Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advanced Powder Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apt

Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic
parameters
V.K. Gupta ⇑, Shivani Sharma
Department of Fuel and Mineral Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 826 004, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With a view to developing a sound basis for the design and scale-up of ball mills, a large amount of data
Received 26 June 2013 available in the literature were analyzed for variation of the two key mill performance parameters: power
Received in revised form 6 September 2013 specific values of the ‘absolute breakage rate of the coarsest size fraction’, S*, and ‘absolute rate of produc-
Accepted 7 October 2013
tion of fines’, F*, with some of the important operating and design variables such as the mill speed, ball
Available online xxxx
load, particle load, ball diameter and mill diameter. In general, values of both the mill performance
parameters were found to vary significantly with the mill operating conditions. The nature and relative
Keywords:
magnitude of variation for the two parameters also differed significantly. Moreover, the effect of any par-
Ball mills
Design and scale-up
ticular variable on the S* and F* values was found to be significantly different for different sets of operat-
Power specific parameters ing conditions. It has been emphasized that, as the purpose of grinding is to produce fine particles, the
Breakage rate mill design and scale-up work should be based mainly on the F* parameters. Moreover, it is not correct
Fines production rate to regard the S* values to be independent of the mill design and operating variables as a general rule,
especially for a fine analysis of the performance of the grinding systems.
Ó 2013 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder
Technology Japan. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction distribution parameters for various size fractions of particles

[1–4]. The equation used for describing batch grinding kinetics is
The world over, every year several billion tons of metallic ores,
dMi ðtÞ X
i1
minerals, cement and various other solids used in the ceramic and ¼ Si M i ðtÞ þ bi;j Sj Mj ðtÞ ð1Þ
chemical industries are subjected to size reduction in ball mills. dt j¼1
The specific energy consumption value for grinding of these mate-
rials typically ranges from 5 to 50 kW h/ton. Thus, a significantly where Mi (t) is the mass fraction of the particulate solids in the sieve
large amount of electrical energy is consumed in the ball mill size interval i (bounded by size of the aperture of upper sieve xi1
grinding operation. It is, therefore, important to establish the opti- and size of the aperture of lower sieve xi), t is grinding time, Si is
mum values of various mill operating parameters, such as the mill specific breakage rate for particles of size class i (fractional rate at
speed, ball load, ball diameter and particle load, from the energy which material breaks out of size interval i), and bi,j is the weight
consumption point of view. fraction of the material breaking out of sieve size interval j that
Another important task associated with the ball mill grinding reports to sieve size interval i.
operation is to establish a sound basis for carrying out scale-up Herbst and Fuerstenau [5], Kim [6], Malghan [7], Malghan and
of ball mills based on laboratory or pilot scale test work. This re- Fuerstenau [8], Siddique [9], and Fuerstenau [10] have analyzed
quires studies related to the influence of mill diameter on produc- the variation of grinding rate of some selected sieve size fractions
tion rate of particles of a desired size distribution. (such as a 10/14 mesh size fraction) of quartz, dolomite and lime-
During the last four decades, considerable amount of work has stone with various operating variables in batch ball mills of differ-
been done pertaining to the above mentioned two tasks using a ent diameters. They concluded that the absolute grinding rate (the
phenomenological grinding kinetics mathematical model derived product of specific grinding rate and weight of the particulate
from population balance considerations. This model is based on contents of the mill) per unit net power input to the mill does
two sets of parameters: specific breakage rate and breakage not vary with the mill operating conditions such as the mill speed,
ball load, particle load and mill diameter. It was mentioned that
the breakage distribution parameters were also to a good first
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: B-402 Bansal Plaza, Station Road, Ranchi 834 approximation independent of these operating variables within
001, India. Tel./fax: +91 651 246 2175, mobile: +91 9471191009. the normal operating range. Their proposition can be mathemati-
E-mail address: [email protected] (V.K. Gupta). cally expressed as [11,12].

0921-8831/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
2 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Nomenclature

bi,j weight fraction of the material breaking out of sieve size Mi mass fraction of the particulate solids in the sieve size
interval j that reports to sieve size interval i. interval i
Bi,,j fraction of broken product that is finer than lower size N fraction of critical speed of mill
limit of the size interval i when particles of size interval P net power drawn by mill
j undergo breakage S° grinding rate relative to the grinding rate for the first
E* energy input to the mill per unit mass of the particulate time interval
charge S* absolute rate of breakage per unit power input
F° rate of production of fines relative to the value for the S** power specific absolute grinding rate relative to the
first time interval power specific absolute grinding rate for some chosen
F* absolute rate of production of fine material per unit value of the operating condition under consideration
power input Si specific breakage rate for particles of size class i
F** power specific absolute rate of production of fine mate- t grinding time
rial relative to the corresponding value for some chosen U fraction of void volume of the static ball charge occu-
value of the operating condition under consideration pied by the particulate solids
Fi mass fraction of particulate solids finer than sieve i
H total mass of the particulate charge in the mill
J fraction of mill volume filled by static ball charge

