ABSTRAT

Grindability of fluorspar was investigated in this work. A sample was of a large size so it passed
through a jaw crusher so to reduce particle size of a sample. Crushed sample was then sieved,
then introduced to a ball mill for further size reduction.

The product from ball mill was also sieved and the masses recorded for the empty sieves, sieves
+ samples and mass retained calculated.

The results obtained show that weight retained varies directly proportional in such a way that as
the size decreases also the weight retained decreases.

Cumulative mass retained calculated also which helped in the construction of graphs of
cumulative mass retained against the particle sizes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRAT..................................................................................................................................................1
TABLE OF CONTENT............................................................................................................................1
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................1
1.0: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
2.0: THEORY............................................................................................................................................2
2.1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND..............................................................................................2
2.2: PARAMETERS TO BE DETERMINED.....................................................................................4
3.0: EXPERIMENT PROCEDURES.......................................................................................................4
3.1: MATERIAL....................................................................................................................................4
3.2: EQUIPMENT OR APPARATUS.................................................................................................4
3.3: TEST OR ANALYSIS PROCEDURES........................................................................................4
4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................5
4.1: RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................5
4.2: DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................................5
4.3: SOURCES OF ERRORS...............................................................................................................6
5.0: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION................................................................................6
5.1: CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................6
5.2: RECOMMENDATION.................................................................................................................6
6.0: NOMENCLATURE...........................................................................................................................6
7.0: REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................7
8.0: APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................7
8.1: APPENDIX A- TABLES...............................................................................................................7
8.2: APPENDIX B – GRAPHS............................................................................................................7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: After crushing................................................................................................................................7
Table 2: After grinding................................................................................................................................7
1.0: INTRODUCTION
Grindability of material refers to the energy required to reduce the material from one particular
to another. It can be expressed in different ways; the best being known is Bond’s standard work
index. The Bond standard work index is a well-established indicator of grindability, and in
conjunction with the Bond law of comminution is widely used in the estimation of energy
required for many crushing and grinding operations.

In mineral processing plant comminution takes place in a sequence of crushing and grinding
processes and is a stage where much of energy is used. Crushing is the first mechanical stage in
the process of comminution. It is generally a dry operation, which is usually performed in two or
three stages. Crushing may be in an open or closed circuit depending on product size
requirements. Grinding is the last stage of the comminution process which is needed to be carried
out until the mineral and the gangue are substantially produced as separate particles. Grinding is
usually performed wet but dry grinding has some applications.

The bond work index is a measured in KWt/h and typical value range from 7 to 20+. Soft
material has a BWi between 7 and 9KWt/h, and anything above 14KWt/h is considered hard.
(Vizcarra, T. G., Wightman, E. M., Johnson, N. W., &Manlapig, E. V., 2010)

2.0: THEORY
2.1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Grindability, which is also referred to as the ease at which materials can be comminuted, is used
to evaluate crushing and grinding efficiency. The relationship between energy input and the
product particle size made from a given feed size can be stated according to Rittingers law and
Bond’s Law. Rittingers law equates to:

E=k
( 1
−
1
D2 D1 )
Where E is the energy input in watts, D1 is the initial particle size, D2 is the final particle size and
k is a constant.

The energy consumed in size reduction is proportional to the area of new surface produced. This
means the surface area of a known weight of particles of uniform diameter is inversely
proportional to the diameter.

KICK’S LAW:

It states that “The energy required for producing analogous changes of configuration of
geometrically similar bodies of equal technological state varies as the volumes or weights of the
bodies”

OR

“For any unit weight of ore particles the energy required to produce any desired reduction in
volume of the particles in the mass constant no matter what original size of the particles may be.”

Kick’s law defines the energy requirement in term of very fine grinding. Generally, both laws
are integrated for final effective results (Earle, 1983).

