3

The Researcher Who Rummaged through Bond’s

Tool Box

Mike Daniel
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre
The University of Queensland

Abstract
In this paper a new digital energy meter is being evaluated as a means of measuring the
energy required to grind ore in the Bond mill and to test if the results are consistent
with Bond’s original methodology. The specific comminution energy for milling in the
Bond test mill appears to be based on 60 J/rev, which defines the net energy required in
the Bond ball mill to realise the same grinding conditions of a 2.4 meter wet grinding
mill. However, upon close inspection of Bond’s original paper published in 1949, Bond
stated that the net energy input to the laboratory scale ball mill was 93 J/rev which is
comparable to the digital energy meter measurement of 91.4 J/rev. Bond’s empirical
relationship thus suggests that there is a built in scale up factor which accounts for the
differences between dry laboratory milling tests and a full scale (2.4m) wet grinding
mill.

The significance of this is that the new digital energy meter has confirmed that small
electrical energy measurements in motors/mills are possible, and that direct specific
comminution energy is measurable. The paper researches and confirms the above
mentioned energy measurement from several perspectives, including various mill power
models, DEM and Bond back-calculation methods.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

4

1. Introduction
The Bond ball work indices have for many years been used to determine the design
energy required for breakage in full scale ball mills. The measured Bond work index
determined from the locked cycle test and the Bond third theory equation are used
empirically which results in a predicted kilowatt-hour per ton for a specified ore. This
methodology applies only to ball mills treating ores within specified size classes. One
of the main disadvantages of this is that the Bond work index cannot be used for
predicting the energy required for other comminution devices such as the high pressure
grinding rolls (HPGR), as the mode of breakage and the efficiency of the breakage
process in the HPGR are totally different to tumbling mills, particularly ball mills. In
addition the efficiency through which a comminution device consumes energy for the
purpose of rock breakage may also differ. The Bond work index should not be used for
measuring the energy required for comminution in other devices or even blasting which
has sometimes been cited in the literature. As a result of these limitations, a digital
energy meter is being evaluated as a means of measuring the energy required to grind
ore in the Bond mill. Another objective of this work is to use the energy meter to
generate mill energy data to support a measured size-energy relationship for ball mills
that would be comparable with the theoretical equations of Morrell (2004 a) and Bond
(1959, 1961 a, 1961 b). Obtaining accurate mill energy data using the digital energy
meter was made possible through the recent development of super fast computer chip
technologies.

The energy meter methodology followed is to subtract the no-load energy measurement
from the gross energy measurement to determine the net specific comminution energy.
The specific comminution energy can then be calculated on the basis of the total net
Joules or W.s or Wh at steady state, divided by the mass of the new feed. From this
data it is also possible to determine the net energy per revolution of the Bond ball mill,
and the products may then be compared to the energy consumed in other devices to
achieve the same product size or liberated mineral.

2. Energy measurements and definitions

The comminution process itself is defined as the process of reducing the size of ore
particles in order to liberate the valuable mineral component/s. This means that the
mechanisms of mineral liberation during the size reduction process should be
investigated in conjunction with energy usage or energy efficiency. Critical to this issue
is whether the mineral liberation is a function of the rock or particle breaking device or
that of the comminution process (compressive, tensile or shear) or whether it is merely a
function of the target particle grind size and energy input, or a combination of all of
these?

A question that might also be asked is “What was the traditional method of power and
energy measurement before the time of digital energy metering devices?” An example
given by Fletcher (1990), describes a methodology for the determination of specific
energy consumption (kWh/t) and for specific comminution energy (kWh/t) for various
crushing and milling devices.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 5

Fletcher’s definition of the specific comminution energy (kWh/t) is the energy imparted
into the rock. It is calculated by dividing the measured net power draw by the mass of
the rock crushed. The net power draw during crushing is calculated as the difference
between the power draw during the crushing period and the power draw when the
crushing device is running idle (no-load conditions) for the same period.

Fletcher’s definition of specific energy consumption (kWh/t) is the total energy

imparted by the device into the rock. It is calculated by measuring the total units of
energy used during crushing (kWh) which includes the no-load component losses,
divided by the rock mass crushed in tonnes.

For Fletcher to obtain representative power measurements, batches of 250 kg of rock

material were processed. An ammeter was fitted to the crusher motors and the power
draw and energy consumption calculated. Fletcher took phase or line current readings at
30 second intervals and the mean power values were calculated over the test period. A
power factor of 0.8 was assumed in the calculation. This method of power integration is
not accurate, but has been the method most commonly used. The accuracy of power
measurement is further diminished when the device is connected to a three phase
electrical supply. Normally only one phase is measured and is assumed to be balanced
over the other phases. The line current is assumed to equal the phase current. The power
draw is then calculated using the following expression (equation 1), in units of kW.

3 line current. x voltage x power factor

Power Draw = (1)
1000

The new digital energy metering device is capable of measuring both single phase
applications and three phase applications. In three phase applications, the meter
measures each phase independently and totals the energy of each phase. The energy
meter can therefore determine if the motor is balanced. The unit is currently the only
one available that has this function. It also enables further investigations into the related
topic of comminution energy efficiency for various individual devices. Very small
quantities (1- 20 kg) of rock may be crushed or milled, and a measurable differentiation
between the load and no-load conditions is possible.

