Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Volume 10, Issue 03, March 2019, pp. 1180-1194. Article ID: IJMET_10_03_120
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
ABSTRACT
When designing concentrating plants, the selection of the technological
comminution scheme for beneficiation, the type, quantity and size of the equipment, the
determination of optimal grinding regimes and the calculation of equipment loads are
carried out by preliminary studies of grinding in semi-industrial or laboratory
conditions. Semi-industrial tests ensure the most reliable information for calculating
loads for equipment. However, this requires a significant amount of ore samples, a lot
of labor and the pilot plants. Fred Bond published an article in 1961, which, described
the procedure for testing ores for a Bond Ball Index. This parameter is still one of the
most demanded tools in the design, evaluation and optimization of ball grinding plants
around the world.
However, the testing methodology for the Bond Dall Index requires about 10 kg of
sample, the standardized equipment and takes an average of 6 to 12 hours. Many
researchers have tried to find alternative methods for determining this Index - to reduce
labor costs, sample weight, or to get one without standard equipment. This paper was
carried out with the purpose of reviewing, classifying and testing the existing methods
for determination the Bond Ball Mill Index. The authors of the considered methods were
Aksani B. and Somnez B., Todorovic D., Berry T. F. and Bruce R. W., Horst W. E. and
Bassarear J. H., Ahmadi R. and Shahsavari Sh., Kapur P. C., Gharehgheshlagh Hojjat
H., JKTech, Lewis K. A., etc. The paper presents the relative errors of the obtained
value from the actual Bond Ball Mill Index, the average working hours for the testing
procedure and necessary equipment.
Keywords: Ball Mill Work Index, Bond Index, Grindability, Ball grinding, Ore
testing, Grinding energy consumption, Physical and mechanical ore properties.
Cite this Article Vladislav Valerevich Lvov and Leonid Sergeevich Chitalov,
Comparison of the Different Ways of the Ball Bond Work Index Determining,
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 10(3), 2019, pp.
1180-1194.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3
1. INTRODUCTION
During the development of dressing plants the choice of a technological scheme for preparing
the ore for dressing, the type, quantity and size of the main processing equipment, the
determination of the optimal regimes of grinding and the calculation of loads for the equipment
are carried out by preliminary studies of the grindability in the semi-industrial or laboratory
conditions. Most of the iron ore deposits in Russian Federation are known for showing
comparatively low grade ores and are consequently subjects for a necessity of ore dressing that
requires obligatory intense grinding. The result is that such concentrates are not adopted for
direct utilization in metallurgic separation and require clotting [1]. Semi-industrial tests on
continuous installations provide the most reliable information for calculating unit loads of the
equipment. However, they are associated with significant volumes of ore samples, high labor
costs and the presence of pilot plants.
In 1961 Fred Bond published a methodology for determining the working index of spherical
grinding. This indicator still remains one of the most popular tools for the development,
evaluation and optimization of spherical grinding plants around the world. The methodology
for determining the working index of Bond spherical grinding requires about 10 kg of material
and the availability of a standardized ball mill. The testing process, depending on a number of
conditions (size of the test sieve, homogeneity of material, grain-size composition, etc.), takes
up to 12 hours.
To cut labor costs for determining the Bond spherical grinding working index, to reduce the
required sample mass, to be able to determine the index in the absence of standardized
equipment, many researchers tried to find alternative methods for determining this indicator,
including Aksani B. and Somnez B., Todorovic D., Berry T.F. and Bruce R.W., Horst W.E. and
Bassarear J.H., Ahmadi R. and Shahsavari Sh., Kapur P.C., Gharehgheshlagh Hojjat H.,
JKTech, Lewis K.A. and others.
This work was performed to review, approbate and classify the existing methods for
obtaining the working index of Bond spherical grinding. The paper presents the deviations of
the results of the authors' methods from the actual working index of Bond spherical grinding,
as well as the estimated labor costs for the testing procedure and the necessary equipment.
Changes were proposed for the methods of Kapur and Ahmadi to improve the accuracy of their
results.
