Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng
MiMeR Minerals and Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Lule University of Technology, 971 87 Lule, Sweden
LKAB, Research & Development, 983 81 Malmberget, Sweden
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 December 2014
Revised 26 March 2015
Accepted 4 April 2015
Available online 5 May 2015
Keywords:
Geometallurgical framework
Iron ore
Mineral textures
Particle tracking
Textural archetypes
a b s t r a c t
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 efcacy (recovery).
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Geometallurgy embraces geological and metallurgical information to create spatially-based predictive models (3D) of ore bodies
that supply all relevant information for mineral processes
(Lamberg, 2011). The industrial application of geometallurgy is a
structured effort to bridge all the relevant knowledge of the
resource for production planning and management, also called
geometallurgical program.
Geometallurgical programs are needed for better resource management and to lower the risk in the process operation related to
geological variations within the ore body. It is a vital part of the
protability of the operation. The mine needs to have the capability to adjust the concentration process and the product qualities to
meet the requirements of a changeable global market e.g. by a
more effective utilisation of the ore resources or the ability to handle larger volumes of lower grade ore. Today there exist different
kinds of geometallurgical models depending on the ore, its quality
and the mineral processing circuit (e.g., Alruiz et al., 2009; Suazo
et al., 2010; Hunt et al., 2012).
Most of the geometallurgical programs are established by using
certain steps and rely on metallurgical and geometallurgical testing (Dobby et al., 2004; Bulled and McInnes, 2005; David, 2007;
Lamberg, 2011). Commonly a series of representative ore samples
is collected and are then tested to measure the metallurgical
response directly with a standard methodology (e.g. standard otation test). There are fundamental reliance on the representativeness of the samples and tests since they link the ore with the
metallurgical response. As the sample set should include all variability in the ore this is often called a variability test. Based on
the test results, a mathematical model is created to explain the
metallurgical response based on the sample characteristics.
Iron mines are big volume operations and the production is driven by throughput. Most iron ore companies produce high volumes
of iron ore products with a Fe grade between 62% and 64%.
Examples of such production are direct shipping of hematite ores
in Australia and Brazil (Poveromo, 1999). The Swedish iron ore producer, LKAB, represents another type of production strategy. They
produce custom high grade iron ore pellets (>67% Fe) and nes for
blast furnaces and direct reduction (LKAB, 2011). A good
62
Fig. 1. The particle-based geometallurgical concept modied from Lamberg (2011). Modal mineralogy and texture links the geological model and process model. In the
process model minerals are treated as particles. From the geological information the particle population is generated through the particle breakage model.
63
Table 1
A classication scheme outlined for the massive and semi-massive ore from the Malmberget deposit based on the mineralogical and
textural relation.
64
3. Description of textures
Textures are critical mineralogical characteristics in governing
ore behaviour in mineral processes. This is commonly accepted
and has been widely known for decades (e.g. Butcher, 2010). But
the question remain how to describe textures and how to use the
textural information e.g. in geometallurgy (e.g. Bonnici, 2008).
The geological denition for textures is: The relative size, shape,
and spatial interrelationship between grains and internal features
of grains in a rock (e.g. Spry, 1969; Fettes and Desmons, 2007).
Texture, refers thus to a general description on the small scale
physical properties. These attributes are usually described in qualitative terms, e.g. pegmatitic texture, ned grained granoblastic
texture. Such descriptive information, such this is insufcient in
geometallurgy as it only gives possibilities to use the texture information for classication of different ore types. In geometallurgy
this may lead to a great number of domains and for each of them
separate sample sets need to be collected for geometallurgical/
metallurgical testing. If, on the other hand, texture could be
described numerically, and even with additive parameters, this
information could be processed with geostatistical methods and
be used in ways similar to those for metal grades that are currently
used in resource estimation (Glacken and Snowden, 2001).
65
Table 2
The iron ore is classied into several classes and subtypes until unique categories of the mineralogical information is
distinguished to be used in a geological model. The Fsp GEM-type is used for detailed mineral texture analysis.
Melanocrac parts
Leucocrac parts
Fig. 2. Magnetite grain size magnetite grade (Fe) shows a positive correlation in
the Fsp GEM-type of Fabian ore. Fine grained and coarse grained form a bimodal
system with two end members. The absence of texture type 7 is identied for
Printzskld ore body.
them is that in the coarse grained variant the magnetite grains also
occur as inclusions in amphibole, whereas in the ner grained variant, the magnetite occurs along the grain boundaries. These two
textures can easily be identied during drill core logging due to
the signicant difference in amphibole grain size (Table 4). The
Ap-(Amph) type is texturally uniform and is marked by equally
sized apatite and magnetite that are closely associated to form in
a granoblastic or porphyroblastic texture (Table 4).
