This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

The SAG grindability index test

Peter Amelunxen a,⇑, Patricio Berrios b, Esteban Rodriguez b
a
AME Ltda, Cerros de Camacho 440, Dep F-17, Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
b
Aminpro Chile SpA, Cerro San Cristobal 95111, Quilicura, Santiago, Chile

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, the authors undertake a critical review of the Starkey test and the publicly available infor-
Received 13 June 2013 mation related to the test equipment, procedures, and scale-up methodology. The following recommen-
Accepted 31 August 2013 dations are proposed to improve the test method:
Available online 5 October 2013

Keywords: 1. The test should be conducted for a fixed grinding time of 120 min, regardless of the time required to
Semi-autogenous grinding reach 80% passing Tyler #10 mesh.
SAG milling 2. The test should be conducted with constant time intervals of 15, 30, 60, and 120 min (cumulative) in
SGI test order to facilitate the application of geostatistics to the resulting index values. This would also allow
Grinding for multiple tests to be conducted in parallel (through the use of multiple mill rollers).
3. The feed size should be prepared using a more rigorous procedure to ensure constant mass in each of
the course screen fractions.
4. The curve of finished product versus time should be modeled and the resulting index calculated from
the model for a standard feed size distribution, so that errors attributable to the sample preparation
step are minimized.
The improved feed preparation steps and the use of constant grinding intervals enables the develop-
ment of a faster alternative to the standard test that is more cost effective for high volume geometallur-
gical programs.
In addition to the updated procedures, a new calibration equation is proposed, with calibration factors
for pebble crushing, fine feed and autogenous grinding, based on information in the public literature.
Detailed descriptions of the test equipment, procedures, and calibration are provided, and it is proposed
that this become an open standard procedure for SAG mill hardness testing, particularly for soft to med-
ium-hard ores, over which range the test is most effective.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background
Since the Starkey mill was introduced more than 15 years ago,
the world has seen many changes in the approach used for SAG
circuit design (in this manuscript, the term SAG will be used to
refer to both SAG and FAG milling). While it is no longer the only
available point hardness test method, it is the only one available
based on a purely empirical tumbling mill test. Originally devel-
oped, calibrated, and marketed by Minnovex Technologies under
the name SAG Power IndexÒ (SPIÒ), the technology was acquired
by SGS in 2005. The technology and scale-up calculations are
believed by many to be confidential and proprietary, but during
the mid-1990s the mill and test equipment specifications were
published openly and sold to various mining corporations (Baeza
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: peter@aminpro.com (P. Amelunxen).
and Villanueva, 1994; Gonzalez, 2000), and the primary scale-up
equation has also found its way into the public domain through
various publications and presentations. Today, any individual or
organization may freely build and market a test system, and there
are now at least six laboratories offering the test, not including SGS
and the various mining companies who purchased the equipment
in the mid-1990s. The authors believe that one of the main imped-
iments to the widespread adoption of the test has been a general
lack of awareness of the information available that is required for
constructing the equipment. This knowledge has been dissemi-
nated in various languages throughout conference proceedings,
journal papers, websites, and university research theses; indeed,
one of the aims of this paper is to rationalize these disparate tech-
nical sources into one coherent document.
A second objective of this research program is to provide a crit-
ical review of the test method, equipment specifications, data
interpretation, and calibration equation, insofar as permitted by
the information available in the public domain.

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013.08.012
 Author's personal copy

P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51 43

1.1. Nomenclature

The Starkey laboratory mill has been used since 1994 to predict
the autogenous mill specific energy (Starkey and Dobby, 1996). The
test was originally termed the Starkey SAG test (Starkey et al., 1994)
and the laboratory SAG mill was called the Starkey laboratory SAG
mill (Starkey and Dobby, 1996), or just the Starkey SAG Mill
(Starkey et al., 1994). The test and equipment were commercialized
by Minnovex Technologies, a Canadian company that is now part of
SGS Lakefield Minerals, under the name SAG Power IndexÒ, or SPIÒ
test (Starkey et al., 1994), terms which were later trademarked in
Canada (CIPO, 2012). During the 1990s the test equipment,
procedures and calibration information were purchased by several
institutions (Baeza and Villanueva, 1994), and the test continues to
be used in its original public form (Asmin Industrial, 2013; Aminpro
Chile, 2013), which is essentially the same as that of the SPIÒ (Verret
et al., 2011; Baeza and Villanueva, 1994).
The test should not be confused with the SAGDesign test devel-
oped by Starkey & Associates, which is of similar genesis but em-
ploys a different analytical approach (Starkey et al., 2006).
Because Starkey no longer bears any affiliation with the test
(Starkey, 2013), the authors suggest that a new name be adopted
to reflect the public nature of the test procedures. With this in
mind, we propose the terms ‘‘SAG Grindability Index (SGI)’’ and
‘‘SAG Grindability Index Test (SGI test)’’ for the index value and
test, respectively. These terms are used for the remainder of this
manuscript when referring to the public test and methods. Usage
of the terms SPIÒ and SAG Power IndexÒ will continue in the context
of the proprietary test system of the current trademark owners.

