Minerals Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.

565-568, 1989
Printed in Great Britain

0892-6875/89 $3.00 + 00 Pergamon Press plc

TECHNICAL NOTE SEPARABILITY CURVES FROM IMAGE ANALYSIS DATA J.A. FINCH and C.O. GOMEZ Dept. of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, McGill University, 3450 University St., Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada (Received 21 June 1989)

ABSTRACT

Image analysis data can be effectively summarized in a manner familiar to mineral processing engineers through separability (e.g. graderecovery) curves. This form of presentation allows the definition of a grinding efficiency which is compatible with normally used measurements of the separation efficiency. An example is included to illustrate the approach and its practical limitations are discussed.
Keywords Image analysis; grade-recovery curve; mineral liberation; perfect separator; grinding efficiency; polished section. INTRODUCTION Liberation studies are often undertaken to try to determine the limits liberation imposes on mineral separation. To this end, liberation needs to be presented in a manner compatible with the way mineral separation is presented, which is usually through grade-recovery or recovery-yield (total solids) relationships. If liberation is determined by a physical separation process (e.g. heavy liquid analysis), then this compatibility is a natural consequence. However, liberation is rarely measurable this way in part because it requires a perfect separator, i.e., one which selects particles purely in the order of their mineral composition. Instead, microscopical examination of polished sections is used. With the advent of automated systems, routine liberation studies by this procedure are virtually at hand. The term image analysis is appropriate to this type of liberation study. There remain difficulties with image analysis: ensuring randomness of the sample; converting sectional data to volume; and reducing the large amount of data so readily generated to something meaningful to the mineral processing engineer. It is the last point which is addressed here. Image data can be analysed to give the separation that would have been achieved by a perfect separator, that is, a perfect separator can be simulated. This will be illustrated by an example. Subsequently, it is shown how a new measure of grinding efficiency can be achieved. Finally, difficulties in implementing the procedure are discussed. CALCULATION OF GRADE-RECOVERY CURVES FROM IMAGE ANALYSIS DATA Consider Figure i represents an image of particles in the feed to a separation process. The numerical data in the image are the mineral A (shaded) and the total exposed areas of the individual particles on the surface of the specimen. A perfect separator would, by definition, first take free A particles then locked A-B particles in decreasing order of mineral A content. Table 1 assembles the data in this order and includes the step-wise calculation of grades and recoveries. Volumetric grades for individual particles are directly calculated from measured areas (no correction to a volume basis is considered in this case). The calculation of particle grade requires knowledge of the mineral densities, which have been assumed as 2 and 5 g/cc for A and B, respectively. To calculate cumulative grade and recovery, an assumption about the volume of the particles involved is necessary. The easiest case is when all the particles have the same volume (i.e., particles

565

566

Technical Notes

of the same sieve class). The calculations in Table 1 have been completed for the average particle volume of a typical sieve class used in liberation studies: however, the calculation of cumulative grades and recoveries is not affected by the selected value of particle volume.

722/1964

513/1952

957/1128

Fig. 1

Typical information collected from a polished section using microscopy TABLE 1

Calculation of grade, recovery, and efficiency from data included in Figure 1 A (Fg)
0.275 0.248 0.233 0.185 0.142 0.117 0.101 0.072 0.058

Part.

Image analysis areas Volum. Part. A B Total A grade A grade (~2) (~2) (~,) (%) (%)
1248 1065 957 1913 1460 639 722 513 317 0 112 171 922 1366 854 1242 1439 1188 1248 1177 1128 2835 2826 1493 1964 1952 1505 100.0 90.5 84.8 67.5 51.7 42.8 36.8 26.3 21.1 100.0 96.0 93.3 83.8 72.8 65.2 59.2 47.1 40.0

Mass B

(~g)

A grade (%)
100.0 95.0 91.1 83.6 74.5 66.3 59.4 52.3 46.2 40.7 34.2 29.5

Recovery A B (%) (%)

18.7 0.0 35.6 0.8 51.4 2.1 64.0 5.2 73.6 10.5 81.6 17.3 88.5 25.3 93.4 35.6 97.3 47.3 100.0 61.0 100.0 80.5 100,0 100,0

Effic.

4 9 12 8 6 3 10 11
1

0.000 0.028 0.046 0.111 0.187 0.239 0.280 0.363 0.412

2 5 7
Total

392 0 0

2324 1861 543

2716 1861 543

14.4 0.0 0.0

29.7 0.0 0.0

0.040 0.483 0.000 0.686 0.000 0.686

1.471 3.520

18.7 34.8 49.3 58.7 63.1 64.3 63.2 57.8 50.0 39.0 19.5 0.0

Sieve class 53x75 ~m) Average particle size: 64 (/u,) Average particle volume: 137258 (#m3)

Figure 2 shows the cumulative grade-cumulative recovery relationship. This plot, we believe, is readily interpretable by the mineral process engineer; it gives the grade-recovery of a perfect separator and thus reveals the limits to separation imposed by the state of liberation in the feed. A comparison with actual separation achieved will indicate the extent of improvement which, in principle, is possible. Included in Figure 2 is the degree of liberation [i], and the coefficient of liberation [2]. The degree of liberation is the recovery at 100% pure mineral A grade; the coefficient of liberation is the grade when 100% A is recovered and no free B is recovered. These single point quantifications are not as useful as the full curve. The situation represented is the simplest one of only two minerals. With three or more minerals it may be more useful to use recovery-yield plots. This adds some minor complications that will be discussed in a later n o t e .

