i|Page

Table of Contents
Plagiarism Declaration ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Tables .........................................................................................................................ii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ii
1. Question 1 ..................................................................................................................... 1
2. Question 2 ..................................................................................................................... 3
3. Question 3 ..................................................................................................................... 4
4. Question 4 ..................................................................................................................... 6
5. Appendices .................................................................................................................... 8
5.1. Sample Calculations ............................................................................................... 8
5.2. Experimental Raw Data ........................................................................................ 10
6. References .................................................................................................................. 12

List of Tables
Table 1 t10 particle size for each of the three specified size ranges ............................................. 3
Table 2 Average parameter values of Equation 1 ........................................................................... 4
Table 3 Real and calculated t10 using input parameters for Equation 1 ....................................... 5
Table 4 Average parameter values of Equation 2 ........................................................................... 6
Table 5 Real and calculated t10 using input parameters for Equation 2 ....................................... 6
Table 6 Data for determining t10 for each of the three size ranges ............................................... 8
Table 7 t10 in relation to input energy for the fitted model .............................................................. 9
Table 8 t10 in relation to input energy for the modified fitted model .............................................. 9
Table 9 Data cumulative size distribution of size range 31.5 x 26.5 mm .................................. 10
Table 10 Data cumulative size distribution of size range 22.4 x 19 mm ................................... 11
Table 11 Data cumulative size distribution of size range 16 x 13.2 mm ................................... 11

List of Figures
Figure 1 Plot of cumulative size distribution at different input energies for size range 31.5
x26.5 mm ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 Plot of cumulative size distribution at different input energies for size range 22.4 x
19 mm .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 3 Plot of cumulative size distribution at different input energies for size range 16 x
13.2 mm ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 4 Fitting of a t10 curve to breakage data for a platinum ore .............................................. 4
Figure 5 Fitting of modified t10 equation to breakage data for a platinum ore ............................. 7

ii | P a g e

1. Question 1

Figure 1 Plot of cumulative size distribution at different input energies for size range
31.5 x26.5 mm

Figure 2 Plot of cumulative size distribution at different input energies for size range
22.4 x 19 mm

1|Page

Figure 3 Plot of cumulative size distribution at different input energies for size range 16 x 13.2
mm

Figures 1 to 3 shows the plot of cumulative size distribution for each size range at
three input energies i.e. 0.25, 1.00, and 2.50 kWh/t respectively. It can be seen that
as the input energy increases, the ore becomes finer. Wills (2006) suggested that
the greatest problem lies in the fact that most of the energy input to a crushing or
grinding machine is absorbed by the machine itself, and only a small fraction of the
total input energy is available for breaking the material.

2|Page

2. Question 2
Determining the t10 particle size for each of the three specifies size ranges
Size range: 31.5 x26.5 mm

Size range: 22.4 x19.0 mm

Size range: 16.0 x13.2 mm

Table 1 t10 particle size for each of the three specified size ranges

Size range

Ecs

t 10

(mm)

(kWh/t)

(mm)

31.5 x26.5
31.5 x 26.5
31.5 x 26.5
22.4 x 19.0
22.4 x 19.0
22.4 x 19.0
16.0 x13.2
16.0 x13.2
16.0 x13.2

0.25
1.00
2.50
0.25
1.00
2.50
0.25
1.00
2.50

30.4
62.7
78.4
34.1
70.9
82.1
41.9
78.3
91.6

Table 1 shows t10 particle size for each of the three specified size ranges at three
input energies i.e. 0.25, 1.00, and 2.50 kWh/t respectively. It can be seen that the t10
value increases with increasing particle size and input energy.

