Measuring and Modelling the Impact of Primary Crusher Stockpiles

on Autogenous/Semi-Autogenous Mill Feed Size

S. Morrell1 & W. Valery2
1 SMC Testing Pty Ltd., Kenmore Hills, Queensland, Australia
2 Hatch Ltd., Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT
Comminution circuits generally have a coarse ore stockpile after the primary crusher to
decouple the relatively uneven mined ore supply from the downstream comminution and
concentrator circuits which require a stable feed. Whilst this assists with evening-out
throughput disturbances, it can influence the size distribution presented to the downstream
comminution circuits through size-segregation effects. This is particularly important in
Autogenous (AG) and Semi-autogenous (SAG) circuits. What is not often considered,
however, is that the stockpile may also cause size reduction. Size distribution data from
stockpile feeds and stockpile products were collected from 13 different plants around the
world. Analysis of these data supports the assertion that size reduction occurs in the
stockpile. A simple power-based model is described which accurately predicts the degree of
size reduction measured. Worked examples are provided which show how the model can
be used to predict the stockpile product size given data on stockpile geometry and ore
hardness.

INTRODUCTION
It is usual in comminution circuits to have a coarse ore stockpile after the primary crusher to
decouple the effects on the comminution/concentrator circuits of the relatively uneven
supply of material from the mine to the primary crusher. As primary crusher availability is
generally lower than the downstream comminution circuits the stockpile additionally
enables feed to continue to be delivered to the downstream comminution circuits when the
primary crusher is under maintenance. The coarse ore stockpile assists with evening-out
throughput disturbances; however, it can influence the size distribution presented to the
downstream comminution circuits through size-segregation effects. In the case of
Autogenous (AG) and Semi-autogenous (SAG) circuits this is particularly important (Morrell
and Valery, 2001). However, what is rarely considered is that the stockpile not only can
cause size-segregation it may also cause size reduction. This paper presents size distribution
data from a number of coarse ore stockpiles in an attempt to measure the extent to which
size reduction may occur. A mathematical model to describe this size reduction is also
presented together with worked examples.
MEASUREMENT APPROACH
The stockpile feed (primary crusher product) and stockpile product (typically AG or SAG mill
feed) size distributions used in this analysis were collected during plant surveys conducted
for optimization projects. The collected size distributions cover several different
commodities from operations globally.
The size distributions were measured by conducting sieving of belt cut samples. Due to the
coarseness of the primary crushed material, a very large sample size is required to provide a
representative sample (Barbery, 1972; Gy,1976). This presents a challenge with regards to
the material’s handling and sieving due to the quantities of material that must be handled.
To minimize the sample size but achieve a representative sample, two separate samples
were collected from the conveyor belts:
1. All the material collected from a measured length of belt (L1).
2. All material coarser than 75 mm collected from a second adjacent and much longer
measured length of belt (L2).
The necessary belt length for the two samples, L1 and L2 (as shown in Figure 1), depends on
the belt width, speed, and loading. In general, several full 200 litre drums of rock were
collected, the material from L1 being kept separate from the material from L2. When
collecting the +75 mm sample, all rocks that look big enough were initially checked using a
hand-held trial sieve and selected if they are of the right size. Later, full sieve analysis
removed any -75 mm particles that were accidentally collected. The data from sieve analysis
of the L1 and L2 samples were analysed in terms of mass/belt length then combined into a
single size distribution. An example of belt sampling is shown in Figure 2. A detailed
description of the procedure can be found in Napier-Munn et al (1996).

Figure 1 - Schematic for Collecting Belt Cut Samples

Figure 2 - Example of Belt Sampling - L1 (all material) on left and L2 (+ 75 mm) on right.
RESULTS
A summary of the results obtained is given in Table 1. In all cases the stockpile product 80%
passing size (D80 ) is finer than the stockpile feed D80. Differences between individual results
vary significantly and are believed to be due to differences in rock hardness and stockpile
height. This former effect can be seen in Table 1 in which the data has been grouped into
those with Mic (SMC Test® crusher hardness parameter) values < 5 kWh/t and those with
values > 5 kWh/t.It can be seen that the < 5 kWh/t group has a D80 difference between
stockpile feed and stockpile product almost double that of the > 5 kWh/t group. Details of
the individual size distributions are given in Appendix 1. To help visualise the consistent
trend seen at all sites the feed and product size distributions have all been combined and
are presented in Figure 3 in terms of the overall mean stockpile feed and product.
Table 1 – Results Summary