Technical Notes
100

567

Degree of IIl~mtion (18.7 %)

uS
a

< E
o

50

<

Coefficient of liberation (40.7 %)

.......

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

: :

Feed grade /

12u %1

'

'

'

'

50

100

A RECOVERY, %

Fig.2

G r a d e - r e c o v e r y curve for data i n c l u d e d in Figure 1

A P O S S I B L E M E A S U R E OF G R I N D I N G E F F I C I E N C Y The p a r t i c l e s in Figure 1 m a y be a g r i n d i n g circuit p r o d u c t as well as s e p a r a t o r feed. It w o u l d be useful to have a m e a s u r e of e f f i c i e n c y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h b o t h g r i n d i n g and s e p a r a t i o n so one could w r i t e E(Grind)" E(Sep) = E(Comb) a E

(i)

A m e a s u r e of t e c h n i c a l e f f i c i e n c y of a separator w h i c h is u s e f u l in the p r e s e n t c o n t e x t is the d i f f e r e n c e in c u m u l a t i v e r e c o v e r y of A and B [3]. E : i - R. (2)

F i g u r e 3 shows E as a f u n c t i o n of R~. Since the data refers to a p e r f e c t separator, E in Figure 3 can be taken as the e f f i c i e n c y of grinding, b e c a u s e from e q u a t i o n (i) E(Grind)" 1 = E(Comb) is measured, (3) and w i t h E(Grind) now known, E(Sep)

In an actual p r o c e s s E(Comb) can be b a c k - c a l c u l a t e d .

The d i s c u s s i o n here has used t e c h n i c a l efficiency, but e c o n o m i c e f f i c i e n c y c o u l d also be u s e d [4]. This d e f i n i t i o n of g r i n d i n g e f f i c i e n c y is in terms of the g r i n d i n g c i r c u i t product, therefore, it can be u s e d in the study of the g r i n d i n g - s e p a r a t i o n interface.

D I F F I C U L T I E S IN I M P L E M E N T A T I O N The p r e p a r a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a t e specimens [5,6], and the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of s e c t i o n a l data into volume data [7,8,9,10], largely dictate the use of sized fractions. The d e r i v e d g r a d e - r e c o v e r y r e l a t i o n s h i p from the d a t a c o l l e c t e d on a p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i m e n is then for a given size class. For c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the actual relationship, either the same size class m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d or else image a n a l y s i s on m a n y size classes m u s t be a n a l y s e d and added together a r i t h m e t i c a l l y . The less onerous a p p r o a c h is the former, i.e., the c o m p a r i s o n of the u l t i m a t e and actual g r a d e - r e c o v e r y on a size class basis [10].

568

Technical Notes

100'

,,," >, Z w

No recovery of S

50-

Z z I-

0 0

5O

100

A RECOVERY, %

Fig. 3

Technical efficiency-recovery curve for data included in Figure 1

CONCLUSIONS A case is made for presenting image analysis data in the form of graderecovery curves which simulate the separation of a perfect separator. This method of presentation offers a means of summarizing vast amounts of data in a manner familiar to mineral processing engineers. It is also shown that, from this form of presentation, a definition of grinding efficiency is possible which is compatible with a common method of measuring separation efficiency. The approach is illustrated with an example. The need to work with sized samples greatly adds to the magnitude of the work. REFERENCES Gaudin A.M. Principles of Mineral Dressing, 70, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, (1939). 2. Berube M.A. & Marchand J.C. CIM Bulletin. 76, 56, (1983). 3. Wills B.A. Mineral Processing Technology 4th ed., 30, Pergamon Press, Oxford, (1988). 4. Finch J.A. Minerals Engineering, l, (4), 365, (1988). 5. Gomez C.O., Rowlands N. & Finch J.A. in Process Mineralogy VIII, D.J.T. Carson and A.H. Vassiliou, eds., 359. The Minerals, Metals and Materials Soc., Warrendale, PA (1989). 6. Jackson B.R., Reid A.F. & Wittenberg J.C. Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metall. 289, 93, (1984). 7. Jones M.P. & Horton R. in 11th Commonwealth Mining and Metallurgical Congress, M.P. Jones ed., 113. The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London (1978). 8. Lin C., Miller J.D., Herbst J.A. & Sepulveda J.E. in Applied Mineralogy, W.C. Park, D.M. Hansen & R.D Hagni eds., 157. The Metallurgical Soc. of AIME, Warrendale, PA, (1985). 9. Barbery G. in Applied Mineralogy, W.C. Park, D.M. Hansen & R.D. Hagni, eds., 171. The Metallurgical Soc. of AIME, Warrendale, PA, (1985). i0. Hill G., Rowlands N. & Finch J.A. in Production, Processing and Characterization of Fine Particles, A.J. Plumpton ed., 47, Pergamon Press, Toronto, (1988). i.