewich, H., & Hunter, I. (2006). HPGR challenges and growth opportunities. International
Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding Technology 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4
(pp. 27-44).
113

Dixon, S., Olson, B., & Wipf, E. (2010). Squeezing the extra 30% of a typical SABC circuit for
4.8 kWh/tonne. SME Annual Meeting and Exhibit 2010, 28 February-3 March 2010, (pp.
32-35).
Djordjevic, N. (2010). Improvement of energy efficiency of rock comminution through reduction
of thermal losses. Minerals Engineering, 23(15), 1237-1244.
Dunne, R. (2006). HPGR - the journey from soft to competent and abrasive. International
Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding Technology 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4
(pp. 190-205).
Fuerstenau, D. W., & Abouzeid, A. M. (2002). The energy efficiency of ball milling in
comminution. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 67(1-4), 161-185.
Fuerstenau, D. W., & Abouzeid, A. M. (2007). Role of feed moisture in high-pressure roll mill
comminution. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 82(4), 203-210.
Fuerstenau, D. W., Gutsche, O., & Kapur, P. C. (1996). Confined particle bed comminution
under compressive loads. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 44-45, 521-537.
Fuerstenau, D. W., & Kapur, P. C. (1995). Newer energy-efficient approach to particle
production by comminution. Powder Technology, 82(1), 51-51.
Fuerstenau, D. W., Lutch, J . J ., & De, A. (1999). The effect of ball size on the energy efficiency
of hybrid high-pressure roll mill/ball mill grinding. Proceedings of the 1998 9th European
Symposium on Communication, 810 September 1998, 105(1-3) (pp. 199-204).
Fuerstenau, D. W., Shukla, A., & Kapur, P. C. (1991). Energy consumption and product size
distributions in choke-fed, high-compression roll mills. International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 32(1-2), 59-79.
Gao, M., & Holmes, R. (2007). Grinding them down. Materials World, 15(5), 38-40.
114

Gao, M., Weller, K. R., & Allum, P. (1999). Scaling-up horizontal stirred mills from a 4-
litre test mill to a 4000-litre IsaMill. Powder Technology Symposium, Pennsylvania State
University, PA, USA.
Gao, M., Young, M. F., & Allum, P. (2002). IsaMill fine grinding technology and its industrial
applications at mount isa mines. 34th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral
Processors, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Gruendken, A., Matthies, E., & van der Meer, F. P. (2010). Flowsheet considerations for optimal
use of high pressure grinding rolls. Minerals Engineering, 23(9), 663-669.
Gutsche, O., & Fuerstenau, D. W. (1999). Fracture kinetics of particle bed comminution -
ramifications for fines production and mill optimization. Proceedings of the 1998 9th
European Symposium on Communication, 8-10 September 1998, 105(1-3) (pp. 113-118).
Harbort, G., Hourn, M. & Murphy, A. (2010). IsaMill ultrafine grinding for a sulphide leach
process. Retrieved J anuary 28, 2011, from
http://www.isamill.com/downloads/IsaMill%20Ultrafine%20Grinding%20for%20a%20Sulphi
de%20Leach%20Process.pdf
Hosten, C., & Ozbay, C. (1998). Comparison of particle bed breakage and rod mill grinding with
regard to mineral liberation and particle shape effects. Minerals Engineering, 11(9), 871-
874.
Hu, G., Otaki, H., & Lin, M. (2001). An index of the tensile strength of brittle particles. Minerals
Engineering, 14(10), 1199-1211.
Infomine. (2001). Mesaba property profile. Retrieved February 17, 2011, from
http://www.infomine.com/companies-properties/reports/propertyreport.aspx?pid=14754
J ankovic, A. (2003). Variables affecting the fine grinding of minerals using stirred mills. Minerals
Engineering, 16(4), 337-345.
115

J ohnson, N. W., Gao, M., Young, M. F., & Cronin, B. (1998). Application of the ISAMILL (a
horizontal stirred mill) to the lead-zinc concentrator (mount isa mines ltd) and the mining
cycle. In Proceedings of the 1998 annual conference on mining cycle, AusIMM, 19-23 April
1998 (pp. 291-297). Mount Isa, Australia.
Kapur, P. C., Ranjan, S., & Fuerstenau, D. W. (1992). Cascade-cataract charge flow model for
power draft of tumbling mills. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 36(1-2), 9-29.
Klingmann, H. L. (2005). Soledad mountain project - flow sheet development and benefits of the
HPGR. Golden Queen Mining Co. Ltd.
Klymowsky, R., Patzelt, N., Knecht, J ., & Burchardt, E. (2006). An overview of HPGR
technology. International Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding Technology 2006,
Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4 (pp. 11-26).
Kwade, A., & Schwedes, J . (2002). Breaking characteristics of different materials and their
effect on stress intensity and stress number in stirred media mills. Powder Technology,
122(2-3), 109-121.
Lane, G., Daniel, M., Dunne, R., Morrell, S., & Maxton, D. (2009). HPGR application in australia
status and future directions. Proceedings of the VI International Mineral Processing
Seminar, Santiago, Chile. (p. 179).
Larson, M., Morrison, R., & Pietersen, K. (2008). Measurement and comparison of very fine size
distributions. MEI Comminution08 Conference, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK.
Larson, M., Morrison, R., Shi, F. N., & Young, M. F. (2008). Improving grinding efficiency with
the IsaMill. CSRP'08 Delivering Sustainable Solutions to the Minerals and Metals
Industries, Brisbane, Australia.
Lichter, J ., & Davey, G. (2006). Selection and sizing of ultrafine and stirred grinding mills. In S.
Komar Kawatra (Ed.), Advances in comminution (pp. 69-85). Littleton, CO, USA: Society for
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc.
116

Lim, W. I. L., Campbell, J . J ., & Tondo, L. A. (1997). Effect of rolls speed and rolls surface
pattern on high pressure grinding rolls performance. Minerals Engineering, 10(4), 401-419.
Lim, W. I. L., & Weller, K. R. (1999). Some benefits of using studded surfaces in high pressure
grinding rolls. Minerals Engineering, 12(2), 187-203.
Lynch, A. J ., & Rowland, C. A. (2005). The history of grinding. (p. 109). Littleton, CO, USA:
Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc.
Mankosa, M. J ., Adel, G. T., & Yoon, R. H. (1986). Effect of media size in stirred ball mill
grinding of coal. Powder Technology, 49(1), 75-82.
Mayhew, K., Mean, R., O'Connor, L., & Williams, T. (2009). Nickel and cobalt recovery from
mesaba concentrate. Proceedings of the 14th Annual ALTA Nickel/Cobalt Conference,
Perth, Australia.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2011). Efficiency. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/efficiency?show=0&t=1296777852
Metso. (2010). Stirred mills - vertimill and stirred media detritor. Retrieved February 12, 2011,
from
http://www.metso.com/miningandconstruction/MaTobox7.nsf/DocsByID/F58680427E2A748
F852576C4005210AC/$File/Stirred-Milling-2010-Final-LowRes.pdf
Minnesota Geological Survey. (2010). Mineral potential and geology of the Duluth complex.
Retrieved February 17, 2011, from http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/mnpot/dcmplx.html
Morley, C. (2006a). Flowsheets for HPGR. International Autogenous and Semiautogenous
Grinding Technology 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4 (pp. 172-189).
Morley, C. (2006b). High pressure grinding rolls - A technology review. In S. Komar Kawatra
(Ed.), Advances in comminution (pp. 15-40). Littleton, CO, USA: Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration Inc.
Morley, C. (2008). HPGR FAQ. MEI Comminution08 Conference, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK.
117

Morley, C., & Daniel, M. (2009). HPGR flowsheets the next generation. Proceedings of the VI
International Mineral Processing Seminar, Santiago, Chile.
Morrell, S., Shi, F. N., & Tondo, L. A. (1997). Modelling and scale-up of high pressure grinding
rolls. Proceedings of the XX International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC), Aachen,
Germany.
Muranda, R. (2009). A laboratory scale ball mill grindability comparison of the HPGR and
conventional crusher products. Proceedings of the VI International Mineral Processing
Seminar, Santiago, Chile.
Napier-Munn, T. J ., Morrell, S., Morrison, R., & Kojovic, T. (1996). Mineral comminution circuits:
Their operation and optimisation. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, 2, 149.
Norgate, T. E., & Haque, N. (2010). Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of mining and mineral
processing operations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(3), 266-274.
Norgate, T. E., & Weller, K. R. (1994). Selection and operation of high pressure grinding rolls
circuits for minimum energy consumption. Minerals Engineering, 7(10), 1253-1267.
Oberheuser, G. (1996). Wear protection of surface from high pressure grinding rolls:
Possibilities and limits. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 44-45, 561-568.
Oestreicher, C., & Spollen, C. F. (2006). HPGR versus SAG mill selection for the los bronces
grinding circuit expansion. International Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding
Technology 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4 (pp. 110-123).
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.
Parry, J . (2006). Ultrafine grinding for improved mineral liberation in flotation concentrate.
(Master of Applied Science, University of British Columbia).
118

Patzelt, N. (1992). High-pressure grinding rolls, a survey of experience. Cement Industry
Technical Conference, 1992. IEEE, (pp. 149-181).
Pease, J . D. (2007). Case study coarse IsaMilling at McArthur river. Retrieved J anuary 28,
2011, from http://www.isamill.com/downloads/J oe%20Pease2.pdf
Pease, J . D., Curry, D. C., Barns, K. E., Young, M. F., & Rule, C. M. (2006). Transforming
flowsheet design with inert grinding - the IsaMill. 38th Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Mineral Processors, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Polysius. (2011). Polycom: High pressure grinding roll for the minerals industry. Retrieved
February 1, 2011, from
http://www.polysius.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/1603_gb_POLYCOM_01.pdf
Pyke, P., J ohansen, G., English, D., Lane, G., Hayward, T., & Gardula, A. (2006). Application of
HPGR technology in processing gold ore in Australia. International Autogenous and
Semiautogenous Grinding Technology 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4 (pp. 80-93).
Rosario, P. (2010). Comminution circuit design and simulation for the development of a novel
high pressure grinding roll circuit. (Doctor of Philosophy, The University of British
Columbia).
Rosario, P., & Hall, R. (2010). A structured approach to the evaluation of the energy
requirements of HPGR and SAG mill circuits in hard ore applications. Journal of the South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 110(3) 117-123.
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.
Rule, C. M., Knopjes, L., & Atkinson, R. A. (2008). Application of the metso SMD unit for fine
grinding of intermediate flotation concentrates at the PtMile tailings scavenger operation in
Rustenburg. MEI Comminution08 Conference, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK.
119

Rule, C. M., Knopjes, L., & J ones, R. (2008). The introduction of mainstream inert grinding, or
MIG isamilling technology at anglo platinum. MEI Comminution08 Conference, Falmouth,
Cornwall, UK.
Rule, C. M., Smit, I., Cope, A. J ., & Humphries, G. A. (2008). Commissioning of the polycom
2.2/1.6 5.6 MW HPGR at anglo Platinums new mogalakwena north concentrator. MEI
Comminution08 Conference, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK.
Rumpf, H. (1973). Physical aspects of comminution, similarity law of fracture mechanics and the
utilization of energy in comminuting a single grain; Physikalische Aspekte des Zerkleinerns,
Aehnlichkeitsgesetz der Bruchmechanik und die Energieausnutzung der
Einzelkornzerkleinerung. Aufbereitungs-Technik, 14(2), 59-71.
Schoenert, K. (1979). Aspects of the physics of breakage relevant to comminution. Tewksbury
4
th
Symposium on Fracture: Fracture at Work, Melbourne, Australia.
Schoenert, K. (1988). First survey of grinding with high-compression roller mills. International
Journal of Mineral Processing, 22(1-4), 401-412.
Shi, F. N., Morrison, R., Cervellin, A., Burns, F., & Musa, F. (2009). Comparison of energy
efficiency between ball mills and stirred mills in coarse grinding. Minerals Engineering,
22(7-8), 673-680.
Sinnott, M., Cleary, P., & Morrison, R. (2006). Analysis of stirred mill performance using DEM
simulation: Part 1- media motion, energy consumption and collisional environment.
Minerals Engineering, 19(15), 1537-1550.
Tavares, L. M. (2005). Particle weakening in high-pressure roll grinding. Minerals Engineering,
18(7), 651-657.
Tavares, L. M., & Carvalho, R. M. (2007). Impact work index prediction from continuum damage
model of particle fracture. Minerals Engineering, 20(15), 1368-1375.
120

Teck. (2010). Mesaba cu-ni project - 2010 IPS field trip. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from
http://www.d.umn.edu/prc/Pt%20Symp%20FT/Mesaba.pdf
Thompsen, L., Patzelt, N., & Knecht, J . (1996). High-pressure grinding for copper at cyprus
sierrita. Mining Engineering, 48(9), 23-26.
Tromans, D. (2008). Mineral comminution: Energy efficiency considerations. Minerals
Engineering, 21(8), 613-620.
Tromans, D., & Meech, J . A. (2002). Fracture toughness and surface energies of minerals:
Theoretical estimates for oxides, sulphides, silicates and halides. Minerals Engineering,
15(12), 1027-1041.
Tromans, D., & Meech, J . A. (2004). Fracture toughness and surface energies of covalent
minerals: Theoretical estimates. Minerals Engineering, 17(1), 1-15.
Valery, W., & J ankovic, A. (2002). The future of comminution. 34th International October
Conference on Mining and Metallurgy - Proceedings, Bor Lake, Yugoslavia. (pp. 287-298).
Vanderbeek, J . L., Linde, T. B., Brack, W. S., & Marsden, J . D. (2006). HPGR implementation at
cerro verde. International Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding Technology 2006,
Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4 (pp. 45-61).
Wang, Y., & Forssberg, E. (2007). Enhancement of energy efficiency for mechanical production
of fine and ultra-fine particles in comminution. China Particuology, 5(3), 193-201.
Wang, Y., Forssberg, E., & Klymowsky, R. (1998). Fine comminution of limestone by roller
press - stirred ball milling; feinzerkleinerung von kalkstein in gutbettwalzenmuehlen und
ruehrwerkskugelmuehlen. Aufbereitungs-Technik, 39(6), 267-278.
Wang, Y., Forssberg, E., & Lin, P. (2006). Hybrid comminution with high-pressure roller and
stirred bead milling. Particle and Particle Systems Characterization, 22(5), 336-344.
121

Whittles, D. N., Kingman, S., Lowndes, I., & J ackson, K. (2006). Laboratory and numerical
investigation into the characteristics of rock fragmentation. Minerals Engineering, 19(14),
1418-1429.
Yue, J ., & Klein, B. (2006). Effects of bead size on ultrafine grinding in a stirred bead mill. In S.
Komar Kawatra (Ed.), Advances in comminution (pp. 87-98). Littleton, CO, USA: Society for
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc.