Site Commodity Mic D80 (mm) Difference

stockpile stockpile
kWh/t mm %
feed product Mean difference
1 iron 2.0 148 106 42 28 in D80 for
2 copper 2.7 113 72 41 36 materials with
3 iron 2.9 170 129 41 24 Mic of < 5 kWh/t:
4 copper 4.5 220 165 55 25 37 mm
5 copper 5.0 121 115 6 5
6 gold 5.1 83 75 8 10
7 gold 5.9 83 69 14 17 Mean difference
8 gold 6.0 167 140 27 16 in D80 for
9 gold 7.9 128 110 18 14 materials with
10 gold 8.0 117 101 17 14 Mic of > 5 kWh/t:
11 gold 8.4 247 202 45 18 20 mm
12 gold 9.4 131 128 3 2
13 gold 10.1 163 135 28 17
Mean 6.0 145 119 27 18
 100
Cumulative % passing

Stockpile feed (Primary crusher product)

Stockpile product (AG/SAG feed)
10
1 10 Size (mm) 100 1000

Figure 3 – Mean Stockpile Feed and Product Size Distributions

MODELLING
From a modelling perspective the size reduction that occurs in stockpiles has been assumed
to be principally caused by breakage as rocks fall from the stockpile feed conveyor head-
pulley and impact on the surface of the stockpile below. This (ballistic) mechanism is similar
to that found in Vertical Shaft Impact (VSI) crushers. In the case of VSI crushers the energy
fuelling breakage is provided by a rotor which propels the feed rocks at high speed to
impact against stationary anvils or rock boxes. In the case of stockpiles gravity provides the
energy, potential energy being converted to kinetic energy as the rocks fall. In recent
research (Lewis-Gray and Rasmussen, 2019) it was found that the use of the SMC Test®’s
crushing parameter, Mic, in conjunction with Morrell’s energy-size equations best described
the size reduction performance of VSI machines. Hence it was decided to use the same
approach to model size reduction in stockpiles.
The specific energy required for size reduction can be estimated using Morrell’s energy-size
relationship (Morrell, 2004; GMG Group, 2021). The general form of this equation is:

𝑊𝑊 = 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 × 4 × �𝑃𝑃80 𝑓𝑓(𝑃𝑃80) − 𝐹𝐹80 𝑓𝑓(𝐹𝐹80) � (1)

Where:
W = predicted circuit net specific energy (kWh/t)
Mi = hardness parameter (kWh/t)
𝑓𝑓 (𝑥𝑥 ) = −(0.295 + 𝑥𝑥 ⁄1000000)
x = 80% passing size in microns
P80 = 80% passing size of the product
F80 = 80% passing size of the feed
As applied to crushing circuits the form of equation 1 is as follows:

(𝑃𝑃80) (𝐹𝐹80)
𝑊𝑊𝑐𝑐 = 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 × 𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 × 𝑘𝑘3 × 4 × �𝑃𝑃80 𝑓𝑓 − 𝐹𝐹80 𝑓𝑓 � (2)

Where:
Wc = predicted net specific energy of the crushing circuit (kWh/t)
Mic = SMC Test® crusher hardness parameter (kWh/t)
Sc = coarse feed factor
= 55 × (𝐹𝐹80 × 𝑃𝑃80)−0.2 : (0.5 < Sc < 1)
k3 = open/closed circuit factor
= 1.19 for open circuit
= 1.0 for closed circuit

Equation 2 is normally used to estimate how much specific energy is required to be

delivered by a crusher to reduce a given feed size (F80) to a given product size (P80). As
applied to stockpile comminution and the aims of this paper, equation 2 is required to be
used to estimate what the stockpile product P80 is likely to be given a feed size (F80) and the
height of the drop to the stockpile. To do so Wc, Mic and k3 need to be known. Wc in this
case is the specific energy that rocks, falling from the stockpile feed conveyor head-pulley
absorb as they impact the stockpile surface below, this absorbed energy being what causes
breakage. Implicit in this approach is that the falling rocks on impact are broken not those
already residing in/on the stockpile.
In general, for a rock of mass, m, falling from a height, h, under the influence of gravity, g, its
potential energy, PE, is given by:
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑚𝑚 × 𝑔𝑔 × ℎ (3)

