Minerals Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 5/6, pp. 599-609, 1991 0892-6875/91 $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain © 1991 Pergamon Press pie

EFFECTS OF MILL FEED SIZE ON PRODUCT FINENESS

AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN COARSE GRINDING

YIGEN ZENG and E. FORSSBERG

Division of Mineral Processing, Lule~t University of Technology, S-951 87 Lule~t, Sweden

(Received 30 August 1990; revision accepted 14 November 1990)

ABSTRACT

The effects of some grinding parameters on the product fineness and the
energy consumption under dry batchwise coarse grinding conditions are studied
on rod and ball mills. A parabolic-sine equation is suitable to describe the
particle size distribution. The constants in the equation are related to the
grinding parameters, which permits a mathematical analysis. A relation between
energy consumption and grinding parameters is also established, and the
grinding effects in the rod and ball mills are compared.

Keywords
Rod grinding;, ball grinding; energy consumption; parabolic-sine equation

INTRODUCTION

For a conventional comminution flowsheet, consisting of crushing and grinding stages,

coarse grinding generally means that the top feed size to the mill is about 5-20 ram. This
size range is usually obtained by fine crushing, since crushing usually consumes less energy
than grinding to produce these size ranges. Coarse grinding plays an important role in
comminution as an intermediate stage between fine crushing and fine grinding, because it
is a key step both for liberation of minerals and energy consumption. If satisfactory
liberation is achieved in this process and the liberated particles are immediately separated
from the coarse grinding product, the risk of overgrinding valuable minerals in a subsequent
fine grinding stage would then be minimized.

The top size of raw material and its effect on energy consumption in rod milling has been
investigated on a commercial scale mill [ 1]. Considerable energy saving in the comminution
process was achieved by simply reducing the feed size to the mill. In an ordinary
comminution plant, coarse grinding is usually performed by either a ball or a rod mill. In
this paper, the effects of mill feed size and batch grinding time on product fineness, as well
as the energy consumption, are studied in both a rod and a ball mill under dry coarse
grinding conditions. The grinding results are then compared.

MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT AND TEST METHOD

This study was performed on a fine crushed quartzite, which consisted of about 90% quartz,
5.4% galena and 1.6% sphalerite, with barite, fluorite etc. making up the remainder. After
crushing to -40 mm and screening of excessive fines (-2 mm), the ore was crushed to four
different top sizes from 16 to 3.35 mm. The density of the ore was 2.80 t/m 3. Its bulk
density was about 1.7-1.8 t/m 3 in the given size ranges. The moisture content was < 1%.

u.E. 4-s/6-E 599

600 YIGEN ZENG and E. FORSSBERG

A 600x900 mm rotary mill supported by rubber rollers was used to perform the grinding
tests. It was driven, via a gearbox and belt, by an electrical motor with 4 kW rated power.
Twenty "wave-shape" lifters of about 8 mm in height were evenly spaced around the inside
of the mill shell. To determine the net energy consumption, the torque input to the mill was
measured at the outgoing axle of the gearbox and transmitted to a processor. The torque was
continuously recorded by a plotter during each test. As the speed (rpm) was measured by
a tachometer, the energy consumption could be evaluated for a set of period of time. The
mill was operated at 68-73% of critical speed.

The largest rod diameter was calculated by the equation given by Rowland [2] and then
adjusted to the rod sizes available, i.e., diameters of 75, 65, 55 and 55 mm for top mill feed
size 16, 10, 7 and 3.35 mm respectively. At 25% of the charge volume, three gradations of
rod charges were composed with a formula derived by Bond [3]. To completely fill the void
space between rods with quartzite, about 26-28 kg of the mass was used for one batch rod
grinding test.

The solid density of the balls was 7.75 t/m 3 and the bulk density was about 4.646 t/m 3 [2].
At 25% of the charge volume, the ball charge was 278 kg and consisted of 26 (103 mm
diameter) and 73 (82 mm diameter) balls, corresponding to 40 and 60% in weight
respectively. To fill the void space between the balls, the mass needed for one batch ball
grinding test was about 41-44 kg.

