5th Annual FeTech Conference 2014

Criteria for Selecting a Jig or DMS process

Midas Engineering Group Pty Ltd

ABN 72 159 772 675

Perth | Brisbane | Melbourne | Newcastle | Noosa

> Mineral Processing

Presented by John Visser

Mineral Engineering Technical Services

W: www.midasengineering.com.au
E: info@midasengineering.com.au

> Engineering Design > Training > Specialist Services

> DISCLAIMER
With respect to all the information contained herein, neither Mineral Engineering Technical Services Pty Ltd, nor
any officer, servant, employee, agent or consultant thereof make any representations or give any warranties,
expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information contained herein, including
but not limited to opinions, information or advice which may be provided to users of the document. No
responsibility is accepted to users of this document for any consequence of relying on the contents hereof.

> COPYRIGHT
Passing of this document to a third party, duplication or re-use of this document, in whole or part, electronically or
otherwise, is not permitted without the expressed written consent of Mineral Engineering Technical Services Pty
Ltd.

> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document is a dynamic record of the knowledge and experience of personnel at Mineral Engineering
Technical Services. As such it has been built upon over the years and is a collaborative effort by all those
involved. We are thankful for the material supplied by and referenced from various equipment manufacturers,
vendors, industry research and project partners.

Key Attributes
Pragmatic, efficient, complete engineering through
quality, personalised & exceptional service delivery

Working globally since 1988

Dynamic and innovative niche consultancy

Dedicated team providing customised service

Specialist in Mineral Processing & Engineering Projects

Unique solution finder

Overview

Introduction

Criteria for selection

Jig Setup

DMS Setup

Case studies

Capex and Opex

Introduction

Introduction

Both machines upgrade material

Significant difference in particle sg

between discard and product

Size distribution < 40mm nominally

Wet processes

The processes can be complementary

Criteria For Selection

Criteria for selection

Criteria

Jigs

DMS

Particle size

Narrower sizing

Broader sizing

Density cut

No restriction

Max limit of 3.8

Density difference between float and

sinks

> 1.0

0.5 to 0.8

Efficiency (partition curve)

Less sharp

Sharper

Efficiency (relative to particle size)

Much less dependant

Dependant on small size

Near density material (Influence on product

Varying grade

Achieve grade more

effectively

Yield and recovery

Less optimisation

Better optimisation

Tailings grades

Higher

Lower

Separation

Density

Density

Capex

Higher

Lower

Opex

Lower

Higher

grade)

Equipment selection

Weight Percent
within 0.1 t/m3
Density of
Separation

Degree of Difficulty
Expected

Gravity Process
Recommended

Type: Equipment is
size dependant

07

Simple

Almost any process

high tonnage

Sluices, Jigs

7 10

Relatively simple

Cones, Jigs

10 15

Moderately difficult

Efficient process
high tonnage
Efficient process
medium tonnage
good operation

15 20

Difficult

Efficient process
- medium tonnage
- expert operation

DMS

20 25

Very difficult

Efficient process
- medium tonnage
- expert operation
- close control

DMS

Above 25

Very difficult

Very efficient process

- low tonnage
- expert operation
- expert control

DMS with strict density

control

Mills (1980): Modified for more recent knowledge

Tables
Spirals, DMS, Jigs

Separation of Iron Ores

Iron Oxides
Magnetite
(Hematite)
Coarse (-32+8mm)

DMS

Cobbing

Medium (-8+1mm)

Jigging

LIMS

Fine (-1mm+212/75m)

Spirals
LIMS
WHIMS
Flotation

Slimes (-212m)

Flotation

Efficiency Comparison
DMS & Jig Partition Curves
100
90
DMS

80

Jig (Interpolated)

Recovery (%)

70
60

50
40
30
20
10
0
F 2.7

2.85 - 3

3.15 - 3.3

3.45 - 3.6

Size Fraction (mm)

3.75 - 3.9

4.05 - 4.2

JIG SETUP

Gravity Separation Performance

>

Concentration Criterion =

SG of heavy mineral SG of fluid

SG of light mineral SG of fluid

Concentration Criterion (CC)