As the rock falls it progressively converts this potential energy to kinetic energy, until on
impact some is absorbed by the rock. If what is absorbed exceeds the yield stress, breakage
will occur. How much kinetic energy is available on impact will depend on how much is lost
to drag resistance, whilst how much is subsequently absorbed by the rock depends on the
nature of the impact surface. If the impact surface is hard, rigid, flat and perpendicular to
the impact velocity (say a flat concrete floor), the proportion of energy absorbed will be
relatively large. However, if the impact surface comprises, say, an inclined loose bed of
material the proportion will be lower. This latter situation is more likely to be what rocks
falling onto a stockpile will encounter. To accommodate drag losses and the influence of
the impact surface conditions a fitted lumped “efficiency” factor, keff, is incorporated into
equation 3. Its value can vary in the range 0-1. Hence the potential energy absorbed by a
rock, PEabsorbed, is given by:
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑚𝑚 × 𝑔𝑔 × ℎ × 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (4)

There are also other factors which can influence the product size including segregation and
attrition and abrasion breakage which are not accounted for in the model; these are also
lumped into the keff efficiency factor. The proposed model is simple by necessity, based on
impact breakage only, using data that can practically and reliably be collected. Regardless of
the necessary simplification and assumptions the model achieves good accuracy as will be
demonstrated in the results presented later in Table 2.
The value of h (height of drop) in equation 4 will be related to the maximum stockpile height
and the operating level. Assuming that the operating level provides an impact surface
which has a height relative to an empty stockpile of hop and representing the maximum
stockpile height by hmax, the ratio hop/hmax can then be defined as a relative operating level
Lop where Lop varies in the range 0-1, 0 being the condition of an empty stockpile and 1
when it is full. Equation 4 can now be written:
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑚𝑚 × 𝑔𝑔 × ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × (1 − 𝐿𝐿𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 ) × 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (5)

As specific energy is energy/mass then, using equation 5, the specific energy absorbed by
rocks falling on to a stockpile, Wsp, can be represented by:
𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝑔𝑔 × ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 × (1 − 𝐿𝐿𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 ) × 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (6)

The data in Table 1 were not originally collected with the view to developing a stockpile size
reduction model and hence there is limited information concerning stockpile heights (hmax)
and operating levels (Lop). To overcome this, stockpile heights were estimated based on
assuming a typical live capacity in tonnes, Cl. From a design perspective this is often
calculated using the number of hours that the live capacity is required to keep the
downstream comminution operating at its nominal throughput capacity during periods
where there is no material being fed to the stockpile. Hence, for example, in the case of
Newcrest Cadia operation (Dunne et al, 2001), it had a stockpile live capacity designed to
last 20 hours, which at its original nominal comminution circuit throughput of 2000 t/hr
gives a live capacity of 40,000 tonnes. In contrast, Newmont Boddington operation (Hart et
al, 2011) has a live capacity designed to last 8 hours, though as its nominal comminution
circuit throughput is 5000 t/hr it also has a live capacity of 40,000 tonnes. With reference to
Table 1, the mean live capacity in terms of hours, for those sites where it was known, was
14. For those sites where it was not known, 14 hours was assumed. Multiplying the live
capacity hours by the throughput of each comminution circuit, the live capacity of each
stockpile in terms of tonnes was estimated. From simple geometry it can be shown that for
a conical stockpile with a central offtake, the live capacity is 25% of the stockpile total
volume (see Appendix 2). This figure agrees with that quoted by Zamarano (2006). Hence
the total stockpile capacity is 4 times the live capacity:
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) = 4 × 𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 (7)
Assuming a void fraction of 0.3 and using the measured rock sg, the volume of the stockpile,
Vsp, is given by:
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐. 𝑚𝑚) = 4/(1 − 0.3) × 𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 /𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (8)

Which reduces to:

𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐. 𝑚𝑚) = 5.714 × 𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 /𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (9)
Having estimated the total stockpile volume, an angle of repose is required to estimate the
maximum stockpile height, hmax. From Froehlich (2011) the mean angle of repose of graded
rocks in the same size range as those in Table 1 is 38 deg. Hence hmax can be calculated as
follows:
1/3
3×𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ×(𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 38)2
ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = � � (10)
𝜋𝜋

Which reduces to:

ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0.836 × 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 1/3 (11)

Combining equations 9 and 11 we get:

1/3
𝐶𝐶
ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.5 × � 𝑙𝑙�𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠� (12)

Having defined hmax, then with reference to equation 6, this leaves Lop and keff as unknowns.
It is considered good practice to operate with high stockpile level (70% or higher) as much as
possible to avoid issues with segregation (Morrell and Valery, 2001). Therefore, it was
decided to assume that Lop was on average equal to 0.5 which is equivalent to assuming that
on average the stockpiles in Table 1 were operated with 87.5% of the live capacity available
(see Appendix 2). The parameter keff was initially left as a fitted parameter. Equation 6 can
now be reduced to:
1/3
𝐶𝐶
𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘ℎ⁄𝑡𝑡) = 0.00204 × � 𝑙𝑙�𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠� × 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (13)

With reference to equation 2, P80 is the 80% passing size of the stockpile product, F80 is the
80% passing size of the stockpile feed, Wsp replaces Wc, Mic is directly measured by
conducting SMC Tests on representative samples of stockpile feed, whilst k3 is set to the
open circuit value of 1.19 hence giving equation 14.
(𝑃𝑃80) (𝐹𝐹80)
𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 × 𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 × 1.19 × 4 × �𝑃𝑃80 𝑓𝑓 − 𝐹𝐹80 𝑓𝑓 � (14)

Given that the objective is to rearrange equation 14 such that it can be solved for P80, the
fact that the exponent of the P80 term is a function of the P80 and the Sc term also contains
the P80, makes an analytical solution impossible. However, numerical approximation
techniques were found that provided very accurate estimates and gave rise to equations 15
and 16. Alternatively, the excel “solver” function can be used to search for a P80 value
which satisfies equation 14.

𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝐹𝐹80
−�0.295+ �
𝑃𝑃80 = −65500 × ��ln �(
4×𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖×1.19×𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 )
+ 𝐹𝐹80 1000000 � � + 3� (15)

𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 = 57.4 × 𝐹𝐹80 −0.4 : (0.5 < Sc < 1) (16)Using

equations 15 and 16 on the data in Table 1, the best fit for keff was found to be 0.7, resulting
in the predictions detailed in Table 2 and plotted graphically in Figure 4. The relative error
standard deviation was found to be 6.5% indicating an accuracy at the 90% confidence level
of just over 10%.
It is emphasized that the model predicts changes in the 80% passing size. Given that it uses a
power-based equation to do so, an underlying assumption is that the gradient in log-log space
with respect to the 80% passing size of the stockpile product will be the same as the stockpile
feed. Inspection of Figure 3 indicates that there is a slight deviation from this assumption and
that the stockpile product tends to have slightly more fine material than would otherwise be
expected. It is known (Morrell and Valery, 2001) that as stockpiles are drawn down the
stockpile product tends to become coarser and as it builds up will tend to be finer. In addition,
due to size segregation, certain feeders tend to produce finer material than other feeders. As
control of stockpile levels and feeder choice were not explicitly controlled when collecting the
data in Figure 3, it is possible that the stockpile product size distributions were influenced by
these phenomena. Hence the slight increase in finer material may be due to a slight overall
bias in the operation of the stockpiles and feeders in the data base favouring the production
of finer material. However, an alternative hypothesis is that the additional fines are caused
by comminution not accounted for in the model. As it stands, the model considers only
impact breakage and further assumes that on average 50% of the total available potential
energy is used for this purpose (by virtue of the assumption that Lop = 0.5). Once the rocks
falling from the head-pulley have impacted on the stockpile below they continue to move
further down in a “shuffling” motion until they finally exit the feeder, thereby effectively using
up the potential energy remaining after the initial impact. This “shuffling” motion occurs
under the progressively increasing pressure of the stockpile above. Such conditions are ideal
for abrasion and attrition breakage, both of which are known to create relatively fine
products. At this stage this remains conjecture as there is insufficient information to prove
its validity. It is suggested that a DEM study may well be able to shed further light on this
subject.
Table 2 – Observed vs Predicted Stockpile P80

