HOME

Building a Geometallurgical Model

in Iron Ores using a Mineralogical
Approach with Liberation Data
P Lamberg1, J Rosenkranz2, C Wanhainen3, C Lund4, F Minz5,
A Mwanga6 and M Amiri Parian7

ABSTRACT
A geometallurgical model is currently built in two different ways. The first and the most
common way relies on geometallurgical testing, where a large number of samples are analysed
for metallurgical response using small-scale laboratory tests, eg Davis tube testing. The second,
mineralogical approach focuses on collecting mineralogical information over the orebody and
building the metallurgical model based on mineralogy. At Luleå University of Technology,
Sweden, the latter method has been adopted and taken further in four ongoing PhD studies.
The geological model gives modal composition by the help of element-to-mineral conversion
and Rietveld X-ray diffraction. Texturally, the orebody is divided into different archetypes, and
liberation measurements for each of them are carried out in processing fineness using IncaMineral,
a SEM-based technique. The grindability and liberation spectrum of any given geological unit
(sample, ore block, domain) are extrapolated from the archetypes. The process model is taken
into a liberation level by mass balancing selected metallurgical tests using the particle tracking
technique. The approach is general and can be applied to any type of ores. Examples of ongoing
studies on iron and massive sulfide ores are given.

INTRODUCTION
A geometallurgical model combines geological and
metallurgical information into a spatial and predictive tool
to be used in production planning and management in the
mining industry. A geometallurgical program is an organised
way to establish such a model and usually it involves the
following steps:
•• collection of geological data
•• collection of samples for metallurgical testing
•• laboratory testing, ie ore variability testing
•• developing geometallurgical domains
•• developing a model for metallurgical parameters across
the geological database
•• developing a process model, ie metallurgical model,
which uses the metallurgical parameters of the geo model
•• plant simulation using the geo and process models
•• calibration of the models via benchmarking for existing
operations (Bulled and McInnes, 2005; David, 2007; Dobby
et al 2004).
In geometallurgical programs, the weakest points are
normally in inadequate information collected from drill cores
and the small number of samples collected for variability
testing. In laboratory tests, quite a number of small samples
should represent large tonnages of the ore. Commonly some
tens of carefully selected and prepared samples are tested
(Sammelin-Kontturi, Wanhainen and Martinsson, 2011;
Schouwstra et al, 2010; Johansson and Wanhainen, 2010;
Morrell, 2009; Philander and Rozendaal, 2008, 2010), but
there are examples where the whole program is based on
less than ten samples (David, 2007; Suazo, Kracht and Alruiz,
2010). This sets high requirements for the sample selection,
sampling and sample preparation to avoid the sampling error
rising so high that it limits the usefulness of collected data
(Gy, 1982; Pitard, 1989a and 1990b). There lies also a dilemma
in selecting and preparing metallurgical samples based on
geological information: tested samples should represent the
full variability of the ore in terms of metallurgical response
and this can be known only after the tests have been done.

1. Professor in Geometallurgy, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden. Email: pertti.lamberg@ltu.se
2. Professor in Mineral Processing, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden. jan.rosenkranz@ltu.se
3. Senior Lecturer in Ore Geology, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden. Email: christina.wanhainen@ltu.se
4. PhD student, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden. Email: cecilia.lund@ltu.se
5. PhD student, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden. Email: friederike.minz@ltu.se
6. PhD student, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden. Email: abdul.mwanga@ltu.se
7. PhD student, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden. Email: mehdi.parian@ltu.se

THE SECOND AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 30 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 2013 317
P LAMBERG et al
To ensure that samples are representative, new rock
measurement and analysis techniques are needed. The
challenge is that measurements and analyses have to be
done for a very big number of samples, from thousands to
hundreds of thousands. Techniques must be fast, inexpensive
and preferentially fully automated. This is an area of rapid
technological development and there are logging systems
available for automated lithology identification (eg optical
borehole imaging, OBI), chemical analysis directly from the
drill cores ore drilling sludge, measuring rock mechanical
properties when drilling or from drill cores (AWD analysis
while drilling; Vantandoost, Fullagar and Roach, 2008) and
semi-quantitive analysis of mineralogy with reflectance
spectroscopy (CSIRO, 2011; Haavisto and Kaartinen, 2009; Da
Costa et al, 2009; Pirard et al, 2008).
