Content area
To date, the grinding behavior of saprolite and lateritic overburden mixtures remains poorly understood. The Bond Work Index (BWI) is the principal indicator used to determine the specific energy consumption during the grinding process. To establish the F80 and P80 values, granulometric distribution models—Rosin–Rammler (RR), Gates–Gaudin–Schuhmann (GGS), and the Swebrec function (SWEF)—were evaluated. The mineral phases of the feed samples were analyzed by X-ray powder diffraction. This study provides evidence that the RR function is the most suitable for simulating the particle size distribution of the feed material, with residual errors below 6.30% and a coefficient of determination (R2) exceeding 97%. After the grinding equilibrium cycle is reached, the SWEF model proves to be the most appropriate, exhibiting residual errors under 3.50% and R2 values above 98%. BWI reveals that saprolite is the most difficult ore to grind, with specific energy consumption increasing from 16.38 kWh/t to 25.50 kWh/t as the proportion of saprolite in the mixture rises. This reflects a clear upward trend, as confirmed by a fitted model with an R2 of 98.54%. In contrast, the grindability index (Gbp) decreases, indicating that the material becomes increasingly resistant to grinding as the saprolite content increases. This may be attributed to inherent material properties, such as hardness, or to physical phenomena related to fragmentation. The declining Gbp further suggests that greater energy input is required to achieve additional particle size reduction. Overall, the findings demonstrate that saprolite is inherently difficult to grind and behaves according to its own grinding characteristics, regardless of whether it is processed alone or in combination with lateritic overburden.
Details
; Toro, Norman 2
; Oliveros, Silvente Yabriel 3
; Angulo-Palma, Hugo Javier 4
; Reyes Roger Samuel Almenares 1
; Ramirez Ayelen Dominguez 5
; Pedrera Carlos Hernández 5 ; Salazar, Iván 6 ; Gallegos, Sandra 2 ; Galleguillos-Madrid Felipe M. 7
; Saldana, Manuel 8
; Soliz Alvaro 9
1 Departamento de Metalurgia Química, Universidad de Moa, Moa 83330, Holguín, Cuba; [email protected] (Y.C.-C.); [email protected] (H.J.A.-P.); [email protected] (R.S.A.R.)
2 Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Universidad Arturo Prat, Iquique 1100000, Chile; [email protected] (S.G.); [email protected] (M.S.)
3 Centro de Investigaciones del Níquel Alberto Fernández Montes de Oca (CEDINIQ), Moa 83330, Holguín, Cuba; [email protected]
4 Departamento de Metalurgia Química, Universidad de Moa, Moa 83330, Holguín, Cuba; [email protected] (Y.C.-C.); [email protected] (H.J.A.-P.); [email protected] (R.S.A.R.), Centro de Investigaciones del Níquel Alberto Fernández Montes de Oca (CEDINIQ), Moa 83330, Holguín, Cuba; [email protected]
5 Facultad de Ingeniería Química y Agronomía, Universidad de Oriente, Santiago de Cuba 90500, Cuba; [email protected] (A.D.R.); [email protected] (C.H.P.)
6 Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta 1270709, Chile
7 Centro de Desarrollo Energético Antofagasta, Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta 1240000, Chile; [email protected]
8 Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Universidad Arturo Prat, Iquique 1100000, Chile; [email protected] (S.G.); [email protected] (M.S.), Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Procesos de Minerales, Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta 1240000, Chile
9 Departamento de Ingeniería en Metalurgia, Universidad de Atacama, Copiapó 1530000, Chile