Reporte

DROP WEIGHT TEST REPORT
on
M4A, M4-M4A-M2, M-1 and MP

from
Antamina Project 3419
tested by
A.R.MacPherson Consultants Ltd
at
SGS Lakefield Research Chile S.A.,
Santiago, Chile
for
Antamina
JKTech Job No. 03004 - July-2003

JKTech - JKMRC Commercial Division
DROP WEIGHT TEST REPORT
on

from
Antamina Project 3419
JKTech Job No. 03004 - July-2003
Submitted to
Antamina
tested at A.R.MacPherson Consultants Ltd, Santiago, Chile

Drop Weight Test Report on 4 Samples from Antamina Project 3419 Antamina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1
2 DROP WEIGHT TEST PROCEDURE ................................................... 1
2.1 Impact Breakage Testing........................................................... 1
2.2 Abrasion Breakage Testing ....................................................... 3
3 USING STANDARD DROP WEIGHT TEST RESULTS IN JKSimMet ... 3
3.1 SAG/autogenous Mill Model ...................................................... 3
3.1.1 High Energy or Impact Breakage........................................ 3
3.1.2 Low Energy or Abrasion Breakage ..................................... 3
3.1.3 Combined Breakage ........................................................... 4
3.2 Crusher Model ........................................................................... 4
3.3 Limitations ................................................................................. 4
4 RESULTS............................................................................................... 5
4.1 SAG/autogenous Mill Model Parameters................................... 5
4.2 Crusher Model Parameters ....................................................... 6
5 COMMENTS ON STANDARD DROP WEIGHT TEST RESULTS ......... 8
5.1 Resistance to impact breakage ................................................. 8
5.2 Resistance to abrasion breakage .............................................. 8
5.3 Effect of Particle Size on Resistance to Impact ....................... 11
6 ORE DENSITY MEASUREMENT ........................................................ 13
6.1 Results .................................................................................... 13
6.2 Comments on Ore Density ...................................................... 14
7 REFERENCES..................................................................................... 18
8 DISCLAIMER ....................................................................................... 19
JKTech Job No. 03004 i

TABLE OF FIGURES
Page No
Figure 1 - The JK Drop Weight Tester .................................................................. 1
Figure 2 – T10/Ecs Relationships for M4A, M4-M4A-M2, M-1 and MP................... 5
Figure 3 - Frequency Distribution of A*b in the JKTech Database...................... 10
Figure 4 - Frequency Distribution of t10@1kWh/t in the JKTech Database ......... 10
Figure 5 - Frequency Distribution of ta in the JKTech Database ......................... 10
Figure 6 - Variation of Impact Resistance with Particle Size for M4A ................. 12
Figure 7 - Variation of Impact Resistance with Particle Size for M4-M4A-M2..... 12
Figure 8 - Variation of Impact Resistance with Particle Size for M-1 .................. 13
Figure 9 - Variation of Impact Resistance with Particle Size for MP ................... 13
Figure 10 - Histogram of the Relative Density Measurements for 30 Particles
for M4A........................................................................................................ 15
for M4-M4A-M2 ........................................................................................... 15
for M-1 ......................................................................................................... 16
for MP.......................................................................................................... 16
TABLE OF TABLES
Page No
Table 1 - SAG/Autogenous Mill Parameters for the Four Samples....................... 5
Table 2 - Crusher Model Parameters for M4A ...................................................... 6
Table 3 - Crusher Model Parameters for M4-M4A-M2.......................................... 6
Table 4 - Crusher Model Parameters for M-1 ....................................................... 7
Table 5 - Crusher Model Parameters for MP ........................................................ 7
Table 6 - Parameter Interactions for the Four Samples........................................ 9
Table 7 - Relative Density Measurements for 25 Particles for M4A.................... 17
Table 8 - Relative Density Measurements for 25 Particles M4-M4A-M2 ............ 17
Table 9 - Relative Density Measurements for 25 Particles M-1 .......................... 17
Table 10 - Relative Density Measurements for 30 Particles MP......................... 18
JKTech Job No. 03004 ii

