Minerals Engineering 165 (2021) 106858

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

A new approach to the calculation of bond work index for finer samples
Vladimir Nikolić *, Milan Trumić
University of Belgrade, Technical Faculty in Bor, Bor 19210, Serbia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Bond work index (BWI) is a well-known method used when selecting comminution equipment, to evaluate
New Approach the grinding efficiency and to calculate the required grinding power. Although considered an industry standard,
Bond work index Bond did not fully define that procedure, and therefore significant discrepancies in test results can sometimes be
Finer Samples
obtained due to some undefined steps in the method. One of these cases is the initial sample size for grinding,
Comminution
Grindability
why it must be the initial sample size of 3.35 mm, and whether it is possible to determine the BWI on samples of
finer classes. In practice, it is possible to find materials whose size is finer than 3.35 mm. This paper examines the
determination of the BWI on finer samples and proposes an equation for the determination of the BWI on finer
samples.

1. Introduction the standard Bond test is harder than the fresh sample and thus grinds
more slowly. This method uses a mathematical algorithm to simulate the
Determining the BWI is part of the design phase of a mining plant and Bond test based on the results obtained from the first two grinding cycles
can significantly affect the design costs associated with comminution. of the standard test to establish a stable circulating load of 250%.
Mining comminution processes are the most energy intensive, and also Magdalinović (1989) gave an abbreviated method for determining the
the area with the greatest potential for energy savings. Accurate deter­ BWI, which includes two grinding cycles. Magdalinović (2003) gave an
mination of the BWI is essential for the proper design and estimation of abbreviated method, similar to the previous one, which includes three
the costs associated with the comminution process. grinding cycles and gives better results than the previous one. Ahmadi
Crushing and grindability are the parameters that characterize the and Shahsavari (2009) used first-order grinding kinetics based on the
resistance of raw materials to crushing. There are several procedures for results of two grinding cycle tests to develop a rapid method for deter­
determining the brittleness and grindability, and in practice, the most mining the BWI. Ford and Sithole (2015) provided an abbreviated
widely used methods are F. C. Bond (Bond, 1961). Bond’s method method for determining the BWI consisting of two tests. The first test
continues to receive much attention on an industrial scale because of its was performed with only one grinding experiment and the second test
pragmatism (Kelly and Dawe, 1989; Menéndez-Aguado et al., 2006; with three grinding experiments. Todorovic et al. (2017) gave an
Jankovic et al., 2015) a and most papers are devoted to discussing val­ abbreviated method that can be done with two, three or four grinding
idity, duration, new simpler and faster alternative methods for deter­ cycles. Each grinding cycle is done in the same way as in the standard
mining the Bond test. Berry and Bruce (1966) and Horst and Bassarear Bond procedure.
(1977) devised an approximate procedure comparing the grindability Lewis et al. (1990) provided a mathematical algorithm that simulates
data of an unknown ore with a reference ore whose grindability data are the standard Bond test. Computer simulation is based on a mathematical
known and determined in a Bond ball mill. The test is performed on algorithm. Aksani and Sönmez (2000) provided a computer simulation
samples of size − 1.651 mm in any laboratory mill with balls. Smith and of the Bond grindability test that relies on a cumulative kinetic model
Lee (1968) compared the data obtained by the standard Bond test and (Ramirez-Castro and Finch, 1980). Some authors have proposed new
the data from the open grinding cycle, i.e. the first grinding cycle of the smaller mills that can be used to determine the BWI. (Yap et al., 1982;
standard Bond test. Kapur (1970) came to the conclusion that the esti­ Jauregui, 1983; Nematollahi, 1994; Menéndez-Aguado et al., 2005;
mation of the Bond index can be performed on the basis of data from the Saeidi et al., 2013; Mwanga et al., 2017) A group of authors investigated
first two grinding cycles of the standard Bond test. Karra (1981) modi­ variations in the Bond test when they changed the size, mass, number
fied the Kapur method by taking into account that the circulating load in and area of the grinding balls in the Bond mill. (Mosher and Tague,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Nikolić), [email protected] (M. Trumić).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2021.106858
Received 28 October 2020; Received in revised form 12 February 2021; Accepted 22 February 2021
Available online 10 March 2021
0892-6875/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V. Nikolić and M. Trumić Minerals Engineering 165 (2021) 106858

Table 1 error not exceeding 5%.