3|Page

3. Question 3
Determining the parameters A and b in Equation 1 which best fits the breakage data
calculated in Question 2.
(

(1)

Equation 1 relates the degree of breakage, t10 to the energy input Ecs.

t10 is defined as the percentage material passing through a screen whose

aperture is one tenth of the original geometric mean particle size.
Ecs is taken to be the specific comminution energy (kWh/t) or available energy
to cause fracture per mass present.
A is the maximum breakage attainable in a single impact (percent passing)
b is the standard JK slope parameter.
Table 2 Average parameter values of Equation 1

Parameter
A
b
A.b

Value
83.3
2.08
173

Figure 4 Fitting of a t10 curve to breakage data for a platinum ore

4|Page

Table 3 Real and calculated t10 using input parameters for Equation 1

Size range
(mm)
31.5 x 26.5
31.5 x 26.5
31.5 x 26.5
22.4 x 19.0
22.4 x 19.0
22.4 x 19.0
16.0 x 13.2
16.0 x 13.2
16.0 x 13.2

Ecs

t 10

(kWh/t)
0.25
1.00
2.50
0.25
1.00
2.50
0.25
1.00
2.50

(mm)
30.41
62.73
78.40
34.10
70.85
82.10
41.93
78.29
91.58

t10,model
(mm)
33.73
72.83
82.79
33.73
72.83
82.79
33.73
72.83
82.79

(t10-t10,model )2
(mm)
11.05
102.09
19.30
0.13
3.94
0.48
67.17
29.77
77.20

Table 2 shows the average parameters A and b in Equation 1 which best fit the
breakage data calculated in Question 2. The values of the parameters A and b are
83.2 and 2.08, respectively. It should be noted that these are the optimum values
determined in Microsoft Excel using Data analysis pack (Solver) in which the
difference (error) between the real t10 values and the model values is minimal.
Manlapig et al (2011) suggested that the use of average set of A.b parameters
assumes that particles of different sizes would be broken in the same way when
subjected to the same impact energy which is questionable.
Figure 4 shows the relationship between the t10 and the specific comminution energy
(Ecs).The graph shows that t10 increases as the input energy increases. The
breakage data for each particle size have been shown using data points and the
fitted equation as a line. The fitted equation using the parameters in Table 2 match
the breakage data with particle size range 22.4 x 19.0 mm very well.
The value of A.b is typically utilised as an indicator of material hardness, with a
larger number indicating a softer material or less resistance to breakage (Morrison et
al, 1999). The determined value of A.b is 173 which is greater than 127 hence; the
ore is rated as very soft.

5|Page

4. Question 4
Determining the parameters A and b in Equation 1 which best fits the breakage data
calculated in Question 2.
Equation 1 has been modified to relate t10 to input energy W m,kin usinf Equation 2:
(

)]

(2)

k is the number of impacts to breakage

x is the particle size (geometric mean) of the largest particle size
fmat is a material specific property
Table 4 Average parameter values of Equation 2

Parameter
M
fmat
M.fmat.x

Value
79.1
0.0513
117

Table 5 Real and calculated t10 using input parameters for Equation 2

Size range Ecs

(mm)
(kWh/t)

31.5 x 26.5
31.5 x 26.5
31.5 x 26.5
22.4 x 19.0
22.4 x 19.0
22.4 x 19.0
16.0 x 13.2
16.0 x 13.2
16.0 x 13.2

0.25
1.00
2.50
0.25
1.00
2.50
0.25
1.00
2.50

6|Page

Geometric
mean (x)
(mm)

t10,model
(mm)

t10 reference
(mm)

28.89
28.89
28.89
20.63
20.63
20.63
14.53
14.53
14.53

24.50
61.16
77.20
18.40
51.68
73.53
13.45
41.58
66.87

24.50
61.16
77.20
24.50
61.16
77.20
24.50
61.16
77.20

Scaling
factor

1.000
1.000
1.000
0.751
0.845
0.952
0.549
0.680
0.866

t10,real
(mm)

t10,real scaled
(mm)

(t10-t10,calculated)2
(mm)

30.41
62.73
78.40
34.1
70.85
82.1
41.93
78.29
91.58

30.41
62.73
78.40
25.60
59.86
78.20
23.02
53.23
79.32

34.89
2.45
1.44
1.21
1.70
1.00
2.19
62.97
4.51

Figure 5 Fitting of modified t10 equation to breakage data for a platinum ore

Table 4 shows the parameters M and fmat in Equation 2 which best fit the breakage
data calculated in Question 2. The values of the parameters M and fmat are 79.1
and 0.0513, respectively.
Figure 5 the relationship between the t10 and the W m,kin). The breakage data for each
particle size have been shown using data points and the fitted equation as a line.
The fitted equation using the parameters in Table 4 match the breakage data with
particle size range 22.4 x 19.0 mm very well.
The determined value of A.b is 173 and the value of M.fmat.x is 117 and the
difference between the two values is 56. There is a significant difference between
the two models but they both match the breakage data with particle size range 22.4 x
19.0 mm very well. It can also be observed that both equations take similar
exponential form, and the parameters of the two equations are. Manlapig et al (2011)
suggested that the ore softness indicator A.b in Equation 1 can be calculated from
the parameters in Equation 2 using the following relationship:
.The constant 3600 is used for conversion.

7|Page

5. Appendices
5.1. Sample Calculations
Question 2
Determining the percent material passing through
Table 6 Data for determining t10 for each of the three size ranges

Ecs (kWh/t)

0.25
1.00
2.50

3.35
3.35
3.35

0.25
1.00
2.50

2.36
2.36
2.36

0.25
1.00
2.50

1.7
1.7
1.7

b
c
31.5 x 26.5 mm
32.00
2.36
65.10
2.36
80.10
2.36
22.4 x 19.0 mm
35.90
1.70
73.80
1.70
86.20
1.70
16.0 x 13.2 mm
44
1.18
80.5
1.18
93.7
1.18

d
27.50
58.40
75.30
32.60
68.40
82.10
39.7
75.9
89.3

Using the data in Table 6

Comminution energy: 0.25 kWh/t

Comminution energy: 1.00 kWh/t

Comminution energy: 2.50 kWh/t

The same procedure was followed for size ranges 22.4 x 19.0 mm and 16.0 x 13.2
mm, respectively.

8|Page

Table 7 t10 in relation to input energy for the fitted model

The data in Table 7 was obtained using Equation 1 and the parameters A and b
shown in Table 2
Table 8 t10 in relation to input energy for the modified fitted model

Wm,kin
t 10, (Calculated)
(kWh/t)
(mm)
0.00
0.00
0.25
24.22
0.50
41.22
0.75
52.96
1.00
61.07
1.25
66.67
1.50
70.53
1.75
73.20
2.00
75.04
2.25
76.31
2.50
77.19
2.75
77.79
3.00
78.21
The data in Table 8 was obtained using Equation 2 and the parameters M and fmat
shown in Table 4

9|Page

Question 4
Size range: 31.5 x26.5 mm

Size range: 22.4 x 19.0 mm

Size range: 16.0 x13.2 mm

k= 1 (given)
x = the geometric mean of the largest particle size = 28.89

5.2.

Experimental Raw Data

Table 9 Data cumulative size distribution of size range 31.5 x 26.5 mm

Screen (mm)
45
37.5
26.5
19
13.2
9.5
6.7
4.75
3.35
2.36
1.7
1.18
0.85
0.6
0.425
0.3
0.212
0.15
0.106

10 | P a g e

31.5 X 26.5 mm
% Retained at Ecs (kWh/t) Cumulative % passing at Ecs (kWh/t)
0.25
1
2.5
0.25
1
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
95.2
100.0
100.0
6.3
1.4
0.0
89.0
98.6
100.0
17.4
3.2
2.0
71.5
95.4
98.0
14.5
5.4
4.3
57.0
90.0
93.7
9.2
9.3
3.1
47.9
80.8
90.6
8.9
7.9
5.8
38.9
72.9
84.8
7.0
7.8
4.7
32.0
65.1
80.1
4.5
6.7
4.8
27.5
58.4
75.3
3.1
5.5
4.4
24.4
52.8
70.9
2.7
6.5
4.2
21.7
46.3
66.7
2.0
3.9
3.6
19.6
42.4
63.1
1.8
3.9
3.3
17.9
38.5
59.8
1.9
3.7
3.3
16.0
34.8
56.5
2.3
5.5
5.6
13.7
29.3
51.0
3.0
7.1
9.4
10.7
22.2
41.5
10.7
22.2
41.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Table 10 Data cumulative size distribution of size range 22.4 x 19 mm

