DETERMINING

THE BOND EFFICIENCY

OF INDUSTRIAL
GRINDING CIRCUITS

REVISED 2021
FIRST PUBLISHED 2016
INDUSTRIAL COMMINUTION EFFICIENCY

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | i

ABOUT GMG
The Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG) is a network of representatives from mining companies, original equipment manu-
facturers (OEMs), original technology manufacturers (OTMs), research organizations and academics, consultants, regulators, and
industry associations around the world who collaborate to tackle challenges facing our industry. GMG aims to accelerate the
improvement of mining performance, safety, and sustainability by enabling the mining industry to collaborate and share expertise
and lessons learned that result in the creation of guidelines, such as this one, that address common industry challenges. 
Interested in participating or have feedback to share? GMG is an open platform, and everyone with interest and expertise in
the subject matter covered can participate. Participants from GMG member companies have the opportunity to assume lead-
ership roles. Please contact GMG at [email protected] for more information about participating or to provide feedback on
this guideline. 
GMG was formed out of the Surface Mining Association for Research and Technology (SMART) group as part of the Canadian Insti-
tute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) and with the support of other Global Mineral Professionals Alliance (GMPA) members.  
GMG is an independent, industry-led organization.   

ABOUT GMG GUIDELINES

GMG guidelines are peer-reviewed documents that describe good practices, advise on the implementation and adoption of
new technologies, and/or develop industry alignment. They are the product of industry-wide collaboration based on experi-
ence and lessons learned. The guidance aims to help readers identify key considerations, good practices, and questions to ask
on the topic covered and enable operational improvements for safe, sustainable, and productive mines.   
Once the guideline is reviewed and accepted by the project group steering committee, working group members peer review and
GMG members within the working group vote to approve draft documents prior to their approval by the GMG Executive Council. 
GMG guidelines are intended to provide general guidance only, recognizing that every situation will be different. Use of these
guidelines is entirely voluntary and how they are applied is the responsibility of the user. These guidelines do not replace or
alter standards or any other national, state, or local governmental statutes, laws, regulations, ordinances, or appropriate tech-
nical expertise and other requirements. While the guidelines are developed and reviewed by participants across the mining
industry, they do not necessarily represent the views of all of the participating organizations and their accuracy and complete-
ness are not guaranteed. See the disclaimer on p. iv for further detail.  

RELATED GMG DOCUMENTS

While guidelines are the primary output of GMG Working Groups, GMG also produces documents that supplement guidelines.
These include: 
• White papers: Educational documents that provide broad knowledge and identify further reading on a topic that
is new to or not well-understood in the industry. These documents are reviewed throughout development and
editing but do not undergo the working group review and voting process as guidelines do. These
projects can lead to guideline development.  
• Reports: Outcomes of outreach, industry research, and events can be presented in reports and can inform the
priorities for developing industry guidance.  
• Landscapes: Reviews of ongoing related work by other organizations on a key topic. These aim to provide the
industry with an idea of what exists and prevent duplication of effort. 
• Case studies/other examples and tools: These documents aim to share knowledge and provide examples for
the benefit of the broader industry and supplement GMG guidelines. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STANDARDS
GMG guidelines are not standards and should not be treated as such. The guidelines can be used to assist the mining com-
munity with practices to improve their operations and/or implement new technologies. They aim to supplement, not replace,
existing standards, regulations, and company policies. Guidelines can also be a first step in identifying common and success-
ful practices and feed into standardization efforts. GMG does not develop standards but does participate in standardization
efforts through partnerships.  

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

ii | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

CREDITS
The following organizations and individuals were involved in the preparation of these guidelines at various stages
including content definition, content generation, and review. Please note that the guidelines do not necessarily represent
the views of the organizations listed below.

Project Group
Determining the Bond Efficiency of Industrial Grinding Circuits

Sub-committee
Industrial Comminution Efficiency

Working Group
Mineral Processing

Project Leader
Robert E. McIvor, Chief Metallurgist - Grinding Systems,
Metcom Technologies

Revision Committee
Peter Lind, Director, Metallurgy - Global Projects Technical Engineering, Newmont
Leonard Hill, Technical Services Director, Freeport-McMoRan

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | iii

PUBLICATION INFORMATION
This guideline, originally published in 2016, was revised in 2020–2021. Only minor revisions and corrections were made
in the text to improve clarity and update references.
Guideline Number: GMG01-MP-2021
Revised Edition Published: 2021-12-15
First Published: 2016-02-18
Revision Cycle: 5 years

DOCUMENT USAGE NOTICE

© Global Mining Guidelines Group. Some rights reserved. 
GMG is an open platform. This document can be used, copied, and shared, aside from the exceptions listed below.  
Exceptions to the above:  
• Third-party materials: If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such
as tables, quotations, figures, or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is
needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from
infringement of any third-party-owned content in the work is the responsibility of the user.  
• GMG branding and logo: The use of the GMG logo and associated branding without permission is not
permitted. To request permission, please contact GMG (see the contact information below). 
• Translation: If you translate the work, include the following disclaimer: “This translation was not produced
by GMG. GMG is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation.”  
• Derivatives: Adaptations, modifications, expansions, or other derivatives of this guideline without permis-
sion are not permitted. To request permission, please contact GMG (see the contact information below). 
• Sales: While you can use this guideline to provide guidance in commercial settings, selling this guideline
is not permitted. 
Should you use, copy, or share this document, you must clearly identify that the content comes from GMG by citing it.
The citation must include all the information in the recommended citation below. 
Recommended citation: Determining the Bond Efficiency of Industrial Grinding Circuits. GMG01-MP-2021. Global Mining
Guidelines Group (2021).  