Since none of the above-mentioned methods can directly
measure metallurgical response small-scale laboratory tests
called geometallurgical tests have been developed. They are
fast, inexpensive and can be done with small sample amounts.
Examples of such for comminution characterisation are GeM
Comminution Index (GeMCi), GeM RBT Lite (GeM Rotary
Breakage Tester, Lite) and EQUOtip (portable hardness tester;
JKTech, 2010). For flotation, a test called JKMSI (JK Mineral
Separability Indicator) has been developed (Bradshaw, 2010)
and for magnetic separation a Davis tube test has been known
for a long time (Niiranen and Böhm, 2012). For leaching,
different basic and diagnostic tests are available (Lamberg et
al, 1997). The basic idea of geometallurgical tests is that it is
possible to run them for a large number of samples and the
database would be a basis for a geometallurgical model, ie
they would partly replace the variability testing.
Side-by-side with the development of new scanning,
analysis and testing technology there has been progress in
quantitative mineralogical tools. Mineralogical studies have
always formed a basis for flow sheet development and have
been included in geometallurgical programs. The problem
in the efforts of giving mineralogy a bigger role to play in
geometallurgy is that mineralogical analyses are tedious and
costly, which makes them unsuitable for mass analysis for tens
of thousands of samples. Also lack of methods to incorporate
several mineralogical parameters like mineral textures in the
geometallurgical models.
In 2010 a geometallurgical research group was established
at Luleå University of Technology. This paper summarises
the result of the groups in regard to applying a mineralogical
work approach in geometallurgy. Firstly it describes the
mineralogical approach in general and then it gives examples
from ongoing research projects from different ore types.
MINERALOGICAL APPROACH
The mineralogical approach in building a geometallurgy
model means that the full model is based on mineralogy
(Lamberg, 2011). The model is here divided into three parts.
The first part is the geological model, the second is the process
model and the third is the production model. The geological
model gives quantitative information of minerals in such a
way that other information, like elemental grades or lithology,
is not needed. The process model must be capable of taking
the information from the geological model and forecasting
the metallurgical response for any given geological unit
(sample, ore block, geometallurgical domain). The process
model must deliver at least throughput and recoveries for
the main minerals and commodities. These two models are
combined in a production model which is capable of handling
production time frame and different scenarios for mining and
318 THE SECOND AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 30 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 2013
processing of the ore. The production model returns figures
like the amount of final products in a given time, production
value and production costs.
The process model will be described first because it sets
the requirement for the geological model. In the mineralogy-
based process model, three different levels are possible. The
first level, called 1D, uses mineralogical information on an
unsized basis, ie no information on particle sizes. The model
describes quantitatively, with mathematical equations how
each mineral behaves in the process. An example of such a
model is the flotation model developed for the Collahuasi
copper deposit in northern Chile (Suazo et al 2009). As this
level doesn’t handle particle sizes, the grinding fineness of the
process is fixed.
Particle size is of paramount significance in mineral
processing. This is taken into account in the second modelling
level (2D), where the metallurgical functions are given on
minerals by size basis. For example, in a flotation circuit the
recovery function parameters are given for each mineral for
each particle size class or the function includes the particle
size as a parameter. This model level enables playing with the
grinding fineness to find the best economic solution between
the grinding fineness, throughput and recovery. This level is
common in the designing, studying and optimising of mineral
processing circuits but examples in geometallurgy are very
few.
Minerals don’t behave independently in processes because
they occur as particles with varying composition and size.
The purpose of the comminution circuit is not to reduce the
particle size but to liberate the minerals adequately for the
production of saleable concentrate with high recoveries. The
third level (3D) takes into account the mineral liberation and
is called mineral by size by liberation level. This level enables
optimising the comminution in terms of liberation, not only
by size, as in the previous level. The metallurgical functions
must be based on liberation or particle composition. This
can be regarded as a problem since unit process models of
liberation level are rare.