122

A. Appendix A JK SimMet
Data

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

B. Appendix B Bond Work Index Data

155

Figure B-1 Bond Work Index Data Crusher Product (150m)
BOND MILL GRINDABILITY TEST REPORT
Test: 150m Test #2 Date: September 21, 2009
Sample: Mesaba HPGR Product (3n/mm^2) Project: MASc Research Thesis
TEST CONDITIONS
Cycle Oversize Wt. Product Wt. Feed Undersize Net Product Product per Rev. Required Rev. Predicted Recirculating
(grams) (grams) (grams) (grams) (grams/rev.) (rev.) Rev Load
1 838 563 354 209 2.09 100
2 1,024 377 142 235 1.89 124 124 271
3 1,022 379 95 284 1.76 161 161 270
4 999 402 96 306 1.77 173 173 249
5 994 407 102 305 1.80 169 169 244
6 1,007 394 103 291 1.77 165 165 255
7 994 408 100 308 1.81 170 170 244
SIZE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sieve Size % Passing
Tyler mesh m Feed Product
6 3360 99.5 Material Charge Wt.-700 mL(g) =1,401
10 1700 77.5 Test Screen (m) =150
14 1180 68.1 Undersize in Feed (%)=25.3
20 841 59.1 Circulating Load (%) =244
28 595 51.6 Gbp (ave.) =1.79
35 417 44.5 Product P
80
(m) =125.6
48 297 37.0 Feed F
80
(m) =1,854
65 210 31.4 W (kWh/ton) = 13.2
100 150 25.3 94.2 W (kWh/tonne) = 14.5
150 106 20.0 68.4
200 75 15.1 39.1
270 53 9.2 21.2
325 45 3.9 4.9
400 38 3.1 0.4
156

Figure B-2 Bond Work Index Data Crusher Product (150m) (continued)
SIZE ANALYSIS
Size Feed Product
Tyler m Weight Individual Passing Weight Individual Passing
mesh (g) (%) (%) (g) (%) (%)
6 3360 5.8 0.4 99.6 0.0 100.0
10 1700 405.9 27.9 71.7 0.0 100.0
14 1180 146.4 10.1 61.6 0.0 100.0
20 841 128.5 8.8 52.8 0.0 100.0
28 595 101.3 7.0 45.8 0.0 100.0
35 417 93.0 6.4 39.4 0.0 100.0
48 297 95.2 6.5 32.9 0.0 100.0
65 210 74.9 5.2 27.7 0.0 100.0
100 150 76.7 5.3 22.4 13.2 1.8 98.2
150 106 68.1 4.7 17.8 194.5 25.9 72.3
200 75 67.1 4.6 13.1 213.0 28.4 43.9
270 53 70.7 4.9 8.3 131.9 17.6 26.3
325 45 69.3 4.8 3.5 135.9 18.1 8.2
400 38 7.3 0.5 3.0 35.6 4.7 3.5
-400 43.8 3.0 0.0 25.9 3.5 0.0
Total 1454.0 100.0 750.0 100.0
F
80
P
80
S1 (m) 3360 S1 (m) 150
P1 (%) 99.6 P1 (%) 98.2
S2 (m) 1700 S2 (m) 106
P2 (%) 71.7 P2 (%) 72.3
m 0.48 m 0.88
b 0.68 b 0.17
F80 2133 P80 118.9
157

2
HPGR Product (150m)
TEST CONDITIONS
1 838 563 354 209 2.09 100
2 1,024 377 142 235 1.89 124 124 271
3 1,022 379 95 284 1.76 161 161 270
4 999 402 96 306 1.77 173 173 249
5 994 407 102 305 1.80 169 169 244
6 1,007 394 103 291 1.77 165 165 255
7 994 408 100 308 1.81 170 170 244
10 1700 77.5 Test Screen (m) =150
28 595 51.6 Gbp (ave.) =1.79
35 417 44.5 Product P
80
(m) =125.6
48 297 37.0 Feed F
80
(m) =1,854
65 210 31.4 W (kWh/ton) = 13.2
100 150 25.3 94.2 W (kWh/tonne) = 14.5
150 106 20.0 68.4
200 75 15.1 39.1
270 53 9.2 21.2
325 45 3.9 4.9
400 38 3.1 0.4
158

2
HPGR Product (150m) (continued)
SIZE ANALYSIS
Size Feed Product
mesh (g) (%) (%) (g) (%) (%)
6 3360 6.6 0.5 99.5 0.0 100.0
10 1700 309.3 22.1 77.5 0.0 100.0
14 1180 131.4 9.4 68.1 0.0 100.0
20 841 126.4 9.0 59.1 0.0 100.0
28 595 104.6 7.5 51.6 0.0 100.0
35 417 99.1 7.1 44.5 0.0 100.0
48 297 105.8 7.6 37.0 0.0 100.0
65 210 78.2 5.6 31.4 0.0 100.0
100 150 85.5 6.1 25.3 45.8 5.8 94.2
150 106 74.3 5.3 20.0 205.8 25.9 68.4
200 75 68.5 4.9 15.1 233.5 29.3 39.1
270 53 82.9 5.9 9.2 141.9 17.8 21.2
325 45 73.5 5.2 3.9 130.1 16.3 4.9
400 38 10.8 0.8 3.1 35.6 4.5 0.4
-400 44.1 3.1 0.0 3.3 0.4 0.0
Total 1401.0 100.0 796.0 100.0
F
80
P
80
S1 (m) 3360 S1 (m) 150
P1 (%) 99.5 P1 (%) 94.2
S2 (m) 1700 S2 (m) 106
P2 (%) 77.5 P2 (%) 68.4
m 0.37 m 0.92
b 1.62 b -0.07
F80 1854 P80 125.6
159

2
HPGR Product (150m)
TEST CONDITIONS
1 862 644 456 187 1.87 100
2 1,078 427 195 232 1.86 125 125 252
3 1,095 410 129 281 1.73 162 162 267
4 1,068 437 124 313 1.78 176 176 244
5 1,075 430 132 297 1.77 168 168 250
6 1,071 434 130 304 1.80 169 169 247
7 1,079 426 132 294 1.77 166 166 253
10 1700 77.6 Test Screen (m) =150
28 595 54.4 Gbp (ave.) =1.78
35 417 48.8 Product P
80
(m) =124.2
48 297 42.2 Feed F
80
(m) =1,849
65 210 37.0 W (kWh/ton) = 13.2
100 150 30.3 96.9 W (kWh/tonne) = 14.5
150 106 23.9 68.1
200 75 15.9 37.5
270 53 9.1 15.6
325 45 2.3 4.2
400 38 0.3 0.9
160

2
SIZE ANALYSIS
Size Feed Product
mesh (g) (%) (%) (g) (%) (%)
6 3360 8.8 0.6 99.4 0.0 100.0
10 1700 327.7 21.8 77.6 0.0 100.0
14 1180 134.1 8.9 68.7 0.0 100.0
20 841 118.9 7.9 60.8 0.0 100.0
28 595 96.1 6.4 54.4 0.0 100.0
35 417 85.7 5.7 48.8 0.0 100.0
48 297 98.1 6.5 42.2 0.0 100.0
65 210 78.1 5.2 37.0 0.0 100.0
100 150 101.9 6.8 30.3 24.2 3.1 96.9
150 106 96.2 6.4 23.9 224.2 28.8 68.1
200 75 120.2 8.0 15.9 238.3 30.6 37.5
270 53 102.4 6.8 9.1 170.4 21.9 15.6
325 45 102.0 6.8 2.3 88.7 11.4 4.2
400 38 30.2 2.0 0.3 25.7 3.3 0.9
-400 4.6 0.3 0.0 6.9 0.9 0.0
Total 1505.0 100.0 778.4 100.0
F
80
P
80
S1 (m) 3360 S1 (m) 150
P1 (%) 99.4 P1 (%) 96.9
S2 (m) 1700 S2 (m) 106
P2 (%) 77.6 P2 (%) 68.1
m 0.36 m 1.02
b 1.65 b -0.52
F80 1849 P80 124.2
161

2
HPGR Product (150m)
TEST CONDITIONS
1 727 662 403 259 2.59 100
2 992 398 192 206 2.60 79 79 249
3 1,050 339 115 224 2.07 108 108 310
4 1,010 380 98 282 1.96 144 144 266
5 1,003 386 110 276 1.88 147 147 260
6 979 411 112 299 1.97 152 152 238
7 987 403 119 284 2.01 141 141 245
8 997 393 117 276 1.99 139 139 254
10 1700 83.1 Test Screen (m) =150
28 595 58.0 Gbp (ave.) =1.99
35 417 50.5 Product P
80
(m) =118.4
48 297 42.4 Feed F
80
(m) =1,497
65 210 36.3 W (kWh/ton) = 12.1
100 150 29.0 97.6 W (kWh/tonne) = 13.3
150 106 23.1 72.9
200 75 16.9 42.3
270 53 9.7 21.3
325 45 2.4 6.6
400 38 0.4 1.9
162

2
SIZE ANALYSIS
Size Feed Product
mesh (g) (%) (%) (g) (%) (%)
6 3360 2.9 0.2 99.8 0.0 100.0
10 1700 232.4 16.7 83.1 0.0 100.0
14 1180 118.5 8.5 74.5 0.0 100.0
20 841 121.4 8.7 65.8 0.0 100.0
28 595 107.9 7.8 58.0 0.0 100.0
35 417 105.0 7.6 50.5 0.0 100.0
48 297 112.1 8.1 42.4 0.0 100.0
65 210 84.4 6.1 36.3 0.0 100.0
100 150 101.4 7.3 29.0 18.2 2.4 97.6
150 106 82.4 5.9 23.1 184.4 24.6 72.9
200 75 85.7 6.2 16.9 229.5 30.7 42.3
270 53 101.3 7.3 9.7 157.2 21.0 21.3
325 45 100.7 7.2 2.4 109.6 14.6 6.6
400 38 28.1 2.0 0.4 35.7 4.8 1.9
-400 5.3 0.4 0.0 13.9 1.9 0.0
Total 1389.5 100.0 748.5 100.0
F
80
P
80
S1 (m) 1700 S1 (m) 150
P1 (%) 83.1 P1 (%) 97.6
S2 (m) 1180 S2 (m) 106
P2 (%) 74.5 P2 (%) 72.9
m 0.30 m 0.84
b 2.19 b 0.37
F80 1497 P80 118.4
163

Figure B-9 Bond Work Index Data Crusher Product (106m)
Test: 106m Test #1 Date: J anuary, 2011
Sample: Mesaba Crusher Product Project: MASc Research Thesis
TEST CONDITIONS
1 1,108 315 247 69 0.69 100
2 904 519 55 465 0.91 512 512 174
3 968 455 90 365 1.05 349 349 213
4 982 441 79 362 1.15 313 313 223
5 1,055 368 76 291 1.02 286 286 287
6 981 442 64 378 1.13 336 336 222
7 999 424 77 347 1.18 293 293 236
8 1,026 397 73 324 1.15 282 282 258
9 1,026 397 69 328 1.12 294 294 259
6 3360 99.4 Material Charge Wt.-700 mL(g) =1,422.9
10 1700 69.0 Test Screen (m) =106
28 595 42.4 Gbp (ave.) =1.15
35 417 36.6 Product P
80
(m) =80
48 297 30.7 Feed F
80
(m) =2,241
65 210 26.4 W (kWh/ton) = 15.0
100 150 21.7 W (kWh/tonne) = 16.5
150 106 17.3 100.0
200 75 76.3
270 53 39.8
325 45 30.3
400 38 22.7
164