How is energy efficiency defined? How has specific energy been measured in practice
before the invention of the digital energy meter? In order to answer these questions,
accurate measurements of the energy used in a ball mill are required and a better
understanding of energy and mill efficiency is needed

2.1 The energy efficiency debate

The energy efficiency of a comminution device is difficult to define and quantify as
there is no baseline to benchmark or reference it against. Much of the limited energy-
efficiency research in minerals processing has been aimed towards a better
understanding of how energy is utilised, which in turn has provided new innovative
comminution devices. The use of the most efficient devices is still limited, and in
general the comminution circuit designs have rarely been built or even operated to
minimise energy consumption. Capital cost has been or is the more common driver;
however, this may well change in the near future as sustainability issues become more
dominant.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

6 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

Fuerstenau and Lutch (1999) in their journal paper ‘The effect of ball size on the energy
efficiency of hybrid high-pressure roll mill / ball mill grinding’ attempted to find ways
to reduce energy consumption in comminution where dolomite was ground in a hybrid
grinding system comprising a laboratory-scale high-pressure roll mill and ball mill in
series. The work demonstrated that the energy efficiency of the hybrid system could be
increased by reducing ball size, provided the HPGR product contained sufficient
internal damage to allow for the use of smaller balls. There was an optimum range of
energy partitioning between the high-pressure roll mill and the ball mill in the hybrid
system. The increased efficiency of hybrid grinding was related to the particle damage
imparted by the HPGR, as evidenced by the increased breakage rates of HPGR product
relative to particles that had not been subjected to the HPGR.

Fuerstenau and Abouzeid (2002) later putt forward an argument that “comminution
efficiency” is a technical term that relates some measure of the output from a
comminution machine to the energy input into it. They state that the term has usually
been encompassed in controversial arguments and that the conflict in reporting
comminution efficiencies has arisen from the ill definition of the reference for the
output energy. Surface area and surface energy have been widely used in the assessment
of comminution efficiency, and a review of the energy to produce new surface of quartz
showed that the comminution efficiency ranged from 0.1% to 1.0% for various
comminution methods. This figure is perhaps the same figure quoted by the committee
on comminution and energy efficiency from the National Materials Advisory Board
(1981), that energy efficiencies as low as 1% are typical for tumbling mills. (Fuerstenau
and Abouzeid, 2002) referred to these numbers as being meaningless, mainly due to the
ill definition, and because this suggests that 99% of the energy used during the breakage
process is wasted or used elsewhere. Fuerstenau and Abouzeid in their paper attempted
to clarify the above mentioned 1% debate. They showed that if the energy to produce
new surface by single particle breakage is used as the basis for evaluating efficiency,
then the efficiency of ball milling has a more realistic value of about 15% for the
comminution of quartz. In this scenario they suggested that 85% of the energy is
wasted or used elsewhere.

A second approach taken by (Fuerstenau and Abouzeid, 2002) showed that if the
comminution efficiency is based on comparing the energy to produce some size
distribution parameter of the product from the ball milling with that by single particle
breakage, then the efficiency was likely to be in the range of 25%.

(Schonert, 1988) compared the energy of a ball mill to single particle breakage
mechanisms producing identical products, and concluded that the ball mill process
efficiency was between 10% and 20%. Schönert suggested an alternative definition of
process efficiency, based on the energy consumed in inter-particle crushing (confined
bed breakage) and added that the ball mill energy efficiency relative to an inter-particle
comminution process was 40% to 60% less.

There are numerous references in the literature that have claimed that the ball mill is
less than 1% efficient and have all concluded that much opportunity still exists to
greatly improve or decrease the amount of energy required to comminute ores.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 7

2.2 The new digital electrical energy metering device and energy
calculations
A new portable digital energy meter was recently acquired by the JKMRC for dedicated
measurements of energy consumption in various laboratory scale comminution devices.
The new meter uses a combination of innovative software and hardware design and
common off-the-shelf components to produce a simple to use, accurate power and
energy measuring instrument. It does this by measuring current and voltage
approximately 4000 times per second. These values are processed or integrated
digitally and the power used is updated 3 times every second. The energy meter
compensates for changes in frequency, voltage and current supply.

Power is defined as the rate of energy flow. This relationship is expressed

mathematically in equation 2.

dE
P=
dt (2)

Where

P = power
E = energy.

Conversely, energy is given as the integral of power (equation 3):

E = ∫ Pdt
(3)

The new digital energy meter achieves the integration of the active power signal by
continuously accumulating the active power signal in a 40-bit active energy register.
This discrete time accumulation or summation is equivalent to integration in continuous
time. Equation 4 expresses the relationship:

Lim ⎧ ∞ ⎫
E = ∫ p(t )dt = ⎨∑ p(nT )T ⎬
T → 0 ⎩ n =0 ⎭ (4)

Where

n = the discrete time sample number

T = the sample period.

The discrete time sample period (T) for the accumulation register in the energy meter
electronic chip is 1.1 µs. As well as calculating the energy, this integration removes any
sinusoidal components that may be in the active power signal. This is normally referred
to as the power factor.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

8 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

3. The Bond Test Methodology and Ball Mill Power Models

In Bond’s time, researchers did not have the luxury of modern day computers or the
electronic instruments that are readily available today. Nor did Bond have the ability to
accurately measure the electrical energy consumed in his small laboratory scale
comminution device. Bond however might have acquired this knowledge from the laws
of physics. For this reason Bond “invented” the standard lab-scale locked cycle test and
the empirical equations from which the well known “Work Index (WI)” or more
specifically the “Bond Work Index (BWI)” is determined. The work index for either
rod milling or ball milling is used in his so called “third theory” (equation 5) to
determine the specific comminution energy to grind an ore to a specified size.

Over the years, several hundred Bond ball mill tests have been completed at the
JKMRC. The BWI of these tests on various mineral ores have been determined and
classified into four broad categories, soft, medium, hard and very hard. These data are
displayed and compared with UCS values in Table 1 (Napier-Munn et al., 1996).

Table 1

Property Soft Medium Hard Very Hard

UCS (Mpa) 50-100 100-150 150-250 >250
Bond WI (kWh/t) 7-9 9-14 14-20 >20

The statistical average of more than 1000 other tests completed over several years at AR
MacPherson Consultants in Colerado, USA is given as 14.6 kWh/t as shown in Figure 2
(Mosher and Tague, 2001).

250
Mean = 14.6 kWh/t Mosher
200 and Tague
Frequency

150

100

50

0
5.2 7.4 9.2 11 12.8 14.6 16.4 18.2 20 21.8
BWI (kWh/t)

Figure 2 - Statistical representation of the expected Bond test work indices based on more than
1000 test results. (Mosher and Tague, 2001).

