A comparison of SAG mill power models

Alex Doll *
Alex G. Doll Consulting Ltd., Canada

ABSTRACT
SAG Mill power draw models are used in mill design and grinding circuit modelling to predict
how much power will be consumed by a particular mill geometry and operating configuration.
This paper will compare SAG mill models by Morrell, Loveday (using !ower "umbers published
by #arratt$ and Austin against several published mill surveys. The purpose of the comparison is to
identify the fitting factors used by each model and to identify which mill configurations seem to
better suit each model.
The importance of conducting surveys suited to model calibration will be highlighted because the
review of literature shows that survey information important to modelling is often omitted.
A recommendation for the collection of data during a mill survey is presented, along with some
assumptions used by the Author in the absence of certain data. The benefit to mining companies of
publishing their survey data, and thereby allowing modellers to improve their model calibration, is
discussed.
The comparison of models re%uires a discussion of the measurement of power in a mill drive
system as the models use slightly different bases for where power is measured. The
benchmar&ing of models against plant operations re%uires a similar discussion of power
measurement.











'(orresponding author) Ale* G +oll (onsulting Ltd. !, #o* -./0, Logan La&e, #( 123-42
(anada. !hone) 5- 6678/778.999. :mail) ale*.doll;sagmilling.com


INTRODUCTION
Si<ing the mills for a new grinding circuit re%uires a determination of how much energy is re%uired
for grinding (using test results such as #ond wor& indices$ and then finding the mill si<es to draw
that re%uired amount of energy. There are several mill power draw models available to perform the
second tas&, though generally each model is specific to a type of tumbling mill. This paper will
describe three SAG mill models and compare their default results against a series of published mill
surveys.
#ecause these models are used in the design of new plants, operating companies will benefit from
improved designs (less =design fat> and ris&$ when consultants and model designers have better
data to calibrate models against. !ublishing detailed surveys will improve the models and benefit
the ne*t generation of plant designs.
METODO!OG"
Three published models were compared to published mill survey information from industry
literature. The models are run using the default values of their principal model fitting factors for
comparison to the surveys, e*cept as noted.
Austin SAG Model
The SAG mill model by proposed by Leonard Austin (-??2$ was largely based on modifications of
earlier tumbling mill models by @ogg A Buerstenau and B. #ond. The model is loosely structured
as a &inetic and potential energy balance to describe the power draw of a mill charge. The power
drawn from a cylindrical (shell8supported$ mill is given by :%uation -.
P = K
2.5
I(1 - A[
totuI
) j(1 - e
B
) [
p
sclids
w
C
[
totuI
+ u.6[
buIIs
[p
buIIs
-
p
sclids
w
C
[
C
[1 -
0.1
2
9-10
C
(-$
4here)
A and K are empirical fitting factors
D is the mill diameter inside the liners, m
Jx is the mill filling of component x, as a fraction of total mill volume (e.g. 2./ for /2C$
L is the mill effective grinding length, m
P is the power evolved at the mill shell, &4
wC is the charge Csolids, fraction by weight (e.g. 2.72 for 72C$
B is the porosity of the roc& and ball bed, as a fraction of total bed volume (e.g. 2./ for /2C$

x
is the density of a component x, tDmE

C
is the mill speed, as a fraction of the mill critical speed (e.g. 2.6F for 6FC$
The power result of the Austin model is relative to the =mill shell>, also referred to as power =at the
pinion>.


Austin proposed a geometric factor be applied to the formula for use in cone8ended mills. The
authorGs e*perience from fitting this model to published surveys suggests that AustinGs factor adds
too much power, and proposes that FC e*tra power should be added instead (based on #arratt,
#rodie A !feifer, -???$.
An unusual feature of AustinGs model is the pulp Csolids appearing in the denominator of two of
the terms, meaning that the power draw drops as the pulp density increases. This is the opposite of
what the other models predict H higher pulp Csolids gives higher power draw in both the Loveday
and Morrell models. AustinGs paper recommends using a fi*ed value of 2.72 for this term and not
varying it as the mill water addition rate changes.
Loveday/Barratt Model
#rian Loveday published a simple SAG mill model (Loveday, -?67$ of the form in :%uation .. The
e%uation uses mill dimensions (inside the liners$, the density of the mill charge and an empirical
=power number> that encapsulates the mill speed and volumetric filling.
P = P
N