Site Metal Mic stockpile product P80 (mm)

kWh/t observed predicted
1 iron 2.0 106 110
2 copper 2.7 72 76
3 iron 2.9 129 140
4 copper 4.5 165 154
5 copper 5.0 115 98
6 gold 5.1 75 75
7 gold 5.9 69 77
8 gold 6.0 140 143
9 gold 7.9 110 112
10 gold 8.0 101 107
11 gold 8.4 202 195
12 gold 9.4 128 124
13 gold 10.1 135 139
Mean 6.0 119 119
 250
y = 0.9912x
R² = 0.9967
200
Predicted P80 (mm)

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Observed P80 (mm)

Figure 4 – Stockpile Size Reduction Model Accuracy (Observed vs Predicted Stockpile P80)
Using 0.7 for keff in equation 13 and substituting for Wsp in equation 15, equation 15 can now
be reduced to:

𝐶𝐶 1/3
0.0003×� 𝑙𝑙�𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠� −�0.295+
𝐹𝐹80
�
𝑃𝑃80 = −65500 × ��ln � (𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ×𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐)
+ 𝐹𝐹80 1000000 � � + 3� (17)

Equations 16 and 17 are best used in situations such as greenfield designs where the
stockpile height has yet to be finalised. However, in cases where the stockpile height is
known then by combining equation 6 with equation 15, the resultant equation 18 should be
used instead of equation 17.
𝐹𝐹80
0.0002 ×ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 −�0.295+ �
𝑃𝑃80 = −65500 × ��ln � (𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ×𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 )
+ 𝐹𝐹80 1000000 � � + 3� (18)

CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of size distribution data from coarse ore stockpile feed and product size
distributions supports the assertion that size reduction occurs in stockpiles. A simple
power-based model assuming impact breakage to be the sole source of size reduction was
developed. It was found to predict the degree of size reduction, measured in terms of the
80% passing sizes, to within an accuracy of just over 10% at the 90% confidence level.
Worked examples which show how the model can be used to predict the stockpile product
size given data on stockpile geometry and ore hardness are provided in Appendix 3.
On average the size distribution data collected from the 13 plants included in this study
indicate that the stockpile products may contain slightly more fine material than a simple
impact comminution model would suggest. Whilst biases in the way that the data were
collected cannot be ruled out, it is possible that the apparent additional finer material may
have been the result of abrasion and attrition breakage not accounted for in the model.
DEM studies of stockpile dynamics may be able to shed light on this phenomenon.
REFERENCES
Barbery, G. 1972. Derivation of a formula to estimate the mass of a sample for size analysis,
Trans AusIMM, 81, (784), March, C49-C51.
Dunne, R., Morrell, S., Lane, G., Valery, W. and Hart, S. 2001. Design of the 40 foot diameter
SAG mill installed at the Cadia gold copper mine. Proc. Conf. SAG 2001, CIMM, Vancouver,
Canada
Froehlich, D.C. 2011. Mass Angle of Repose of Open-Graded Rock Riprap. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, July, pp 454-461. American Society of Civil Engineers
GMG Group. 2021. The Morrell Method to Determine the Efficiency of Industrial Grinding
Circuits. https://gmggroup.org/guidelines-and-publications/morrell-method-to-determine-
the-efficiency-of-industrial-grinding-circuits/
Gy, P.M. 1976, The sampling of particulate materials – a general theory. Symp of Sampling
Particles in the Min Ind, AusIMM, Melbourne, Australia.
Hart, S., Rees,T., Tavani, S., Valery, W. and Jankovic, A. 2011. Process Integration and
Optimisation of the Boddington HPGR Circuit. Proc. Conf. SAG 2011, CIMM, Vancouver,
Canada
Lewis-Gray, A. and Rasmussen, G. 2019. Design and Operation of the Vertical Shaft Impactor
in Fine Crushing Applications. Proc. SAG 2019 Conference, CIMM, Vancouver, Canada.
Morrell, S. 2004. An alternative energy-size relationship to that proposed by bond for the
design and optimisation of grinding circuits, Int. J. Miner. Process. 74:133–141.
Morrell, S. and Valery, W. 2001. Influence of feed size on AG/SAG mill performance. Proc
Conf. SAG 2001, CIMM, Vancouver, Canada.
Napier-Munn, T.J., Morrell, S., Morrison R.D. and Kojovic T.M. 1996. Mineral Comminution
Circuits Their Operation and Optimisation. JKMRC, University of Queensland
Zamarano, S. 2006. Coarse Ore Stockpiles. Bulk Solid Handling, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp 246-251.
 APPENDIX 1 – Measured Size Distributions of the Stockpile Feed and Product

