UPDATED BENAVENTE CORRELATION FOR

ESTIMATING GRINDING MEDIA

CONSUMPTION RATES
Levi Guzmn R.
Moly-Cop Adesur S.A

Content

Introduction
Theoretical Background Linear Wear Theory
The grinding process Environment
Model Structure
Model Application
Conclusions

Introduccin

The concern regarding grinding media

consumption rates is as old as the invention
of the tumbling mill. This is due grinding
media is one of the more important cost at
the concentrator (+/- 30%).

Is well accepted that grinding media

consumption is a function of ore properties
as well as the grinding media quality and
operational conditions.

There have been several approaches to

estimate the wear of the grinding media, all
of them based on limited empirical
evidence. (Bond, et al)

Introduction
The mining industry still utilizes the
Bond Abrasion test that was developed
in the 1960s. As shown later in this
publication, this approach shows error
greater than 60%.
More recently, in 2007, Radziszewski
from Mc Gill University has proposed a
different total grinding media wear
model; this model is based on
decoupling the effects of the abrasion,
corrosion
and
impact
wear
mechanisms. This new model improves
the error until < 20%

Introduction

Also in 2007, Benavente, at the time with Moly-Cop Peru, presented an

empirical model relating both ore properties and operational conditions
that would affect the wear performance of the grinding media. Benaventes
model shows an average error of 12% which represents a higher degree
of improvement in comparison with previous approaches.

Theoretical Background
Linear Wear Theory

How we can improve the grinding

media wear prediction .?

Theoretical Background
Linear Wear Theory

Wear has been defined as the interaction between the exposed area of any
body and the environment, having as a result the weight loss of the material
being exposed. [Chattopadhyay, 1990].

In tumbling mill, is very well know that the main wear mechanism are :
Abrasion
Impact
Corrosion
Being the abrasion mechanism the more important in almost all operating
concentrators

Theoretical Background
Linear Wear Theory

Ab

at every instant t, its rate of weight loss

will be directly proportional to its surface
area exposed to wear mechanisms that exist
in the mill

d(m)
=
= km A b
d(t)

Equivalente a:

d(d)
2 km
=
= k d
d(t)
b
d

Theoretical Background
Linear Wear Theory

By direct analogy to mineral particle breakage kinetics, it appears

reasonable to postulate that a more representative and scalable quality
indicator than kd is the Energy Specific Wear Rate Constant, ,
[m/(kWh/ton)], defined through the expression (Seplveda, 2004):

kdE = kd / (Pb/Wb) x 1000

Donde :
kd = lineal wear rate , mm/h
kdE= Specific wear rate constant, m/[kWh/ton]b
Pb = Net Power /ton grinding media , Kw
Wb= Grinding media, tm

Theoretical Background
Linear Wear Theory
The kdE rate constant is considered to be the best indicator of ball
quality for the particular application being analyzed. This is due is a
function of grinding media quality and grinding process environment

kdE f

[ grinding media, environment]

The grinding process Environment

Slurry, pH

P80

Mill speed

Viscosity
Ore
Abrasivity

kdE f (e)

% Slids

Mill
Diameter

Ball Size

Charge
Exposed Area

Mill Filling

F80

The grinding process Environment

The abrasion is the most known wear mechanism in the industry. There are
many definitions. Generally we could define as the removal of material from
a body by another of greater strength.

The grinding process Environment

Abrasion
Index
measurements
were
performed in MolyCop Adesur Mineral
Processing laboratory.

Moly-Cop Industrial
Database

Based in Benaventes work ,

more operational information
was obtained from 46 different
industrial mills (located mainly
in Per)

Bonds Empirical Correlation

For the data presented in Table 1, the actual grinding media consumption
rates in g/kWh were compared with those predicted by Bond
The results show an average error of 61% with a standard deviation of 32%,
which undoubtedly does not satisfy the accuracy requirements.