Based on the level of the process model, the information
from the geological model varies. In the unsized mineral level
the geological model must give accurately mineral grades,
ie modal mineralogy. In the second level the geological
model must, in addition to modal mineralogy, describe also
the behaviour in grinding, ie grindability. In the third level
the geological model must include information to forecast
mineral liberation. These challenges are discussed in the
following section with examples.
GEOLOGICAL MODEL
Modal mineralogy
Accurate information on modal mineralogy is a minimum
requirement for the geological model in the mineralogical
approach. This information includes mass proportion of
each (important) mineral in the ore but also their chemical
composition. For example, in massive sulfide ores it is
common that sphalerite shows significant variation in its
chemical composition within the orebody.
For the modal analysis, state-of-the-art techniques include
automated mineralogy, quantitative X-ray diffraction and
element to mineral conversion (Lamberg et al, 2013; Lund,
Lamberg and Lindberg, 2013). Each of these methods
has advantages and disadvantages (Table 1). Automated
mineralogy is the most reliable but it is time-consuming and
expensive. Quantitative X-ray diffraction can be very fast and
 BUILDING A GEOMETALLURGICAL MODEL IN IRON ORES USING A MINERALOGICAL APPROACH WITH LIBERATION DATA

TABLE 1
Methods for determining modal composition in geological and process samples.

Technique Advantage Disadvantage Hardware/software References

Automated mineralogy
Quantitative X-ray diffraction
Element to mineral conversion
Reliable, works with Tedious, requires sizing of samples MLA, QEMSCAN, IncaMineral Fandrich et al, 2007
all types of samples
Fast High detection limit, does not work for Panalytical Empyrean and High Score Castendyk et al,. (2005);
non-crystalline phases, requires expertise Plus; Bruker D8 Advance and Topas Hastenes (2012); Paine (2005)
Fast, inexpensive, low Requires additional selective methods HSC Chemistry, SimFloat, Bilco Whiten (2008), Lamberg et al
detection limit when complex mineralogy (1997)

inexpensive but it has problems in high detection limits and in The combination of element to mineral conversion with
reliability if the number of phases is high. Element to mineral quantitative X-ray diffraction by Rietveld refinement is a
conversion uses chemical assays and information on the possible solution for reliable modal analysis in Malmberget
chemical composition of minerals and mathematically solves as well as in other ores with relatively simple mineralogy.
the mineral grades. The method is fast and inexpensive, and However, in ores where minerals of interest occur as trace
detection limits can be as low as for chemical assays, ie parts quantities and distribution of elements of interest is complex,
per million level, but the method fails in complex mineralogy. more mineralogical information is required from the sample.
However, in geometallurgy it is often possible to simplify An example of such a case is Rockliden, the study target of
mineralogy for example by combining gangue silicates. Minz, et al 2013. Rockliden is a massive sulfide ore located
The Malmberget iron ore is one of the case study targets south of the Skellefte volcanic-hosted massive sulfide (VMS)
in the PhD projects of Lund (Lund, Lamberg and Lindberg,
2013), Mwanga and Parian (Lamberg et al, 2013). The
Kiirunavaara and Malmberget iron ores operated by LKAB
contribute about 90 per cent of the iron ore production in
Europe. The annual production in Malmberget is about 14 Mt
of ore at 43.1 per cent Fe (LKAB, 2011). In the Malmberget
ore field more than 20 different orebodies of both magnetite
and hematite are found over an area of 2.5 × 5 km2. The ore
is hosted by volcanic rocks of Svecofennian age (c 1.9 Ga,
Bergman, Kübler and Martinsson, 2001).
Lund, Lamberg and Lindberg (2013) developed a practical
way to calculate the mass proportion of nine minerals from
routine X-ray fluorescence analysis of Malmberget iron ore
samples. The calculation assumes that the sample consists
of these nine minerals and that the chemical composition
of the minerals doesn’t differ from the average of electron
microprobe analyses (Lund, Lamberg and Lindberg, 2013).
