Powder Technology 122 Ž2002.

101–108
www.elsevier.comrlocaterpowtec

Experimental study on the grinding rate constant of solid materials in a

ball mill
N. Kotake, K. Suzuki, S. Asahi, Y. Kanda)
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Yamagata UniÕersity, 4-3-16 Jonan, Yonezawa, Yamagata 992-8510, Japan
Received 29 June 2000; received in revised form 20 September 2000; accepted 22 October 2000

Abstract

The grinding rate constant, in the widely accepted first-order expression of grinding rate, is one of the important factors required to
evaluate a grinding process particularly for its initial grinding stage of various mill types.
In this study, we conducted grinding tests on silica glass, limestone and gypsum using a laboratory ball mill, and measured the
grinding rate constant of the feed size reduction. We investigated the effects of feed size and ball diameter on the grinding rate constant of
the materials used when the mass of balls, mass of feed, and the mill’s rotational speed were constant.
The results indicate that the variation of the grinding rate constant with feed size of the materials can be expressed by revising the
equation proposed by Snow. For the grinding rate constant of each material, empirical equations were developed to express it as a
function of feed size and ball diameter. q 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Grinding rate constant; Selection function; Ball mill; Feed size; Ball diameter

1. Introduction particles of the ground component j become particles of

component i, and t is the grinding time.
Grinding has been utilized in manufacturing fine and Additionally, it is often the case for i s 1 that the
ultra-fine powders for the development of new materials decrease rate of the largest particle group is described by
and for improving product quality. For a long time, grind- the following first-order equation:
ing processes, especially on ball mills, have been subjected d m1 Ž t .
to statistical and kinetic analysis w1,2x. s yS1 m1 Ž t . . Ž 2.
When a grinding rate in a batch grinding test is exam- dt
ined in terms of materials balances, two basic functions are The selection function S1 has been investigated by many
used, i.e., the selection function indicate the fracture prob- researchers using a wide variety of grinding mills and
ability of a particle, and the breakage function show the conditions w5–10x, and even now, this item is of great
size distribution of fractured particle. These functions make interest when considering the grinding efficiency and re-
it possible to express the material balance for a particle moval of coarse particles in products.
size in the following way w3,4x: Eq. Ž2. shows the decrease rate of feed material and we
iy1 expressed m1Ž t . as the mass fraction of feed size R, and S1
d mi Ž t .
s ySi m i Ž t . q Ý bi , j S j m j Ž t . . as the grinding rate constant K 1 in Eq. Ž3..
dt js1 dR
j-i y s K 1 R. Ž 3.
dt
i s 1,2, . . . n Ž 1.
where m i Ž t . is the mass fraction of the particles of compo-
nent i, Si is the selection function, bi, j is the rate at which 2. Experiment

2.1. Preparation of experimental materials

)
Corresponding author. Tel.: q81-238-26-3161; fax: q81-238-26-
3414. Three kinds of materials were used in this experiment:
E-mail address: kanda@dip.yz.yamagata-u.ac.jp ŽY. Kanda.. silica glass, limestone and gypsum. Density and hardness

0032-5910r02r$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 3 2 - 5 9 1 0 Ž 0 1 . 0 0 4 0 5 - 3
102 N. Kotake et al.r Powder Technology 122 (2002) 101–108