1.2. Test equipment

The Starkey laboratory mill dimensions and operating condi-

tions are described in great detail in the references listed at the
end of this paper. The important characteristics are described be-
low, and scaled drawings are included in Appendix B. The authors’
test system, which was used for the work described in this paper,
was constructed to the specifications described below.
The mill has a 304.8 mm diameter by 101.6 mm length (Verret
et al., 2011). The mill is equipped with six one inch by one inch
charge lifters located at 60° intervals, as can be observed in the
published photographs shown in Fig. 1a and b (Baeza and Villanu-
eva, 1994; Baeza and Domingo, 2000). A 5 kg ball charge of 1 1=4 in.
balls is used (Verret et al., 2011; Gonzalez, 2000).
The mill reportedly rotates at 70% of critical velocity (Verret
et al., 2011), or 54 rpm (Gonzalez, 2000). There is controversy sur-
rounding the mill rotational speed. The calculation of mill critical
velocity (Vc) is derived from the balance of gravitational force
and the centrifugal force acting on a ball, and is given by Eq. (1),
after Austin and Concha (1994)
42:2
V c ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðD  dÞ
where D is the weighted average inside liner diameter and d is the
ball diameter. Using this equation, the resulting mill rotational
speed should be 57 rpm, i.e. higher than the published value of
54 rpm.
For large mills the ball diameter is negligible relative to the mill
diameter, and the equation is often simplified to (Napier-Munn,
1996)
42:2
V c ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðDÞ
This equation yields the published mill rotational speed of
54 rpm; hence, it is assumed that the test designers used the sim-
plified equation for computing the rotational velocity.
Fig. 1. (a and b) The Starkey laboratory mill at El Teniente metallurgical lab (Baeza
and Domingo, 2000).
Back-calculating the fraction of critical speed using the correct
equation indicates that the test actually operates at a rotational
speed of approximately 66% of critical, contrary to the published
value of 70%.
1.2.1. Mill rotational speed
To investigate the impact energy imparted to the ore particles
as a function of the mill rotational speed, the mill was outfitted
with a transparent acrylic lid and rotated with a ball charge at var-
ious fractions of critical speed (no ore charge was used to avoid vis-
ibility loss because of dust). High definition video was used to
measure the release angle (a) and toe angle (b), where 12 o’clock
is 0° (Fig. 2). Two distinct zones were observed in the video, an
abrasion zone and an impact zone where the cascading ball
ð1Þ
impacts the toe of the charge. These can be seen in Fig. 2 and in
Video 1.
The impact energy (Ei), in joules, of a single ball-on-liner colli-
sion was calculated using equation (3):
1
Ei ¼ mv 2 ð3Þ
2
where m is the mass of a ball (approximately 130 g) and v is the
velocity of the ball at impact, calculated from the horizontal (vi)
ð2Þ and vertical (vj) components of the velocity vector. Letting r equal
the mill radius (m) and vs be the circumferential speed of the mill
shell (m/s), the velocity components are given by
v i ¼ v s cos a ð4aÞ
 Author's personal copy

44 P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51

SPI Test Result

100%
90% SPI Definition

standard #10 mesh (1.7 mm)

Relative Percent Plus Tyler
Test Iterations
80%
Model
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (minutes)

Fig. 3. SPIÒ test grinding curve showing completion point, from (Amelunxen, 2003,
Fig. 2. Image capture from SGI mill at 54 rpm showing two breakage zones. p. 21).