The classication visualise that the combinations of the different mineral textures are unique for almost each GEM-type, but
they do have in common that each of them has both a ne and a
coarse grained variant (Table 1).
The textural study shows that when the mineral textures are
considered the modal GEM-types divide into numerous types, and
the closer one looks the more complicated and numerous the
classes become (Table 1). In a geometallurgical context the use of
classes is problematic since the treating of non-numeric data in
block modelling is challenging. Therefore, to change the geological
model from descriptive to practical mineral textures must be changed from qualitative to quantitative. Therefore, the mineral textures are now considered from the mineral processing viewpoint.
In mineral processing, ore is comminuted to liberate ore from
gangue minerals and to make the particle size suitable for downstream processes. Comminution is an energy intensive stage, and
therefore a good balance is needed between mineral liberation
and throughput. Full liberation is not a feasible target since besides
high energy required the separation efciency of downstream processes tends to decrease towards very ne particle sizes (<20 lm)
(Vizcarra et al., 2010; Mwanga, 2014). Therefore, after the comminution stage the targeted degree of liberation for the ore minerals is typically 9095% and different kinds of composite particles
are present. The term liberation distribution is used here to summarise the information on mineral deportment and thus, it
describes the distribution of particles by their composition (cf. particle size distribution).
66
Table 3
Eight representative and different mineral textures identied from Fsp GEM-type of Fabian and Printzskld ore bodies.
67
Table 4
Different ore textures that are identied and dened in massive and semi-massive ore from Fabian and Printzskld ore bodies.
68
Table 4 (Continued)
from a given fresh and initial size down to a dened product size by
grinding. Similarly, the term crushability is used for crushing.
Comminution circuits are designed and operated to provide a
targeted product size, and almost without exception this gure is
xed or changed very seldom (Alruiz et al., 2009). However, it is
common that the grain size and association of the ore minerals
vary within the ore body and therefore in plant feed on a daily
basis. A good geometallurgical model should therefore not only
forecast the metallurgical response but also give the best operational parameters, e.g. the target liberation degree and accordingly
the target grinding size for any given rock unit or plant feed
(blend).
69
(a)
(b)
Magnete liberaon degree (%)
100
Fa Fsp GEM-type
Fa Ap GEM-type
Pz Fsp GEM-type
Pz Ap GEM-type
Fa Amph GEM-type
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Bulk
38-75 um
75-150 um
Size fracon
Two samples are geometallurgical different in texture if the liberation distribution by size (compensated against modal mineralogy)
show signicantly different metallurgical result when processed
in a given circuit.
Fig. 3. (a) The magnetite grade plotted against the particle size in ve different
GEM samples from Fabian (Fa) and Printzskld (Pz). (b) The degree of liberation for
magnetite by size fraction in the ve different GEM samples.
show clearly that they have similar liberation degrees for magnetite in four size fractions, but in the coarsest size fraction 425
600 lm. The Fabian sample shows much better liberation and this
causes the bulk liberation degree to be different (Fig. 3b).
In order to compare the liberation distribution of ve different
samples, a characteristic size fraction, 150300 lm, was selected.
This size fraction was selected because the magnetite grade in
the 150300 lm size fraction is close to the bulk sample; the mass
proportion in crushed sample was high enough and the number of
particles measured gives sound statistics. In this size fraction the
degree of liberation of magnetite has a positive correlation with
the magnetite grade, but the both Fsp GEM-types of Fa and Pz differs signicantly from the Amph GEM-type and Ap GEM-type. In
the Fsp GEM-types the magnetite liberation is better than the
grade would suggest (Fig. 4a).
The comparison of mineral association for non-liberated particles is challenging. If just comparing the mass proportion of magnetite with, for example, albite the value is affected by the
magnetite liberation and the albite grade. If the liberation degree
is high, the association of magnetite with albite must be low, and
similarly if the albite grade is low the mass proportion of the binary magnetite-albite grains will also be low. Therefore, a new
Association Index (AI) was developed. It aims to describe how
common it is to nd the target mineral associated with the other
minerals regardless of the liberation degree and the modal composition. The association index for each mineral pair is calculated
using the following formula:
AIAB
Association of mineral A with mineral B when fully liberated grains are excludedwt%
Mineral B grade in a fraction excluding mineral Awt%
70
(a)
4
3.5
(b)
Fa Fsp GEM-type
Pz Fsp GEM-type
Fa Amph GEM-type
Fa Ap GEM-type
Pz Ap GEM-type
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
AI (Mgt-Fsp)
AI (Mgt-Bt)
AI (Mgt-Amph)
AI (Mgt-Ap)
(c)
Fig. 4. (a) The degree of liberation for magnetite versus the magnetite grade of
three different GEM-type textures (Fsp, Amph and Ap) representing the size
fraction, 150300 lm. (b) The association index (AI) for magnetite in size fraction
150300 lm in the same GEM-type texture. (c) The association index of magnetite
in sample by size from Fa Fsp GEM-type fractions.