Table 1 Five ball diameters ranging between 3 and 30 mm were

Density and hardness of materials used, and feed size was varied in the order of 10y3 to
Material Density Moh’s Vicker’s 10y1 as a ratio of ball diameter. Feed sizes and ball
ŽkgPmy3 . hardness hardness
diameters used are shown in Tables 2–4. Mass of feed
ŽkgfPmmy2 .
materials and balls were set at 200 g and 2 kg, respec-
Silica glass 2150 6.5 465
tively, in consideration of the optimum grinding conditions
Limestone 2700 4 115
Gypsum 2300 2 36–70 of silica glass reported in the previous paper w11x. The mill
was rotated at 108 rpm corresponding to about 90% of the
critical speed. Batch grinding tests were carried out for
three spans of 1, 3 and 5 min with silica glass and
of the materials are shown in Table 1. Silica glass is nearly limestone; the spans of 1, 2 and 4 min with gypsum for
perfect elastic material, but limestone and gypsum are not each set of conditions. After ground materials were sieved
elastic ones. In order to obtain the experimental materials, with a Ro-Tap shaker, the mass of unground feed particles
large fragments of silica glass and massive limestone and were measured and put back into the mill, and the grinding
gypsum were crushed with a jaw crusher and classified by was continued again for the prescribed time.
sieving using a rotational and tapping shaker ŽRo-Tap
shaker.. The ratio of aperture size of adjacent screens used
was 1.19. 3. Results and discussion
2.2. Mill and experimental method
3.1. Measurement of grinding rate constant
The mill used in this experiment is made of alumina
with an inside diameter of 144 mm and an inner volume of Figs. 1–3 show examples of the relationship between
2100 cm3, and the grinding ball is also made of alumina. the mass fraction of feed size and grinding time using balls

Table 2
Experimental conditions in silica glass
Ball diameter, 3 5 10 20 30
d B Žmm.
Feed size, 1.68 ; 1.41– 2.38 ; 2.0– 3.36 ; 2.83– 4.0 ; 3.36– 8.0 ; 6.7–
x f Žmm. 0.105 ; 0.088 0.149 ; 0.105 0.149 ; 0.125 0.149 ; 0.125 0.105 ; 0.088
Number of 12 11 11 12 19
feed size
x frd B 0.515–0.032 0.438–0.023 0.31–0.0137 0.184–0.0069 0.245–0.0032

Table 3
Experimental conditions in limestone
Ball diameter, 3 5 10 20 30
d B Žmm.
Feed size, 1.0 ; 0.85– 2.0 ; 1.7– 1.4 ; 1.18– 3.36 ; 2.8– 3.36 ; 2.8–
x f Žmm. 0.075 ; 0.038 0.075 ; 0.038 0.075 ; 0.038 0.075 ; 0.038 0.075 ; 0.038
Number of 11 12 13 17 18
feed size
x frd B 0.31–0.019 0.37–0.011 0.13–0.0057 0.154–0.0028 0.103–0.0019

Table 4
Experimental conditions in gypsum
Ball diameter, 3 5 10 20 30
d B Žmm.
Feed size, 0.85 ; 0.71– 1.7 ; 1.4– 1.7 ; 1.4– 3.36 ; 2.8– 3.36 ; 2.8–
x f Žmm. 0.075 ; 0.038 0.075 ; 0.038 0.075 ; 0.038 0.075 ; 0.038 0.075 ; 0.038
Number of 10 14 13 17 17
feed size
x frd B 0.26–0.019 0.31–0.011 0.155–0.0057 0.154–0.0028 0.103–0.0019
 N. Kotake et al.r Powder Technology 122 (2002) 101–108
Fig. 1. Relationship between mass fraction of feed size and grinding time
Ž d B s 20 mm, Silica glass..
with a diameter of 20 mm and the materials of silica glass,
limestone and gypsum, respectively. They exhibit almost
linear relationships when plotted on semi-log graph paper,
and it is possible to calculate the grinding rate constant K 1
of Eq. Ž3.. These figures indicate that the value of K 1 is
dependent on the feed size.
Fig. 2. Relationship between mass fraction of feed size and grinding time
Ž d B s 20 mm, Limestone..
103
Fig. 3. Relationship between mass fraction of feed size and grinding time
Ž d B s 20 mm, Gypsum..
3.2. Relationship between grinding rate constant and feed
size
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between the grinding rate
constant K 1 and the feed size x f of silica glass, which was
plotted on the log–log scale with ball diameter as a
parameter. The feed size was the arithmetic mean of
opening of sieves used to prepare the feed particles. K 1
increases as feed size increases, and the tendency is inde-
pendent of the ball diameter. There is an optimum feed
Fig. 4. Variation of grinding rate constant with feed size ŽSilica glass..
104 N. Kotake et al.r Powder Technology 122 (2002) 101–108

Fig. 5. Variation of grinding rate constant with feed size ŽLimestone..