Figure B-10 Bond Work Index Data Crusher Product (106m) (continued)
SIZE ANALYSIS
Size Feed Product
mesh (g) (%) (%) (g) (%) (%)
6 3360 2.7 0.6 99.4 0.0 100.0
10 1700 136.9 30.4 69.0 0.0 100.0
14 1180 40.9 9.1 59.9 0.0 100.0
20 841 44.7 9.9 50.0 0.0 100.0
28 595 34.0 7.6 42.4 0.0 100.0
35 417 25.9 5.8 36.6 0.0 100.0
48 297 26.9 6.0 30.7 0.0 100.0
65 210 19.4 4.3 26.4 0.0 100.0
100 150 20.8 4.6 21.7 0.0 100.0
150 106 20.1 4.5 17.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
200 75 93.6 23.7 76.3
270 53 143.8 36.5 39.8
325 45 37.3 9.5 30.3
400 38 30.0 7.6 22.7
Pan 77.7 17.3 0.0 89.6 22.7 0.0
Total 450.0 100.0 394.3 100.0
F
80
P
80
S1 (m) 3360 S1 (m) 106
P1 (%) 99.4 P1 (%) 100.0
S2 (m) 1700 S2 (m) 75
P2 (%) 69.0 P2 (%) 76.3
m 0.54 m 0.78
b 0.25 b 0.96
F80 2241 P80 80
165

2
HPGR Product (106m)
TEST CONDITIONS
1 1,029 396 359 37 0.37 100
2 519 906 100 806 0.96 841 841 57
3 985 439 228 211 1.13 186 186 224
4 1,031 394 111 283 1.08 262 262 262
5 996 428 99 329 1.16 284 284 233
6 981 443 108 335 1.30 258 258 221
7 1,025 400 112 288 1.27 227 227 256
8 1,026 399 101 298 1.23 242 242 257
10 1700 79.0 Test Screen (m) =106
28 595 54.8 Gbp (ave.) =1.27
35 417 48.6 Product P
80
(m) =81.5
48 297 41.9 Feed F
80
(m) =1,765
65 210 36.9 W (kWh/ton) = 14.4
100 150 31.2 W (kWh/tonne) = 15.9
150 106 25.2 100.0
200 75 74.6
270 53 40.2
325 45 30.4
400 38 21.5
166

2
SIZE ANALYSIS
Size Feed Product
mesh (g) (%) (%) (g) (%) (%)
6 3360 3.5 0.7 99.3 0.0 100.0
10 1700 106.3 20.3 79.0 0.0 100.0
14 1180 39.5 7.6 71.4 0.0 100.0
20 841 49.9 9.6 61.9 0.0 100.0
28 595 37.2 7.1 54.8 0.0 100.0
35 417 32.0 6.1 48.6 0.0 100.0
48 297 35.0 6.7 41.9 0.0 100.0
65 210 26.5 5.1 36.9 0.0 100.0
100 150 29.6 5.7 31.2 0.0 100.0
150 106 31.4 6.0 25.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
200 75 101.4 25.4 74.6
270 53 137.7 34.5 40.2
325 45 38.9 9.7 30.4
400 38 35.8 9.0 21.5
Pan 131.6 25.2 0.0 85.8 21.5 0.0
Total 522.5 100.0 399.6 100.0
F
80
P
80
S1 (m) 3360 S1 (m) 106
P1 (%) 99.3 P1 (%) 100.0
S2 (m) 1700 S2 (m) 75
P2 (%) 79.0 P2 (%) 74.6
m 0.34 m 0.85
b 1.87 b 0.66
F80 1765 P80 81.5
167

2
HPGR Product (106m)
TEST CONDITIONS
1 976 505 413 92 0.92 100
2 993 489 141 348 1.13 307 307 203
3 1,043 439 136 303 1.20 253 253 238
4 1,073 408 122 286 1.14 252 252 263
5 1,053 428 114 314 1.15 272 272 246
6 1,020 461 119 342 1.30 263 263 221
7 1,052 430 129 301 1.33 227 227 245
8 1,082 399 120 279 1.22 228 228 271
9 1,072 409 111 298 1.17 255 255 262
10 1,023 458 114 344 1.30 265 265 223
11 1,064 417 128 289 1.27 227 227 255
10 1700 79.0 Test Screen (m) =106
28 595 58.0 Gbp (ave.) =1.27
35 417 52.4 Product P
80
(m) =81.1
48 297 46.5 Feed F
80
(m) =1,764
65 210 41.6 W (kWh/ton) = 14.4
100 150 36.0 W (kWh/tonne) = 15.8
150 106 27.9 100.0
200 75 75.0
270 53 35.5
325 45 19.9
400 38 11.2
168

2
SIZE ANALYSIS
Size Feed Product
mesh (g) (%) (%) (g) (%) (%)
6 3360 1.9 0.4 99.6 0.0 100.0
10 1700 106.1 20.6 79.0 0.0 100.0
14 1180 33.8 6.6 72.4 0.0 100.0
20 841 41.1 8.0 64.4 0.0 100.0
28 595 33.3 6.5 58.0 0.0 100.0
35 417 28.4 5.5 52.4 0.0 100.0
48 297 30.3 5.9 46.5 0.0 100.0
65 210 25.5 5.0 41.6 0.0 100.0
100 150 28.9 5.6 36.0 0.0 100.0
150 106 41.4 8.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
200 75 102.7 25.0 75.0
270 53 162.6 39.6 35.5
325 45 63.9 15.5 19.9
400 38 35.9 8.7 11.2
Pan 143.6 27.9 0.0 45.9 11.2 0.0
Total 514.3 100.0 411.0 100.0
F
80
P
80
S1 (m) 3360 S1 (m) 106
P1 (%) 99.6 P1 (%) 100.0
S2 (m) 1700 S2 (m) 75
P2 (%) 79.0 P2 (%) 75.0
m 0.34 m 0.83
b 1.84 b 0.73
F80 1764 P80 81.1
169

2
HPGR Product (106m)
TEST CONDITIONS
1 928 504 398 106 1.06 100
2 971 461 140 321 1.26 255 255 210
3 1,049 383 128 254 1.14 223 223 274
4 1,021 411 106 305 1.15 265 265 248
5 1,012 420 114 305 1.19 256 256 241
6 1,005 427 117 310 1.26 246 246 235
7 1,017 415 119 296 1.29 230 230 245
8 1,034 398 115 283 1.24 228 228 260
10 1700 80.2 Test Screen (m) =106
28 595 58.1 Gbp (ave.) =1.26
35 417 52.0 Product P
80
(m) =79.0
48 297 45.5 Feed F
80
(m) =1,682
65 210 40.3 W (kWh/ton) = 14.3
100 150 34.2 W (kWh/tonne) = 15.7
150 106 27.8 100.0
200 75 76.9
270 53 39.4
325 45 27.2
400 38 19.8
170

2
SIZE ANALYSIS
Size Feed Product
mesh (g) (%) (%) (g) (%) (%)
6 3360 3.2 0.4 99.6 0.0 100.0
10 1700 146.1 19.4 80.2 0.0 100.0
14 1180 50.6 6.7 73.5 0.0 100.0
20 841 64.3 8.5 64.9 0.0 100.0
28 595 51.6 6.9 58.1 0.0 100.0
35 417 45.7 6.1 52.0 0.0 100.0
48 297 48.6 6.5 45.5 0.0 100.0
65 210 39.8 5.3 40.3 0.0 100.0
100 150 45.2 6.0 34.2 0.0 100.0
150 106 48.6 6.5 27.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
200 75 90.9 23.1 76.9
270 53 147.5 37.5 39.4
325 45 48.1 12.2 27.2
400 38 29.1 7.4 19.8
Pan 209.3 27.8 0.0 77.7 19.8 0.0
Total 753.0 100.0 393.3 100.0
F
80
P
80
S1 (m) 1700 S1 (m) 106
P1 (%) 80.2 P1 (%) 100.0
S2 (m) 1180 S2 (m) 75
P2 (%) 73.5 P2 (%) 76.9
m 0.24 m 0.76
b 2.61 b 1.06
F80 1682 P80 79.0
171

C. Appendix C HPGR Data

172

Table C-1 HPGR Pilot-Scale Test Key
Test ID Test Description
P
H
A
S
E

O
N
E

T1A01 5N/mm Specific Pressing Force Testing
T1A02 4N/mm Specific Pressing Force Testing / Closed Circuit Testing Cycle 1
T1A05 0.6m/s Roller Speed Testing
T1A06 0.9m/s Roller Speed Testing
T1A07 1% Moisture Content Testing
T1A08 5% Moisture Content Testing
T1A09 Closed Circuit Testing with 4mm Screen Cycle 2
P
H
A
S
E

T
W
O
T2A01 Generating Product for Second Stage Closed Circuit Testing
T2B01 Second Stage Dry Closed Circuit Testing Cycle 1
T2B05 Second Stage Wet Closed Circuit Testing Cycle 5

173

Table C-2 HPGR Operating Data Phase One

Roller Diameter (D) [m] 0.750
Roller Width (W) [m] 0.220
Symbol Unit
[m/s] 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.60 0.90
n [rpm] 19.10 19.10 19.10 19.10 15.30 22.90
Static Gap X
0
[mm] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Hydraulic Pressure P [bar] 103 82 62 41 82 82
Pressing Force F [kN] 828.4 659.5 498.6 329.7 659.5 659.5
Specific Pressing Force F
SP [kN/m
2
]
5 4 3 2 4 4
Test Time t [s] 19.00 18.41 20.99 18.41 15.00 15.80
Average Actual Speed:
AV
[m/s] 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.77 0.61 0.90
Standard Deviation
0.05 0.06 0.05 0.25 0.17 0.06

Actual Roller gap (average) X
gAV
[mm] 21.46 22.53 24.10 25.39 23.68 23.18
Standard Deviation
X
0.68 0.59 1.13 0.93 0.74 0.68
Actual Hydraulic Pressure (average) P
AV
[bar] 100.7 80.2 61.1 42.5 81.2 80.6
Standard Deviation 0.87 1.79 0.96 1.66 0.81 1.21
Actual Pressing Force (average) F
AV
[kN] 810 645 491 342 653 648
Actual Specific Pressure (average) F
SPAV [kN/m
2
]
4.92 3.92 2.98 2.08 3.97 3.94
Idle Power Draw Pi [kW] 8.12 8.04 9.18 9.36 6.88 12.20
Power Draw P [kW] 77.94 64.77 54.52 43.58 53.44 79.75
Total Specific Energy Consumption E
SP
[kWh/t] 2.17 1.77 1.42 1.09 1.75 1.73
Net Specific Energy Consumption E
SP net
[kWh/t] 1.94 1.55 1.18 0.85 1.53 1.46
Press throughput W [t/h] 35.98 36.55 38.36 40.11 30.48 46.17
Specific Throughput Constant m dot
[ts/hm
3
]
292.20 295.69 310.97 315.37 304.22 311.50
Press
Constant
Data Description
Test Number:
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

S
e
t

P
o
i
n
t
s
Speed
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

D
a
t
a
T1A01 T1A02 T1A06 T1A05 T1A04 T1A03
174

Table C-3 HPGR Operating Data Phase One (continued)

Symbol Unit
[m/s] 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
n [rpm] 19.10 19.10 19.10 19.10 19.10 19.10
Static Gap X
0
[mm] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Hydraulic Pressure P [bar] 82 82 82 82 82 82
Pressing Force F [kN] 659.5 659.5 659.5 659.5 659.5 659.5
SP [kN/m
2
]
4 4 4 4 4 4
Test Time t [s] 21.39 20.60 19.21 20.60 18.80 18.59
AV
[m/s] 0.75 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.77
Standard Deviation
0.08 0.18 0.06 0.17 0.14 0.21

gAV
[mm] 23.43 20.59 22.07 22.47 22.13 17.56
Standard Deviation
X
1.56 0.90 0.50 0.60 0.57 0.32
AV
[bar] 80.4 80.8 80.5 79.9 80.1 80.8
AV
[kN] 647 650 647 642 644 650
SPAV [kN/m
2
]
3.93 3.95 3.93 3.90 3.92 3.95
Idle Power Draw Pi [kW] 9.11 8.56 9.16 10.25 10.00 9.63
Power Draw P [kW] 64.04 73.87 62.17 64.70 64.94 45.49
SP
[kWh/t] 1.70 2.13 1.71 1.75 1.72 1.53
SP net
[kWh/t] 1.46 1.89 1.46 1.47 1.45 1.20
Press throughput W [t/h] 37.63 34.60 36.31 37.01 37.83 29.77
[ts/hm
3
]
304.77 276.58 293.66 296.99 304.00 235.81
T1A11 T1B01
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

S
e
t

P
o
i
n
t
s
Speed
Data Description
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