CONTACT INFORMATION
Global Mining Guidelines Group
[email protected]
gmggroup.org

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

iv | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

DISCLAIMER
This publication contains general guidance only and does not replace or alter requirements of any national, state, or
local governmental statutes, laws, regulations, ordinances, or appropriate technical expertise and other requirements.
Although reasonable precautions have been taken to verify the information contained in this publication as of the date
of publication, it is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. This document has been
prepared with the input of various Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG) members and other participants from the
industry, but the guidelines do not necessarily represent the views of GMG and the organizations involved in the prepa-
ration of these guidelines. Use of GMG guidelines is entirely voluntary. The responsibility for the interpretation and use
of this publication lies with the user (who should not assume that it is error-free or that it will be suitable for the user’s
purpose). GMG and the organizations involved in the preparation of these guidelines assume no responsibility whatso-
ever for errors or omissions in this publication or in other source materials that are referenced by this publication, and
expressly disclaim the same. GMG expressly disclaims any responsibility related to determination or implementation
of any management practice. In no event shall GMG (including its members, partners, staff, contributors, reviewers, or
editors to this publication) be liable for damages or losses of any kind, however arising, from the use of or reliance on
this document, or implementation of any plan, policy, guidance, or decision, or the like, based on this general guid-
ance.  GMG (including its members, partners, staff, contributors, reviewers, or editors to this publication) also dis-
claims any liability of any nature whatsoever, whether under equity, common law, tort, contract, estoppel, negligence,
strict liability, or any other theory, for any direct, incidental, special, punitive, consequential, or indirect damages arising
from or related to the use of or reliance on this document. GMG (including its members, partners, staff, contributors,
reviewers, or editors to this publication) is not responsible for, and make no representation(s) about, the content or reli-
ability of linked websites, and linking should not be taken as endorsement of any kind. We have no control over the avail-
ability of linked pages and accept no responsibility for them.  The mention of specific entities, individuals, source
materials, trade names, or commercial processes in this publication does not constitute endorsement by GMG (includ-
ing  its members, partners, staff, contributors, reviewers, or editors to this publication).  In addition, the designations
employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of GMG (including its members, partners, staff, contributors, reviewers, or editors to this publication) on
the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of any frontiers or
boundaries. This disclaimer should be construed in accordance with the laws of Canada. 

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Work Index (Wi) was defined by Bond as the comminution circuit equipment’s needed specific energy input (W, in
kWh/t) to reduce ore from a very large size (80% passing, or an F80 of infinity) to a circuit product size of 80% passing (a
P80 of) 100 μm. Bond’s Work Index Equation then relates all size reduction processes back to this value based on the obser-
vation that specific energy is related to the inverse of the square root of the circuit feed and product sizing, as follows.

W
Wi = ––––––––––––––––
10 10
(–––––– − –––––– )
√￣￣
P80 √￣￣
F80

In order to specify the design energy (W) input delivery requirements for new plants, laboratory tests were developed
and scaled to a large database of plant (crushing, rod, and ball milling) equipment specific energy usages. The outcome
of these tests provides Standard Circuit Bond Work Index (WiSTD) values of the ore for crushing (WiC), rod milling (WiRM)
and ball milling (WiBM). The W values calculated through this process can be totaled for the subsequent stages of
crushing, rod milling, and ball milling. The Standard (design) Bond Work Index (WiSTD) for the combined stages of this
standard circuit may then be back calculated.
A plant circuit’s Actual Operating Bond Work Index (WioACT) is calculated from the respective plant data.

W
WioACT = ––––––––––––––––
10 10
(–––––– − –––––– )
√￣￣
P80 √￣￣
F80

Comparison of the ratio between the test (or design) value of the Work Index with actual plant operating work index
thus provides a measure of that circuit’s energy usage efficiency relative to that specified for crushing, rod milling, and
ball milling using the Bond test scale-up method.

WiSTD
Wi Efficiency Ratio = –––––––
WioACT

The actual plant circuit can deploy any type of size reduction equipment. Thus, this tool can be used by operators and
designers to benchmark the energy efficiency of any size reduction circuit, over the applicable size reduction range,
that exists in the industry. Examples of calculation of WioACT and Wi Efficiency Ratio for different industrial circuits are
provided.
Bond Work Index laboratory testing equipment and procedures have been generally described by the developer, Allis-
Chalmers Manufacturing Company. However, lack of precise details has resulted in significant variability in test results
from the many laboratories (both commercial testing facilities and those at operating mine sites) throughout the world
which conduct these tests. This document is intended to provide guidelines to standardize Bond test equipment and
procedures and thus to minimize the testing experimental error. This will then minimize plant Bond Efficiency mea-
surement error and maximize the usefulness of this efficiency value for performance benchmarking and process
improvement.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

vi | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

ABBREVIATIONS
α Angle to which the two hammers are raised from the vertical (degrees)
C Energy per unit thickness to break a particle (J/mm)
Cmean Mean energy per unit thickness to break the particles (J/mm)
d Particle thickness between the points that it is contacted by the two hammers (mm)
F80 80% passing size of the circuit feed (μm)
gpr Grams (new minus closing screen aperture) per mill revolution
IPP Mass of Ideal Potential Product from a test cycle (g)
n Number of fragments of a broken particle
P Machine power at the pinion (for details, see Doll, 2021)
P100 100% passing size or closing screen aperture (μm)
P80 80% passing size of the circuit product (μm)
sg Particle specific gravity (unitless)
SAG Semi-Autogenous Grinding
T Circuit tonnage (metric t/h)
t Metric tonne
W Specific energy (work) input (kWh/t)
Wi Bond Work Index (kWh/t)
WiBM Bond Ball Mill Test Work Index (kWh/t)
Wic Bond Impact Crushing Test Work Index (kWh/t)
WioACT Actual Operating Bond Work Index determined from measurements on the circuit (kWh/t)
Witotal Total circuit specific energy (kWh/t)
WiRM Bond Rod Mill Test Work Index (kWh/t)
WiSTD Standard Circuit Bond Work Index (expected or designed) used for circuit design. Specific energy requirement
at the drive pinions.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
ABBREVIATIONS vi
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2
2. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS 2
3. OTHER USEFUL DOCUMENTS 2
4. DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF A GRINDING CIRCUIT 2
4.1 Method 2
4.2 Demonstration/Example Calculations 4
4.2.1 Generic Circuit Calculation 4
4.2.2 Common Plant Grinding Circuit Calculations 5
5. WI TEST EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES 7
5.1 Bond Crushing Wi Test for Bond Efficiency Determinations 7
5.1.1 Apparatus 7
5.1.2 Sample 7
5.1.4 Calculations 8
5.1.3 Procedure 8
5.2 Bond Rod Mill Wi Test 9
5.2.1 Apparatus 9
5.2.2 Sample 9
5.2.3 Procedure 9
5.2.4 Calculations 10
5.3 Bond Ball Mill Wi Test 10
5.3.1 Apparatus 10
5.3.2 Sample 11
5.3.3 Procedure 11
5.3.4 Calculations 12
5.4 Accuracy of Comparative Circuit Work Index Efficiency Determinations 12
6. RESOURCES, REFERENCES, AND RECOMMENDED READING 13
ANNEX A 14
ANNEX B 15
ANNEX C 16

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

2 | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Bond method in this guideline allows for quantification and comparison of the relative energy efficiency of most
industrial comminution circuits. It is an important tool for evaluating the key cost components of common grinding cir-
cuits and their unit operations.
The objective of this guideline is to provide a benchmark metric for the specific energy requirements of an industrial grind-
ing circuit, in comparison with a standard circuit designed with a set of standardized laboratory tests. The Bond Work
Index (Wi) is the specific energy for a standard amount of size reduction: from a large F80 (80% passing circuit feed) to a
P80 of 100 μm. The actual operating bond work index (WioACT) is calculated from the comminution circuit, and the stan-
dard work index (WiSTD) is determined by combining the results from three laboratory tests that measure the resistance
to breakage over specific size ranges: coarse (Bond impact crushing), medium (Bond rod mill) and fine (Bond ball mill).
For early analyses of plant grinding efficiency issues, see Bond (1957, 1960).

2. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

This Bond Efficiency determination applies to most brittle materials in their naturally occurring (non-truncated) size dis-
tributions that are treated in size reduction circuits down to an 80% passing size of the circuit product (P80) of approx-
imately 70 μm.
Bond calculations assume the natural, typically observed crushing, rod milling, and closed-circuit ball milling circuit
product size distributions, which can be well represented by one (80%) cumulative passing size. Circuits with product
size distributions that differ from this need special consideration in this context.
The method is subject to the following known limitations:
• Materials that generate unusually shaped particles (e.g., mica) should be regarded with caution, as they inter-
fere with mechanical screening.
• The method of performing particle packing in the Bond ball mill work index test (5.3.3) has not been defined
and is known to be a potential source of variability in laboratory testing.
• Specific instructions for the composition of sieve series, screen shaking, and interpolating the 80% passing
size are left to the individual laboratories and are another potential source of variability.
• The closing screen used in the Bond ball mill tests should be chosen to achieve a similar product size to that
achieved by the operating circuit.
• The Bond Efficiency, as calculated by this guideline, changes over time and should not be considered constant.
• This Bond Efficiency determination should not be applied to circuits with a P80 of finer than approximately
70 μm without making qualifications.

3. OTHER USEFUL DOCUMENTS

The Methods to survey and sample grinding circuits for determining energy efficiency guideline (GMG, 2016) provides
guidance on how to collect information related to the operation of the circuit (F80, P80, power and mill feed rate).

4. DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF A GRINDING CIRCUIT

This section describes the method in the plant and laboratory and the calculations for determining the Bond Efficiency
of a grinding circuit. It also provides examples to demonstrate this method.

4.1 Method
In the plant:

1 Define the circuit for which the Bond Efficiency is to be determined.

2 Procure samples of the circuit feed and product.
3 Obtain the power draw of the size reduction equipment at the drive pinion(s).
4 Obtain the circuit throughput rate (dry tonnage).

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | 3

In the laboratory:
1 Conduct screen analyses of the circuit feed and product samples.
2 Conduct Wi test(s) on the circuit feed (see Section 5). Use a 1,190 μm screen to close the rod mill Wi test for
these purposes. Choose a closing screen for the ball mill test that is one (standard square root of 2 series)
mesh size coarser than the plant ball mill circuit P80. If choosing between two standard mesh sizes, choose
the finer one. Rowland, C. A., Jr., (1986) notes from a trip to the Allis Chalmers laboratory that if you use 150
μm screen which is 100 mesh, you end up with something slightly coarser than the next screen down but
depending on the material it can be just finer.

Calculations:
1 Calculate the Actual Operating Bond Work Index of the grinding circuit.
• Estimate the F80 and P80.

• Calculate the specific work or energy input P

from the size reduction equipment power W = ––– (1)
T
(relative to the pinon for tumbling mills; see
Where W is the specific work input (kWh/t), P is the equipment
Doll, 2021) and circuit tonnage (equation 1).
power (kW), and T is the circuit tonnage (metric t/h).
Auxiliary equipment power is excluded.

• Calculate the Actual Operating Bond Work W

WioACT = –––––––––––––––– (2)
Index (equation 2): 10 10
(–––––– − –––––– )
√￣￣
P80 √￣￣
F80
Where WioACT is the Actual Operating Bond Work Index (kWh/t),
W is the specific energy input (kWh/t), P80 is the 80% passing
size of product (μm), and F80 is the 80% passing size of circuit
feed (μm).

2 Calculate the Standard Circuit Bond Work Index Wtotal

(WiSTD) for the material being processed WiSTD = ––––––––––––––––– (3)
10 10
(equation 3): (–––––– − ––––––)
√￣￣
P80 √￣￣
F80
Wtotal = W1 (crushing) + W2 (rod milling) + W3 (ball milling)

The Bond Standard Circuit is the

“conventional” crushing-rod-ball milling circuit
that was popular circa 1950 to 1980, designed
so that no correction factors apply to the
WiSTD (Figure 1). It is also the "design" Wi for
this circuit based on the laboratory Wi test
results. To avoid introducing design
inefficiency factors into the reference Bond
Standard Circuit, assume 2.44 m diameter
overflow mills, and use a rod mill F80 of
16,000 μm and a rod mill P80 of 1,000 μm.
Note that—in order for no correction factor for
ball mill product fineness to apply—the ball mill
circuit P80 should be no less than
approximately 70 μm (Bond, 1962).

Figure 1. The Bond Standard Circuit

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

4 | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

3 Calculate the circuit Wi Efficiency Ratio WiSTD

(equation 4): Wi Efficiency Ratio = ––––––– (4)
WioACT

Where WiSTD is the Standard Circuit Bond Work Index (kWh/t)

and WioACT is the Actual Operating Bond Work Index (kWh/t).

If the Wi Efficiency Ratio is 1.0 or 100%, the circuit is performing with the same efficiency as the Bond
Standard Circuit (and the ore Wi = circuit operating Wi), in accordance with the correlation that Bond (1962)
established between plant operating data and test data from his laboratory test equipment. That is, the
circuit is using the same energy per tonne as the design energy predicted by the Bond design/scale-up
method for the standard circuit, with no correction factors.
If the Wi Efficiency Ratio is greater than 1.0 or 100%, the circuit is performing at an energy efficiency that
exceeds the Bond Standard Circuit.
If the Wi Efficiency Ratio is less than 1.0 or 100%, the circuit is performing at an energy efficiency that is
lower than the Bond Standard Circuit.