The work is carried out under financial support of the Ministry of Education and Science of
the Russian Federation, the project RFMEFI57417X0168
2. METHODS
The key stage in improving the technology of beneficiation of most ores in recent years has
been an increase in the efficiency of grinding operations [2]. During the development of
beneficiation plants the choice of the technological scheme for preparing the ore for
beneficiation, the type, quantity and size of the main process equipment, the determination of
the optimal grinding regimes and the calculation of loads for equipment are carried out by
preliminary studies of the grindability in the semi-industrial or laboratory conditions. Semi-
industrial tests on continuous installations provide the most reliable information for calculating
unit loads of the equipment. However, they are associated with significant volumes of ore
samples, high labor costs and the presence of pilot plants.
In 1961 Fred Bond published a methodology for determining the working index of spherical
grinding. This indicator still remains one of the most popular tools for the development,
evaluation and optimization of spherical grinding plants around the world. The methodology
for determining the working index of Bond spherical grinding requires about 10 kg of material
and the availability of a standardized ball mill [3]. The classification of the ore grinded in the
ball mill in the hydrocyclone, mechanical and hydraulic classifier has shown a possibility of the
material fineness based clean cut separation. Since the underflow consists primarily of dark-
coloured (deleterious) minerals, the classification also serves as a dressing process [4]. The
testing process, depending on a number of conditions (size of the test sieve, homogeneity of
material, grain-size composition, etc.), takes up to 12 hours.
To cut labor costs for determining the Bond spherical grinding working index, to reduce the
required sample mass, to be able to determine the index in the absence of standardized
equipment, many researchers tried to find alternative methods for determining this indicator,
which include a lot of methods for assessing the grindability of ore [5–11]. The choice of
methodology depends on the method and approach to the type of the developed scheme. The
most widely used methods are the methods of F. Bond.
Despite widespread use of the Bond spherical grinding working index [12–15], its major
drawback is that it takes up to 12 hours and up to 10 kg of the original sample to determine it.
In this regard, the test procedures to determine the working index of Bond spherical grinding
are difficult to use in projects where one needs hundreds or thousands of tests, for example, the
use of the methods of spatial modeling of the deposits by strength properties or the current
analysis of the ore coming to the processing plant [33]. In this regard, many researchers have
tried to intensify the procedure for determining the BWi. We will consider the most effective of
the existing methods.
where A is the size of mesh of the test sieve, mkm (usually 106 mkm); Gbp – grindability
parameter in the last three test cycles, g/rev; F80 – theoretical size of sieve mesh, through which
80% of the mass of the initial sample passes, mkm; Р80 – theoretical size of sieve mesh, through
which 80% of the mass of the final product passes, mkm. All of the above-mentioned indicators
are determined by using the following test procedure.
In the first cycle the initial sample is ground at 100 revolutions of the mill. The supply of
the second and subsequent cycles consists of the oversize fraction of the product of the previous
cycle, supplemented with fresh supply to the initial sample mass.
The number of revolutions of the mill in each subsequent cycle is calculated from the
grindability parameter in the previous cycle so that the circulating load in the mill-classifier
node reaches 250%. For this goal the mass of the undersize product after grinding should be
1/3.5 of the mass of the original supply. Grinding cycles can be completed when the grindability
parameter (Gbp, g/rev) and the weight of the finished class will be unchanged for three cycles
(± 3%). The products of these three cycles are combined to find the parameter Р80.
The reproducibility of the results of the standard methodology of F. Bond is in the range of
3-5%.
The essence of this work [17] is to use the detected patterns between the indicators of various
cycles in the framework of the Bond test. Todorovik processed the Bond test database and
derived the following average ratios for the grindability parameters in the Bond test:
𝐺𝑒 𝐺 𝐺
𝐺2
≈ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 ≈ 1.158; 𝐺𝑒 ≈ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 ≈ 1.096; 𝐺𝑒 ≈ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 ≈ 1.037, (2)
3 4
where Ge - – stabilized grindability for the last three cycles of the Bond test, g/rev; G2, G3,
G4 – grindability for the 2, 3 and 4 cycles of the Bond test, respectively.
The first cycle was not used, because the mass of the undersize product depends on the
granular composition of the supply and other characteristics of the material.
The same relationship was found for the product size parameters:
𝑒 𝑒 𝑒
𝑃80 𝑃80 𝑃80
2 ≈ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 ≈ 1.035; 3 ≈ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 ≈ 1.030; 4 ≈ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 ≈ 1.017, (3)
𝑃80 𝑃80 𝑃80
𝑒 2 3 4
where 𝑃80 is the product size for the last three Bond test cycles; 𝑃80 , 𝑃80 , 𝑃80 – the size for
products in the 2, 3 and 4 cycles of the Bond test, respectively.
