CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of the drop-weight-test work was to establish a consistent

quantification of fracture response of the material to the energy spectra predicted
by the DEM software. There was a need to develop a multi-dimensional model
that took into account the variation in the energy input and the number of events
affecting each particle. The initial experiments were concerned with establishing
the relationship between energy input and probability of fracture, while the latter
experiments addressed the progeny distribution from a fracture event.

4.2 Description of the JKMRC drop weight test machine

The work involved breaking single particles by impact using the drop-weight test
machine illustrated below. The input energy was determined by the weight of the
steel disk (M) that was dropped on the particle from a level (h1). The drop height
(h) is the difference between the final (h2) and the initial (h1) position of the steel
weight. h2 varies as it depends on the residue after breakage.

Steel weight
h1

Transparent
wall
Drop height (h)

h2 (position depends
on remaining residue)
Anvil

Figure 4-1 Simple illustration of the drop-weight test machine

40
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

The input energy (J) is calculated as follows:

E = Mg ( h1 − h2 ) (4.1)

where M is the mass of the steel disk in Kg, g is the force due to gravity and h1-h2
is the drop height in metres.

4.3 Establishing a relationship between particle size and

energy required for breakage

It is known from experience that based on the same energy input per unit mass,
larger particles are generally weaker than smaller particles (see section 2.6.1.5).
The purpose of this experiment was to determine if this apparent weakness can be
modelled. The random variation in the strength of particles of otherwise the same
size made this exercise somewhat complicated (Bourgeios and King 1993). Hence
a large number of particles per size group had to be tested.

4.3.1 Experimental procedure

The particles were closely sized by weighing (relative mass standard deviation in
each group never exceeded 6%) and then broken individually using the drop-
weight test machine. About ten particles were tested in each class though fewer
particles were available for the larger rocks (+800g). A particle that was not
broken at first attempt was repeatedly impacted until the largest fragment was
broken to a size less than 1/3 of the original physical size. The limit for impact
attempts was thirty.

The procedure involved fixing the drop weight test energy input and breaking
singly all the particles of a specific size group. If all the particles were broken as
per defined criteria above, a larger size group was introduced until a size group
was found in which some of the particles could not be broken. This indicated that
the size group was too strong for the set energy level and at this juncture a higher
energy level was set on the drop weight tester and the whole procedure was then

41
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

repeated. Thus in this way the minimum energy that is just sufficient to break all
the particles in a particular size when the maximum number of impact attempts is
thirty, was established.

4.3.2 Results of the test to find minimum energy required to cause

fracture in up to thirty impact attempts

The results of the test are summarised in Table 4-1 below and the data meeting the
set criteria (highlighted results in the table) are plotted in Figure 4.2

Table 4-1 Relationship between Energy Input and Mass of particles broken
Average Std No. of Energy per Ave No of Std Dev % Broken
Particle Dev. Particles Impact (J) Attempts of
Mass (g) tested No. of
attempts

4.51 0.12 10 0.856 7.4 8.6 100.0

*6.12 0.15 10 1.18 6.8 5.8 90.0
9.44 0.475 11 2.34 2.9 1.5 100.0
11.24 0.369 11 2.34 2.3 2.1 100.0
*13.89 0.654 17 2.26 4.4 5.3 94.1
19.29 0.475 14 2.23 11.4 10.0 78.6
24.48 0.659 7 2.2 10.3 12.5 57.1
27.86 0.685 7 3.1 6.6 8.6 100.0
32.56 0.342 9 3 10.8 10.0 55.6
78.43 4.09 5 8.8 5.6 4.6 100.0
100.7 4.94 9 8.4 6.2 6.2 100.0
134.93 3.74 6 8.1 28.0 4.9 16.7
154.98 5.92 5 14.14 9.0 8.6 100.0
154.98 5.92 4 17.47 3.8 2.1 100.0
165.66 1.73 7 17.29 5.1 3.6 100.0
863.2 28.93 4 61.42 13.0 9.1 100.0
1179.45 4.47 2 88.81 4.0 2.8 100.0
1629.46 85.69 3 88.81 11.0 4.6 100.0

42
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

Though in both cases, 1 particle failed to break it was assumed these data were
practically close to the requirement.

Energy Input Joules/impact 100

10

1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle mass (g)

Figure 4-2 The relationship between energy required for breakage and particle size

Note that the relationship shown above is based purely on the energy input per
impact without considering the effect of the number of impact attempts. It is
however surprising to see such a good correlation achieved. This relationship is
well described by the equation below.