Fig. 7. Variation of dimensionless grinding rate constant with dimension-
less feed size ŽSilica glass..
size at which K 1 takes a maximum. The optimum feed
size increases with increasing the ball diameter. Figs. 5 when QŽ z . s 0.5, and ln s denotes the standard deviation
and 6 show the relationship between K 1 and x f of lime- of QŽ z ..
stone and gypsum, respectively. The dependency of the K 1 According to previous papers w6,9x, this formula can
values on the feed size are similar to that of silica glass. explain experimental values in the fine particle size range,
Austin et al. w6x and Zhao and Jimbo w9x used the but it cannot in the coarse particle size range. Snow w12x
following equation to express the change of K 1 Žs S1 . quoted the data of Kelsall et al. w5x and showed that the
with the feed size. relationship between S1 and feed size was empirically
described by Eq. Ž5..
ln Ž x frm .
S1 s ax fa Q Ž z . s ax fa Q
ž ln s / . Ž 4. S1
Sm
s
xf
a

ž / ž /
xm
exp y
xf
xm
. Ž 5.
where a and a are constants. QŽ z . is the Gaussian
distribution function, x f and z being the feed size and a where x m is the feed size at which S1 is the maximum,
dimensionless parameter, respectively. m is the feed size i.e., Sm .

Fig. 8. Variation of dimensionless grinding rate constant with dimension-

Fig. 6. Variation of grinding rate constant with feed size ŽGypsum.. less feed size ŽLimestone..
 N. Kotake et al.r Powder Technology 122 (2002) 101–108 105

From Figs. 4–6, one can see that the dependency of the
K 1 on the feed size takes a similar pattern irrespective of
the ball diameter for silica glass, limestone and gypsum.
Figs. 7–9 show the results obtained when normalizing K 1
and x f by K m and x m , respectively. K m is the maximum
value of K 1. x m is the optimum feed size which maxi-
mizes the grinding rate constant K 1. As one can see from
Figs. 4–6, it is difficult to specify x m at which K 1 has a
maximum. Then, as shown by the solid marks in these
figures, we chose feed size averages that are within 10% of
the maximum values of K 1 , and used them as the average
values of K m . From Figs. 7–9, it is evident that the
relationship between the dimensionless grinding constant
K 1rK m and the dimensionless feed size x frx m lies fairly
well along a convex curve, irrespective of the ball diame-
ter. A possible explanation is that in the first stage of
grinding, the grinding rate itself depends on the ball diame-
ter and the diameter hardly affect the grinding mechanism.

3.3. ReÕision and application of Snow’s equation Fig. 10. Variation of dimensionless grinding rate constant with dimen-
sionless feed size.
In a previous paper w13x, it was shown that the variation
of the dimensionless grinding rate constant with feed size limestone and gypsum. The relationships are similar to
of silica glass could be approximately expressed by Eq. Ž5. each other. This suggests that the basis of the size reduc-
proposed by Snow, but the correspondence between the tion in a ball mill results from the interactions between
calculation and experimental results was not perfect. Thus, grinding balls and particles, and that the essence of this
we revised the exponential function term in Snow’s equa- mechanism does not change even if feed materials are
tion ŽEq. Ž5.. and obtained: changed. Eq. Ž6. can explain the experimental results well,
K1 xf
a
xf y xm and we obtained the constants a s 1.05 and c s 0.87 from
Km
s ž / ž
xm
exp yc
xm / . Ž 6. the fitted curve.

Fig. 10 shows the relationship between the dimension- 3.4. Grinding rate constant of materials used
less grinding rate constant and the feed size of silica glass,
Fig. 11 shows the relationship between the optimum
feed size and the ball diameter for silica glass, limestone

Fig. 9. Variation of dimensionless grinding rate constant with dimension-

less feed size ŽGypsum.. Fig. 11. Correlation of optimum feed size with ball diameter.
106 N. Kotake et al.r Powder Technology 122 (2002) 101–108

Fig. 12. Correlation of maximum value of grinding rate constant with ball Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental value and those calculated by Eq.
diameter. Ž13. ŽSilica glass..