The mill was just charged with grinding media, then the ore sample was evenly spread over
the surface of grinding media. The mill was then run for a set period of time. When the test
was completed, the mill was opened and the grinding media were gently removed and the
grinding product was carefully collected and sampled by means of rotary and riffle dividers,
taking 0.5-2.0 kg of the mass (max. 3% of total mass) for particle size analysis. If necessary,
the remainder was then weighed and returned to the mill for further grinding, the missing
weight of the material being adjusted for evaluation of the energy consumption. Particle
size analysis was performed by wet-and-dry sieving, removing -0.075 mm fine particles
by wet sieving on a Retsch vibrator, then drying the oversize material and sieving for 20
minutes on a laboratory "Ro-tap" screen shaker.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Particle Size Distribution

The idea of finding an equation which is generally valid for the description of particle size
distribution of comminution products has attracted the interest of many researchers. The
well-known 2-parameter equations proposed by Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann and Rosin-
Rammler are widely used. Other methods such as those recommended by Svensson [4] and
Peleg [5], which are based on mathematical derivation, have been used in describing particle
size distribution. These methods, however, are not satisfactory in the case of crushing and
coarse grinding.

By choosing certain graphic scales, many workers tried to obtain straight lines by plotting
cumulative percent against particle size. Straight line plots present simple pictures of general
relationships, while choosing a suitable formula to present size data gives the advantages of
being highly accurate, reliable and easy to use, especially in process control. A parabolic-
sine equation (the P-S equation), easily displayed on log-log graph paper, is given by

log Y = a + b*log X + c*(log X) 2 + d'sin(log X) (1)

where Y is the cumulative percent undersize (%) at an arbitrary particle size X (mm), and
a, b, c and d are corresponding constants. Using multiple regression to fit the sizing data
on the P-S equation for the rod and the ball mill tests, the results are shown in Tables 1
and 2. The squared correlation coefficients (R 2 ) between the P-S equation fitting and the
experimental particle size data are >99.78%. All the terms in the P-S equation are significant
 Effectsof mill feed size in coarse grinding 6Ol

at 95% confidence level. Figures 1 and 2 compare the results from the particle size
distributions predicted by the P-S equation (curves) and the data from screen analysis
(points) for the rod and the ball mills respectively. It can be seen that the equation describes
the particle size distributions very well, since the differences between predictions and
observations are very small in the given size ranges.

TABLE 1 Fit results by the P-S equation for the rod mill

tlme Constants in the P-S equation *

(mln) a b c d Rz %

mill feed size = 11.37 mm

1 1.7089 0.3287 -0.1126 0.1471 99.93
2 1.9287 - 0 . 9 4 5 0 -0.4599 1.2787 99.94
4 1.9898 - 3 . 1 6 5 8 -1.0639 3.0618 99.89
6 1.9410 - 4 . 8 4 6 4 -1.5484 4.2994 99.81
m111 feed s i z e = 7.70 mm
1 1.7839 0.1261 -0.1763 0.3287 99.93
2 1.9432 -1.1127 -0.4983 1.4296 99.93
4 1.9897 -3.4511 -1.1373 3.3084 99.88
6 1.9297 - 5 . 0 8 6 2 -1.6341 4.4586 99.78
m i l l feed s i z e = 5.11 mm
1 1.8499 - 0 . 3 1 5 0 -0.3069 0.7764 99.94
2 1.9700 - 1 . 6 2 8 2 -0.6479 1.8916 99.93
4 1.9846 -4.0081 -1.3058 3.7542 99.87
6 1.9037 -5.7855 -1.8501 4.9949 99.78
mill feed size = 1.89 mm
1 1.9591 -1.2134 -0.5447 1.4778 99.94
2 1.9962 - 2 . 4 5 8 6 -0.8808 2.5106 99.93
4 1.9923 - 2 . 9 8 0 9 -1.0834 2.7600 99.82

* log(Y) = a + b*log(X) + c*(log X) 2 + d ' s i n ( l o g X)

Relations between Grinding Parameters and Product Fineness

It is known that grinding time plays a major role in particle size distribution of ground
product, both in rod and ball mill grinding. The effect of grinding time dominates strongly
during the first minute, but decreases rapidly over longer grinding periods [6]. The coarser
the feed size to the mill, the larger the reduction ratio in the first minute, especially in the
rod mill. Thus, after 8 min ball grinding or 2-4 minutes rod grinding, the effect of
prolonging the batch grinding period on the product fineness is rather small. Stepwise
regression of the constants of the P-S equation in Table 1 for rod grinding (indicated by
subscript r) upon the grinding time (t-min) and 80% passing size of the mill feed (l=g0-
ram), at 95% confidence level yields eqs (2-5):