2.5
Ip
Chugc
(.$
4here)
D is the mill diameter inside the liners, m
L is the mill effective grinding length, m
P is the power evolved at the mill shell, &4
PN is an empirical =power number> which varies with mill filling and speed, unitless
Charge is the density of the mill charge as given in :%uation /, tDmE

#all charge is not e*plicitly used in the power formula, but is considered in the mill charge density
formula)
p
Chugc
= j
]
bclls
]
tctcl
p
buIIs
+
]
crc
]
tctcl
p
oc
[ (1 - [
ods
) +[
ods
p
puIp
(/$
4here)
Jx is the volumetric proportion of a component x (e.g. 2.. for .2C$

x
is the density of a component x, tDmE
A chart of power numbers was published by #arratt A Sherman (.22.$. 1alues were manually
e*tracted from this chart and smoothed by curve fitting. A subset of the power number database is
shown in Bigure -.




The power measurement of the Loveday model is relative to the =mill shell>, also referred to as
power =at the pinion>. The power numbers by #arratt A Sherman are fitted to =normal> cone8
ended (trunnion supported$ mills. Bor flat8ended (shell supported$ mills, deduct FC from the
power draw.
Morrell C-Model
The (8model was developed by Steve Morrell at the Iniversity of Jueensland as part of his !h+
thesis. The Morrell (8Model is a generalised tumbling mill model and is not specific to SAG mills.
The model was adopted for use in the K3 SimMetL software pac&age and this paper is based on the
description in a K3 Mineral Mesearch (entre publication ("apier8Munn et al, -??0$.
The model contains too many e%uations and sub8e%uations to replicate here. Nn summary, the
model consists of a friction balance between concentric layers within the rising part of the mill load.
The model contains a great deal of physics and geometry, and uses some parameters that have been
fit to laboratory or industrial scale mills. The mathematics develops the power draw of a charge
geometry and motion, and then applies a fitting factor k to convert the power draw of the mill
charge into the observed gross motor power (the motor input$. The highly8simplified formula is
given in :%uation 9)
Gross power = no-load power + k (Charge motion power) (9$
The Morrell (8model provides a power draw relative to a motor input, and it must be converted to
the same basis as the other models (mill shell basis$ to perform meaningful comparisons. The
database of mills that the published k factor was fit against consisted largely of Australian and
African mills that typically have pinions (2.?7F efficiency$, gearbo*es (2.?7F efficiency$ and

#i$%re &' !ower "umbers from #arratt A Sherman (.22.$
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Jtotal, %volume
P
o
w
e
r

N
u
m
b
e
r
60% of critical 65% of critical 70% of critical
75% of critical 80% of critical


induction motors (2.?02 efficiency$. Multiplying these efficiency values together suggests a
conversion factor of 2.?/- between motor input ((8model result$ and mill shell (+oll, .2-.$.
E(AM)!E CA!CU!ATION
A mill survey was published for the Meadowban& gold mine in northern (anada (Muteb A Allaire,
.2-/$. The following criteria were identified for the May .2-. survey)
D +iameter inside liners) 6.6 m (diameter inside shell) .0 ft$
L :ffective grinding length) /./F m (-- ft$

C
Mill speed) 2.6F of critical (--.99 rpm$
Jtotal 1olumetric filling) 2...0 (...0C vDv$
Jballs #all charge) 2.-/F (-/.FC vDv$

ore
,re density) ..?/ tDmE
wC pulp density) 2.6F (6FC solids $
Grindability) AOb /7.0P 4i#M -2.? &4hDt
Length (assumed to be flange8to8flange length$) -..9 ft
Motor is low8speed synchronous with pinion (assume 2.?9F0 conversion to shell$
Motor si<e) 9,602 horsepower (/,FF2 &4$
Measured power draw at +(S /,/69 &4 (/,-?2 &4 at mill shell$
Liner dimensions are given as .0 rows of ?.F inch highs, which are assumed to be an effective
thic&ness of 9.F inches. The mill is trunnion supported, but the cone angle and trunnion diameter
are not given.
Austin model
Nn addition to the published data shown above, assume the following)
A empirical fitting factor Q -.2/
K empirical fitting factor Q -2.0
B porosity of the roc& and ball bed Q 2./