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
vj ¼ ðv s sin aÞ þ 2gh ð4bÞ a large Tyler #10 mesh screen. The mass of minus 10 mesh
material produced per revolution is then used to approximate
where the time required for the subsequent grinding interval. The entire
h ¼ r½cos a þ cosð2p  bÞ ð4cÞ charge is then returned to the mill and ground for the next time
period. The sequence is repeated until the test achieves completion
Knowing the impact energy per collision, the energy per unit (Amelunxen, 2003, pp. 19–21). Fig. 3 shows the results of a typical
time (Et in joules per second) is calculated assuming each ball test.
undergoes a single cycle per mill revolution. Since there are 38
balls in the standard SGI charge, of which approximately seven
1.4. Revised test procedures
pertain to the abrasion zone and are, therefore, not used to gener-
ate impact breakage, Et is given by
The above procedures were reviewed in a previous publication
31v rpm by one of the authors (Amelunxen, 2003, pp. 19–21, 55–57, 62–65)
Et ¼ Ei ð5Þ
60 and several recommendations were made to improve the test
(Amelunxen, 2003 p. 108). These are summarized as follows:
Table 1 shows the results of the energy calculations for various
mill speeds. Also shown is the estimated specific energy input per
 The curve of mass retained on Tyler #10 mesh (1.7 mm) versus
tonne of ore (Es in kWh/t), calculated for an assumed SGI of 60 min.
cumulative grinding time should be mathematically modeled
The data indicate that the highest impact energy per collision
and the resulting index be interpolated or extrapolated. Several
occurs at a rotational speed of 50 rpm, but the highest energy input
alternative model forms were suggested, depending on the ore
per unit time occurs near 56 rpm. Because there is only minimal
hardness.
difference between the total energy input at 54 rpm and 56 rpm,
 The practice of performing several iterations near the end of the
the publicly reported speed of 54 rpm is likely appropriate despite
test (the three points above 120 min on the x-axis in Fig. 3) is
the fact that it is not 70% of critical. Ongoing work is aimed at test-
not necessary given that the curve can be modeled and the
ing different ores with different speeds to validate this conclusion.
end result interpolated or extrapolated.
 The test should be conducted for constant grinding time inter-
1.3. Original test procedures
vals, as this facilitates the mathematical or geostatistical han-
dling of the data (it generates additive parameters, rather
The original procedures for the test consist of stage crushing the
than a non-additive index values).
sample to two control points—100% minus 3=4 in. and 80% passing
½ in. (Verret et al., 2011). The sample is screened and then placed
These recommendations have been adopted in the present
in the mill with the ball charge. The test is a dry batch grinding test
work. The times selected for the fixed grinding periods are 15,
in which the mill is rotated and the sample ground until it reaches
30, 60 and 120 min (cumulative). Beyond 120 min, the slope of
80% passing Tyler #10 mesh, or 1.7 mm (Starkey et al., 1994). Be-
the curve starts to approach zero. As a result, for ores with SGI val-
cause the time required to achieve 80% passing 1.7 mm is not
ues over approximately 150 min, relatively small errors in the feed
known before starting the test, an initial grinding time is selected,
size or competency can lead to very large differences in the result-
the sample is ground then removed from the mill and screened on
ing SGI—in other words, the test begins to break down. This is
Table 1 mostly likely a result of the fact that the impact energies required
SGI mill energy vs. rotational speed. to fracture the coarsest particles in the feed are higher than those
attainable with such a small mill.
Speed (rpm) Release Toe angle (°) Ei (j/ball) Et (j/s) Es (kWh/t)
angle (°) This problem has been mitigated, in part, by introducing a small
change to the feed preparation procedures. The new procedures
48 28 137 0.35 8.84 4.42
50 21 133 0.36 9.30 4.65
require the feed to be prepared to a controlled size distribution.
52 20 128 0.35 9.45 4.72 The new size distribution was selected to reflect the average
54 13 126 0.35 9.95 4.97 size distribution from the authors’ database of SGI tests conducted
56 10 120 0.34 9.98 4.99 for commercial projects before the new procedures were
58 2 105 0.30 9.12 4.56
implemented. It is shown in Table 2.
60 0 90 0.26 7.98 3.99
The proposed standard test procedures are appended.
 Author's personal copy

P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51 45

1.5. Revised test interpretation Table 3

Cost estimate for short and standard SGI tests.

Several equation forms were investigated for modeling the SGI Calculation Short SGI Standard SGI Units
test, including those described previously by Amelunxen (2003, p. test test
55). It was found that the best performance is given by a variant of Tests per hour 3 1 tests/h
the SwebrecÒ equation (Ouchterlony, 2005) often used for model- Hours per shift 8 8 h
ing cumulative size distributions. The form of the equation is No. of technicians 4 4 techs
Productivity factor 1 1
f ðxÞ Cost of labor, gross $60 $60 $/h
PðtÞ ¼ ð6Þ tech.
1 þ f ðxÞ Cost per test, labor $80 $240 $/test
where P(t) is the percent retained on a Tyler #10 mesh screen at a Overheads and other costs
grinding time of t (minutes) and Administration (20%) $16 $48 $/test
  Engineering and supervision $12 $36 $/test
lnð0:25Þ (15%)
lnðm20 Þ
Quality assurance and control $8 $24 $/test
f ðxÞ ¼ mx ; ð7aÞ
(10%)
  Financing and depreciation (7%) $6 $17 $/test
t0 Maintenance (6%) $5 $14 $/test
ln tx
mx ¼   ð7bÞ Operating supplies (5%) $4 $12 $/test
t0 Contingency (5%) $4 $12 $/test
ln t50
Profit (20%) $16 $48 $/test