E s = 0.33 X 0.76 (4.2)

where Es is the minimum energy that is just enough to break all the particles of
mass X in 30 impact attempts or less per particle.

4.3.3 Conclusion

A clear relationship exists between energy input to achieve fracture in ≤ 30

attempts and particle size. However this relationship does not consider the effect

43
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

of the number of impact attempts on breakage and thus further experiments were
required to address this problem.

4.4 Probability of fracture with respect to energy input

and number of impact attempts
4.4.1 Sample preparation

Particles of the same size even if they be of the same material tend to vary in
strength due to differences in the distribution of flaws. It was thus decided that the
relationship between energy input and propensity to breakage be stated in terms of
probability. The procedure involved preparing the sample by dividing particles
into groups of nearly the same mass. The particle mass groups used were as
follows; 3.15g, 5.15g, 8.15g, 12.6g, 28.9g, 38.8g and 67.5g. The mass variation in
each group was no more than ±11 %. Each mass group was further divided into
four groups of 20 to 30 particles depending on the number of particles available.

4.4.2 Test-work procedure

To each group, a fixed energy input was applied using no more than ten impact
attempts per particle. The number of particles broken at each impact attempt and
energy level applied were noted. Any particle that lost 10% of its mass was
considered broken. This criterion is justifiable if it is noted that breakage is mostly
the propagation of cracks rather than initiation. In some instances the crack
propagated may not necessarily lie at the centre and thus propagation of a crack
anywhere within 80% of the body's volume is included (80% instead of 90
because in almost all cases breakage involving loss of a fragment of about 10% or
less occurs only on one end of the body).

The 10% mass loss criterion for certifying breakage is also popular amongst
German researchers (Dan and Schubert 1990, Klotz and Schubert 1982), albeit
they also tend to use a lower ratio between the screens. The 21/10 series or higher
resolution is often used.

44
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

4.4.3 Results

The results for all the different particle sizes are presented in Appendix B1. This
is presented in terms of probability versus number of impact attempts and energy
input. The corresponding plots of these results are in Appendix B2. It can be seen
from the graphs in Appendix B2 the trends are similar. The proposed model
discussed later (section 4.4.4) does not fit all the data accurately and it is
recommended in future, to user larger samples of particles to ease the problem of
particle strength variability. The parameters were established using the excel
solver to minimise the least square difference between the model and all the
experimental data.

For the purpose of discussion the first figure in Appendix B2 is also shown here.

Probability of breakage of 3.15g Particles

1.00 Energy level

(J)
0.90
Probabilty of breakage

0.80
0.70 0.47
0.60
0.50 0.8
0.40
0.30 1.02
0.20
0.10 1.32
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of impacts attempted

Figure 4-3 Probability of Breakage versus Input Energy and Impact attempts

4.4.4 Discussion of the results

It can be seen from the figure above that both the number of impact attempts (n)
and the energy level (E) have an effect on the probability of breakage. It is seen

45
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

that when the energy input is low each extra impact steadily increases the
probability of breakage while for the higher energy inputs, the change in
probability is substantial for the first few attempts before asymptoting. This is in
line with the crack extension theory discussed in Chapter 2. In Equation 2.34 it is
seen that all else remaining the same, the relationship between energy input and
crack growth is non-linear and thus at low energy input, crack growth will be
slower and thus more impacts will be required before reaching critical conditions.
The overall effect of the energy input and number of impacts is summarised in
Figure 4.4 below.

High energy
Probability of breakage

Low energy

Number of impact attempts

Figure 4-4 The effect of high and low energy input and impact attempts on probability of
breakage

With this definite trend, a model that produced a good fit to all the data was
obtained by modifying an equation developed by Weichert (1990) written as
follows:

2 z
P = 1 − e ( − cx Wm )
(4.3)

where P is the probability of fracture, c and z are material constants. x is the

particle size and Wm is the specific elastic energy. It can be seen that this equation
is a further development of Weibull’s Equation 2.40.

46
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

From Figure 4.4 it is seen that the probability of breakage is a function of particle
size, energy input and number of impact attempts. It was also noted that some
minimum energy level had to be exceeded before any breakage could occur. Thus
Equation 4.3 was modified accordingly to yield an equation that gave the best fit
to the data written as follows:

0.525
Pb = 1 − e − ( 0.006 X +.5) n (( E − E x 0 ) / E x 0 )
(4.4)

Pb is the probability of breakage, X is the particle mass (g), n is the number of

impact attempts, E is the energy input (J) and Ex0 is the barest minimum energy
(J) that is required to fracture a particle of mass X. Ex0 was an experimental
extrapolation as shown in Appendix B3. The following model fitted the Exo data
very well.
0.76
E x 0 = 0 .19 X (4.5)

Some limitations regarding this formula must be mentioned. It does not take into
consideration the different force loading configurations that might affect
especially the large particles. With larger particles it is possible to achieve
breakage with lower energy than the Ex0 value if for example the mode of stress
application involves using a wedge to open up a crack. An overview of difficulties
concerning the determination fracture energy for particles is given by King
(2001).