Si ¼ Si ½P=H ð2Þ X

i1
F i ¼ Bi;j Sj M j ðt Þ ð7Þ
where the proportionality constants Si are independent of mill de- j¼1
sign and operating variables, P is net mill power input and H is the
weight of particulate contents of the mill. Si can also be defined as From Eq. (7) it follows that if both Sj and Bi,j parameters were
‘absolute breakage rate per unit power input’ (Si ¼ Si H=P). For a independent of the mill operating conditions, then for a given size
batch mill drawing constant power, the specific energy input to distribution of the particulate charge of the mill at time t, the value
the mill E* is given by of the parameter F i should also be independent of the mill operat-
ing conditions. In case of a single size feed charge also the same
E ¼ Pt=H ð3Þ should be true for the time domain corresponding to zero-order
Incorporation of Eqs. (2) and (3) in Eq. (1) gives production of fines. However, analysis of some of the published
data and our own data showed that this is not true. Significant
dM i ðE Þ X
i1
variations were observed in F i with the mill operating conditions.
 ¼ Si Mi ðE Þ þ bi;j Sj Mj ðE Þ ð4Þ
dE As the main purpose of grinding operation is to produce fine
j¼1
particles of desired size and size distribution, a study of variations
This ‘energy-size reduction relationship’ predicts that for a gi- in the F i parameters with the mill operating conditions should be
ven material and feed size distribution a necessary condition for of greater concern and value for carrying out mill design and scale-
identical product size distribution in different batch mills is iden- up. Therefore, it was decided to carry out a detailed analysis of the
tical specific energy inputs into each mill – independent of mill available experimental data with regard to the variation of the two
dimensions and mill operating variables in the normal operating sets of mill power specific parameters, Si and F i .
range [11,12].
Besides the grinding rate of the coarser size fractions, the rate of 2. Approach to analysis of experimental data
production of the desired size fine product is also an equally
important parameter for characterization of the mill performance. The technique commonly used for determination of the S value
Let the weight fraction of material finer than size xi at time t be de- for the top size interval is based on an assumption that the grind-
noted by Fi (t). For the rate of production of material finer than size ing rate is independent of grinding time [1–10,15–18]. Thus, the
xi we can write disappearance kinetics for the top size fraction in the particulate
charge are first order, as expressed below
dF i ðtÞ Xi1
¼ Bi;j Sj Mj ðtÞ ð5Þ
dt dM1 =dt ¼ S1 M 1 ðtÞ ð8Þ
j¼1
From this equation we obtain:
where Bi,j denotes fraction of broken product that is finer than lower
size limit of the size interval i when particles of size interval j un- ln M 1 ðtÞ ¼ ln M 1 ð0Þ  S1 t ð9Þ
dergo breakage. It is well known that in the batch grinding opera-
Generally, the product obtained from the first test is ground
tion, when a single size feed such as a 10/14 mesh size fraction is
sequentially several times and, in accordance with Eq. (9), the S va-
ground, the initial rate of production of material finer than a given
lue is obtained by fitting a straight line [1–10,15–18]. It has been
size remains constant for a short but significant duration of time,
claimed based on such graphical representation of experimental
depending on the fineness of the chosen size. This phenomenon is
data that very frequently the first order hypothesis is an excellent
known as ‘zero order production of fines’ [13,14]. Let us now define
approximation to the truth [4]. But, this is not confirmed by calcu-
a new parameter ‘power specific absolute rate of production of
lating the actual S values for different intervals of grinding time
fines’, F i , as
using the following relationship
F i ¼ ðdF i ðtÞ=dtÞðH=PÞ ð6Þ
S1 ¼ ½ln M1 ðt 1 Þ  ln M1 ðt 2 Þ=ðt 2  t 1 Þ ð10Þ
Combining Eqs. (2), (5), and (6) we have

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

Gupta [19] and Gupta et al. [20–22] have pointed out that when different time intervals, the values relative to the value observed
the crushed material obtained from jaw and/or roll crushers is used for the first time interval, S° and F°, are shown for ease in visualis-
as the feed to the batch ball mill, as is generally the case with the ing the nature of variation with time.
data available in the literature, grinding rate of the topmost size
interval is not time independent as regarded by most of the 3. Results and discussion
researchers. Actually, it is found that the batch grinding data is
characterized by a high initial rate of breakage for a period of With a view to facilitating a direct visualization of the percent-
approximately 0.5–1 min, followed by significantly lower grinding age change in the S* and F* values with various operating condi-
rate values which vary with grinding time in a somewhat random tions, in this section results are presented in various figures in
fashion [19,20]. There is no standard procedure for estimating a terms of the normalized S* and F* values, denoted by S** and F**,
unique S value from such data. The values of the grinding rate re- respectively. In each case, normalization was done using the S*
ported by researchers show a definite personal bias [19,20]. There- and F* values corresponding to a chosen value of the operating con-
fore, correlations developed by researchers are likely to be in error. dition. For example, while discussing the effect of mill speed, nor-
Gupta [19] and Gupta et al. [20–22] have pointed out that for a malization was done with respect to 50% critical speed.
crushed particulate charge large variations in the rate of breakage The S* value was calculated for the top most size interval, des-
during the initial period of grinding are observed due to a change ignated by i = 1. Depending on the top size, which varied from 10
in the particle strength and shape distributions. These distributions to 20 mesh (Tyler Series: 1700 and 850 microns, respectively) in
are characteristic of the machine used for production of particles. most cases, a suitable choice of upper particle size limit had to
With a view to avoid the above mentioned problems, it has been be made for the F* parameter. The selected size had to be reason-
recommended [20–22] that the crushed material should be pre- ably finer than the top size and also be representative of a typical
ground in the test ball mill for a period of 1–2 min. Pre-grinding desired product. Taking in to account these two factors and the re-
of the crushed material ensures that the strength and shape distri- sults of data analysis pertaining to the trend of variation for prod-
butions of particles do not undergo any significant changes during ucts of different fineness, it was decided to select 100 mesh
the test work. Therefore, no significant variations in the grinding (150 lm) as the upper size limit of the ground product. Therefore,
rate (as well as the breakage distribution parameters) of material F* values were calculated using data corresponding to weight per-
with grinding time are observed. cent of ground product passing 100 mesh sieve.
Further, a close examination of the published data on batch
grinding of single size feeds showed that during the initial 3.1. Effect of mill speed
0.5 min or so, the rate of production of fines is either significantly
lower or higher than the constant value exhibited during next 1– 3.1.1. Effect of mill speed in dry grinding
2 min [20]. Therefore, if rate of production of fines is estimated Kim [6] has presented batch grinding data for 10/14 mesh size
graphically by plotting Fi(t) versus t, the estimated value is likely fraction of limestone ground in a 25.4 cm ball mill (mill speed, N:
to get affected by the initial abnormal production rate value. It 0.5–0.8 (50–80% critical); ball size, d: 25.4 cm; ball load, J: 0.5 (cor-
may be mentioned that as the rate of production of fines is jointly responding to 50% filling of mill volume by static ball charge; par-
determined by the S and B values, which undergo significant ticle load, U: 1.0 (corresponding to 100% filling of interstitial
change in the initial period due to change in the particle strength volume of static ball charge). Using this data the S* value for 10/
and shape distributions, the initial variation in the value of the rate 14 mesh size fraction and the F* values for 100 and 200 mesh
of production of fines too is to be expected. products were calculated. Fig. 1 shows variation of S* and F* with
Estimation of the values of grinding rate parameters and rate of mill speed in terms of their normalized values, S** and F** (for nor-
production of fines was a straight forward job while analysing our malization, their respective values at 50% critical speed were used).
own data as the test material was pre-ground in the ball mill and, It can be seen that both the S** and F** values increase significantly
therefore, both the sets of parameters exhibited only very small up to 70% critical speed, followed by a sharp drop. However, the in-
and systematic variation with grinding time. However, it became crease in the two F** values is much more than that observed for S**.
necessary to establish proper guidelines for obtaining most likely While the peak S** value corresponds to an 18% increase, the corre-
estimates of the desired parameters from the data of other investi- sponding F** values for 200 and 100 mesh size show an increase of
gators. Based on a comparative study of the results obtained by us 32% and 39%, respectively.
for the crushed and pre-ground feed charges, it was decided to Fuerstenau [10] has given values of S* for batch grinding of a 7/9
ignore the initial abnormal values and take the average value for mesh size fraction of dolomite in a 25.4 cm ball mill (ball size, d:
the time interval during which the values were observed to be 2.54 cm; ball load, J: 0.5; particle load, U: 1.0) at four different
more or less constant. To illustrate the proposed methodology of speeds: 53%, 60%, 70% and 90% critical. This data is presented in
estimation of the values of model parameters, two examples are Fig. 2. It can be seen that as the mill speed increases from 53% to
presented in Tables 1 and 2. In these Tables, instead of the absolute 70% critical, the S** value increases by about 21%. A further increase
values of the grinding rate and rate of production of fines for in the mill speed leads to a sharp fall in the S** value. This trend of