Note that a similar circuit efficiency parameter

was published by C. A. Rowland, Jr. (please see
references by Rowland, 1976 and 1998). This
"Bond Standard Circuit Energy Factor" (equation WioACT
Bond Standard = ––––––––– (5)
5) is equal to the inverse of the Wi Efficiency Circuit Energy Factor WiSTD
Ratio; it can be used by multiplying against the
laboratory-derived WiSTD to give the actual
operating work index of a circuit, WioACT.

4.2 Demonstration/Example Calculations

4.2.1 Generic Circuit Calculation

Table 1. Values Used for Generic Circuit Calculations

Parameter Value
Power draw of mill(s) at pinion(s) (kW) 3,150
Circuit dry tonnage (metric t/h) 450
Circuit P80 (μm) 212
Circuit F80 (μm) 2,500
Test ball mill Wi of circuit feed ore (kWh/t) 16.1
Test rod mill Wi of circuit feed ore (kWh/t) 16.1

3,150
W = ––––––– = 7.0 kWh/t
450
7
WioACT = ––––––––––––––––––––––––= 14.4 kWh/t
10 10
(–––––– − –––––––––)
√￣￣
212 √￣￣￣
2,500

10 10
W2 = 16.1 X ( –––––––– – –––––––– ) = 1.87 kWh/t
√￣￣￣
1,000 √￣￣￣
2,500

10 10
W3 = 16.1 X ( –––––– – –––––––– ) = 5.97 kWh/t
√￣￣
212 √–––––
1,000

Wtotal = 1.87 + 5.97 = 7.84 kWh/t

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | 5

7.84
WSTD =––––––––––––––––––––– = 16.1 kWh/t
10 10
(–––––– − –––––––––)
√￣￣
212 √￣￣￣
2,500

16.1
Wi Efficiency Ratio = ––––– = 1.12 or 112%
14.4

14.4
Bond Standard Circuit Energy Factor = ––––– = 0.89 or 89%
16.1
This circuit is performing approximately 12% better than predicted by Bond, based on the average performance of the
plant circuits that Bond correlated with his laboratory testing. This circuit is consuming 89% of the Bond specified
(design) circuit energy.

4.2.2 Common Plant Grinding Circuit Calculations

Table 2. Values used for rod-ball mill circuit calculations

Parameter Value
W (kWh/t) 8.56
Circuit P80 (μm) 155
Circuit F80 (μm) 19,300
Test Wi of crushing (kWh/t) 9.8
Test Wi of rod mill (kWh/t) 9.5
Test Wi of ball mill (kWh/t) 9.8

1. Rod-Ball Mill Circuit (Single-Stage Ball Mill, Multi-Stage Ball Mill, or High Pressure Grinding Roll-Ball Mill)

8.56
WioACT = –––––––––––––––––––– = 11.7 kWh/t
10 10
(–––––– − ––––––––)
√￣￣
155 √￣
19,300
￣￣￣

• Bond Standard Circuit:

10 10
W1 = 9.8 × ( –————
––————
––––––− ––––––––– ) = 0.07 kWh/t
————
————
√ 16,000 √ 19,300

10 10
W2 = 9.5 × ( –––––––––− ––––––––– ) = 2.25 kWh/t
√￣￣￣
1,000 √￣16,000
￣￣￣

10 10
W3 = 9.8 × ( –––––––––− ––––––––– ) = 4.77 kWh/t
√￣￣
155 √￣￣￣
1,000

Wtotal = W1 (crushing) + W2 (rod milling) + W2 (ball milling)

Wtotal = 0.07 + 2.25 + 4.77 = 7.09 kWh/t

7.09
WSTD = –––––––––––––––––––– = 9.70 kWh/t
10 10
(–––––– − ––––––––)
√￣￣
155 √￣
19,300
￣￣￣

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

6 | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

9.70
Wi Efficiency Ratio = –––––– = 0.83 or 83%
11.7
11.7
Bond Standard Circuit Energy Factor = –––––– = 1.21 or 121%
9.70

2. Semi-Autogenous Grinding (SAG)-Ball Mill Circuit

Table 3. Values Used for SAG-Ball Mill Circuit Calculations

Parameter Value
W (kWh/t) 14.6
Circuit P80 (μm) 125
Circuit F80 (μm) 165,000
Rod mill F80 (μm) 16,000
Test Wi crushing (kWh/t) 16.0
Test Wi of rod mill (kWh/t) 14.5
Test Wi of ball mill (kWh/t) 13.8

14.6
WioACT = –––––––––––––––––––––– = 16.8 kWh/t
10 10
(–––––– − ––––––––––)
√￣￣
125 √￣165,000
￣￣￣￣
• Bond Standard Circuit:

10 10
W1 = 16.0 × ( –––––––––– − –––––––––– ) = 0.9 kWh/t
√￣16,000
￣￣￣ √￣
165,000
￣￣￣￣

10 10
W2 = 14.5 × ( –––––––––– − –––––––––– ) = 3.4 kWh/t
√–––––
1,000 √￣16,000
￣￣￣

10 10
W3 = 13.8 × ( –––––––– − –––––––––– ) = 8.0 kWh/t
√￣￣
125 √–––––
1,000

Wtotal = 0.9 + 3.4 + 8.0 = 12.3 kWh/t

12.3
WiSTD = –––––––––––––––––––––– = 14.1 kWh/t
10 10
(–––––– − ––––––––––)
√￣￣
125 √￣165,000
￣￣￣￣

14.1
Wi Efficiency Ratio = –––––– = 0.84 or 84%
16.8

16.8
Bond Standard Circuit Energy Factor = –––––– = 1.19 or 119%
14.1
Note: 14.1 kWh/t is also the combined specific energy consumptions of the standard crushing, rod mill, and ball mill
circuit (see Figure 1). The Wi Efficiency Ratio can also be calculated using the ratio of this specific energy consumption
and the measured specific energy consumption of the circuit.