Updated Benaventes correlation, KdE

Using the same database so collected, it was decided to update the original
Benaventes Correlation by recalculating all the coefficients in the original
equation. The new updated correlation was as follows:

Updated Benaventes correlation, KdE

The wear rate results obtained with the updated Benavente correlation show an
average error of 9%, with a standard deviation of 5.5%, which may be considered
much more reliable for the intended purposes

Application of New Wear Model

Simulation of Grinding media

consumption

Simulation of Grinding media

consumption
Moly-Cop Tools TM (Version 3.0)

DYNAMIC EVOLUTION OF BALL CHARGE COMPOSITION

AS A RESULT OF VARIABLE BALL RECHARGES AND OPERATING CONDITIONS.
Remarks

Evolucion de carga dinamica - Ball Mill #1

Eff. Mill Diameter, ft
Eff. Mill Length, ft
Intersticial Filling, %
Power Losses, %

27.50
43.50
100.00
7.00

Mill Volume, m3
Ore Density, ton/m3
Balls Density, ton/m3

787.78
2.95
7.75

Liner Design :
Number of Lifter Bars
Lifters Spacing, L0
, L1
, L2
Lifter Height, inches
Lifter Width, wL
Lifter Face Angle, ()
Forward, 1

Backward, 1

Default

28.00
37.03
30.77
36.03
5.91
1.00

28
inches
inches
inches

24.00

()

inches

Mill Throughput, ton/hr

2000

24.00

()

Mill Filling, %

34.67

Load Angle, 2

45.00

()

Mill Speed, %Vc

% Solids
Mill Power, Kw
Ball Size, mm

72.00
73.14
20020
76

hx

24.93

inches

Lifting Cavity Filling, m3/lifter

Lifting Cavity Filling, %
Voids Fraction in Lifting Cavity, %

0.0828
4.9
0.0

Simulation of Grinding media

consumption
AI

Energy
kWh
473095.46
472419.38
471742.47
471064.87
470386.73
477721.47
471770.34
471087.51
470404.73
469722.14
469039.86
459492.43
458824.10
458156.47
463775.97
466091.56
482604.41
481830.39
476817.62
481163.24
462713.50
461229.69
472346.79
475067.87
Bolas 399065.95
465277.63
462517.50
469172.15
468863.61
460764.38
465025.33
458530.93
457031.98
452833.56
451801.11
449005.33
452672.30
447330.32
447289.58
447249.12
447208.94

Specific
kWh/ton
9.86
9.84
9.83
9.81
9.80
9.95
9.83
9.81
9.80
9.79
9.77
9.57
9.56
9.54
9.66
9.71
10.05
10.04
9.93
10.02
9.64
9.61
9.84
9.90
8.31
9.69
9.64
9.77
9.77
9.60
9.69
9.55
9.52
9.43
9.41
9.35
9.43
9.32
9.32
9.32
9.32

0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
Medido
0.150
13990.1
13656.4
0.150
13859.0
0.150
13944.1
0.150
13278.7
0.150
15314.4
0.150
14612.5
0.150
11828.1
0.150
13828.1
0.150
13828.1
0.150
13828.1
13828.1
0.150
13828.1
0.150
13828.1
0.150
12828.1
0.150
12346.3
0.150
12075.2
0.150
11832.6
0.150
12196.8
0.150
12998.2
0.150
12112.9
10612.1
0.150
9872.8
0.150
10089.4
0.150
8650.2
0.150
9227.0
0.150
11539.8
0.150
11482.1
0.150
9594.4
0.150
9493.2
0.150
10014.1
12939.4
0.150
10513.6
0.150
10695.20
0.150
10688.56
0.150
10250.76
0.150
9014.32
0.150
5524.99
0.150
5524.99
0.150
5524.99
0.150
5524.99
0.150