balls
density of balls Q 6.7 tDmE
wC pulp density inside the mill charge, 72C solids (Q 2.72$ instead of slurry feed
Csolids given above.
The cylinder component of the model is described by :%uation -)
P = K
2.5
I(1 - A[
totuI
) _(1 - e
B
) _
p
soIds
w
C
] [
totuI
+ u.6[
buIIs
_p
buIIs
-
p
soIds
w
C
]_
C
_1 -
u.1
2
9-10q
C
]


becomes)
P = (1u.6)(7.7)
2.5
(S.SS)(1 -(1.uS)(u.226)) _(1 -u.S) _
2.9S
u.8
] u.226 +u.6(u.1SS) _7.8 -
2.9S
u.8
]_ u.7S _1 -
u.1
2
9-(10)(0.75)
]
The result is .,?0F &4 for the cylinder component of the mill.
The allowance for the cone section of the mill (assuming -FR cone angle$ according to AustinGs
published method wor&s out to 2.-6, an additional F26 &4, for a total of /,96. &4 power draw at
the mill shell. The measured power is /,-?2 &4 at mill shell, so the model predicts high by .?7 &4,
or ?C. @owever, by substituting the recommended FC allowance for a cone end instead of AustinGs
cone allowance results in a -97 &4 of power generated in the cone, for a total of /,--/ &4 power
draw at the mill shell.
The measured power is /,-?2 &4, so the modified model predicts low by 67 &4, or .C.
Loveday/Barratt model
(ombining :%uations . and / gives the following combined form of the Loveday power model)
P = P
N

2.5
I [j
]
bclls
]
tctcl
p
buIIs
+
]
crc
]
tctcl
p
oc
[ (1 - [
ods
) + [
ods
p
puIp
(F$
Brom the chart in Bigure -, the value of the power number PN for ...0C filling and speed 6FC of
critical is -.900. Assume that Joids is 2.9 (different from B in the Austin e%uation$. The slurry pulp
density
pulp
wor&s out to -.?7 tDmE. :%uation F becomes)
P = 1.466 7.7
2.5
S.SS [j
0.135
0.226
7.8 +
0.226-0.135
0.226
2.9S[ (1 - u.4) +u.4 1.98
The result is /,962 &4 at the mill shell, which is already calibrated for a =normal> cone8ended mill.
The measured power is /,-?2 &4 at the mill shell, so the model predicts high by .72 &4, or ?C.
Morrell C-model
The cylindrical component of MorrellGs (8model gives a net power (at the charge$ of .,.// &4. The
cone component re%uires some additional geometry for the mills) use the same assumed -FR cone
angle and assume a trunnion diameter of -.67 m (based on a ratio of other mills$. The net power of
the cone wor&s out to .-F &4. The model also estimates no8load mill power of .0F &4.
:ntering these net power values into :%uation 9 and using the published k value of -..0 gives)
Gross power = 265 + 1.26 (2,233 + 215) = 3,349 kW
The conversion between motor input (gross$ power and mill shell power, described earlier, is 2.?/-.
Therefore, the predicted power at the mill shell is /,--? &4, which is 6- &4 less than the measured
shell power (/,-?2 &4$, a difference of .C.