and Total overheads $70 $211 $/test

  Total cost per test $150 $451 $/test
t0
ln t
m20 ¼  20  ð7cÞ
t0
ln t 50 determination of almost 0.98 (Fig. 4). This is equivalent to approx-
imately 0.16 kWh/t at one sigma level of confidence—i.e. a stan-
where tx is the indeterminate time and t0, t20, and t50 are fitted
dard error of only 2% for the data set used in this study.
parameters that represent the cumulative grinding times at which
Notwithstanding the marginally lower precision, the modified
P(t) is equal to 0%, 20%, and 50%, respectively. Hence, by definition
test procedures have a superior value proposition. For example
the SGI is equal to t20.
(see Table 4), with a hypothetical budget of US$25,000, one could
elect to perform either 56 standard tests or 167 modified tests.
2. Lower cost, lower precision test procedures The modified tests would yield mean mill power requirements or
mean throughput estimates that have approximately half the
Analysis of a data set of approximately 150 tests conducted test-related error of those derived from the standard tests. In addi-
using the SGI mill indicate that it is possible to produce a lower tion to the cost benefits, the modified test delivers an index value
cost, lower precision version of the SGI test by performing a single (the mass retained after 60 min) that is naturally additive and
grinding iteration with the standard feed charge for a constant therefore is more conducive to geostatistical handling (for a discus-
time interval of 60 min. The resulting product is then screened sion on the mathematical additivity of the SGI, see Amelunxen,
on a Tyler #10 mesh screen (1.7 mm) and an empirical equation 2003, pp. 54–65).
is used to determine the SGI from the screen analysis results. The
new test only requires a single grinding iteration of 60 min, so
one technician can operate three or maybe four individual SGI
mills in parallel. This allows for a team of four technicians to pro-
duce approximately three tests per hour, or 24 tests in an eight
hour shift (two technicians for sample preparation, one to operate
the SGI mills and sieve shakers, and one for miscellaneous tasks
including sample logging, data logging, quality control, and clean-
up). We can estimate the unit sales cost under such a scenario by
assuming a gross labor cost of US$60/h and generous allowances
for fixed overheads and other costs. The estimates, shown in
Table 3, yield a unit price of US$150 per test, compared to approx-
imately US$450 for the standard test procedures detailed above.
Because anybody can build and operate the test equipment, no
additional fees are assumed.
By adopting the short test procedures, only minor loss of fidelity
is incurred, as the empirical correlation shows a coefficient of Fig. 4. Comparison of modified (short) SGI test and standard SGI test.

Table 2 Table 4
Standard SGI feed size distribution. Error estimates for a hypothetical characterization program, showing superior results
from the modified test.
Tyler screen Opening (lm) Mass (g)
Test type: Modified Standard
3/400 19,050 0
1/200 12,700 400 Budget available $25,000 $25,000
3/800 9525 400 Cost $150 $450
4-Jan 6350 400 No. of tests 167 56
#6 3350 400 Assumed mean kWh/t (metric) 7.33 7.33
#10 1700 150 Standard error of mean kWh/t (metric) 0.012 0.021
pan 0 250 Relative standard error of mean 0.16% 0.28%
 Author's personal copy

46 P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51

3. SAG mill specific energy calibration The equation, shown in the form given by Dobby et al., (2001), is
 0:55
kWh SGI
3.1. Closed circuit without pebble crushing SAG ¼ 5:9 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð9Þ
t T 80
The original calibration equation was developed during the The calibration equation shown above is the primary calibration
mid-1990s under sponsorship by the Mining Industry Technology equation and is only valid for the reference circuit consisting of a
Council of Canada (MITEC) and the results were published in the SAG mill operating in closed circuit without pebble crushing and
proceedings of the SAG ‘96 conference held in Vancouver, Canada. with nominal 6 in. SAG mill feed (Kosick and Bennett, 1999). For
The relevant equation expressed the mill power draw per unit mills operating with finer feed and/or in-circuit pebble crushing,
throughput as a function of the SPI™ and T80, as follows (Starkey an adjustment factor is used to account for the reduced SAG mill
and Dobby, 1996): specific energy (Dobby et al., 2001). The adjustment factor, termed
fSAG, is then used as follows (Dobby et al., 2001):
kWh 2:2 þ 0:1SPI
SAG ¼ ð8Þ  0:55
t T 0:33 kWh SGI
80 SAG ¼ 5:9 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi fSAG ð10Þ
t T 80
where the T80 is the 80% passing size of the SAG screen undersize. In
1999 additional data points were published, then totaling 13 differ-
ent plants (Kosick and Bennett, 1999) together with a new, nonlin- 3.2. Fine feed and pebble crushing
ear, calibration equation. In that publication, however, the value
scale of the abscissa was not shown (Fig. 5a). Nevertheless, by Fig. 6, after Amelunxen (2003, p. 24), shows the calibration scat-
assuming that the four valid concentrators from the 1996 publica- terplots for grinding mills operating with fine feed (left) and with
tion (Starkey and Dobby, 1996) are also included in the 1999 graph in-circuit pebble crushers (right). The graphs indicate that the val-
(why would they not be?), the value scale can be back-calculated by ues of fSAG are:
superposing the 1996 points on the 1999 plot and fitting the value
of n to give the best match. The results (Fig. 5b) yield the scale off  With fine feed, fSAG = 0.9.
the abscissa, which can then be used to derive the values of the  With pebble crushing, fSAG = 0.85.
remaining points and the constants of the new nonlinear calibration
equation. Presumably, fSAG values are additive for optimized circuits. SAG
mills operating in closed circuit with both finer feed and in-circuit
pebblecrushing would, therefore, show fSAG values approximately
22 equal to product of the fine feed and pebble crushing correction
y = 5.9x0.55 factors, i.e. approximately 0.77. Audit data from such a circuit
20
18 (Candelaria) is available (Amelunxen et al., 2011) and corroborates
16
this notion (Fig. 7).
14
Plant kWh/t