71
Table 5
Hypothetical calculation examples for the association index. For the calculation modal [(1)(3)] and deportment [(4)(7)], the
analysis result is needed.
the modal composition calculated by the element to mineral conversion. Therefore, the liberation data of ve GEM-type samples
was classied in such a way (e.g. basic binning) as to produce an
identical particle population in each sample. After this, the liberation distribution of each sample was forecasted using the textural
information from another sample. For this an algorithm given in
the textbox below was used (Lamberg and Lund, 2012). For example, to forecast the liberation distribution of sample A compared to
sample B (called archetype), the liberation spectrum of the archetype (sample B) was taken, and it was rened by using the modal
composition of sample A.
Mifraction
pjfraction xip
72
100
Mgt=80
90
Mgt=70
Liberaon (%)
80
Mgt=60
70
Mgt=50
60
Mgt=40
50
Mgt=30
40
30
20
10
0
Fig. 5. The average error showing the magnetite deportment in the samples.
(a) 60
Mag-Fsp binaries
Fsp=90
Fsp=75
50
Fsp=50
Fsp=25
40
Fsp=10
30
20
10
0
(b) 60
Mag-(Amph-Px) binaries
Fsp=90
Fsp=75
50
Fsp=50
Fsp=25
40
Fsp=10
30
20
10
0
73
Fig. 8. The processed mineral grade and recoveries in a Mrtsell dry magnetic separation (cobbing) test from for the Fsp GEM-type of the Fabian ore type.
74
Mgt
90
90
Ab
80
Bt
70
Amph
Ap
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0-38 um
80
38-75 um
70
75-150 um
60
150-300 um
50
300-425 um
40
425-600 um
30
20
10
0
10
100
1000
10000
(b)100
100
Mineral
Ab
Amp
Ap
Bt
Mgt
80
Mineral Recovery %
Recovery, %
(a) 100
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Table 7
QEMSCAN pictures of typical particles from the magnetic concentrate and tail, Fabian Fsp GEM-type samples. Brown is
magnetite, orange is feldspar.
75
Table 8
A model for the dry magnetic separation. Split values for minerals by size when occurring fully liberated.
Table 9
The observed grades and recoveries in the magnetic concentrate in the cobbing test. The results are the sum of the size fractions
from 38 to 600 size fractions. Diff: Difference (Sim-Meas), R.Diff: relative difference = 100 (Sim-Meas)/Meas.
76
Farrell, J., Miller, A., Gaze, R., 2011. Geometallurgical Sampling and Resource
Estimation for Magnetite Deposits: First AusIMM International Geometallurgy
Conference (GeoMet), Brisbane, Australia, 57 September, Proceedings, pp.
311319.
Fettes, D., Desmons, J., 2007. Metamorphic Rocks A Classication and Glossary of
Terms: Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, U.K., p. 244.
Gaudin, A.M., 1939. Principles of Mineral Dressing. McGraw-Hill Companies, New
York, USA, p. 554.
Gay, S.L., 2004. A liberation model for comminution based on probability theory.
Miner. Eng. 17, 525534.
Geijer, P., 1930. Geology of the Gllivare iron ore eld: geological Survey of Sweden,
v. Ca 22, 1115.
Glacken, I.M., Snowden, D.V., 2001. Mineral resource estimation. In: Mineral
Resource and Ore Reserve Estimation The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice.
The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Australia, pp.
189198.
Gottlieb, P., Wilkie, G., Sutherland, D., Ho-Tun, E., Suthers, S., Perera, K., Jenkins, B.,
Spencer, S., Butcher, A., Rayner, J., 2000. Using quantitative electron microscopy
for process mineral applications. JOM J. Metals, 2425.
Gy, P., 1982. Sampling of Particulate Materials - Theory and Practise. Elsevier, New
York, US, p. 431.