Table 1
Variation of relative grinding rate, S°, for 10/14 mesh size fraction and relative production rate of fines, F°, for -48 mesh and -100 mesh limestone with grinding time for Siddique’s
data [9].

Mill dia. (cm) Model parameter Value of S° and F° Selected values of S° and F°
Time interval (min.)
0.0–0.5 0.5–1.0 1.0–2.0 2.0–4.0
38.1 S° 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.01 1.15
F°-48 mesh 1.00 1.00 1.04 0.76 1.02
F°-100 mesh 1.00 1.03 1.05 0.83 1.04
76.2 S° 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.90
F°-48 mesh 1.00 1.09 1.09 0.77 1.09
F°-100 mesh 1.00 1.10 1.10 0.89 1.10

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
4 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Variation of relative grinding rate, S°, for 7/10 mesh size fraction and relative production rate of fines, F°, for -48 mesh and -100 mesh dolomite with grinding time for Berlioz’s
data [16].

Particle load (g) Model parameter Value of S° and F° Selected values of S° and F°
Time interval (rev.)
0–20 20–40 40–60 60–80
1980 S° 1.00 0.92 0.96 0.95 0.94
F°-48 mesh 1.00 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.13
F°-100 mesh 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.12 1.15
2640 S° 1.00 0.79 0.87 0.87 0.87
F°-48 mesh 1.00 0.92 1.09 1.09 1.09
F°-100 mesh 1.00 0.87 1.08 1.09 1.08

Table 3
1.4 S**(10/14 mesh) Variation of the ratio of the power specific grinding rate for 55% and 70% critical
F**(-100 mesh) speeds with particle size for quartz, limestone and two types of cement clinkers [23].

F**(-200 mesh) Material Size (mesh) S* (55)/S* (70)

1.3 Quartz 10/14 0.79
35/48 0.99
48/65 1.09
S**, F**

1.2 Limestone 14/20 1.23

20/28 1.30
48/65 1.37
Clinker I 14/20 1.00
1.1 48/65 1.25
100/150 1.30
Clinker II 28/35 1.10
1.0 Limestone 48/65 1.43
100/150 1.30

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Mill speed , % crit. of 1.27, 1.90 and 2.54 cm balls. The ball load corresponded to J = 0.4
* *
Fig. 1. Variation of relative values of S and F with mill speed for dry grinding of 10/ and the particle load corresponded to U = 1. An analysis of the pub-
14 mesh limestone in a 25.4 cm diameter ball mill used by Kim [6]. lished experimental data on variation of the mill power with mill
speed shows that in the range 55–70% critical speed the torque
corresponding to the net power drawn by the mill either remains
1.25 practically constant [10,24] or it increases gradually with the mill
speed by about 8% [17]. These data can be utilized for evaluating
7/10 mesh Dolomite
the energy efficiency of the grinding operation. For this purpose,
1.20 let us define an energy efficiency parameter as the ratio of the
power specific grinding rate at 55% and 70% critical speeds,
[S*(55)/S*(70)]. Values of this parameter were calculated for differ-
1.15 ent size fractions of four materials studied by Gupta [23] assuming
the mill torque to be independent of the mill speed. These values
S**

are given in Table 3. According to the proposition of Herbst and

1.10 Fuerstenau [5] that the S* values are independent of the mill oper-
ating conditions, the value of the parameter under consideration
should be observed to be 1 in all cases. However, as can be seen
1.05
in Table 3, the value of this parameter is observed to vary from
0.79 to 1.43, being greater than one in most cases. It can be readily
1.00 seen that a value greater than one implies that particles were
ground more energy efficiently at 55% critical speed. Further, a
50 60 70 80 90 100 close inspection of the data presented in Table 3 would show that
in general as the particle size decreases, the energy efficiency at
Mill speed, % crit
55% critical speed increases. This fact is more important for a rela-
Fig. 2. Variation of S** with mill speed for dry grinding of 7/9 mesh dolomite ground tively soft material like limestone because even for a coarse size
in a 25.4 cm diameter ball mill used by Fuerstenau [10]. fraction, 14/20 mesh, grinding at 55% critical speed is 23% more en-
ergy efficient. However, in case of quartz, a hard material, the en-
ergy efficiency for 10/14 mesh size fraction is 21% lower at the 55%
variation in S** is similar to that observed in Fig. 1 for Kim’s data on critical speed. Therefore, grinding a coarse feed of quartz at a lower
limestone. speed is not desirable.
Gupta [23] has presented results on variation of grinding rate of
different size fractions of quartz, limestone, and two types of ce- 3.1.2. Effect of mill speed in wet grinding
ment clinkers with mill speed. A 29 cm diameter mill with a built Kim [6] has presented a large amount of data on wet grinding of
in wavy liner was used. The ball charge consisted of equal number a 10/14 mesh size fraction of limestone under different operating

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5

Fig. 4 shows results obtained for variation in the S** and F**
Wet Limestone values in the medium fine size distribution range (14 mesh:
1.0
63–86%; 200 mesh: 11–21%). It can be seen that as the mill speed
increases from 50% to 70% critical, while the S** value increases by
about 17%, the two F** values do not increase significantly. Further
0.9 increase in the mill speed results in a sharp drop in the values of all
three parameters.
S**, F**

For the fine size distribution regime, the trend of variation for
0.8 the two F** values was observed to be similar to that observed in
case of the coarse and medium fine regimes. However, the shape
of the curve for the S** parameter was observed to be quite differ-
S**(10/14 mesh) ent from the shape of the S** curves shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Based
0.7 F**(-100 mesh) on these results it was concluded that in case of wet grinding only
F**(- 200 mesh) the F* parameter can provide a reliable basis for the mill scale-up
and design work.
0.6
50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Mill speed , % crit 3.2. Effect of particle load in dry grinding

Fig. 3. Variation of S** and F** with mill speed for wet grinding (60% solids by Berlioz [16] studied the effect of particle load on grinding rate of
weight) of limestone in a 25.4 cm diameter ball mill used by Kim [6] for the coarse
a 7/9 mesh size fraction of natural, uncrushed dolomite in a
size distribution range.
25.4 cm diameter laboratory ball mill (N: 0.6, J: 0.5, U: 0.2 to
1.6). Due to an unusually high initial rate of grinding, Berlioz de-
fined sieve size interval 1 as 7/10 mesh instead of 7/9 mesh. The
conditions. It is well known that the wet grinding kinetics are
S* and F* values were calculated using the actual mill power data
strongly particle size distribution dependent. Therefore, a coarse
reported by Berlioz. For calculation of the F* values 100 mesh
(14 mesh: 41–63%; 200 mesh 5.5–11%), a medium fine (14
was taken as the upper size limit for the ground product. Further,
mesh: 63–86%; 200 mesh: 11–21%) and a fine (14 mesh: 87–
the S* and F* values were normalized using the respective values
97%; 200 mesh 21–32%) size distribution regimes were selected
corresponding to U = 1. Fig. 5 shows variation of the normalized
for studying the variation of S* and F* parameters with mill speed
values of the two energy specific parameters with the particle load,
in the range 50–80% critical. It may be mentioned that though
U. As we move from right to left, the S** value remains practically
the feed and product size distributions for all tests were not iden-
constant up to U = 1 and the F** value remains constant up to
tical, they were very close (except for tests corresponding to 50%
U = 0.8. Beyond these limits, both the S** and F** values continu-
critical speed). The other mill operating conditions were: % solids:
ously decrease up to the U value of 0.2. However, the overall de-
60; N: 0.6; U: 1.0, J: 0.5.
crease of 0.54 in the S** value is observed to be significantly
Results for the coarse size distribution regime are given in Fig. 3.
higher than the overall decrease of 0.38 in the F** value. These re-
It can be seen that as the mill speed increases from 50% to 80% crit-
sults show that as the U value decreases the breakage distribution
ical, there is an overall decrease of 37% in the S** value for the 10/14
function becomes increasingly finer. Thus, the power specific abso-
mesh size fraction, and 29–34% decrease in the two F** values cor-
lute rate of production of fines does not decrease as much as is the
responding to 200 and 100 mesh sizes, respectively. Moreover, in
case with the power specific absolute rate of breakage.
the range 50–60% critical speed, while the S** value shows a very
We carried out a detailed study on the effect of particle load and
sharp decline, the two F** values decline only marginally.
ball load on grinding kinetics by carrying out experiments at two
different mill speeds (55% and 70% critical) and four levels of ball

1.20 S**(10/14 mesh) 1.1

F**(-100 mesh)
1.15 F**(-200 mesh) 1.0 Dolomite

1.10 0.9
S**, F**

S**, F**

1.05 0.8

1.00 0.7
J : 0.5
mill speed : 60% crit
0.95 0.6

Wet Limestone F**(-100 mesh)

0.90 0.5 S**(7/10 mesh)

40 50 60 70 80 0.4
Mill speed, % crit 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Particle load, U
Fig. 4. Variation of S** and F** with mill speed for wet grinding (60% solids by
weight) of limestone in a 25.4 cm diameter ball mill used by Kim [6] for the Fig. 5. Variation of relative values of S* and F* with particle load for 7/10 mesh
medium fine size distribution range. dolomite dry ground in a 25.4 cm diameter ball mill used by Berlioz [16].

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
6 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

load (J: 0.2,0.3,0.4 and 0.5). The particle load U was varied in the 1.2
range 0.25–2.0. As mentioned earlier in Section 3.1.1, a 29 cm
diameter mill with a built in wavy liner was used [22,23]. The ball
1.1
charge consisted of equal number of 1.27, 1.90 and 2.54 cm balls.
The feed charge consisted of a well distributed 20 mesh feed of
quartz that was prepared by grinding 8 mesh crushed quartz 1.0
J
for 2 min in the test ball mill at the selected value of the mill speed. 0.2
For any given set of experiments, feed charges of almost identical

S**
0.9
size distributions were prepared using a rotating table sampling
device. Generally two short duration grinding tests were carried
out to obtain about 50% total reduction in the amount of the top 0.8
size fraction, 20/28 mesh. The deviation in the S values calculated
for two time intervals was found to be less than 2%. In almost all 20/28 mesh Quartz 0.3
cases the second value was found to be higher than the first value. 0.7
Further, based on the correlations available in the literature, the mill speed: 70% crit.
0.4
duration of each grinding experiment was calculated for obtaining 0.6
almost identical product size distribution in all tests of a particular 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25
set of experiments. In this context, it is important to point out that Particle load, U
the phenomenon of zero-order production of fines is not relevant
Fig. 7. Variation of S** with particle load for 20/28 mesh quartz dry ground in a
to our experiments as a distributed feed was used instead of a sin-
29 cm diameter ball mill at different levels of ball load and 70% critical speed.
gle-size feed. Therefore, a meaningful comparison of the rate of
production of fines can be carried out if only the feed and product
size distributions are same. In about 40% cases the product size dis- distribution function becomes increasingly finer – resulting in rel-
tributions were not close enough for comparing the rate of produc- atively less decrease in the F** value.
tion of fines. Therefore, F* values could not be calculated for these At present, it is not possible to properly explain the different
tests. patterns of results obtained in the two studies. Though, there are
Fig. 6 shows variation of the normalized values of S* (20/28 small differences in the mill speed (N: 0.6 versus 0.7) and ball load
mesh) and F* (-100 mesh) with the particle load at 70% critical (J: 0.5 versus 0.4), in our opinion the main factor is the ball size dis-
speed and 40% filling of the mill volume by the ball charge. Nor- tribution: a single size ball charge versus a ball charge made up of
malization was done using the maximum values of the parameters balls of three different sizes. The void space in the ball charge, the
obtained at a U value of 0.75. A comparison of the two curves relative movement of different layers of balls and the type of
shown in Fig. 6 with the corresponding curves in Fig. 5 would show breakage events generated are expected to vary with the ball size
two main differences: (i) for both the parameters the maximum distribution. In practice, the production mills have a ball mix of a
value is reached at a lower U value (0.75 as compared to 1.0); wide size distribution. Therefore, the results obtained in our study
and (ii) the parameter values do not remain constant as we move are of a greater relevance.
to the right from the maxima – in fact a sharp decline is observed. For 70% critical mill speed, Fig. 7 shows variation of S** for 20/28
There is, however, one similarity in respect of the variation in the mesh size fraction of quartz with particle load at three levels of ball
breakage distribution function with the particle load. As we move load, J: 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4. It can be seen that all three curves exhibit a
to the left from a high U value, up to the occurrence of the maxima maxima. The U value corresponding to the maxima, U*, decreases
the breakage distribution function does not change significantly, as the ball load increases. Moreover, an increase in the U value be-
resulting in nearly parallel curves for the two parameters. How- yond U* leads to a sharp decline in the S** value for J = 0.3 and 0.4.
ever, as we move further to the left from the maxima, the breakage Fig. 8 shows results of similar experiments carried out at 55% crit-
ical speed for J values 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5. Though the broad trend of

1.3
1.16
Quartz
1.2 1.12 J
mill speed : 70% crit.
1.08 0.3
1.1 J : 0.4
1.04
1.0
S**, F**

0.4
S**

1.00
0.9
0.96
0.8 20/28 mesh Quartz
** 0.92
F (-100 mesh)
mill speed: 55% crit.
0.7 ** 0.88 0.5
S (20/28 mesh)

0.6 0.84
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
Particle load, U Particle load, U
* * **
Fig. 6. Variation of relative values of S and F with particle load for 20/28 mesh Fig. 8. Variation of S with particle load for 20/28 mesh quartz dry ground in a
quartz dry ground in a 29 cm diameter ball mill. 29 cm diameter ball mill at different levels of ball load and 55% critical speed.

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7

1.35 1.24

1.30 Quartz F**(-100 mesh)

1.20 U
S** (20/28 mesh)
0.75
1.25 1.16
mill speed: 70% crit 0.50
1.20 U: 0.75 1.12
S**, F**

S**
1.15 1.08

1.10 1.04

1.05 1.00

1.00 0.96 mill speed : 55% crit.

1.50
0.95 0.92
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Ball load, J Ball load, J
Fig. 9. Variation of S** and F** with ball load for dry grinding of quartz with 25.4 cm Fig. 11. Variation of S** with ball load for 20/28 mesh size fraction of quartz dry
diameter balls in a 60 cm diameter ball mill used by Smaila [17]. ground in a 29 cm diameter ball mill at different levels of particulate load and 55%
critical mill speed.

variation is same in respect of the location of the maxima and the

degree of decline in the S** value for different J values, in general in terms of the relative values S** and F**. It can be seen that both
the magnitude of variation is comparatively very small. the curves exhibit a maxima at J = 0.3 and a minima at a J value
Thus, a small ball load and a low mill speed are preferable from of about 0.45. Further, variation in the F** value is more marked
the point of view of variation in the specific energy consumption than the variation in the S** value (33 versus 15%). This shows that
with particle load. However, in doing so one has to take in to ac- the breakage distribution function changed with the ball load.
count the mill production rate also. Reasonably high levels of ball Figs. 10 and 11 results obtained by us on variation of S** with
load and mill speed are required to maintain a high production ball load for 70% and 55% critical mill speed. It can be seen that
rate. Therefore, a practical compromise has to be made between at 70% critical speed the maximum S** value is observed at a J value
the mill production rate and variation in the specific energy con- of about 0.3, while at 55% critical speed the maximum value is ob-
sumption with particle load due to changes in the feed rate and served at a J value of about 0.4. A maximum of about 20% variation
hardness of the feed solids. is observed in the S** value in both the cases. Further, the degree of
variation is more at lower U values. At a U value of about 1.5 there
is minimum variation in the S** value. Also, at a given U value the
3.3. Effect of ball load in dry grinding
degree of variation is nearly the same for the two mill speeds under
consideration.
Several researchers [4,17,18,25] have studied the effect of ball
Fig. 12 shows variation in the F** value with ball load at 55% crit-
load on grinding kinetics. Relevant data presented by Smaila [17]
ical speed for three values of U: 0.50, 0.75 and 1.5. In contrast to the
for 20/28 mesh quartz ground in a 60 cm diameter ball mill (N:
trend of variation in the S** value at the same mill speed (Fig. 11), it
0.7, U: 0.75, J: 0.2–0.5) were analyzed for variation in the S* and
F* values with the ball load. These results are presented in Fig. 9

1.32
1.3 20/28 mesh Quartz U 1.28 Mill speed : 55% crit. U
1.2 0.5 1.24 0.75

1.20
1.1
F**

1.16
S**

1.0 0.50
1.0
1.12

0.9 1.5 1.08 1.50

1.04
0.8 mill speed: 70% crit 2.0
1.00
0.7
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Ball load, J Ball load, J
Fig. 10. Variation of S** with ball load for 20/28 mesh size fraction of quartz dry Fig. 12. Variation of F** with ball load for -100 mesh quartz fines produced in a
ground in a 29 cm diameter ball mill at different levels of particulate load and 70% 29 cm diameter ball mill at different levels of particulate load and 55% critical mill
critical mill speed. speed.

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
8 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

1.1 1.16

1.14
Quartz
1.0 1.12

1.10
0.9
S**, F**

1.08

S**
1.06
0.8
1.04 N J d (mm)
1.02 0.6 0.3 25.4
0.7 F**(-100 mesh) 0.7 0.5 25.4
S** (28/35 mesh) 1.00 0.6 0.5 50.8

0.6 0.98
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Ball diameter, mm Mill diameter, cm

Fig. 13. Variation of relative values of S* (28/35 mesh) and F* (-100 mesh) for dry Fig. 15. Variation of S** for 8/10 mesh limestone with mill diameter under different
grinding of quartz in a 60 cm diameter ball mill (J: 0.2; U: 0.5; N: 0.7) used by operating conditions; based on dry grinding data of Malghan [7].
Smaila [17].

seen that the decrease in F** is relatively more pronounced in case

is observed that in all three cases the F** value increases monoton- of limestone, and the S** and F** values are quite close. Thus, we
ically with J, without exhibiting a maxima. Another interesting see that the effect of ball diameter is not same for two materials
observation is that the rate of increase in the values of both the of different hardness. Increase in ball diameter gives rise to rela-
parameters is highest for a U value of 0.75. tively less change in the breakage distribution function for the softer
material. In case of quartz, which is relatively harder than lime-
stone, increase in ball size results in a greater change in the breakage
3.4. Effect of ball diameter distribution function. Therefore, the rate of production of fines does
not decrease as much as it does in the case of limestone.
The effect of ball diameter on grinding kinetics has been studied
by several researchers [7,17,18,22]. Batch grinding size distribution
3.5. Effect of mill diameter
data of Malghan [7] on 28/35 mesh limestone and that of Smaila
[17] on the same size quartz were found to be most suitable for com-
Malghan [7] has presented data on dry grinding of 8/10 mesh
paring the effect of ball diameter on grinding behaviour of two
limestone in 12.7, 25.4 and 38.1 cm diameter ball mills. As shown
materials of significantly different hardness. Figs. 13 and 14 show
in Figs. 15 and 16, data for three sets of operating conditions were
the variation of S** (28/35 mesh) and F** (100 mesh) values for
analyzed. These three sets included two values each of mill speed
quartz and limestone, respectively. It can be seen that in both the
(N: 0.6 and 0.7), ball load (J: 0.3 and 0.5) and ball diameter (d: 25.4
cases the F** and S** values decrease with increase in ball diameter.
and 50.8 mm). Particle load was kept constant at U = 1. It can be
However, the decrease in the F** value is relatively less than that ob-
seen in Figs. 15 and 16 that both the S** and F** values exhibit a
served for S**. This shows that an increase in the ball diameter re-
maxima at about 33 cm mill diameter. However, the nature and
sults in a finer breakage distribution function which compensates
magnitude of variation for these two parameters is different for
for decrease in the breakage rate to some extent. Further, it can be
different sets of operating conditions.

1.40
1.0
Limestone 1.35 N J d (mm)
F** (-100 mesh) 0.6 0.3 25.4
0.9 S** (28/35 mesh) 1.30 0.7 0.5 25.4
0.6 0.5 50.8
1.25
S**, F**

0.8
F**

1.20

0.7 1.15

1.10
0.6
1.05

1.00
0.5
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Ball diameter, mm Mill diameter, cm
Fig. 14. Variation of S** (28/35 mesh) and F** (-100 mesh) for limestone dry ground Fig. 16. Variation of F** for -100 mesh limestone fines with mill diameter under
in a 25.4 cm diameter ball mill (N: 0.6, J: 0.5; U: 1.0) by Malghan [7]. different operating conditions; based on dry grinding data of Malghan [7].

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9

operating conditions. It may be recalled that the F* values are

1.16 determined by S* and B values, both.
F**(-100 mesh)
Further, the effect of any particular variable on the S* and F*
S**(10/14 mesh)
parameters is observed to be different under different set of oper-
1.12
ating conditions. Therefore, the effect of any particular operating
variable, such as the mill speed, on S* or F* cannot be described
1.08 in terms of mill speed alone. Actually, the relationship is expected
S**, F**

to include other variables (such as the ball load, ball size distribu-
tion and particle load) also.
1.04 Attention needs to be drawn to the fact that no significant data
is available in the literature on the wet mode of operation. In the
mineral processing plants, most of the grinding is carried out in
1.00
the wet mode. And, as shown above in Section 3.1, the effect of
speed on S* and F* values is quite different for the dry and wet
0.96 modes of operation. It is quite likely that same is the case with
other variables. Therefore, it is important that adequate data is
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 generated for the wet mode of grinding operation covering the
Mill diameter, cm range of operating conditions of practical interest. Three variables
must be particularly emphasized: particle size distribution of the
Fig. 17. Variation of S** and F** with mill diameter for limestone dry ground by mill contents, ball size distribution and ore hardness.
Siddique [9] under the operating conditions: (N: 0.6; J: 0.5; U: 1.0; d: 12.7–
38.1 mm).
It is proposed that the results presented in this paper should be
verified through simulation of the ball mill grinding operation un-
der different sets of operating conditions using the discrete ele-
Siddique [9] has presented data on dry grinding of 10/14 mesh ment method [30–34]. This method enables the calculation of
limestone in 25.4, 38.1 and 76.2 cm diameter ball mills. The mill collisions and the resulting motion of each and every ball in the
speed, ball load and particle load values corresponded to: (N: charge, and it takes into account the internal geometry of the mill
0.6; J: 0.5; U: 1.0). Balls of four different diameters, 12.7, 19.05, as well as the size distribution of the ball charge. Such studies will
25.4 and 38.1 mm, were used for preparing the ball charge. The enable us properly account for the observed variations in the mill
proportion of balls by number was: 36%, 24%, 26% and 14%, respec- performance under different operating conditions.
tively. Fig. 17 shows the variation of S** and F** with mill diameter
for this set of operating conditions. It can be seen that while F** in-
4. Conclusions
creases steadily by 16% over the mill diameter range under consid-
eration, S** does not exhibit any definite trend of variation of a
Analysis of a large amount of batch ball mill grinding data avail-
significant magnitude.
able in the literature has shown that the values of the power spe-
In view of the fact that Siddique used a mixture of balls of dif-
cific absolute rate of grinding of the topmost size fraction, S*, and
ferent size and mills of relatively bigger diameter, his results
the power specific absolute rate of production of 100 mesh fines,
should be considered to be more relevant to the actual operating
F*, are not independent of the mill operating conditions and mill
conditions. However, it is felt that the available data is not ade-
diameter. In general, both the parameters exhibit a significantly
quate for arriving at any definite conclusions. A 12.5 cm diameter
large degree of variation, typically 20–40%. Further, the nature
mill is too small for the purpose of scale-up. A preferable range
and degree of variation for these two parameters often differ
of mill diameter for the scale-up study would be: 30–120 cm.
significantly.
The effect of any particular operating variable on the S* and F*
values is significantly different for different combinations of the
values of the other operating variables. The breakage characteris-
3.6. General discussion
tics (hardness of material) and the mode of grinding operation
(dry/wet) are also important factors. It is, therefore, proposed that
It has been demonstrated above that the basic assumptions
depending on the likely range of operating conditions for the pro-
made by Herbst and Fuerstenau [5] in proposing Eqs. (2) and (4)
duction mill, the optimum values of various operating variables
are not valid in general. These equations were originally proposed
should be established by carrying out some well designed grinding
based on the results of only eight dry batch grinding experiments
experiments in a ball mill of at least 60 cm diameter.
carried out in a 25.4 cm diameter mill, corresponding to the oper-
Finally, as the purpose of grinding is to produce fine particles, it
ating conditions: (N: 0.53, 0.6, 0.7,0.9; J: 0.5; U: 1.0), (N: 0.6; J: 0.35;
is recommended that the mill design and scale-up work should be
U:1.0) and (N: 0.6; J: 0.5; U: 0.8, 1.0, 1.6). The value of S* was found
based mainly on the F* parameters.
to vary from 1.74 to 2.18 kW h/ton—a variation of 12.5% around
the mean value of 1.96 kW h/ton [10]. Thus, these equations are
only approximately valid over a narrow range of operating condi- References
tions, as mentioned by these authors themselves. However, this
[1] K.J. Reid, A solution to the batch grinding equation, Chemical Engineering
fact has been overlooked by several other researchers [26–29] Science 20 (1965) 953–963.
who have used these equations in their analysis of experimental [2] L.G. Austin, A review introduction to the description of grinding as a rate
data as universal correlations. In view of the results presented process, Powder Technology 5 (1971–72) 1–17.
[3] V.K. Gupta, P.C. Kapur, A critical appraisal of the discrete size models of
above in Sections 3.1–3.6, these correlations should be used with
grinding kinetics, in: H. Rumf, K. Schonert, (Eds.), Proceedings, Fourth
a good degree of caution. European Symposium Zerkleinern, Dechema Monographien 79, Nr. 1576–
An important result obtained is that the effect of any particular 1599, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, 1976, pp. 447–465.
operating variable on the parameters, S* and F*, is not same, i.e. the [4] L.G. Austin, R.R. Klimpel, P.T. Luckie, The Process Engineering of Size
Reduction: Ball Milling, SME/AIME, New York, 1984. pp. 84–86.
F* values do not vary in the same proportion as that observed for S*. [5] J.A. Herbst, D.W. Fuerstenau, Mathematical simulation of dry ball milling using
This is because of the fact that the B values also vary with the specific power information, Transactions SME-AIME 254 (1973) 343–348.