-1 mm (%) - 4.75 mm (%) -10 mm (%) -25 mm (%) -100 mm (%)

Site feed prod feed prod feed prod feed prod feed prod
1 15.5 17 22 24 26 29 37 40.5 67 79
2 20.5 23 30 35 37.5 45 50 60 77.5 88
3 16 19.5 21 25 24 29 30.5 41 61 74.5
4 9 11 17 20 23 27 32 37 54 62
5 5 8.5 12.5 17.5 18.5 24 32.5 38 73 76
6 28 30 38.5 43 45 51 57.5 63 86 89
7 5 8.5 13 19 22 29 40 50 88 89
8 6 9.5 12 15.5 17.5 21.5 29.5 34 60.5 70
9 4.5 6.5 8.5 12.5 12 18 28 35 70 76
10 5.5 6 10.5 13 15 19 28 37 72 79.5
11 5 5 8 8 11 11 16 16 38 44
12 4.5 10.5 9.5 18 14 26 25 41 65 71
13 2.5 6 5 10 8 16 17.5 31.5 59 70
mean 9.8 12.4 16.0 20.0 21.0 26.6 32.6 40.3 67.0 74.5
APPENDIX 2 – Stockpile Geometry
 APPENDIX 3 – Worked Examples
A. Stockpile Height Known
Equations:

0.0002 × ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 −�0.295+

𝐹𝐹80
�
𝑃𝑃80 = −65500 × ��ln � + 𝐹𝐹80 1000000 � � + 3�
(𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 × 𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 )

𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 = 57.4 × 𝐹𝐹80 −0.4 : (0.5 < Sc < 1)

Input data:
Stockpile height (hmax) = 32m
Mic = 7.6 kWh/t
Expected primary crusher product (F80) = 152mm
Calculations:

𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 = 57.4 × 152000−0.4

= 0.485
As 0.485 < 0.5 and Sc must fall in the range 0.5 < Sc < 1 then Sc is set to 0.5

0.0002 × 32 152000
𝑃𝑃80 = −65500 × ��ln � + 152000−�0.295+1000000� � � + 3�
(7.6 × 0.5)

= −65500 × (−5.03416 + 3)

= 133238 microns
Hence the stockpile product (AG/SAG mill feed) is expected to have on average a P80 of
133mm
B. Stockpile Height Unknown
Equations:

𝐶𝐶 1/3
0.0003×� 𝑙𝑙�𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠� −�0.295+
𝐹𝐹80
�
𝑃𝑃80 = −65500 × ��ln � (𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ×𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐)
+ 𝐹𝐹80 1000000 � � + 3�

𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 = 57.4 × 𝐹𝐹80 −0.4 : (0.5 < Sc < 1)

Input data:
Nominal comminution circuit throughput = 2500 tph
Required time for live stockpile to last = 12 hours
Mic = 4.2 kWh/t
Sg = 2.7
Expected primary crusher product (F80) = 120mm
Calculations:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 ) = 2500 × 12 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
Hence:
𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 = 30000 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 = 57.4 × 120000−0.4

= 0.534

1/3
0.0003�30000�2.7� 120000
𝑃𝑃80 = −65500 × ��ln � (4.2×0.534)
+ 120000−�0.295+1000000�� � + 3�

= −65500 × (−4.52935 + 3)

= 100172 microns
Hence the stockpile product (AG/SAG mill feed) is expected to have on average a P80 of
100mm