3.3. Open circuit SAG milling

12

10
More recently, data from Los Bronces’ SAG mill circuit has be-
8
come available (Becerra and Amelunxen, 2012), in which the SAG
6 mill was operating in both SABC-B configuration, where the
4 crushed pebbles report to the ball mill feed chute, and SABC-AB
2 configuration, in which the pebble crusher product is split between
0 both SAG and ball mill sections. In this configuration, the apparent
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 transfer size is calculated as the weighted average of the SAG
SPI * T80-0.5 classifier undersize and the pebble crusher product. The data are
shown in Fig. 8. Some interesting observations can be made:
Fig. 5. SPIÒ Calibration equation, left (Kosick and Bennett, 1999), with superposi-
tion of 1996 data points shown by blue squares (right). (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of  The mill ‘‘efficiency’’ (if fSAG can be taken as a measure of effi-
this article.) ciency) was very similar to that of the Candelaria mill, in spite

Fig. 6. SAG specific energy calibration plots for fine feed (left) and pebble crushing (right).
 Author's personal copy
P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51
Fig. 7. SAG specific energy calibration plot for both fine feed and pebble crushing,
after (Amelunxen et al., 2011).
Fig. 8. Los Bronces data set showing open circuit and partially open circuit SAG
milling.
of operating in open circuit or semi-open circuit configuration.
 Counterintuitively, the mill efficiency was higher (lower fSAG)
during the three surveys in which some of the crushed pebbles
were returned to the ball mill.
 As expected, the apparent transfer size of the SABC-AB configu-
ration was finer than that of the SABC-B configuration, reflect-
ing the reduced flow of coarse pebble crusher product to the
ball mills. This observation may partly explain the lower fSAG
values for the SABC-B configuration. Because these particles
tend to have sharper, less rounded edges than their same-sized
counterparts in the SAG mill discharge, they may lead to greater
production of fines or finished product as these edges get
‘‘rounded off’’ upon their return to the SAG mill. Therefore, as
long as they are already finer than the SAG mill classifier slots
and the SAG mill throughput is limited by the size reduction
of the coarse, plus-grate size material, then passing some of
them through the SAG mill one more time before sending them
to the ball mills may not be such a bad idea.
3.4. Fully autogenous milling
The Bagdad mill consists of five autogenous grinding lines fol-
lowed by ball milling. Using the available SPI and plant survey data
(Amelunxen et al., 2011), we can compare the fSAG values from Bag-
dad to those of the other circuit configurations discussed above. It
can be seen that the Bagdad ABC-A configuration averages fSAG val-
ues of approximately 0.62. This is an improvement over that of the
SABC-B and SABC-AB configuration of Los Bronces discussed above,
47
but it should be noted that this does not include the power of the
pebble crushers, and Bagdad operated with a high circulating load
(routinely above 50%), as can be seen from the appended data set.
Fig. 9 shows the Bagdad calibration data relative to the previously
discussed points.
While the relationship between predicted and actual specific
energy is weaker with the Bagdad data (this is likely a result of dif-
ferences in pebble crusher loads), the average fSAG value of 0.62 can
nevertheless be used as a guide for those considering fully autoge-
nous grinding circuits.
3.5. Discussion of error
At this point, it should be noted that there is some scatter in
Fig. 9. This is expected due to the difficulties of obtaining represen-
tative samples and mass balance estimates for large grinding cir-
cuits, particularly those involving high circulating loads and
pebble crushing. Amelunxen (2003, p. 107) estimates the standard
error of the specific energy at between 20% and 26% due to error of
the primary calibration equation and sub-models for T80 and fSAG.
Furthermore, studies performed at Chino Mines and elsewhere
indicate that normal drill-hole collar intervals may be outside the
range of typical SGI variograms (Amelunxen, 2001; Amelunxen,
2003, p. 107), and therefore, error reduction due to geostatistical
correlation may not be significant (at least not in the horizontal
directions). As such, the central limit theorem provides a reason-
able basis for estimating error for different forecast periods; i.e.
r
S ¼ pffiffiffi ð11Þ
n
where S is the standard error of the mean throughput estimate for a
given production period, r is the standard error of the throughput
estimate for a point hardness sample (including calibration errors),
and n is the number of samples that represent the ore in that pro-
duction period.
Note that when modeling for design purposes, one must also
consider the error inherent in the estimated mill power draws;
Morrell (1993) estimates this at 5.4% for one sigma.
For a complete analysis and discussion of the error, including
the error as it relates to the forecasting time period, refer to Amel-
unxen (2003, pp. 66–104).
3.6. Estimating the transfer size
One of the limitations of the scale-up methodology described
above is that the transfer size must be known in order to estimate
the specific energy required for a given SAG mill circuit. One can
either select a transfer size, and then determine the mill power re-
Fig. 9. Bagdad survey data.
 Author's personal copy

