13.

13. Overview of comminution tests for ore

characterisation

T. Kojovic

JK Mineral Research Centre, University of Queensland

Email: t.kojovic@jkmrc.uq.edu.au

Introduction
A significant problem during initial evaluation of drill
core and definition of potential ore-types is the need to
composite and blend in order to satisfy the high-cost/
large sample volume requirements of many quantitative
physical tests. These tests are essential for defining
practical design parameters but can disguise variability
and discourage an iterative approach to sample selection
and ore-type definition based on proven similarity. This
commonly leads to poor comparative statistics because
the sample sets are small and, even though they are
characterized by high quality analytical data, there is
a high degree of noise between and within the overlycomposited and poorly-validated ore types.
A key focus of the AMIRA P843 GeMIII project is
provision of small-scale comparative tests that can
define relative similarity and difference at the drill-corescale. There is a wide array of physical tests available for
comparative testing and the GeMIII project has undertaken
a review of the most promising comminution tests. The
review canvassed the two major types:
Tumbling tests (Bond ball mill work index (BMWI)
and rod mill work index (RMWI); Semi-autogenous
grinding (SAG) power index (SPI) and SAGDesign;
Bond Abrasion; JK Ore Abrasion)
Impact/Compression tests (Bond crushing work
index (CWI); unconfined compressive strength
(UCS); Point Load index (PLT), Drop Weight
(DWT), SAG mill comminution (SMC); EquoTip
and the JK rotary breakage test (RBT))
Details on most of these tests can be found in NapierMunn et al. (1996) and ISRM (1985). SPI and
SAGDesign are covered in Starkey et al. (1994, 2006)

and Starkey and Dobby (1996). Other tests designed for

coarse rock particles include the Amdel-Orway Advanced
Media Competency Test, the MacPherson Autogenous
Grindability Test and the Kilborn Test (MacPherson
et al., 1999).

Tumbling tests
There are several tumbling tests which claim to be suitable
for tumbling mill characterisation. The Bond test is the
best known for rod and ball mills, whilst in recent years
the SPI and SAGDesign test has become popular for SAG
mills. These are reviewed below.
Bond ball mill and rod mill work index tests (BMWI, RMWI)

In 1952, Fred Bond published his theory of comminution,

which, together with the laboratory-scale tumbling tests
he developed, have become the industry standard for
estimating the specific energy (kWh/t) of rod and ball
mills (Bond, 1946, 1952, 1961, 1963).
This procedure involves conducting locked cycle
grinding tests in a 12" (0.305 m) x 12" (0.305 m)
diameter mill for ball milling and a 12" x 24" (0.61m)
mill for rod milling. Figure 1 shows the Bond ball mill
test apparatus. Each mill is charged with a standard load
of balls or rods. The rock sample is crushed down to a
nominal size distribution, which differs depending on
whether a rod mill or a ball mill test is being conducted,
then ground for a specified period. At the end of this
period the ground material is taken out, screened at the
target size (referred to as the closing size of the test, which
is defined by a P80), and the oversize returned to the mill
with additional fresh feed equal in mass to the undersize
GeMIII (Amira P843) Technical Report 1 February, 2008

13.2

Figure 1. Bond Ball Mill Grindability Test apparatus

removed. This process is repeated, the grind time being

iteratively adjusted so that for rod milling a recycle load
of 100% is obtained and for ball milling 250%. A full
Bond test typically has 7 to 8 cycles. The closing size is a
controlling parameter for the test, and is typically selected
on the basis of the expected optimum liberation size for
the target mineral to be extracted. The Bond ball mill
test requires 5kg of -3.35mm material (or approximately
2.2 m of NQ -core). The rod mill test requires 10kg of
12.7mm material (or 4.4 m of NQ -core.)
Bond (1952) provided equations to obtain the, socalled, rod and ball work indices from the results of the
test. The indices are used in a further equation relating
specific energy to feed and product sizes. According to
Bonds third theory of comminution, the work input is
proportional to the new crack tip length produced in
particle breakage, and equals the work represented by
the product minus that represented by the feed. The
relationship is expressed as follows:

W=

10 Wi 10 Wi

P
F

(1)

where W = Specific energy = Power/Throughput (kWh/t)

Wi = Work index (kWh/t)

P = 80% passing size for the product (microns)

F = 80% passing size for the feed (microns)
The work index was defined by Bond (1952) as the
comminution parameter which expresses the resistance of
the material to crushing and grinding; numerically it is the
kilowatt hours per tonne required to reduce the material
from theoretically infinite feed size to 80% passing 100
m. In practice Wi has to be determined from plant data

or by conducting laboratory grinding tests in which W, P

and F are measured. For ball mills, Equation (1) is then
used to calculate the specific power required to reduce a
given F80 to the required P80 in an 8 ft diameter wet
overflow ball mill. For a given throughput (t/h) the
specific power (kWh/t) is converted to power draw (kW).
Mill dimensions are then chosen to draw the required
power, using an appropriate mill size-power relationship.
Bond assumed that the net energy consumption per
revolution of the test mills he used remained constant.
Levin (1989) estimates that on average this value is
198.4x107 kWh/rev for a Bond ball mill, but states it is
far from constant. This value was implicitly incorporated
by Bond (1961) in his equation for determining the
laboratory ball and rod mill work index, by calibrating his
laboratory procedure with full-scale mill data.
Despite reservations by some researchers (Morrell,
2004a) as to the form of the Bond equations, the Bond
test has become the industry standard for estimating the
comminution energy required to reduce rock from one
size to another and has been applied to all comminution
steps ranging from blasting to fine grinding. Various
factors have been added, depending on the application,
with the intention of improving its accuracy. However,
the basic equation has remained unchanged.
SAG Power Index test (SPI)