a r = 1.9895 - 0.0467"Fso + 6.296x10-3 *t*Fso (2)

b r -- 1.1433 - 0.2348"t - 2.3948/F80 (3)

c r = 0.0618 - 0.0633"t - 0.6105/Fa0 (4)

d r = -0.5990 + 0.1896"t + 2.0977/F80 (5)
602 YIGEN ZENG and E. FORSSBERG

TABLE 2 Fit results by the P - S equation for the ball mill

time Constants In the P-S equation *

(mln) a b c d R2 Z

ml]] feed s i z e = 11.1 mm

I 1.4986 0.7351 -0.0375 -0.3157 99.91
2 1.6249 0.4720 -0.1126 -0.0353 99.93
4 1.8408 0.2173 -0.2033 0.1407 99.81
8 1.9798 -1.0597 -0.5223 1.2250 99.92
ml]] feed s i z e = 7.7 mm
1 1.6092 0.6067 -0.0586 -0.1763 99.93
2 1.7485 0.2969 -0.1559 0.1297 99.95
4 1.8930 -0.1038 -0.2742 0.4580 99.90
8 1.9891 -1.1069 -0.5372 1.2515 99.91
ml]] feed s l z e = 4.3 mm
I 1.7586 0.3624 -0.1528 0.0616 99.95
2 1.8401 0.1259 -0.2182 0.2697 99.93
4 1.9392 -0.5682 -0.3936 0.8636 99.92
8 1.9981 -1.2138 -0.5666 1.3263 99.88
ml]] feed s i z e = 2.06 mm
1 1.8868 -0.3549 -0.3146 0.7211 99.92
2 1.9266 -0.5108 -0.3744 0.8368 99.93
4 1.9762 -0.8122 -0.4479 1.0438 99.88
8 2.0000 -1.8680 -0.7272 1.8630 99.91

* log(Y) = a + b'log(X) + c * ( l o g X) 2 + d'sin(log X)

L
100

10
~ v

IIII11 I I I lllll] I I I IIII

0
*r,,,'
100

10 Z

,, ,,,,I , i i ) )tKll I I I ! IIII

0.1 I 10 0.1 I 10
Particle size (mm)
Fig.l Particle size distributions of rod mill products
o m feed; • o + v m 1,2,4 and 6 minutes in observation;
corresponding equation fitting

Equations (2-5) account for 90.5, 97.9, 98.1 and 96.7% of the variances for constants a, b,
c and d in Table 1 respectively. Similarly, stepwise regression of the constants in Table 2
for ball grinding (indicated by subscript b) upon the relevant grinding parameters under the
same confidence level yields:
 Effects o f mill feed size in coarse g r i n d i n g 603

a b = 1.8717 + 0.1211"t - 0.02153"t 2 - 0.02695"F80 + 0.006475*t'F80 (6)

b b = -0.09988 - 1.1023"t + 0.1125"F80 (7)

c b = -0.2432 - 0.2847"t + 0.0341'F80 (8)

d b = 0.6181 + 0.7925"t - 0.09035"F80 (9)

Equations (6-9) account for 87.0, 95.7, 96.7 and 94.1% of the variance of the constants a,
b, c and d in Table 2 respectively. Closer inspection of the relationships in eqs (2-9) reveals
the fact that constants b, c and d with both mills are linearly related to the grinding time,
while the e f f e c t of mill feed size varies. In rod grinding, the constants are inversely
proportional to the mill feed size. In ball grinding however, they are directly proportional
to this parameter. The effect on the constant a is complicated since the grinding products
will all be <1 mm after a certain grinding time. By combination of eq.(l) with eqs (2-5) or
eqs (6-9), the sizing data could be estimated in batchwise rod or ball grinding under given
conditions.

100
N
'5
I,,,,,,,

10
•4 IIIIIJ I ! I IIIIIJ I I I Illll

100

S
,r,i.