Instead of calculating all minerals in one go it was found that
a better result was reached when calculation was divided
into four rounds in HSC Chemistry. In comparison with
modal analysis by QEMSCAN it was found that the relative
standard deviation of element to mineral conversion is about
12 per cent (Figure 1). This is reasonably high and the quality
is not good enough for using mineral grades as a basis for
resource estimate. Lund, Lamberg and Lindberg (2013)
regarded that quality as good enough to be used in defining
geometallurgical domains.
To improve the quality of the element to mineral conversion
and to overcome the trouble that if there are new minerals
present in the sample the technique fails, Lamberg et al (2013)
studied the applicability of quantitative X-ray diffraction using
Rietveld refinement. It was found that the modal analysis by
X-ray diffraction with Rietveld refinement is poorer than
by element to mineral conversion (Figure 1; Lamberg et al,
2013). However, by combining these techniques and using
a weighted non-negative least squares technique in HSC
Chemistry the result improved significantly, thus approaching FIG 1 - Comparison of the result for analysing magnetite grade in the samples by
the level required for a geometallurgical model. These results QEMSCAN and element to mineral conversion (above; Lund et al 2013) and with
are preliminary and the study continues with comparison of X-ray diffraction + Rietveld (y-axis) and element to mineral conversion (x-axis;
different X-ray analysis setups Rietveld refinement software below; Lamberg et al 2013). Plot marks in the lower graph indicate the quality of
and comparison to automated mineralogy. the Rietveld refinement by R-value; the lower the value, the better the analysis.

THE SECOND AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 30 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 2013 319
P LAMBERG et al
district. It has a relatively high Sb content and in the flotation
tests Sb distributes uncontrollably (ie without a clear pattern)
between Cu-Pb concentrate, Zn concentrate and flotation
tailings. Minz et al (2013) found that the Sb mineralogy
is very complicated, including at least the following five
main Sb phases: tetrahedrite, bournonite, meneghinite,
boulangerite and gudmundite. In the flotation tests, however,
these minerals behave in a logical manner depending on
their chemical composition and associating minerals. The
estimation of the mass proportion of the Sb phases and other
main sulfides (pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite and
galena) can’t be done with simple bulk chemical assays and
XRD, as for Malmberget. One possible solution is to find a
link between the main sulfide minerals and Sb minerals and
add paragenetic constraints in the mass balance equations.
For example, in chalcopyrite-dominating ores the main Sb
mineral is tetrahedrite.
Grindability
A geometallurgical model should be capable of forecasting
the behaviour of the ore in comminution. Industrial
comminution circuits are commonly operated to produce a
given fixed particle size distribution, measured eg with 80 per
cent passing, and this is regulated mainly by changing the
throughput. Therefore the comminution characteristic of the
ore, ie grindability, controls the production volume.
FIG 2 - Mineral composition by size in the mill feed (above) and mill discharge (below). The P80 per cent value for the mill feed is 975 μm and for the mill
discharge 165 μm. Mineral abbreviations: Mgt – magnetite, Ap – apatite, Ab+Or – albite and orthoclase, Bt – biotite, Tr+Di – tremolite and diopside.
320 THE SECOND AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 30 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 2013
Abdul Mwanga is developing a small-scale method for
measuring comminution characteristics for geometallurgy. So
far, the grindability characterisation has focused on finding
links between mineralogy, grinding energy and particle
size distribution. Tests with Malmberget ore have shown
that in the grinding product the mineral grades vary by
size, indicating a non-random breakage. Magnetite grade is
the highest in the middle size fractions, whereas all gangue
minerals are enriched in the fine size fractions and tremolite
also in the coarsest fraction (Figure 2). In the grinding model
the forecasting of overall particle size distribution (PSD) and
mineral grades by size (2D) has been decoupled. Using the
relatively simple assumption that:
•• relative mass proportions of minerals are retained in
narrow size fractions
•• overall mineralogical mass balances are conserved
•• the particle size distribution is received from the PSD
model, the mineral composition of the mill discharge by
size fraction can be forecasted accurately (Figure 3).