While Bond is the best known grindability test for rod

and ball mills, in recent years the SPI (SAG Power Index)
test has become popular for SAG mills. The SPI test is a
batch test developed by Minnovex.
The test employs a 30.5 cm diameter by 10.2 cm
long grinding mill charged with 5 kg of steel balls. The
SPI test requires 2 kg of coarse rejects from drill core or

13.3

RVC cuttings (19 mm material) prepared by crushing

to 100% 19 mm (80% 13 mm; Fig. 2a). The mill is
run with several screening iterations until the sample is
reduced in size to 80% at 1.7 mm (or 10-mesh Tyler
sieve opening). The length of time required to achieve
a size of 80% minus 10-mesh, in minutes, is called the
SAG Power Index, or SPI (Starkey et al., 1994; Starkey
and Dobby, 1996). Typically the SPI is determined from
a plot such as that shown in Figure 2b.
The SPI is used to predict the specific energy and
transfer size of an existing or new mill via a series of
proprietary equations that have been calibrated using
a full-scale plant database (Starkey and Dobby, 1996;
Dobby et al., 2001). In its early development in 1991, a
very simple equation was put forward for the SAG specific
energy or power index Wsag:
Wsag (kWh/t) = (0.1SPI + 2.2) x T80-0.33

(2)

The technique was further developed when it was

realized that the SAG mill specific energy was influenced
by a number of factors and could not be described in such
a simple fashion. Hence by 2001 the single equation given
above was changed slightly in form (Equation 3) and
linked to a series of supplementary equations describing
various dependencies, including factors such as pebble
crusher recycle load, ball load and feed size distribution.
Wsag (kWh/t) = K(SPI / T800.5)nfsag

(a)

(3)

The final set of equations contain 18 empirical factors,

that clearly enabled the Minnovex SAG mill model to fit
experimental data well (Fig. 3). However, it is not clear
from the literature if the predictive capability of the test
is as good.
The SPI test and its subsequent co-development as a
geometallurgical mapping tool with the help of Minnovex
Technologies Inc. has been well documented in the
literature by Chris Bennett of Minnovex (e.g., Bennett
et al., 2001).

(b)

Figure 2. (a) SPI mill being discharged. (b) Typical plot from a SPI
test.

SAGDesign test

One of the most recent laboratory SAG tests is the

Standard Autogenous Grinding Design or SAGDesign
test developed by Starkey et al. (2006) to overcome the
limitations of the SPI test for SAG mill design. The
SAGDesign Consulting Group consists of Outokumpu
Technology Inc., Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories Inc.

Figure 3. Minnovex SAG model calibration to plant data.

GeMIII (Amira P843) Technical Report 1 February, 2008

13.4

and Starkey & Associates. The test was primarily designed

to estimate the full size SAG mill pinion specific energy
(kWh/t) needed to grind a given ore from F80 150
mm to P80 1.7 mm. The SAG mill pinion energy can
then be used to size the mill and motor to treat a target
throughput or estimate the expected throughput given an
existing mill.
The test requires approximately 10 kg of half-core
crushed to 80% passing 19mm. Grinding is then done
in a 0.5 m diameter SAG mill to 80% passing 12 mesh
(1.7 mm). The apparatus is shown in Figure 4. The SAG
ground product is then used for a Bond BMWI test.
The SAGDesign test was designed to duplicate
industrial mill operating parameters, namely 26% load,
11% steel, 15% ore (constant volume), and 76% critical
speed. The mill was then sized so that 4.5 litres (~7 kg
of siliceous ore) would be sufficient for one test. Eight
1.5 inch (38mm) square lifter bars were added to match
the size of the ore and balls. The ball charge is a half and

Figure 4. SAGDesign test mill.

half mixture of 51mm- and 38mm-diameter grinding

balls. The SAG stage feed size was selected to be the same
as for a MacPherson Autogenous Grindability Test or
80% passing inches (19mm). The SAG test produces a
product size that is 80% passing 1.7mm, using repeated
grinding cycles with removal of the minus 1.7mm fines
from the batch charge after each cycle. The number of
revolutions of the mill to achieve this end point is the
SAGDesign SAG grinding result. It is expressed as
revolutions, not minutes so as not to confuse the test with
an SPI test where the result is measured in minutes. Soft
ores typically require less than 300 revolutions, whereas
hard siliceous ores may need over 2000 revolutions to
achieve the target grind size.
The SAG Mill Pinion Energy is estimated using a
linear calibration equation expressed as:
SAG Mill Pinion Energy, kWh/t
= Revs (16000 + g)/(447.3 g)