1 INTRODUCTION
Drop weight test data for four samples, identified as M4A, M4-M4A-M2, M-1 and MP
from Antamina Project 3419 were received on July 9, 2003 from A.R.MacPherson
Consultants Ltd by JKTech for analysis. The analysis was completed on July 10,
2003.
The JKTech drop weight test provides ore specific parameters for use in the
JKSimMet Mineral Processing Simulator software. In JKSimMet, these parameters
are combined with equipment details and operating conditions to analyse and/or
predict SAG/autogenous mill performance. The same test procedure also provides
ore type characterisation for the JKSimMet crusher model. These ore specific
parameters have been calculated from the test results and are supplied to Antamina
in this report as part of the standard procedure.
2 DROP WEIGHT TEST PROCEDURE

This section provides a brief description of the drop weight test procedure.
To characterise ore breakage at different energy levels, the JKTech method uses two
complimentary techniques:
1. To characterise breakage at moderate to high energy levels (ie. impact

breakage), a drop weight device is used.
2. To characterise breakage at low energy inputs (ie. the abrasion component

of breakage), a tumbling test is used.
2.1 Impact Breakage Testing

The JK drop weight device comprises a steel drop-weight which is raised by a winch
to a known height. A pneumatic switch releases the drop weight which falls under
gravity and impacts the rock particle which
is placed on a steel anvil. The device is
Drop
enclosed in perspex and incorporates a
weight variety of features to ensure operator
safety. By varying the height from which
Perspex the drop weight is released and the mass
enclosure
of the drop weight, a very wide range of
Guide Rod energy inputs can be generated. A
schematic drawing of the device is given in
Rock
specimen Winch
Figure 1.
An vil
Concrete
platform
Figure 1 - The JK Drop Weight Tester
JKTech Job No. 03004 1

After release, the drop weight descends under the influence of gravity and impacts
the target particle.
The particle is broken and the drop-weight is brought to rest at a distance above the
anvil approximately equal to the largest product particle. The difference in distance
between the initial starting point and the final resting place of the drop-weight is used
to calculate the energy that is expended in breaking the particle. Thus
Ei = Mg(h - xM) (1)
where:
Ei = energy used for breakage

M = drop-weight mass
g = gravitational constant
h = initial height of the drop-weight above the anvil
xM = final height of the drop-weight above the anvil.
Providing the drop-weight does not rebound after impact, the application of equation
(1) is valid. Where rebound occurs an additional term is required to account for the
energy re-transmitted to the drop-weight. Rebound has been seen to occur only at
elevated input energies. This energy will be assessed during the test work program.
It is likely, however, that its magnitude will be relatively small and can be ignored with
only a minimal loss in accuracy.
The assumption is made that all the energy provided is utilised in the breakage of the
particle. Thus
Ecs = Eis = Ei / m
where:
Eis = specific input energy

Ecs = specific comminution energy
m = mean particle mass
To test an ore type, the original 100 kg sample is sized into selected fourth-root-of-
two size fractions. Ten (10) to thirty (30) particles are required in each size fraction
for each energy level, depending on particle mass. Typically fifteen (15) size/energy
combinations are selected. The input energy levels for a particular test are designed
to suit ore hardness but a standard set of energies are used whenever possible.
The breakage products of all particles for each size/energy combination are collected
and sized. The size distribution produced is normalised with respect to original
particle size. For a wide range of energy inputs, particle sizes and ore types, the
relative size distributions remain similar in shape and can be described by a single
point on the distribution. The JKTech convention is to use the percentage passing
one-tenth of the original particle size. This is referred to as the "t10".