Therefore, by using these ratios one can perform two or more grinding cycles in accordance
with the standard Bond procedure, after which it is possible to calculate grindability, to conduct
a size analysis of the product of the second cycle and calculate a theoretically final grindability
and the size of the product. The obtained indicators, as well as the parameter of the size of
supply and the mesh of the test sieve, are further used to calculate the BWi index according to
the standard formula (1).
The stated relative error for this method is within the range of 4%. This method was tested
on a sample of oxidized ferruginous quartzites and showed a relative error of 4.4% and 0.3%
when using the indicators of the second and third grinding cycle, respectively.
where Wiref is the working Bond index of the reference ore, Fu and Pu – F80 and P80 are the
studied ores, Fref and Pref – F80 and P80 are the reference ores.
The stated relative error lies within the range of 8%. This method was tested on a sample of
apatite-nepheline ore and showed a relative error of 6.3%.
𝛼𝐸̄
The calibration of the mill consists in the selection of expression 𝐴 = using the least
10
squares method in such a way as to minimize the average relative error between the actual BWi
index and the index obtained at the calibrated mill according to the following expression:
−1
∑𝑛
𝑗=1 𝐵𝑊𝑖𝑗 ⋅(1/√𝑃80 −1/√𝐹80 ) 𝑗
𝐴= −2 (7)
∑𝑛
𝑗=1(1/√𝑃80 −1/√𝐹80 ) 𝑗
Yap and Sepulveda calibrated their mill with 19 samples of various types of ores. For each
of them a standard Bond test was performed, which was followed by grinding in a calibrated
mill for 10 minutes. The diameter of the drum was 25,1 cm with a length of 21 cm. The grinding
media consisted of steel balls (see Table 1), the rotation speed was 92 min-1 or 96% of the
critical, the mass of the loaded sample – 1 kg, particle size – 1,700 + 147 mkm. A wet grinding
was used with a solid content of 50%. The screening of supply and ground product was
conducted. For the chosen mill Yap and Sepulveda received A=0.5031.
Table 1. Ball loading of the mill used in the method of Yap and Sepulveda
Diameter of balls, mm Number of balls, pieces Mass, g
35.6 – 38.1 11 2316.5
31.8 – 33.0 17 2325.4
29.2 – 31.0 13 1534.8
25.4 – 27.9 10 822.5
24.1 – 25.4 7 449.7
22.9 – 24.1 30 1634.0
Total 88 9082.9
The stated average relative error for more than twenty samples was 4.1%.
6) After the second grinding period the mill product is classified according to the check
class with Р80 determined for the undersize. The oversize product should be approximately
equal to 2.5М/3.5М.
7) The BWi index is determined by the standard Bond equation using the grindability
obtained in the second grinding period.
This method was tested on a sample of apatite-nepheline ore and showed a relative error of
7.0%.
2.7. Kapur
This method [23] uses the same mill and grinding conditions as in the standard Bond test. The
essence of this method is in the use of the following empirical equation:
BWi=K[Pi]a [G2]b [RoM1]c [1- Ro]d, (10)
where Pi is the mesh size of the control sieve, mkm; G2 – the parameter of grindability in
the second grinding cycle, g/revs; R0 – the mass of oversize product in the original material,
unit fraction, M1 - the mass of the mill’s load, g; K, a, b, c, d – dimensionless empirical
coefficients depending on physical and mechanical characteristics of the ore.
The results of Kapur's equation, when used with general coefficients in practice, have an
average relative error of 9.4%. The Kapur’s method was tested on 37 samples of various types
of ores and showed an average relative error of 8.6% [32].
2.8. Carr
Carr [24] modified Kapur's algorithm and proposed another empirical equation for calculating
the Bond index, which also uses the Bond grindability and only two grinding cycles:
𝑊𝑖 = 9,934 ⋅ 𝑃0,308 𝐺2−0,696 𝐹80
−0,125
(11)
The average relative error declared by the author was 5.0%, which is a better result than in
the Kapur’s method. The Carr’s method was tested on 22 samples of various types of ores and
showed an average relative error of 5.5%.
where G is the grindability in the first Bond cycle, g/revs; Р – the upper limit in the size of
the finished class, mkm.