(4)

where g is the weight of the ore tested, i.e. 4.5 litres of ore.
The term g accounts for the effect of ore specific gravity
on the specific power requirement in SAG milling. A
higher power draw results from a heavier charge resulting
from a higher specific gravity given the same ore volume.
However, to maintain the constant rock volume, the
tonnage ground is greater for increasing specific gravity
or weight, which is reflected in the divisor of the equation
and hence reduced kWh/t. 16,000 g is the weight of
the steel ball charge used in the test. Reproducibility for
SAG grinding is claimed to be 3% for duplicate tests
on the same ore. The test has been used for predicting
throughput as well as new plant design. An example of
the test results and data reduction for a new mill design is
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Example of SAGDesign test mill results New design

13.5

The claim by the developers that the test can accurately

estimate the full size SAG mill energy needed to grind
from F80 150 mm to P80 1.7 mm is questionable since
the test uses a standardized feed size, whereas in practice
the SAG feed size has a significant impact on the power
requirements and hence throughput rates. Hence the test
cannot be expected to yield accurate results unless the test
and industrial operating conditions are similar.

0.2 to 0.3 hard ore (AG, ABC)

0.3 to 0.6 medium hard ore (SAG, SABC)
0.8 to 1.5 friable ore (SAG)

Ore abrasion tests

Compression/impact tests

The conventional Bond abrasion test measures how much

a given rock-type will abrade steel (i.e., how much steel
wears away). It is used to determine steel media and
liner wear in crushers, rod mills and ball mills (Bond,
1963). There is no correlation for wear in Autogenous
grinding. The test, developed by Allis-Chalmers, consists
of a rotating drum, into which dry ore samples are placed,
with an impact paddle mounted on a centre shaft rotating
at a higher speed than the drum. The paddle is made of
standard alloy steel hardened to 500 Brinell. The abrasion
index Ai is determined from the weight loss of the paddle
under standard operating conditions. The test requires
1.6 kg of -19.1+12.7 mm ore. Bond developed a set of
correlations using Ai to predict the wear rate in lb of metal
wear / kWh of energy used in each comminution process.
For example, the wear rate for ball mills and crushers is
estimated using equations expressed as:
Wet Ball Mills

Balls lb/kWh = 0.35(Ao-0.015)0.33

Liners lb/ kWh = 0.026(Ai-0.015)0.30

Crushers

Liners lb/ kWh = (Ai+0.22)/11

The JKMRC abrasion test measures how much steel or

rocks will abrade a rock-type (i.e., how much rock wears
away). It is used to assess ore amenability for SAG or AG
milling. However this is clearly not the same test as the
Bond abrasion test. The ore abrasion resistance is measured
using a procedure based on a tumbling test as part of the
standard JKMRC AG/SAG mill ore characterisation test
work. This test requires 3 kg of -55+38 mm rocks which are
tumbled for 10 minutes in a 30 cm diameter mill at 70%
critical speed. The amount of fines generated is expressed
as the ta parameter, where ta= t10/10. Smaller values of ta
indicate more resistance. The test result is typically used
to select the appropriate SAG milling configuration, for
example:

where ABC refers to an AG mill + Ball mill circuit with

pebble Crusher, and SABC refers to a SAG mill + Ball
mill circuit with pebble Crusher.

In complete contrast to tumbling tests, where a distribution

of rocks is simultaneously tested in a device which is used
to infer rock properties, there are a number of tests in
which single specimens are squeezed until they break;
direct measurements of the material strength are obtained
from the tumbling tests. Examples are, the Brazilian, UCS
and Point Load tests. A subset of such tests are so-called
impact tests which can also be considered as squeezing
the specimen, only in this case the squeezing is done very
rapidly via an impactor. Such tests include the Hopkinson
bar, Bond crushing work index, JK Drop-weight, SMC
and JKRBT tests. A number of these are reviewed in the
following sections.
Bond Crushing Work Index test (CWI)

The Bond Crushing Work Index is used to estimate

crushing power requirements (Bond, 1946). It is used for
representative rock specimens in the size range -76+50 mm
which are broken under the impact of twin pendulums,
each weighing 13.6kg; it is recommended that at least 20
rocks are broken, ~10kg, during the derivation of each
CWI. The input energy of the twin pendulums is increased
by progressively raising their release height. Eventually a
height is reached where rock breakage occurs. The energy
to achieve breakage is converted to CWI (kWh/t) as
follows:
Eb = K (1 - cos )
(5)
CWI = 53.49 (E/t)/SG

(6)

where Eb = Bond crushing energy for an individual rock

(J, average of 10 breaks)

K = apparatus constant (82)

= the angle through which the pendulums fall
(degrees)

SG = the specific gravity of the individual rock

t = the thickness of the rock specimen (mm)
GeMIII (Amira P843) Technical Report 1 February, 2008

13.6

Equation (6) is only valid for rocks in the specified

size range. There is limited published data available to
determine the accuracy of this test for predicting crushing
power requirement. An initial assessment of published
literature suggests there is no relationship between UCS
and CWI, which is not surprising if the fracture frequency
in the test samples is high. Also since the CWI is an
estimate of the energy required to achieve breakage, the
test has poor precision due to operator-dependency (Doll
et al., 1999; Angove and Dunne, 1997).
The unconfined compressive strength test (UCS)