D
a
t
a
Test Number:
T1A07 T1A08 T1A09 T1A10
175


Symbol Unit
Average Flake Density
F [t/m
3
] 2.59 2.57 2.55 2.51 2.55 2.53
Flake Thickness Average X
F
[mm] 25.2 24.7 25.6 26.6 24.7 25.2
Feed Moisture [%] 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
Feed Bulk Density
[t/m
3
] 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16
Particle Size Distribution
Feed: 80% Passing Size F
80
[mm] 21.33 21.33 21.33 21.33 21.33 21.33
80
[mm] 13.96 13.96 13.96 13.96 13.96 13.96
Centre: 80% Passing Size P
80
[mm] 6.85 7.10 7.43 8.88 7.46 6.91
50
[mm] 1.60 1.74 1.67 2.29 1.84 1.70
Edge: 80% Passing Size P
80
[mm] 8.83 10.93 12.12 12.87 9.00 11.27
50
[mm] 2.18 3.30 4.59 5.30 2.35 3.70
Scale-up: 80% Passing Size P
80
[mm] 7.15 7.67 8.13 9.48 7.69 7.56
50
[mm] 1.69 1.97 2.11 2.74 1.92 2.00
Reduction Ratio F80/P80 (Centre (0.85) Edge(0.15)) 2.98 2.78 2.62 2.25 2.77 2.82
Mass Balance
Total Feed Material M
F
[kg] 383 366 375 370 372 321
Total Centre Product M
C
[kg] 151.3 149.8 166.4 144.5 146.1 129.2
Centre Product % of Centre & Edge Material MCE% [%] 79.7% 80.1% 74.4% 70.5% 58.9% 69.5%
Total Edge Product M
E
[kg] 38.6 37.1 57.3 60.6 101.9 56.8
Edge Product % of Centre & Edge Material M
EF%
[%] 20.3% 19.9% 25.6% 29.5% 41.1% 30.5%
Edge Product % of Centre Product M
EC%
[%] 25.5% 24.8% 34.4% 41.9% 69.7% 44.0%
Total Waste Product M
W
[kg] 179.2 168.1 138.5 157.3 113.2 124.3
Waste Product % of Total Feed M
WF%
[%] 46.8% 45.9% 36.9% 42.5% 30.4% 38.7%
Total Recovered Product M
P
[kg] 369 355 362 362 361 310
Mass Reconciliation (+"gain; - "loss") M
PF% [%] 3.6% 3.0% 3.4% 2.1% 2.9% 3.3%
T1A05 Description
Test Number:
T1A01 T1A02 T1A03 T1A04 T1A06
176


Symbol Unit
F [t/m
3
] 2.54 2.48 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.30
F
[mm] 27.5 22.9 24.4 23.8 24.2 18.0
Feed Moisture [%] 1.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2%
Feed Bulk Density
[t/m
3
] 2.16 2.16 2.22 2.20 2.16
80
[mm] 21.33 21.33 19.02 19.73 21.77 1.86
80
[mm] 13.96 13.96 11.23 10.58 13.38 0.49
80
[mm] 6.12 7.37 5.68 6.43 6.04 1.09
50
[mm] 1.14 1.68 1.42 1.72 1.72 0.22
80
[mm] 11.46 9.90 9.67 10.15 9.74 1.28
50
[mm] 4.20 3.31 3.51 3.71 3.38 0.25
80
[mm] 6.92 7.75 6.28 6.99 6.60 1.12
50
[mm] 1.60 1.92 1.73 2.02 1.97 0.22
Mass Balance
F
[kg] 373 393 364 362 362 249
C
[kg] 151.6 145 147.2 155.2 141 101.3
Centre Product % of Centre & Edge Material MCE% [%] 67.8% 73.2% 76.0% 73.3% 71.4% 65.9%
E
[kg] 72.0 53.0 46.5 56.6 56.6 52.4
EF%
[%] 32.2% 26.8% 24.0% 26.7% 28.6% 34.1%
EC%
[%] 47.5% 36.6% 31.6% 36.5% 40.1% 51.7%
W
[kg] 138.5 179.6 159.9 139.3 154.5 89.0
WF%
[%] 37.1% 45.7% 43.9% 38.5% 42.7% 35.7%
P
[kg] 362 378 354 351 352 243
PF% [%] 2.9% 3.9% 2.9% 3.0% 2.7% 2.5%
T1A10 T1A11 T1B01 T1A07 T1A08 T1A09
Test Number:
Description
177

Table C-6 HPGR Operating Data Phase Two

Roller Diameter (D) [m] 0.750
Roller Width (W) [m] 0.220
Symbol Unit
[m/s] 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
n [rpm] 19.10 19.10 19.10 19.10 19.10
Static Gap X
0
[mm] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Hydraulic Pressure P [bar] 82 82 82 82 82
Pressing Force F [kN] 660.0 660.0 660.0 660.0 660.0
SP [kN/m
2
]
4 4 4 4 4
Test Time t [s] 21.00 21.21 20.40 21.80 19.20
AV
[m/s] 0.76 0.74 0.77 0.75 0.76
Standard Deviation
0.14 0.08 0.24 0.06 0.16

gAV
[mm] 22.07 22.25 21.93 22.12 22.40
Standard Deviation
X
2.14 1.45 1.13 0.54 0.41
AV
[bar] 80.8 80.7 81.0 81.1 80.6
Standard Deviation 0.83 0.78 0.66 1.15 1.09
AV
[kN] 650 649 651 652 648
SPAV [kN/m
2
]
3.95 3.95 3.96 3.96 3.94
Idle Power Draw Pi [kW] 8.86 8.11 8.33 8.31 8.65
Power Draw P [kW] 65.48 67.40 67.51 67.50 56.61
SP
[kWh/t] 1.78 1.74 1.79 1.74 1.46
SP net
[kWh/t] 1.54 1.53 1.57 1.53 1.23
Press throughput W [t/h] 36.84 38.75 37.78 38.74 38.89
[ts/hm
3
]
295.62 319.80 298.21 314.14 310.86
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

S
e
t

P
o
i
n
t
s
Speed
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

D
a
t
a
Test Number:
T2A01 T2A02 T2A03 T2A04 T2B01
Press
Constant
Data Description
178

Table C-7 HPGR Operating Data Phase Two (continued)

Symbol Unit
[m/s] 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
n [rpm] 19.10 19.10 19.10 19.10
Static Gap X
0
[mm] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Hydraulic Pressure P [bar] 82 82 82 82
Pressing Force F [kN] 660.0 660.0 660.0 660.0
SP [kN/m
2
]
4 4 4 4
Test Time t [s] 20.20 20.00 20.40 24.20
AV
[m/s] 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.77
Standard Deviation
0.07 0.09 0.14 0.21

gAV
[mm] 23.48 22.93 22.62 17.26
Standard Deviation
X
0.30 0.37 0.19 1.21
AV
[bar] 81.0 80.7 80.8 80.5
Standard Deviation 0.85 1.27 0.91 2.38
AV
[kN] 651 649 650 648
SPAV [kN/m
2
]
3.96 3.95 3.95 3.94
Idle Power Draw Pi [kW] 8.21 8.09 7.55 10.56
Power Draw P [kW] 52.89 52.31 52.16 67.60
SP
[kWh/t] 1.41 1.41 1.42 2.32
SP net
[kWh/t] 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.96
Press throughput W [t/h] 37.52 36.98 36.79 29.17
[ts/hm
3
]
311.62 309.82 300.26 231.68
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

S
e
t

P
o
i
n
t
s
Speed
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

D
a
t
a
T2B02 T2B03 T2B04 T2B05 Data Description
Test Number:
179


Symbol Unit
F [t/m
3
] 2.41
Standard Deviation 0.03
F
[mm] 24.6
Standard Deviation 2.1
Feed Moisture [%] 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4%
Feed Bulk Density
[t/m
3
] 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16
80
[mm] 21.54 21.54 21.54 21.54 8.10
80
[mm] 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 2.27
80
[mm] 2.54
50
[mm] 0.42
80
[mm] 4.97
50
[mm] 0.89
80
[mm] 2.79
50
[mm] 0.46
Reduction Ratio F80/P80 (Centre (0.85) Edge(0.15)) 2.90
Reduction Ratio F80/P80 (Centre (0.85) Edge(0.15)) 4.91
Mass Balance
F
[kg] 311 364 366 371 338
C
[kg] 214.9 228.3 214.1 234.6 132.6
Centre Product % of Centre & Edge Material MCE% [%] 63.9%
E
[kg] 74.8
EF%
[%] 36.1%
EC%
[%] 56.4%
W
[kg] 94.6 131.3 151.6 135.5 128.5
WF%
[%] 30.4% 36.1% 41.4% 36.5% 38.0%
P
[kg] 310 360 366 370 336
PF% [%] 0.5% 1.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6%
T2A04 T2B01 Description
Test Number:
T2A01 T2A02 T2A03
180


Symbol Unit
F [t/m
3
] 2.56 2.58 2.56 2.57
F
[mm] 21.8 23.5 22.7 19.3
Feed Moisture [%] 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 5.8%
Feed Bulk Density
[t/m
3
] 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
80
[mm] 6.61 6.16 5.69 6.41
80
[mm] 2.27 2.06 1.79 1.95
80
[mm] 3.04 2.71 2.92 2.79
50
[mm] 0.64 0.59 0.65 0.49
80
[mm] 5.36 5.26 4.43 3.39
50
[mm] 1.47 1.43 1.19 0.71
80
[mm] 3.42 3.09 3.15 2.88
50
[mm] 0.74 0.71 0.73 0.52
Reduction Ratio F80/P80 (Centre (0.85) Edge(0.15)) 1.93 1.99 1.81 2.23
Reduction Ratio F80/P80 (Centre (0.85) Edge(0.15)) 3.09 2.88 2.45 3.72
Mass Balance
F
[kg] 338 337 338 334
C
[kg] 173.5 157.5 159 141.2
Centre Product % of Centre & Edge Material MCE% [%] 82.4% 76.6% 76.3% 72.0%
E
[kg] 37.0 48.0 49.5 54.9
EF%
[%] 17.6% 23.4% 23.7% 28.0%
EC%
[%] 21.3% 30.5% 31.1% 38.9%
W
[kg] 121.0 125.5 121.5 131.6
WF%
[%] 35.8% 37.2% 35.9% 39.4%
P
[kg] 332 331 330 328
PF% [%] 1.9% 1.8% 2.4% 1.9%
T2B03 T2B04 T2B05 T2B02 Description
Test Number:
181

Table C-10 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase One

32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00%
25 880.1 7.21% 92.79% 667 5.97% 94.03%
19 2551.9 28.12% 71.88% 1575.2 20.05% 79.95%
16 1851.1 43.28% 56.72% 1228.1 31.04% 68.96%
12.5 1407.6 54.81% 45.19% 1523.9 44.67% 55.33%
8 1520.7 67.27% 32.73% 2118.7 63.62% 36.38%
5.6 724.8 73.21% 26.79% 1092.2 73.39% 26.61%
4 531.9 77.57% 22.43% 832.4 80.83% 19.17%
2.8 454.8 81.29% 18.71% 462.5 84.97% 15.03%
2 309.1 83.82% 16.18% 202.1 86.78% 13.22%
1.4 280 86.12% 13.88% 151.5 88.13% 11.87%
1 188.4 87.66% 12.34% 106.7 89.09% 10.91%
0.71 137 88.78% 11.22% 120.9 90.17% 9.83%
0.5 158.5 90.08% 9.92% 111.3 91.16% 8.84%
0.355 148 91.30% 8.70% 106.4 92.11% 7.89%
0.25 156.1 92.57% 7.43% 109.6 93.10% 6.90%
0.18 144.4 93.76% 6.24% 123.7 94.20% 5.80%
0.125 147.4 94.96% 5.04% 153.6 95.58% 4.42%
0.09 179.8 96.44% 3.56% 140.2 96.83% 3.17%
0.063 174 97.86% 2.14% 147 98.14% 1.86%
0.045 103.4 98.71% 1.29% 107.4 99.10% 0.90%
Pan 157.4 100.00% 0.00% 100.1 100.00% 0.00%
Total 12206.4 11180.5
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Mesaba Feed Sample T1A09 Feed
182

Table C-11 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase One (continued)

32 0 0.00% 100.00% 49.9 0.46% 99.54%
25 609.5 4.99% 95.01% 1049.2 10.21% 89.79%
19 2089.1 22.09% 77.91% 1959.6 28.42% 71.58%
16 1220.9 32.09% 67.91% 1433 41.73% 58.27%
12.5 1286.7 42.62% 57.38% 1190.9 52.79% 47.21%
8 2110.2 59.90% 40.10% 1594 67.60% 32.40%
5.6 1297.1 70.52% 29.48% 850.3 75.50% 24.50%
4 1090.6 79.45% 20.55% 729.1 82.28% 17.72%
2.8 649.3 84.77% 15.23% 455 86.50% 13.50%
2 256.2 86.86% 13.14% 196.5 88.33% 11.67%
1.4 161.8 88.19% 11.81% 140.8 89.64% 10.36%
1 113.5 89.12% 10.88% 88.7 90.46% 9.54%
0.71 106.4 89.99% 10.01% 95.3 91.35% 8.65%
0.5 122.2 90.99% 9.01% 98.8 92.26% 7.74%
0.355 110.9 91.90% 8.10% 88 93.08% 6.92%
0.25 122.5 92.90% 7.10% 91.3 93.93% 6.07%
0.18 134.7 94.00% 6.00% 92.7 94.79% 5.21%
0.125 142.2 95.17% 4.83% 101.4 95.73% 4.27%
0.09 160.3 96.48% 3.52% 95.8 96.62% 3.38%
0.063 177.8 97.93% 2.07% 167 98.17% 1.83%
0.045 116.9 98.89% 1.11% 94.1 99.05% 0.95%
Pan 135.4 100.00% 0.00% 102.4 100.00% 0.00%
Total 12214.2 10763.8
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
T1A10 Feed T1A11 Feed
Percent Passi ng
(%)
183