According to the data obtained by the author, the stated average relative error for this
method is 8.2%. This method was tested on 44 samples of various types of ores and showed an
average relative error of 16.6%.
The Lewis method [28] was formed after obtaining the appearance functions for n size classes
for subsequent use in the cumulative grinding model:
𝑅𝑖 (𝑡) = ∑𝑖𝑛=1 𝑎𝑛𝑖 ⋅ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑘𝑛 ⋅ 𝑡) (17)
where with n≠i the following equation is observed:
∑𝑖−1
𝑗=𝑛(𝑘𝑗 ⋅𝑏𝑖𝑗 ⋅𝑎𝑛𝑗 )
𝑎𝑛𝑖 = (18)
𝑘𝑖 −𝑘𝑛
and with n=i the following equation is observed:
𝑎𝑖𝑖 = 𝑊𝑖 (0) − ∑𝑖−1
𝑛=1 𝑎𝑛𝑖 (19)
where 𝑅𝑖 (𝑡) is the mass of class i after the time of grinding t; ki – a selective function for
size i; bij –the appearance function. These functions are calculated in the following way:
𝑋 𝛼
𝑖
𝑘𝑖 = 𝑆1000 ⋅ (1000 ) ; (20)
𝑏𝑖𝑗 = 𝐵𝑖𝑗 − 𝐵𝑖+1,𝑗 ; (21)
𝛾 𝛽
𝑋 𝑋
𝐵𝑖𝑗 = 𝛩 ⋅ (𝑋 𝑖 ) + (1 − 𝛩) ⋅ (𝑋 𝑖 ) , (22)
𝑗 𝑗
where Xi is the geometric average size for class i, mkm; S1000, α, β, γ – the parameters of
the model, which are necessary for finding each sample. The time of grinding t is calculated
from the number of revolutions.
By using this model after the first grinding cycle it is possible to obtain the appearance
function for a certain set of size classes, then calculate all subsequent periods until the process
stabilizes at the required (250%) circulating loading making it possible to calculate the
grindability in the last cycles and the size of the ground products. At the last stage one can use
the standard Bond formula. The stated average relative error is less than 3,5%.
3.2. MiniBond
This technique [29] is part of the Metsuite test series of the Aminpro company and is aimed at
mass testing to perform a field mapping by using the Bond ball grinding index. The essence of
this technique consists in carrying out one experiment of grinding a sample weighing 600 g in
a mill, which is half a drum of the standard Bond ball mill with the corresponding ball load. To
carry out a series of tests it is necessary to calibrate the mathematical apparatus of the method
by using a standard Bond ball mill with two grinding cycles. After calibration this method
makes it possible to determine the working index of Bond ball grinding of a series of samples
with an average relative error in the range of 3.0%. This technique has not been tested due to
the need to use specialized equipment.
granulometric characteristic of the supply in the first grinding period, the mass of the supply
and the number of revolutions are the initial data for calculating the next grinding cycle with
the help of a specially created mathematical apparatus. The product of unloading of the mill is
used to calculate P80(general), after which P80 of the ready class is also determined. The results of
the next cycle, which will be carried out within the framework of the mathematical model, are
calculated by using the above-described kinetic equation. Later a cyclic calculation is carried
out until the grindability is stabilized in the last three cycles, after which the standard Bond
equation is used to calculate the index. The stated relative error for this method is shown within
4%. This technique was not tested due to the need to use the mathematical apparatus, which is
absent in open sources.
3.4. Armstrong
In his work Armstrong [31] showed that the conversion factor from dry to wet grinding, when
converted from the laboratory index of Bond grinding into the production one, is too rough a
way of calculation and contains an error. The method uses a rod mill with a diameter of 20.3
cm and a length of 25.4 cm for wet grinding (60 rpm, 67%тв) in an open cycle (the load consists
of 25 rods with a diameter of 2.54 cm), which should give a product approximately the same
size as the standard Bond ball mill in the open cycle. The power consumption of the mill was
recorded to exactly determine the power consumed for grinding. One performs two independent
grinding cycles at different times. After that the working index of the Bond ball grinding was
calculated by using the following formula:
0,064
𝐵𝑊𝑖 = 10 10
, (24)
1,1023( − )
√𝑃80 √𝐹80
where 0,064 is the power of the engine used at the mill, kW; 1.1023 – the coefficient of
conversion of short tons into metric ones; F80 – theoretical size of the sieve’s mesh, through
which 80% of the mass of the initial sample will pass, mkm; Р80 – theoretical size of the sieve’s
mesh, through which 80% of the mass of the final product will pass, mkm.
The obtained average relative error from the Bond ball grinding working index was about
6%, however, in his work Armstrong makes it clear that this index does not require a conversion
factor from dry to wet grinding, therefore, it is more suitable for calculations at industrial mills.
This technique has not been tested due to the lack of specialized equipment.
Table 2. The methods for determining the working index of Bond ball grinding
***∆2,
Method *М, kg **∆1, % Note
%
Bond (standard) 10 Standard methodology, unchanged since 1961
∆ср the smaller, the greater the number of
Todorovic 2 4.0 0.3
grinding cycles
Gharehgheshlagh 10 5.0 3.5 Calculation for any size of the finished class
Horst 5 7.0 8.4 Applicable to all mills, reference ore is required.
Ahmadi 5 7.0 6.8 The analog of the Magdalinovich method
Ahmadi (mod.) 5 3.5 3.5 Database required
Berry 1 8.0 6.3 Applicable to all mills, reference ore is required.
JKBBM 4 4.1 3.5 Patented test
After calibrating the method for a specific type
Kapur 3 8.0 9.5
of ore ∆ср is significantly reduced (up to 3.5%)
Kapur (mod.) 3 - 3.5 Database required
Carr 3 4.4 5.1 The analog of the Kapur’s method
Carr ( mod.) 5 - 1.7 When using three cycles
Smith and Lee 2 8.2 16.6 Very outdated method
Lewis 2 3.5 - Low ∆ср for homogeneous ores
Patented test; only for mass testing, calculation
MiniBond 4 3 -
for products of any size
Armstrong 3 6.0 - The test for wet grinding in a rod mill
Aksani 2 4.0 - Low ∆ср for homogeneous ores
Anaconda 2 4.1 - Applicable to all mills, reference ores required.
* M – the approximate required sample mass;
∆1 – the average relative error of the method stated by the author; ***∆1 – the received
relative error;
Figure 1. Alternative methods for determining the working index of Bond ball grinding
Figure 2. Block diagram of the choice of alternative methods for determining the working index of
ball grinding of Bond
When analyzing the Ahmadi method, it was found that the desired circulation of 250% is
not always possible to achieve in two grinding cycles, which leads to an increase in the relative
error of the entire test. However, the result was significantly improved [19, 20] when in the first
cycle one used the number of revolutions, which contributed to the approximation to a given
circulation in the second cycle. For this it is necessary to have the results of the standard Bond
tests for ores, which are close to the studied ones according to the genesis [34]. From these tests
it is necessary to use the arithmetic mean of the number of revolutions of the last three grinding
cycles. On the same sample of apatite-nepheline ore the Ahmadi method showed an error of
3.5% versus 7% in the standard edition of the method.
When analyzing the Kapur's method a correlation of error values for the ores of similar
genesis was found. In this regard it was proposed to use the Kapur equation with empirical
coefficients found for individual types of ores that are similar in their genesis. The coefficients
for apatite-nepheline, copper-nickel, gold-bearing ores and oxidized ferruginous quartzites
were found [19, 20]. The average relative error of this method with such approach will be within
3-4%.
When analyzing the Carr method the average relative errors were derived by using three
and four grinding cycles, for which the average relative errors of determining the BWi index
were 1.7 and 1.3%, respectively. At the same time one should use the empirical coefficients of
the equation determined on the basis of standard Bond tests for 22 tests of ores with different
check meshes of the sieve:
0,5362 −0,8821 −0,2711
For the third cycle: 𝑊𝑖 = 9,9317 ⋅ 𝑃100 𝐺2 𝐹80 ;
0,5037 −0,8540 −0,2370
For the fourth cycle: 𝑊𝑖 = 9,1119 ⋅ 𝑃100 𝐺2 𝐹80 .