This test is usually carried out as standard when

characterising new ore bodies. It is not used for any
predictive purposes in comminution but typically is an
indicator of whether an ore is likely to be easy or difficult
to treat. It is used by crusher manufacturers to determine
the expected machine stresses, and also in the drill-andblast, and geotechnical fields. The UCS test requires
cylindrical core specimens with a length:width ratio of
2.53.0 and a diameter of about 50 mm; 20 pieces are
normally recommended (~2.5 m of NQ core) The end
of a specimen needs to be ground flat perpendicular to
the long axis. The sample is placed in a test holder that is
mounted in a press which stresses the rock until fracture
occurs (Fig. 5).
The UCS is then determined using the equation:
UCS = Ppeak/Ao

Figure 5. Specimen Holder used in

Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test

(7)

where UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa)

Ppeak = Peak compressive load (N)

Ao = Average cross-sectional area of the specimen
(mm2)
Results for a given rock-type tend to be highly variable,
which may explain why it has failed to show any significant
correlation with comminution machine performance
(Doll et al., 2003). Much of this variability is related to
the presence of structural features in the samples, which
tend to induce premature failure when stressed. Figure
6 shows data from 11 mines around the world (Fluor
Wright database) which suggests there is no universal
correlation between UCS and Bond BMWI. However,
in a small subset of rock types which have minimal rock
fractures there may be a relationship as shown by Doll
et al. (2003). The level of variability in the results may
explain why data obtained from UCS tests have failed
to show any significant correlation with comminution
machine performance.
Point Load test (PLT)

The Point Load test (PLT) is a geomechanical test used

to measure rock fragment strength (Broch and Franklin,
1972). Historically the point load test was used as a quick
and simple method to predict tensile and compressive
strength e.g., UCS (Butenuth, 1997). The PLT measures
the Point Load Strength (Is) of the rock sample. It uses the
ISRM standard procedure (ISRM, 1985). The test can be
performed with portable equipment or using a laboratory

Figure 6. Plot of Bond ball mill Work Index (BMWI) versus UCS

13.7

testing machine, hence may be conducted in either the

field or the laboratory. It consists of a two-column loading
frame with two point-shaped platens between which
the rock is placed (Fig. 7). One of the platens is effectively
stationary (though its initial starting position can be
adjusted) whilst the other is free to move through the
application of pressure, delivered via a hand pump and
piston arrangement. As the hand pump is activated the
pressure and hence, force applied to the rock, is increased
and eventually causes the rock to fail. The peak pressure
applied is indicated on a pressure gauge.
Reichmuth (1968) and Broch & Franklin (1972)
carried out extensive testwork using the point load
tester and developed the initial formulae for computing
a strength index (Is) from the measured pressure. Brook
(1985) subsequently modified the equation to account for
different rock shapes (e.g., half drill core). Drill cores were
found to provide the most consistent data and the test was
therefore originally specified for 50 mm-diameter core,
leading to the common standard designated as Is(50).
Despite corrections for shape, size effects were apparent in
the data and hence a correction was developed to convert
data into Is(50) equivalent. Rock samples may be in the
form of either core (diametral and axial tests), cut blocks
(block test), or irregular lumps (irregular lump test).
The irregular lump test offers the greatest convenience,

as sample preparation is not required. Typically, it is

recommended that 25 pieces of rock (~0.25 m NQ
core) be used in each PLT.
The standard formula for point load strength
calculation is as follows:
Is(50) = FP/D2e

(8)

where F = size correction factor = (De/50)0.45

P = force at failure and is calculated from the
pressure and geometry of the hydraulic system

De = (4A/)0.5

A = minimum cross-sectional area of the specimen
The units of the point load strength Is(50) are MPa and
whereas the test is considered to cause tensile failure it is
converted to compressive strength (i.e., UCS) by:
UCS = 24 Is(50)
The PLT is extensively used in drill-and-blast and
geotechnical fields but to date has not been used with
respect to comminution. However, recent data suggests
this index may provide a useful guide to comminution
behaviour (Fig. 8).

fixed platen

rigid frame

moveable
platen

pressure gauge with max.

reading pointer

hydraulic
piston

release valve

hand pump

Figure 7. Point Load Tester and schematic of test set-up

GeMIII (Amira P843) Technical Report 1 February, 2008

18

640
640

17

600
600

16

560
560

15

520
520

14

480
480

13

440
440

12

400
400
9.0
9.0

4.0
4.0

5.0
5.0

6.0
6.0

7.0
7.0

8.0

SAG tph

SAG kWh/t

13.8

IS(50) - MPa

Figure 8. Correlation between point load strength Is(50) and SAG

mill performance
Drop Weight Test (DWT)

The JKMRC drop weight apparatus and its associated

data reduction technique were developed so that the
relationship between specific energy input and resultant
product size could be determined (Napier-Munn et
al., 1996). This relationship is used in size-reductionmodelling for crushers and mills in the JKSimMet mineral
processing (Wiseman and Richardson, 1991). The test
apparatus comprises an impactor (Fig. 9); the mass of
the impactor can be varied together with the height from
which it can be dropped. A rock specimen is placed on an
anvil and is broken by the impactor. The broken pieces are
collected and sized. By varying the drop height and mass
(input energy, J or kWh) as well as the rock size a range of
specific impact energies (kWh/t) can be generated. These