- ~ . ~5_0
,i,l D ' o

10 , ,,,,,,,I , ,,0,,,,, 7.
-IIIIllJ I I I IIIIll I I I lltl

0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
Particle s i z e (nun)
Fig.2 Particle size distributions of ball mill products
o m feed; • o + v m 1,2,4 and 8 minutes in observation;
- - corresponding equation fitting

Comparison of Product Fineness between Rod and Ball Mill

To make a comparison between the rod and the ball mills, a ratio of cumulative percent
below a certain size in the ground products from rod and ball grinding (using the ratio for
short) is defined as R = Yr/Yb, that is, log R = log(Yr) - log(Yb) , where Yr and Yb are the
cumulative percent of products at a given size in the rod and the ball mills respectively.
Firstly, the ratio of the observation data is analyzed. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate the effects
of the feed size and the grinding times on the ratio. Figure 3(A) shows that after two
minutes of grinding, the local maximum points which correspond to a certain product size
appear on the curves. These points are independent of the mill feed size. As the grinding
time reaches four minutes, (Figure 3(B)), no local maximum points appear on the curves.
The ratio decreases with increase in particle size of the mill product. If the grinding time
is maintained constant, the coarser the feed size, the higher the ratio. Figures 4(A) and
4(B) illustrate the effects of the batch grinding time on the ratio, at mill feed size -16 and
-7 mm respectively. The local maximum points decrease when grinding times are prolonged.
The effect of grinding time on the ratio varies with the feed size; the coarser the mill feed
size, the larger the influence of grinding time on the ratio. Hence, in coarse grinding, the
rod mill could produce a finer size product than the ball mill.
604 YIOEN ZENO a n d E. FORSSaEgO

2.0

N
'7~ 1.5 • A
_ 00000 •
o00 o
-- 0
0 -- 0
I lllllJ~i I I illIHI I i ~lilll
~_ 2 . 0
0 -- B 4 rain.
0
•r,- ~

•0OOO0
=1.5-
000000
0 oA

00~

I I I IIIll I lllIllll° I lllilll

1.00.0~ 0.1 1 10
Product fineness (Pg0-mm)
Fig.3 Comparison of the sizing data between the rod and the
ball mill products under 2 and 4 minutes grinding time
o • zx - - 7-0, 10-0 and 16-0 mm mill feed size

.2.0 oOOOo
- A go O

00000
0 ~,~
OA
N1 •5
•r ~
~,Z~ ~ ~ ~ •
0
t,J
0
- 16-Omm 0
0
1.o L..mzaL JaauLLLtm
~_ 1.8
0 - B 7-Omm
0

-- 0 0 0 0 0 0
10~ e
~" 1.3
-- Z~ ~ 0 • I~-

0.01 0.1 1 10
Product fineness (P80-mm)
Fig.4 Comparison of the sizing data between the rod and the
ball mill products under mill feed size of 16-0 and 7-0 mm
o • z~ - - 1, 2 and 4 minutes grinding time
 Effects of mill feed size in coarse grinding 605

To compare the product fineness between the rod and the ball mills quantitatively, the mill
type is described by an index, i.e., M i ffi 0 and 1 for the rod and ball mills respectively.
Stepwise regression of the constants in Tables 1 and 2, together with the grinding time, the
mill feed size and the mill type index, yields eqs (10-13):

a - 1.9908 - 0.02624"Fao + 0.005164*t*Fao - 0.01636"Fao *M i (lO)

b = -0.07557 - 1.0072"t + 0.1061*Fao + 0.7706*t*M i (ll)

c = -0.2463 - 0.2764"t ÷ 0.02970"Fa0 + 0.2093*t*M i (12)

d = 0.5243 + 0.8141"t - 0.0898'F80 - 0.6362*t*M i (13)

Equations (10-13) account for 77.0, 97.3, 97.6 and 96.4% of the variance for a, b, c and d
respectively. All the terms in these equations are full of significance at 95% confidence
level. The cumulative percent will be 100% passing 1 mm after 2 and 8 minutes in rod and
ball grinding respectively, (Figures I and 2), so that the regression of constant a on the
grinding parameters did not therefore have such good correlation as was obtained for other
constants. Equation (2) and eq.(6) do not share a similar equation form.

The constants b, c and d, which are the shape factors for the sizing curves, are all closely
related to the grinding parameters. Moreover, it is found that the variation for all constants
with these parameters is similar. According to the P-S equation, the higher the constants,
the finer the product within the prediction range (0.053-20 mm). Substituting eqs (10-13)
into eq.(1), the cumulative percentage undersize in rod (log Yr) and ball grinding (log Yb)
could be derived as functions of the grinding parameters. Subtracting log(Yr) from log(Y 0
and rearranging yields

log R -- l o g ( Y r / Y b ) = log,(Yr) - log!Yb)

0.01636"F80 + t [-0.7706 log X - 0.2093"(1og X) 2 + 0.6362*sin(log X)] (14)

Therefore, the coarser the feed size, the larger the ratio under a certain grinding time. The
e f f e c t of grinding time on the ratio is dependent on the product size, (Figure 4).