Mineral textures and liberation
To reach the 3D level in geometallurgy, the geological model
must somehow describe the liberation characteristics of the
ore when it is crushed and ground. The link between the
geological information and liberation distribution is mineral
textures. Lund, Lamberg and Lindberg (2013) and Lamberg
 BUILDING A GEOMETALLURGICAL MODEL IN IRON ORES USING A MINERALOGICAL APPROACH WITH LIBERATION DATA
FIG 3 - Comparison mineral grades in size fractions of the mill discharge
showed in Figure 2; simulated (y-axis) versus measured (x-axis).
The simple model developed can forecast the mineral grades by size accurately
in the mill discharge. Mineral abbreviations as in Figure 2.
and Lund (2012) found that in the Malmberget iron ore the
liberation size (the size where 95 per cent of the minerals are
liberated) of magnetite and hematite is controlled mainly by
the grain size of the ore minerals, and the mineral association (ie
the minerals commonly occurring in magnetite-rich particles)
is controlled not only by modal mineralogy but also by the
ore textures. Lund et al (2013) and Lamberg and Lund (2012)
divided the breccia ore of Malmberget into different textural
types by macroscopical and microscopical observations. Five
samples representing three different textures were crushed
to a given fineness, samples were sized and resin mounts
were prepared. Size fractions were analysed by QEMSCAN
for mineral liberation. Liberation data was processed using
binning algorithm of the particle tracking. In this way each
sample had identical particle classes but their mass proportion
were different. For example, each sample had a particle class
of ‘fully liberated magnetite of size fraction 38 - 75 µm, but its
mass proportion varied between the samples.
Liberation is dependent on modal mineralogy. Generally
the degree of liberation increases as the mineral grade
increases (Figure 4). The relative mass proportion of
association with two minerals is also directly related to their
grades. For example, in the ternary system magnetite-apatite-
tremolite the mass proportion of magnetite associated with
tremolite increases as the tremolite grade increases. In order
to decouple the association and modal abundance a new
FIG 4 - Liberation degree of magnetite in a size fraction 150 - 300 μm against
the magnetite grade in the same fraction in four samples representing three
different textures (Fsp, Amp and Ap).
THE SECOND AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 30 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 2013
‘association index’ is introduced. It is calculated for each
target mineral separately and, for example, the ‘association
index of magnetite for albite’ describes how commonly
magnetite is associated with albite when the degree of
liberation of magnetite and the mineral grade of albite are
considered. It is calculated for the particle population where
the fully liberated particles of the target mineral are first
removed. Then the mass proportion of magnetite associations
are calculated, ie how much of magnetite is occurring with
the other minerals. These values are divided by the mineral
grades of the other minerals, which are normalized to 100
per cent. For example, if 50 per cent of the magnetite is
associated with albite and the albite grade is 50 per cent
then the value is one and there is no preference for albite.
However, if 75 per cent of magnetite is associated with albite
and the albite grade is 50 per cent then the value is 1.5, and
it indicates that magnetite is preferentially associated with
albite. Finally, if only ten per cent of magnetite is associated
with albite and the albite grade is still 50 per cent then the
association index is 0.2 and magnetite is rarely with albite.
Reflecting on primary mineral textures, the association index
is expected to be very high if a mineral occurs as inclusions in
another mineral, whereas if two minerals are not in contact
with each other the index should be zero.
Figure 5 shows the association index of five different
samples representing three different textures. The association
indexes are almost similar in the Fsp–textures (feldspar;
Pz_Fsp and Fa_Fsp) and Ap-textures (apatite; Fa_Ap and
Pz_Ap) are quite identical, confirming that the assumption
that they represent similar textures holds. The Ap-texture is
characterised by magnetite being preferentially associated
with apatite, whereas in the Fsp-types the association of
magnetite with apatite is rare. The Amp-type (amphibole)
is closer to the Ap-type and the question to be answered is:
are these textures so different that it justifies the existence of
separate Ap- and Amp-types?
Lamberg and Lund (2012) developed preliminary
systematics to convert textural information into particles.
This is done through model samples, archetypes, which are
collected into a library as follows:
•• For each textural type a representative sample or set of
samples is selected.
