Abstract
The t10 relationship developed by Narayanan and Whiten has underpinned a number of the JKMRC models and the characterisation of ore competence through impact testing with the drop weight tester. This usefulness is based on a consistent relationship between the t10 value and the overall size distribution that was noted for brittle rocks. However, like all characterisation tests this should be used only when the controlling conditions apply, which in this case is single impact breakage between two metal platens and within the range of sizes in which fragment sizes are normalizable. For any other mode of breakage the relationship should be confirmed before being applied. Soft ores or bimodal ores with widely different competence between dominant components have non-typical breakage signatures. Breakage via single point impact abrasion, compressed-bed breakage, low-energy surface breakage and incremental breakage, to name some of the other breakage modes, do not obey the general t10 relationship, so their outcomes cannot be used to provide a direct comparison. Inappropriate use of the t10 parameter can result in misleading conclusions about efficiency of energy use. These issues and alternative comparison techniques are presented and discussed in terms of choosing appropriate measures of efficiency of breakage, ore competence and energy required for comminution.