Energy Consumption Estimation

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the observed energy consumption on total mass as a function of
the mill feed size for the rod and ball mills respectively. Comparison of these two figures
indicates that the effect of mill feed size on the energy consumption is larger in the rod mill
than in the ball mill. With a stepwise variable selection method at 95% confidence level, the
energy consumption may be related to the grinding time (t-min) and the mill feed size (Fs0
-mm):

E r = 1.0761"t - F80 *(0.02684 - 0.04468"t) (15)

E b = t*(0.7150 + 0.006301"t + 0.002321"F80 ) (16)

where E r and E b are the energy consumption on total mass in the rod and ball mills
respectively. Equations (15,16) account for 99% of the variances observed in the energy
consumption. Equation (15) also shows that the energy consumption is mainly dependent on
time. The mill feed size has a small effect and affects the energy consumption only together
with the grinding time. The longer the grinding time, the larger the effect of mill feed size
on the energy consumption. Equation (16) shows the relation between energy consumption
and the relevant parameters. However, the effect of grinding time is greater than in the rod
mill, and the effect of mill feed size is small.

Although the rod mill has a higher energy consumption on the total mass product than the
ball mill, it produces a finer product than a ball mill with the same mill feed size and the
same batch grinding period of time. With a stepwise variable selection method at 95%
606 YIGEN ZENO and E. FORSSBERG

confidence level, the relationship between energy consumption, 80% passing size of the
ground product (P8o -mm) and mill feed size could be established:

E r = -2.8240 + 2.3815/P8o + 0.3094"F8o (17)

E b = 2.8038 + 3.0445/P8o - 6.9875/x/F8o (18)

-10
=~ m

o= 6
°~

0
~L

~2
(
r-

"' 0 I 1 i I i I J ill
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mill feed s i z e (F80-mm)
Fig.5 Energy consumption on total mass product in rod grinding
o • • ¢ - - for 1, 2, 4 and 6 min. grinding time

r"

C- 6
O
°m,-

4-
2--
k.

L~
0--
1 t I i I i I i I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mill feed size (F80-mm)
Fig.6 Energy consumption on total mass product in ball grinding
o . • ¢ - - for 1, 2, 4 and 8 min. grinding time
 Effects o f mill feed size in coarse grinding 607

Equations (17,18) account for 98 and 99% of the variances observed in the energy
consumption. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the residuals between the energy consumption
predicted by eqs (17,18) and the observed energy consumption (circles). The residuals are
within 0.7 kWh/t for rod grinding and 0.4 kWh/t for ball grinding. Therefore, these
equations may describe the energy consumption satisfactorily. The energy consumption is
inversely proportional to the product fineness, the effect of the mill feed size varying with
the mill type. Hence, the effects of feed size on energy consumption can be estimated, based
on eqs (17,18) when the product fineness is determined in the rod and the ball mills. If the
mill feed size is reduced from 13 mm to 3 mm by fine crushing, the net energy consumption
will be about 1.38 kWh/t. To achieve the same ground product fineness with those feed
sizes, that is, substituting Fs0 = 13 and 3 mm in turn into eq.(17) and subtracting, the rod
mill may save 3.1 kWh/t. Similarly, using eq.(18) the ball mill will save 2.1 kWh/t.

0.8 - Residuals
0 • -
_- 0 0 1.6

g ~4
__ • 0 0.8
t-
0 • 0
O
_ O~ o •°o 0 ~=
o
- ~ o:
• •
- 0
0.8
-04 -- •ol~

-1.6
i,,,l ,,°I ,, , ] , , , I,, ,I
0 2 4 6 8 10
P r e d i c t e d energy (kWh/t)
Fig.7 Residuals of energy consumption by two ways in rod grinding
o - - empirical equation; • - - the Bond formula

Residuals
O4 o

o
o 0.8
,r--

~02
~r 0.4
~'~ •0 0
..- • •
0
tJ "L, . . . . . . . . . . . .O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .¢. . . . . .
[- . • o o
0
"7,
N o

~-0.2
• o
-O.4

'1 , I• , i i I i i i I t i i 0.8
0 2 4 6 8
Predicted energy(kWh/t)
Fig.8 Residuals of energy consumption by two ways in ball grinding
o - - empirical equation; • - - the Bond formula
608 YIGENZENG and E. FORSSBERG

