Minerals Beneficiation - A Comparison of Data from Bond Type Simulated Closed-Circuit and Batch Type Grindability Tests

Bond type simulated closed-circuit grindability tests and batch grindability tests were run on six pure minerals plus a limestone and a taconite ore. The simulated closed-circuit tests were made at five different meshes of grind. The minerals tested varied widely in hardness and breakage pattern. For all simulated closed-circuit tests both Bond and Holmes work indices were calculated and compared. The Bond grindability testlm6 has been widely and quite successfully used for predictions of such items as ball mill power requirements and as an aid in plant comminution equipment selection. The test is interesting in that although run as a series of batch tests it is over-all a simulated closed-circuit test with a circulating load of 250%. The simulated closed-circuit feature is probably the primary reason for the notable success of the test. Perhaps the major criticism that can be brought against the test is that it is time consuming, since it normally takes a trained technician about an eight-hour shift to perform it.4 For many purposes this is an acceptable time requirement. However, if a grindability test is to be used for mill control purposes it should be performed in as short a time interval as possible, preferably under an hour. Sometimes in industry strictly batch tumbling mill tests are run and an attempt is made to correlate such batch tests with plant mill operation. Then an attempt is made to adjust operating tumbling mills based on data from the tests. The tests, however, frequently do not correlate well with operating data. The purpose of the present work was to explore some of the similarities and differences between a simulated closed-circui.t grindability test and a batch type test. Six different minerals plus a limestone and a taconite ore were tested in the experimentation. These materials varied widely in hardness, breakage characteristics, etc. Standard dry Bond grindability tests were mn on all materials at 48, 65, 100, 150 and 200 meshes of grind. Feed material was prepared by stage cmshing to -6 mesh. Initial feed volume was 700 cc. Care was taken to maintain the standard constant weight (about 20125 gm) and number of balls (283) during all the tests. Rotational speed was 70 rpm. Table I lists the materials studied along with pertinent data regarding the materials and Bond grindabilities obtained. In addition, dry batch tests were performed on all materials. These tests were made in the same mill as was used for the Bond tests. An identical ball charge and an identical feed volume were used. After rotating the mill for a predetermined number of revolutions at the same rotational speed as for the Bond test, the material was removed and separated from the ball charge. A screen analysis was performed on this product. Knowing the original size distribution of the feed and the size distribution of the product, it was possible to calculate the grindability or grams of a particular mesh produced per revolution of the mill. After the screen analysis of the product, the various fractions were recombined and placed back in the mill for further grinding. After grinding for additional revolutions of the mill the procedure was repeated. Thus, it was possible to obtain grindabilities for each material at a number of meshes of grind and for various revolutions of the mill. Grind-abilities obtained from batch tests are shown in Table 11. COMPARISON OF BOND AND BATCH GRINDABILITIES Figs. 1A through 1D show relationships between batch and Bond grindabilities. Figs. lA, lB, 1C and 1D show respectively graphs indicating the relationships for batch tests run for 100, 300, 500 and 700 revolutions of the mill. For a particular material on each graph, points are shown for 200, 150, 100, 65, and 48 meshes of grind except for several missing coarse meshes of grind for galena which did not fall conveniently on the figures. For each material and graph the point nearest the origin is for 200 mesh, the next for 150 mesh, the next for 100 mesh, etc. Considering Fig. lA, it is interesting to note that all relationships shown are essentially straight lines. There are, however, considerable differences