Table C-12 T1A01 Product Size Distributions

32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 52.5 0.54% 99.46% 62.9 0.72% 99.28% 0.57% 99.43%
16 87.1 1.44% 98.56% 186 2.86% 97.14% 1.65% 98.35%
12.5 363.5 5.19% 94.81% 598.8 9.74% 90.26% 5.87% 94.13%
8 1072.7 16.26% 83.74% 1093.7 22.31% 77.69% 17.17% 82.83%
5.6 757.8 24.08% 75.92% 789.3 31.38% 68.62% 25.17% 74.83%
4 752.5 31.84% 68.16% 650.1 38.85% 61.15% 32.89% 67.11%
2.8 717.9 39.25% 60.75% 585.1 45.58% 54.42% 40.20% 59.80%
2 601 45.45% 54.55% 498 51.30% 48.70% 46.33% 53.67%
1.4 653.7 52.20% 47.80% 474.1 56.75% 43.25% 52.88% 47.12%
1 411.6 56.44% 43.56% 292.3 60.11% 39.89% 56.99% 43.01%
0.71 342.2 59.97% 40.03% 346.4 64.09% 35.91% 60.59% 39.41%
0.5 439.2 64.51% 35.49% 333.4 67.92% 32.08% 65.02% 34.98%
0.355 388 68.51% 31.49% 310.6 71.49% 28.51% 68.96% 31.04%
0.25 406.7 72.71% 27.29% 321.8 75.18% 24.82% 73.08% 26.92%
0.18 387.5 76.70% 23.30% 311.5 78.76% 21.24% 77.01% 22.99%
0.125 412.6 80.96% 19.04% 340 82.67% 17.33% 81.22% 18.78%
0.09 395.4 85.04% 14.96% 379.8 87.04% 12.96% 85.34% 14.66%
0.063 412 89.29% 10.71% 346.7 91.02% 8.98% 89.55% 10.45%
0.045 219.5 91.56% 8.44% 201.5 93.34% 6.66% 91.82% 8.18%
Pan 818.2 100.00% 0.00% 579.9 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 11417.7 8701.9
T1A01 85: 15 Scaled Product
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
T1A01 Centre Product T1A01 Edge Product
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
184

Figure C-1 T1A01 Particle Size Distributions

185


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 23.1 0.23% 99.77% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.20% 99.80%
19 30 0.54% 99.46% 105.4 1.20% 98.80% 0.64% 99.36%
16 156.2 2.11% 97.89% 449.7 6.33% 93.67% 2.75% 97.25%
12.5 385.9 6.01% 93.99% 755.4 14.94% 85.06% 7.35% 92.65%
8 1096.8 17.09% 82.91% 1273.5 29.47% 70.53% 18.95% 81.05%
5.6 766 24.83% 75.17% 783.2 38.40% 61.60% 26.86% 73.14%
4 758.5 32.49% 67.51% 670 46.04% 53.96% 34.52% 65.48%
2.8 785.3 40.42% 59.58% 599.2 52.87% 47.13% 42.29% 57.71%
2 656.4 47.05% 52.95% 441.3 57.90% 42.10% 48.68% 51.32%
1.4 680.8 53.93% 46.07% 460.3 63.15% 36.85% 55.31% 44.69%
1 510.9 59.09% 40.91% 286.1 66.42% 33.58% 60.19% 39.81%
0.71 375.1 62.88% 37.12% 241.9 69.17% 30.83% 63.83% 36.17%
0.5 415.4 67.08% 32.92% 300.3 72.60% 27.40% 67.91% 32.09%
0.355 376.4 70.88% 29.12% 276.7 75.75% 24.25% 71.61% 28.39%
0.25 386.6 74.78% 25.22% 280.5 78.95% 21.05% 75.41% 24.59%
0.18 368.7 78.51% 21.49% 351.5 82.96% 17.04% 79.18% 20.82%
0.125 406.1 82.61% 17.39% 270 86.04% 13.96% 83.13% 16.87%
0.09 371.9 86.37% 13.63% 331.6 89.82% 10.18% 86.89% 13.11%
0.063 401.4 90.42% 9.58% 301.4 93.26% 6.74% 90.85% 9.15%
0.045 219.3 92.64% 7.36% 169.7 95.19% 4.81% 93.02% 6.98%
Pan 728.8 100.00% 0.00% 421.4 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 9899.6 8769.1
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
T1A02 Centre Product T1A02 Edge Product T1A02 85: 15 Scaled Product
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
186


187


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 29.6 0.26% 99.74% 22.7 0.18% 99.82% 0.25% 99.75%
19 117.7 1.31% 98.69% 376.2 3.08% 96.92% 1.58% 98.42%
16 229.1 3.36% 96.64% 688.4 8.40% 91.60% 4.11% 95.89%
12.5 510.3 7.91% 92.09% 1308.4 18.51% 81.49% 9.50% 90.50%
8 1159.5 18.24% 81.76% 2280.8 36.13% 63.87% 20.93% 79.07%
5.6 834.4 25.68% 74.32% 1162.5 45.11% 54.89% 28.60% 71.40%
4 779.1 32.63% 67.37% 1006.2 52.89% 47.11% 35.67% 64.33%
2.8 832.1 40.05% 59.95% 860.5 59.53% 40.47% 42.97% 57.03%
2 694.3 46.24% 53.76% 635.8 64.45% 35.55% 48.97% 51.03%
1.4 772.6 53.13% 46.87% 627.5 69.30% 30.70% 55.55% 44.45%
1 619.7 58.65% 41.35% 470.1 72.93% 27.07% 60.79% 39.21%
0.71 472.6 62.87% 37.13% 336.9 75.53% 24.47% 64.77% 35.23%
0.5 505.4 67.37% 32.63% 349 78.23% 21.77% 69.00% 31.00%
0.355 459.9 71.47% 28.53% 331.9 80.79% 19.21% 72.87% 27.13%
0.25 483.3 75.78% 24.22% 337.2 83.40% 16.60% 76.92% 23.08%
0.18 510 80.33% 19.67% 327.8 85.93% 14.07% 81.17% 18.83%
0.125 470 84.52% 15.48% 363.1 88.73% 11.27% 85.15% 14.85%
0.09 454.8 88.57% 11.43% 334.1 91.32% 8.68% 88.98% 11.02%
0.063 374.6 91.91% 8.09% 360.5 94.10% 5.90% 92.24% 7.76%
0.045 229.1 93.96% 6.04% 193 95.59% 4.41% 94.20% 5.80%
Pan 677.9 100.00% 0.00% 570.6 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 11216 12943.2
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
188


189


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 173.7 1.93% 98.07% 307.6 2.70% 97.30% 2.05% 97.95%
16 275.2 5.00% 95.00% 868.7 10.34% 89.66% 5.80% 94.20%
12.5 519.1 10.78% 89.22% 1228.2 21.13% 78.87% 12.33% 87.67%
8 1029.2 22.24% 77.76% 1968.7 38.43% 61.57% 24.67% 75.33%
5.6 790 31.04% 68.96% 1150.8 48.54% 51.46% 33.66% 66.34%
4 678.9 38.60% 61.40% 882.4 56.29% 43.71% 41.25% 58.75%
2.8 670.9 46.07% 53.93% 758.5 62.95% 37.05% 48.60% 51.40%
2 551.2 52.20% 47.80% 582.6 68.07% 31.93% 54.58% 45.42%
1.4 580 58.66% 41.34% 488.9 72.37% 27.63% 60.72% 39.28%
1 423.1 63.37% 36.63% 334.2 75.31% 24.69% 65.16% 34.84%
0.71 382.9 67.64% 32.36% 291.3 77.87% 22.13% 69.17% 30.83%
0.5 364.8 71.70% 28.30% 311.8 80.61% 19.39% 73.03% 26.97%
0.355 323.1 75.30% 24.70% 281.1 83.08% 16.92% 76.46% 23.54%
0.25 331.7 78.99% 21.01% 285.5 85.58% 14.42% 79.98% 20.02%
0.18 305.4 82.39% 17.61% 281.2 88.05% 11.95% 83.24% 16.76%
0.125 302 85.75% 14.25% 275.8 90.48% 9.52% 86.46% 13.54%
0.09 335.5 89.49% 10.51% 260.9 92.77% 7.23% 89.98% 10.02%
0.063 323.2 93.09% 6.91% 310.4 95.50% 4.50% 93.45% 6.55%
0.045 182.1 95.12% 4.88% 164.1 96.94% 3.06% 95.39% 4.61%
Pan 438.6 100.00% 0.00% 348.3 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 8980.6 11381
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
190


191


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 31.6 0.37% 99.63% 141.5 1.23% 98.77% 0.50% 99.50%
16 224.3 2.97% 97.03% 274.3 3.62% 96.38% 3.07% 96.93%
12.5 376.6 7.34% 92.66% 687.7 9.60% 90.40% 7.68% 92.32%
8 926.9 18.09% 81.91% 1538.1 22.97% 77.03% 18.82% 81.18%
5.6 733.1 26.59% 73.41% 993.5 31.62% 68.38% 27.34% 72.66%
4 675 34.42% 65.58% 874.7 39.22% 60.78% 35.14% 64.86%
2.8 689 42.41% 57.59% 859.8 46.70% 53.30% 43.06% 56.94%
2 506.4 48.29% 51.71% 677.4 52.59% 47.41% 48.93% 51.07%
1.4 554.3 54.72% 45.28% 722.7 58.88% 41.12% 55.34% 44.66%
1 378.7 59.11% 40.89% 498 63.21% 36.79% 59.72% 40.28%
0.71 282.6 62.39% 37.61% 391 66.61% 33.39% 63.02% 36.98%
0.5 378.9 66.78% 33.22% 470.5 70.70% 29.30% 67.37% 32.63%
0.355 339.6 70.72% 29.28% 414.3 74.30% 25.70% 71.26% 28.74%
0.25 357.2 74.86% 25.14% 436 78.10% 21.90% 75.35% 24.65%
0.18 364.3 79.09% 20.91% 418.9 81.74% 18.26% 79.49% 20.51%
0.125 321.2 82.81% 17.19% 385.6 85.09% 14.91% 83.16% 16.84%
0.09 342.8 86.79% 13.21% 469.6 89.18% 10.82% 87.15% 12.85%
0.063 364.4 91.02% 8.98% 368.6 92.38% 7.62% 91.22% 8.78%
0.045 191 93.23% 6.77% 211.3 94.22% 5.78% 93.38% 6.62%
Pan 583.5 100.00% 0.00% 664.5 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 8621.4 11498
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
192


193


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 100.00% 165.1 1.78% 98.22% 0.27% 99.73%
16 107.3 1.34% 98.66% 469.5 6.85% 93.15% 2.16% 97.84%
12.5 178.2 3.56% 96.44% 816.4 15.67% 84.33% 5.38% 94.62%
8 691.5 12.18% 87.82% 1469.3 31.54% 68.46% 15.08% 84.92%
5.6 628.8 20.01% 79.99% 815.7 40.35% 59.65% 23.06% 76.94%
4 695.7 28.69% 71.31% 726.5 48.20% 51.80% 31.61% 68.39%
2.8 661 36.92% 63.08% 668.1 55.41% 44.59% 39.70% 60.30%
2 516.5 43.36% 56.64% 491 60.71% 39.29% 45.96% 54.04%
1.4 608.2 50.94% 49.06% 515.8 66.29% 33.71% 53.24% 46.76%
1 473.8 56.85% 43.15% 388.9 70.49% 29.51% 58.89% 41.11%
0.71 380 61.58% 38.42% 311.4 73.85% 26.15% 63.42% 36.58%
0.5 378.4 66.30% 33.70% 284.8 76.92% 23.08% 67.89% 32.11%
0.355 299.5 70.03% 29.97% 262.9 79.76% 20.24% 71.49% 28.51%
0.25 336.3 74.22% 25.78% 270.1 82.68% 17.32% 75.49% 24.51%
0.18 326.2 78.29% 21.71% 259.4 85.48% 14.52% 79.37% 20.63%
0.125 306.7 82.11% 17.89% 305 88.78% 11.22% 83.11% 16.89%
0.09 335 86.29% 13.71% 266.3 91.65% 8.35% 87.09% 12.91%
0.063 330.6 90.41% 9.59% 288.4 94.77% 5.23% 91.06% 8.94%
0.045 226.8 93.23% 6.77% 162.6 96.52% 3.48% 93.73% 6.27%
Pan 542.8 100.00% 0.00% 321.9 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 8023.3 9259.1
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
194