In the manner described above, a set of t10 and Ecs values are produced for the 15
energy/size combinations.
2.2 Abrasion Breakage Testing

It is possible to characterise low energy (abrasion) breakage with a miniature drop
weight and repeated impacts. However, Leung (1987) demonstrated that a tumbling
test of selected single size fractions could produce a similar result with less
experimental effort.
The standard abrasion test tumbles 3 kg of -55 +38 mm particles for 10 minutes at
70% critical speed in a 305 mm by 305 mm laboratory mill fitted with 4 x 6 mm lifter
bars. The resulting product is then sized and the t10 value for the product is
determined.
The mean particle size of the original size fraction 55 x 38 mm is 45.7 mm. The t10
size is:
1/10 x 45.7 = 4.57 mm.
3 USING STANDARD DROP WEIGHT TEST RESULTS IN

JKSimMet
3.1 SAG/autogenous Mill Model

In the SAG/autogenous mill, both breakage mechanisms discussed in section 2 are
assumed to occur. The parameters used in the model are given in Table 1.
3.1.1 High Energy or Impact Breakage

To represent the impact breakage mechanism in the model, the 15 pairs of t10/Ecs
data from the drop weight test are subjected to non-linear least squares techniques
to fit the following equation, which describes the relationship between breakage and
impact energy:
t 10 = A(1 − e −bEcs )
where A and b are parameters used by the JKSimMet SAG/autogenous mill model to
reproduce this relationship.
3.1.2 Low Energy or Abrasion Breakage

As discussed in section 2.2, the abrasion test results in a t10 figure. The abrasion
parameter used in the model, ta, is defined as
ta = t10/10
For example, if t10 = % passing 4.57 mm = 4.0%, then
ta = 4.0 / 10 = 0.40

3.1.3 Combined Breakage

These two sets of parameters representing the two breakage modes are used in
combination by the model to generate an ore specific appearance function. The
scaling factor of 10 is applied in the calculation of ta so that the relative proportions of
high and low energy breakage represented in the combined appearance function are
correct.
The assumption is made that all brittle rock types break with the same general
pattern and that general pattern is built into the model. This assumption does not
mean that the amount of energy required to achieve a particular t10 is the same for all
brittle rocks. It simply means that if a single particle is broken to a particular t10 value,
then the complete size distribution of the broken fragments is known.
This assumption is not perfect but is quite adequate for the purposes of the
SAG/autogenous model.
To use the results of testing, the ore type parameters A and b (from drop weight
testing) and ta (from abrasion testing), are input in the SAG/autogenous mill model
available in JKSimMet, together with machine dependent parameters of mill size,
grate size, ball load, etc. The simulation predicts product size and mill load using
appropriate breakage rates. The simulator can then also be used to predict mill
performance with variations in screen and classifier configurations or even with
recycle crushing.
Details of the SAG/autogenous mill model are given in Leung (1987) and Leung,
Morrison, and Whiten (1987). The calculations on which the power prediction for
SAG/autogenous mills is based are described in Morrell (1996).
3.2 Crusher Model

For the crusher model, only the high energy or impact breakage test results are used.
These are presented in a somewhat different manner from the SAG/autogenous mill
model.
The assumption that all brittle rocks break with the same breakage pattern is not
made and the pattern for the ore under test is used. The crusher model uses the
parameters given in Table 2. The appearance function defines the shape of the
breakage distribution curve at various degrees of "broken-ness", as defined by t10.
The specific comminution energy table defines the amount of energy required to
achieve varying levels of "broken-ness". The form of the specific comminution
energy table reflects the fact that the energy required to achieve a certain degree of
breakage is sometimes found to be dependent on the initial particle size.
Details of the crusher model including power prediction are described in Andersen
and Napier-Munn (1988).
3.3 Limitations
Experience to date demonstrates that the drop weight test is appropriate for brittle
ores over a wide range of hardness. However, it is not useful for ores which undergo
plastic deformation rather than brittle fracture, such as those of high clay content.