Parameters F80 (the 80% passing feed particle size), P80 (the 80% passing The analysis of the mentioned references came up with the idea to
product particle size), G (net mass (grams) of undersize product per unit revo­ examine the determination of the BWI on finer class samples and to
lution of the mill) and value of Wi for samples of different sizes. propose an equation for determining the BWI on finer samples if it is
Sample Size (mm) F80 (μm) Pc = 75 ​ μm known what the BWI is for a standard size sample and vice versa. This
study addresses the sample sizing in terms of its top size.
P80 (μm) G (g) Wi (kWh/t)

Dolomite 3.327 +0 2468 63 1.44 12.70

2. Materials and methods
−
− 2.356 +0 1662 62 1.47 12.91
− 1.651 +0 1090 62 1.54 13.16
− 1.168 +0 727 62 1.65 13.38 Samples finer than − 3.35 mm, can often be found in the commi­
− 0.833 +0 544 62 1.74 13.69 nution practice, and the question therefore arises as to whether a BWI
Copper ore 3.327 +0 2336 62 1.11 15.67
−
can be determined on such samples. Bond (1961) did not give an answer
− 2.356 +0 1514 61 1.16 15.70
− 1.651 +0 1083 62 1.23 15.84 to this question, but required in his grindability test that all samples
− 1.168 +0 751 61 1.28 16.19 must be finer than − 3.35 mm. In this case, the grindability of fine
− 0.833 +0 526 60 1.33 16.79 materials can be determined from the data from the plant used to
Quartzite − 3.327 +0 2650 61 0.69 22.63 calculate the BWI in that plant. Very few researchers have researched
2.356 +0 1790 64 0.73 23.17
this problem, and that is why this paper deals with this problem.
−
− 1.651 +0 1240 63 0.75 23.52
− 1.168 +0 870 62 0.77 24.14 The Bond grindability test is performed in a standard Bond ball mill,
− 0.833 +0 610 63 0.83 24.72 dimensions DxL = 305x305 mm and a speed revolution of 70 min− 1.
The mill is filled with balls with a diameter of 15.5 to 30.6 mm, and has a
total weight of 20.125 kg. This test uses dry grinding in a closed cycle
2001; Kaya et al., 2003; Menéndez et al., 2017) Variations of the Bond
until a stable circulating load of 250% is established. Bond (1961)
test when changing the closing screen size for individual materials were
The test was performed on a sample of zeolite, on different size
performed. Generally, with decreases of the closing screen size increases
classes, as follows: − 3.35 + 0 mm; − 2.36 + 0 mm; − 1.70 + 0 mm; −
BWI. (Smith and Lee, 1968; Tüzün, 2001; Deniz et al., 2003; Menéndez
1.18 + 0 mm; − 0.850 + 0 mm (which particle size distributions are
et al., 2018)
shown in Table 2 and Fig. 1), and a closing screen size of Pc = 75 µm.
Deniz and Ozdag (2002) developed an alternative method for
BWI is calculated via Eq. (1) (Bond, 1961).
determining the grindability and BWI based on the dynamic elastic pa­
rameters of the raw material. Morrell (2004) proposed an alternative 44.5
Wi = 1.1∙ ( ) (1)
energy-size ratio for particles of (− 100 + 0.1) mm in relation to Bond, 0,23 ̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅̅
Pc ∙G ∙ √10
0,82 − √10
based on the particle size exponent which is a function of the size of the P80 F80