BOND’S THEORY
State’s that “The work input is proportional to the new crack tip length produced in particle
breakage and equals to the work represented by the product minus that represented by the feed”.
According to the Bond’s theory the is directly proportional to the work index of materials and
inversely proportional to the square root of the 80% passes of product and feed.
 10 wi 10 wi
W= −
√ P 80 √ F 80
Wi is the work index.
W is the work input in kilowatt hour per short ton
P= 80% of product passes.
F= 80% pass of feed material.
Work index (Wi) is the comminution parameter which express the resistance of materials to
crushing and grinding. This theory was developed by Fred Bond in 1952 and modified in 1961.
However, it is very convenient to select the desired 80% passing size as the target grind size.
This targets grind size that defines and distinguishes between course and fine particles in any of
the given circuit streams. Course particles are therefore larger than the circuit target grind size
and fine particles are smaller than the circuit target grind size.

The surface area of ore in powder form rises, resulting in more effective liberation and lower
energy usage. Grinding, as the ultimate process for size reduction, is followed by secondary
crushing, and the output of the secondary crusher is used as feed for the grinding process. As a
result, the feed size for grinding or milling is kept between 5 and 250 mm (Wills, 2006).

Compressive, impact, and shear forces are primarily responsible for deviating the ground
characteristics of any substance. The production of very small particles is not limited to tensile or
compressive forces. Shear force tension plays an important role in breaking the material into
particle size and broadening the active surface area for the milling process ahead.

2.2: PARAMETERS TO BE DETERMINED

For efficient process, a control of communition parameters is important. For example in
grinding, the feed size from crusher, size and type of media, charge, pulp density, and residence
time are among parameters to control. All these parameters can be reflected on how energy used
can be controlled.

For this practical only one parameter was varied, the parameter varied was the size of the sieves
from 850, -850+425, -425+300, -300+212, -212+150, -150+106, -106+63, -63 microns.
3.0: EXPERIMENT PROCEDURES
3.1: MATERIAL
 The ore used was fluorspar

3.2: EQUIPMENT OR APPARATUS

 John Riffle Splitter for sample splitting.
 jaw crusher for primary crushing.
 Roll crusher for secondary crushing.
 Laboratory Ball mill for grinding Steal balls as grinding media.
 Stopwatch for time measurement.
 Vibrating sieve shaker for sieving.
 Soft brush for sieve and ball mill cleaning.
 Sieves
 Electronic balance for weighing

3.3: TEST OR ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

a. The sample was crushed using a jaw crusher, splitted and sieved into four size
fractions

b. 200g to 300g of the above sieved sample was weighed and taken to a ball mill for
grinding
c. The material was ground for 60 minutes
d. Sieve analysis of each product was done.
e. Then the effect of feed size on energy consumption was evaluated.
4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1: RESULTS

After Crushing
Size of sieve (µm) Empty sieve (g) Sieve +sample Mass retained
+850 363 690.5 327.5
-850+425 334 399.5 65.5
-425+300 310.5 331.5 21
-300+212 324 334.5 10.5
-212+150 299.5 317 17.5
-150+106 255 267 12
-106+63 287.5 288 0.5
-63+PAN 290 335.5 44.5

After Grinding
Size of sieve (µm) Empty sieve (g) Sieve +sample Mass retained
+850 363 363 0
-850+425 334 334 0
-425+300 310.5 313.5 3
-300+212 324 700 376
-212+150 299.5 302 2.5
-150+106 255 314 59
-106+63 287.5 294.5 7
-63+PAN 290 340.5 50.5

4.2: DISCUSSION

The work input for grinding of fluorspar was 3.32 Kw/t. Therefore power should not exceed that
hence will lead in overgrinding and fines production. And if power is low then there will be low
efficient of grinding the sample ore.

There occurred some variation of weight since sample was lost as dust or remained on sieve
during sieving process.
4.3: SOURCES OF ERRORS
 Overgrinding
 Loss of sample weight
5.0: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1: CONCLUSION
From the discussion part above it is relevant that fluorspar has a low bond work energy because
is a soft rock hence it does not require a lot of energy to reach the liberation size.

The energy consumed in the size reduction of the Fluorspar sample of work index 9.5 kWh/t was
found to be 3.32 kWh/t.