Wear Rate Constants

pH
Wear Factor
kdB
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
5700 Net Total 11.0 Balls 1.195 Rocks 1.360
Gross Total
5700
11.0
1.360
19712.3
15929.81.195
0.0
18332
19684.1
15907.11.195
0.0
18306
5700
11.0
1.360
19655.9
15884.31.195
0.0
18280
5700
11.0
1.360
19627.7
15861.51.195
0.0
18254
5700
11.0
1.360
19599.4
15838.6
0.0
18227
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19905.1
15815.8
0.0
18512
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19657.1
15792.9
0.0
18281
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19628.6
15770.1
0.0
18255
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19600.2
15747.2
0.0
18228
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19571.8
15724.4
0.0
18202
5700
11.0
1.360
19543.3
15701.51.195
0.0
18175
19145.5
15678.71.195
0.0
17805
5700
11.0
1.360
19117.7
15655.91.195
0.0
17779
5700
11.0
1.360
19089.9
15633.11.195
0.0
17754
5700
11.0
1.360
19324.0
15610.41.195
0.0
17971
5700
11.0
1.360
19420.5
15587.6
0.0
18061
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
20108.5
15564.9
0.0
18701
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
20076.3
15542.3
0.0
18671
5700
11.0
1.360
19867.4
15519.71.195
0.0
18477
5700
11.0
1.360
20048.5
15497.21.195
0.0
18645
5700
11.0
1.360
19279.7
15474.71.195
0.0
17930
19217.9
15452.21.195
0.0
17873
5700
11.0
1.360
19681.1
15429.81.195
0.0
18303
5700
11.0
1.360
19794.5
15407.51.195
0.0
18409
5700
11.0
1.360
16627.7
15385.3
0.0
15464
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19386.6
15363.1
0.0
18030
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19271.6
15341.0
0.0
17923
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19548.8
15318.9
0.0
18180
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19536.0
15297.0
0.0
18168
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
19198.5
15275.1
0.0
17855
5700
11.0
1.360
19376.1
15253.31.195
0.0
18020
19105.5
15231.61.195
0.0
17768
5700
11.0
1.360
19043.0
15210.01.195
0.0
17710
5700
11.0
1.360
18868.1
15188.51.195
0.0
17547
5700
11.0
1.360
18825.0
15187.11.195
0.0
17507
5700
11.0
1.360
18708.6
15185.7
0.0
17399
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
18861.3
15184.2
0.0
17541
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
18638.8
15182.9
0.0
17334
5700
11.0
1.360
18637.1
15181.51.195
0.0
17332
5700
11.0
1.360
18635.4
15180.11.195
0.0
17331
5700
11.0
1.360
18633.7
15178.71.195
0.0
17329
5700
11.0
1.195
1.360
m

Relative
Resistance
tons
1.000
24.356
1.000
24.320
1.000
24.284
Make-up
1.000 ()
24.248
Slurry
Angle,
mm
1.000 32.0
24.21276.2
2402.6
2399.2
1.000 32.0
24.17676.2
2395.7
1.000 32.0
24.14076.2
2392.3
1.000 32.0
24.10576.2
2388.9
1.000 32.0
24.06976.2
2695.9
32.0
76.2
1.000
24.033
2488.2
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.998
2484.6
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.963
2481.0
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.927
2477.4
32.0
76.2
1.000 32.0
23.89276.2
2473.8
2126.6
1.000 32.0
23.85776.2
2123.5
1.000 32.0
23.82276.2
2120.5
1.000 32.0
23.78776.2
2361.0
1.000 32.0
23.75276.2
2473.4
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.718
3136.0
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.683
3128.6
32.0
76.2
1.000 32.0
23.64976.2
2957.0
1.000 32.0
23.61476.2
3147.9
1.000 32.0
23.58076.2
2455.5
2420.4
1.000 32.0
23.54676.2
2873.6
1.000 32.0
23.51276.2
3001.4
1.000 32.0
23.47876.2
78.5
1.000 32.0
23.44576.2
2666.4
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.411
2581.6
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.378
2861.5
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.345
2871.5
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.311
2579.5
32.0
76.2
1.000 32.0
23.27976.2
2766.4
2536.5
1.000 32.0
23.24676.2
2500.0
1.000 32.0
23.21476.2
2358.8
1.000 32.0
23.21276.2
2320.2
1.000 32.0
23.21176.2
2213.3
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.209
2356.8
32.0
76.2
1.000
23.208
2151.2
32.0
76.2
1.000 32.0
23.20676.2
2151.0
1.000 32.0
23.20576.2
2150.8
1.000 32.0
23.20376.2
2150.6
1.000
23.202