5. CONCLUSION
The most effective alternative methods for determining the working index of Bond ball
grinding, three of which were modified, were reviewed and tested:
For the Ahmadi method it was proposed to use a special number of revolutions in
the first grinding cycle depending on the genesis of the test sample, while the relative
error was reduced from 7.0 to 3.5%;
For the Kapur method it was proposed to use special empirical coefficients
depending on the genesis of the test sample with the relative error reduced from 8.0
to 3.5%.
For the Carr method it was proposed to use 3 or 4 grinding cycles with appropriate
empirical coefficients of the equation.
A flowchart was developed in order to select a method depending on the tasks facing the
researcher.
FUNDING STATEMENT
The work is carried out under financial support of the Ministry of Education and Science of the
Russian Federation, the project RFMEFI57417X0168
REFERENCES
[1] Kuskov, V. B., Kuskova, Ya. V. and Udovitsky, V.I. Effective Processing of the Iron Ores.
E3S Web of Conferences 21, 02010, 2017. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/20172102010
[2] Guryev, A. A. Sustainable development of the ore resource base and the enrichment
capacity of JSC “Apatit” based on the best engineering solutions. Journal of Mining
Institute, 228, 2017, pp. 662-673. http://dx.doi.org/10.25515/pmi.2017.6.662
[3] Fedotov, K. V., Senchenko, A. E.,and Kulikov Y. V. Modern methods of research for the
development of a rational technology of ore preparation. CIS Congress of the Mineral
Processing Engineers, Moscow: MISiS, 2011.
[4] Kuskov, V. B. and Kuskova, Ya. V. Development of technology for the production of
natural red iron oxide pigment. Inzynieria Mineralna (Mineral Engineering), 1 (39) 2017,
pp. 217 – 220. DOI: 10.29227/IM-2017-01-34
[5] Tsvetkova, A. and Katysheva, E. Ecological and economic efficiency evaluation of
sustainable use of mineral raw materials in modern conditions. 17th International
Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference SGEM 2017. Conference Proceedings.Volume
17. Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation. Environmental Economics. 29 June –
5 July, 2017. Albena, Bulgaria, 53, 2017, pp. 241 – 247.
[6] Taranov, V. A., Baranov, V. F. and Aleksandrova, T. N. Review of software tools for
modeling and calculation of ore preparation flowsheets. Obogashchenie Rud, 5, 2013, pp.
3-7.
[7] Nikolaeva, N., Aleksandrova and T., Romashev, A. Effect of grinding on the fractional
composition of polymineral laminated bituminous shales. Mineral Processing and
Extractive Metallurgy Review, 39(4), 2018, pp. 231-234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08827508.2017.1415207
[8] Nikolaeva, N., Romashev, A. and Aleksandrova, T. Degree evaluation of grinding on
fractional composition at destruction of polymineral raw materials. International Mineral
Processing Congress IMPC 2018 29th, 2019, pp. 474-480.
[9] Talovina, I. V., Aleksandrova, T. N., Popov, O. and Lieberwirth, H. Comparative analysis
of rocks structural-textural characteristics studies by computer X-ray microtomography and
quantitative microstructural analysis methods. Obogashchenie Rud, 3, 2017, pp. 56-62. doi:
10.17580/or.2017.03.09
[10] Tikhonov N. O. and Skarin O.I. The calculation of semi-self-grinding mills by energy
indices. The Mining Journal, Moscow, 2014, pp. 6.
[11] Napier-Munn T. J. Mineral comminution circuits: their operation and optimization. JKMRC
monograph series in mining and mineral processing, 2, 2005, p. 50. ISBN: 064628861X,
9780646288611
[12] Lvov, V., Sishchuk, J. and Chitalov, L. Intensification of Bond ball mill work index test
through various methods. 17th International multidisciplinary scientific geoconference and
expo SGEM, 17(11), 2017, pp. 857-864. doi: 10.5593/sgem2017/11/S04.109
[13] Lvov, V. V. and Chitalov, L. S. Methods of intensification of the index of smooth operation
of the Bond ball grinding. Contemporary problems of the complex processing of refractory
ores and technogenic raw materials (Plaksinsky readings – 2017): materials of the
International Scientific Conferenc. Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Federal University, 2017, pp.
128-131.