The Bond formula for estimating energy consumption is used to estimate the total
inefficiency factor of the mills. The energy consumption under laboratory grinding
conditions is shown by the following equation:

E = k*W = k*[Wi*(IOA/P - IOA/F)] (19)

where k is total inefficiency factor, W is the power needed in a Bond mill, Wi is work index
(here W i l l 2 ) , P (/~m) and F (/~m) are 80% passing size in product and feed respectively.
With the aid of a non-linear regression method, eq.(19) is fitted with data from the rod and
ball mills in turn, and the results are k r =1.25 and k b =1.51 for the rod and ball mills
respectively. Hence, in batchwise dry grinding conditions, the rod mill is more efficient
than the ball mill. Considering the inefficiency factor, by reduction of the mill feed size
from 13 to 3 mm, the energy savings are 2.5 and 1.4 for the rod and ball mills respectively.

Figures 7 and 8 indicate the fitting results by the Bond formula (black dots) against the
predicted energy consumption. Since there is only one variable in eq.(19), the residuals
between prediction and observation by the Bond formula are larger than that of the
empirical formula, (eqs (17,18)). Hence, to make further comparison between the rod and
ball mills, the empirical equation fitting method is employed. By stepwise variable selection
at 95% confidence level, the energy consumption is related to the mill feed size, product
fineness and mill type index:

E = 0.5303 + 2.4802/P80 + 0.1661"F80 - 3.4524/v/Fs0 + Mi*(1.6311 - 0.1649"Pa0 ) (20)

Equation (20) accounts for 98% of the variance in the observed energy consumption. Figure
9 shows the energy consumption in the rod and ball mills to achieve the same product
fineness. It can be sent that the rod mill consumes less energy than the ball mill. On the
other hand, substituting M i = 0 and 1 into eq.(20) for the rod and the ball mills respectively
and subtracting yields:

zxE -- E r - E b = - 1.6311 + 0.1649"P8o (21)

Statistically, the rod mill consumes less energy than the ball mill to obtain the same ground
product fineness. It is in coarse grinding that the rod mill is more efficient than the ball
mill.

rod mill
" ~\ --- ball mill
=10
0 ~ ,\\
°r..-
r.,

o5 -

k.
e-
I , I , I , I ,
"' 062 0.4 G6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Product fineness (PSO-mm)
Fig.9 Energy consumption in rod and ball grinding to achieve the same product fineness
 Effects of mill feed size in coarse grinding 609

CONCLUSIONS

Through large laboratory scale grinding investigations, the following conclusions have been
derived:
a. A parabolic-sine equation can satisfactorily describe the particle size distribution of
products from rod and ball mill grinding. The equation fitted by multiple regression
method accounts for >99.7% of the variance observed in particle size analysis.

b. In both rod and ball mill grinding, the effect of the mill feed size on the ground
product size varies with the mill type, i.e., the product fineness is more affected by
the mill feed size in rod grinding than in ball grinding.

C. It is in coarse grinding that the rod mill produces finer particles than the ball mill
with equivalent energy consumption. In other words, to achieve the same ground
product fineness, rod grinding consumes less energy than ball grinding.

d. If the mill feed size is reduced from 13 mm to 3 mm, it would be expected that 2.5
kWh/t would be saved by rod grinding and 1.4 kWh/t by ball grinding under similar
operating conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research project is financed by the Swedish Mineral Processing Research Foundation
(MinFo Research Project 20). The authors are gratefully to Dr B. Sk61d for his
encouragement and advice.

REFERENCES

. Wunderlin M., Energy saving with reduced mill feed size, Proceedings of 53rd annual
Minnesota section AIME meeting, 12:1 (Jan. 1980).
. Rowland C.A. & Kjos D.M., Rod and ball mills; Mineral Processing Plant Design,
ed. by Mular & Bhappu, 2nd Edn. 239, SME/AIMMPE, New York, (1980).

3. Bond F.C., Crushing and Grinding calculations. The Canadian Mining and
Metallurgical Bulletin, 466 (July 1954).
. Svensson J., A new formula for particle size distribution of products produced by
comminution. Transaction of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 88 (1955).
. Peleg M., Noemand M.D. & Rosenau J.R., A distribution function for particle
populations having a finite size range and a equation independent of the spread.
Powder Technology, 46, 209-214 (1986).

6. Hukki, R.T., Trans. SME/AIME, 220, 403-408 (1961).