Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.
 

Comparison of One and Two Stage High Pressure Rolls Grinding followed by Ball Milling with Conventional Rod and Ball Milling

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

View/Download File

Persistent link to this item

Statistics
View Statistics

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Title

Comparison of One and Two Stage High Pressure Rolls Grinding followed by Ball Milling with Conventional Rod and Ball Milling

Published Date

1999

Publisher

University of Minnesota Duluth

Type

Technical Report

Abstract

With the development of the autogenous wear surface, the high pressure roller press (HPR) is receiving interest from the mineral industry. Previous work by the Coleraine Laboratory had indicated energy saving using a single stage of HPR compared to rod milling and an energy saving using 2 stage HPR compared to single stage HPR. The purpose of this study was to compare three flowsheets using the same feed and producing a final size of about 85 percent passing 270 mesh. The flowsheets were as follows: (1) Rod mill followed by wet magnetic separation with ball mill grinding of the magnetic concentrate; (2) HPR closed with a 3 mesh screen followed by wet magnetic separation of the screen undersize and ball milling of the magnetic concentrate; (3) HPR closed with a 3 mesh screen with the screen undersize being upgraded by dry magnetic separation followed by open circuit HPR on the magnetic concentrate with wet magnetic separation of the HPR product and ball milling of the wet magnetic concentrate. The test work indicated that the single stage HPR required 27.25 kWh/It of new feed compared to 34.0 kWh/It for the rod mill to produce an 85 percent passing 270 mesh ball mill discharge. The two stage HPR flowsheet was even more energy efficient, requiring only 23.29 kWh/It of new feed. With the single stage HPR, the energy savings appears to be only in the coarse grinding. The ball mill grindability, as measured by the operating work index, was essentially the same for the rod mill and HPR magnetic concentrates. The two stage HPR resulted in energy savings in both the coarse grinding and in the ball milling. The operating work index for the ball mill portion only was 23.5 kWh/It of ball mill feed for the two stage flowsheet compared to about 29 kWh/It for the other two flow sheets. Davis tube tests on the ball mill discharges suggest that there is a liberation benefit associated with the two stage HPR flowsheet, but not with the single stage HPR flowsheet.

Description

Related to

Replaces

License

Series/Report Number

NRRI Technical Report;NRRI/TR-99-08

Funding information

Isbn identifier

Doi identifier

Previously Published Citation

Other identifiers

Suggested citation

Benner, Blair R. (1999). Comparison of One and Two Stage High Pressure Rolls Grinding followed by Ball Milling with Conventional Rod and Ball Milling. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/187120.

Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use. Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories.