HPGR TRADE-OFF STUDIES AND HOW TO AVOID THEM

*C.T. Morley
Ausenco Minerals & Metals
Level 1 Podium
44 St Georges Terrace
Perth, WA 6000 Australia
(*Corresponding author: chris.morley@ausenco.com)

HPGR TRADE-OFF STUDIES AND HOW TO AVOID THEM

ABSTRACT
The steadily increasing interest in high pressure grinding rolls (HPGR) as a legitimate alternative
comminution technology for hard rock applications has led to a proportional increase in the demand for
trade-off studies comparing HPGR with more established approaches, typically SAG-based but including
AG and stage-crushing designs. The primary trade-off is between a) the higher capital cost typically
incurred with HPGR-based designs and b) the higher operating costs of the more traditional technologies.
However, if, through circuit design innovation, the capital cost penalty of HPGR circuits could be
eliminated or reversed, then the need for trade-off studies would diminish.
KEYWORDS
Comminution, SAG Milling, High Pressure Grinding Rolls, Trade-off Studies
INTRODUCTION
At the current stage of development of the technology, HPGR-based circuit capital costs are
generally higher than for the equivalent SAG-based circuit, so that HPGR must offer sufficient operating
cost benefits to offset the additional capital costs over an acceptable pay-back period. It is usually
necessary to undertake comprehensive project-specific trade-off studies to quantify this effect, but if the
capital cost penalty of the HPGR option could be eliminated or reversed by engineering and design
innovation, there would be a reduced need for such studies.
The purposes of this paper are twofold:
To identify the processes involved in the execution of a typical SAG-HPGR trade-off study,
from the preliminary assessment of ore characteristics and project criteria, through testwork,
circuit modelling, equipment selection and cost estimates, to a project-economics
comparative assessment of the options. The trade-off study determines both the technical
feasibility of the respective technologies and their commercial viability in the given project
setting.
To examine opportunities for simplifying HPGR circuit design with a view to:
o reducing capital costs
o eliminating or reversing the cost penalty, and
o reducing the need for technology trade-off studies.
Capital Costs
The additional capital costs of an HPGR-based circuit arise from the need to control:
the HPGR feed top size for protection of the roll surface, implying a closed-circuit secondary
crushing step upstream, and
the mill feed top size to avoid milling inefficiencies, implying closed-circuit operation of the
HPGR itself.
It is the need for these closed-circuit facilities crushers, screens, conveyors, bins, feeders, dust
control, tramp metal management that increases plant complexity and inflates the capital cost of HPGRbased hard rock comminution circuits.
Operating Costs
The two dominant factors leading to the reduced operating cost of an HPGR-based circuit are:
the lower overall comminution specific energy, and
the elimination of the SAG mill grinding media as an operating consumable.

The reduced comminution energy requirement is offset to a degree by the power draw of the
ancillary equipment conveyors, screens, etc but there can remain a significant net energy saving with
the HPGR-based circuit designs.
The elimination of the SAG mill grinding media is offset to a small degree by the higher ball mill
media consumption due to the larger transfer size from the HPGR, but the effect is quite modest and the
overall media saving is usually substantial, particularly with hard, abrasive ores.
Maintenance intensity for HPGR circuits is higher than for a comparable SAG mill circuit and the
associated costs must be considered in some detail where labour costs are high.
Pay-Back
The HPGR-based option is considered a viable alternative to SAG-based circuit design if the
operating cost savings offset the additional capital costs over an acceptable pay-back period. However,
even if HPGR is thus demonstrated to be the preferred option in a life-of-mine project-economics sense,
the additional capital outlay can sometimes prove an impediment to its adoption.
Circuit Design Innovation
Operating costs are driven predominantly (in the context of this paper) by the ore characteristics
and prices of energy and grinding media, and as such are largely beyond the control of the design engineer.
By contrast, capital costs are driven primarily by circuit design and equipment selection and are therefore
amenable to reduction by engineering innovation.
The higher capital costs of the HPGR-based circuit arise from the greater complexity of the plant,
relating in particular to the infrastructure required for closed-circuit operation of the secondary and tertiary
(HPGR) crushing stages. It is evident therefore that capital costs could be reduced if either or both of these
stages could be operated in open circuit. (Incidentally, operating costs would also tend to decrease slightly
due to the removal of various equipment items, conveyors in particular.)
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
Over the past several decades, SAG-based plant designs have displaced conventional multi-stage
crushing and rod/ball milling circuits as the generally preferred comminution technology. SAG-based
circuits are simpler and offer lower capital and overall operating costs (although in some cases when
treating competent ores they are demonstrably less efficient in the use of comminution energy). SAG mills
are also ideal for handling wet, sticky, clay-rich and oxidised ores, allowing the elimination of the
traditional washing plant normally required for such materials.
With the progressive depletion of easily treated ores, harder and more competent and abrasive
primary ores are being targeted for treatment, and energy efficiency is becoming steadily more important
from both economic and environmental perspectives. These ores might be amenable to AG/SAG milling,
but as ore competency increases, this treatment path becomes progressively less efficient in the application
of energy for coarse particle size reduction.
The introduction of HPGR technology for use in the hard rock sector represents a return to the
traditional crushing/ball milling circuit concepts, the additional circuit complexity (when compared with
SAG-based designs) being offset by the energy efficiency of the HPGR, which occupies the tertiary stage
in the crushing plant.
Relative Merits
In this section, the major points of differentiation between the technologies are discussed.

Circuit Design and Plant Layout

The dominant advantage of SAG-based circuits over HPGR is the simplicity of the process and
small number of unit operations. The comparison between the technologies is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Unit Operations
Operation
SAG

HPGR

Coarse Ore Stockpile

Secondary Crushing
Coarse Screening
HPGR
Fine Ore Storage
Fine Screening
SAG Milling
Pebble Crushing
Ball Milling
Dust Collection
Grinding Media Consumption
SAG mill grinding media consumption is entirely absent in HPGR-based circuits, and this
generally is the single greatest advantage of HPGR and the most influential factor in the comparison of
operating costs. Differences in ball mill media consumption and in mill/HPGR liner costs between the
options are relatively small.
Energy Requirements
Typically, the comminution power for an HPGR circuit is lower than for the equivalent SABC
circuit, due to the relative energy efficiency of the HPGRs mechanism of size reduction. This energy
demand differential is the second most dominant advantage of HPGR-based circuits handling highcompetency ores, representing a significant operating cost reduction and resulting in a reduction in the
projects carbon footprint.
In addition to the HPGRs inherently greater energy efficiency, the HPGR product typically
contains considerably more fine particles than in the equivalent conventionally (cone) crushed material.
Also, the progeny particles in the HPGR product can display structural weakening due to microcracking (also known as micro-fissuring or micro-fracturing) caused by the extreme stresses experienced in
the compression zone of the HPGR (Figure 1). Being thus weakened, such particles can display a reduced
energy demand in the downstream comminution process, and this, in combination with the higher fines
content, results in a reduction in ball mill specific energy requirements. Reductions of up to 50% have
been reported (Baum, 1998), but figures in the 5-15% range are more common in laboratory evaluations.
When modelling an HPGR-ball mill circuit to estimate specific energy requirements, it is
considered prudent to include the effect of the increased proportion of fines in the HPGR product (mill
feed), but to omit the potential effects of micro-cracking. This is because it has not yet been conclusively
proven in any commercial operation that the micro-cracking phenomenon observed in the laboratory is
reproduced in the full scale plant that is, while it is considered likely that micro-cracking does occur, its
extent has not been quantified nor its effect on ball mill specific energy demand demonstrated.

100.0
100.0

% ppassing
[%]]
FFineness
in en es s %
as s in g [%

90.0
90.0
80.0
80.0
70.0
70.0

HPGR
HPGR products
products

60.0
60.0
50.0
50.0

Feed
material

40.0
40.0
30.0
30.0
20.0
20.0

Cone
Cone crusher
crusher
products
products

10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.01

0.1
0.1

11

10
10

100
100

[mm]
Particle
Particle size
size [m]
[m]

Figure 1 HPGR Product Characteristics (after von Michaelis, 2005)

HPGR APPLICATION GUIDELINES
The main drivers influencing the selection of HPGR are ore competency, electricity cost and plant
throughput. Included in electricity cost is grinding media cost as the two are linked when media
consumption is expressed in g/kWh terms and as noted, grinding media cost typically is a significant
component in the comparison. Included in plant throughput is project life, as it is rare for a high
throughput to be selected for a short project life. A long life allows greater flexibility for the incremental
capital cost pay-back period to come into effect.

Figure 2 HPGR Application Guidelines

In Figure 2, if a projects data point is above the surface defined by these variables, then HPGR
is probably worth examining as an option; if below, probably not.

Minor drivers include:

Fineness of grind a coarser grind favours HPGR due to the skewing of comminution
energy toward the (more efficient) HPGR
Gravity-recoverable gold (GRG) a high GRG content, particularly where the particles are
relatively coarse, favours HPGR, as the circuit can be designed to recover GRG upstream of
the grinding process and so enhance recovery efficiency (Pyke, Johansen, English, Lane, &
Hayward, 2006).
These factors cannot be quantified precisely as they are project- and ore-specific to a degree. It is
necessary to conduct the appropriate trade-off studies for each individual project, as the global database of
hard rock HPGR operations is still too small to allow reliable benchmarking.
However, the following can be used as a guide:
Ore competency, as measured by the JK Axb or the SMC DWi parameter, is the best
preliminary indicator of HPGR suitability (in a project-economics sense). SAG specific
energy rises exponentially as the Axb value decreases (higher competency, Figure 3), and
HPGR becomes progressively more attractive as the Axb value falls below about 35-40. At
higher values (lower competency), SAG milling is likely to be more suitable.

Figure 3 SAG specific energy vs Axb (after Parker & Veillette, 2005)
For very large throughput projects, the more competent the ore, the smaller the capital cost
differential. This is because more SAG mills of a given size and for a given plant
throughput are required for a competent ore than for a softer ore, while the number of
HPGR units will be largely unchanged, only the power requirements being affected.
Electricity costs below about US3/kWh would be considered inexpensive in this context,
while above about US8/kWh would be costly.
The higher the throughput, the smaller the capital cost differential the economies-of-scale
effect. Studies have shown that the typical difference of about 15% for a 100 kt/d hard rock
project increases to around 30% for a 25 kt/d project (D. Ryan, personal communication,
February 23, 2006), so the incremental capital pay-back period is longer for a smaller project.
In this context, grind sizes of 90 m and below would be considered fine, while 125 m and
above would be coarse. However, this is of course a sliding scale the coarser the better in
terms of HPGR relative economic benefit.

HPGR FLOWSHEET CONCEPTS

HPGR offers a considerable degree of flowsheet flexibility (Morley, 2003), but, for typical hard
rock applications, an HPGR-based circuit would have the general appearance of a 3-stage crushing and
single stage ball milling (3CB) circuit, with HPGR used as the third crushing stage.
For hard rock applications, both secondary and tertiary (HPGR) crushing are normally operated in
closed circuit:
Closed-circuit secondary to control HPGR feed top size and so avoid roll wear surface
damage (Morley, 2009)
Closed-circuit tertiary to control mill feed top-size and minimise milling inefficiencies.
Forward (crushing ahead of screening) or reverse (screening ahead of crushing) closed circuit
modes may be used depending on the nature of the ore and circuit requirements:
Forward closed circuit secondary can be used where the primary crusher product is fineslean (eg Boddington), but reverse mode is recommended for a fines-rich primary product (eg
Cerro Verde) to ensure secondary crusher feed is suitably prepared. Forward closed circuit
has the benefit of avoiding the need to screen primary crusher product.
Reverse closed circuit HPGR typically results in a slightly higher circuit capacity as the
reduction in HPGR unit capacity with truncated feeds (ie fines removed) is usually more than
offset by the amount of fines bypassing the HPGR. The dominant advantage of reverse
closed circuit mode is that it specifically targets size reduction of the coarser fractions.
However, these effects are quite modest and potentially outweighed by the increase in roll
surface wear rate usually observed with truncated feeds. Forward closed circuit is therefore
now considered the norm for hard rock applications.
HPGR product can be dry or wet screened to produce ball mill feed:
Dry screening generates significant amounts of dust and requires handling and storage of
fine material, but has the benefit of allowing full separation of the crushing and milling
circuits so that ball mill utilisation factors are maximised.
Wet screening avoids the dust and materials handling difficulties of dry screening and
provides enhanced HPGR product flake deagglomeration. However, this mode requires that
the screens be close-linked to the ball mills and screen undersize delivered to the mill hopper,
with the sharp-edged particles leading to increased wear rates in pumps and cyclones. Also,
the return of screen oversize to HPGR feed can lead to operational conflict between the
milling circuit, operating at high utilisation factors, and the lower-utilisation crushing circuit.
Furthermore, any significant inefficiency in the wet screening process (particularly where
flake deagglomeration is poor) can lead to excessive moisture in the oversize stream
resulting in turn in reduced HPGR specific capacities and increased wear rates.
TESTWORK
There are three categories of testwork to be undertaken:
Ore characterisation physical properties and comminution parameters
Amenability of the ore to SAG and HPGR treatment
HPGR flake competency and product grindability
A comprehensive test program thoroughly executed is a crucially important element of the tradeoff study, and while full ore variability analysis is not essential at this stage of the project, it is important
that the samples be representative of the orebody as a whole and that any atypical domains that could
influence technology or flowsheet selection be identified.

Ore Characterisation
As many as possible of the following properties should be determined, with the ore SG and
moisture content, Bond milling and abrasion indices and the JK Axb and/or DWi parameters the most
important, being used in circuit modelling.
Physical properties UCS (compressive strength), point load index (tensile strength), ore SG,
bulk density and moisture content
Bond indices crushing, rod and ball milling and abrasion
JK and SMC comminution parameters Axb (impact breakage), ta (abrasion breakage), t10
(size reduction), DWi (drop-weight index)
SAG Amenability
While SAG-based circuit specific energy requirements can be determined reasonably accurately
from the ore characterisation test results, it can be useful also to conduct SAG-specific tests such as media
competency determinations and SPI tests. In the case of high competency ores in particular, SAG
benchmarking data are scarce, and it can be important to conduct as many different types of test as possible
to gain a full appreciation of ore behaviour on this treatment route.
HPGR Amenability
Modelling and simulation of HPGR-based circuits is less mature than for SAG-based circuits, and
HPGR-specific tests are considered essential in the assessment of the amenability of an ore to HPGR
treatment. The manufacturers have well-developed suites of tests that are undertaken in the respective
head office locations in Germany, and there are many laboratories around the globe capable of conducting
similar (though usually less comprehensive) test programs.
There are three levels of HPGR amenability testing, which may be termed Preliminary,
Comprehensive and Site Piloting. In the Preliminary program, conducted in the laboratory, simple singlepass tests are used to provide early indications of specific capacity, specific energy demand, tyre wear rates
and product sizing. The Comprehensive program is designed to provide more definitive results, including
locked cycle tests to simulate closed-circuit operation, to examine ore variability effects and to evaluate
HPGR product flake competency and grindability. The Site Pilot program has the benefits of a longer term
evaluation of operational and maintenance issues and the familiarisation of plant personnel with the
technology.
In addition to establishing whether the ore is in fact amenable to HPGR treatment, the objectives
are to provide the data necessary for:
scale-up and sizing of commercial machines for a given duty;
prediction of product sizings for the purposes of circuit modelling and simulation;
specific energy demand and wear rate predictions for operating cost purposes.
There is a variety of HPGR sizes available for testwork purposes, ranging from a simple piston
device to pilot-scale units with capacities up to 100 t/h. Generally, performance scale-up has been found to
be more reliable using test results from the larger machines, and as a result the smaller units are normally
used for preliminary evaluation and the larger for definitive test programs used for design purposes. One
manufacturer has recently moved to the use of their largest test unit the machine normally deployed for
site pilot testing for factory test programs.
Flake Competency
The product from an HPGR is discharged in the form of a compressed cake or flake. The
competency of the flake is a function of the ore type, its moisture content and the force applied by the
HPGR. Generally, hard, competent ores produce fragile flakes that need no special measures for

deagglomeration, while softer ores can produce competent flakes that require high-energy deagglomeration
before, or as part of, the subsequent unit operation. Flake competency has the potential to influence
flowsheet design and as such is an essential part of the HPGR test program. The manufacturers have
developed standard tests that measure flake competency and determine deagglomeration requirements.
Product Grindability
Comparison with Conventional Crushing
As illustrated in Figure 1, HPGR product typically contains more fines than in a conventional
crusher product, and the progeny particles can display structural weakening due to micro-cracking, the
combined effect being to reduce the energy demand in the downstream ball milling stage. This reduction
can be quantified simply by using comparative energy demand tests in which HPGR product and the
equivalent conventionally crushed material are processed in a laboratory mill to produce directly
comparable specific energy values.
However, where it is deemed necessary to separate the two effects the increased fines and
micro-cracking it is necessary also to conduct Bond ball mill work index (BWi) tests, using the same
log/log linear feed size distribution as for the conventional product, to determine the reduction due to
micro-cracking. The reduction in energy demand due to the increased fines content can then be determined
by difference and the two components used as required in the assessment of milling specific energy
demand.
Figure 1 illustrates that, despite there being only a relatively small difference (factor of ~2) in the
P80 of the conventionally crushed and HPGR product sizings, the HPGR P50 is (in this example) an order
of magnitude finer, and the P20 two orders finer, than the conventional product. Therefore, to provide a
suitable sample for BWi determination, the HPGR product must be separated into its component fractions
and recombined in the same proportions as appearing in the conventional product.
For any given ore, it is common for BWi values to increase with increasing fineness of grind, so
to obtain results that are meaningful in a given project setting, the tests should use a closing sieve size that
gives a P80 value roughly equal to the desired grind size.
Specific energy reduction due to additional fines and to micro-cracking is ore-specific. For
Boddington (as an example), the total specific energy reduction measured in the laboratory was 15% (using
the standard Bond BWi test and fractionated and recombined HPGR product), of which 7% was due to a
reduction in work index due to micro-cracking with the balance attributed to the additional fines in HPGR
product. It is reported (G. Lane, personal communication, June 18, 2011) that similar trends have been
observed in plant operation.
Comparison with SAG Milling
While HPGR products are generally finer than those from conventional crushers, there is usually
less difference between HPGR and SAG mill products. Figure 4 illustrates a typical comparison. It can be
seen that the curves are of different shapes but similar overall gradients, and that the HPGR curve is rather
coarser than the SAG curves. This means that the transfer size to ball milling is larger than that from the
equivalent SAG mill, so that ball milling specific energy demand will be higher in an HPGR-based circuit.

Comparison with SAG Mill Products

100
90
Cumulative % finer

80
70
60

SAG 1

50

SAG 2
HPGR

40
30
20
10
0
0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

Particle size, mm

Figure 4 HPGR and SAG Mill Product Sizings

MODELLING AND SIMULATION
At this juncture in the study, the testwork program should be largely complete and all necessary
inputs available for modelling and simulation of the circuit(s).
Blast Fragmentation
While it could be argued that blast fragmentation and the primary crushing operation are common
to both SAG- and HPGR-based options and could theoretically be omitted from the study, it is considered
important that an assessment be conducted of the in situ ore and likely RoM sizing. This will provide
guidance on primary crusher requirements and assist in the prediction of crusher product sizing. This in
turn has a significant influence on SAG specific energy and overall SAG mill circuit energy efficiency
predictions, and will influence the selection of forward or reverse closed circuit secondary crushing in the
HPGR option. (While this latter selection is in itself unlikely to have a significant effect on the outcome of
the trade-off study, it is prudent at this stage to nominate the more suitable mode and to proceed on an
agreed design basis.)
Blast fragmentation modelling can be undertaken in-house where this expertise is available on the
owners team, or by specialist mining engineering consultants. Inputs required are, as a minimum, ore
characterisation test results and drill core photographs, and preferably including visual inspection of drill
core and/or the orebody. Outputs include RoM sizing predictions for various blasting patterns and
intensities. In consultation with the primary crusher manufacturers, these results can be used to optimise
(in an overall operating cost context) the blasting and primary crushing operations to generate a product
suitable for feeding to the SAG milling or secondary crushing operations.
The primary crusher product size distribution is an important input to the simulation model of the
comminution circuit, and in the absence of this blast fragmentation and primary crushing analysis, it is
necessary to use default size distributions from the modellers database. This would necessarily result in a
lower level of confidence in the model outputs and demand sensitivity analyses to manage the associated
risk. This is particularly relevant to SAG-based circuit designs, which are heavily dependent on mill feed
sizing assumptions. It is less important for HPGR-based designs, for which the risk can be relatively easily
managed by taking a conservative view of secondary crushing requirements.

10

Comminution Circuit
Flowsheet Design
For the purposes of the trade-off study, it is not essential that the comminution flowsheet designs
be fully developed and finalised, provided due cognisance is given to the HPGR feed and product top-size
control requirements and the possible need for flake deagglomeration as indicated by testwork. It is
generally sufficient to assume the use of a standard SAB(C) circuit design (unless any unusual ore
characteristics indicate otherwise) and to adopt a Boddington or Cerro Verde-style of HPGR circuit for the
purposes of comparison. This is because, for hard rock applications in particular, there is typically a
significant energy saving for HPGR over SAG-based designs, but within the HPGR category, little
difference between circuit options is usually evident. Also, differences in capital costs between HPGR
circuit options are likely to be relatively modest in comparison to the difference between SABC and
HPGR-based designs.
Modelling and Simulation
The objectives of comminution circuit modelling are to provide, for each option:
specific energy estimates for the individual comminution stages and for the entire circuit, and
a basis for the circuit mass balance and equipment selection.
The modelling exercise also provides the opportunity for sensitivity analyses to be undertaken.
These are particularly important where a lack of reliable data demands the use of assumed or default values
for some model inputs.
Depending on the capabilities and experience available to the parties, modelling may be
undertaken by the owners, the engineers, or independent consultants. In the case of ores with very high
competencies in particular, it is prudent to have modelling conducted, or at least reviewed, by at least two
separate organisations. This is because the global benchmarking database of such ores is sparsely
populated, particularly in the case of SAG milling applications.
As part of the modelling task, the HPGR manufacturers predictions of specific capacity and
specific energy requirements (based on their testwork results) must be taken into consideration. Early
experience with hard rock applications revealed a tendency for the HPGR manufacturers to under-estimate
capacities and to over-estimate the size reduction capabilities of their commercial units, with the former
effect generally outweighing the latter and giving a conservative result overall. This can be ascribed to the
leanness of the global database of commercial users of HPGR in hard rock applications, although the
steady increase in the HPGR population is now showing an expected improvement in the accuracy of
performance predictions. Likewise, early tyre wear life predictions for hard rock treatment were perceived
to be approximate at best but are now demonstrably more accurate. It is of note that, while initial wear
lives have on several occasions fallen short of expectations, lives achieved within two or three wear cycles
have consistently exceeded guaranteed values as stud pattern and chemistry are optimised for the
individual duties.
EQUIPMENT SELECTION
While major equipment selection will be based largely on the outputs of the circuit simulation
exercise, some iteration could be necessary. Typically, the independent modellers estimates of secondary
crusher and HPGR performance will differ from those of the respective manufacturers, and an extended
review process might prove necessary, possibly including further sensitivity analyses and additional
simulation.
For example, forward closed circuit secondary crushing is uncommon and benchmarking
therefore difficult. This is complicated further where ore competencies are such that the crushers will be

11

power- (rather than volume-) limited and therefore subject to capacity derating. In addition, the modellers
estimate of secondary crushing specific energy will not necessarily be consistent with the manufacturers
and/or engineers estimates of unit capacity. In this scenario, equipment selection will to some extent be a
matter of judgement, and a conservative approach is usually adopted to manage the uncertainty.
CIRCUIT DESIGN
Design and engineering of the circuit options should be to a level consistent with the requirement
to produce a comparative estimate of capital and operating costs. This normally demands a scoping or
prefeasibility study level of engineering.
For the HPGR-based option, sufficient engineering design is necessary to quantify the power
requirements for the ancillary items such as conveyors, screens and dust control equipment. This is
because the energy consumed by these items is substantial, typically offsetting the HPGRs comminution
energy benefit by about 25%.
CAPITAL COSTS
The capital cost estimates should be limited to the comminution circuit for each option, with the
primary crusher tip-point and mill cyclone overflow as the battery limits.
The estimates should be to an overall accuracy of 25-30% and should include current budget
pricing for all major equipment. If the engineers database includes recent cost estimates for plants of
similar design, a factored estimate can be used, otherwise a materials take-off approach must adopted and
costs estimated on the basis of current materials prices.
HPGR roll change-out requires some dedicated on-site maintenance facilities that must be
included in the capital cost estimate. These include a roll removal trolley and a loading and storage area
with suitable heavy-lift craneage for roll assembly exchange. Removal of tyres from the roll shafts and
their refurbishment and replacement are tasks requiring specialised skills and equipment and are usually
performed off-site at the manufacturers service centres. The manufacturers generally erect such centres at
strategic locations globally, and while the capital cost of these facilities is usually borne by the
manufacturers, any implications to the economics of a given project should be quantified and included in
the financial analysis.
OPERATING COSTS
The dominant factors in the comparison of operating costs are grinding media (in particular the
absence of SAG mill media in the HPGR case) and energy demand. For the latter, the comminution energy
reduction indicated by circuit modelling for the HPGR option must be adjusted for the energy requirement
of the materials handling ancillaries.
HPGR circuits are more maintenance intensive, and where labour unit costs are high, inclusion of
a detailed comparison of maintenance labour costs is necessary.
The second-ranking factors that should by preference be included in the analysis are crusher,
HPGR and mill liners. However, these costs can, if necessary for expediency, be omitted, as:
Manganese consumption in the HPGR-case secondary crushers is roughly equal to that in the
SAG-case pebble crushers;
HPGR tyre costs are roughly equal (in $/t terms) to SAG mill liner costs;
Ball mill liner costs are roughly equal for the two options, and can be factored from the
specific energy calculations.

