3900 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Scenario 1, while the bin level on B03 slowly increased.
In the second half of the operation, the bin level on B03
reached its limit and caused the interlock in the stockpile.
Increasing the capacity of bin B03 further delays the shift
in a bottleneck between B02 and B03. In a similar sense,
increasing the capacity of bin B02 will shift the changeover
point earlier in operation. It can be noted that the circuit
still experienced frequent stops due to the interlock.
Scenario 2
Figure 7 shows the mass flow at different points in the cir-
cuit for the revised simulation Scenario 2. The crushers
CR01 and CR02 are operating at 93% and 91% utiliza-
tion respectively, for the reference capacity. The utilization
reduction is due to the CSS changed to the lower limits.
Due to the reduction of the crusher settings, there is an
increase in mass flow of 8.7% through HPGR01 as well as
an increase of 8.6% in circuit output compared to Scenario
1. Figure 8 shows the different bin levels and interlock sig-
nals for SP1. With the selected configuration of the bin
capacity between B02 and B03, there are very few interlock
stops in the process operation of 24 hours, leading to less
disruption in the mass flow of the circuit. Still, the bottle-
neck change from CR01 to CR02 occurs for the configura-
tion as observed in the bin levels and interlock signals of
B02 and B03.
DESIGN STRATEGY FOR BIN SIZING
Based on the simulation results from the baseline and
revised cases, a list of strategies is presented to interpret the
findings.
• Bottleneck Control of CR01: If the strategy selected
for the design is to maximize CR01 capacity utiliza-
tion, meaning, that the mass flow from the S01 upper
deck needs to be increased. This requires lowering the
deck 1 aperture cut point. The operation will result
in the filling up of bin B02 more frequently leading
to the interlock in SP1. CR01 will drive the material
flow in the circuit and correspondingly there will be
underutilized capacity in the crusher CR02. In such
an operation model, it would be possible to reduce
the bin capacities of B03. This strategy can give alter-
native options such as the crusher CR02 can be oper-
ated at lower mass flow by reducing the CSS. The
gains from this can be realised in HPGR mass flow
and circuit mass flow.
• Bottleneck Control of CR02: If the strategy selected
for the design is to maximize CR02 capacity utiliza-
tion, the mass flow from the S01 middle deck needs
to be increased. This requires increasing the deck 1
aperture cut point. The operation will result in the
filling up of bin B03 more frequently leading to the
interlock in SP1. CR02 will act as a bottleneck and
correspondingly there will be underutilized capac-
ity in the crusher CR01. It may be risky to control
this bottleneck in practice and is subject to the per-
formance of crusher CR01. In such an operation
model, it would be possible to reduce the bin capaci-
ties of B02.
• Simultaneous control of bottleneck of CR01 and
CR02: If the strategy is to find the sweet spot where
either of the crushers can act as a bottleneck, then it
is possible to optimize the bin capacities for both bins
Table 2. Design of Experiment (DoE) to study the bin sizing effect with respect to three variables.
B02 Cap
[-]
B03Cap
[-]
S01 D-1
[mm]
CR01
U [-]
CR02
U [-]
HPGR01
U [-]
Circuit In
U [-]
Circuit out
U [-]
T01 0.75 0.67 42 0.98 0.88 0.92 0.82 0.97
T02 0.75 0.67 45 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.88 1.04
T03 0.75 0.67 48 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.85 1.02
T04 0.75 1.33 42 0.98 0.88 0.92 0.82 0.97
T05 0.75 1.33 45 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.88 1.04
T06 0.75 1.33 48 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.86 1.02
T07 1.25 0.67 42 0.98 0.88 0.92 0.83 0.98
T08 1.25 0.67 45 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.88 1.04
T09 1.25 0.67 48 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.85 1.02
T10 1.25 1.33 42 0.98 0.88 0.92 0.83 0.98
T11 1.25 1.33 45 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.88 1.04
T12 1.25 1.33 48 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.86 1.02
Scenario 1, while the bin level on B03 slowly increased.