and gypsum. The relationship is similar to that described

by Zhao and Jimbo w9x for grinding with ball media mills. The values for constants C1 , C2 , m, n and a in Eq.
In these experiments, we obtained Eqs. Ž7. – Ž9. for silica Ž13. were summarized in Table 5. In order to confirm that
glass, limestone and gypsum, respectively. there are no definite correlations between these constant
values and the properties of materials as shown in Table 1,
x m s 0.13d B0.84 Ž silica glass. . Ž 7. it will be necessary in the future to investigate more kinds
x m s 0.18 d B0.51 Ž limestone. . Ž 8. of feed materials.
On the other hand, the theoretical formula for the
x m s 0.17d B0.60 Ž gypsum. . Ž 9. ultra-fine grinding rate with ball media mills is derived by
Fig. 12 shows the relationship between the maximum Tanaka w14x. The formula is similar to Eq. Ž13., but the
value of the grinding rate constant and the ball diameter of sign of m is minus. A reason of this difference may arise
the three materials. from that the effective breakage in a ball mill is performed
The following Eqs. Ž10. – Ž12. were obtained for solid
lines shown in Fig. 12.
K m s 0.01d B1.38 Ž silica glass. . Ž 10 .
K m s 0.009 d B1.43 , d B O 20 mm Ž limestone. . Ž 11 .
K m s 0.026 d B1.06 , d B O 20 mm Ž gypsum. . Ž 12 .
Substituting Eqs. Ž7. and Ž10., Eqs. Ž8. and Ž11., and Eqs.
Ž9. and Ž12. into Eq. Ž6., the grinding rate constant for
each material can be expressed by the feed size and ball
diameter:
xf
K 1 s C1 d Bm x fa exp yC2
ž / . Ž 13 .
d Bn
where C1 , C2 , m and n are constants, respectively.

Table 5
Values of constants in Eq. Ž13.
Material C1 C2 m n a
Silica glass 0.24 6.7 0.39 0.84 1.05
Limestone 0.14 4.6 0.86 0.49 1.05
Gypsum 0.40 5.1 0.44 0.60 1.05 Fig. 14. Comparison of experimental value and those calculated by Eq.
Ž13. ŽLimestone..
 N. Kotake et al.r Powder Technology 122 (2002) 101–108 107

independent of ball diameters and kinds of materials.

We were able to explain experimental results by
developing the equation proposed by Snow.
2. We obtained equations for the relationships between
the optimum feed size and ball diameter, and be-
tween the maximum grinding rate constant and ball
diameter for the materials used.
3. Developing Snow’s equation and taking the above
Ž2. into account, we obtained empirical equations for
the grinding rate constant of grinding solid materials
with a ball mill.

Nomenclature
a constant in Eq. Ž4. Žminya .
bi, j fraction of broken particles of size j which falls
into the particle size i Ž – .
c constant in Eq. Ž6. Ž – .
C1 constant in Eq. Ž13.
Fig. 15. Comparison of experimental values and those calculated by Eq. C2 constant in Eq. Ž13.
Ž13. ŽGypsum.. dB ball diameter Žmm.
K1 grinding rate constant of feed size reduction Žs S1 .
Žminy1 .
by the action of the impact force of a ball to particles for K 1,calc. calculation value of K 1 Žminy1 .
the initial grinding stage Žas this experiment., and is K 1,exptl. experimental value of K 1 Žminy1 .
dependent on the collision frequency of balls and particles Km maximum value of K 1 Žs Sm . Žminy1 .
for the long time grinding Žas fine and ultra-fine grinding m constant in Eq. Ž13.
in Tanaka’s paper w14x.. The grinding rate equation for ball m1Ž t . mass fraction of maximum particle size at time t
media mills is roughly expressed by the form of Eq. Ž13. Ž–.
regardless of the initial grinding stage and the long time m i Ž t . mass fraction of particle component i at time t
grinding. Ž–.
The experimental values and the calculated results ob- m j Ž t . mass fraction of particle component j at time t
tained by Eq. Ž13. were compared in Figs. 13–15. It is Ž–.
desirable to run a mill with feed materials below the n constant in Eq. Ž13.
optimum feed size in the actual operation. In Figs. 13–15, QŽ z . Gaussian distribution function Ž – .
circles show the rate constant for particle sizes smaller R mass fraction of feed size Žs m1Ž t .. Ž – .
than the optimum feed size, and triangles show those S1 selection function of maximum particle size
larger than the optimum feed size. It can be seen that there Žminy1 .
is a little divergence between the experimental and calcu- Si selection function of particle component i Žminy1 .
lated values when the feed size is larger than the optimum Sj selection function of particle component j Žminy1 .
value in case of limestone, but Eq. Ž13. mostly satisfies the Sm maximum value of S1 Žminy1 .
experimental values in a wide range of feed size, and we t grinding time Žmin.
can conclude that Eq. Ž13. is useful especially when xf feed size Žmm.
evaluating the grinding rate in the actual operation. xm feed size for which the rate constant K 1 is maxi-
mum at a given ball diameter Žmm.
z dimensionless parameter Žs lnŽ x frm .rln s . Ž – .
4. Conclusion a constant in Eqs. Ž4. – Ž6., Eq. Ž13.
m feed size at QŽ z . s 0.5 Žmm.
In this paper, we carried out batch grinding tests of ln s standard deviation of the probability function Ž – .
silica glass, limestone and gypsum with a ball mill and
investigated the effects of feed size and ball diameter on
the grinding rate constant Žselection function.. The results
are summarized as follows; References