RESU!TS AND DISCUSSION
The model inputs are given in Table - and outputs are provided in Table .. All models are run with
their published =tuning parameters>, e*cept as noted.
Austin model)
o A Q -.2/, K Q -2.0P B Q 2./
o use a fi*ed pulp Csolids wC Q 2.72P
o use FC allowance for cone ends instead of the published formula.
LovedayD#arratt model)
o !ower numbers interpolated from Bigure -P
o deduct FC from predicted power in the case of flat8ended mills.
Morrell model)
o kQ-..0 (conversion to gross power at the input of a wound8rotor induction motor$P
o JoidsQ2.92 (different from B in the Austin e%uation$P
o use 2.?/- conversion between gross power and shell power.
Tabulation of recommended data for publication
A published mill survey would ideally provide the following information)
D, L, Jtotal, Jballs, !C, ore, wC and PDC"#
A description of the motor and drive system and a description of where in the electrical
system the +(S power indication is measuredP
#all metallurgy (e.g. =forged steel> or =high8chrome>$ or ballsP
Liner thic&ness estimate.
Tabulation of published surveys
The following surveys have been considered in Tables - A .)
(survey -$ Meadowban&) Muteb A Allaire (.2-/$
(surveys . through 6$ (adia) Mad<is<ews&i A 1alery (-???$ and mill cone geometry from
+unne et al. (.22-$
(surveys 7 through -9$ Bimiston) "elson, 1alery A Morrell (-??0$
(surveys -F A -0$ !hoeni*) Lee et al. (.2-/$
(surveys -6 A -7$ Sanacocha) #urger et al (.2--$
(survey -?$ L3A#) #ueno et al (.2--$
(surveys .2 through .F$ !orgera, two sources)
o Lam et al. (.22-$
o Grundstrom et al. (.22-$


Ta*le & Summary of published survey data (model inputs$
N+ Mine D m L m !total !balls "C #ore $C )DCS, -. con/ersion )s0ell, -.
- Meadowban& 6.62 /./F 2...0 2.-/F 2.6F2 ..?/ 2.6F /,/69 2.?9F0 1,&23
. (adia ' -..2. 0.-2 2..77 2.222 2.6?2 ..02 $.%$ --,-7? 2.?022 &3,45&
/ (adia ' -..2. 0.-2 2..7F 2.222 2.6?2 ..02 $.%$ -2,/.- 2.?022 2,236
9 (adia ' -..2. 0.-2 2..F2 2.292 2.672 ..02 $.%$ -2,7.9 2.?022 &3,12&
F (adia ' -..2. 0.-2 2.926 2.292 2.672 ..02 $.%$ -9,?9F 2.?022 &5,154
0 (adia ' -..2. 0.-2 2./-0 2.-.2 2.692 ..02 $.%$ -6,F70 2.?022 &7,661
6 (adia ' -..2. 0.-2 2..0- 2.-.2 2.672 ..02 $.%$ -6,?0/ 2.?022 &4,855
7 Bimiston -2.72 9.9. 2..-0 2.-/2 2.6.F ..?2 2.00 ?,.FF 2.?9F0 6,498
? Bimiston -2.72 9.9. 2..F. 2.-/2 2.662 ..?2 2.0/ -2,/69 2.?9F0 2,6&3
-2 Bimiston -2.72 9.9. 2.... 2.--F 2.722 ..?2 2.02 -2,?60 2.?9F0 &3,142
-- Bimiston -2.72 9.9. 2..22 2.-92 2.7.2 ..?2 2.6F --,079 2.?9F0 &&,356
-. Bimiston -2.72 9.9. 2..70 2.-/2 2.672 ..?2 2.6F --,0-2 2.?9F0 &3,246
-/ Bimiston -2.72 9.9. 2..F7 2.-/2 2.672 ..?2 2.6F --,F6- 2.?9F0 &3,258
-9 Bimiston -2.72 9.9. 2.-?2 2.-.2 2.722 ..?2 2.6F ?,927 2.?9F0 6,627
-F !hoeni* -2.69 F.2/ 2./22 2.-/2 2.692 &.%$ $.%' -2,?0F (.$$$$ &3,279
-0 !hoeni* -2.69 F.2/ 2..62 2.-/2 2.692 &.%$ $.%' -2,/29 (.$$$$ &3,135
-6 Sanacocha ?.92 ?.60 2.-6? 2.-0F 2.09F ..F. 2.6/ -.,.70 (.$$$$ &8,867
-7 Sanacocha ?.92 ?.60 2...? 2.-?- 2.0/- ..F. 2.72 -/,??. (.$$$$ &1,228
-? L3A# (BAG$ 0..7 F./2 2./2F 2.222 2.6F/ 9.-2 2.6F .,722 $.)*'+ 8,756
.2 !orgera 7./7 /./F 2..0/ 2.--2 2.67. ..6/ $.%' 9,FF2 $.)&+% 5,8&7
.- !orgera 7./7 /./F 2./29 2.-.- 2.67. ..6/ $.%' 9,/F2 $.)&+% 5,31&
.. !orgera 7./7 /./F 2...7 2.-/7 2.67. ..6/ $.%' 9,0F2 $.)&+% 5,132
./ !orgera 7./7 /./F 2./92 2.-.6 2.67. ..6/ $.%' 9,922 $.)&+% 5,344
.9 !orgera 7./7 /./F 2..0? 2.-/. 2.676 ..6/ $.%' 9,/-2 $.)&+% 1,225
.F !orgera 7./7 /./F 2./.0 2.-.6 2.676 ..6/ $.%' 9,/F2 $.)&+% 5,31&