Wtotal 12.3
–––––– of this SAG-ball mill circuit = –––––– = 0.84
W 14.6

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | 7

5. WI TEST EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES

The following procedures were obtained from a report on a visit by R. E. McIvor in 1986 to the Allis-Chalmers manu-
facturing facilities in Milwaukee, WI, and laboratory facilities in Oak Creek, WI; the listed references; and discussions
with the current inheritors of the original equipment and procedure and the staff at the testing laboratories of Metso in
York and Danville, PA and Milwaukee, WI. They were further vetted with the members of the Bond Efficiency Sub-
committee of the GMG Industrial Comminution Efficiency Working Group. Numerous other references describe or men-
tion this test, but it is believed those listed in this guideline capture both its essence and sufficient details.
The aim of this guideline is to present the historic accuracy of the test as described in the references while also meeting
the functional intentions of the developers. It is recognized that deviations from the equipment and procedures may be
acceptable as long as the functional requirement of the test is achieved (i.e., it is able to reproduce the Wi value for the
material being tested). Ultimately, calibration against accepted “standard” test equipment and procedures using refer-
ence samples will verify the acceptability of any deviations from this guideline.
It is also recognized that different laboratories will apply substantively greater detail in the sub-procedures for this test
(e.g., packing density determination, screening load and times, use (or not) of calibrated screens, and determination of
F80 and P80). This will greatly increase the reproducibility and comparability of test results from the same laboratory.
Calibration against a “reference” laboratory will facilitate accurate comparisons of test Wi values among laboratories.
Discussion of test result variability (due to the nature of the ore, nature of specimens tested, and test equipment and
procedures) is for future work.

5.1 Bond Crushing Wi Test for Bond Efficiency Determinations

The Bond Impact Crushing Work Index test provides the coarse size work index for the WiSTD calculation, specifically
the work index of sizes coarser than 16,000 μm. The work index result in this guideline is given in metric units, but read-
ers should be aware that both short-ton and long-ton versions of this measurement appear in other literature.

5.1.1 Apparatus
Two hammers weighing 13.6 kg each are pendulum-mounted, such that when released, they track back on the same
line on which they were raised and impact simultaneously on opposite sides of each rock specimen. The hammers are
51 mm × 51 mm × 25.4 mm deep. They swing on a 0.413 m radius arc. At rest, the two hammers are separated by a
51 mm gap—the thickness of the two hammer faces. When the hammers are released after being equally raised to
angle “α” from the vertical, the impact energy is calculated (see Section 5.1.4).
Ideally, the spacing between the two hammer axes should be adjustable to allow for suitable (horizontal) impacts of the
hammer faces on particles of different widths.

5.1.2 Sample
The entire sample is crushed so that all particles pass through a 76 mm square opening. Those particles subsequently
retained on a 51 mm square opening are used. Note, for other purposes (e.g., crusher selection), Metso now specifies
feed particles differently: They should be naturally occurring (crushed) pieces of broken rock taken from a more broadly
sized sample source and have two near parallel faces that are between 51 and 76 mm in thickness. If this is the case,
the Impact Crushing Wi nevertheless can be used in Bond Efficiency calculations. A minimum of 10 (preferably 20)
pieces are tested.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

8 | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

5.1.3 Procedure

1 Weigh the specimen (piece) to the nearest gram.

2 Mount the specimen between the hammers (e.g., use modelling clay on the pedestal below) such that its
smallest dimension is between the hammer faces.

3 Measure the specimen thickness at the point between the hammer faces if they are touching the specimen
to the nearest 2.5–3 mm.
4 Implement suitable safety measures.
5 Initially raise the hammers as deemed suitable (e.g., 10 degrees from the vertical or more if the known
material characteristics warrant).
6 Release the hammers to impact simultaneously on either side of the specimen.
7 Check the specimen for cracking or breaking. It is considered fractured if 33% or more of the original weight
is broken off.

8 If the specimen is still whole, remeasure the thickness and increase the hammer angle by a suitable
increment (e.g., 5 degrees from the vertical or more if the known material characteristics warrant) and
return to the same orientation. Machines may also be marked off in impact energy units.

9 Repeat steps 4–8 until the specimen is broken. Record the last release angle used. If the particle continually
chips away but does not break cleanly, note the same and disregard in calculations.

10 Note the number of major fragments from the broken specimen. This number and the particle weight do not
enter the Wi calculations.
11 Repeat the above steps for all specimens.
12 Determine the specific gravity of the specimens.
13 For each specimen, tabulate the weight (in g), thickness (in mm), hammer release angle (in degrees), and
number of major fragments.

5.1.4 Calculations

1 Calculate the impact energy used to break each 110.2 × (1 - cos α)

C = ––––––––––––––––– (6)
specimen (equation 6): d
Where C is the impact energy (J/mm thickness), α is the impact
angle (degrees from the vertical), and d is the specimen
thickness (mm).

2 Calculate the mean impact energy for all specimens (Cmean).

3 Calculate the Crushing Work Index (equation 7): Cmean

Wic = 48.5 × 1.1023 × –––––– (7)
sg
Where Wic is the Crushing Work Index (kWh/t), Cmean is the
mean impact energy for all specimens (J/mm thickness), and
sg is the specific gravity of the specimens (unitless).

See Annex A for an example test report and calculations. Other test statistics may be calculated and reported.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | 9

5.2 Bond Rod Mill Wi Test

5.2.1 Apparatus
The Bond rod mill is made of metal, 305 mm maximum inside diameter, with a wave-type lining. The wave liners are
12.7 mm high, and there are eight of them with eight wave lifters each, 13 mm in height. The internal mill length is 610
mm. The grinding charge consists of six 31.8 mm and two 44.5 mm diameter steel rods, all 533.4 mm in length and
weighing a total of 33,380 g.
The Bond rod mill runs at 46 rpm and has a revolution counter. In order to deal with material segregation at the ends,
it is run in a level position for eight revolutions, tilted 5 degrees up for one revolution, and then tilted 5 degrees down for
one revolution repeatedly during each grinding period.
Below the test feed control size of 12.7 mm, the normal root of 2 series sieve analysis equipment is used for test feed, test
product, and circulating load (screen oversize) material dry size analyses. Dry screening on one or more sieves is done
between grinding cycles, with the size of aperture (“closing screen aperture”) chosen to close-circuit the test. Dry screen-
ing is suitable for rod mill test requirements, except final product size analysis, which may require wet and dry sieving.

5.2.2 Sample
Confirm the material is dry. It is best to start with approximately 14 kg of material with a specific gravity of 2.7, and pro-
portionally more for material with higher specific gravity. This will allow for up to 10 grinding cycles. The material used
for the feed size analysis can be reused for the grind test.