Bond’s so-called “Third theory” equation can be expressed as;

⎛ W 10 ⎞ ⎛ W 10 ⎞
W = ⎜ i ⎟−⎜ i ⎟
⎜ P ⎟ ⎜ F ⎟
⎝ 80 ⎠ ⎝ 80 ⎠ (5)

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 9

Where

W = specific energy
Wi = Bond ball mill work index
P80 = 80% passing size for the product in microns
F80 = 80% passing size for the feed in microns.

The Bond equation (equation 5) is in fact the classical definition of the size – energy
relationship as displayed in Figure 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows that an exponential increase
in energy arises, particularly when the grind size is less than 75 µm. Below the 75 µm
size, ball mills become increasingly less efficient, which has prompted the development
of fine grinding mills such as the Isa mill, verti-mill and stirred mills.

In order to obtain realistic size-energy data for ball mills, Bond essentially “calibrated”
the laboratory test conditions against a full scale wet grinding ball mill with a diameter
of 2.44 m. The “Third Theory” equation is very simplistic and easy to understand and
apply, and it also defines the sought after grind size to energy relationship. Knowing
this it should be questioned why such a theory should hold true, or how accurate it’s
ability to predict required milling energy. In practice this is mainly used to size ball
mills, which are very commonly used devices in comminution circuits, both today and
during the time of Bond 1940-1960.

Ball mill energy consumptions are by comparison to crushing devices extremely high,
and using the Bond method to predict mill performance can sometimes be erratic or
produce erroneous results. This is caused mainly by deviations from the original test
procedure, and secondly because the BWI is being used with the Bond equation outside
of the range in which it was designed to be used. The homogeneity and structure of the
ore could also be responsible for variations as would if the ore itself when tested under
laboratory scale conditions might differ from full scale conditions. Figure 4 highlights
the size range where the Bond equation is most applicable.

200

Bond Wi = 7
180
Bond Wi = 11

Bond Wi = 14
160
Bond Wi = 16
Bond equation comminution energy kWh/t

140 Bond Wi = 19

Bond Wi = 22

120 Bond Wi = 29

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Grind size (micron)

Figure 3 - Full range of particle grind size versus specific comminution energy

JKMRC International Conference 2006

10 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

30

Bond Wi = 7
Bond Wi = 11
Bond Wi = 14
Bond eqn - ball mill comminution energy kWh/t

25
Bond Wi = 16
Bond Wi = 19
Bond Wi = 22
Bond Wi = 29
20

15

10

0
100 1000 10000
Grind size (micron)

Figure 4 - Limited range of particle grind size (10 mm – 100 µm) versus specific comminution
energy in ball mills for which the Bond equation was originally designed.

3.1 The standard Bond grindability test

The standard Bond grindability test is a closed-cycle dry grinding and screening
procedure, which is carried out until a steady state condition is obtained. The test is
described in several papers in the literature (Bond and Maxson, 1938; Magdalinovic,
1989; Yap et al., 1982) and is summarised again in the next paragraph to be consistent.

The Bond ball mill test is used to determine the so-called standard work index, which is
defined as the specific energy consumption (in kWh/t) required to reduce a material
from a notional infinite size to a P80 size of 100 µm. The test involves a series of
consecutive batch grinds in a laboratory mill 30.5 cm by 30.5 cm charged with 285 steel
balls which have a mass of 20,125 g. After each grind the contents which consist of a
standardized 700 cc volume of ore, are screened to remove undersize which is
replenished with an equal mass of new feed to make up the mass that of the original 700
cc volume. The length of time or the number of required mill revolutions for each batch
grind is set or adjusted until the mass of the oversize fraction is consistently 2.5 times
greater than the undersize, or the mass of the undersize equals the mass of the new feed.
Under these conditions the test approximates the performance of a closed circuit
continuous mill with a recycle load of 250 %. In a practical sense the oversize after
each cycle is eventually conditioned and remains essentially constant. At this point
steady state conditions have been achieved.

At steady state, the grinding period cycles are continued until the net grams of sieve
undersize produced per mill revolution reach equilibrium. Then the undersize product
and circulating load are screened, and the average of the last three net grams of final
product size generated per revolution (Gbp) is defined as the ball mill grindability.
(equation 6). The ball mill work index (kWh/t) is then calculated from Equation 6

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 11

(Bond ,1952a; Bond, 1952b; Bond, 1960; Bond, 1961; Bond, 1949; Bond, 1959; Bond,
1961a; Bond, 1961 b).

49 . 1
BWI =
⎛ 10 10 ⎞
P1 0 . 23 x Gbp 0 . 82 x ⎜ − ⎟
⎜ P F 80 ⎟
⎝ 80 ⎠ (6)

To this day the Bond standard grindability test has provided a work index that is widely
used to estimate the energy required for grinding. There are a few instances where the
energy efficiency of grinding mills has been studied, and over the past few decades, the
research has been focused on the test procedure itself. This has resulted in various
refinements of the test procedure to limit any experimental error, and through the
application of various efficiency factors which aim at obtaining a perfect empirical
relationship. The outcomes of these investigations, test procedure, equations etc. are
still used as a tool in the design of comminution circuits (Rowland and Kjos, 1978).

The past decade has seen a trend of having to grind even finer, down to P80’s of 50- 10
microns in some cases to liberate the valuable mineral. Some ores that previously
liberated at 400 - 1000 microns (Meyers et al, 1949) now require to be milled to sub 75
micron. As a result the ball mill is being challenged and replaced by vertical roller mills
and high-pressure grinding rolls for grinding granulated blast furnace slags,
diamondiferous ores and general mineral ores. These new devices are known to be
more energy efficient and, in some circumstances the specific energy consumption is
reported to be half that of a ball mill depending on the fineness of the finished product
(Schonert, 1988; Schwechten and Milburn, 1990).

As the Bond test specifically relates to the energy required to comminute the ore within
a ball mill, it becomes increasingly difficult to compare the benefits that might be
realised should the ore be treated in so called energy saving comminution devices such
as the high pressure grinding rolls (HPGR). This further complicates the energy
efficiency debate. Total circuit energy consumption should be compared when using
other comminution devices. A methodology at a laboratory scale for circuits thus also
needs to be determined, and is part of another research project.