Figure 9. JKMRC Drop Weight Tester

are then related to the size distribution of broken products

through the use of a so-called t10 parameter that is defined
as 1/10th passing the original particle size.
It is normally related to the specific energy using the
following equation:

t10 = A (1 ebEcs)
(9)
where A and b are ore specific parameters, and Ecs is the
specific breakage energy (kWh/t).
The typical test requires 65kg of -75+10mm rocks (~
5 m of PQ core). The t10-Ecs curve is influenced by the
size of the fragments tested. For this reason the full DWT
examines five size fractions ranging from 63mm down to
13.2 mm (Table 2). In the standard test 3 energy levels
are used for each size fraction, with 1030 pieces of rock
in each size fraction per test.
Table 2. Standard DW test conditions.
Size Range
(mm)
-63+53
-45+37.5
-31.5+26.5
-22.4+19
-16+13.2

Number
of
particles/
test
10
15
30
30
30

Expected Ecs (kWh/t)

0.10
0.10

0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

0.40

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2.5
2.5
2.5

Figure 10a illustrates the results from a test on one

size fraction, -16+13.2 mm. The slope of this plot at the
origin, A*b, is related to the strength of the rock; an A*b
or slope with a larger gradient is indicative of weaker rock.
The parameter A is the t10 asymptote sill or maximum
degree of breakage. This limit indicates that at higher
energies little additional size reduction occurs as the Ecs
is increased, i.e., the size reduction process becomes less
efficient. The parameter b is related to the shape of the t10Ecs curve, with lower values of b indicating a harder ore.
As there is some interaction between A and b in the impact
breakage equation (9), JKMRC uses A*b for comparison
as it is better defined. It is possible that both the A and
b parameters could be related to rock texture (e.g., grain
boundaries, mineralogical composition/associations
and micro-cracks). This has yet to be established and is
the subject of further work. In the example shown in
Figure 10, 5.4% of the product from the sample broken
at 0.25 kWh/t was finer than 1.45mm, based on the
initial average size of 14.5mm. Similarly, the sample

13.9

(a)

T10 (%)
43.2

19.8

5.4

A*b =23 (hard ore)

0.25

1.0

2.5

Specific Energy (kWh/t)

(b)

Figure 10. (a) The relationship between fines produced and specific breakage energy for a single particle size
(hard ore). (b) Example t10 - Specific Energy relationship from a standard Drop Weight test.

100
A=40 & b=0.3
A=55 & b=0.8
A=70 & b=1.3

90
80
70

t10 (%)

broken at 2.5 kWh/t produced 43.2% of fines (smaller

than 1.45 mm). The maximum degree of breakage, A,
for this sample was 100%; b was 0.23, giving a relatively
low value for A*b of 23 indicating a very high resistance
to impact breakage. A complete set of results comprising
15 tests is used to determine the A and b parameters of
Equation 9. This is carried out using proprietary JKMRC
Drop Weight Test software that is routinely used to fit the
ore specific parameters to a set of given t10-Ecs results. An
example of a complete set of Drop Weight test results is
shown in Figure 10b.
Drop Weight test A and b parameters can be used to
compare the impact hardness of different ore types (Fig.
11). Note that A and b values are not used directly to
estimate mill energy requirements but are used in JKMRC

60
50

soft

40

Decreasing resistance to
impact

30
20

hard

10
0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Ecs (kWh/t)

Figure 11. Example of comparative results, reflecting different A and

b values.

GeMIII (Amira P843) Technical Report 1 February, 2008

13.10

Figure 12. Relationship between A*b and PLI, with GeM

EH512 sample results shown in pink.

100
t2
80

t4

Each vertical section

represents a size
distribution

60
t10
t n (%
40 Passing)
t25
20

t50
t75

10

20
Breakage Index, t

30

40

(%)
10

50

Figure 13. Standard JKMRC Breakage Map showing tn vs

t10 for n=2, 4, 10, 25, 50 and 75.

Figure 14. Sample pieces cut from 50 mm quartered core.

Figure 15. Comparison of results: SMC tests on pieces of -core versus

DWT on irregular lumps of rock ( t10-Ecs). Source JKTech website (2008).

13.11

AG/SAG models to simulate the mill performance.

Extensive data from the Amira P483 Mine-to-Mill project
has shown that A*b can be correlated quite well with the
point load index, as illustrated in Figure 12. This is most
likely due to the dependence of the b parameter on the
energy to first fracture (Tavares and King, 1997).
The A*b parameter has been shown to be a useful
rank of ore hardness and almost all of the major mining
companies use the DWT to obtain ore impact breakage
characteristics. There are now more than 20 JKMRC drop
weight testers installed world-wide and the DWT is one
of the standard ore breakage characterisation methods.
Prediction of product size distribution

In JKMRC comminution models, the key output from

a breakage event is expressed in terms of the t10. The
parameter t10 is significant as it can be used to estimate
the full product size distribution given the ore breakage
map or family of t curves from t2 (1/2 of the mean initial
size) to t75 (1/75th of the mean initial size; Fig. 13). Spline
interpolation can then be used to reconstruct the full size
distribution curve, given the six points on the curve and
initial particle size (Napier-Munn et al., 1996).