The testing procedure is limited by the maximum particle size tested. If the ore is
fractured or weaker at larger particle sizes, then JKSimMet simulations will be
conservative.
For autogenous mills it is essential to have competent material in the range 150 mm
to 100 mm in the feed to form the media. If autogenous milling is seriously
contemplated, testing of media competency at larger particle sizes should be
conducted. This can be achieved by drop weight testing, media competency testing
or full pilot plant testing.
4 RESULTS
4.1 SAG/autogenous Mill Model Parameters

Table 1 shows the SAG/autogenous mill model parameters for the four samples The
t10/Ecs relationships for the samples are given in Figure 2.
Table 1 - SAG/Autogenous Mill Parameters for the Four Samples.
Ore Type A b ta
M4A 59.60 1.34 0.35
M4-M4A-M2 60.3 1.14 0.40
M-1 65.2 1.59 1.63
MP 63.4 1.20 0.40

100
M4A
90 A=59.6, b=1.34, Axb=79.9
M4-M4A-M2
A=60.3, b=1.14, Axb=68.7
80
M-1
A=65.2, b=1.59, Axb=103.7
70 MP
A=63.4, b=1.20, Axb=76.1
60
t10
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Ecs (kWh/t)
Figure 2 – T10/Ecs Relationships for M4A, M4-M4A-M2, M-1 and MP

4.2 Crusher Model Parameters

Table 2 to Table 5 show the crusher model parameters for the four samples.
Table 2 - Crusher Model Parameters for M4A

Size Relative to Initial Size
t75 t50 t25 t4 t2
t10 cumulative percent passing
10.0 4.0 4.7 6.2 19.5 46.0
20.0 7.9 9.2 12.3 39.6 75.6
30.0 11.8 13.7 18.4 58.7 92.4
Specific Comminution Energy:

Initial Particle Size, mm
14.53 20.63 28.89 41.08 57.78
t10 Ecs, kWh/t
10 0.10# 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.11*
20 0.23# 0.36 0.34 0.26 0.26*
30 0.41# 0.61 0.57 0.47 0.47*
* These values are extrapolated and should be regarded as doubtful. Values from the next finest
#
particles have been substituted. Note that the Ecs values for the 14.53mm fraction are unusually low.
Table 3 - Crusher Model Parameters for M4-M4A-M2

t75 t50 t25 t4 t2
10.0 4.5 5.1 6.5 19.4 43.8
20.0 8.5 9.7 12.7 39.1 72.8
30.0 12.3 14.3 18.8 57.7 90.0

14.53 20.63 28.89 41.08 57.78
t10 Ecs, kWh/t
10 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.14
20 0.35 0.31 0.35 0.35* 0.35*
30 0.60 0.54 0.59 0.59* 0.59*
* These values should be regarded as doubtful. Values from the next finest particles have been
substituted.

Table 4 - Crusher Model Parameters for M-1

t75 t50 t25 t4 t2
10.0 4.0 4.6 6.1 20.5 42.2
20.0 7.5 8.8 12.0 40.0 70.5
30.0 11.0 13.0 17.9 57.7 87.6

14.53 20.63 28.89 41.08 57.78
t10 Ecs, kWh/t
10 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.06
20 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.20* 0.15
30 0.44 0.40 0.34 0.34* 0.34
* These values are should be regarded as doubtful. Values from the next finest particles have
been substituted.
Table 5 - Crusher Model Parameters for MP

t75 t50 t25 t4 t2
10.0 4.4 5.0 6.4 20.3 44.7
20.0 8.4 9.6 12.6 39.6 73.1
30.0 12.3 14.2 18.7 57.0 89.0

14.53 20.63 28.89 41.08 57.78
t10 Ecs, kWh/t
10 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14* 0.13
20 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.31* 0.28
30 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.52* 0.44
* These values should be regarded as doubtful. Values from the next finest particles have been
substituted.