initial sample and the grinding product, but did not give values for the
proposed function. Also, it has not been shown that this proposal is where in:
applicable for grinding up to less than 100 µm. Ozkahraman (2005) Pc - closing screen size (μm),
showed that the BWI and the grindability index can be determined based G - net mass (grams) of undersize product per unit revolution of the
on the brittleness values of the material. Mucsi (2008), Swain and Rao mill, in g/rev,
(2009) and Mucsi et al. (2019) presented relatively fast alternative P80 - the 80% passing product particle size (μm),
methods for determining the BWI for brittle materials (Mucsi, 2008; F80 - the 80% passing feed particle size (μm).
Mucsi et al., 2019), and bauxite ores in India (Swain and Rao, 2009)
using a universal Hardgrove mill. 3. Results and discussion
Gharehgheshlagh (2015) gave a method that relies on monitoring
the grinding kinetics in a Bond ball mill and established a series of re­ The results of determining the grindability on a sample of zeolites on
lationships between the grinding parameters and the parameters of the fine size classes are shown in Table 3.
Bond equation. The error between the results obtained by this method Based on the obtained results, it was determined that the BWI for fine
and the results obtained by the standard method does not exceed 2.6%. materials can be calculated as follows:
Chandar et al. (2016) attempted to determine the BWI using ore char­
Wi
acteristics such as density (ρ), Protodyakonov’s strength index (PSI), and WFm = k∙ (2)
FFm 0.05
rebound hardness number (RHN). They used two mathematical models
to analyze laboratory results, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and where in:
regression analysis. They found that the percentage of error between the WFm - BWI for fine materials, (kWh/t);
actual values of the BWI, obtained from laboratory experiments, and the Wi - BWI for a standard size sample (− 3.35 + 0) mm, (kWh/t);
predicted results obtained on the basis of artificial neural networks was FFm - the 80% passing fine material particle size, (μm),
between a maximum deviation of 5.44% and a minimum deviation of k - coefficient whose value is (k = 1.47).
0.05%. Josefin et al. (2018) gave a correction procedure of the Bond test To obtain the BWI for fine materials it is necessary to know the BWI
for closing mesh size which is made of 4 steps, and we could use to (Wi ) for the standard size prescribed by Bond (1961), to determine FFm
correct the work index measured on a sample from one P80 size to for fine material and the adopted coefficient k which is (k = 1.47).
another P80 size by using calibration sample and suggested correction Comparative results of the BWI for fine material obtained experimen­
equation for calculation the BWI. tally (Wi ) and using Eq. (2) (WFm ), are shown in Table 4:
Levin (1989) proposed a method for determining the grindability of Based on the results obtained in Table 4, it can be concluded that
fine materials, which involves estimating the energy required to grind when the BWI is calculated over Eq. (2), very reliable results are ob­
fine materials. This method is mainly used for grinding in a ball mill. tained, and that the error is less than 0.5%. The proposed Eq. (2) was
Magdalinovic et al. (2012) determined the BWI on samples of non- tested on the results from the literature, and based on the obtained re­
standard size. Based on the obtained results, which are shown in sults it was concluded that the coefficient k, when determining the BWI
Table 1, they gave the procedure for the calculation of the Wi sample of on soft and medium hard raw materials, whose Bond working index is in
non-standard size. the range of 10–17 kWh/t, the coefficient k is (k = 1.47), and on solid
With this method, the authors Magdalinovic et al. (2012) obtained an raw materials whose Bond operating index is ˃ 22 kWh/t, the coefficient

2
V. Nikolić and M. Trumić Minerals Engineering 165 (2021) 106858

Table 2
Particle size distributions of zeolite.
Particle Size (mm) class size − 3.35 + 0 mm class size − 2.36 + 0 mm class size − 1.70 + 0 mm class size − 1.18 + 0 mm class size − 0.850 + 0 mm

Percent (%) Percent (%) Percent (%) Percent (%) Percent (%)

− 3.35 + 2.36 21.95

− 2.36 + 1.70 15.55 18.74
− 1.70 + 1.18 13.35 16.72 20.64
− 1.18 + 0.850 8.10 9.99 12.74 16.42
− 0.850 + 0.600 6.90 8.86 10.69 13.64 15.51
− 0.600 + 0.425 4.95 6.51 7.80 9.99 12.02
− 0.425 + 0.300 4.14 5.33 6.46 8.28 9.68
− 0.300 + 0.212 3.37 4.26 5.02 6.66 7.82
− 0.212 + 0.150 3.26 4.04 5.00 6.39 7.75
− 0.150 + 0.106 3.01 3.87 4.56 6.07 8.23
− 0.106 + 0.075 3.62 4.23 5.27 6.25 7.20
− 0.075 + 0.00 11.80 17.45 21.82 26.30 31.79
∑
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Fig. 1. Particle size distributions of zeolite.