SAG mill comminution test (SMC)

The SMC test (Morrell, 2004b) is similar to the Drop
Weight Test and uses the same apparatus. However, the
SMC test was designed to make use of quartered drill
core, i.e., core which has been cut into a number of
identical pieces using a diamond saw (Fig. 14). Original

core diameters up to 85 mm (PQ) are suitable. Crushed

core can also be used. For example, the minimum sample
weight for NQ (47.6mm) diameter core samples is 1.7 kg
(~0.8 m -core), based on the typical SG of 2.8. The key
elements of the SMC procedure are as follows:
five specific energy levels are used 0.25, 0.50, 1.0,
2.5 and 3.5 kWh/t
20 quartered core pieces are broken at each energy
three orientations are used at each energy (7+7+6 =
20; Fig. 14)
Broken fragments from all three orientations are sized
on a single sieve that defines the t10 size. The percentage
of undersize from sieving the broken products is plotted
against the input energy, in a similar way to the t10
versus specific energy used in the DWT data reduction
technique. In the SMC test proprietary algorithms are
used to estimate the DWT equivalent A and b parameters
and an impact strength index, called the Drop Weight
index (DWi; kWh/m3), from the gradient of the percent
of undersize versus input energy trend. As the ore impact
strength increases so does the value DWi.
One of the key assumptions in the SMC test is that the
average of the results from three orientations is expected
to reflect the DWT result on irregular lump particles
of similar size (Fig. 15). This is likely to be dependent
on texture/bedding planes within the samples, however
published documentation supporting this assumption is
limited (JKTech, 2008) and a clear assessment has not been
possible. Independent research at the JKMRC on Ernest
Henry core samples shows a strong effect of orientation
on the degree of breakage in Drop Weight tests as shown
in Figure 16: orientation 1 produces the most breakage, 3

70
60
50
40

Decreasing resistance to impact

30

'
o r ie n t - 1

20

Figure 16. Effect of sample orientation on

degree of breakage in DWT. Orientation of
samples as in Figure 14.

o r ie n t - 2
o r ie n t - 3

Degree
10 of Fineness, t10 (%)

a v e o r ie n t

0
0.0

0.5

1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
S p e c ific Im p a c t E n e rg y, E c s (kW h /t)

3.5

4.0

GeMIII (Amira P843) Technical Report 1 February, 2008

13.12
Results for 1.5 kWh/t - DWT Cubes vs Fragments
30
brk EH1 DWT 1.5

Mass % Retained

25

cube EH1 1.5r DWT

20
15
10
5

Figure 17. Comparison of Drop Weight Test breakage

results for cube-shaped and irregular lumps of rock.

0
0.01

0.1

10

Sieve Size (mm)

100

SMC Index DWI (kWh/cu.m)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

Point Load Strength (MPa)

10

12

Figure 18. Relationship between DWi derived from

SMC tests and Point Load Strength

Inspection window

Figure 19. Photograph of the prototype JKRBT device, with rotor-stator showing through the inspection window.

13.13

the least. In addition, Drop Weight Tests on Ernest Henry

13 mm cubes versus 16 x 13.2 mm fragments suggest that
cubes break more than irregular lumps of similar size/
volume (Fig. 17). Hence, the assumption that the average
of the results for the three orientations used in the SMC
test is equivalent to Drop Weight Test results for irregular
lumps of rock is called into question.
The DWi derived from the SMC test has been used
to develop an empirical model for the AG/SAG mill
specific energy, as per the Minnovex SPI approach noted
previously:

rotor-stator system for rapid breakage characterisation.

The operating system consists of a vibrating feeder, a
rotor-stator impacting device plus drive system, and an
operation control unit.
Like the Drop Weight tester, the JKRBT device also
requires the ore particles to be pre-sized into narrow
fractions. Particles of the selected size are fed into the
rotor-stator impacting system via a vibrating feeder. The
vibrating feeder controls the feed rate to ensure that
breakage takes place in a single particle mode. After
impact breakage, the product is collected from a container
underneath the rotor-stator system. The t10 values are
determined using the same data reduction techniques
noted above for the Drop Weight test.
The JKRBT device can generate the standard AG/
SAG mill parameters A and b in 1/10th of the time it
takes using the standard Drop Weight test. Validation
and commercialization of the new device is in progress.
Tests carried out to date have confirmed the device offers
a rapid method for determining the hardness of drill core
samples within the context of the GeMIII project. The new
JKMRC breakage characterisation device was developed
through partial financial support from the AMIRA P9N
project. The device overcomes some of the limitations in
the existing impact tests, including the precision of the
energy input, time required to run the test, and the smallest
particle size that can be readily tested. Comparative
breakage tests using the new device and the traditional
JKMRC Drop Weight tester suggest that the two devices
generate the identical breakageenergy relationship for
the same ore of the same size (Fig. 20). Similarly, when the
tests were compared across the full size and energy range,

Specific Energy = K.(F80,DWi,BL,SPEED,L/D)

where F80 = 80% passing size for the mill feed

BL = ball load

SPEED = mill speed

L = mill length

D = mill diameter
The DWi, like the parameter A*b, can be correlated
with point-load strength, as shown in Figure 18.