5.2.3 Procedure
Tests can be made at closing screen apertures from 4 mesh (4.76 mm) to 65 mesh (212 μm) but normally 8 mesh (2.38
mm) to 28 mesh (600 μm). The test control size chosen for these efficiency calculations is generally 14 mesh (1,190 μm).
At the end of each grinding period, the mill is discharged, and the ground material is screened at the designated closing
screen aperture. The undersize is weighed, and an equal amount of fresh feed is added to the oversize to make up the
total weight of the 1,250 cm3 originally charged to the mill. This is returned to the mill and ground for the number of rev-
olutions calculated to give a circulating load of 100%. The grinding cycles are continued until the grams of undersize pro-
duced per revolution reach equilibrium and/or reverse direction (change from increase to decrease or vice versa). Then
the final circulating load and the undersize from the last three cycles combined are screen analyzed.
Steps:

1 Stage crush the rod mill test feed and screen through a 12.7 mm screen. Avoid overcrushing by screening,
then crushing the oversize successively, until it all passes the 12.7 mm screen.
2 Rotary split the sample into suitably small batches, slightly smaller than the Ideal Potential Product (IPP).
Further rotary split one or two of these batches into smaller sub-batches.
3 Conduct a screen analysis of the crushed test feed through the test closing screen aperture.
4 Determine the packed bulk density of the test material using a suitably sized container.
5 Determine the weight of 1,250 cm3 of the material when packed. This is the material charge weight to be
present in the rod mill.
6 Calculate the IPP for 100% circulating load, which is the material charge weight
(in g) divided by two.
7 Make up the initial 1,250 cm3 mill material charge from its calculated weight using the batches and sub-
batches.
8 Place the material and rod charge in the mill and run for 50 revolutions, for example. This number can vary
according to the closing screen aperture and experience of the laboratory. If the test feed contains 50% or
more minus the closing screen aperture, assign zero as the first number of revolutions, screen the material
at the closing screen, and make up the material to be ground to the desired weight with fresh feed.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

10 | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

9 Dump the material charge, screen it with the closing screen(s), and weigh screen oversize and undersize
product.

10 Determine the weight of net product in grams Net product = (8)

(equation 8): Undersize product – Undersize in mill feed

11 Determine the net product per revolution (net gpr) Net product
Net gpr = ––––––––––––––– (9)
in grams (equation 9): No. revolutions
12 Add new feed to oversize (circulating load) to bring it up to the desired material load in the mill.
13 (IPP – Weight of undersize
in newly added fresh feed)
Calculate the number of mill revolutions to use No. revolutions = –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (10)
Previous net gpr
for the next cycle (equation 10):
Where IPP is the Ideal Potential Product for 100% circulating
load (g), and net gpr is net product per revolution (g).

14 Repeat steps 8–13 for at least five grind cycles or until the net gpr reaches equilibrium and/or reverses its
direction of increase or decrease.
15 Determine the circulating load ratio for the last (Material charge –
three cycles (equation 11): Mean product weight)
Circulating load ratio = –––––––––––––––––––––– (11)
Mean product weight

16 Conduct screen analyses of the combined undersize (product) of the last three cycles and the oversize
(circulating load) from the last cycle.
17 The mean grams per revolution of the last three grind cycles is the rod mill gpr.

5.2.4 Calculations
Bond Rod Mill Wi (equation 12):

1.1023 × 62
WiRM = –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (12)
10 10
P1000.23 × gpr0.625 × (–––––– – ––––––)
√￣￣
P80 √￣￣
F80

Where:
• WiRM is the Bond Rod Mill Work Index (kWh/t)
• P100 is the closing screen aperture size, ergo, the 100% pass size (μm)
• gpr is the grams (new minus closing screen aperture) per mill revolution
• P80 is the 80% passing size of the test product (μm)
• F80 is the 80% passing size of test feed (μm)
• 1.1023 is the conversion between metric tonnes and short tons
• 62 is an empirically fitted coefficient linking industrial rod mills to laboratory rod mills
• 0.23 and 0.625 are empirically fitted exponents linking industrial rod mills to laboratory rod mills
• 10 is the square root of 100 μm, which is reference size Bond chose to work with
See Annex B for an example test report and calculations. Other test statistics may be calculated and reported.

5.3 Bond Ball Mill Wi Test

5.3.1 Apparatus
The metal Bond ball mill is 30.5 cm inside diameter and 30.5 cm inside length, with rounded corners. It is smooth except
for the door hole used for charging.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | 11

The grinding charge consists of 285 iron or steel balls (43 @ 36.8 mm diameter, 67 @ 29.7 mm diameter, 10 @ 25.4 mm
diameter, 71 @ 19.1 mm diameter, and 94 @ 15.5 mm diameter) weighing a total of 20,125 g. The ball charge surface
area is 5,432 cm2. The mill runs at 70 rpm and has a revolution counter.
The normal root of 2 series sieve analysis equipment is used for test feed, test product, and circulating load (screen
oversize) material size analyses. Dry screening on one or more sieves is done between grinding cycles when the closing
screen aperture chosen to close-circuit the test is 75 μm (200 mesh) or coarser. Wet screening between grind cycles
is used when the closing screen is 53 μm (270 mesh) or finer.

5.3.2 Sample
Confirm the material is dry. It is best to start with approximately 8 kg of material with a specific gravity of 2.7, and pro-
portionally more with higher material specific gravity. This will allow for up to 10 grinding cycles. The material used for
the feed size analysis can be re-used for the grind test.

5.3.3 Procedure
Tests can be made at a closing screen aperture of 28 mesh (600 μm) or finer. The test control size to be chosen for the
test is described in Section 4.1.
At the end of each grinding period, the mill is discharged, and the discharge is screened at the designated closing screen
aperture. The undersize is weighed, and an equal amount of fresh feed is added to the oversize to make up the total
weight of the 700 cm3 originally charged to the mill. This is returned to the mill and ground for the number of revolutions
calculated to give a circulating load of 250%. The grinding cycles are continued until the grams of undersize produced
per revolution reach equilibrium and/or reverse direction of increase or decrease. Then the final circulating load and the
undersize from the last three cycles combined are screen analyzed.
Steps:

1 Stage crush the ball mill test feed sample and screen through a 3.36 mm (6 Tyler mesh) screen. Avoid
overcrushing by screening, then crushing the oversize successively until it all passes the 3.36 mm screen.

Rotary split the sample into suitably small batches, slightly smaller than the IPP. Further rotary split one or
2
two of these batches into smaller sub-batches.
3 Conduct a screen analysis of the crushed test feed, at least through the test closing screen aperture.
4 Determine the packed bulk density of the test material using a suitably sized container.
Determine the weight of 700 cm3 of the material when packed. This is the material charge weight to be
5 present in the ball mill. Note: variability in material charge weight due to method of packing is a source of
experimental error. This may be addressed separately in the future.
6 Calculate the IPP for 250% circulating load, which is the material charge weight divided by 3.5.
7 Make up the initial 700 cm3 mill material charge from its calculated weight using the batches and
sub-batches.