48 P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51

quired to achieve it (given a throughput target), or one can select
the installed power and tonnage and then use the resulting trans-
fer size to size the ball mills (presumably on the basis that the mill
operators would then select the grates, pebble ports, crushing con-
figuration, and classifier opening such that the calculated transfer
size can actually be achieved in practice).
The transfer size conundrum results from fact that in practice
the transfer size is not exogenous—it is itself a function of the mill
throughput and ore hardness (for a fixed system). Over long time
periods it may be reasonable to assume that the grates, pebble
ports, and other system parameters will be optimized to achieve
the desired mean transfer size, but for simulations targeting spe-
cific process configurations or shorter timeframes (such as those
performed on point samples representing ore reserve blocks or
‘‘snapshot’’ process audits), the energy based scale-up methodol-
ogy described above should be used in conjunction with either
phenomenological or semi-empirical models that incorporate
breakage and selection functions in some form or another. For this
purpose the authors favor an energy-based phenomenological
breakage model that will be presented as part of a future
publication.
4. Conclusions
This paper has provided a comprehensive review of the publicly
available information related to the Starkey test and calibration
methodology. It has also provided an analysis of test data gener-
ated using the SGI test mill constructed by the authors as shown
in the appended schematics. A case has been made for making
the following changes to the terminology, procedures, and scale-
up methods of the test:
 The terms ‘‘Starkey mill,’’ ‘‘Starkey test,’’ and ‘‘Starkey index’’ are
obsolete, confusing, and should be dropped from the lexicon.
The authors have proposed the terms ‘‘SAG grindability index’’
or ‘‘SGI’’ mill and test.
 To reduce error, the feed size distribution for the test should
be fixed for the coarse fractions above the Tyler #10 mesh
screen.
 The test should be conducted for fixed grinding time intervals of
15, 30, 60, and 120 min, after which the test is completed.
 The grinding curve should be modeled using a variant of the
Swebrec™ equation and the SGI extrapolated or interpolated
from the fitted equation.
 A shorter, lower cost/lower precision version of the test has
been recommended for large geometallurgical projects that
require very large datasets and can tolerate relatively minor
reductions in test fidelity.
An updated calibration equation has been provided, together
with calibration factors for finer feed, pebble crushing, and fully
autogenous milling. The appendices contain detailed drawings of
the laboratory mill, a summary of published calibration data, and
the test procedures for the standard and short versions of the SGI
test. The authors suggest that these should constitute a freely
available, open standard SGI test.

Appendix A. Previously published calibration data

See Figs. A1.a, A1.b, A2.a and A2.b.

No Source Plant Circuit Feed SPI TPH Pebble Power Prod S.E. SPI S.E. Plant Fsag
size F80 dry circ load size T80 shell shell
name (in) (min) (t/hr) (%) (kW) (lm) (kWh/t) (kWh/t)
1 18 Bagdad ABC-A 5.6 100 624 58 4501 1857 8.62 7.22 0.84
2 18 Bagdad ABC-A 5.5 91 854 57 3974 4725 6.89 4.65 0.67
3 18 Bagdad ABC-A 3.8 92 844 56 4474 4843 6.89 5.30 0.77
4 18 Bagdad ABC-A 3.2 120 655 59 4477 7914 6.97 6.83 0.98
5 18 Bagdad ABC-A 4.3 118 647 55 4490 6678 7.21 6.93 0.96
6 18 Bagdad ABC-A 3.1 120 721 66 4116 1523 10.96 5.71 0.52
7 18 Bagdad ABC-A 2.7 82 696 75 4158 2173 8.04 5.97 0.74
8 18 Bagdad ABC-A 6.5 149 691 89 4434 2971 10.24 6.42 0.63
9 18 Bagdad ABC-A 4.8 101 663 42 4322 1096 10.91 6.51 0.60
10 18 Bagdad ABC-A 3.5 140 640 89 3810 990 13.41 5.95 0.44
11 18 Bagdad ABC-A 4.2 114 642 75 3915 1748 10.23 6.10 0.60
12 18 Bagdad ABC-A 4.6 118 696 78 4274 3685 8.49 6.14 0.72
13 18 Bagdad ABC-A 7.8 112 521 61 4452 963 11.92 8.54 0.72
14 18 Bagdad ABC-A 5.1 92 670 62 4382 1685 9.17 6.54 0.71
15 18 Bagdad ABC-A 6.0 121 591 33 4366 619 14.05 7.39 0.53
16 18 Bagdad ABC-A 7.7 104 670 61 4341 1092 11.08 6.47 0.58
17 18 Bagdad ABC-A 3.6 132 554 72 4300 1105 12.61 7.77 0.62
18 18 Bagdad ABC-A 5.1 127 589 38 4409 756 13.70 7.48 0.55
19 18 Bagdad ABC-A 3.1 112 498 53 4453 386 15.38 8.94 0.58
20 18 Bagdad ABC-A 3.0 88 599 77 4114 764 11.13 6.87 0.62
21 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.8 87 1360 26 9982 1573 9.09 7.34 0.81
22 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.7 119 1090 25 10907 786 13.07 10.01 0.77
23 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.6 93 1457 26 10436 1888 8.97 7.16 0.80
24 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.7 104 1282 21 10566 1764 9.71 8.24 0.85
 Author's personal copy