Hunt, J., Berry, R., Bonnici, N., Walters, S., Kamenetsky, M., McMahon, C., 2009. From
Drill Core to Processing A Geometallurgical Approach to Mineralogy and
Texture From Meso- to Micro-Scale: The Tenth Biennial SGA Meeting,
Townsville, Australia, 17th20th August, Proceedings, pp. 685687.
Hunt, J., Berry, R., Bradshaw, D., 2011a. Characterising Liberation and Flotation
Potential Using Image Analysis, Simulated Fragmentation and Small-Scale
Flotation: The rst AUSIMM international geometallurgy conference, Brisbane,
Australia, 57 September, Proceedings, pp. 331333.
Hunt, J., Berry, R., Bradshaw, D., 2011b. Characterising chalcopyrite liberation
and otation potential: examples from an IOCG deposit. Miner. Eng. 24, 1271
1276.
Hunt, J., Berry, R., Bradshaw, D., Triffett, B., Walters, S., 2012. Development of
liberation/recovery domains: examples from the Prominent Hill IOCG deposit,
Australia: Process Mineralogy12, Cape Town, South Africa, 79 November,
Proceedings, pp. 116.
King, R.P., 1979. A model for the quantitative estimation of mineral liberation by
grinding. Int. J. Miner. Process. 6, 207220.
King, R.P., 2001. Modelling and Simulation of Mineral Processing System.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, Great Britain, p. 399.
King, R.P., Schneider, C.L., 1998. Mineral liberation and the batch communition
equation. Miner. Eng. 11, 11431160.
Koch, P., 2013. Textural variants of iron ore from Malmberget: characterization,
comminution and mineral liberation: Master thesis, Lule, Sweden, Sustainable
Process Engineering, Lule University of Technology, 101p.
Lamberg, P., 2011. Particles the bridge between geology and metallurgy:
conference in mineral engineering, Lule, Sweden, 89 February, Proceedings,
pp. 116.
Lamberg, P., Lund, C., 2012. Taking liberation information into a geometallurgical
model-case study, Malmberget, Northern Sweden: Process Mineralogy12, Cape
Town, South Africa, 79 November, Proceedings, pp. 113.
Lamberg, P., Vianna, S., 2007. A Technique for Tracking Multiphase Mineral Particles
in Flotation Circuits: 7th Meeting of the Southern Hemisphere on the Mineral
Technology, Ouro Preto, Brazil, Proceedings, pp. 195241.
Lamberg, P., Hautala, P., Sotka, S. and Saavalainen, S., 1997. Mineralogical balances
by dissolution methodology: Short Course on Crystal Growth in Earth Sciences,
S. Mamede de Infesta, Portugal, September 810, Proceedings, pp. 129.
LKAB, 2011. Annual Report: Lule, Sweden, Lule Graska, 122p.
Lund, C., 2013. Mineralogical, chemical and textural characterisation of the
Malmberget iron ore deposit for a geometallurgical model, Department of
Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Lule, Sweden
Doctoral thesis, p. 190.
Lund, C., Lindberg, T. and Martinsson, O., 2010. Mineralogical-textural
characterisation of different apatite-iron ore bodies, Malmberget deposit,
Sweden, treated in a sorting process in laboratory scale: Process
Mineralogy10, Cape Town, South Africa, Proceedings, pp. 19.
Lund, C., Lamberg, P., Lindberg, T., 2013. Practical way to quantify minerals from
chemical assays at Malmberget iron ore operations an important tool for the
geometallurgical program. Miner. Eng. 49, 716.
Martinsson, O., Virkkunen, R., 2004. Apatite Iron Ore in the Gllivare, Svappavaara,
and Jukkasjrvi Areas: Society of Economics Geologists. Guidebooks Series 33,
167172.
Mwanga, A., 2014. Test Methods for Characterising Ore Comminution Behaviour in
Geometallurgy: Licentiate thesis, Lule, Sweden, Division of Minerals and
Metallurgical Engineering, Lule University of Technology, 112p.
Neumann, R., Avelar, A.N., 2012. Renement of the isomorphic substitutions in
goethite and hematite by the Rietveld method, and relevance to bauxite
characterisation and processing: Process Mineralogy 12, Vineyard Hotel, Cape
Town, South Africa, 79 November, Proceedings, pp. 110.
Niiranen, K., Bhm, A., 2012. A systematic characterization of the ore body for
mineral processing at Kiirunavaara iron ore mine operated by LKAB, Northern
Sweden.: XXVI International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC), New Delhi,
India, Proceedings, p. 1039.
Ozcan, O., Benzer, H., 2013. Comparison of different breakage mechanisms in terms
of product particle size distribution and mineral liberation. Miner. Eng. 49, 103
108.
77