' All models run with 6.72 tDmE ball density e*cept the (adia surveys use 6.7F tDmE.
Assumed values for unreported parameters are indicated by italics.



Ta*le 8 Mesults of models under survey conditions (model outputs$

A%s:in !o/eda;<Barra:: Morrell C=Model
N+
)c;linder
-.
)cone
-.
)s0ell
-.
Difference
)s0ell
-.
Difference
)c;linder
-.
)cone
-.
)$ross
-.
)s0ell
-.
Difference
- .,?0F -97 1,&&1 8..9C 1,543 7.7C .,.// .-F /,/9? 1,&&2 8../C
. --,-?? F02 &&,492 ?.FC &8,&76 -/./C 7,./F 627 -.,/6. &&,98& 6./C
/ --,-/- FF6 &&,766 -7.2C &8,312 .-.FC 7,-6? 0?? -.,.7? &&,555 -F.FC
9 -.,-/? 026 &8,457 ...6C &1,123 .7.?C 7,?77 6.. -/,/.0 &8,532 -?.9C
F -9,977 6.9 &9,8&8 0.2C &9,327 F..C --,2.0 -,-.9 -0,92- &9,841 0.FC
0 -0,/F9 7-7 &4,&48 -.6C &6,8&7 6.?C -.,/9. -,-F. -7,29? &7,634 82.9C
6 -0,.72 7-9 &4,325 82.?C &6,939 6./C -.,9/7 -,2./ -7,2F. &7,6&3 8..FC
7 7,F72 9.? 2,332 ..?C 2,636 -..-C 0,.9F 62. ?,9-9 6,474 2..C
? ?,967 969 2,298 -.FC &3,787 7./C 6,2F/ 792 -2,0/? 2,234 -.2C
-2 7,?0- 997 2,532 8?./C 2,473 80.2C 0,007 6.F -2,2/- 2,15& 8-2.2C
-- ?,9F0 96/ 2,282 8-2.-C &3,514 8F.FC 6,/06 69/ -2,?F2 &3,&24 86.6C
-. ?,?/F 9?6 &3,518 8F.2C &&,164 /.6C 6,06/ ?6- --,F?/ &3,427 8-.6C
-/ ?,09. 97. &3,&85 86.FC &&,311 2.7C 6,9-/ 777 --,-0. &3,125 8F.2C
-9 7,F?- 9/2 2,38& -.9C 2,452 ?.0C 0,F0/ 0F- ?,72F 2,&1& ..0C
-F -2,F-2 F.0 &&,317 2.0C &&,243 ?..C 7,22/ 799 --,709 &&,356 2.7C
-0 -2,.9. F-. &3,495 9.9C &&,479 -9..C 6,602 66F --,96- &3,768 /.6C
-6 -.,922 0.2 &1,383 0.2C &9,322 ...?C 7,?-/ //9 -.,99/ &&,964 8F.6C
-7 -/,720 0?2 &5,527 /.0C &9,664 -/.FC -2,26F 990 -9,2// &1,374 80.0C
-? /,2./ 2 1,381 -9..C 8,211
T
-2.7C .,260 2 .,79. 8,757 82.-C
.2 /,0-F -7- 1,427 8-2.2C 5,&85 8...C .,672 /-- 9,..9 1,211 80.6C
.- /,760 -?9 5,343 -.2C 5,553 -2.-C /,2-- /0/ 9,F7- 5,877 F.7C
.. /,6F/ -77 1,25& 87.FC 5,113 2.FC .,770 .?7 9,/9. 5,351 80..C
./ 9,2.9 .2- 5,889 /.0C 5,9&2 -2.7C /,-90 92- 9,6?7 5,576 ?.0C
.9 /,770 -?9 5,363 ...C 5,516 --.-C /,2-? /92 9,F0/ 5,893 0.9C
.F 9,2-9 .2- 5,8&9 9.0C 5,98& -...C /,-9. /?- 9,67. 5,591 -2.FC