3.2 Mill power and energy consumed per mill revolution

It is well understood that the required mill power is driven largely by the size and load
of the mill. Several excellent power models have been developed in the past by Morrell
(1993) and Hogg and Fuerstenau (1972) to mention a few and these models are
commonly used to facilitate the mill design process. This is to say that given the
required throughput and grindability of the ore, the required power may be predicted.
From the power requirements, the mill load and size are determined (Figure 5).

JKMRC International Conference 2006

12 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

4500
4000 Gross KW
3500 Linear (Gross KW)

Gross Power (kW)

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Ball Mill Mass (Tonnes)

Figure 5 - Direct relationship between ball mill mass and gross power (Morrell, 1993)

The predictive power of these models was applied to the laboratory scale 1 ft. Bond ball
mill so as to compare the energy measurements with the model prediction. The results
are presented later. The specific comminution energy in the Bond ball mill as described
is calculated (assuming drive train losses as negligible) using the Bond equation, the
experimentally determined Bond work index, the feed F80 and product P80. In Bond’s
papers (1961 a and b), he states that the kWh/t as determined by the third law equation
is the specific energy consumption. In the Bond laboratory mill, the equation is used to
determine the specific comminution energy, since small mills such as these have by
comparison to full scale mills, much larger motors and drive systems that are normally
much more inefficient in the use of energy. Estimated drive train losses in practice
usually range between 5-10%. Hence the Bond equation may well have the drive train
losses built into the empirical method. This needs to be taking into consideration when
actual measurements of the Bond laboratory ball mill are made.

Bond (1961 b) stated that the energy per mill revolution was 60 J or 60 Ws, but no
evidence was given to support this nor if it related to balls only in the mill or balls and
ore in the mill. However in Bond’s “Confirmation of the Third Theory” paper of 1959,
Bond again states that the net work input to the grindability tests mill is “about” 60
Ws/rev, but this time evidence of how this figure was determined is referenced to his
original “Standard Grindability Tests Tabulated” paper of 1949. Bond (1949) stated
that “it has been calculated that the ball mill does 52.3 joules of useful work on the ore
per revolution, with 93 joules input to the mill”. Bond (1949) did not specify if the
energy in J/rev was for ore and balls or for balls only, but he did specify the mass of the
ball charge being 285 balls of mass 20125 g which is the same mass and number used in
the test procedure and is consistent with current day practice. Bond (1949) states the
energy input to the mill as 93 joules or Ws/rev, and when combined with the mill
rotating at 70 rpm is equivalent to a energy input or net power draw of 108.5 W or
108.5 Wh per hour. At the JKMRC, the measured mill rotational speed is 71.67
revolutions per minute which equates to a mill power draw of 111.1 W.

However, it would appear that the Bond specific comminution energy for the Bond test
conditions being measured may be determined using the steady state mill revolutions

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 13

multiplied by the approximated 60 J/rev, which converted to Watt hours, and then
divided by the new feed mass in tonnes. Another way of describing this is given by
equation 7 where the specific energy consumption is a function of grindability and is
expressed in units of kWh/t.

W .s
Energy per revolution rev = W .s = 60 = 16.667 (kWh / t )
Wball − mill = =
Grindability G pb G pb 3.6 G pb G pb
rev (7)

In Figure 6, this measure of the specific comminution energy is compared to the specific
comminution energy obtained from the Bond equation for more than 100 Bond ball mill
test results. As may be seen the agreement is very good. From this it would be expected
that the measured Ws per revolution as determined by the new digital energy meter
would be of the order of 60 J/rev or 60 Ws/rev. However the measured value was 91.44
Ws/rev, which is comparable to the Bond (1949) value of 93 Ws/rev as the energy input
specifically relating to the Bond test mill as shown in equation 8 and Figure 7.

W .s
Wbond −ball − mill = rev = W .s = 93 = 25.83 (kWh / t )
G pb G pb 3.6 G pb G pb
rev (8)

From the evidence of the Bond’s original historical data, and from equations 7 and 8, it
is realised that according to Bond, there is a built in scale-up factor of 0.645 between the
Bond ball mill test energy and the 2.4 m mill which Bond used to calibrate his model.
This built in scale-up is possibly the reason for the variations in Bond’s predictability
when designing large mills these days ranging from 5-8 meters in diameter.
30.00

Bond test database

y = 1.0041x
y=x 2
R = 0.9866
Linear (y=x)
25.00 Linear (Bond test database)
Bond energy @ 60 J/rev (kWhr/t)

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Bond Equation kWhr/t

Figure 6 - Relationship between the Bond specific comminution energy and the Bond equation's
specific comminution energy

JKMRC International Conference 2006

14 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

35 35

BWI-final cycle- experimental - eqn 11

BWI - theory @ 100 um closing screen - eqnuation 11
30 30
Theory -Specific comminution energy (kWh/t)
theory BWI @ 212um - eqnation 11
Specific energy - Equation 13

Specific comminution energy (kWh/t)

25 25
Bond work index (BWI)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bond grindability (Gpb) - grams per revolution

Figure 7 - Relationship between the Bond specific comminution energy, BWI and Gbp
(Grindability) – Equation 11

Levin (1989) used the results of 248 Bond tests and the resultant Bond equation energy
to establish a value for the energy per mill revolution. Levin calculated this value, and
determined that it did not remain constant, but varied depending on the ore type. On
average the value was quoted as 198x10-7 kWh/rev which is 71.2 J/rev or 71.2 Ws/rev
or 0.020 Wh/rev. Again this is equivalent to a net power draw of 85.1 W when the mill
is operating at 71.67 rpm. Levin (1989) also stated that the mill power ranged from
77.4 to 94.6 W, which at a glance could seem possible due to possible varied frictional
effects of the ore in the mill, as well as the variation in the mass of the 700 cc of ore due
to density.