5 COMMENTS ON STANDARD DROP WEIGHT TEST RESULTS
5.1 Resistance to impact breakage

One of the problems with the functional form used to represent the t10 v Ecs
relationship is that the parameters A and b are not independent and thus can not be
used directly for comparisons between ore types. Two alternative parameters give a
better comparison. These are the product A*b and the t10 achieved by the application
of 1.0 kWh/t of Specific Comminution Energy (Ecs). In each case, the smaller the
number the greater the resistance to impact breakage. These figures are the four
samples in Table 6, which also includes figures from the JKTech database of ores
tested.
The figures for M4A put that material in the soft range of resistance to impact
breakage. 78.2 % of the 1438 ore types in by JKTech data base have lower A*b
values.
The figures for M4-M4A-M2 put that material in the soft range of resistance to impact
values.
The figures for M-1 put that material in the moderately soft range of resistance to
impact breakage. 68.8 % of the 1438 ore types in by JKTech data base have lower
A*b values.
The figures for MP put that material in the soft range of resistance to impact
values.
The frequency distribution of the parameters A*b and t10@1kWh/t from the JKTech
database of ores tested are given in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.
5.2 Resistance to abrasion breakage

Resistance to abrasion is indicated by the ta parameter. As with parameter A*b, a
smaller value of ta indicates more resistance, this time to abrasion breakage.
With a ta of 0.35, M4A falls into the hard abrasion range compared with the other ore
types in Table 6. 28.8 % of the 1413 ore types in the JKTech database have lower ta
values.
With a ta of 0.40, M4-M4A-M2 falls into the moderately hard abrasion range
compared with the other ore types in Table 6. 37.5 % of the 1413 ore types in the
JKTech database have lower ta values.
With a ta of 1.63, M-1 falls into the very soft abrasion range compared with the other
ore types in Table 6. 92.7 % of the 1413 ore types in the JKTech database have
lower ta values.

With a ta of 0.40, MP falls into the moderately hard abrasion range compared with the
other ore types in Table 6. 38.6 % of the 1413 ore types in the JKTech database
have lower ta values.
The frequency distribution of the ta parameter from the JKTech database of ores
tested is given in Figure 5.
Table 6 - Parameter Interactions for the Four Samples
Ore Type A*b t10 @ Ecs = 1kWh/t ta
Value Rank % Value Rank % Value Rank %
Data Base
15.8 1 0 13.8 1 0 0.06 1 0
Min (hardest)
Data Base
47.1 719 50 32.3 719 50 0.46 707 50
Median
Data Base
71.2 1054 73 35.1 856 59 0.67 1003 71
Mean
Data Base
955.4 1438 100 82.2 1438 100 5.78 1413 100
Max (softest)
M4A 79.9 1126 78.2 44.0 1143 79.4 0.35 411 28.8
M4-M4A-M2 68.7 1031 71.6 41.0 1079 75.0 0.40 531 37.5
M-1 103.7 990 68.8 51.9 1291 89.7 1.63 1311 92.7
MP 76.1 1099 76.4 44.3 1154 80.2 0.40 547 38.6

JKTech Pendulum/Drop Test Data
175
150
125
Frequency
100
75
50
25
0
10
25
40
55
70
85
100
115
130
145
160
175
190
Mor
Ax b
Figure 3 - Frequency Distribution of A*b in the JKTech Database
140
120
100
Frequency
80
60
40
20
0
10
16
22
28
34
40
46
52
58
64
70
76
82
t10 @ 1 kWh/t
Figure 4 - Frequency Distribution of t10@1kWh/t in the JKTech Database
300
250
200
Frequency
150
100
50
0
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.3
3.6
ta
Figure 5 - Frequency Distribution of ta in the JKTech Database