T
Model power prediction reduced by FC to account for flat8ended mill.




CONC!USION
The Austin model is in good agreement with the surveys across a wide range of mill filling and mill
speeds. Nt is also suitable for a typical range of ball fillings, between 7C and -7C.
+ifference between model A survey) average ..2CP median -.6CP standard deviation 7./C.
The LovedayD#arratt model predicts high in most conditions surveyed and only at very high mill
speeds (72C of critical and beyond$ is it consistently within 7C of the surveyed power.
+ifference between model A survey) average ?..CP median ?.0CP standard deviation 7.-C.
The Morrell (8Model is in good agreement with the surveys across a wide range of mill filling and
mill speeds. Nt is also suitable for a typical range of ball fillings, between 6C and -7C.
+ifference between model A survey) average -.9CP median 2..CP standard deviation 6.9C.
!ublished survey information is fre%uently missing pulp density, a description of the electrical and
drive system and an indication of how thic& the liners are at the time of the survey. Nncluding a
description such as =gearless motor with +(S indicating the motor output> or =induction motor
with gearbo*> allows model operators to choose appropriate factors for power conversions.
AC>NO.!EDGEMENTS
Than&s to the authors of the three methods described herein for publishing their mill models with
sufficient detail to permit the calculations used in this paper.
Many than&s to all the operators and authors who have published the survey data used in this
paper. 4ithout the ability to perform this sort of comparison to real operating data, all these
models are nothing more than fancy mathematics.
NOMENC!ATURE
A empirical fitting factor for the Austin SAG model
D mill diameter inside the liner, m
Jballs ball filling level, as a fraction of the total mill volume (e.g. 2.-2 for -2C$
Jore ore filling inside a mill, as a fraction of the total mill volume (e.g. 2..2 for .2C$
Jtotal total filling inside a mill, as a fraction of the total mill volume (e.g. 2./2 for /2C$
Joids interstitial void space between balls and coarse roc&s in a mill charge (e.g. 2.29 for 9C$
k empirical fitting factor in Morrell (8model to convert charge power draw to motor input
power draw
K empirical fitting factor for the Austin SAG model
L mill effective grinding length, m
P the power evolved at the mill shell, &4
PN empirical =power number> for the Loveday model which varies with mill filling and speed


wC charge Csolids, fraction by weight (e.g. 2.6F for 6FC$
B porosity of the roc& and ball bed, as a fraction of total bed volume (e.g. 2./ for /2C$