However, when Levin’s work is examined more closely, the method of determining the
energy per revolution is based on using Bond’s third theory equation in conjunction
with the expression for grindability, given that the BWI is known or has been measured
using the Bond test. If for whatever reason the Bond equation (equation 5) or the
gindability equation (equation 6) are flawed, then the resultant energy per revolution
calculation will be flawed. Levin combined equations 5 and 6 and proposed a
mathematical term for the calculation of the net energy per mill revolution (B), given by
equation 9 .

0.0049 Gbp0.18
B=
P10.23 (100 − U ) (9)

Where
Gbp = net grams of undersize material produced per revolution of the
Bond grindability test mill.
P = product size (closing screen)
U = percentage undersize in the feed.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 15

130

120

110

Energy per revolution (W.s/rev)

100

5
90
10
15
20
80
25

70

60

50

40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Net grams of undersize material produced per mill revolution

Figure 8a - Variation in mill energy per revolution as determined by Levin where the percent
product in the feed is varied from 5% -25%, and the closing size is fixed at 106 µm.
120

110

100
Energy per revolution (W.s/rev)

90
75
106
80 150
212
300
70

60

50

40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Net grams of undersize material produced per mill revolution

Figure 8b - Variation in mill energy per revolution as determined by Levin where the closing size is
varied from 75 µm to 300 µm, assuming 10 % of the product in the feed

By Levin’s method or equation 9 (Figures 8 a and 8 b), it is implied that the mill energy
varies according to the closing screen size, the ore grindability and the percent of fines
less than the closing size in the new feed. The variation in calculated mill energy per
revolution ranges from 50 to 110 Ws/rev. From a practical point of view this is
nonsense and the Levin method should be dismissed. If the mill energy was to vary,
then the variation would more likely be attributable to the frictional characteristics or
stickiness of the ore when milled. These frictional interactions between the ore and the
balls and the mill liner could change the lift angle, and hence the energy input required
to rotate the mill. In addition to this mill energy variations could be attributed to a
slight mass increase or decrease in the average load when materials of different
densities are used. The Bond mill standard uses 700 cc of ore in the charge, and this
could range from 900 g to 2300 g over and above the ball charge mass of 20,125 g.
This effect on power can be shown to be sensitive to the lift angle when using the Hogg
and Fuerstenau model. The Bond mill however operates at a much higher critical speed,
and hence the lift angle should be expected to be slightly higher than this. The lift angle
may be difficult to measure in practice, but it can be estimated if the mill energy and

JKMRC International Conference 2006

16 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

operating conditions are experimentally measured. Such results are given in the next
section.

Djordjevic (2004) built a DEM model of the Bond ball mill (Figure 9a) and determined
that the net power draw of the ball mill charge was 76 W, which translates to 63.8 J/rev
or 63.8 Ws/rev for a mill operating at 71.67 rpm. Bond specifies a mill speed of 70
rpm, and the DEM model resulted in a power draw of 73.7 W or 63.2 J/rev when
operated at 70 rpm, rather than 71.67 rpm (Figure 9 b). These values are however
sensitive to the value of the coefficient of friction and the coefficient of restitution that
is selected in DEM modelling. In this particular case 0.4 was used for the coefficient of
friction. These coefficients are difficult to measure in practice as described by
Chandramohan and Powell (2004). Figure 9a shows the visual of the 285 balls with a
weight of 20,116 g in the Bond ball mill with a single 5 mm proud lifter which
represents the door of the Bond mill.

e: Bond Mill - Balls Only

Figure 9a - DEM representation of the Bond Ball Mill with the specified charge of 285 ball of
20,116 g.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 17

View Title: Bond Mill - Balls Only

power (W) x10^2

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

time (sec)

Figure 9b - Power profile of the rotating mill, which averages out at 73.7 W for a mill rotating at 70
rpm.

Morrell (1993) developed a power model which has been proven using a wide range of
data. The model uses a simplified description of the grinding charge motion and
incorporates the effects of the slurry pool which forms in all overflow mills and in some
grate discharge mills at high flow rates. The net power drawn by a Bond ball mill has
previously been estimated by Morrell and Man (1997) as 86.65 W. Since the Bond mill
operates at 70 revs per minute, this translates the Morrell power to a value of 74.3 J/rev
or 74.3 Ws/rev. This particular Bond ball mill value was determined using a modified
version of the Morrell power model (Morrell 2004 b) which takes into consideration
mills which have no internal lifters. The internal surface of the Bond ball mill is
smooth.

The standard Morrell power model which incorporates lifter effects was tested on the
Bond mill conditions. When the calibration constant is set as 1, the resultant mill power
is 81.4 W or 68.8 W.s/rev which is comparable to the balls only energy of Bond.
Morrell compared the theoretical model output to measured full scale wet tumbling mill
data, and determined that a calibration constant of 1.26 should be applied to correct the
mill power model. When a value of 1.26 is used, then the mill power increases to 102.6
W or 91.4 W.s/rev which is comparable to the assumed balls and ore component of
Bond.

Recently, Morrell (2004 a) proposed a new size energy relationship which challenges
Bond’s third law equation. Morrell’s new equation is given by equation 8 and was
developed according to the size energy relationship observed in practice. He used 27
sets of industrial data where tumbling mill devices such as AG, SAG, rod mills and ball
mills are used. The new Morrell index (Mi) can be determined experimentally using a
Bond laboratory grinding test with suitable modifications to equation 6.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

18 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

W = M i K ( x 2f ( x 2) − x1f ( x1) ) (13)

Where

Mi = Morrell work index

K = constant,
f(x) = -(a+xb), f(x) defines the exponent relative to the particle size.
a = constant
b = constant

Morrell’s new equation is compared to the classical Bond equation in Figures 10a and
10b. From Figure 10a, it would appear that the Bond equation has under-estimated the
energy for coarser particles (1 mm – 100 mm), and over-estimated the energy required
for finer particle reduction (10 µm-100 µm).

