3974 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
by nine international mining companies. This ongoing
effort ensures the machine’s performance and reliability in
real-world conditions. The results of these tests will further
validate the effectiveness of the CAHM machine and its
potential impact on the mining industry.
CAHM AND MONOROLL TESTING
Feed Material
Ore from Agnico Eagle Mines’ Goldex Mine, character-
ized as “moderate to hard” and reasonably homogenous,
was selected for the testing program. Approximately 110
tonnes of Run of Mine (ROM) ore was delivered to Corem
for testing, and an additional 300 tonnes of material was
retained for further testing as required.
The same ore was employed for HPGR baseline,
MonoRoll, and CAHM prototype tests. The ROM ore
was crushed to –37.5 mm in a pilot jaw crusher with a
25 mm closed side setting for the HPGR and CAHM test-
ing, and then further reduced (in a cone crusher or HPGR)
to –12.5 mm for the ball mill and MonoRoll campaigns.
More than 50 CAHM tests have been completed and over
35 tonnes of Goldex ore has been processed through the
machine.
MonoRoll Test Procedure and Results
The primary objective of the MonoRoll test program was to
demonstrate the functionality of the MonoRoll as a com-
minution device and to quantify its energy efficiency. This
quantification allows for a comparison of the MonoRoll’s
performance with conventional milling technology and
with the DEM simulations. The operation parameters
included feed rate, which ranged from 0.5–2.5 t/h, and
rotational speed, which was set between 36–40 rpm. The
MonoRoll can also be operated with dry or slurried feed.
Measured output parameters included power draw (kW),
product particle size distribution (PSD), and discharge
rate (t/h). Each set of operating conditions was tested for
a period of between 10–15 minutes which represents more
than sufficient time to ensure that MonoRoll reached a
steady state prior to sampling based on a measured mean
residence time of ~90s.
Individual feed samples were collected for each test.
Product samples were taken in 3–5 cuts and composited
to correspond to each feed sample during the test. Initial
testing was conducted dry, as the original DEM model-
ing had simulated these operating conditions. Later work
introduced a low density (20–40% solids) slurry feed.
The machine underwent initial performance testing
with dry feed. The test conditions and primary results are
summarized in Table 3, with work indices calculated based
on both the 50% passing size. The average feed and product
size distributions are illustrated in Figure 8.
Initial MonoRoll testing demonstrated a significantly
lower power draw (4.0–5.5 kW) compared to the baseline
ball mill (13 kW). The MonoRoll prototype could break
the coarsest particles. However, size reduction seemed to
stall before the secondary or tertiary breakage of these parti-
cles could occur—mimicking the behavior observed in the
first one or two slices of the simulation work and guiding
the team to some potential design modifications. Further
work tested the theory by processing material through
the MonoRoll in multiple passes—essentially running the
physical version of the slice simulations. These tests were
run wet to facilitate material transport and collection.
Figure 9 shows that the ball mill PSD (P80 of 106 µm)
could be achieved after three passes through the MonoRoll.
Considering all of the energy consumed during multiple
passes, the SE for the MonoRoll test was 10.6 kWh/t com-
pared to 17.9 kWh/t for the ball mill.
CAHM Test Procedure and Results
The CAHM Mark 1 Prototype uses hydraulic pistons to
press the hammer roll down against mechanical stops and
shims that control the minimum distance (gap) between
the hammer liner surfaces and the anvil shell liner sur-
faces. This gap, along with the size of the slots in the anvil
shell through which broken fragments exit the CAHM,
controls the breakage. Feed rate (tonnage) and rotational
speed (Anvil shell rpm) are operating parameters that can
be varied.
A high hydraulic pressing force is applied to the ham-
mer roll shaft to secure it during operation and particle frag-
mentation. Initial tests were performed with an 8 mm gap,
Table 3. S Summary of dry test results and work indices based on 50% passing
Feed Rate,
t/hr
Rotational
Speed, rpm
Average
Power, kW
Average
F50, µm
Average
P50, µm
Specific
Energy,
kWh/t
Bond Standard
Specific Energy,
kWh/t
Bond Operating
Work Index,
kWh/t
1.5 35 5.48 3419 1140 3.7 1.96 29.2
0.5 35 3.99 4240 580 8.0 4.10 30.5
0.5 37 4.65 4240 681 9.3 3.60 40.5
by nine international mining companies. This ongoing
effort ensures the machine’s performance and reliability in
real-world conditions. The results of these tests will further
validate the effectiveness of the CAHM machine and its
potential impact on the mining industry.