5.3 Effect of Particle Size on Resistance to Impact

Variation of impact resistance with particle size is important in both crusher power
draw and SAG/autogenous mill media competency considerations. Some ores
exhibit significant decrease in impact resistance with increasing particle size and
others show no variation with size. The opposite trend of increasing impact
resistance with increasing particle size is extremely rare.
The data in Table 2 indicate that for particles of M4A up to 63 mm, some variation of
impact resistance with particle size occurs.
The data in Table 3 indicate that for particles of M4-M4A-M2 up to 63 mm, some
variation of impact resistance with particle size occurs.
The data in Table 4 indicate that for particles of M-1 up to 63 mm, some variation of
The data in Table 5 indicate that for particles of MP up to 63 mm, some variation of
The data for the four ore types presented in Figure 6 to Figure 9 are the t10 values for
up to 5 different particle sizes, all broken with the very similar specific comminution
energies (0.25 kWh/t, 1.0 kWh/t and 2.5 kWh/t). These data do not consistently follow
the frequently observed trend of decreasing slope with decreasing energy (Ecs
values). However, it is both the slope and the absolute values of the low energy t10
values that are of interest for SAG/autogenous milling as these data give an
indication of the ability of media particles to survive. If the trend of the t10 values with
increasing particle size is significantly upwards, it can be inferred by extrapolation
that particles in the 100 – 200 mm size range (normal media size) will not be strong
enough to survive. The same argument applies if the absolute values of t10 at low
energy are sufficiently high.
For M4A, the data indicate that media survival is not likely to cause a problem for
autogenous milling.
For M4-M4A-M2, the data indicate that media survival is not likely to cause a problem
for autogenous milling.
For M-1, the data indicate that media survival is likely to cause a problem for
autogenous milling.
For MP, the data indicate that media survival may cause a problem for autogenous
milling.

M4A
100
90 0.25
1.0
80
2.5
70
60
t10 (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 6 - Variation of Impact Resistance with Particle Size for M4A
M4-M4A-M2
100
90 0.25
1.0
80
2.5
70
60
t10 (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 7 - Variation of Impact Resistance with Particle Size for M4-M4A-M2

M-1
100
90 0.25
1.0
80
2.5
70
60
t10 (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 8 - Variation of Impact Resistance with Particle Size for M-1
MP
100
90 0.25
1.0
80
2.5
70
60
t10 (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 9 - Variation of Impact Resistance with Particle Size for MP
6 ORE DENSITY MEASUREMENT
6.1 Results
As part of the standard JKTech ore property assessment procedures, the relative
density of 30 randomly selected particles in the size range 31.5 mm to 26.5 mm is

determined by weighing each particle in water and in air. The results are given in
Table 7 to Table 10 and shown graphically in Figure 10 to Figure 13.
It should be noted that this method does not account for internal porosity in the
particles tested. More accurate determination is available using a Helium
Pycnometer.
6.2 Comments on Ore Density

At the coarse particle size tested, it is normal to find a range of relative densities as
the mineralogy of the particles varies. However, of great concern in
SAG/autogenous milling is the possibility of a component in the ore which is both
high density and resistant to breakage. Such material will concentrate in the load in
a SAG/autogenous mill and result in higher than expected power draw.
The M4A data contain evidence of bimodality in the relative density distribution, that
is, evidence of a dense component which could concentrate in the mill load and
cause power problems.
The M4-M4A-M2 data contain evidence of bimodality in the relative density

distribution, that is, evidence of a dense component which could concentrate in the
mill load and cause power problems.
The M-1 data contain evidence of bimodality in the relative density distribution, that
is, evidence of a dense component which could concentrate in the mill load and
cause power problems.
The MP data contain evidence of bimodality in the relative density distribution, that is,
evidence of a dense component which could concentrate in the mill load and cause
power problems.

