- To participate in the 911Metallurgist Forums, be sure to JOIN & LOGIN
- Use Add New Topic to ask a New Question/Discussion about Mineral Processing or Laboratory Work.
- OR Select a Topic that Interests you.
- Use Add Reply = to Reply/Participate in a Topic/Discussion (most frequent).
Using Add Reply allows you to Attach Images or PDF files and provide a more complete input. - Use Add Comment = to comment on someone else’s Reply in an already active Topic/Discussion.
Dear all,
while researching about the bond crushing work index (Wic), I realised, that the procedure of the test is described differently in different sources. The same seems to be true for sampling. Two examples:
Bergstrom 1985 _ Crushability and Grindability: The hights of the hammers start for every specimen at the start hight of 10°
vs.
Bond 1946 _ Crushing tests by impact and pressure: For breaking a succeeding specimen, the hammers are released from a height slightly under that of the preceeding specimen
Bond and Bergstrom did not mentioned a specific sample geometry (just that the sample shouldn´t be slabby or acicular). Sandvik and Metso on the contrary seems to demand a cubical shape of the samples (more "citeable" sources needed).
Sometimes it appears to me, that there are, in some papers, confusions about the units (ton/tonne, constants not adapted to units, imperial/metric) and the calculations (units don´t add up correctly).
In another case, the specs of the Bond apparatus are discribed in that way, that the resulting WiC is 4 times the WiC which would be measured at the same angle with the apparatus described by Bond and Bergstrom. --> For calculating the energy, the hight of the center of mass should be used, or??!
My Question is, what are the scientific papers/books nowaday used as basis for calculating and performing the Bond WiC test? Is there a kind of standard?
I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions on that subject,
best regards,
Caspar