x
density of a component x, tDmE

C
mill speed, as a fraction of the mill critical speed (e.g. 2.6F for 6FC$
RE#ERENCES
#arratt, +.K. A Sherman, M. (.22.$ GSelection and Si<ing of Autogenous and Semi8Autogenous MillsG, ,ineral
Pro-essing Plant Design, Pra-ti-e, and Control Pro-eedings, 1ol -, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
:*ploration (SM:$, 1ancouver, (anada, pp. 6FFH67..
#arratt, +.K., #rodie, M.". A !feifer, M. (-???$ GSAG milling design trends, comparative economics, mill si<es
and drivesG, Bulletin o. the Canadian /nstitute o. ,ining 0 ,etallurg1, +ecember, pp. 0.H00.
#ueno, M., !owell, M., 3oUovic, T., 4orth, K., Shi, B., "iva, :., Adolfsson, G., @enri&sson, M., !artapuoli, V.,
4i&stWm, !., Tano, 3., A Bredri&sson, A. (.2--$ GThe +ominance of the (ompetentG, Pro-eedings o. the
/nternational Autogenous Grinding, "e2iautogenous Grinding and 3igh Pressure Grinding 4oll 5e-hnolog1
Con.eren-e, 1ancouver, (anada.
#urger, #., 1argas, L., Arevalo, @., 1icuna, S., Sidel, K., 1alery, 4., Kan&ovic, A., 1alle, M. A "o<awa, :. (.2--$
GSanacocha Gold Single Stage SAG Mill +esign, ,peration, and ,ptimi<ationG, Pro-eedings o. the
/nternational Con.eren-e on Autogenous Grinding, "e2iautogenous Grinding and 3igh Pressure Grinding
4oll 5e-hnolog1 1ancouver, #.(., (anada.
+oll, A.G. (.2-.$, 5e-hni-al ,e2orandu2# ,ill ,otor Power De.initions Mev. F, viewed May -6, .2-/
https)DDwww.sagmilling.comDarticlesDTechMemorandum8Motor!ower8MevF.pdf
+unne, M., Morrell, S., Lane, G., 1alery, 4. A @art, S. (.22-$ G+esign of the 92 Boot +iameter SAG Mill Nnstalled
at the (adia Gold (opper MineG, Pro-eedings o. the /nternational Con.eren-e on Autogenous and
"e2iautogenous Grinding 5e-hnolog1 &$$(, 1ancouver, (anada, pp. N89/HN8F7
Grundstrom, (., 3anchibotla, S., Kan&ovich, A. A Thornton, +. (.22-$ G#last Bragmentation for Ma*imising the
SAG Mill Throughput at !orgera Gold MineG, Pro-eedings o. the &%
th
Annual Con.eren-e on 6x7losies and
Blasting 5e-hni8ues, NS::, ,rlando, ISA.
Lam, M., Kan&ovic, A., 1alery, 4. A 3anchibotla, S. (.22-$ GMa*imi<ing SAG Mill Throughput at !orgera Gold
Mine by ,ptimi<ing #last BragmentationG, Pro-eedings o. the /nternational Con.eren-e on Autogenous and
"e2iautogenous Grinding 5e-hnolog1 &$$(, 1ancouver, (anada, pp. N8.6-HN8.77.
Lee, 3., #issue, (., (astillo, G., A Thies, G. (.2-/$ G+esign and Nmplementation of a #rownfield SAG !re8(rush
(ircuitG, Pro-eedings o. the *'
th
Canadian ,ineral Pro-essors Annual General ,eeting, ,ttawa, (anada,
pp. /.6H/9..
Loveday, #.3. (-?67$ G!rediction of Autogenous Milling from !ilot !lant TestsG, Pro-eedings o. the ((
th

Co22onwealth ,ining and ,etallurgi-al Congress, @ong 3ong.
Muteb, !. A Allaire, K. (.2-/$ GMeadowban& Mine !rocess !lant Throughput NncreaseG, Pro-eedings o. the *'
th

Canadian ,ineral Pro-essors Annual General ,eeting, ,ttawa, (anada, pp. /-/H/.0.
"apier8Munn, T.K., Morrell, S., Morrison, M.+. A 3oUovic, T. (-??0$ ,ineral Co22inution Cir-uits# 5heir 97eration
and 97ti2isation, Kulius 3ruttschnitt Mineral Mesearch (entre, Nndooroopilly, Jueensland, Australia,
pp. .F-H.6..


"elson, M., 1alery, 4. A Morrell, S. (-??0$ G!erformance (haracteristics and ,ptimisation of the Bimiston
(3(GM$ SAG Mill (ircuitG, Pro-eedings o. the /nternational Con.eren-e on Autogenous and "e2iautogenous
Grinding 5e-hnolog1 ())+, 1ancouver, (anada, pp. .//H.97.
Mad<is<ews&i, !. A 1alery, 4. (-???$ G(adia SAG Mill Simulated (harge #ehaviourG, Pro-eedings o. the Annual
General ,eeting o. the Canadian ,ineral Pro-essors, ,ttawa, (anada, pp. .06H.7/.