8 Place the material and ball charge in the mill and run for 150 revolutions, for example. This number can vary
according to the closing screen aperture and experience of the laboratory. If the fresh feed contains 30% or
more minus the closing screen aperture, assign zero as the first number of revolutions, screen out the
undersize, and add fresh feed to make up the charge to the desired weight to be ground first.

9 Dump the material charge, screen it with the closing screen(s), and weigh screen oversize and undersize
product.
10 Determine the weight of net product in grams (equation 8).
11 Determine the net gpr (equation 9).
12 Add new feed to oversize (circulating load) to bring it up to the desired material load in the mill.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

12 | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

13 Calculate the number of mill revolutions to use for the next cycle (equation 10). Conduct the next grinding
cycle.

14 Repeat steps 8–13 for at least five grind cycles, or until the net gpr reaches equilibrium, and/or reverses its
direction of increase or decrease.
15 Determine the circulating load ratio for the last three cycles (equation 11).
16 Conduct screen analyses of the combined undersize (product) of the last three cycles and the oversize
(circulating load) from the last cycle.
17 The mean grams per revolution of the last three grind cycles is the ball mill gpr.

5.3.4 Calculations
Bond Ball Mill Wi (equation 13):

1.1023 × 44.5
WiBM = –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (13)
10 10
P1000.23 × gpr0.82 × (–––––– – ––––––)
√￣￣
P80 √￣￣
F80

• WiBM is the Bond Ball Mill Work Index (kWh/t)

• P100 is the closing screen aperture size, ergo, the 100% pass size (μm)
• gpr is the net product per revolution (g)
• P80 is the 80% passing size of the test product (μm)
• F80 is the 80% passing size of test feed (μm)
• 1.1023 is the conversion between metric tonnes and short tons
• 44.5 is an empirically fitted coefficient linking industrial ball mills to laboratory ball mills
• 0.23 and 0.82 are empirically fitted exponents linking industrial ball mills to laboratory ball mills
• 10 is the square root of 100 μm, which is reference size Bond chose to work with
See Annex C for an example test report and calculations. Other test statistics may be calculated and reported.

5.4 Accuracy of Comparative Circuit Work Index Efficiency Determinations

The following sub-topics may be considered in future related GMG projects:
• Accuracy/sources of error in determining plant circuit WioACT
• Reproducibility of laboratory tests (in the same laboratory)
• Comparing efficiencies measured on the same circuit and parallel circuits
• Comparing efficiencies of different circuits
• Development and use of reference/calibration sample(s) and laboratories

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | 13

6. RESOURCES, REFERENCES, AND RECOMMENDED READING

Bergstrom, B. H. (1985a). Bond closed circuit grindability tests. McIvor, R. E. (1986, January 13). Bond Rod Mill Work Index test
In N. L. Weiss (Ed.), Mineral processing handbook (pp. 30-65 to laboratory procedure. Allis-Chalmers Form 7669-M-4, pro-
30-68). Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Explo- vided to McGill University.
ration Inc.
McIvor, R. E. (1986, January 13). Bond Ball Mill Work Index test
Bergstrom, B. H. (1985b). Crushability test. In N. L. Weiss (Ed.), laboratory procedure. Allis-Chalmers Form 7669-3, revised
Mineral processing handbook (pp. 30-65 to 30-67). Littleton, May 17, 1983, provided to McGill University.
CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc.
McIvor, R. E. (1986, January 17). Grinding circuit study at Les
Bond, F. C. (1946, January). Crushing tests by pressure and Mines Selbaie: Report on Field trip to Allis-Chalmers, Milwau-
impact. Mining Technology, T.P. No. 1895. kee, Wisconsin. McGill University, Montreal, QC.
Bond, F. C. (1947). Crushing tests by pressure and impact. Rowland, C. A., Jr. (1976). The tools of power: The Bond work
AIME Transactions, 169, 58–66. index, a tool to measure grinding efficiency. AIME Fall Meeting,
Denver, CO.
Bond, F. C. (1957). Non-cataracting ball mill study. Engineering
and Mining Journal, 158(3), 98–105. Rowland, C.A., Jr., (1986). Verbal communication. Allis-
Chalmers Corp., Milwaukee, USA.
Bond, F. C. (1960). Action in a rod mill. Engineering and Mining
Journal, 161(3), 82–85. Rowland, C. A., Jr. (1998). Using the Bond Work Index to meas-
ure operating comminution efficiency. Minerals and Metallur-
Bond, F. C. (1961, August). Crushing and grinding calculations.
gical Processing, 15(4), 32–36.
Reprinted from British Chemical Engineering, Parts I and II,
with additions and revisions, April, 1962. Allis-Chalmers Publi- Rowland, C. A., Jr., & McIvor, R. E. (2009). The Bond standard
cation No. 07R9235D. for comminution efficiency. In D. Malhotra, P. Taylor, E. Spiller,
& M. LeVier (Eds.), Recent advances in mineral processing
Doll, A. G. (2021). Mill motor power definitions. Revised August
plant design (pp. 328–331). Littleton, CO: Society for Mining,
26, 2021.
Metallurgy & Exploration Inc.
https://www.sagmilling.com/articles/1/view/?s=1
Global Mining Guidelines Group (2016). Methods to survey and
sample grinding circuits. for determining energy efficiency.
Retrieved from https://gmggroup.org/guidelines/