195


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 31.4 0.34% 99.66% 165.1 1.24% 98.76% 0.48% 99.52%
16 169 2.20% 97.80% 774.9 7.04% 92.96% 2.93% 97.07%
12.5 279.5 5.27% 94.73% 1195.4 15.99% 84.01% 6.88% 93.12%
8 855.6 14.66% 85.34% 2305.7 33.26% 66.74% 17.45% 82.55%
5.6 621.4 21.48% 78.52% 1286.6 42.90% 57.10% 24.69% 75.31%
4 600.9 28.07% 71.93% 1086 51.03% 48.97% 31.52% 68.48%
2.8 588.5 34.53% 65.47% 965 58.26% 41.74% 38.09% 61.91%
2 540.8 40.47% 59.53% 735.1 63.76% 36.24% 43.96% 56.04%
1.4 591.4 46.96% 53.04% 710.9 69.09% 30.91% 50.28% 49.72%
1 426.8 51.64% 48.36% 512.7 72.93% 27.07% 54.84% 45.16%
0.71 366.6 55.67% 44.33% 426 76.12% 23.88% 58.73% 41.27%
0.5 485.2 60.99% 39.01% 388 79.02% 20.98% 63.70% 36.30%
0.355 445.1 65.88% 34.12% 356.9 81.70% 18.30% 68.25% 31.75%
0.25 440.1 70.71% 29.29% 356.7 84.37% 15.63% 72.76% 27.24%
0.18 415.7 75.27% 24.73% 323.7 86.79% 13.21% 77.00% 23.00%
0.125 426.3 79.95% 20.05% 335.1 89.30% 10.70% 81.35% 18.65%
0.09 386.1 84.19% 15.81% 294.4 91.51% 8.49% 85.28% 14.72%
0.063 392 88.49% 11.51% 352.8 94.15% 5.85% 89.34% 10.66%
0.045 240.5 91.13% 8.87% 184.5 95.53% 4.47% 91.79% 8.21%
Pan 808.4 100.00% 0.00% 596.6 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 9111.3 13352.1
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
196


197


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 29.6 0.23% 99.77% 0.03% 99.97%
19 14.5 0.16% 99.84% 66.9 0.74% 99.26% 0.25% 99.75%
16 111.8 1.38% 98.62% 273.7 2.84% 97.16% 1.60% 98.40%
12.5 386 5.59% 94.41% 1024.7 10.71% 89.29% 6.36% 93.64%
8 1110.5 17.72% 82.28% 2094.7 26.78% 73.22% 19.08% 80.92%
5.6 800.5 26.46% 73.54% 1300.8 36.77% 63.23% 28.01% 71.99%
4 717.8 34.30% 65.70% 1147.2 45.57% 54.43% 35.99% 64.01%
2.8 640.4 41.30% 58.70% 1000.7 53.26% 46.74% 43.09% 56.91%
2 510.6 46.87% 53.13% 732 58.87% 41.13% 48.67% 51.33%
1.4 540.5 52.78% 47.22% 699.8 64.25% 35.75% 54.50% 45.50%
1 445.4 57.64% 42.36% 516 68.21% 31.79% 59.22% 40.78%
0.71 368.3 61.66% 38.34% 403.3 71.30% 28.70% 63.11% 36.89%
0.5 347.6 65.46% 34.54% 397.3 74.35% 25.65% 66.79% 33.21%
0.355 328.4 69.04% 30.96% 379.6 77.26% 22.74% 70.28% 29.72%
0.25 364.1 73.02% 26.98% 386.7 80.23% 19.77% 74.10% 25.90%
0.18 383.3 77.21% 22.79% 405 83.34% 16.66% 78.13% 21.87%
0.125 404 81.62% 18.38% 416.7 86.54% 13.46% 82.36% 17.64%
0.09 404.7 86.04% 13.96% 399.8 89.61% 10.39% 86.57% 13.43%
0.063 354.9 89.91% 10.09% 377.5 92.51% 7.49% 90.30% 9.70%
0.045 197.5 92.07% 7.93% 208.9 94.11% 5.89% 92.38% 7.62%
Pan 726.1 100.00% 0.00% 767.4 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 9156.9 13028.3
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
198


199


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 17.3 0.13% 99.87% 81.3 0.71% 99.29% 0.22% 99.78%
16 62.9 0.62% 99.38% 278.8 3.15% 96.85% 1.00% 99.00%
12.5 359.7 3.39% 96.61% 818.1 10.31% 89.69% 4.43% 95.57%
8 1170.1 12.40% 87.60% 1763.3 25.73% 74.27% 14.40% 85.60%
5.6 1021.7 20.27% 79.73% 1191.8 36.16% 63.84% 22.65% 77.35%
4 1068.7 28.50% 71.50% 1153.8 46.25% 53.75% 31.16% 68.84%
2.8 1046.1 36.56% 63.44% 1041.4 55.37% 44.63% 39.38% 60.62%
2 893.6 43.44% 56.56% 711.9 61.59% 38.41% 46.16% 53.84%
1.4 886.6 50.27% 49.73% 653 67.31% 32.69% 52.82% 47.18%
1 731.2 55.90% 44.10% 492.4 71.61% 28.39% 58.26% 41.74%
0.71 607.9 60.58% 39.42% 393.3 75.05% 24.95% 62.75% 37.25%
0.5 561.8 64.91% 35.09% 350.7 78.12% 21.88% 66.89% 33.11%
0.355 492.8 68.71% 31.29% 263.8 80.43% 19.57% 70.46% 29.54%
0.25 555.8 72.99% 27.01% 286.7 82.94% 17.06% 74.48% 25.52%
0.18 557.6 77.28% 22.72% 308.5 85.64% 14.36% 78.53% 21.47%
0.125 587.3 81.80% 18.20% 273.6 88.03% 11.97% 82.74% 17.26%
0.09 573.9 86.22% 13.78% 341.4 91.02% 8.98% 86.94% 13.06%
0.063 489.3 89.99% 10.01% 337.2 93.97% 6.03% 90.59% 9.41%
0.045 255.3 91.96% 8.04% 177.3 95.52% 4.48% 92.49% 7.51%
Pan 1044 100.00% 0.00% 512.2 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 12983.6 11430.5
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
200


201


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 37.6 0.37% 99.63% 131.7 0.96% 99.04% 0.46% 99.54%
16 179.8 2.12% 97.88% 464.5 4.33% 95.67% 2.45% 97.55%
12.5 276.5 4.82% 95.18% 931.7 11.09% 88.91% 5.76% 94.24%
8 999.5 14.57% 85.43% 2346.7 28.13% 71.87% 16.60% 83.40%
5.6 848.6 22.85% 77.15% 1383.2 38.17% 61.83% 25.15% 74.85%
4 932.2 31.95% 68.05% 1343.8 47.92% 52.08% 34.34% 65.66%
2.8 882.6 40.56% 59.44% 1169.8 56.41% 43.59% 42.94% 57.06%
2 661.3 47.01% 52.99% 783.1 62.10% 37.90% 49.27% 50.73%
1.4 659 53.44% 46.56% 741.6 67.48% 32.52% 55.55% 44.45%
1 507.4 58.39% 41.61% 517.9 71.24% 28.76% 60.32% 39.68%
0.71 412 62.41% 37.59% 396.7 74.12% 25.88% 64.17% 35.83%
0.5 387.6 66.19% 33.81% 376.8 76.86% 23.14% 67.79% 32.21%
0.355 359.9 69.70% 30.30% 377.3 79.60% 20.40% 71.19% 28.81%
0.25 387.1 73.48% 26.52% 372.5 82.30% 17.70% 74.80% 25.20%
0.18 403.4 77.42% 22.58% 372 85.00% 15.00% 78.55% 21.45%
0.125 505.8 82.35% 17.65% 436.4 88.17% 11.83% 83.22% 16.78%
0.09 372.3 85.98% 14.02% 378 90.91% 9.09% 86.72% 13.28%
0.063 497.5 90.84% 9.16% 364 93.56% 6.44% 91.25% 8.75%
0.045 172.8 92.52% 7.48% 203.5 95.03% 4.97% 92.90% 7.10%
Pan 766.3 100.00% 0.00% 684.3 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 10249.2 13775.5
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
202


203


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 18.2 0.20% 99.80% 134.5 0.97% 99.03% 0.31% 99.69%
16 122.2 1.53% 98.47% 429.8 4.08% 95.92% 1.91% 98.09%
12.5 236.5 4.11% 95.89% 935.8 10.84% 89.16% 5.12% 94.88%
8 806.3 12.92% 87.08% 2065.5 25.77% 74.23% 14.85% 85.15%
5.6 793 21.58% 78.42% 1406.3 35.93% 64.07% 23.73% 76.27%
4 852.3 30.88% 69.12% 1330 45.55% 54.45% 33.08% 66.92%
2.8 809.2 39.72% 60.28% 1199.4 54.21% 45.79% 41.89% 58.11%
2 677.1 47.11% 52.89% 804.1 60.03% 39.97% 49.05% 50.95%
1.4 576.5 53.40% 46.60% 809.4 65.88% 34.12% 55.27% 44.73%
1 464.8 58.48% 41.52% 569.5 69.99% 30.01% 60.20% 39.80%
0.71 405.5 62.90% 37.10% 486.2 73.50% 26.50% 64.49% 35.51%
0.5 349.4 66.72% 33.28% 421.1 76.55% 23.45% 68.19% 31.81%
0.355 319 70.20% 29.80% 383.7 79.32% 20.68% 71.57% 28.43%
0.25 338.8 73.90% 26.10% 399.5 82.21% 17.79% 75.15% 24.85%
0.18 339.9 77.61% 22.39% 413.5 85.20% 14.80% 78.75% 21.25%
0.125 397.6 81.95% 18.05% 447.3 88.43% 11.57% 82.92% 17.08%
0.09 371.7 86.01% 13.99% 355.5 91.00% 9.00% 86.76% 13.24%
0.063 363.4 89.98% 10.02% 384.8 93.78% 6.22% 90.55% 9.45%
0.045 202.1 92.18% 7.82% 226.6 95.42% 4.58% 92.67% 7.33%
Pan 716 100.00% 0.00% 634 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 9159.5 13836.5
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
204


205

Table C-23 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase Two

32 614.028 0.78% 99.22% 0 0.00% 100.00%
25 5883.32 8.25% 91.75% 0 0.00% 100.00%
19 16040.4 28.61% 71.39% 43 0.35% 99.65%
16 10617.9 42.09% 57.91% 285.9 2.68% 97.32%
12.5 9488.95 54.13% 45.87% 525.3 6.95% 93.05%
8 9306.87 65.94% 34.06% 1640.9 20.30% 79.70%
5.6 4775.57 72.01% 27.99% 1210.7 30.16% 69.84%
4 3572.83 76.54% 23.46% 1026.4 38.51% 61.49%
2.8 2847.8 80.16% 19.84% 918.8 45.99% 54.01%
2 2061.37 82.77% 17.23% 743.9 52.04% 47.96%
1.4 1622.67 84.83% 15.17% 684.4 57.61% 42.39%
1 1434.94 86.65% 13.35% 510.9 61.77% 38.23%
0.71 1013.4 87.94% 12.06% 455.7 65.47% 34.53%
0.5 1137.21 89.38% 10.62% 432.7 69.00% 31.00%
0.355 1021.79 90.68% 9.32% 460.9 72.75% 27.25%
0.25 1038.84 92.00% 8.00% 459.6 76.49% 23.51%
0.18 955.794 93.21% 6.79% 673.7 81.97% 18.03%
0.125 1048.5 94.54% 5.46% 394.7 85.18% 14.82%
0.09 742.453 95.49% 4.51% 373.2 88.22% 11.78%
0.063 819.648 96.53% 3.47% 385.8 91.36% 8.64%
0.045 539.052 97.21% 2.79% 221.9 93.16% 6.84%
Pan 2196.93 100.00% 0.00% 840.2 100.00% 0.00%
Total 78780.3 12288.6
T2A01 Feed T2B01 Feed
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
206

Table C-24 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase Two (continued)

32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00%
19 20.7 0.18% 99.82% 20.7 0.20% 99.80%
16 79.5 0.88% 99.12% 107.9 1.26% 98.74%
12.5 331.1 3.77% 96.23% 308.5 4.29% 95.71%
8 1184.5 14.12% 85.88% 855.4 12.70% 87.30%
5.6 1161.7 24.28% 75.72% 968.6 22.21% 77.79%
4 1102.3 33.91% 66.09% 1004.2 32.08% 67.92%
2.8 1167.7 44.12% 55.88% 1003.1 41.93% 58.07%
2 1007.9 52.92% 47.08% 892.4 50.70% 49.30%
1.4 1030.1 61.93% 38.07% 868 59.23% 40.77%
1 719.8 68.22% 31.78% 687.8 65.98% 34.02%
0.71 755.8 74.82% 25.18% 826.6 74.10% 25.90%
0.5 450.1 78.76% 21.24% 479.3 78.81% 21.19%
0.355 258.2 81.01% 18.99% 236.3 81.13% 18.87%
0.25 269.7 83.37% 16.63% 237.6 83.47% 16.53%
0.18 254.8 85.60% 14.40% 220.8 85.64% 14.36%
0.125 286.6 88.10% 11.90% 251.7 88.11% 11.89%
0.09 308.1 90.80% 9.20% 241.6 90.48% 9.52%
0.063 250.3 92.98% 7.02% 247.1 92.91% 7.09%
0.045 154 94.33% 5.67% 124.7 94.14% 5.86%
Pan 648.7 100.00% 0.00% 596.9 100.00% 0.00%
Total 11441.6 10179.2
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
T2B02 Feed T2B03 Feed
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
207

Table C-25 HPGR Feed Size Distributions Phase Two (continued)