(k = 1.49). The equation was tested on the results obtained by other

Table 3 authors (Magdalinovic et al., 2012; Jankovic et al., 2015) and these
Parameters F, P, G and value of Wi for finer size classes. results are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Sample Size (mm) F80 (μm) Pc = 75 ​ μm The results from Tables 5 and 6 confirm the previous statement that
BWI can be calculated using Eq. (2), where the coefficient k is for soft
P80 (μm) G (g) Wi (kWh/t)
and medium hard raw material (k = 1.47), and for hard raw materials
Zeolite − 3.35 + 0 2440 65.72 2.03 9.834 whose BWI is ˃ 22 kWh/t (k = 1.49). When using Eq. (2) to determine
2.36 + 0 1652 66.40 2.13 10.010
the BWI for fine materials, the error is not greater than 2.5%. When
−
− 1.70 + 0 1090 66.48 2.20 10.197
− 1.18 + 0 727 66.84 2.35 10.371 designing a plant, it is often necessary to know how much the BWI is for
− 0.850 + 0 544 67.12 2.57 10.572 fine materials. This answer can now be obtained using Eq. (2).
Conversely, when we want to determine the BWI at standard size, and

Table 4
Comparative results obtained experimentally and using the Eq. (2).
Sample Size (mm) FFm (μm) Pc = 75 μm k = 1.47

Wi (kWh/t) WFm (kWh/t) Wi − WFm

Error (%) Δ = ∙100
Wi
Zeolite − 3.35 + 0 2440 9.834 – –
− 2.36 + 0 1652 10.010 9.980 + 0.30
− 1.70 + 0 1090 10.197 10.190 + 0.07
− 1.18 + 0 727 10.371 10.399 − 0.27
− 0.850 + 0 544 10.572 10.550 + 0.21

Note: Wi is calculated via Eq. (1), and WFm is calculated via Eq. (2).

3
V. Nikolić and M. Trumić Minerals Engineering 165 (2021) 106858

Table 5
Comparative results obtained experimentally (Magdalinovic et al., 2012) and using the Eq. (2). k - coefficient whose value is (k = 1.47) for soft and medium hard raw
materials, (k = 1.49) for hard raw materials.
Sample Size (mm) FFm (μm) Pc = 75μm

Wi (kWh/t) k WFm (kWh/t) Wi − WFm

Error (%) Δ = ∙100
Wi
Dolomite − 3.327 + 0 2468 12.70 1.47 – –
− 2.356 + 0 1662 12.91 12.89 + 0.15
− 1.651 + 0 1090 13.16 13.16 0
− 1.168 + 0 727 13.38 13.43 − 0.37
− 0.833 + 0 544 13.69 13.63 + 0.44
Copper ore − 3.327 + 0 2336 15.67 –
− 2.356 + 0 1514 15.70 15.97 − 1.72
− 1.651 + 0 1083 15.84 16.24 − 2.53
− 1.168 + 0 751 16.19 16.54 − 2.16
− 0.833 + 0 526 16.79 16.84 − 0.30
Quartzite − 3.327 + 0 2650 22.63 1.49 –
− 2.356 + 0 1790 23.17 23.19 − 0.09
− 1.651 + 0 1240 23.52 23.62 − 0.43
− 1.168 + 0 870 24.14 24.04 + 0.41
− 0.833 + 0 610 24.72 24.47 + 1.01

Table 6
Comparative results obtained experimentally (Jankovic et al., 2015) and using the Eq. (2).
Sample Size (mm) FFm (μm) Pc 75 μm k = 1.47

Wi(kWh/t) WFm (kWh/t) Wi − WFm

Error (%) Δ = ∙100
Wi
Commercial aggregate − 3.35 + 0 2134 15.0 – –
− 2.36 + 0 1492 15.3 15.3 0