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

14 | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

ANNEX A

ANNEX A: Example test report for Bond Impact Crushing Wi test

Specimen Thickness Weight Product Angle at FT*LB Work index (kWh/t)
pieces breakage per inch
No. Rank (inch) (mm) (g) (short tons) (metric tonnes)
(degrees)
1 6 2.20 56 692 2 60 18.6 15.7 17.1
2 22 2.36 60 926 7 130 57.0 48.3 52.7
3 7 2.56 65 1,074 2 75 23.7 20.1 21.9
4 9 2.44 62 824 5 75 24.9 21.1 23.0
5 5 2.28 58 576 3 60 18.0 15.2 16.6
6 8 2.24 57 1,046 2 70 24.0 20.4 22.2
7 4 1.97 50 786 2 55 17.8 15.0 16.4
8 11 1.85 47 600 3 65 25.6 21.7 23.7
9 2 1.89 48 676 6 45 12.7 10.8 11.8
10 12 2.36 60 766 3 75 25.7 21.8 23.8
11 1 2.17 55 754 2 45 11.1 9.4 10.3
12 19 2.56 65 1,247 2 120 48.1 40.7 44.4
13 10 2.13 54 472 4 70 25.4 21.5 23.5
14 23 1.97 50 1,050 2 115 59.3 50.2 54.8
15 24 1.97 50 666 4 130 68.4 57.9 63.2
16 21 2.28 58 1,150 4 125 56.5 47.8 52.2
17 18 2.36 60 1,160 2 110 46.6 39.4 43.0
18 16 2.48 63 706 2 100 38.8 32.8 35.8
19 17 2.17 55 1,010 3 100 44.4 37.6 41.0
20 20 2.17 55 1,222 4 110 50.8 43.0 46.9
21 13 1.89 48 426 3 70 28.6 24.2 26.4
22 15 2.17 55 510 2 90 37.9 32.1 35.0
23 3 2.48 63 658 2 55 14.1 11.9 13.0
24 14 2.20 56 1,156 3 85 34.0 28.7 31.3
Average 2.21 56.3 839.7 3.08 33.8 28.6 31.3
Notes: This output is transcribed from an actual test report, therefore some units are not SI compliant.
Sample density = 3.06 kg/L

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

 DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS | 15

ANNEX B

ANNEX B: Example test report for Bond rod mill Wi test

Period Revolutions of mill Grams of product Grams in feed Net grams Net grams per
produced revolution (gpr)
1 200.0 1,315.1 238.0 1,077.1 5.386
2 197.0 1,411.3 131.3 1,280.0 6.497
3 162.0 1,308.2 140.9 1,167.3 7.205
4 147.0 1,394.2 130.5 1,263.7 8.596
5 122.0 1,226.9 139.1 1,087.8 8.916
6 120.0 1,180.2 122.4 1,057.8 8.815
Lab mill feed is 1.91 kg/L, packed (= 119.0 lb/ft3). Equivalent to 2384 g (1,250 cm3) in mill
Ideal Potential Product = 1,191 g
Specific gravity = 3.06
Average of last 2 periods, 98.1% circulating load
Grindability at 1,180 μm = 8.865 net Gpr

Size of sieve Test feed percentage Circulating load percentage Test product percentage
Tyler ASTM On Passing On Passing On Passing
Mesh μm
1/2 13,200 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
3/8 9,500 28.90 71.10 0.88 99.12 0.00 100.00
3 6,700 29.30 41.80 4.89 94.23 0.00 100.00
4 4,750 14.89 26.90 5.84 88.39 0.00 100.00
6 3,350 6.19 20.71 8.99 79.39 0.00 100.00
8 2,360 5.21 15.50 15.49 63.90 0.00 100.00
10 1,700 4.05 11.45 26.98 36.92 0.00 100.00
14 1,180 1.47 9.98 35.22 1.70 0.52 99.48
20 850 2.37 7.61 1.67 0.03 23.61 75.87
28 600 1.47 6.14 0.00 0.00 15.52 60.35
35 425 1.16 4.98 0.00 0.00 11.90 48.45
48 300 0.86 4.12 0.00 0.00 8.41 40.04
65 212 0.61 3.51 0.00 0.00 6.02 34.02
100 150 0.56 2.96 0.00 0.00 4.72 29.30
150 106 0.47 2.49 0.00 0.00 3.82 25.49
200 75 0.47 2.02 0.00 0.00 3.95 21.54
270 53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
325 45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
400 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
500 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PAN 0 2.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 21.54 0.00
Screen analyses do not represent plant operation results
80% passing feed size = 10,645 μm
80% passing product size = 906 μm
Bond Work Index from above test = 14.6 kWh/t (metric basis) or 13.2 kWh/t (short tons basis)

Note: This output is transcribed from an actual test report, therefore, some units are not SI compliant.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)

16 | DETERMINING THE BOND EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL GRINDING CIRCUITS

ANNEX C

ANNEX C: Example test report for Bond ball mill Wi test

Period Revolutions of mill Grams of product Grams in feed Net grams Net grams per
produced revolution (gpr)
1 225.0 444.7 96.6 348.1 1.547
2 229.0 408.2 31.8 376.4 1.644
3 217.0 409.1 29.2 379.9 1.751
4 204.0 397.9 29.3 368.6 1.807
5 198.0 393.0 28.4 364.6 1.841
6 194.0 382.5 28.1 354.4 1.827
Lab mill feed is 1.93 kg/L, packed (= 120.4 lb/ft3). Equivalent to 1,351 g (700 cm3) in mill
Ideal Potential Product = 385.6 g
Specific gravity = 3.06
Average of last 3 periods, 245.4% circulating load
Grindability at 106 μm = 1.825 net gpr

Size of sieve Test feed percentage Circulating load percentage Test product percentage
Tyler ASTM On Passing On Passing On Passing
Mesh μm
1/2 13,200 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
1/2 13,200 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
3/8 9,500 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
3 6,700 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
4 4,750 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
6 3,350 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
8 2,360 32.51 67.49 9.91 90.09 0.00 100.00
10 1,700 21.09 46.40 15.79 74.30 0.00 100.00
14 1,180 6.41 39.99 7.81 66.50 0.00 100.00
20 850 13.88 26.11 6.44 60.06 0.00 100.00
28 600 6.46 19.65 5.32 54.74 0.00 100.00
35 425 3.95 15.70 6.39 48.35 0.00 100.00
48 300 2.99 12.71 8.02 40.33 0.00 100.00
65 212 2.40 10.30 12.27 28.06 0.00 100.00
100 150 1.76 8.54 11.75 16.30 0.00 100.00
150 106 1.39 7.15 15.66 0.64 3.04 96.96
200 75 1.55 5.61 0.64 0.00 20.17 76.80
270 53 1.23 4.38 0.00 0.00 14.64 62.15
325 45 0.59 3.79 0.00 0.00 3.59 58.56
400 38 0.32 3.47 0.00 0.00 9.81 48.76
500 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.81 38.95
Screen analyses do not represent plant operation results
80% passing feed size = 2,946 μm
80% passing product size = 80 μm
Bond Work Index from above test = 11.0 kWh/t (metric basis) or 10.0 kWh/t (short tons basis)

Note: This output is transcribed from an actual test report, therefore some units are not SI compliant.

Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG)