Minerals Beneficiation - Grinding Practice at Tennessee Copper Co.'s Isabella Mill (Discussion p. 1255)

A larger, slow-speed, under-loaded ball mill and hydraulic classifier have almost doubled grinding efficiency at the lsabella mill. TENNESSEE Copper Co. operates two ore con-A centrators, the London and Isabella mills near Copperhill, Tenn. In 1948 and 1949 the small ball mills and rake classifiers in the London concentrator were replaced by one large ball mill and one hydraulic classifier. This new ball mill was designed oversize so that it could be operated at slower than normal speed. The proper operating conditions were established and the results published.' Later it was found that this mill operated more efficiently with a small ball charge." While this London grinding practice was being developed, the Isabella grinding circuit was not changed in any way. It remained a conventional two-stage rod mill—ball mill combination, the rod mill in open circuit and the ball mill in closed circuit with a rake classifier. Study of the data indicated that grinding cost could be lowered by converting to the London practice, but not enough would have been saved to warrant the expense of converting. No plan for improving this grinding operation could be developed. In 1953 this study was reopened when plans were made to increase the Isabella mill output from 1150 to 1500 tpd. At this time the grinding circuit consisted of a 6x12 rod mill followed by a 6x12 ball mill in closed circuit with a 6-ft rake classifier. Another 6x12 ball mill and 6-ft rake classifier would have been sufficient equipment and would have been the simplest and cheapest installation. However, this would have offered no improvement in grinding efficiency or operating cost. If, on the other hand, the grinding operation could be converted to the London practice, by installation of one large 101/2x9x9 tricone mill and a 10-ft hydroscillator,2 lower operating costs would justify the additional investment. Economics: Table I presents estimates for the two schemes for enlarging the Isabella mill. In the first scheme, column 1, one 6x12 ball mill and one 6-ft rake classifier were to be added. In the second scheme, column 2, the existing small ball mill and rake classifier were to be retired and one large mill and hydroscillator were to be installed. Estimated savings from the difference in operating costs made an attractive return on the additional investment for the large mill and hydroscillator. Actual costs of carrying out this plan are tabulated in column 3b. It will be seen that these costs follow the estimates in column 3a very Closely. The return on the additional investment is calculated from the difference in the operating cost in column 1 and the actual operating cost in column 3b. This too come very close to the estimate. Power and Steel: Power requirements and steel consumption for the rod mills and ball mills, both actual and estimated, are presented in Table 11.