12

Third-tier factors that can be safely omitted include differences in screen panels and other
maintenance materials costs.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The project-economics comparison of the options is usually limited to a simple analysis in which
the pay-back period is determined that is required for the additional capital cost of the HPGR-based circuit
to be offset by the reduced operating costs. This comparison will normally include sensitivity and breakeven analyses in which changes in the values of the major drivers are examined, including:
mill and HPGR capital costs
power cost
grinding media cost
HPGR tyre life
Relatively short pay-back periods have eventuated in boom periods when SAG mill costs have
been very high and the capital cost differential correspondingly low. Short pay-back periods can also be
predicted when:
power and media costs are high, and
the ore is highly competent, leading to
a high operating cost differential.
Extended and generally unacceptable pay-back periods typically are encountered with softer ores
and where power and media costs are low.
If a marginal benefit (or penalty) is indicated, it might be necessary to progress the design and
estimating detail to full feasibility level, and to undertake a full life-of-mine financial analysis to improve
confidence in the study outcome. In this event, it is necessary to consider the relative plant ramp-up
characteristics to ensure appropriate cash-flow factors are used.
The HPGR is a relatively simple machine and can be commissioned and ramped up to full
capacity over a period only slightly longer than for a conventional crusher. However, the HPGR circuit is
considerably more complex than the SAG-based plant, so that, while an HPGR unit might be
commissioned more rapidly than a SAG mill, it is the HPGR circuit ramp-up time that must be considered.
Recent experience indicates that ramp-up for an HPGR-based circuit can be significantly longer
than for a typical SAG-based circuit. However, as progressively more HPGR-based circuits come on line
and the technology knowledge base grows, HPGR circuit ramp-up should become more rapid. Meanwhile,
for trade-off study purposes, it is considered appropriate to assume an HPGR circuit ramp-up time longer
than that required for the equivalent SAG-based circuit.
PROJECT SETTING
The trade-off study should include an assessment of the quality and quantity of the testwork
results on which the study has been based, and provide recommendations for any further work considered
necessary to improve confidence levels. It should also provide commentary under the headings of Risks
and Uncertainties and Opportunities and Upside to assist the evaluation.
While the foregoing analysis might indicate that HPGR is the preferred technology in both a
technical and a commercial sense, there are other factors to be considered before adopting this technology
for any given project. These include:
geopolitical setting
site remoteness and accessibility
availability of engineering service facilities
owner familiarity/comfort with the technology

13

incumbent technology at an existing operation

calibre of operating and maintenance personnel
Where any of these factors could be considered an impediment to embracing HPGR (and novel
technologies generally), it might be prudent to adopt a more conventional approach. This would be
particularly applicable where the trade-off study indicated only a marginal benefit accruing from the use of
HPGR.
CIRCUIT DESIGN INNOVATION
In this section, the designs used in established large-scale HPGR circuits are reviewed and the
possibilities examined of simplifying these designs for future projects by adopting open-circuit mode for
either the secondary or tertiary (HPGR) crushing stages, with a view to reducing capital costs and
eliminating or reversing the cost penalty typically incurred with the established designs and so reducing or
removing the need for technology trade-off studies.
First Generation HPGR Circuit Design Development
The HPGR-based circuit designs used at Cerro Verde, Amplats Mogalakwena and Boddington
have been developed over the last decade or so and represent typical first-generation design concepts
characterised by secondary crushing, HPGR and ball milling all operating in closed circuit. (The term
first generation in this context refers to the use of HPGR specifically in hard rock applications. Other
flowsheet designs in the cement, diamond and iron ore sectors pre-date these hard rock designs, but are
not directly relevant to this article.)
In the first Boddington study to consider HPGR technology (Parker, Rowe, Lane, & Morrell,
2001; Figure 5), the circuit included:
reverse closed circuit (RCC) secondary crushing (ie classification before reduction)
RCC HPGR,
Dry double deck coarse and fine screening, and
forward closed circuit (FCC) ball milling (ie reduction before classification).

Figure 5 Boddington 2000

Subsequent work established that the primary crusher product would probably be fines-lean and
suitable for direct feeding to the secondary crushers (FCC) and so obviate the need for the arduous task of
screening primary crusher product.
Comparative wear rate testing of HPGR studded rolls established that wear life with a full-fines
feed (ie operating in FCC mode) was about double that for truncated feed (RCC), and that this effect
heavily outweighed by the modest circuit capacity benefits of RCC mode.