70

Bond Wi = 7
Bond Wi = 11
60 Bond Wi = 14
Bond Wi = 16
Bond Wi = 19
Bond Wi = 22
Net specific comminution energy kWh/t

50 Bond Wi = 29
Morrell Mi = 7
Morrell Mi = 11
Morrell Mi = 14
40
Morrell Mi = 16
Morrell Mi = 19
Morrell Mi = 22
30 Morrell Mi = 29

20

10

0
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Grind size (micron)

Figure 10a - Variation in size energy relationship as determined by Bond (1959) and Morrell
(2004a).

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 19

50.00

45.00 Bond Wi = 14
Morrell Mi = 14
40.00
Net specific comminution energy kWh/t

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Grind size (micron)

Figure 10b - Difference between the Morrell and Bond method for an ore with a BWI of 14 kWh/t,
which is commonly found for many rock types.

4. Digital Energy Meter Results

Figure 11 shows the Bond test data display of energy consumed in the mill using the
digital energy meter during the completion of 12 Bond ball mill tests. The special tests
for this exercise used the same ore, but the closing screen was varied from 300 µm
down to 45 µm. The ore was found to have a very high Bond work index, hence the test
required a large number of revolutions to achieve the steady state condition. Other
energy measurements taken include conditions where the mill was empty and where the
mill was filled with the ball charge (20.125 kg) only. The data was then classified into
four different categories, and the measured energy plotted against mill revolutions. The
data categories are classified as :

1. Ore (700 cc) + Balls (20.125 kg) - Bond test cycles 1-4
2. Ore (700 cc) + Balls (20.125 kg) - Bond test cycles 5-7/8
3. Balls only (20.125 kg) - Standard Bond ball charge
4. Empty mill, no-load condition.

The results are displayed in Figures 11 and shows the average energy rate per revolution
of the ore and balls in the mill for cycles 1-4 and 5-7/8 of the Bond test procedure. This
gives an average measured total energy of 0.1331 Wh/rev. The no-load total energy
was measured as 0.1077 Wh/rev. Thus the specific comminution energy can be
determined by 0.0254 Wh/rev (difference between 0.1331 and 0.1077) or 91.44 Ws/rev.
This is equivalent to a power draw of 106.76 W for the mill with ore and balls and is
very comparable to Bond’s (1949) stated mill energy of 93 Ws/rev or 93 joules/rev.
When the identical process as described above is applied to the balls only in the mill,
then the result is 66.2 J/rev or 66.2 Ws/rev which represents a power draw of 79.1 W for

JKMRC International Conference 2006

20 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

the mill which again is comparable to Bond’s (1949) stated available useful energy at
52.3 joules/rev or 52.3 Ws/rev and Bond’s (1959) stated energy of “about” 60 joules/rev
or 60 Ws/rev.

180
y = 0.1326x
2
R = 0.9984
160
y = 0.1337x
2
R = 0.999 y = 0.1261x
2
R = 0.998
140

120

y = 0.1077x
Energy (Whr)

100 2
R = 0.9978

80

Ore + balls (Bond cycles 1-4)

60 empty mill
mill+balls only (20 125 g)
Ore+balls(Bond cycles 5-8)
40
Linear (empty mill)
Linear (Ore + balls (Bond cycles 1-4))
20 Linear (mill+balls only (20 125 g))
Linear (Ore+balls(Bond cycles 5-8))

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
mill revolutions

Figure 11 - shows measured energy (Wh) against the number ball mill revolutions.

The difference between the no-load and the balls and ore mill power is equivalent to
104 W, also known as the specific comminution power. In this particular case, the no-
load power accounts for 82.1 % of the total power input. This is very high compared to
the 5-10 % experienced in full scale ball mills. The result also confirms the accepted
belief that small mills such as the Bond ball test mill are grossly inefficient, and have
resultant drive train losses of up to 80.74 %. This figure is verified using the Hogg and
Fuerstenau model as shown in Table 2.

An observation in the Hogg and Fuerstenau data in Table 2, which is not surprising, is
that most of the energy is used in moving the ball charge. For effective comminution to
occur, the balls need to transfer or impart all or most of the energy they receive back
into the ore particles to effect particle breakage. Much of the energy transfer is
unproductive and is consumed by noise, heat and the actual wearing away of the
grinding media. Overall this accounts for the very low energy efficiency of ball mills.
Crushers on the other hand are known to be very energy efficient since the mechanical
energy of the moving liner is transferred directly to the ore particles. When the particles
become smaller this process becomes increasingly more difficult to accomplish because
of the large number of much smaller particles that need to be crushed.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 21

Table 2 - Results of the Bond mill conditions calculated by the use of the Hogg and Fuerstenau
model (1972).
GRINDING TASK : HOGG & Fuerstenau power model (1972)

Ore Work Index, kWh/ton (metric) 14.00 Specific Energy, kWh/ton 13.57
Feed Size, F80, microns 2900 Net Power Available, kW 0.111
Product Size, P80, microns 75.0 Number of Mills for the Task 1
Total Plant Throughput, ton/hr 0.01 Net kW / Mill 0.111
Total Plant Throughput, kg/hr 8.20
Total Plant Throughput, g/s 2.28
Total Plant Throughput, g/rev 1.91
Total Plant Throughput, g/min 136.74

MILL DIMENSIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS :

0.3048
Diameter Length Mill Speed Charge Balls Interstitial Lift
ft ft % Critical Filling,% Filling,% Ore Filling,% Angle, (°)
1.00 1.00 93.55 19.30 19.30 35.00 40.00
L/D rpm
1.00 71.66
Charge Mill Charge Weight, tons Apparent
% Solids in the Mill 100.00 Volume, Ball Ore Density
Ore Density, ton/m3 2.80 m3 Charge Interstitial above Balls ton/m3
Slurry Density, ton/m3 2.80 0.004301 0.020128 0.001686 0.000000 5.1
Balls Density, ton/m3 7.80
Charge Mill Charge Weight, kg Apparent
Volume, Ball Ore Density
m3 Charge Interstitial above Balls ton/m3
0.004301 20.128 1.685904 0.000062 5072