4.4.5 Conclusion

A model that can be applied to determine the number of particles of known mass
that will break if each particle is subjected to a known energy level and a number
of impact attempts has been proposed. This model is thus suitable for estimating
breakage in the mill from the DEM energy spectra.

47
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

4.5 The breakage distribution function

The information about the probability of breakage considered in section 4.4 is of

little use without the knowledge of the extent of breakage that is caused by the
impact events. Thus some simple way of describing the breakage distribution
function solely for the purpose of this work was established.

The standard JKMRC drop test used for characterising the particle size
distribution function, which apparently ignores the effect of size, is also evaluated
using two different size ranges.

4.5.1 Establishing an event breakage distribution function

During the drop-weight test work discussed in section 4.4, the fraction size of the
remaining biggest fragment was visually estimated whenever breakage occurred.
Four discrete levels of describing breakage were used;

ƒ A – physical appearance showed that the remaining largest fragment was

about 90% of the original parent size.
ƒ B - physical appearance showed that the remaining largest fragment was
about 70% of the original parent size.
ƒ C - physical appearance showed that the remaining largest fragment was
about 50% of the original parent size.
ƒ D or Completely Broken (CB) - entire particle was broken up into small
fragments.

An illustration of this visual classification of breakage is shown in Figure 4.5

below:

48
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

Original
Particle A B

C D

Figure 4-5 Illustration of the four levels of classifying breakage

4.5.2 Event breakage distribution function results

The breakage data is shown in the tables in Appendix C. From the data it is seen
that, firstly, regardless of the energy input the expected chances of achieving class
A, B or C level of breakage was close to the ratio 1:2:2

Secondly, the probability of getting complete breakage (PCB) i.e. class D,

increased with increased energy input (theoretically, excess energy initiates
further re-breakage). The relationship between PCB and energy input showed great
scatter for the different mass groups as shown in Figure 4.6 which is based on data
extracted from the tables in Appendix C.

49
 CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

0.6
Expt data
0.5 Model Equation (e- 0.38/(E/x))

Probability of CB
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 Suspected
outliers
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Specific energy input (J/g)

Figure 4-6 Relationship between specific energy and probability of complete breakage of a
broken particle.

The data in Figure 4-6 show a lot of scatter even when the suspected outliers are
excluded. This is a common problem for this kind of test due to variability in
particle strength. Use of larger samples would be recommended for future tests.

In spite of the highlighted problem, a model with desirable features (it asymptotes
at 1 and also does not go through the origin, a reflection of the minimum threshold
energy required before any breakage can begin to occur) was proposed and is
stated as follows:

PCB = e −0.38 /( E / X ) (4.6)

where E is the energy input and X is the mass of the particle in grams.

50
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

4.6 The JKMRC drop weight test

A method developed by JKMRC (Napier-Munn et al 1996) for estimating the
Breakage distribution function was used on two different size fractions (16mm
and 45mm)

4.6.1 Procedure

A screen size fraction (-16mm +13.2mm) was divided into four identical samples.
The individual particles from the first sample were each subjected to a fixed
energy input level. Each particle was only impacted once. At the end of the test,
all the fragments including unbroken particles were combined and screen
analysed. The procedure was repeated for the other three samples at higher energy
input levels.

The procedure above was also repeated on the -45mm +38mm fraction.

4.6.2 Results

The tables showing the product size distributions of the two sizes are in Appendix
D. Figures 4-7 and 4-8 below show how specific energy input affects the product
size distribution.

51
 CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

100

10
% Passing

0.16J/g
0.46J/g
1
0.86J/g
1.96J/g

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Particle size (mm)

Figure 4-7 The effect of specific energy input on product size distribution of a -16 +13.2mm
fraction

100

10
% Passing

1
0.12J/g
0.24J/g
0.1 0.42J/g
0.52J/g

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)

Figure 4-8 The effect of specific energy input on product size distribution of a -45 +37.5mm
fraction

52
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

It can be seen from both figures above that the higher the energy input the finer
the product. However to achieve similar levels of size reduction, the finer sample
required higher specific energy inputs. The first three results for each size fraction
are plotted on the same graph below for comparison.