FIG 5 - Association index for magnetite in size fraction 150 - 300 μm in five
samples representing three different textures (Fsp, Amp and Ap). Values
above one indicate that target mineral is preferentially associating with
this mineral and values lower than one that the association of the target
mineral with other mineral is rarer than mineral grades would suggest. From
the diagram one can read that magnetite is preferentially associating with
apatite in Fa_Amp, Fa_Ap and Pz_Ap samples, whereas this association is
rare in Fa_Fsp and Pz_Fsp samples.
321
P LAMBERG et al
FIG 6 - Mineral grade and recoveries in Mörtsell dry magnetic separation (cobbing) test done for the low-grade magnetite ore of Fsp type (see text).
•• The samples are ground close to the processing fineness
and sized.
•• Liberation analysis is done by size.
•• As the liberation measurement is not possible or practical
in very fine or coarse particle sizes, the liberation
distribution of these size fractions is estimated by an
extrapolation technique described by Lamberg and
Vianna (2007).
•• For each sample the particles (of the liberation analysis)
are classified in a systematic way using a technique
developed by Lamberg and Vianna (2007).
•• The classification scheme should be established in such a
way that all modal and textural types are considered and
correspondingly all possible particle types in all of the
archetypes are presented.
•• This results in each archetype having similar particles;
only their relative abundance will vary from one sample
to another. It is possible that the mass proportion of some
particles is zero in some archetypes.
The archetypes are then used in the geometallurgical system
in the following way (Lamberg and Lund 2013):
•• The geological model provides the modal mineralogical
composition and the textural type for each sample or ore
block
•• Based on textural type a corresponding archetype is
selected. The archetype lists all the particles possibly
present and gives their mass proportions by size.
•• The particle size distribution comes from a conventional
grinding model.
•• The mass proportion of particles in the sample is
calculated by refining the mass proportion of particles
in the archetype so that modal mineralogy can be back
calculated from the particles and given by the geological
model.
A simple algorithm called breakage model, developed by
Lamberg and Lund (2012) is used.
322 THE SECOND AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 30 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 2013
PROCESS MODEL
The process models using the 1D or 2D levels are common
in minerals processing. The developing of the 3D model can
be done for separation processes by measuring liberation in
all the streams and mass balancing the liberation data using
the particle tracking technique (Lamberg and Vianna 2007).
Even though this is tedious to do, it will make the process
model more generic. The hypothesis behind it is that: similar
particles (in size, shape and composition) will behave in the
process in the same manner regardless of which part of the
orebody they come from. Therefore, once the model has been
created it can be used for the whole deposit.
Lamberg and Lund (2012) and Lund et al (in prep)
developed a 3D model for a dry magnetic separation. Figure 6
shows the distribution of minerals on an unsized basis
between the concentrate and tailings in one representative
test. In a particle size of P80 = 1 mm about 30 per cent of the
material is rejected into the tail (MagTail) with about six per
cent magnetite losses, ie the recovery of magnetite into the
magnetic concentrate is 94 per cent (Figure 6).
It is obvious that magnetite-rich particles enter into the
magnetic concentrate, whereas particles rich in gangue
minerals are found in the tailings, and the particle tracking
technique gives quantitative information on the behaviour
of particles. Figure 7 shows the recovery of magnetite-albite
binaries into the magnetic concentrate by size and as a
function of magnetite grade. Interestingly, the recovery curve
is upwardly convex in fine particle sizes and straightens
towards the coarse particles.
Table 2 shows the comparison of dry magnetic separation
results from an actual test and from a simulation. For the
simulation the liberation data of the Pz_Fsp sample was used
and the process model parameters were taken from the test
done for the Fa_Fsp sample. Good matching between the
measured and simulated values validates the model and
 BUILDING A GEOMETALLURGICAL MODEL IN IRON ORES USING A MINERALOGICAL APPROACH WITH LIBERATION DATA
FIG 7 - The recovery of magnetite-albite binary particles into the magnetic
concentrate by size fraction as a function of magnetite grade in the particle.