Model outputs - specifically ralating to the bond ball mill

Mill Mill Mill Energy Mill Energy Mill Energy

Power, kW Power, W Whr (Whr) per rev J/rev

0.1027 Balls 102.70 102.70 0.02389 85.99
0.0000 Overfilling 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00
0.0086 Ore 8.60 8.60 0.00200 7.20
0.1113 Net Total 111.30 111.30 0.02589 93.19
80.7400 % Losses
0.5779 Gross Total 577.88 577.88 0.13440 483.86

Energy for milling (ore only)% 1.489

Energy for milling (ball and ore)% 19.26
Drive train losses% 80.74

The results of the measured digital energy (kWh/t) plotted against the Bond equation's
net comminution energy are shown in Figure 12. The off-set in the measured versus
predicted Bond value could be the effect of scale when using the Bond ball mill. The
measured scale-up in the Bond case was found to be 0.645 as previously suggested.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

22 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

80

70
Measured Net Comminution Energy (kWhr/tonne)

60

50

40

Bond @ 60 J/rev
30
Measured Energy kWhr/tonne

y=x
20
JK Bond ball mill database

Linear (y=x )
10

Linear (Measured Energy kWhr/tonne)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Bond Equation -Net Comminution Energy

Figure 12 - Measured digital energy (kWh/t) plotted against the Bond equation's net comminution
energy.

80 80

Bond @ 93 J/rev
Measured Energy kWhr/tonne
70 70
Linear (Measured Energy kWhr/tonne)
Linear (Bond @ 93 J/rev)

Calculated specific comminutiuon enegy (kWh/t)

Measured specific comminution energy (kWh/t)

(using Bond's (1949) mill energy @ 93 J/rev)

60 60
(using the digital enegy meter)

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Bond Equation Mill Energy (kWh/t)

Figure 13a - Measured digital energy (kWh/t) – left axis and Bond’s (1949) mill energy of 93 J/rev –
right axis, plotted against the Bond equation net comminution energy for the same data set. This
confirms that the digital energy meter achieves the same result as Bond stated in 1949 more than 55
years ago.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 23

80
y = 0.969x
Bond energy @ 93 J/rev
vs Measured R2 = 0.9103
70
Linear (Bond energy @
Measured specific comminution energy (kWh/t)

60
(using the digital enegy meter)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Calculated specific comminutiuon enegy (kWh/t)

(using Bond's (1949) mill energy @ 93 J/rev)

Figure 13b - Specific comminution energy using Bond’s (1949) mill energy vs Measured specific
comminution energy using the digital energy meter (kWh/t)

Figure 13a highlights the fact that the measure test mill energy does not equate to the
full scale (2.4 m) diameter mill that Bond “calibrated” his empirical equation for the
prediction specific comminution energy and that of ball mill power requirements. The
empirical equation as such has a built in correction factor by assuming the net useful
work done in the mill is equivalent to 60 joules/rev. This observation needs to be
considered carefully when measurements are made in scientific experiments to quantify
the specific comminution energy of milling in laboratory scale units such as the Bond
ball mill. However Bond’s stated 93 joules per revolution, which is defined as the
energy input to the mill is identical to the measure energy to the mill as can be seen in
the linear relationship in Figure 13b.

From the results we may now confirm that, using a digital energy meter, direct
measurement of the energy used to comminute the ore is possible. From this, it is
further proposed that a new way of determining the specific comminution energy
required to produce the steady state products in the Bond mill be given. The method is
simple, and involves the direct measurement of the energy required to mill the new feed
to 100% passing the selected closing size at steady state. The gross energy
measurement may be subtracted from the no-load energy measurement to determine the
net specific comminution energy. The specific comminution energy can then be
calculated on the basis of the total net Joules or W.s or Wh at steady state, divided by
the mass of the new feed. From this data it is also possible to determine the net energy
per revolution of the Bond ball mill, and the products may then be compared to the
energy consumed in other devices to achieve the same product size or liberated mineral.

The results of all of the methods investigated to determine the energy consumption in
the Bond ball mill are summarised in Table 3.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

24 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

Table 3 - Summary of the Bond mill power as determined by various methodologies

Bond vs Digital Mill energy per rev Mill power (W) @

Balls Only (20,125 g)
energy meter W.s/rev or J/rev 71.7 r.p.m.
Bond (1961) - estimated mill energy
Bond (Literature) 60 71.7
(Assumes Bond's est. ball energy)
Bond (1949) - useful work on ore
Bond (Literature) 52.3 62.47
(Author assumes ball only energy)
Digital energy meter (balls only)
Digital energy meter 51.1 61.1
-instantaneous power method
Digital energy meter (balls only)
-linear coefficient method Digital energy meter 66.2 79.1
Djordjevic (2004) (Balls only) 70 rpm*
DEM (unpublished) 63.2 73.7*
(sensitive to friction coefficients)
Djordjevic (2004) (Balls only) 71.7 rpm
DEM (unpublished) 63.8 76.1
(sensitive to friction coefficients)
Hogg and Fuerstenau (1972) Power model
86 102.7
(Balls only -component) (text example)
Bond vs Digital Mill energy per rev Mill power (W) @
Balls (20,125 g) + Ore (700 ml)
energy meter W.s/rev or J/rev 71.7 r.p.m.

Bond (1949) - energy input to the mill Bond (Literature) 93 111.1

(Author assumes ball and ore energy)
Digital energy meter (balls + ore)
Digital energy meter 86.8 103.6
-instantaneous power method
Digital energy meter (balls + ore)
-linear coefficient method Digital energy meter 91.44 109.2
Mill energy using various literature Mill energy per rev Mill power (W) @
Method W.s/rev or J/rev 71.7 r.p.m.
models
Levin (1989) -LOW Bond back-calculation 66.3 79.2
Levin (1989) -Ave Bond back-calculation 71.3 85.2
Levin (1989) -HIGH Bond back-calculation 81.2 97
Morrell and Man (1997) - Literature Power model
72.5 86.65
- Levin comparison to Morrell (literature)
Morrell model -bond mill K=1.26 Power model
85.9 102.6
(Balls + ore) (appendix)
Hogg and Fuerstenau (1972) balls + ore Power model
93.19 111.3
(sensitive to lift angle - not measured) (text example)

5. Conclusions
The specific comminution energy for milling is traditionally based on the Bond method.
The method appears to be based on 60 J/rev, which defines the net energy required in
the Bond ball mill to realise the same conditions in a 2.4 m wet grinding mill. Bond
stated that the net energy input to the mill is 93 J/rev which is comparable to 91.44 J/rev
as measured using the new digital energy meter. This value has been measured and
estimated using various other means such as the Levin method, DEM, and the power
models of Morrell and Fuerstenau. The results are in good agreement, with the
exception of the Levin method which achieves similar results, but for different reasons.