In the second half of the operation, the bin level on B03
reached its limit and caused the interlock in the stockpile.
Increasing the capacity of bin B03 further delays the shift
in a bottleneck between B02 and B03. In a similar sense,
increasing the capacity of bin B02 will shift the changeover
point earlier in operation. It can be noted that the circuit
still experienced frequent stops due to the interlock.
Scenario 2
Figure 7 shows the mass flow at different points in the cir-
cuit for the revised simulation Scenario 2. The crushers
CR01 and CR02 are operating at 93% and 91% utiliza-
tion respectively, for the reference capacity. The utilization
reduction is due to the CSS changed to the lower limits.
Due to the reduction of the crusher settings, there is an
increase in mass flow of 8.7% through HPGR01 as well as
an increase of 8.6% in circuit output compared to Scenario
1. Figure 8 shows the different bin levels and interlock sig-
nals for SP1. With the selected configuration of the bin
capacity between B02 and B03, there are very few interlock
stops in the process operation of 24 hours, leading to less
disruption in the mass flow of the circuit. Still, the bottle-
neck change from CR01 to CR02 occurs for the configura-
tion as observed in the bin levels and interlock signals of
B02 and B03.
DESIGN STRATEGY FOR BIN SIZING
Based on the simulation results from the baseline and
revised cases, a list of strategies is presented to interpret the
findings.
• Bottleneck Control of CR01: If the strategy selected
for the design is to maximize CR01 capacity utiliza-
tion, meaning, that the mass flow from the S01 upper
deck needs to be increased. This requires lowering the
deck 1 aperture cut point. The operation will result
in the filling up of bin B02 more frequently leading
to the interlock in SP1. CR01 will drive the material
flow in the circuit and correspondingly there will be
underutilized capacity in the crusher CR02. In such
an operation model, it would be possible to reduce
the bin capacities of B03. This strategy can give alter-
native options such as the crusher CR02 can be oper-
ated at lower mass flow by reducing the CSS. The
gains from this can be realised in HPGR mass flow
and circuit mass flow.
• Bottleneck Control of CR02: If the strategy selected
for the design is to maximize CR02 capacity utiliza-
tion, the mass flow from the S01 middle deck needs
to be increased. This requires increasing the deck 1
aperture cut point. The operation will result in the
filling up of bin B03 more frequently leading to the
interlock in SP1. CR02 will act as a bottleneck and
correspondingly there will be underutilized capac-
ity in the crusher CR01. It may be risky to control
this bottleneck in practice and is subject to the per-
formance of crusher CR01. In such an operation
model, it would be possible to reduce the bin capaci-
ties of B02.
• Simultaneous control of bottleneck of CR01 and
CR02: If the strategy is to find the sweet spot where
either of the crushers can act as a bottleneck, then it
is possible to optimize the bin capacities for both bins
Table 2. Design of Experiment (DoE) to study the bin sizing effect with respect to three variables.
B02 Cap
[-]
B03Cap
[-]
S01 D-1
[mm]
CR01
U [-]
CR02
U [-]
HPGR01
U [-]
Circuit In
U [-]
Circuit out
U [-]
T01 0.75 0.67 42 0.98 0.88 0.92 0.82 0.97
T02 0.75 0.67 45 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.88 1.04
T03 0.75 0.67 48 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.85 1.02
T04 0.75 1.33 42 0.98 0.88 0.92 0.82 0.97
T05 0.75 1.33 45 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.88 1.04
T06 0.75 1.33 48 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.86 1.02
T07 1.25 0.67 42 0.98 0.88 0.92 0.83 0.98
T08 1.25 0.67 45 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.88 1.04
T09 1.25 0.67 48 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.85 1.02
T10 1.25 1.33 42 0.98 0.88 0.92 0.83 0.98
T11 1.25 1.33 45 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.88 1.04
T12 1.25 1.33 48 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.86 1.02