TABLE 2
Comparison of the dry magnetic separation result (measured) with the
simulated one. For the simulation, the liberation data of the Pz_Fsp sample was
used and the process model parameters were derived from Fa_Fsp samples
Simulated Measured
Fe % 63.7 63.9
Fe recovery % 89.6 90.2
Si % 3.10 3.06
P% 0.13 0.09
verifies the hypothesis that similar particles behave in the
same manner in the process regardless of their origin.
A big challenge in the particle-based models and simulation
is the grinding model. In an ongoing work the model is
divided into two parts. The first one predicts the throughput
and particle size distribution in a traditional way. The other
part forecasts the liberation by using a hypothesis that the
liberation distribution within narrow size fractions is retained.
CONCLUSIONS
At Luleå University of Technology a mineralogical
approach has been adopted and further developed in the
geometallurgical research projects. Preliminary results
from the ongoing studies show that it is possible to base the
geometallurgical model on mineralogy. However, more work
is needed to verify the results and to evaluate if the accuracy
is good enough.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research projects described here have received
financial support from the Centre of Advanced Mining and
Metallurgy (CAMM), Hjalmar Ljundbohm Research Centre
(HLRC), LKAB and Boliden Mineral AB. Cooperation with
researchers in the ProMinNET network has greatly helped in
the research projects.
REFERENCES
Bergman, S, Kübler, L and Martinsson, O, 2001. Description of
regional geological and geophysical maps of northern Norrbotten
County (east of the Caledonian orogen), Geol Surv Sweden Ba,
56:110.
THE SECOND AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 30 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 2013
Bradshaw, D J, 2010. Development of a new tool for process
mineralogy, in Proceedings Process Mineralogy ’10.
Bulled, D and McInnes, C, 2005. Flotation plant design and production
planning through geometallurgical modelling, in Proceedings
Centenary of Flotation Symposium, pp 809-814 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Castendyk, D N, Mauk, J L and Webster, J G, 2005. A mineral
quantification method for wall rocks at open pit mines, and
application to the Martha Au–Ag mine, Waihi, New Zealand.
Applied Geochemistry, 20:135–156.
CSIRO HyLogging Systems [online], 2011. Hyperspectral
mineralogical logging and imaging of drill core and chips.
Available from: <http://www.csiro.au/files/files/py3w.pdf>.
Da Costa, G M, Barron, V, Ferreira, C M and Torrent, J, 2009. The use
of diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for the characterisation of iron
ores, Minerals Engineering, 22:1245-1250.
David, D, 2007. The importance of geometallurgical analysis in plant
study, design and operational phases, in Proceedings Ninth Mill
Operators’ Conference, pp 241-247 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Dobby, G, Bennett, C, Bulled, D and Kosick, G, 2004. Geometallurgical
modelling: the new approach to plant design and production
forecasting/planning and mine/mill optimisation, in Proceedings
of 36th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors.
Fandrich, R, Gu, Y, Burrows, D and Moeller, K, 2007. Modern SEM-
based mineral liberation analysis, International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 84:310–320.
Gy, P M, 1982. Sampling of particulate materials: theory and practice,
Developments in Geomathematics 4 (Elsevier).
Haavisto, O and Kaartinen, J, 2009. Multichannel reflectance spectral
assaying of zinc and copper flotation slurries, Int J Miner Process,
93:187–193.
Haestnes, K H and Sørensen, B E, 2012. Evaluation of quantitative
X-ray diffraction for possible use in the quality control of
granitic pegmatite in mineral production, Minerals Engineering,
volume 39, pp 239-247.
JKTech, 2010. JKTech’s monthly e-Newsletter, December.
Johansson, B and Wanhainen, C, 2010. Flotation and leach tests
performed within a geo-metallurgical project on gold in the Aitik
Cu-Au-Ag-(Mo) deposit, in Proceedings Conference in Minerals
Engineering, pp 61-72.
Lamberg, P, 2011. Particles: the bridge between geology and
metallurgy, in Conference in Minerals Engineering, Preprints 1-16.
Lamberg, P, Hautala, P, Sotka, S and Saavalainen, S, 1997.