14

Difficulties were perceived with the proposed dry mode for fine screening of HPGR product, with
dust generation and materials flow behaviour problems being the major considerations leading to the
examination of wet screening as an alternative. The dry-wet relative merits may be summarised thus:
Dry Screening
Forward or reverse closed circuit HPGR
Layout flexibility
No plant utilization conflict
Maximum mill utilization
Dust
Materials flow difficulties
Limited flake deagglomeration

Wet Screening
Forward closed circuit HPGR only
Layout constrained screen undersize to
mill sump (RCC milling)
Increased pump and cyclone wear
Plant utilization conflict
Lower mill utilization
No dust
Reduced materials flow difficulties
Higher screen efficiencies
Better flake deagglomeration

On balance, Boddington decided that the merits of wet screening outweighed the disadvantages.
As noted in the comparison, adoption of wet fine screening mode automatically requires that the ball mills
be operated in RCC mode as the screen undersize must, for circuit water balance reasons, report to the
cyclones (via the mill sump) rather than the mill feed spout.
As a result of these developments, in the subsequent Boddington study of 2004-2005 (Boddington,
2005; Figure 6), all the major circuit configuration decisions taken in the earlier study were overturned,
with the design now comprising:
FCC secondary crushing
FCC HPGR
Wet fine screening
RCC ball milling
Cerro Verde (Figure 7) adopted the same flowsheet as Boddington 2005, except that reverse
closed circuit secondary crushing was necessary to accommodate the fines-rich primary crusher product.
Amplats (Figure 8) uses the same circuit as at Cerro Verde, except that dry fine screening was
adopted (Rule, 2008) to allow full separation of the crushing and milling circuits and maximisation of
milling utilisation factors.
(The Boddington and Cerro Verde circuits both feature return of wet fine screen oversize from the
screen/mill circuit to the HPGR circuit.)
First-generation circuit design for hard rock applications may be summarised thus:
Closed-circuit secondary crushing
o forward for fines-lean primary crusher product
o reverse for fines-rich primary product
Forward closed-circuit HPGR for roll surface wear minimisation
Dry or wet fine screening, depending on client preferences and circuit requirements
Closed-circuit single-stage ball milling
o forward with dry fine screening
o reverse with wet fine screening

15

FCC Secondary
Wet Fine Screening

RCC Secondary
Wet Fine Screening

RCC Secondary
Dry Fine Screening

Figure 6 Boddington 2005

Figure 7 Cerro Verde

Figure 8 Amplats

While wet screening does provide intrinsically higher efficiencies than dry, particularly at fine
separation sizes, it is necessary to be cautious in adopting this mode for HPGR circuits and to take account
of HPGR flake competency in the selection of operating mode. Hard, primary ores typically give rise to a
fragile HPGR product flake that is easily broken up in bins and on conveyors, so that high levels of
deagglomeration and wet screening efficiencies can be expected. Softer ores can produce a more
competent flake that resists break-up in materials handling processes, and in this event can lead to
screening problems in wet mode.
Agglomerated flake reporting to screen oversize will typically remain dry on the inside but have a
saturated outer layer. The additional water thus returned to HPGR feed tends to reduce specific capacity
and increase roll surface wear rate. This problem was encountered at Bendigo (Pyke, Johansen, English,
Lane, & Hayward, 2006) and with some of the softer ores at Cerro Verde. Where flake competency tests
indicate that this could be a problem, dry screening might be a more appropriate operating mode as return
of dry flake to HPGR feed is more easily accommodated. This matter is discussed further under Next
Generation HPGR Circuit Design Concepts Open Circuit HPGR.
Next Generation HPGR Circuit Design Concepts
There are many possible alternative approaches to next generation (next-gen) HPGR circuit
design, but all have the common aim of reducing plant complexity and minimising, eliminating and
ultimately reversing the capital cost penalty incurred by first generation (first-gen) designs when
compared to conventional (usually SAG-based) circuit concepts.
As noted earlier, much of the capital cost penalty can be attributed to the ancillary equipment used
to close the secondary crushing and HPGR circuits. This implies that significant cost savings could be

16

achieved by operating either or both of these stages in open circuit, and this is the main area of focus in
next-gen design concept development.
Open Circuit Secondary Crushing
Generally, the traditional 3-stage crushing plant uses open circuit primary and secondary crushing
followed by closed circuit tertiary crushing ahead of ball milling. However, when the tertiary stage is
occupied by HPGR, it is necessary to close the secondary circuit (in first-gen circuit designs) to ensure a
positively controlled feed top size is presented to the HPGR. This is because oversize particles can lead to
single-particle breakage events between the roll surfaces in the nip area ahead of the compression zone.
While the forces within the compression zone are almost entirely perpendicular to the roll surface, a
significant tangential component is imparted in single-particle events in the nip area, and this can lead to
snapping of the hard alloy studs that are used to create the rolls autogenous wear surface.
A rule-of-thumb quoted in early literature on the subject was that HPGR feed top size should not
exceed three times the operating gap. However, with the application of HPGR to progressively harder,
more competent ores, the words three times have been deleted in the current version of this rule, so that
any material larger than the operating gap is deemed oversize. It is emphasised that this is in the context of
the hard, competent ores to which this article predominantly relates. For softer materials, the rule can be
relaxed for example, Ekati (kimberlite) operates successfully with open-circuit secondary crushing and a
ratio of about 2.0, while ores of intermediate hardness could tolerate ratios in the range of, say, 1.3-1.5
(Morley, 2004).
As the operating gap is a function of roll diameter (being about 2.2-2.8% of diameter for full-fines
feeds and about 20-30% less than this for truncated or fines-lean feeds), the closing screen separation size
must in turn be a function of roll diameter. By extension, by progressively increasing roll diameter, a
condition could theoretically be approached in which open-circuit secondary crushing could be tolerated.
At least one HPGR manufacturer recognises this and is developing larger diameter roll designs.
Meanwhile, the largest high-capacity unit currently in service has a diameter of 2.4 m, requiring a feed top
size of <60 mm.
One view on this subject is that a top size only slightly greater than this value can be produced by
a secondary cone crusher operating in open circuit, but while this might be true under ideal conditions of
choke feeding and a tight setting, it is considered unrealistic to rely on such conditions in an operating
plant. In any case, even if such conditions could be consistently achieved, passage of feed through the
crusher open side during the feed run-up and run-down phases of normal start-stop operations would
ensure that the presence of oversize in the HPGR feed in this arrangement would be unavoidable.
To illustrate the sensitivity of studded rolls to oversize in HPGR feed, an example is cited
(Project X) where closed-circuit secondary crushing is practised, but where oversize material
effectively in open circuit secondary mode was inadvertently introduced to the HPGR feed stream. The
resulting widespread damage to the studs rendered the machine inoperable, requiring that it be removed
from service. In subsequent operations with a new tyre set and a properly controlled feed top size, the
indications were that the predicted wear life is likely to be exceeded. While stud damage in this case was
extreme due to the very high ore competency, the example does serve to expose the risks associated with
oversize in HPGR feed and to emphasise the need for great caution when contemplating the use of open
circuit secondary crushing in hard rock applications.
In addition to the need to control HPGR feed top size to a value equal to or less than the operating
gap, there is some evidence to suggest that substantial additional benefits to wear life might be achievable
by making this top size much smaller than the gap. This clearly would involve a shift of comminution
energy to the (less efficient) secondary crushing stage and a slight increase in overall comminution specific
energy as a result, but it is possible that this could be more than offset (in terms of overall operating costs)
by the resulting improvement in HPGR tyre life.