P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51 49

Appendix A (continued)
No Source Plant Circuit Feed SPI TPH Pebble Power Prod S.E. SPI S.E. Plant Fsag
size F80 dry circ load size T80 shell shell
name (in) (min) (t/hr) (%) (kW) (lm) (kWh/t) (kWh/t)
25 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.6 132 1500 26 10505 2899 9.66 7.00 0.72
26 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.4 89 1596 19 10421 3689 7.26 6.53 0.90
27 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.4 110 1358 23 10620 1905 9.81 7.82 0.80
28 18 Candelaria SABC-B 4.0 131 1964 21 9978 2242 10.33
29 18 Candelaria SABC-B 4.1 151 1297 21 10602 2178 11.25 8.18 0.73
30 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.3 116 1693 27 10317 3171 8.78 6.09 0.69
31 18 Candelaria SABC-B 4.0 124 1693 25 10568 3311 9.00 6.24 0.69
32 18 Candelaria SABC-B 3.9 171 1151 27 10734 2674 11.39 9.33 0.82
33 18 Candelaria SABC-B 2.9 176 1072 36 10852 2100 12.37 10.12 0.82
34 19 L. Bronces SABC-B 1.8 80.8 2488 11211 5200 6.28 4.51 0.78
35 19 L. Bronces SABC-AB 2.1 72.4 3173 10755 3950 6.38 3.39 0.58
36 19 L. Bronces SABC-AB 1.2 67.4 2970 10716 3300 6.44 3.61 0.61
37 19 L. Bronces SABC-AB 1.7 75.9 2922 11327 2800 7.19 3.88 0.58
38 19 L. Bronces SABC-B 2.2 90.1 2656 13882 5750 6.49 5.23 0.87
39 19 L. Bronces SABC-B 3.1 63.0 2344 13059 4200 5.81 5.57 1.04
40 19 L. Bronces SABC-B 4.0 68.4 2553 12945 5250 5.72 5.07 0.96
41 19 L. Bronces SABC-B 3.5 73.4 2511 12932 3300 6.75 5.15 0.83
42 19 L. Bronces SABC-B 2.8 74.4 2563 12847 5300 5.97 5.01 0.91
43 3 HVC SABC-A 32.0 1659 6380 2570 4.21 3.54 0.84
44 3 HVC SABC-A 43.0 1252 6786 1925 5.37 4.99 0.93
45 3 HVC SABC-A 60.0 919 6722 1880 6.49 6.73 1.04
46 3 Selbaie SABC-A 42.0 297 2555 323 8.66 7.91 0.91
47 3 Selbaie SABC-A 54.0 306 3024 337 9.83 9.09 0.93
48 3 Selbaie SABC-A 53.0 268 3200 308 9.97 10.99 1.10
49 3 Q-Cartier SABC-A 8.0 1018 3655 515 3.06 3.30 1.08
50 3 Q-Cartier SABC-A 9.0 1164 4514 480 3.33 3.57 1.07
51 3 Q-Cartier SABC-A 12.0 1045 5005 460 3.94 4.41 1.12
52 16 unknown 18.4 18.4 1.00
53 16 unknown 14.5 14.3 0.98
54 16 unknown 14.4 14.1 0.98
55 16 unknown 11.3 11.0 0.98
56 16 unknown 9.9 9.2 0.93
57 16 unknown 8.8 7.8 0.89
58 16 unknown 6.3 6.8 1.09
59 16 unknown 4.5 3.7 0.82

Fig. A1.a. Detail SGI mill shell. Fig. A1.b. SGI mill shell Section A.
 Author's personal copy

50 P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51

Screen lm Mass (g)

3/400 19,050 0
1/200 12,700 400
3/800 9525 400
1/400 6350 400
#6 3350 400
#10 1700 150
pan 0 250

1. Place the 5 kg ball charge and 2 kg mass charge in the SGI mill
and grind it for 15, 30, 60, and 120 min, measuring the size
distribution after each cycle (with the same screens as shown
above).
2. Using least squares methods, fit Eqs. 6, 7a, 7b, and 7c to the
curve of% retained on a Tyler #10 mesh screen versus time,
and using the resulting equation to calculate the time required
to reach 80% passing Tyler #10 mesh (note that only the Tyler
#10 mesh screen is required after each cycle; the entire stack
Fig. A2.b. Detail lid rubber liner.
is included in these procedures just to avoid blinding and to col-
lect additional information in the event that it is required in the
future).

Appendix D. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in

the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013.
08.012.