32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00%
19 16.5 0.15% 99.85% 53.6 0.48% 99.52%
16 90.6 0.96% 99.04% 124.2 1.60% 98.40%
12.5 284.9 3.52% 96.48% 377.1 4.99% 95.01%
8 951.8 12.07% 87.93% 989.5 13.88% 86.12%
5.6 915.2 20.30% 79.70% 1027.5 23.11% 76.89%
4 909.4 28.47% 71.53% 996.4 32.07% 67.93%
2.8 1059.2 37.98% 62.02% 1034.6 41.36% 58.64%
2 957.8 46.59% 53.41% 887.8 49.34% 50.66%
1.4 1060.6 56.12% 43.88% 912.3 57.54% 42.46%
1 841.8 63.68% 36.32% 635.3 63.25% 36.75%
0.71 972.4 72.42% 27.58% 724.2 69.75% 30.25%
0.5 574.7 77.58% 22.42% 520.6 74.43% 25.57%
0.355 267.1 79.98% 20.02% 353.8 77.61% 22.39%
0.25 281.9 82.52% 17.48% 337 80.64% 19.36%
0.18 289 85.11% 14.89% 342.4 83.72% 16.28%
0.125 266.3 87.51% 12.49% 351 86.87% 13.13%
0.09 271.4 89.94% 10.06% 329.5 89.83% 10.17%
0.063 261.8 92.30% 7.70% 305.2 92.57% 7.43%
0.045 173.9 93.86% 6.14% 127.1 93.72% 6.28%
Pan 683.5 100.00% 0.00% 699.2 100.00% 0.00%
Total 11129.8 11128.3
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
T2B04 Feed T2B05 Feed
208


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00%
19 52.5 0.54% 99.46% 43 0.35% 99.65%
16 87.1 1.44% 98.56% 285.9 2.68% 97.32%
12.5 363.5 5.19% 94.81% 525.3 6.95% 93.05%
8 1072.7 16.26% 83.74% 1640.9 20.30% 79.70%
5.6 757.8 24.08% 75.92% 1210.7 30.16% 69.84%
4 752.5 31.84% 68.16% 1026.4 38.51% 61.49%
2.8 717.9 39.25% 60.75% 918.8 45.99% 54.01%
2 601 45.45% 54.55% 743.9 52.04% 47.96%
1.4 653.7 52.20% 47.80% 684.4 57.61% 42.39%
1 411.6 56.44% 43.56% 510.9 61.77% 38.23%
0.71 342.2 59.97% 40.03% 455.7 65.47% 34.53%
0.5 439.2 64.51% 35.49% 432.7 69.00% 31.00%
0.355 388 68.51% 31.49% 460.9 72.75% 27.25%
0.25 406.7 72.71% 27.29% 459.6 76.49% 23.51%
0.18 387.5 76.70% 23.30% 673.7 81.97% 18.03%
0.125 412.6 80.96% 19.04% 394.7 85.18% 14.82%
0.09 395.4 85.04% 14.96% 373.2 88.22% 11.78%
0.063 412 89.29% 10.71% 385.8 91.36% 8.64%
0.045 219.5 91.56% 8.44% 221.9 93.16% 6.84%
Pan 818.2 100.00% 0.00% 840.2 100.00% 0.00%
Total 11417.7 12288.6
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
T2A01 Centre + Edge Product T2A01 Centre + Edge + Waste
209


210

Table C-27 T2B01 Product Size Distributions

32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
16 10.1 0.10% 99.90% 15.3 0.22% 99.78% 0.11% 99.89%
12.5 16.2 0.25% 99.75% 147.9 2.35% 97.65% 0.56% 99.44%
8 346.2 3.55% 96.45% 605.6 11.05% 88.95% 4.67% 95.33%
5.6 386.6 7.23% 92.77% 435.8 17.32% 82.68% 8.74% 91.26%
4 535.4 12.32% 87.68% 477.4 24.18% 75.82% 14.10% 85.90%
2.8 605.4 18.08% 81.92% 447.5 30.61% 69.39% 19.96% 80.04%
2 632.4 24.10% 75.90% 402.6 36.40% 63.60% 25.95% 74.05%
1.4 585.3 29.68% 70.32% 492.4 43.48% 56.52% 31.75% 68.25%
1 548.3 34.90% 65.10% 311.3 47.95% 52.05% 36.85% 63.15%
0.71 725.2 41.80% 58.20% 364.5 53.19% 46.81% 43.51% 56.49%
0.5 559.1 47.12% 52.88% 321.1 57.81% 42.19% 48.72% 51.28%
0.355 531.5 52.18% 47.82% 275.1 61.76% 38.24% 53.62% 46.38%
0.25 626.9 58.15% 41.85% 335.4 66.58% 33.42% 59.41% 40.59%
0.18 650.3 64.34% 35.66% 344.5 71.53% 28.47% 65.42% 34.58%
0.125 756.1 71.53% 28.47% 396 77.23% 22.77% 72.39% 27.61%
0.09 600.4 77.25% 22.75% 284.4 81.31% 18.69% 77.86% 22.14%
0.063 541.7 82.41% 17.59% 308.3 85.75% 14.25% 82.91% 17.09%
0.045 379.7 86.02% 13.98% 208.7 88.75% 11.25% 86.43% 13.57%
Pan 1468.6 100.00% 0.00% 782.9 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 10505.4 6956.7
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
T2B01 Centre Product T2B01 Edge Product T2B01 85: 15 Scaled Product
211

Figure C-13 T2B01 Particle Size Distributions

212


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
16 15.6 0.16% 99.84% 52.7 0.59% 99.41% 0.22% 99.78%
12.5 71.7 0.89% 99.11% 169.6 2.47% 97.53% 1.12% 98.88%
8 333.5 4.27% 95.73% 733.7 10.62% 89.38% 5.22% 94.78%
5.6 472.5 9.07% 90.93% 729.8 18.72% 81.28% 10.52% 89.48%
4 568.2 14.84% 85.16% 769.6 27.27% 72.73% 16.70% 83.30%
2.8 637.1 21.30% 78.70% 768.5 35.80% 64.20% 23.48% 76.52%
2 650.8 27.91% 72.09% 674.5 43.29% 56.71% 30.22% 69.78%
1.4 699.9 35.02% 64.98% 678.8 50.83% 49.17% 37.39% 62.61%
1 572.8 40.83% 59.17% 593.5 57.42% 42.58% 43.32% 56.68%
0.71 731.7 48.26% 51.74% 592.6 64.00% 36.00% 50.62% 49.38%
0.5 545.5 53.80% 46.20% 424.4 68.72% 31.28% 56.03% 43.97%
0.355 506.8 58.94% 41.06% 309.6 72.16% 27.84% 60.92% 39.08%
0.25 573.4 64.76% 35.24% 329.8 75.82% 24.18% 66.42% 33.58%
0.18 555 70.40% 29.60% 300.9 79.16% 20.84% 71.71% 28.29%
0.125 635.2 76.84% 23.16% 350.2 83.05% 16.95% 77.78% 22.22%
0.09 470.6 81.62% 18.38% 334.8 86.77% 13.23% 82.39% 17.61%
0.063 421.1 85.90% 14.10% 302.4 90.13% 9.87% 86.53% 13.47%
0.045 317.4 89.12% 10.88% 171.9 92.04% 7.96% 89.56% 10.44%
Pan 1071.9 100.00% 0.00% 717.2 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 9850.7 9004.5
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
213


214


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
16 0 0.00% 100.00% 27.8 0.24% 99.76% 0.04% 99.96%
12.5 11.9 0.13% 99.87% 185.6 1.85% 98.15% 0.39% 99.61%
8 303.2 3.34% 96.66% 955.8 10.16% 89.84% 4.36% 95.64%
5.6 350.5 7.04% 92.96% 919.4 18.14% 81.86% 8.71% 91.29%
4 525.2 12.60% 87.40% 1009.9 26.92% 73.08% 14.75% 85.25%
2.8 627.2 19.24% 80.76% 969.7 35.34% 64.66% 21.66% 78.34%
2 630.8 25.92% 74.08% 858.3 42.80% 57.20% 28.45% 71.55%
1.4 652.7 32.83% 67.17% 872.5 50.37% 49.63% 35.46% 64.54%
1 567.6 38.84% 61.16% 722.3 56.65% 43.35% 41.51% 58.49%
0.71 742.5 46.69% 53.31% 774.6 63.38% 36.62% 49.20% 50.80%
0.5 537.7 52.39% 47.61% 588.1 68.49% 31.51% 54.80% 45.20%
0.355 476.8 57.43% 42.57% 423.1 72.16% 27.84% 59.64% 40.36%
0.25 553.9 63.29% 36.71% 430.8 75.90% 24.10% 65.19% 34.81%
0.18 482.2 68.40% 31.60% 393.9 79.33% 20.67% 70.04% 29.96%
0.125 558.2 74.31% 25.69% 514.3 83.79% 16.21% 75.73% 24.27%
0.09 467.2 79.25% 20.75% 332.6 86.68% 13.32% 80.37% 19.63%
0.063 480.6 84.34% 15.66% 407.1 90.22% 9.78% 85.22% 14.78%
0.045 260.3 87.09% 12.91% 236.5 92.27% 7.73% 87.87% 12.13%
Pan 1219.4 100.00% 0.00% 889.5 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 9447.9 11511.8
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
215


216


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
16 0 0.00% 100.00% 29.8 0.25% 99.75% 0.04% 99.96%
12.5 50.9 0.50% 99.50% 159.2 1.59% 98.41% 0.66% 99.34%
8 278.4 3.21% 96.79% 762.9 8.01% 91.99% 3.93% 96.07%
5.6 467.6 7.78% 92.22% 785.3 14.62% 85.38% 8.80% 91.20%
4 589 13.53% 86.47% 876.4 21.99% 78.01% 14.80% 85.20%
2.8 736.1 20.71% 79.29% 1021.1 30.58% 69.42% 22.19% 77.81%
2 776.1 28.29% 71.71% 936.3 38.46% 61.54% 29.81% 70.19%
1.4 716.8 35.28% 64.72% 963.1 46.56% 53.44% 36.98% 63.02%
1 602.3 41.16% 58.84% 795.7 53.26% 46.74% 42.98% 57.02%
0.71 741.3 48.40% 51.60% 856.9 60.46% 39.54% 50.21% 49.79%
0.5 584 54.10% 45.90% 678.8 66.18% 33.82% 55.91% 44.09%
0.355 517.7 59.15% 40.85% 477.2 70.19% 29.81% 60.81% 39.19%
0.25 552.5 64.55% 35.45% 456.4 74.03% 25.97% 65.97% 34.03%
0.18 503 69.46% 30.54% 422.5 77.59% 22.41% 70.68% 29.32%
0.125 532.8 74.66% 25.34% 428.6 81.19% 18.81% 75.64% 24.36%
0.09 351.4 78.09% 21.91% 336.6 84.02% 15.98% 78.98% 21.02%
0.063 463.3 82.61% 17.39% 388.7 87.29% 12.71% 83.31% 16.69%
0.045 311.4 85.65% 14.35% 251.5 89.41% 10.59% 86.21% 13.79%
Pan 1470.3 100.00% 0.00% 1258.8 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 10244.9 11885.8
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
217


218


32 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%
16 0 0.00% 100.00% 6 0.04% 99.96% 0.01% 99.99%
12.5 35.8 0.28% 99.72% 23.7 0.21% 99.79% 0.27% 99.73%
8 391.2 3.32% 96.68% 497.9 3.81% 96.19% 3.40% 96.60%
5.6 607.4 8.05% 91.95% 858.3 10.02% 89.98% 8.34% 91.66%
4 673.5 13.28% 86.72% 863.5 16.26% 83.74% 13.73% 86.27%
2.8 851.5 19.91% 80.09% 1024.6 23.67% 76.33% 20.47% 79.53%
2 790.4 26.05% 73.95% 977.6 30.74% 69.26% 26.76% 73.24%
1.4 901.4 33.06% 66.94% 983.3 37.85% 62.15% 33.78% 66.22%
1 684.1 38.38% 61.62% 825 43.82% 56.18% 39.20% 60.80%
0.71 770.4 44.38% 55.62% 844.7 49.92% 50.08% 45.21% 54.79%
0.5 689 49.74% 50.26% 755.4 55.38% 44.62% 50.58% 49.42%
0.355 581.6 54.26% 45.74% 625.3 59.91% 40.09% 55.11% 44.89%
0.25 629.3 59.15% 40.85% 700.5 64.97% 35.03% 60.03% 39.97%
0.18 523.6 63.23% 36.77% 660 69.74% 30.26% 64.20% 35.80%
0.125 489.1 67.03% 32.97% 640.2 74.37% 25.63% 68.13% 31.87%
0.09 308.5 69.43% 30.57% 504.1 78.02% 21.98% 70.72% 29.28%
0.063 405.6 72.58% 27.42% 537.2 81.90% 18.10% 73.98% 26.02%
0.045 165.9 73.87% 26.13% 283 83.95% 16.05% 75.38% 24.62%
Pan 3359.2 100.00% 0.00% 2220.3 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 12857.5 13830.6
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Si ze
(mm)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
Percent Passi ng
(%)
Wei ght
(g)
Percent
Accumul ated (%)
219