17

To cite one example, the Argyle recrush unit had a guaranteed wear life of 4000 hours, but
subsequently the target life was increased to 6500-7000 hours (Gerrard, Costello, & Morley, 2004). This is
an arduous duty in that:
the ore (lamproite) is highly abrasive (Ai = 0.6)
the ore is competent (being the survivor particles from three previous crushing stages)
the feed is moist (from a wet screening operation)
the feed is truncated at 6 mm.
For a conventional hard rock application, these conditions would indicate a life of around 30004000 hours for this size of roll (1.7 m diameter), as all the feed characteristics, except one, militate against
a long life. The exception is the feed top size, which, at 18 mm, gives a top size:gap ratio of about 0.5.
A second example is Amplats, with a projected wear life of 12,000 hours and a size:gap ratio of
0.8 (A. Cope, personal communication, June 26, 2009). By contrast, Cerro Verde, with a less competent
and abrasive ore than at Amplats, has a target life of only 5000 hours with a ratio of about 1.2 (S. Kirsch,
personal communication, October 17, 2009).
In summary, this paper:
considers open circuit secondary crushing to be an unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future
in hard rock applications, even with larger diameter HPGR rolls, and
proposes instead that even smaller top size:gap ratios of, say, 0.8 or less should be examined
with a view to extending tyre life.
Open Circuit HPGR
While open circuit HPGR holds the attraction of simplifying the circuit by removal of the fine
screening operation, there are implications to the design of the ball milling operation. Because the opencircuit HPGR product still contains some coarse particles, these will be either comminuted in the mill or
discharged as oversize in the slurry stream as pebbles or scats.
The coarse particles ground in the mill will incur inefficiencies as quantified by the
Bond/Rowland oversize efficiency factor. If the mill discharge slurry is screened and the coarse fraction
returned to HPGR feed (scatting ball mill mode, as once used at Mt Leyshon), this inefficiency is
minimised (though not eliminated entirely). However, this is at the cost of providing mill discharge
trommels and conveyors, offsetting to a degree the benefit of eliminating the (closed-circuit) fine screening
operation.
This milling inefficiency issue is the main disadvantage of open circuit HPGR in all its forms, as
the majority of total comminution energy generally is expended in the ball mills, so milling inefficiencies
materialise as an operating cost penalty. The magnitude of the penalty is a function of the hardness of the
ore and the cost of electricity and as such is project-specific. Loveday (2010) has shown that milling
efficiencies can be increased when a charge comprising a mixture of balls and pebbles is used. However,
this is applicable to the deliberate use of a pebble fraction of tightly controlled sizing, a condition that does
not relate to open circuit HPGR product.
Nevertheless, open circuit HPGR does have some significant benefits and has been adopted in
several operations (Gruendken, Matthies, & van der Meer, 2008). When compared to the Boddington and
Cerro Verde designs (for example), open circuit HPGR offers the following advantages:
Mill new feed is routed to the mill feed spout instead of the discharge hopper, so that the
cyclone feed duty is reduced;
Cyclone feed contains no sharp-edged particles, so pump and cyclone wear lives are
increased;
Mill feedrate control is conventional (and therefore easier), rather than being a function of
screen feed sizing and screening efficiency;

18

Any tendency for the HPGR to produce competent flake is accommodated, as such flake is
deagglomerated in the mill;
The reduction in the arisings of screen oversize (from the mill discharge trommel) results in
a reduced HPGR total feed rate (although this would be offset in the edge recycle case
see below); and
The effect on HPGR performance due to recycling of coarse, moist material is reduced due
to the lower arisings of oversize from the mill discharge trommel.
Some examples of open circuit HPGR design concepts are examined below. In the flow diagrams,
the primary and secondary crushing stages are omitted for clarity, and HPGR feed is considered to be the
product from (forward or reverse) closed circuit secondary crushing.
Where screening of mill discharge is indicated, an overflow or ported grate discharge mill is
implied. The mill discharge screening step can be omitted if a full grate discharge mill is used (ie without
pebble ports). This is shown as an option in Figures 9 and 10 but is applicable for all cases where mill
discharge screening is indicated. However, grate discharge must be applied with caution and would not
normally be recommended with highly competent ores, for which there is a risk of chronic accumulation of
coarse particles in the mill charge.
Open Circuit HPGR and 2-Stage Ball Milling
This option endeavours to minimise milling inefficiencies by using staged milling. The first stage
is operated with larger balls to handle the coarser feed (analogous to rod milling) while the second stage
uses smaller balls for the final grind.
The overflow variant with pebble return to HPGR feed is the more energy-efficient option, but
requires a mill discharge trommel and conveyors that are not required with the grate discharge mill format.

Figure 9 Open Circuit

Overflow Mill

Figure 10 Open Circuit

Grate Discharge Mill

Edge and Product Recycle

These options use recycling of the HPGR edge fraction or partial recycle of the full product
stream to achieve additional comminution performance in the HPGR stage and so reduce the inefficiency
penalty in the milling stage.

19

The edge recycle option offers higher overall efficiencies as it targets the least efficiently
comminuted material. However, it requires a splitter arrangement below each HPGR unit to separate the
edge fraction, and this is potentially a more complex design with greater maintenance demand than the
partial product recycle alternative.
Fixed Speed HPGR
In both the edge and product recycle cases, the option of using a fixed speed HPGR drive is
available, in which the capacity of the HPGR circuit is always fully utilised and varying new feed arisings
are accommodated by automatically adjusting the edge or product recycle rates. This has the advantages
of:
Reducing the capital cost of the HPGR installation through removal of the variable speed
drive system normally specified;
Maximising the use of the HPGRs, so achieving maximum overall circuit energy efficiency,
and
Extending tyre wear life by eliminating roll speed variations (which tend to lead to
accelerated wear).
HPGR FEED

HPGR
EDGE
CENTRE
BALL
MILLING

FINE
SCREENING

O/S

U/S
CYCLONE

U/F

O/F

Figure 11 Edge Recycle

Figure 12 Product Recycle

However, the removal of the variable speed drive does affect flexibility and requires that the
HPGRs be conservatively sized to ensure sufficient capacity is provided for the nominated base-case edge
or product recycle rates.
Multi-Pass Open Circuit HPGR
Multiple pass HPGR is essentially a variation on the product recycle theme, except that, rather
than recycling to the same machine, a separate stage is used. This arrangement does not change the
number of HPGR units required for a given duty, but does allow each stage to be designed for a specific
(rather than combined) task.
It also provides the potential for physically stacking the HPGRs to allow the elimination of the
product transfer/recycle conveyors. However, the structural design for this option would be complex and
expensive, tending to offset the reduction in conveyor requirements.