5.2: RECOMMENDATION
When conducting this experiment, the following aspects should be well controlled and
maintained so as to attain proper energy inputs, power consumed and the percent 80 passing of
both feed and product;

 The sieves should be arranged in order of the mesh size that is 850, 425,212,180,150,106,
63 respectively.
 The samples should be well held to avoid loss which leads to wrong determination of
results of energy required, power consumed and the 80 percent passing of feed and
product.
 The samples for this experiment should be dry so as to enable the efficiency of the
operation for better results.
6.0: NOMENCLATURE
D1…………………………………………………………………………….is the initial diameter

D2…………………………………………….……………………Final diameter of the particle

gm……………………………………………………………………………………………. gram

h………………………………………………………………………………………………hour

Kwh/t……………………………………………….…………………kilowatt-hour per short tone

Wt.…………………………………………………………………...…………………. weight

W…………………………………………………………….……………………. work input

t…………………………………………………………………………………….……. short tone

μm ……………………………………………………………………………………. micrometer

Wi………………………………………………………...…………………………......work index
7.0: REFERENCES
Wills, B. A., & Finch, J. (2016). Wills' mineral processing technology: an introduction to the
practical aspects of ore treatment and mineral recovery. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Vizcarra, T. G., Wightman, E. M., Johnson, N. W., &Manlapig, E. V. (2010). The effect of
braking mechanism on the mineral liberation properties of sulfide ore. Minerals
Engineering.

B.A Wills, T. J Napier-Munn (2006) ‘Mineral Processing Technology’ seventh edition. Butter
Worheinemann, Vancouver, Canada

Robert, P. H., Don, G. W., & James, O. M. (1985). Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. 7th
Edition.

D. Sbárbaro. R. Villar (2010), ‘Advanced Control and Supervision of Mineral Processing

Plants’. Springer London Dordrecht Heidelberg
8.0: APPENDICES
8.1: APPENDIX A- TABLES
Table 1: After crushing

Mean Size Empty Sieve +sample Mass % mass Cumulative Cumulative

of sieve sieve (g) (g) retained (g) retained mass passing
(µm) retained (%)
(%)
3550 320 320 0 0 0 100
850 363 690.5 327.5 65.63 65.63 34.37
637.5 334 399.5 65.5 13.13 78.76 21.24
362.5 310.5 331.5 21 4.21 82.97 17.03
256 324 334.5 10.5 2.1 85.07 14.93
181 299.5 317 17.5 3.51 88.58 11.42
128 255 267 12 2.4 90.98 9.02
84.5 287.5 288 0.5 0.1 91.08 8.92
63 290 335.5 44.5 8.92 100 0

Table 2: After grinding

Size of Empty Sieve Mass % mass Cumulative Cumulative

sieve sieve (g) +sample retained retained mass passing
(µm) retained (%) (%)
850 363 363 0 0 0 100
637.5 334 334 0 0 0 100
362.5 310.5 313.5 3 0.6 0.6 99.4
256 324 700 376 75.5 76.1 23.9
181 299.5 302 2.5 0.5 76.6 23.4
128 255 314 59 11.85 88.45 11.55
84.5 287.5 294.5 7 1.41 89.86 10.14
63 290 340.5 50.5 10.14 100 0

8.2: APPENDIX B – GRAPHS

AFTER CRUSHING
From the graph above F80 = 2700 microns

AFTER GRINDING

From the graph above P80 = 340 microns

DETERMINE OF POWER INPUT
The power input for grinding of fluorspar was calculated as follows;
From bond’s theory equation

W =10 wi
[√ 1
–
1
P 80 √ F 80 ]
P80 = 340 µm
F80 = 2700 µm
Wi of fluorspar = 9.5 Kwh/t

W =10 x 9.5
[ 1
–
1
√ 340 √ 2700 ]
W = 3.32 Kwh/t
The specific energy for grinding of fluorspar was 3.32 Kwh/t

Weight of sample was 0.498kg

Time used to grind the sample was 15 minutes

Then, 1 short tone = 907.18 kg

x = 0.498kg

x= 0.000549 tone

Time used for grinding the sample was for 15 minutes = 0.25 h

mass of sample
Then capacity =
time

0.000549
Then capacity =
0.25

= 2.1958×10-3 t/h

Power consumed = capacity × specific energy

Power consumed = 2.1958×10-3 t/h × 3.32 Kwh/t

= 7.29 ×10-3 Kw
Therefore, power consumed = 7.29 ×10-3 Kw