100

10
% Passing size

-16 +13.2mm .16J/g

1 -16 +13.2mm .46J/g
-16 +13.2mm .86J/g
-45 +37.5mm .12J/g
0.1
-45 +37.5mm .24J/g
-45 +37.5mm .42J/g
0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Fraction of parent size

Figure 4-9 Comparison of effect of Specific energy input on product size distribution of the
finer and the coarse fraction

4.6.3 Discussion of the product distribution results

It is clear from the two sets of results in section 4.6.2 that the parent size factor
cannot be ignored when estimating the product size distribution from specific
energy input, an issue that has been raised constantly against the JKMRC usage of
the t10 model. This anomaly has been addressed in more recent JKMRC
publications (Apelt 2002, Banini 2001).

4.6.3.1 Development of a Breakage function distribution model

From section 4.4.4 the term Ex0, a minimum threshold energy that must be
absorbed by particle before the remaining balance can be consumed in fracture
propagation, was introduced. It was proposed that instead of correlating the
breakage distribution function to specific energy, a model that takes into account

53
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

the Ex0 values be used. An Ex0 based model for scale-up for energy input to any
particle of a given mass was proposed as follows:
E − E x0
(4.7)
E x0
The values based on this equation are superimposed on Figure 4.8 to show that
this approach gives a better correlation than the specific energies and this is
apparent in Figure 4.10 below as the proposed relative scale values apparently
give correspondingly similar breakage size distributions for both Big and Small.

100 Relative
Scale based on
(E-Ex0)/Ex0
10 factor
% Passing size

1.28 -45 +37.5mm

4.12 -45 +37.5mm
1 7.07 -45 +37.5mm
9.95 -45 +37.5mm
0.23 -16 +13.2mm
0.1 2.34 -16 +13.2mm
6.26 -16 +13.2mm
13.66 -16 +13.2mm
0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Fraction of parent size

Figure 4-10 Comparison of breakage distribution function as a function of Equation 4.7 for
both big and small particles

To derive a model that will describe the data presented in section 4.6.3, the widely
accepted equation for representing the breakage distribution function (Klimpel
and Austin 1977) shown below was used.

δ β
 X   X 
Φ i  + (1 − Φ ) i  (4.8)
X  X 
 j −1   j −1 
The equation is however modified to take into account the relative scale-up factor
discussed above and takes the following form when fitted to the two sets of data:

54
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

−0.71
 E − Ex 0 
6.56  
 − 0.017  
 E −Ex 0 
  X 
0.512  E − Ex 0 
− 0.017   X
   E x 0 
1 − e  E x 0   i 
+e  Ex 0   i 
(4.9)
  X  X 
  j −1   j −1 

The results of fitting this equation to experimental data discussed in section 4.6.3
are shown in Figures 4.10 and 4.11.

100

10
Expt 0.16J/g
% Passing

Expt 0.46J/g
1 Expt 0.86J/g
Expt 1.96J/g
Model 0.16J/g
Model 0.46J/g
0.1 Model 0.86J/g
Model 1.96J/g

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Fraction of parent size

Figure 4-11 Results of fitting Equation 4.9 to breakage data of small particles (-16.0
+13.2mm)

100

10
% Passing

Expt 0.12J/g
1 Expt 0.24J/g
Expt 0.42J/g
Expt 0.52J/g
Model 0.12J/g
0.1
Model 0.24J/g
Model 0.42J/g
Model 0.52J/g
0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Fraction of parent size

Figure 4-12 Results of fitting Equation 4.9 to breakage data of large particles (-45.0
+37.5mm)

55
CHAPTER 4 DROP WEIGHT TEST WORK

It can be seen from the fitted data that the proposed model does follow the
experimental trends despite failure to successfully match all the data. More drop-
weight tests involving a wide range of size fractions is recommended for future
investigation of this model. This model can be combined with the model that
predicts mass loss for a given grinding period if the average energy input to a
sample is known. However the energy input levels to particles present in the mill
are widely distributed as shown by the DEM outputs shown in section 6.7.4. The
models proposed by King and Bourgeois (1993) for computing the selection and
distribution function using single particle fracture data and DEM spectral energy
distribution would be more applicable.

4.7 Conclusion
From the drop-weight tests, it has been possible to develop a model that gives an
indication of the likelihood of fracture when an event or events occur where a
particle is impacted with some specified amount of energy. A simple model for
describing the progeny size distribution at each contact event that results in
breakage has been proposed.

56