M4A
6
Number of Particles
0
< 2.6
< 2.8
< 3.0
< 3.2
< 3.4
< 3.6
< 3.8
< 4.0
< 4.2
< 4.4
< 4.6
< 4.8
< 5.0
< 5.2
< 5.4
Relative Density (top of Range)
Figure 10 - Histogram of the Relative Density Measurements for 30 Particles for

M4A
M4-M4A-M2
12
10
Number of Particles
0
< 2.7
< 2.9
< 3.1
< 3.3
< 3.5
< 3.7
< 3.9
< 4.1
< 4.3
< 4.5
< 4.7
< 4.9
< 5.1
< 5.3
< 5.5

M4-M4A-M2

M-1
12
10
Number of Particles
0
< 2.3
< 2.5
< 2.7
< 2.9
< 3.1
< 3.3
< 3.5
< 3.7
< 3.9
< 4.1
< 4.3
< 4.5
< 4.7
< 4.9
< 5.1

M-1
MP
16
14
12
Number of Particles
10
0
< 2.3
< 2.5
< 2.7
< 2.9
< 3.1
< 3.3
< 3.5
< 3.7
< 3.9
< 4.1
< 4.3
< 4.5
< 4.7
< 4.9
< 5.1

MP

Table 7 - Relative Density Measurements for 25 Particles for M4A

3.21 3.55 2.89 2.76 3.26
3.42 3.19 2.84 2.77
3.4 2.75 3.45 3.36
3.27 2.76 3.36 2.7
2.75 3.49 2.79 3.37
3.18 2.66 3.29 3.49
Mean 3.12
Standard Deviation 0.31
Maximum 3.55
Minimum 2.66
Table 8 - Relative Density Measurements for 25 Particles M4-M4A-M2

3.12 2.83 3.79 3.34 3.77
2.79 2.82 2.93 3.71
3.17 2.84 2.79 3.00
3.51 3.33 3.05 2.83
2.83 2.83 2.75 3.42
3.23 2.80 2.75 3.10
Mean 3.09
Maximum 3.79
Minimum 2.75
Table 9 - Relative Density Measurements for 25 Particles M-1

2.75 3.67 2.58 2.35 2.49
2.67 2.71 2.46 2.55
2.49 2.48 2.54 2.51
2.57 3.41 2.48 2.39
2.43 2.43 2.4 3.6
2.39 2.51 2.98 2.57
Mean 2.66
Maximum 3.67
Minimum 2.35

Table 10 - Relative Density Measurements for 25 Particles MP

2.77 2.86 2.89 2.58 2.72
2.73 3.71 2.73 2.31
3.03 3.27 3.21 2.73
2.72 2.89 2.72 2.71
2.73 3.08 2.77 2.68
2.72 2.71 2.93 2.71
Mean 2.84
Maximum 3.71
Minimum 2.31
7 REFERENCES
Andersen, J. and Napier-Munn, T.J., 1988. "Power Prediction for Cone Crushers",
Third Mill Operators' Conference, Aus.I.M.M (Cobar, NSW), May 1988, pp 103 -
106.
Leung, K. 1987. "An Energy-Based Ore Specific Model for Autogenous and
Semi-Autogenous Grinding Mills." Ph.D. Thesis. University of Queensland
(unpublished).
Leung, K., Morrison, R.D. and Whiten, W.J., 1987. "An Energy Based Ore Specific
Model for Autogenous and Semi-autogenous Grinding", Copper 87, Vina del
Mar, Vol. 2, pp 71 - 86.
Morrell, S. 1996. "Power Draw of Wet Tumbling Mills and Its Relationship to Charge
Dynamics - Parts I and II." Transaction Inst. Min. Metall. (Sect C: Mineral Process
Extr. Metall.), 105, 1996, pp C43-C62.

