1078 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Figure 10. Relative value-add to operations (Chandramohan, 2021)
Table 2. Example of implementing an AI-driven controller for a SAG mill operation
Application of
the Controller Input data
Controller
Objective Pros &Cons of implementation
Potential
Value-Add
Basic Mill load
Mill speed
Mill noise
Mill density
Maximize Power
Draw
Pros
A simple system works well for consistent feed
A cost-effective solution
Cons
Requires trained operators to define setpoint
and operating range
Difficult to control for highly variable feed
(competent and size)
+5%
Advanced Basic controller data +
Mill feed PSD
Feed density
Liner design
Liner Wear Profiles
Stabilize load/
operation for ore
variability
Pros
Works well for highly variable feed
Requires some moderately trained operators
Cons
Cannot integrate cost drivers
Cannot drive dynamic constraints automation
+6–15%
AI-driven Advanced controller data +
Consumable Wear Rate
Operating Costs
Ore properties
Asset management data
All constraints data
ESG KPIs
Minimize
operating cost or
Increase efficiency
(reduce $/t metal)
Pros
Works well for highly variable feed
Requires no or limited operator involvement
Can integrate cost analysis
Can integrate ESG KPIs
Include dynamic constraints automation
Cons
Requires experienced operators to input data
Needs lots of sensors/measurement data
+2–5%
Previous Page Next Page