220

D. Appendix D Stirred Mill Data

221

Figure D-1 355m Top Size Test Signature Plot Data
Project MASc Research Thesis Date
Duty HPGR/Stirred Mill Circuit Location UBC CMP
Ore Mesaba Ore (Cu/Ni Ore) IsaMill Type M4
Test Name 355m Top Size Test Media Spec. MT1 3.5mm graded charge
Solids SG (t/m3): 3.00 Media Vol (L): 2.5
Pass # N (rpm) NLP (kW)Q (sec/L) Pump % kg/L Temp C E (Wh) Time (h)
1 1214 0.68 20 100 1.44 27 279 0.118
2 1215 0.68 24 100 1.36 37 420 0.140
3 1212 0.68 24 100 1.37 47 407 0.138
4 1212 0.68 24 100 1.38 49 396 0.141
5 1209 0.68 27 100 1.35 52 396 0.158
6 >>> Averaged 1.38 <<<
7 Calculated 1.40
Pass #Gross kWNet kW Q (m3/h) % Solids M (t/h) E (kWh/t) Cumul. E p80 p98 CSI
Feed 204.0 337.0 1.7
1 2.37 1.69 0.183 54.5% 0.137 12.3 12.3 74.9 175.6 2.3
2 3.00 2.32 0.149 43.1% 0.089 26.2 38.5 36.9 88.1 2.4
3 2.95 2.27 0.149 43.1% 0.089 25.6 64.1 17.7 46.3 2.6
4 2.81 2.13 0.149 42.5% 0.087 24.4 88.5 14.5 36.1 2.5
5 2.51 1.83 0.134 42.5% 0.079 23.2 111.7 10.3 26.0 2.5
Target p80 Size 75 kWh/t @ Target: 14.17
28-Oct-09
Test Data
Calculated Data
Comments
IsaMill Grinding Test Report
Signature Plot
y = 1518.5x
-1.083
R = 0.972
y = 5000.8x
-1.135
R = 0.9744
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
t
)
Size (microns)
p80 P98 Power (p80) Power (P98)
222

Figure D-2 355m Top Size Test Particle Size Distributions

%
Passing
98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
Pass 5 26 18 14 10 8 7 5 4 3 2 1 1
Pass 4 36 28 21 14 11 9 7 5 4 2 1 1
Pass 3 46 34 26 18 13 10 8 6 4 2 1 1
Pass 2 88 68 52 37 29 22 16 12 8 5 2 1
Pass 1 176 127 101 75 59 46 36 27 19 10 4 2
Feed 337 310 286 204 151 124 88 67 49 32 14 5
Si zi ngs (m)
Sizing Data
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 10 100 1000
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Sizing (m)
Feed
Pass 1
Pass 2
Pass 3
Pass 4
Pass 5
223

Figure D-3 710m Top Size Test Signature Plot Data
Project MASc Research Thesis Date
Duty HPGR/Stirred Mill Circuit Location UBC CMP
Ore Mesaba Ore (Cu/Ni Ore) IsaMill Type M20
Test Name 710m Top Size Test Media Spec. 70% 8mm Rojan and 30% 3mm MT1
1 1170 6.72 5 100 1.33 41.55 2928 0.149
2 1169 6.72 5 100 1.29 50.44 2621 0.149
3 1169 6.72 5 100 1.28 51.97 2608 0.154
4 1169 6.72 5 100 1.27 55.46 2426 0.149
5
6 >>> Averaged 1.29 <<<
7 Calculated 1.41
Pass #Gross kWNet kW Q (m3/h) % Solids M (t/h) E (kWh/t) Cumul. E p80 p98 CSI
Feed 332.0 664.0 2.0
1 19.70 12.98 0.729 39.9% 0.375 34.6 34.6 38.0 98.0 2.6
2 17.57 10.85 0.727 36.1% 0.339 32.0 66.6 24.3 67.2 2.8
3 16.91 10.19 0.729 36.1% 0.340 30.0 96.6 16.6 42.1 2.5
4 16.24 9.52 0.727 36.0% 0.338 28.1 124.7 14.6 37.1 2.5
5
Target p80 Size 75 kWh/t @ Target: 14.72
30-Oct-09
Test Data
Calculated Data
Comments
Signature Plot
y = 3839.1x
-1.289
R = 0.9916
y = 10469x
-1.232
R = 0.9715
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10.0 100.0
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
t
)
Size (microns)
p80 P98 Power (p80) Power (P98)
224

Figure D-4 710m Top Size Test Particle Size Distributions

%
Passing
98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
Pass 4 37.1 28.5 21.6 14.6 11.2 8.7 6.6 4.8 3.3 2.1 1.2 0.7
Pass 3 42.1 31.9 24.7 16.7 12.6 9.7 7.2 5.1 3.5 2.1 1.2 0.7
Pass 2 67.2 47.1 34.9 24.3 17.6 13.1 9.8 6.8 4.4 2.6 1.3 0.7
Pass 1 98.0 74.0 56.3 38.0 28.5 21.4 15.4 11.0 7.1 3.9 1.7 0.9
Feed 664 595 485 332 239 174 124 95 63 36 18 9
Si zi ngs (m)
Sizing Data
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 10 100 1000
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Sizing (m)
Feed
Pass 1
Pass 2
Pass 3
Pass 4
225

Figure D-5 T2C02 Signature Plot Data (T1)
Project Name MASc Research Thesis Date(s) Tested
Duty HPGR/Stirred Mill Circuit Date Issued
Ore Mesaba Ore (Cu/Ni Ore) Location UBC
Test Number T2C02 IsaMill Type M20
Contact Person J eff Drozdiak Media Spec. Cenotec 6mm graded charge)
1 1170 6.39 3 100 1.59 26.84 1088 0.066
2 1170 6.39 3 100 1.59 37.65 1004 0.061
3 1169 6.39 3 100 1.59 44.16 935 0.059
4 1169 6.39 3 100 1.59 49.64 875 0.058
5 1169 6.39 3 100 1.59 54.33 852 0.058
6 1170 6.39 3 100 1.59 57.65 819 0.057
7 1168 6.39 3 100 1.59 60.43 780 0.055
>>> Avg. 1.59 <<<
Calc. 1.61
Pass #Gross kWNet kW Q (m3/h) % Solids M (t/h) E (kWh/t) Cumul. E P80 P98 CSI
Feed 338.6 639.2 1.9
1 16.53 10.14 1.224 56.9% 1.108 9.1 9.1 83.8 262.9 3.1
2 16.50 10.10 1.229 56.9% 1.112 9.1 18.2 42.0 106.6 2.5
3 15.96 9.56 1.224 56.9% 1.108 8.6 26.9 31.5 74.8 2.4
4 15.21 8.82 1.224 56.9% 1.108 8.0 34.8 25.5 59.5 2.3
5 14.67 8.27 1.224 56.9% 1.108 7.5 42.3 21.6 49.6 2.3
6 14.39 7.99 1.224 56.9% 1.108 7.2 49.5 19.4 44.1 2.3
7 14.18 7.79 1.224 56.9% 1.108 7.0 56.5 17.0 39.0 2.3
Target P80 Size (if applic. 75 kWh/t @ Target: 10.0 Media Consumption (g/kWh):
Test Data
Calculated Data
Comments
08-Nov-10
09-Dec-10
Signature Plot
y = 1512x
-1.164
R = 0.9966
y = 1813.9x
-0.963
R = 0.9896
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
t
)
Size (microns)
P80 P98 Power (P80) Power (P98)
226

Figure D-6 T2C02 Particle Size Distributions (T1)

%
Passing
98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
Pass 7 39.0 30.7 24.0 17.0 12.9 10.0 7.6 5.5 3.8 2.3 1.2 0.8
Pass 6 44.1 34.9 27.3 19.4 14.8 11.2 8.7 6.3 4.3 2.6 1.4 0.8
Pass 5 49.6 38.9 30.4 21.6 16.5 12.7 9.6 7.0 4.7 2.9 1.4 0.9
Pass 4 59.5 46.4 36.0 25.5 19.2 14.8 11.2 8.1 5.4 3.2 1.6 0.9
Pass 3 74.8 58.2 44.9 31.5 23.7 18.1 13.6 9.9 6.6 3.8 1.8 1.0
Pass 2 106.6 80.7 61.2 42.0 31.0 23.3 17.4 12.4 8.2 4.7 2.1 1.1
Pass 1 262.9 175.4 125.9 83.8 60.6 44.4 32.0 22.4 14.5 8.1 3.1 1.5
Feed 639.2 532.1 451.2 338.6 253.5 192.1 142.4 97.4 63.7 37.4 18.7 9.4
Si zi ngs (m)
Sizing Data
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Sizing (m)
Feed
Pass 1
Pass 2
Pass 3
Pass 4
Pass 5
Pass 6
Pass 7
227

Figure D-7 T2C03 Signature Plot Data (T2)
Project Name MASc Research Thesis Date(s) Tested 17-J an-11
Duty Description HPGR/Stirred Mill Circuit Date Issued 20-J an-11
Ore /Conc. Type Mesaba Ore (Cu/Ni Ore) Location UBC
Test Number T2C03 IsaMill Type M20
Contact Person J eff Drozdiak Media Spec. Cenotec 6mm Graded Charge
1 1169 6.61 3 100 1.62 21.1 866 0.063
2 1168.5 6.61 3 100 1.62 27.92 749 0.058
3 1169 6.61 3 100 1.62 33.37 746 0.058
4 1168.5 6.61 3 100 1.62 38.34 723 0.056
5 1169 6.61 3 100 1.62 42.9 700 0.056
6 1168 6.61 3 100 1.62 46.2 670 0.054
7 1168 6.61 3 100 1.62 49.6 637 0.053
>>> Avg. 1.62 <<<
Calc. 1.62
Pass #Gross kWNet kW Q (m3/h) % Solids M (t/h) E (kWh/t) Cumul. E P80 P98 CSI
Feed 340.2 647.7 1.9
1 13.74 7.13 1.224 57.1% 1.133 6.3 6.3 121.7 374.2 3.1
2 12.96 6.35 1.226 57.1% 1.135 5.6 11.9 54.5 140.5 2.6
3 12.91 6.31 1.220 57.1% 1.130 5.6 17.5 38.0 88.1 2.3
4 12.83 6.22 1.224 57.1% 1.133 5.5 23.0 31.9 72.4 2.3
5 12.54 5.94 1.220 57.1% 1.130 5.3 28.2 26.8 60.6 2.3
6 12.37 5.77 1.220 57.1% 1.130 5.1 33.3 24.1 53.3 2.2
7 12.13 5.52 1.220 57.1% 1.130 4.9 38.2 20.9 45.4 2.2
Target P80 Size (if applic. 75 kWh/t @ Target: 9.5 Media Consumption (g/kWh):
Test Data
Calculated Data
Comments
Signature Plot
y = 864.93x
-1.044
R = 0.9838
y = 969.22x
-0.867
R = 0.978
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
t
)
Size (microns)
P80 P98 Power (P80) Power (P98)
228

Figure D-8 T2C03 Particle Size Distributions (T2)

%
Passing
98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
Pass 7 45.4 36.4 28.9 21.0 16.1 12.5 9.6 7.1 4.8 2.9 1.5 0.9
Pass 6 53.3 42.3 33.4 24.1 18.5 14.4 11.0 8.0 5.4 3.2 1.6 0.9
Pass 5 60.6 47.7 37.3 26.8 20.5 15.8 12.1 8.9 5.9 3.5 1.7 1.0
Pass 4 72.4 57.2 44.8 31.9 24.3 18.8 14.3 10.4 7.0 4.0 1.9 1.0
Pass 3 88.1 69.3 53.8 38.0 28.7 22.0 16.7 12.1 8.2 4.7 2.1 1.1
Pass 2 140.5 103.3 78.8 54.5 40.4 30.4 22.7 16.3 10.8 6.1 2.5 1.3
Pass 1 374.2 278.8 200.1 121.7 87.1 61.9 43.4 29.5 18.9 10.5 3.9 1.8
Feed 647.7 554.2 458.9 340.2 255.9 193.3 144.3 99.0 65.4 36.3 18.2 9.1
Si zi ngs (m)
Sizing Data
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Sizing (m)
Feed
Pass 1
Pass 2
Pass 3
Pass 4
Pass 5
Pass 6
Pass 7

Ubc 2011 Spring Drozdiak Jeffrey

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ubc 2011 Spring Drozdiak Jeffrey

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Pilot-Scale Examination of a Novel High Pressure Grinding Roll / Stirred Mill

Comminution Circuit for Hard-Rock Mining Applications

Data ................................................................................................ 122

Vibrating Screen ............................................................................ 55

wear lining, have been

consists of a hard, abrasive-resistant material set into a matrix of softer

has been found to last for

can operate at pressing forces up to 6N/mm

. Lichter and Davey (2006) stated

have been applied to regrind applications, they are best

to model fit an appropriate

software. The circuit was designed for 250tph capacity and

is shown in Figure 4-1. Simulation

1m vibrating screen. Using the product size distributions from testing,

. The T10H and HPGR power coefficient model

. This tool uses an iterative

is shown in Figure 4-14. Simulation

results, refer to Appendix A.

modelling is not accounted for.

. This inclusion allows for the estimation of an SABC circuit for

simulation for three

0.05 0.06 0.05 0.25 0.17 0.06

0.08 0.18 0.06 0.17 0.14 0.21

0.14 0.08 0.24 0.06 0.16

0.07 0.09 0.14 0.21

Anda mungkin juga menyukai