8 DISCLAIMER
All JKTech Pty Ltd reports are subject to a standard disclaimer as follows:
1. JKTech Pty Ltd and University staff operating with JKTech Pty Ltd make
reasonable efforts to ensure an accurate understanding of client requirements.
The information in this report is based on that understanding and JKTech Pty Ltd
strives to be accurate in its advice.
2. While reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this report/proposal,
this report/proposal and all information, assumptions, and recommendations
herein are published, given, made, or expressed without any responsibility
whatsoever on the part of JKTech Pty Ltd, whether arising by way of negligence,
breach of contract, breach of statutory duty or otherwise.
3. No warranty or representation of accuracy or reliability in respect of the

report/proposal is given by JKTech Pty Ltd or its directors, employees, servants,
agents, consultants, successors in title and assigns.
4. If liability is not, by law, capable of exclusion, then JKTech Pty Ltd accepts liability
to the minimum level set by that law.
5. This disclaimer shall apply to liability to any person whatsoever, irrespective of

how such liability arises, whether by use of this report/proposal by that person or
you or any other person or otherwise.
6. JKTech Pty Ltd is not responsible in any way whatsoever for the error neglect or
default of others upon whom it has placed reliance in the preparation of this
report/proposal.
7. You shall indemnify JKTech Pty Ltd and its directors, employees, servants,
agents, consultants, successors in title and assigns against any claim made
against any or all of them by third parties arising out of the disclosure of the
report/proposal, whether directly or indirectly, to a third party.

Reporte

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reporte

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DROP WEIGHT TEST REPORT

M4A, M4-M4A-M2, M-1 and MP

Antamina Project 3419

JKTech Job No. 03004 - July-2003

DROP WEIGHT TEST REPORT

M4A, M4-M4A-M2, M-1 and MP

Antamina Project 3419

JKTech Job No. 03004 - July-2003

tested at A.R.MacPherson Consultants Ltd, Santiago, Chile

JKTech Job No. 03004 i

JKTech Job No. 03004 ii

2 DROP WEIGHT TEST PROCEDURE

1. To characterise breakage at moderate to high energy levels (ie. impact

2. To characterise breakage at low energy inputs (ie. the abrasion component

2.1 Impact Breakage Testing

JKTech Job No. 03004 1

Ei = Mg(h - xM) (1)

Ei = energy used for breakage

Eis = specific input energy

JKTech Job No. 03004 2

2.2 Abrasion Breakage Testing

1/10 x 45.7 = 4.57 mm.

3 USING STANDARD DROP WEIGHT TEST RESULTS IN

3.1 SAG/autogenous Mill Model

3.1.1 High Energy or Impact Breakage

3.1.2 Low Energy or Abrasion Breakage

For example, if t10 = % passing 4.57 mm = 4.0%, then

JKTech Job No. 03004 3

3.1.3 Combined Breakage

3.2 Crusher Model

JKTech Job No. 03004 4

4.1 SAG/autogenous Mill Model Parameters

M4A 59.60 1.34 0.35

M4-M4A-M2 60.3 1.14 0.40

M-1 65.2 1.59 1.63

MP 63.4 1.20 0.40

M4A, M4-M4A-M2, M-1 and MP

Figure 2 – T10/Ecs Relationships for M4A, M4-M4A-M2, M-1 and MP

JKTech Job No. 03004 5

4.2 Crusher Model Parameters

Table 2 - Crusher Model Parameters for M4A

Specific Comminution Energy:

Table 3 - Crusher Model Parameters for M4-M4A-M2

Specific Comminution Energy:

JKTech Job No. 03004 6

Table 4 - Crusher Model Parameters for M-1

Specific Comminution Energy:

Table 5 - Crusher Model Parameters for MP

Specific Comminution Energy:

JKTech Job No. 03004 7

5 COMMENTS ON STANDARD DROP WEIGHT TEST RESULTS

5.1 Resistance to impact breakage

5.2 Resistance to abrasion breakage

JKTech Job No. 03004 8

Table 6 - Parameter Interactions for the Four Samples

Ore Type A*b t10 @ Ecs = 1kWh/t ta

Value Rank % Value Rank % Value Rank %

MP 76.1 1099 76.4 44.3 1154 80.2 0.40 547 38.6

JKTech Job No. 03004 9

JKTech Pendulum/Drop Test Data

Figure 3 - Frequency Distribution of A*b in the JKTech Database

JKTech Pendulum/Drop Test Data