INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY OF SAMPLING

OBJECTIVES
Minimize scats generation
Increase fineness of the product to meet the envisaged grinds
Increase throughput

SCOPE
Determine the optimum lifter profile that would provide the necessary and required mode of breakages
Determine the optimum top ball size required to break the top size and the energy required to achieve target
grind for current F80

Scope I: Determination of Optimum Lifter Profile

Analysis of the current situation
Lifter profile optimization

Scope I: Determination of Optimum Lifter Profile

Scope I: Determination of Optimum Lifter Profile

Current Situation: Installed Lifters

Primary ball mill installed lifter

Secondary ball mill installed lifter

N68%

N78%

Observations
Increasing mill speed from 68% to 78% resulted in outermost balls impacting at the toe of the charge
Expected to increase impact breakage needed for the -30 mm feed top size material
The increased energy input would be expected to eliminate the scats
But contrary was observed, more scats were generated instead

Why
Increased mill speed might have resulted in expanded charge; reducing the ball-rock collisions,
Resulted in less selective classification

Current Lifter Profile Analysis: Secondary Ball Mill

Lifters are aggressive for secondary ball milling

More abrasion and attrition breakages are needed for finer feed (F80 of 150 m)

Lifter Profile Optimisation

Considerations
UG2 ore is characterized by weak large rocks and stronger small rocks
UG2 ore does not require very high energy impacts to break the large rocks
The increased scats generation was assumed to be the result of charge expansion (more cataracting)
hence more/easy flow of scats through the charge and less time for it to be milled
Hence aiming at increasing cascading at the same time retaining some charge cataracting
Balance between achieving study objectives without adversely affecting lifter life

Scope II: Determination of Optimum Top Ball Size and Energy Requirement

Determination of Optimum Top Ball Size and Energy Requirement Determination of top ball size and energy
requirement required:

Characterizing ore Hardness (Bond Ball Mill Work)

Conducted on DMS feed sample
Primary ball mill feed belts cut
Conducting sampling campaign to determine stream characteristics
Conducted on 30 September 2014
Three cuts collected over 1.5 hours
Samples analyzed for % Solids and Particle Size Distribution and flow rate for primary Ball mills feed belts
cut

Determination of Optimum Top Ball Size and Energy Requirement

Determination of Optimum Top Ball Size and Energy Requirement

PSD Results Variability

Determination of Optimum Top Ball Size and Energy Requirement

Average PSD for each stream was used
Estimation of stream flow rates
Belt feed, DMS feed, DMS product (consisting of sink, DSM dewatering screen oversize and flash float
tails at 22%, 13% and 65%) and primary rougher feed flow rates were available
Assumptions have to be made in mass balance to obtain missing stream flow rates:
Calculate settling cone/dewatering cyclone feed based on flash float tails using DMS product of the
day at the days product split
PBM1 & 2 feed obtained from mass balancing using % solids of U/F and O/F as well as flash float tails
% solids and flow rate assuming 50:50 split of U/F between PBM1 & 2
De-gritting cyclone feed rate from primary rougher tails
No significant mass losses due to leakages

Determination of Top Ball Size Where:

SG-Ore specific gravity (=3.45, provided)
Wi-Ore Work index (kWh/metric ton) (=14.44 and 18.14 for Belt cuts and DMS feed samples
respectively from BBWI test conducted)
Di-Mill internal diameter (Inside Shell) (=3.78 m for primary ball mill and 5.5 m for secondary ball mill)
N-Mill speed as % of critical (=68% and 78% for primary mill and 74% for secondary ball mill)
F80-80% Passing size of the feed from sampling campaign particle size distribution
K-constant (=350 for Overflow mill)

Top Ball Size Estimates

Determination of Energy Requirement

Ascertain energy available against energy required for the current ball mill feed size
Population Balance Model approach was used
Uses plant data (particle size distribution and power) to determine breakage and selection parameters
Uses the parameters to determine energy required to achieve the grind for a given feed distribution

Mill Liner Condition Monitoring (PBM1)

Continuous monitoring of liner/lifter profile conducted through inspection and online Hawkeye system
Aimed at informing adequate planning and stock management
Conducted for primary ball mill 1 and secondary ball mill

Mill Liner Condition Monitoring (SBM)

Discussion of results
Primary Ball Mill 1
About 40% of lifter bars wear area remains
This is likely to last for about three months based on the wear history
Secondary Ball Mill
About 38% of wear area remains for Secondary Ball Mill
This could last for about 8 months based on the wear history

Recommendations Phase One: Lifter Profile Re-design

Primary ball mill lifter geometry at 68% of critical speed;
Increase the lifter height to angle (H2A) from 80 to 90 mm
Lifter face angle of 20 degrees is suggested
Will results in increased impact breakage needed for the -30 mm feed top size material without adverse
negative effect on cascading
Lifter width of 165 mm instead of 210 mm is suggested
No change to lifter height
The mill speed of 68% of critical speed is recommended as the operation speed
The lifter width will increase mill volume available
Profile will change load behaviour and ball trajectory In case the mill speed has to remain at 78% of critical
speed, then:
Increase the H2A from 80 to 90 mm

 Lifter face angle of 35 degrees is suggested

No changes on lifter width and height

Secondary ball mill lifter geometry

No changes on lifter width
Decrease the lifter H2A from 89 to 68 mm at the current lifter height of 170 mm
This will increase abrasion and attrition breakage needed for fine feed (F80 of 150 m) Once the lifter profile has been
changed, conduct a campaign to determine the level of improvements achieved before moving to phase two of
improvements Phase Two
No changes to Top Ball Size is recommended
Increase primary Ball Mill 1 Charge to 35-37% at a mill speed of 68%, noting the modification required to prevent balls
escaping out of the ball mill
Monitor power draw

LITERATURE CITED