Mineralogical balances by dissolution methodology, in Proceedings
Short Course on ‘Crystal Growth in Earth Sciences’, pp 1-29.
Lamberg, P and Lund, C, 2012. Taking liberation information into
a geometallurgical model: case study Malmberget, Northern
Sweden, in Proceedings Process Mineralogy ’12 Conference.
Lamberg, P and Vianna, S M S, 2007. A technique for tracking
multiphase mineral particles in flotation circuits, in Proceedings
VII Meeting of the Southern Hemisphere on Mineral Technology (eds:
R M F Lima, A C Q Ladeira, C A Da Silva), pp 195-202.
Lamberg, P, Parian, M, Mwanga, A and Rosenkranz, J, 2013.
Mineralogical mass balancing of industrial circuits by combining
XRF and XRD analyses, Preprints, Conference in Minerals
Engineering 2012.
LKAB (Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB), 2011. Annual Report and
Sustainability Report 2011, 122 S (in Swedish).
Lund, C, Lamberg, P and Lindberg, T, 2013. Practical way to quantify
minerals from chemical assays at Malmberget iron ore operations:
an important tool for the geometallurgical program, Minerals
Engineering, in press.
323
P LAMBERG et al
Minz, F, Bolin, N-J, Lamberg, P and Wanhainen, C, 2013. Detailed
characterisation of antimony mineralogy in a geometallurgical
context at the Rockliden Ore Deposit, North-Central Sweden,
Minerals Engineering, submitted.
Morrell, S, 2009. Getting optimum value from ore characterisation
programs in design and geometallurgical projects associated
with comminution circuits, in Proceedings Tenth Mill Operators’
Conference, pp 167-170 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Niiranen, K, and Böehm, A, 2012. A systematic characterisation of the
orebody for mineral processing at Kiirunanvaara iron ore mine
operated by LKAB in Kiruna, Northern Sweden, in Proceedings
XXVI International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC), paper
1039, pp 03855-03864.
Paine, M, König, U and Staples, E, 2011. Application of rapid
X-ray diffraction (XRD) and cluster analysis to grade control of
iron ores, in Proceedings, 10th International Congress for Applied
Mineralogy (ICAM), pp 495-501.
Philander, C and Rozendaal, A, 2008. Geometallurgical challenges
of Namakwa Sands - A South African titanium-zirconium heavy
minerals mine, in Proceedings ICAM 2008: Ninth International
Congress for Applied Mineralogy, pp 459-464 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Philander, C and Rozendaal, A, 2010. The hards liberation project of
Namakwa Sands, chronicles of a geometallurgical success, Process
Mineralogy ’10.
324 THE SECOND AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 30 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 2013
Pirard, E, Bernhardt, H-J, Catalina, J C, Brea, C, Segundo, F and
Castroviejo, R, 2008. From spectrophotometry to multispectral
imaging of ore minerals in visible and near infrared (VNIR)
microscopy, Proceedings ICAM 2008 – Ninth International Congress
for Applied Mineralogy, pp 57-62 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Pitard, F F, 1989a. Pierre Gy’s sampling theory and sampling practice,
volume I, Heterogeneity and Sampling (CRC Press: Boca Raton).
Pitard, F F, 1989b. Pierre Gy’s Sampling Theory and Sampling Practice,
Sampling Correctness and Sampling Practice, volume II (CRC Press:
Boca Raton).
Sammelin-Kontturi, M, Wanhainen, C and Martinsson, O, 2011.
Gold mineralogy at the Aitik Cu-Au-Ag deposit, Gällivare area,
northern Sweden, GFF, 133: 1-12
Schouwstra, R, de Vaux, D, Hey, P, Malysiak, V, Shackleton, N, and
Bramdeo, S, 2010. Understanding Gamsberg: a geometallurgical
study of a large stratiform zinc deposit, Minerals Engineering,
23:960–967.
Suazo, C J, Kracht, W and Alruiz, O M, 2010. Geometallurgical
modelling of the Collahuasi flotation circuit, Minerals Engineering,
23:137–142.
Whiten, B, 2008. Calculation of mineral composition from chemical
assays, Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review,
volume 29, pp 83-97.