Balls Consumption
gr/ton
gr/kWh(gross)
507.4
51.5
506.7
51.5
505.9
51.5
Scrap
505.2
mm
tons 51.5
504.4
51.5
25.0
20.000
25.0
20.000
503.7
50.6
25.0
20.000
502.9
51.2
25.0
20.000
502.2
51.2
25.0
20.000
501.4
51.2
25.0
20.000
500.7
51.2
25.0
20.000
500.0
51.2
25.0
20.000
499.2
52.2
25.0
20.000
498.5
52.1
25.0
20.000
497.8
52.1
25.0
20.000
25.0
20.000
497.0
51.4
25.0
20.000
496.3
51.1
25.0
20.000
495.6
49.3
25.0
20.000
494.8
49.3
25.0
20.000
494.1
49.7
25.0
20.000
493.4
49.2
25.0
20.000
492.7
51.1
25.0
20.000
492.0
51.2
25.0
20.000
491.3
49.9
25.0
20.000
25.0
20.000
490.5
49.6
25.0
20.000
489.8
58.9
25.0
20.000
489.1
50.5
25.0
20.000
488.4
50.7
25.0
20.000
487.7
49.9
25.0
20.000
487.0
49.9
25.0
20.000
486.3
50.7
25.0
20.000
485.7
50.1
25.0
20.000
485.0
50.8
25.0
20.000
25.0
20.000
484.3
50.9
25.0
20.000
483.6
51.3
25.0
23.000
483.6
51.4
25.0
23.000
483.6
51.7
25.0
23.000
483.5
51.3
25.0
23.000
483.5
51.9
25.0
23.000
483.5
51.9
25.0
23.000
483.4
51.9
25.0
23.000
483.4
51.9
25.0
23.000
483.4
51.2

Kg/hr
1014.8
1013.3
1011.8
Balls
Recharge
1010.3 gr/kWh(gross)
gr/ton
1008.8
416.7
42.3
416.7
42.3
1007.3
416.7
42.4
1005.8
416.7
42.5
1004.4
416.7
42.5
1002.9
416.7
41.9
1001.4
416.7
42.4
999.9
416.7
42.5
998.4
416.7
42.5
997.0
416.7
42.6
995.5
416.7
42.6
416.7
43.5
994.0
416.7
43.6
992.6
416.7
43.7
991.1
416.7
43.1
989.7
416.7
42.9
988.2
416.7
41.4
986.8
416.7
41.5
985.4
416.7
41.9
983.9
416.7
41.6
982.5
416.7
43.2
416.7
43.4
981.1
416.7
42.3
979.7
416.7
42.1
978.3
416.7
50.1
976.9
416.7
43.0
975.5
416.7
43.2
974.1
416.7
42.6
972.7
416.7
42.7
971.3
416.7
43.4
969.9
416.7
43.0
416.7
43.6
968.6
416.7
43.8
967.2
479.2
50.8
967.2
479.2
50.9
967.1
479.2
51.2
967.1
479.2
50.8
967.0
479.2
51.4
966.9
479.2
51.4
966.9
479.2
51.4
966.8
479.2
51.4
966.7

Kg/hr
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
833.3
958.3
958.3
958.3
958.3
958.3
958.3
958.3
958.3

Simulation of Grinding media

consumption

F80 decrease
from 5700 to
3000 microns

Abrasion Index
reduces from
0.35 to 0.15

Ph Reduces
from 11 to 9
Abrasion Index
Change from
0.15 to 0.35

Conclusions

Based on the model originally developed by Benavente, updated by these

authors, a projection of grinding media consumption results in an error of
about 9%, which is considered satisfactory.
The Updated Benavente Model is powerful tool for cost estimation in the case
of greenfield or brownfield projects, as well as for the analysis of grinding
media consumption rates in existing concentrators.
Pending work is to develop a grinding media wear model for SAG Mills, were
impact conditions must be consider.