we know how much the BWI is for fine material, the BWI can be Declaration of Competing Interest
calculated using Eq. (3):
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
1
Wi = ∙WFm ∙FFm 0.05 (3) interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
k
the work reported in this paper.
where in:
WFm - BWI for fine materials, (kWh/t); References
Wi - BWI for a standard size sample (− 3.35 + 0) mm, (kWh/t);
Aksani, B., Sönmez, B., 2000. Simulation of bond grindability test by using cumulative
FFm - the 80% passing fine material particle size, (μm). based kinetic model. Miner. Eng. 13 (6), 673–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-
6875(00)00050-9.
4. Conclusion Ahmadi, R., Shahsavari, S., 2009. Procedure for determination of ball Bond work index
in the commercial operations. Miner. Eng. 22 (1), 104–106. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mineng.2008.04.008.
Based on the presented results, it can be concluded that using Eq. (2) Berry, T.F., Bruce, R.W., 1966. A simple method of determining the grindability of ores.
we obtain very reliable results, which is confirmed by an error that does Can. Min. J. 87, 63–65.
Bond, F.C., 1961. Crushing and grinding calculation part I and II. Brit. Chem. Eng. 6 (6
not exceed more than 2.5%. We only need to know how much is the BWI
and 8). 378–385 & 543–548.
for any raw material, to determine FFm for fine material and with the Chandar, R.K., Deo, N.S., Baliga, J.A., 2016. Prediction of Bond’s work index from field
help of the adopted coefficient k of the proposed Eq. (2) we can calculate measurable rock properties. Int. J. Miner. Process. 157, 134–144. https://doi.org/
BWI for fine material, and vice versa, if we do not have a sample of 10.1016/j.minpro.2016.10.006.
Deniz, V., Ozdag, H., 2002. A new approach to Bond grindability and work index:
standard size, and we have to calculate the BWI on standard size, we dynamic elastic parameters. Miner. Eng. 16 (3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/
need to know the BWI for fine material WFm and FFm , and the adopted S0892-6875(02)00318-7.
values of the coefficient k we can to calculate the BWI for a material of Deniz, V., Sütçü, N., Umucu, Y., 2003. The effect of circulating load and test sieve size on
the Bond work index based on natural amorphous silica. 18th International Mining
standard size (− 3.35 + 0) mm. The obtained results showed that on soft Congress and Exhibition of Turkey-IMCET Antalya, Turkey, 10-13 June, 517–522.
and medium hard materials whose BWI is in the range of 10–17 kWh/t ISBN 975-395-605-3.
the value of the coefficient is taken (k = 1.47), and for hard raw ma­ Ford, E., Sithole, V., 2015. A Comparison of Test Procedures for Estimating the Bond Ball
Work Index on Zambian/DRC Copper-Cobalt Ores and Evaluation of Suitability for
terials whose BWI is ˃ 22 kWh/t coefficient value (k = 1.49). Further Use in Geometallurgical Studies. Copper Cobalt Africa, incorporating the 8th
research should focus on determining the coefficient for materials whose Southern African Base Metals Conference, Livingstone, Zambia, 6-8 July, 65–68.
BWI is between 17 and 22 kWh/t. Gharehgheshlagh, H.H., 2015. Kinetic grinding test approach to estimate the ball mill
work index. Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process. 52 (1), 342–352. https://doi.org/
10.5277/ppmp160129.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Horst, W.E., Bassarear, J.H., 1977. Use of simplified ore grindability technique to
evaluate plant preformance. Trans. Metallur. Soc. AIME 260, 348–351.
Jankovic, A., Suthers, S., Wills, T., Valery, W., 2015. Evaluation of dry grinding using
Vladimir Nikolić: Conceptualization, Validation, Formal analysis,
HPGR in closed circuit with an airclassifier. Miner. Eng. 71, 133–138. https://doi.
Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Visualization. Milan org/10.1016/j.mineng.2014.10.023.
Trumić: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Jauregui, R.O., 1983. Simplified Bond Work Index determination. In: Encontro Nacional
Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project De Tratamento De Minérios E Hidrometalurgia. 9, Rio de Janeiro, Anais. Porto
Alegre: Gráfica e Editora NSB, 358–367.
administration.

4
V. Nikolić and M. Trumić Minerals Engineering 165 (2021) 106858

Josefin, Y., Doll, A.G., 2018. Correction of Bond Ball Mill Work Index Test for Closing Morrell, S., 2004. An alternative energy-size relationship to that proposed by bond for
Mesh Sizes. Procemin-Geomet 2018. 14th International Mineral Processing the design and optimisation of grinding circuits. Int. J. Miner. Process. 74 (1–4),
Conference & 5th International Seminar on Geometallurgy, 28-30 November, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2003.10.002.
Santiago, Chile, 1-12. Mosher, J.B., Tague, C.B., 2001. Conduct and precision of Bond grindability testing.
Kapur, P.C., 1970. Analysis of the Bond grindability test. Trans. Inst. Min. Metallur. 79, Miner. Eng. 14 (10), 1187–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-6875(01)00136-4.
103–107. Mucsi, G., 2008. Fast test method for the determination of the grindability of fine
Karra, V.K., 1981. Simulation of Bond grindability tests. CIM Bull. 74 (827), 195–199. materials. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 86 (4), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kaya, E., Fletcher, P.C., Thompson, P., 2003. Reproducibility of Bond grindability work cherd.2007.10.015.
index. Min., Metallur. Explor. 20, 140–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03403146. Mucsi, G., Rácz, Á., Mag, G., Antal, G., Csőke, B., 2019. Volume based closed-cycle
Kelly, E.G., Dawe, G.A., 1989. Modified Bond method for the evaluation of crusher Hardgrove grindability method. Min.-Geol.-Petrol. Eng. Bull. 9–17. https://doi.org/
efficiency. Min., Metallur. Explor. 6, 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03402519. 10.17794/rgn.2019.4.2.
Levin, J., 1989. Observations on the Bond Standard Grindability Test, and a Proposal for Mwanga, A., Rosenkranz, J., Lamberg, P., 2017. Development and experimental
a Standard Grindability Test for Fine Materials. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 89 (1), validation of the Geometallurgical Comminution Test (GCT). Miner. Eng. 108,
13–21. 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2017.04.001.
Lewis, K.A., Pearl, M., Tucker, P., 1990. Computer Simulation of the Bond Grindability Nematollahi, H., 1994. New size laboratory ball mill for Bond work index determination.
test. Miner. Eng. 3 (1–2), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0892-6875(90)90092- Min. Eng. 46 (4), 352–353.
P. Ozkahraman, H.T., 2005. A meaningful expression between bond work index,
Magdalinović, N., 1989. A procedure for rapid determination of the Bond work index. grindability index and friability value. Miner. Eng. 18 (10), 1057–1059. https://doi.
Int. J. Miner. Process. 27 (1–2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-7516(89) org/10.1016/j.mineng.2004.12.016.
90010-0. Ramirez-Castro, J., Finch, J.A., 1980. Simulation of a grinding circuit change to reduce
Magdalinović, N., 2003. Abbreviated test for quick determination of Bond’s Work index. lead sliming. CIM Bull. 73 (816), 132–139.
J. Min. Metallur. 39 (1–4) A, 1–10. https://scindeks.ceon.rs/article.aspx? Saeidi, N., Noaparast, M., Azizi, D., Aslani, S., Ramadi, A., 2013. A developed approach
artid=1450-59590304001M. based on grinding time to determine ore comminution properties. J. Min. Environ. 4
Magdalinovic, N., Trumic, M., Trumic, G., Magdalinovic, S., Trumic, M., 2012. (2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.22044/JME.2013.180.
Determination of the Bond work index on samples of non-standard size. Int. J. Miner. Swain, R., Rao, R.B., 2009. Alternative Approaches for Determination of Bond Work
Process. 114–117, 48–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2012.10.002. Index on Soft and Friable Partially Laterised Khondalite Rocks of Bauxite Mine Waste
Menéndez-Aguado, J.M., Dzioba, B.R., Coello-Valazquez, A.L., 2005. Determination of Materials. J. Miner. Mater. Charact. Eng. 8 (9), 729–743.
work index in a common laboratory mill. Miner. Metall. Process. 22 (3), 173–176. Todorovic, D., Trumic, M., Andric, Lj, Milosevic, V., Trumic, M., 2017. A quick method
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03403133. for bond work index approximate value determination. Physicochem. Probl. Miner.
Menéndez-Aguado, J.M., Coello-Velázquez, A.L., Tijonov, O.N., Rodríguez Díaz, M.A., Process. 53 (1), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.5277/ppmp170126.
2006. Implementation of energy sustainability concepts during the comminution Tüzün, M.A., 2001. Wet bond mill test. Miner. Eng. 14 (3), 369–373. https://doi.org/
process of the Punta Gorda nickel ore plant (Cuba). Powder Technol. 170, 153–157. 10.1016/S0892-6875(01)00009-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2006.09.004. Smith, R.W., Lee, K.H., 1968. A comparison of data from Bond type simulated closed-
Menéndez, M., Gent, M., Torno, S., Crespo, N., 2017. A Bond Work index mill ball charge circuit and batch type grindability tests. Trans. Metallur. Soc. AIME. 241, 91–99.
and closing screen product size distributions for grinding crystalline grains. Int. J. Yap, R.F., Sepulveda, J.L., Jauregui, R., 1982. Determination of the Bond work index
Miner. Process. 165, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2017.05.011. using an ordinary batch ball mill. In: Mular, A.L., Jergensen, G.V. (Eds.), Design and
Menéndez, M., Sierra, H.M., Gent, M., Juez, F.J.deC., 2018. The comminution energy- Installation of Comminution Circuits. AIME, New York, pp. 176–203.
size reduction of the Bond Mill and its relation to Vickers Hardness. Miner. Eng. 119,
228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2018.01.017.