22.4 X 19 mm
% Retained at Ecs (kWh/t) Cumulative % passing at Ecs (kWh/t)
Screen (mm)
0.25
1
2.5
0.25
1
2.5
45
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
37.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
26.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
19
3.5
0.0
0.0
96.5
100.0
100.0
13.2
16.9
0.0
0.0
79.6
100.0
100.0
9.5
11.2
2.6
0.6
68.3
97.4
99.4
6.7
11.7
1.9
1.9
56.7
95.6
97.6
4.75
8.8
7.2
2.8
47.9
88.3
94.8
3.35
7.0
7.7
4.0
40.9
80.6
90.8
2.36
5.0
6.8
4.6
35.9
73.8
86.2
1.7
3.4
5.4
4.1
32.6
68.4
82.1
1.18
2.9
5.3
4.7
29.7
63.1
77.4
0.85
2.0
4.5
3.3
27.7
58.6
74.1
0.6
2.2
3.8
3.6
25.4
54.7
70.6
0.425
2.5
4.2
3.5
23.0
50.5
67.0
0.3
3.3
6.0
5.0
19.6
44.5
62.0
0.212
5.3
9.6
10.2
14.3
34.9
51.9
0.15
5.2
30.7
14.5
9.1
4.2
37.4
0.106
4.0
0.1
14.1
5.1
4.1
23.3

Table 11 Data cumulative size distribution of size range 16 x 13.2 mm

16 X 13.2 mm
% Retained at Ecs (kWh/t) Cumulative % passing at Ecs (kWh/t)
Screen (mm) 0.25
1
2.5
0.25
1
2.5
45
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
37.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
26.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
13.2
2.8
0.0
0.0
97.2
100.0
100.0
9.5
10.6
1.4
0.0
86.5
98.6
100.0
6.7
12.7
2.0
0.0
73.8
96.6
100.0
4.75
7.9
3.5
0.0
65.9
93.1
100.0
3.35
9.4
2.6
1.0
56.5
90.5
99.0
2.36
7.6
5.1
2.3
48.9
85.4
96.7
1.7
4.9
4.9
2.9
44.0
80.5
93.7
1.18
4.3
4.6
4.5
39.7
75.9
89.3
0.85
2.7
3.8
3.9
37.0
72.1
85.4
0.6
2.6
6.3
5.0
34.4
65.8
80.4
0.425
3.2
7.1
5.5
31.1
58.7
74.9
0.3
4.8
7.9
7.0
26.4
50.8
67.8
0.212
7.7
8.1
12.1
18.7
42.7
55.8
0.15
7.1
15.4
15.9
11.6
27.3
39.8
0.106
5.1
16.0
15.5
6.5
11.3
24.3

11 | P a g e

6. References
1. Ergun, L. & Hosseinzadeh, H. 2000. Determination of Breakage Distribution
Function of Fine Chromite Ores with Bed Breakage Method. 1-9.
2. Napier-Munn, T.J., Morrison, R.D., & Kojovic, T. 1999. Minerals Comminution
Circuits: Their operation and optimization. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre.
3. Morrison, R.D., Shi, F. & Whyte, R. 2007. Modelling of incremental rock,
breakage by impact- For use in DEM models. Minerals Engineering Journal.
20: 303-309.
4. Dundar, H., Jankovic, A., & Mehta. 2010. Relationship between comminution
energy and the product size for a magnetite ore. The Journal of the Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 110:141-146.
5. Wills, B.A. 2006. Mineral Processing Technology. An introduction to the
practical aspects of ore treatment of minerals.7:116-120.
6. Manlapig, E., Shi, F. & Wang, E. 2012. Factors affecting electrical
comminution performance. Sustainable Minerals Institute. 34:48-54.
7. Manlapig, E., Shi, F. & Wang, E. 2011. Pre-weakening of mineral ores by high
voltage pulses. Minerals Engineering Journal. 24: 455-462.

12 | P a g e