In general each of the mill power models and the energy measurements are in agreement
with the Bond and digital energy meter. The Bond energy for the balls only prediction
appears to have the greatest variation, where-as measurements on the ball charge and
ore are similar. The slight variations in the results could be attributed to the
experimental Bond mill operating at 71.66 rpm as opposed to the specified 70 rpm.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 25

The new digital energy meter has confirmed that small electrical energy measurements
in motors/mills are possible, and that the specific comminution energy is measurable.
This device has effectively opened up a new window of comminution research,
especially where energy consumption and energy efficiency are important.

References
Bond, F. C. 1949. “Standard Grindability Tests Tabulated. AIME Trans. Vol 183, pp
313.

Bond, F. C. 1959. “Confirmation of the third theory” Allis Chalmers, Publication No.
07R8731A.

Bond, F. C. 1961 a. “Crushing and grinding calculations” Allis-Chalmers Publication,

No.07R9235B.

Bond, F.C. and Maxson, W.L., 1938. Grindability and grinding characteristics of ores,
American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers -- Meeting, Feb 1938.
American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers -- Technical Publications --
Mining Technology. American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, New
York, NY, United States, pp. 22.

Bond, F.C., 1952a. Crushing and grinding calculations. Pit and Quarry, 45(5): 118-119.

Bond, F.C., 1952b. The third theory of comminution. Transaction AIME (Mining), 193:
484-494.

Bond, F.C., 1960. Three principles of comminution. Mining Congress Journal, 46(8):
53-56.

Bond, F.C., 1961 b. Crushing and Grinding Calculations. Brit. Chem. Eng. Part I, 6 (6),
378– 385, Part II, 6 (8), 543– 548.

Bond, F.C., and Maxson, W.L., 1943. Standard grindability tests and calculations.
Trans. Soc. Min. Eng., AIME 153, 362–372.

Chandramohan, R. and Powell, M.S., 2004. "Measurement of Particle Interaction

Properties for Incorporation in Discrete Element Method Simulation,. University of
Queensland, JKMRC International Student Conference,, Brisbane 6-7 September 2004,:
pp 379-398.

Djordjevic, N., 2004. "Discrete element modelling of the Bond ball mill",. JKMRC,
University of queensland, unpublished report.

Fletcher, A., 1990. "Crushing mechanisims and mineral release". Department of Miing
and Minerals Engineering, University of Leeds, UK(PhD Thesis,).

JKMRC International Conference 2006

26 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

Fuerstenau, D. W., J. J. Lutch, et al. (1999). “The effect of ball size on the energy
efficiency of hybrid high-pressure roll mill/ball mill grinding.” Powder Technology
105(1-3): 199-204.

Fuerstenau, D.W. and Abouzeid, A.-Z.M., 2002. The energy efficiency of ball milling
in comminution. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 67(1-4): 161-185.

Hogg, R. and Fuerstenau, D.W., 1972. Power relationships for tumbling mills. Trans.
SME/AIME, 252, pp 418-423.

Kapur, P. C. (1971). “The energy-size reduction relationships in comminution of

solids.” Chemical Engineering Science 26(1): 11-16.

Levin, J., 1989. Observation on the Bond standard grindability test, and a proposal for a
standard grindability test for fine materials. Journal of the South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 89, no.1. pp.13-21.

Magdalinovic, N., 1989. A procedure for rapid determination of the Bond work index.
International Journal of Mineral Processing. 27, 125–132.

Morrell, S. 2004 a “An alternative energy-size relationship to that proposed by Bond for
the design and optimisation of grinding circuits.” International Journal of Mineral
Processing In Press, Corrected Proof.

Morrell, S. 2004 b personal communication

Morrell, S. and Y. T. Man 1997. “Using modelling and simulation for the design of full
scale ball mill circuits.” Minerals Engineering 10(12): 1311-1327.

Morrell, S., 1993. “The prediction of power draw in wet tumbling mills”, JKMRC PhD
thesis, The University of Queensland, Australia.

Mosher, J.B. and Tague, C.B., 2001. Conduct and precision of bond grindability testing.
Minerals Engineering, 14(10): 1187-1197.

Myers, J.F., Michaelson, S.D.; and Bond, F.C.; 1949.; Rod Milling – Plant and
Laboratory Data, AIME Trans. Vol 183, pp 299.

Napier-Munn, T. J., Morrell, S., Morrison, R.D., and Kojovic, T. (1996). Mineral
Comminution Circuits - Their Operation and Optimisation, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre, University of Queensland, p 63.

Rowland, C.A.J. and Kjos, D.M., 1978. Rod and ball mills. Mular, Bhappu, (eds),
Mineral Processing Pland Design. SME: pp.239-278.

Schonert, K., 1988. A first survey of grinding with high-compression roller mills.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 22(1-4): 401-412.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box 27

Schwechten, D. and Milburn, G.H., 1990. Experiences in dry grinding with high
compression roller mills for end product quality below 20 microns. Minerals
Engineering, 3(1-2): 23-34.

Yap, R.F., Sepulude, J.L., and Jauregui, R., 1982. Determination of the Bond work index
using an ordinary laboratory batch ball mill. Design and installation of comminution
circuits. Soc. Min. Eng., AIME, New York, 176–203.

JKMRC International Conference 2006

28 Mike Daniel - The Researcher Who Rummaged Through Bond's Tool Box

JKMRC International Conference 2006