CAHM AND MONOROLL TESTING
Feed Material
Ore from Agnico Eagle Mines’ Goldex Mine, character-
ized as “moderate to hard” and reasonably homogenous,
was selected for the testing program. Approximately 110
tonnes of Run of Mine (ROM) ore was delivered to Corem
for testing, and an additional 300 tonnes of material was
retained for further testing as required.
The same ore was employed for HPGR baseline,
MonoRoll, and CAHM prototype tests. The ROM ore
was crushed to –37.5 mm in a pilot jaw crusher with a
25 mm closed side setting for the HPGR and CAHM test-
ing, and then further reduced (in a cone crusher or HPGR)
to –12.5 mm for the ball mill and MonoRoll campaigns.
More than 50 CAHM tests have been completed and over
35 tonnes of Goldex ore has been processed through the
machine.
MonoRoll Test Procedure and Results
The primary objective of the MonoRoll test program was to
demonstrate the functionality of the MonoRoll as a com-
minution device and to quantify its energy efficiency. This
quantification allows for a comparison of the MonoRoll’s
performance with conventional milling technology and
with the DEM simulations. The operation parameters
included feed rate, which ranged from 0.5–2.5 t/h, and
rotational speed, which was set between 36–40 rpm. The
MonoRoll can also be operated with dry or slurried feed.
Measured output parameters included power draw (kW),
product particle size distribution (PSD), and discharge
rate (t/h). Each set of operating conditions was tested for
a period of between 10–15 minutes which represents more
than sufficient time to ensure that MonoRoll reached a
steady state prior to sampling based on a measured mean
residence time of ~90s.
Individual feed samples were collected for each test.
Product samples were taken in 3–5 cuts and composited
to correspond to each feed sample during the test. Initial
testing was conducted dry, as the original DEM model-
ing had simulated these operating conditions. Later work
introduced a low density (20–40% solids) slurry feed.
The machine underwent initial performance testing
with dry feed. The test conditions and primary results are
summarized in Table 3, with work indices calculated based
on both the 50% passing size. The average feed and product
size distributions are illustrated in Figure 8.
Initial MonoRoll testing demonstrated a significantly
lower power draw (4.0–5.5 kW) compared to the baseline
ball mill (13 kW). The MonoRoll prototype could break
the coarsest particles. However, size reduction seemed to
stall before the secondary or tertiary breakage of these parti-
cles could occur—mimicking the behavior observed in the
first one or two slices of the simulation work and guiding
the team to some potential design modifications. Further
work tested the theory by processing material through
the MonoRoll in multiple passes—essentially running the
physical version of the slice simulations. These tests were
run wet to facilitate material transport and collection.
Figure 9 shows that the ball mill PSD (P80 of 106 µm)
could be achieved after three passes through the MonoRoll.
Considering all of the energy consumed during multiple
passes, the SE for the MonoRoll test was 10.6 kWh/t com-
pared to 17.9 kWh/t for the ball mill.
CAHM Test Procedure and Results
The CAHM Mark 1 Prototype uses hydraulic pistons to
press the hammer roll down against mechanical stops and
shims that control the minimum distance (gap) between
the hammer liner surfaces and the anvil shell liner sur-
faces. This gap, along with the size of the slots in the anvil
shell through which broken fragments exit the CAHM,
controls the breakage. Feed rate (tonnage) and rotational
speed (Anvil shell rpm) are operating parameters that can
be varied.
A high hydraulic pressing force is applied to the ham-
mer roll shaft to secure it during operation and particle frag-
mentation. Initial tests were performed with an 8 mm gap,
Table 3. S Summary of dry test results and work indices based on 50% passing
Feed Rate,
t/hr
Rotational
Speed, rpm
Average
Power, kW
Average
F50, µm
Average
P50, µm
Specific
Energy,
kWh/t
Bond Standard
Specific Energy,
kWh/t
Bond Operating
Work Index,
kWh/t
1.5 35 5.48 3419 1140 3.7 1.96 29.2
0.5 35 3.99 4240 580 8.0 4.10 30.5
0.5 37 4.65 4240 681 9.3 3.60 40.5