4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Development of a geometallurgical framework to quantify mineral textures for process prediction

Journal

MINERALS ENGINEERING
Volume 82, Issue -, Pages 61-77

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2015.04.004

Keywords

Geometallurgical framework; Iron ore; Mineral textures; Particle tracking; Textural archetypes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A geometallurgical framework was developed in three steps using the Malmberget iron ore deposit, northern Sweden, as a case study. It is based on a mineralogical-particle approach which means that the mineralogical information is the main focus. Firstly, the geological model describes quantitatively the variation in modal composition and mineral textures within the ore body. Traditional geological textural descriptions are qualitative and therefore a quantitative method that distinguishes different mineral textures that can be categorised into textural archetypes was developed. The second step of the geometallurgical framework is a particle breakage model which forecasts how ore will break in comminution and which kind of particles will be generated. A simple algorithm was developed to estimate the liberation distribution for the progenies of each textural archetype. The model enables numerical prediction of the liberation spectrum as modal mineralogy varies. The third step includes a process model describing quantitatively how particles with varying particle size and composition behave in each unit process stage. As a whole the geometallurgical framework considers the geological model in terms of modal composition and textural type. The particle breakage model forecasts the liberation distribution of the corresponding feed to the concentration process and the process model returns the metallurgical response in terms of product quality (grade) and efficacy (recovery). (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available