References

Fig. A2.a. Detail SGI mill.
Appendix B. SGI mill drawings
The following construction drawings depict the SAG grindabili-
ty test mill constructed to perform the research described in this
paper. The drawings were reconstructed from the publicly avail-
able sources as described in the body of this manuscript.
Appendix C. SGI test procedures
Standard SGI test procedures:
1. Using a laboratory jaw crusher, stage crush the sample to
approximately 100% minus 3=4 in. and approximately 80% minus
½ in.
2. Screen the material on the following screens, and create a con-
trolled SGI feed size distribution using standard laboratory
splitting equipment and procedures:
Amelunxen, P., 2003. The Application of the SAG Power Index to ore Body Hardness
Characterization for the Design and Optimization of Autogenous Grinding
circuits. Department of Mining, Metals, and Materials Engineering, McGill
University, Montreal, Canada.
Amelunxen, P., Bennett, C., Garretson, P., Mertig, H., 2001. Use of geostatistics to
generate an ore body hardness data set and to quantify the relationship
between sample spacing and the precision of the throughput predictions. In:
Barratt, D., Allan, M., Mular, A. (Eds.), International Autogenous and
Semiautogenous Grinding Technology 2001 (SAG 2001), Vancouver, Canada
Amelunxen, P., Mular, M.A., Vanderbeek, J., Hill, L., Herrera, E., 2011. The effects of
ore variability on HPGR trade-off economics. In: Major, K., Flintoff, B.C., Klein,
B., McLeod, K (Eds.), International Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding
and High Pressure Grinding Roll Technology 2011 (SAG 2011). Vancouver,
Canada.
Aminpro Chile SpA, 2013. <http://www.aminpro.cl> (accessed 28.02.13).
Asmin Industrial, 2013. <http://www.asmin.cl> (accessed 27.02.13).
Austin, L.G., Concha, F., 1994. Diseño y Simulación de Circuitos de Molienda y
Clasificación. Santiago, Chile.
Baeza, R., Domingo, 2000. Caracterización del Consumo Específico de Energía para
Molienda SAG en Molino de Laboratorio Starkey (PowerPoint Presentation).
Codelco Division El Teniente, Chile.
Baeza, D., Villanueva, B., 1994. Método Simplificado a Escala Laboratorio para la
Determinación Del Consumo Especifico De Energía SAG. Procemin, Santiago,
Chile.
Becerra, M., Amelunxen, P., 2012. A comparative analysis of grinding circuit design
methodologies. In: 9th International Mineral Process Conference (PROCEMIN),
Santiago, Chile.
Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), 2012. Trademark registration number
TMA567312, <http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca> (accessed 06.01.12).
Dobby, G, Bennett, C., Kosick, G., 2001. Advances in SAG circuit design and
simulation applied to the mine block model. In: Barratt, D., Allan, M., Mular, A.
(Eds.), International Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding Technology
2001 (SAG 2001), Vancouver, Canada.
Gonzalez, E.A., 2000. Sensibilidad de Parámetros de Molienda SAG en Ensayo de
Laboratorio Starkey. Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Faculty of Engineering,
Department of Metallurgical Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
Kosick, G., Bennett, C., 1999. The value of ore body power requirement profiles for
SAG circuit design. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Canadian Mineral
Processors Conference (CMP 1999), Ottawa, Canada.
Morrell, S., 1993. The Prediction of Power Draw in Wet Tumbling Mills, Ph. D Thesis,
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Center, Department of Mining and
Metallurgical Engineering, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia,
pp. 150.
Napier-Munn, T.J., 1996. Mineral Comminution Circuits: Operation and
Optimisation. JKMRC, Brisbane, Australia.
 Author's personal copy
P. Amelunxen et al. / Minerals Engineering 55 (2014) 42–51
Ouchterlony, F., 2005. The Swebrec Function: Linking Fragmentation by Blasting
and Crushing, Mining Technology, Transactions of the Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy of Australasia, 114.
Starkey, J., Dobby, G., 1996. Application of the minnovex SAG power index at five
Canadian SAG plants. In: Mular, A., Barratt, D., Knight, D. (Eds.), International
Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding Technology 1996 (SAG 1996),
Vancouver, Canada.
Starkey, J, Dobby, G., Kosick, G., 1994. A new tool for hardness testing. In:
Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors
(CMP 1994), Ottawa, Canada.
51
Starkey, J, Hindstrom, S., Nadasdy, G., 2006. SAGDesign testing – what it is and why
it works. In: Allan, M., Major, K., Flintoff, B.C., Klein, B., Mular, A. (Eds.),
International Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding Technology 2006 (SAG
2006), Vancouver, Canada.
Starkey, J., 2013. Private communication.
Verret, F.O., Chiasson, G., McKen, A. 2011. SAG mill testing – an overview of the test
procedures available to characterize ore grindability. In: Major, K., Flintoff, B.C.,
Klein, B., McLeod, K. (Eds.), International Autogenous and Semiautogenous
Grinding and High Pressure Grinding Roll Technology 2011 (SAG 2011),
Vancouver, Canada.