[14] Gupta, A. and Yan, D. S. Mineral Processing Design and Operation. 2006, pp. 82-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51636-7.X5000-1
[15] Todorovic, D. A., Trumic, M., Andric, L. and Milosevic, V. Quick method for Bond work
index approximate value determination. Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process, 53(1), 2017,
pp. 321−332. http://www.minproc.pwr.wroc.pl/journal/pdf/ppmp53-1.321-332.pdf
[16] Janice, M. Burke Determining the Bond Efficiency of industrial grinding circuits. Global
Mining Standards and Guidelines (GMSG) Group, 2015, pp. 7. https://gmggroup.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Guidelines_Bond-Efficiency-REV-2018.pdf
[17] Berry, T. F. and Bruce, R. W. A simple method of determining the grindability of ores.
Canadian Mining Journal (July), 63, 1966, pp.41.
[18] Horst ,W. E. and Bassarear, J. H. Use of simplified ore grindability technique to evaluate
plant performance. AIME Transaction, 260, 1976, pp. 348.
[19] Yap, R., Sepulude, J. and Jauregui, R. Determination of the Bond Work Index Using an
Ordinary Laboratory Batch Ball Mill. Design and Installation of Comminution Circuits.
New York, 1982, pp 176‐203.
[20] Ahmadi, R. and Shahsavari, Sh. Procedure for determination of ball Bond work index in the
commercial operations. Minerals Engineering, 22, 2009, pp. 104–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2008.04.008
[21] Magdalinovich, N. A. Procedure for Rapid Determination of the Bond Work Index.
International J. Mineral Processing, 27, 1989, pp. 125.
[22] Kapur, P. C. Analysis of the bond grindability test. Institution of Mining & Metallurgy,
79(763), 1970, pp. 103-107.
[23] Karra, V.K. Simulation of bond grindability tests. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 74(827), 1981. 195–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(81)90235-7
[24] Smith, R. and Lee, K. A Comparison of Data from Bond Type Simulated Closed Circuit
and Batch Type Grindability Tests. American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineers, 241, 1968, pp. 91‐99.
[25] Gharehgheshlagh, Hojjat H. Kinetic grinding test approach to estimate the Ball mill Work
index. Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing, 52(1), 2016, pp. 342-352.
http://www.minproc.pwr.wroc.pl/journal/pdf/ppmp52-1.342-352.pdf
[26] JKTech SMI Technology transfer. Globally reliable determination. of bond ball mill work
index. Retrieved January 13, 2019, from
https://jktech.com.au/sites/default/files/JKTech%20JK%20Bond%20Ball%20Mill%20Tes
t%20-%20FINAL%20161117%20%28web%29.pdf
[27] Lewis, K. A. Pearl, M. and Tucker, P. Computer simulation of the Bond grindability test.
Minerals Engineering, 3(1-2), 1990, pp. 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0892-
6875(90)90092-P
[28] MetSuite. Aminpro servicios metalurgicos. Metallurgical Testing and Design. Retrieved
January 13, 2019. Retrieved from http://aminpro.com/metsuite
[29] Aksani, B., Sonmez, B. Simulation of Bond grindability test by using cumulative based
kinetic model. Minerals Engineering, 13(6), 2000, pp. 673-677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-6875(00)00050-9
[30] Armstrong, D. An Alternative Grindability Test. An Improvement of the Bond Procedure.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 16, 1986, pp. 195‐208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-7516(86)90031-1
[31] Modified Bond Ball Mill Work Index Test - What is this? . Retrieved January 13, 2019.
Retrieved from https://www.911metallurgist.com/grinding/modified-bond-ball-mill-work-
index-test-what-is/
[32] Melnichuk M.S., Fokina S.B., Boduen A.Ya., Petrov G.V. Co-recovery of platinum-group
metals and chrome in processing of low-grade dunite ore material // Obogashchenie Rud.
2018. (1). pp. 50-55.
[33] Petrov G.V., Boduen A.Ya., Fokina S.B., Popov A.A. Chemical concentration of
steelmaking dusts // Chernye Metally. 2016. (10). pp. 65-68.
[34] Daryin, A.A., Maksimova, A.V., Telyakov, A.N., Fuks, A.M. Study of silicate bacterial
destructive effect on quartziferous ores // Obogashchenie Rud. 2015. (4). pp. 8-12