Effect of undersize misplacement on product size distribution of Bond's ball mill test

Abstract

The standard Bond ball mill grindability test determines the ore grindability (g rev⁻¹) and work index on an ore which gives the ball mill power consumption. The test is carried out on a standard sample and the number of revolutions per minute (rev min⁻¹) required for the next cycle is determined after screening out and weighing the undersize fraction from a screen of a mesh the same size as the intended product passing size. The standard procedure assumes 100% efficiency in screening out the undersize fraction. However in plant grinding and classification circuits especially those based on dry grinding and classification, the efficiency of classifiers will be less than 100%. The misplacement of undersize particles in the oversize recirculating load is a practical reality which cannot be avoided. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of misplaced undersize particles on the P₈₀ of product. The P₈₀ values obtained from the standard Bond ball mill procedure and those of an inefficient ball mill grinding – classifier circuit were compared. The P₈₀ values obtained with an inefficient classification were lower than the values obtained from the standard Bond ball mill procedure. The relationship between standard P₈₀ values and those obtained with inefficient classification can be used as a guide to adjust operating parameters such as mill load and mill speed to produce the desired product size.

Keywords

Bond test Undersize Misplacement Product size

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmadi,

and Shahsavari,

Sh.

2009. Procedure for determination of Ball Bond work index in the commercial operations. Minerals Engineering, 22, pp.104–6. doi: 10.1016/j.mineng.2008.04.008

Barkhuysen,

N. J.

2010. Implementing strategies to improve mill capacity and efficiency with platinum references and case studies. The 4th International Platinum Conference, Platinum in transition ‘Boom or Bust’, The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp.85–90.

Barratt,

D. J.

and Allan,

M. J.

1986. Testing for autogenous and semiautogenous grinding: a designer's point of view. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing, 3, (2), pp.65–74.

Bond,

F. C.

1961. Crushing and grinding calculations. British Chemical Engineering, 6, (6), pp.378–85.

Kapur,

P. C.

1970. Analysis of the Bond grindability test. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 79, pp.103–7.

Magdalinovic,

and Cumpujerovid,

1983. Shortened procedure for determination of Bond work index. Collection of works 9, Yugoslav Symposium on Mineral Processing, Ljuhljana, pp.521–41.

Magdalinovic,

, Trumic,

, Magdalinovic,

and Trumic,

2012. Determination of the Bond work index on samples of non-standard size. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 114–17, pp.48–50. doi: 10.1016/j.minpro.2012.10.002

Magdalinović,

N. M.

1989. Calculation of energy required for grinding in a ball mill. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 25, pp.41–6. doi: 10.1016/0301-7516(89)90055-0

Morrell,

2004. An alternative energy–size relationship to that proposed by Bond for the design and optimisation of grinding circuits. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 74, pp.133–41. doi: 10.1016/j.minpro.2003.10.002

10.

Ocepek,

1969. Uber die Methoden der Bestimmung des Zerkleinerungswiderstandes. Aufbereitungs-Technik, 6, pp.290–3.

11.

Rowland,

C. A.

Jr and Kjos,

D. M.

1980. Rod and ball mills. In: Mular

(ed.). Mineral processing plant design. New York: SME, pp.239–78.

12.

Smith,

R. W.

and Lee,

K. H.

1968. A comparison of data from Bond type simulated closed-circuit and batch type grindability tests. Transactions of AIME, 241, pp.91–99.