JK rotary breakage test (JKRBT)

The new JK rotary breakage test (JKRBT) characterisation
device employs a precise and accurate control of energy
and can test particles across a wide range of sizes, from 1
to 30 mm. The prototype JKRBT device, shown in Figure
19, was designed and manufactured at the JKMRC pilot
plant workshop in 2005 to test the concept of using a

40

120

(a)

35

DWT

RBT

(b)

100

30
80

A*b

t10 (%)

25
20
15

60

40

DWT

10

RBT

20

RBT repeat

Model Fit
0

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Ecs (kWh/t)

2.5

3.0

3.5

10

Sample

Figure 20. Comparison of (a) t10 versus Ecs and (b) breakage parameters A*b as determined by JKRBT and DWT tests

GeMIII (Amira P843) Technical Report 1 February, 2008

13.14

the statistical analysis indicated that the two machines can

generate identical breakage parameter A*b values. Figure
20 compares the A*b values of 10 ore types determined by
industrial JKRBT and Drop Weight tests.
Over the life of the GeMIII project, the objective is
to provide A*b measurements on 1500 to 2000 drill core
samples represented in the Level 3 Geometallurgical Matrix.
The JKRBT procedure therefore has been simplified to
suit this task and the small sample volumes being tested
as part of the physical testing protocol. Hence, a single
size fraction (which could be drawn from a much smaller
volume of rock) was selected with the understanding that
the A and b parameters determined from the reduced test
would satisfy the GeMIII requirements for comparative
testing.
The procedure adopted within GeMIII is as follows:
1. The size fraction 11.2 x 9.5mm is being used as it is
available in sufficient quantities post crushing of NQ
and HQ half-core intervals.
2. Four specific energy levels are being used: 0.2, 0.5,
1.0 and 2.0 kWh/t.
3. The breakage products are sized to determine the t10
percentage (i.e., < 1mm).
4. The A and b parameters are determined using
standard JK data reduction techniques.
The GeMIII project has used the prototype JKRBT
device to characterise the impact hardness of ore samples
supplied by Level 1 sponsors. The approach has generated
an excellent first pass definition over a very rapid time
scale, as illustrated by the chart in Figure 21 which shows

the frequency distribution of almost 150 test results for

five Cadia East drill cores.
The single particle size A*b parameters can be
corrected to equivalent full Drop Weight Test parameters
using established empirical rules governing the effect of
particle size or supporting tests on other particle sizes.
The corrected A*b estimates, combined with Bond
BMWI data, can be readily converted to mill throughput
predictions given the new or existing mill design and
operating conditions and JKMRC proprietary models, as
illustrated in Figure 22 for a single Cadia East drill hole.
Clearly testing of the JKRBT device is showing significant
promise and should enable the GeMIII project to provide
vital geostatistical information on the throughput capacity
of a new or existing mill circuit.

Ranking of comparative testing methods
The question of which test can best suit the GeMIII
requirements for comparative testing was addressed by
ranking the above tests plus EQUOtip (Section 5) on
the basis of the key needs for such a test. Ideally the
comparative test needs to be:
Low cost
Fast
Relevant to comminution performance and rock
texture
Applied on a small sample size
Reproducible.

Figure 21. Summary of Phase 1 Results for 5 Cadia East drill holes as generated
from the JKRBT device.

13.15

CE143
90

70

A*b

60

1090

50

870

40

650

30

Throughput (tph)

Mill Dimensions 36x18 1740

Ball Load 12%
1520
78% of Critical Speed
1310
25% Mill Load

80

440

20
10
0
1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

Depth (m)

Figure 22. Down-hole A*b and mill throughout profile for a drill hole from Cadia East.

Each test was ranked according to the above criteria on

a scale of 1 to 10, and a combined score for each test was
calculated by adding the ranks together and normalizing
the result to a percentage-scale (Table 3). Cost was not
included in the ranking as the JKRBT device has yet to
be commercialized. The comparison suggests that the new
JKRBT device appears to be the best choice, followed by
SMC and PLT/SPI. This is not surprising as the standard
Drop Weight Test (DWT) is time consuming and requires
a large sample. The SMC test is much faster than the
DWT, but still too slow for GeMIII project requirements.
The PLT test is too tedious for use with large numbers of
samples and is imprecise for the application; in addition,
the relevance of the SPI is questionable. On the basis
of this evaluation, the JKRBT device appears the ideal
choice for the comparative testing tasks within the GeMIII
project.

References
Angove, J.E., and Dunne, R.C., 1997, A Review of Standard
Physical Ore Property Determinations: World Gold
Conference 1997, Singapore, 1-3 September.
Bennett, C., Dobby, G.S., Kosick, G., 2001, Benchmarking and
Ore Body Profiling the keys to effective production
forecasting and SAG circuit optimization: SAG 2001
Conference, Vancouver, September, Vol I, p. 289-300.
Bond, F.C., 1946, Crushing Tests by Pressure and Impact:
Trans SME/AIME, v. 169, p. 58-66.
Bond, F.C., 1952, The Third Theory of Comminution: Trans
AIME, 1952, v. 193, p. 484-494.
Bond, F.C., 1961, Crushing and Grinding Calculations: AllisChalmers publication, no. O7R9235B. (also in British
Chemical Engineering, v. 6, nos. 6 and 8).
Bond, F.C., 1963, Metal Wear in Crushing and Grinding:
Allis-Chalmers Publication no. 07P1701.
Broch, E., and Franklin, J.A., 1972, The Point Load Test:
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Minerals &
Science, v. 9, p. 669-697.