1. Variation of the dimensionless grinding rate constant w1x B. Epstein, Logarithmic-normal distribution in breakage of solids,
with feed size was roughly analogous, and it was Ind. Eng. Chem. 40 Ž1948. 2289–2291.
108 N. Kotake et al.r Powder Technology 122 (2002) 101–108
w2x J.A. Herbst, D.W. Fuerstenau, The zero-order production of fine
sizes in comminution and its implications in simulation, Trans.
AIME 241 Ž1968. 538–549.
w3x A.M. Gaudin, T.P. Meloy, Model and a comminution distribution
equation for repeated fracture, Trans. AIME 223 Ž1962. 43–50.
w4x K.J. Reid, A solution to the batch grinding equation, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 20 Ž1965. 953–963.
w5x D.F. Kelsall, K.J. Reid, C.J. Restarick, Continuous grinding in a
small wet ball mill: Part I. A study of the influence of ball diameter,
Powder Technol. 1 Ž1968. 291–300.
w6x L.G. Austin, K. Shoji, P.T. Lukie, The effect of ball size on mill
performance, Powder Technol. 14 Ž1976. 71–79.
w7x Y. Kanda, H. Gunji, H. Takeuchi, K. Sasaki, Rate constants of wet
and dry ball mill grinding, J. Soc. Mater. Sci., Jpn. 27 Ž1978.
663–666.
w8x Y. Kuwahara, Doctoral Thesis, Tohoku University Ž1985. p. 67.
w9x Q.Q. Zhao, G. Jimbo, The effect of grinding media on the breakage
rate of planetary mill, J. Soc. Powder Technol., Jpn. 25 Ž1988.
603–608.
w10x S. Nomura, K. Hosoda, T. Tanaka, An analysis of the selection
function for mills using balls as grinding media, Powder Technol. 68
Ž1991. 1–12.
w11x N. Kotake, K. Shimodaira, H. Nishihara, Y. Abe, Y. Kanda, Produc-
tion of submicron particles by ball milling and its evaluation, J. Soc.
Mater. Sci., Jpn. 42 Ž1993. 1265–1270.
w12x R.H. Snow, Gringing mill simulation and scale-up of ball mills.
Proc. 1st Int. Cof. Particle Technol. IITRI, Chicago, 1973, p. 28.
w13x Y. Kanda, K. Shimodaira, N. Kotake, Y. Abe, An experimental
study on the grinding rate constant of a ball mill—the effects of feed
size and ball diameter, J. Soc. Powder Technol., Jpn. 35 Ž1998.
12–17.
w14x T. Tanaka, Determining the optimum diameter of grinding media
used for ultrafine grinding mechanisms, J. Soc. Powder Technol.,
Jpn. 31 Ž1994. 25–31.