20

DISCUSSION
It is evident from the foregoing that the main area in which plant simplification and cost saving s
might be achieved is in the change from closed- to open-circuit operation of the HPGR circuit.
However, simply omitting the HPGR screens from the circuit imposes new constraints and
processing demands. In particular, the coarse particles in open-circuit HPGR product which becomes
mill feed can incur inefficiencies in the milling operation, particularly with the competent ores that are
the primary focus of this article. Thus the benefits of the reduction in capital costs are offset by an increase
in operating costs, resulting in a decrease in the operating cost differential between SAG- and HPGR-based
options and potentially adversely affecting the pay-back period in the trade-off analysis. To help minimise
the risk, it is necessary to undertake comprehensive ore characterisation and piloting to determine the
behaviour of the coarse particles (or pebbles) in the mill charge. This is similar to the test program
typically used for pebble milling applications and suggests pebble milling in some form (eg Loveday,
2010) could be considered for next-gen HPGR circuit designs.
This milling inefficiency (when compared to closed-circuit operation) can be mitigated in various
ways, including edge or partial product recycle and return of mill discharge scats to HPGR feed.
Generally, however, these measures incur additional capital costs, eroding the savings accruing from the
change to open-circuit mode, and also increasing operating costs due to the conveying and treatment of the
recycled ore streams.
For ores of moderate competency, the effects of milling inefficiencies with open-circuit HPGR
operation will be less onerous than with highly competent ores, as the coarse particles in mill feed will be
more easily accommodated and scatting in the discharge will be less of an issue. Open-circuit HPGR
therefore has the potential to be a viable option with moderate and lower competency ores where closedcircuit mode might not provide an economic benefit. Next-gen circuit designs could therefore provide an
opportunity to apply HPGR technology in a broader range of ore types than currently considered viable.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions to be drawn from this article are as follows:
Before commencing a formal trade-off study, the following guidelines should be considered
and preliminary cost estimates conducted to provide an indication of whether the project in
question is a likely candidate for HPGR technology:
o HPGR circuits may be suited to a hard rock comminution duty if the Axb value is
less than 35, the throughput is greater than 8 Mt/a and the cost of power is above
6 /kWh.
o First-gen HPGR-based circuit capital costs are typically 25% higher than for the
equivalent SAG-based circuit.
o An HPGR circuit consumes about 15% less power in the comminution circuit and
about 0.5 kg/t less grinding media than the equivalent SAG-based circuit.
For highly competent ores:
open-circuit secondary crushing is not a viable option for capital cost reduction
open-circuit HPGR offers potential for reducing capital costs, but with an associated penalty
of increased operating costs and process risk (compared to closed-circuit) due to milling
inefficiencies caused by coarse particles in the mill feed
milling inefficiencies can be mitigated by various means, all of which however involve
additional capital costs, offsetting the initial benefit of conversion to open circuit

21

For moderate competency ores:

open-circuit HPGR has potential to be a viable option where closed-circuit might not offer an
economic benefit, so that
next-gen design concepts could extend the range of ore types for which HPGR technology
might be viable.
In summary, the use of next-gen HPGR circuit design concepts is considered likely to improve the
viability of this technology compared to SAG-based designs, but is unlikely to eliminate entirely the need
for trade-off studies. However, as the global HPGR knowledge base continues to expand and
benchmarking operations become more widespread, it is considered that the most likely trend could be that
the emphasis shifts from studies comparing SAG and HPGR technologies to those examining the relative
merits of first-gen and next-gen HPGR circuit concepts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The provision of information by the mining companies cited in this article is gratefully
acknowledged. The preparation of the paper was supported by Ausenco Minerals & Metals, and is
published with their permission, for which they are thanked.

REFERENCES
Baum, W. (1998). HPGR as a processing tool for gold & copper leaching, flotation and gravity separation,
Raw Material Technology Seminar, Tucson.
Boddington (2005). Expansion project feasibility study update, Fluor Australia, November 2005.
Gerrard, M., Costello, B. & Morley, C. (2004). Operational experiences and performance assessment of
HPGR technology at Argyle Diamond Mine, Rio Tinto Comminution Workshop, 2004.
Gruendken, A., Matthies, E. & van der Meer, F. P. (2008). Flowsheet considerations for optimal use of
high pressure grinding rolls, Comminution 08 Conference Proceedings, Falmouth, 2008.
Loveday, B. (2010). The small pebble process for reducing ball and power consumption in secondary
grinding, XXV International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC), Brisbane, Australia, 2010
Morley, C. (2003). HPGR in hard rock applications, Mining Magazine, September 2003.
Morley, C. (2004). HPGR workshop, Crushing & Grinding Conference, Townsville, 2004.
Morley, C. (2009). HPGR flowsheets the next generation, Procemin 09 Conference Proceedings,
Santiago, 2009.
Parker, B., Rowe, P., Lane, G., & Morrell, S. (2001). The decision to opt for high pressure grinding rolls
for the Boddington expansion, SAG 2001 Conference Proceedings, Vancouver, 2001.
Parker, B. and Veillette, G. (2005). Boddington expansion project comminution circuit features and
testwork, Randol, Perth, 2005.
Pyke, P., Johansen, G., English, D., Lane, G, & and Hayward, T. (2006). Application of HPGR in
processing gold ore in Australia, SAG 2006 Conference Proceedings, Vancouver, 2006.

22

Rule, C. (2008). New concentrator technology in Anglo Platinum, Crushing & Grinding Conference, Perth,
2008.
Von Michaelis, H. (2005). Real and potential metallurgical benefits of high pressure grinding rolls, Randol
Perth, 2005.

23