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003
10 V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma / Advanced Powder Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

[6] J.H. Kim, Normalized model for wet batch ball milling, Ph.D. Dissertation, grinding experiments. Report No. 82-19, GRAAIM, Laval University, Quebec,
University of Utah, Utah, USA, 1974. Canada, 1982.
[7] S.G. Malghan, The Scale-up of Ball Mills Using Population Balance Models, D. [21] V.K. Gupta, D. Hodouin, R. Spring, SPOC Manual, Supplement 7.2: Kinetic ball
Eng. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1975, p. 271. mill model parameter estimation, Division Report MRP/MSL 83–88(IR),
[8] S.G. Malghan, D.W. Fuerstenau, The scale up of ball mills using population CANMET, Energy Mines and Resources Canada, 1983.
models and specific power input, in: H. Rumf, K. Schonert, (Eds.), Proceedings, [22] V.K. Gupta, H. Zouit, D. Hodouin, The effect of ball and mill diameters on
Fourth European Symposium Zerkleinern, Dechema Monographien 79, Nr. grinding rate parameters in dry grinding operation, Powder Technology 42
1576–1599, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, 1976, pp. 613–630. (1985) 199–208.
[9] M. Siddique, A kinetic approach to ball mill scale-up for dry and wet systems. [23] V.K. Gupta, Mill speed control for more efficient grinding, in: Proceedings 17th
M.S. Thesis, University of Utah, USA, 1977. Canadian Mineral Processors Annual Conference, Ottawa, January 22–24,
[10] D.W. Fuerstenau, Research on comminution process and simulation. Report 1985, pp. 639–646.
No. BuMines OFR 39-79, National Technical Information Service, U.S. [24] M.H. Moys, A model of mill power as affected by mill speed, load volume, and
Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA. 22161, December 1978. liner design, Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 6
[11] J.A. Herbst, D.W. Fuerstenau, Scale-up procedure for continuous grinding mill (1993) 135–141.
design using population balance models, International Journal of Mineral [25] K. Shoji, L.G. Austin, F. Smaila, K. Brame, P.T. Luckie, Further studies of ball and
Processing 7 (1980) 1–31. powder filling effects in ball milling, Powder Technology 31 (1982) 121–126.
[12] J.A. Herbst, Y.C. Lo, B. Flintoff, Size reduction and liberation, in: M.C. [26] K.S. Venkataraman, D.W. Fuerstenau, Application of the population balance
Fuerstenau, K.N. Han (Eds.), Principles of Mineral Processing, SME, Littleton, model to the grinding of mixtures of minerals, Powder Technology 39 (1984)
Colorado, 2003. 133–142.
[13] J.A. Herbst, D.W. Fuerstenau, The zero order production of fine sizes in [27] P.C. Kapur, D.W. Fuerstenau, Energy split in multicomponent grinding,
comminution and its implications in simulation, Transactions AIME 241 International Journal of Mineral Processing 24 (1988) 125–142.
(1968) 538–546. [28] N. Khumalo, D. Glasser, D. Hildebrandt, B. Hausberger, An experimental
[14] V.K. Gupta, Zero order production of fines in ball and rod mill grinding: an validation of a specific energy-based approach for comminution, Chemical
explanation. SME-AIME Annual Meeting, New York, N.Y., February 24–28, Engineering Science 62 (2007) 2765–2776.
1985. Preprint Number 85-139. [29] D. Touil, S. Belaadi, C. Frances, The specific selection function effect on clinker
[15] T.S. Mika, L.M. Berlioz, D.W. Fuerstenau, An approach to the kinetics of dry grinding efficiency in a dry batch ball mill, International Journal of Mineral
batch ball milling. 2nd European Symposium on Comminution, Amsterdam, Processing 87 (2008) 141–145.
1966. Dechema-57, Nr. 993–1026, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, 1967, pp. 205– [30] B.K. Mishra, R.K. Rajamani, The discrete element method for the simulation of
240. ball mills, Applied Mathematical Modelling 16 (1992) 598–604.
[16] L.M. Berlioz, Kinetics of dry grinding, M.S. Thesis, University of California, [31] B.K. Mishra, R.K. Rajamani, Simulation of charge motion in ball mills. Part 1:
Berkeley, Calif., USA, 1966. experimental verifications, International Journal of Mineral Processing 40
[17] F.M. Smaila, An investigation of the kinetics of dry batch ball milling. M.S. (1994) 171–186.
Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA, 1982. [32] B.K. Mishra, R.K. Rajamani, Simulation of charge motion in ball mills. Part 2:
[18] V. Deniz, The effects of ball filling and ball diameter on kinetic breakage Numerical simulations, International Journal of Mineral Processing 40 (1994)
parameters of barite powder, Advanced Powder Technology 23 (2012) 640– 187–197.
646. [33] A. Datta, R.K. Rajamani, A direct approach of modelling batch grinding in ball
[19] V.K. Gupta, An appraisal of the linear first-order kinetic model based ball mill mills using population balance principles and impact energy distribution,
design correlations, 1.World Congress Particle Technology, Part II: International Journal of Mineral Processing 64 (2002) 181–200.
Comminution (6. European Symposium Comminution), Nurnberg, April 16– [34] R.M. de Carvalho, L.M. Tavares, Predicting the effect of operating and design
18, 1986, pp. 605–620. variables on breakage rates using the mechanistic ball mill model, Minerals
[20] V.K. Gupta, H. Zouit, D. Hodouin, Determination of the breakage rate and Engineering 43–44 (2013) 91–101.
distribution parameters: Preparation of the test samples and design of the

Please cite this article in press as: V.K. Gupta, S. Sharma, Analysis of ball mill grinding operation using mill power specific kinetic parameters, Advanced
Powder Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2013.10.003