Table 3. Ranking of available comminution tests for their suitability in GeMIII

project comparative testing.
Test
Point Load
UCS
EquoTip
DWT
SMC
Bond
Abrasion
SPI
SAGDesign
JKRBT

Speed
9
3
10
2
6
6
8
6
4
8

Sample
8
3
10
3
8
6
6
8
6
8

Precision
5
5
4
6
8
7
5
8
8
9

Relevance
7
7
2
9
9
9
5
7
8
9

Rank
73%
45%
65%
50%
78%
70%
60%
72%
56%
85%

Position
3
8
5
7
2
4
6
3
6
1

GeMIII (Amira P843) Technical Report 1 February, 2008

13.16

Brook, N., 1985, The Equivalent Core Diameter Method

of Size and Shape Correction in Point Load Testing:
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Minerals,
Science and Geomechanics, Abstract 22, p. 61-70.
Butenuth, C., 1997, Comparison of Tensile Strength Values of
Rocks Determined by Point Load and Direct Tension
Tests: Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, v. 30, no.
1, p. 65-72.
Doll. A., Barratt, D.J. and Wood, K., 2003, Comparison of
UCS to Bond Work Indices, <http://www.sagmilling.
com/articles/UCS_Wi_paper.pdf>.
Dobby, G., Bennett, C., and Kosick, G., 2001, Advances in
SAG Circuit Design and Simulation Applied to the
Mine Block Model: Proceedings of the Conference
on International Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous
Grinding Technology (SAG 2001), Vancouver, British
Columbia, v. 4, p. 221-234.
ISRM - International Society of Rock Mechanics, 1985,
Suggested Method for Determining Point Load
Strength: International Journal of Rock Mechanics,
Minerals, Science and Geomechanics, Abstract, v. 22,
no. 2, p. 51-60.
Levin, J., 1989, Observation on the Bond Standard Grindability
Test, and a Proposal for a Standard Grindability Test for
Fine Materials: SAIMM, v 89, no.1, p. 13-21.
JKTech, 2008, <http://www.jktech.com.au/Products_Services/
Laboratory-Services/Comminution-Testing/SMCTest/>.
MacPherson, A.R., 1989, The Development of Autogenous
Grinding and Semi-Autogenous Grinding: Proceedings
of the Conference on International Autogenous and
Semi-Autogenous Grinding Technology, (SAG 1989),
Vancouver, British Columbia, p. 5-7.
MacPherson, A.R. Consultants, 1999, Glossary of Comminution
and Ore Hardness Terms, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada.
32p.
Morrell, S., 2004a, An Alternative Energy-Size Relationship To
That Proposed By Bond for The Design and Optimisation
of Grinding Circuits: International Journal of Mineral
Processing, v. 17, no. 3, p. 437-445.
Morrell, S., 2004b, Predicting the Specific Energy of Autogenous
and Semi-Autogenous Mills from Small Diameter Drill
Core Samples: Minerals Engineering, v. 17, no. 3, p.
447-451.
Napier-Munn, T. J., S. Morrell, Morrison, R., Kojovic, T. , 1996,
Mineral Comminution Circuits: Their Operation and
Optimisation: Brisbane Australia, JKMRC University of
Queensland, JKMRC Monograph Series in Mining and
Mineral Processing 2, 413 p.
Reichmuth, D.R., 1968, Point-Load Testing of Brittle Materials
to Determine Tensile Strength and Relative Brittleness,
Proceedings 9th US Symposium Rock Mechanics,
University of Colorado, p. 34-159.
Tavares, L.M., and King, R.P., 1998, Single-Particle Fracture
under Impact Loading: International Journal of Mineral
Processing, v. 54, p. 1-28.
Starkey, J.H., Dobby, G., and Kosick, G., 1994, A New Tool for
SAG Hardness Testing: Proceedings Canadian Mineral
Processors Conference, Ottawa, p. 12.

Starkey, J.H., and Dobby, G., 1996, Application of the

Minnovex SAG Power Index at Five Canadian SAG
Plants: Proceedings of the Conference on International
Autogenous and Semi-autogenous Grinding Technology
(SAG 1996), Vancouver, British Columbia, p. 345-360.
Starkey, J.H., Hindstrom, S., and Nadasdy, G., 2006, SAGDesign
testing What is it and Why it Works: Proceedings
of the Conference on International Autogenous and
Semi-autogenous Grinding Technology (SAG 2006),
Vancouver, British Columbia, v. IV, p. 240-254.
Verwaal, W. and Mulder, A., 1993, Estimating rock strength with
the EQUOtip hardness tester: International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, v. 30, p. 659-662.
Walters, S., and Kojovic, T., 2006, Geometallurgical Mapping
and Mine Modelling (GEMIII) the way of the
future: Proceedings of the Conference on International
Autogenous and Semi-autogenous Grinding Technology
(SAG 2006), Vancouver, v. IV, p. 411-425.
Wiseman D.M., and Richardson J.M., 1991, JKSimMet - the
mineral processing simulator. Proceedings 2nd Can
Conf on Comp Applications in the Min Ind, (Eds. Paulin,
Pakalnis and Mular), University of British Columbia
and CIM, v. II, p. 427-438.