Gravity Separation

CC>2.5

Easy down to 75 m

1.75<CC<2.5

Possible down to 150 m

1.5<CC<1.75

Possible down to 1.7 mm

1.25<CC<1.5

Possible down to 6.35 mm

CC<1.25

Impossible at any size

Jigging

Size classes for iron ore

32 +8mm
8 +3mm
3 +1mm

Size classes for coal

100 + 35mm
35 + 10mm
10 + 3mm

Capacity Batak Style Jig

65 t/h per meter width of jig to max of 4 m wide jig

Jigging Mechanics - Stratification

To achieve stratification an oscillating motion is applied

1. Upstroke - the bed is fluidised - differential acceleration upwards causes
bed dilation
2. Hold dense particles gravitate faster towards the bottom of the bed,
hindered settling keeps light particles nearer the surface

3. Down stroke fine dense particles are preferentially sucked toward the
screen

Start

1. Fluidisation =
Bed Dilation

2. Differential
Initial
acceleration

2. Hindered
settling

3. Consolidated
trickling

Jigging Action

Jig Variations

Fixed screen and moving screen (less common) variations

Different variations suit different feed stock

Variation Type (all fixed)

Pulse Mechanism

Richards

Water pulse

Harz

Mechanical piston pulse

Russian MOBK

Pneumatic piston pulse

Denver

Diaphragm pulse

Bendelari

Diaphragm pulse

Yuba

Diaphragm pulse

Pan-American

Moving hutch

Baum (side pulse)

Air pulse

Batac (under bed pulse)

Air pulse

Smartdogmining.com

Jig Variations

Air pulse variety suit:

Iron ore, manganese, coal, diamond

Under bed (Batac) pulsed machines

Examples
Alljig from Allmineral
Batac from Humboldt Wedag
Apic jigs from Bateman

Alljig Side Pulsed

MBE Batak Jigs

Jig Process Flowsheet

Lumpy

+ 32 mm
231 tph

-80 mm
554 tph

Jig Plant1400 m ph
3

-32 +8

-32 + 8
80 tph

182 tph

Crusher
-80 mm
785 tph

Fines
-32 +8
264 tph

2 x Double deck

-8 +.5
51 tph

Lumpy Product

-8 + . 5
129 tph

10 tph
1382 m3ph

Preparation
Plant

-8 +. 5
188 tph
2 x Single deck

1296 m3ph

Discard
1592 m3ph

Fines Product
From W &S 2960 m3ph
3718 m3ph

849 m3ph

Slimes Dam
407 tph

Water Reclamation Plant

DMS SETUP

DMS described

Dense Media Separation (DMS) is a physical separation technology

which relies on the difference in material densities to separate different
materials

The mixed solids are placed in a liquid denser than one and less dense
than others

The denser material sinks while the less dense material floats

DMS is the most straight forward technique for separating particles based
on their densities

Also known as Heavy Media Separation (HMS)

DMS Medium

Heavy Liquids
Response of a given feed to a DMS process and be accurately
established in a laboratory by testing with various heavy liquids
Liquids Used to Test Feeds
Name

Specific Gravity, 25oC

Methylene iodide

3.33

Tetrabromoethane

2.96

Bromoform

2.86

Tribromoethane

2.61

Methylene bromide

2.48

Ethylene dibromide

2.17

Methylene chlorobromide

1.92

Pentachlorethane

1.67

Carbon tetrachloride

1.59

Trichloroethylene

1.46

Ethylene dichloride

1.26

DMS Medium

Heavy Liquids
Aim is to separate the ore samples into a series of fractions according
to density

May be used to assess the efficiency of an existing dense medium

circuit

Heavy liquids give off toxic fumes and must be used with proper
ventilation

The use of pure liquids has not been found to be practicable on a

commercial scale

Industrial processes employ finely ground solids suspended in water

DMS Medium

Finely ground or atomised Ferro Silicon (FeSi) and water are commonly
used as the heavy media

Specific gravity is adjusted by addition or removal of FeSi

Would not work where solids have similar densities, nor those that are
soluble in the fluid media

Magnetic materials must be removed before this step

Separated materials may have to be dried for further processing

DMS Medium

FeSi SG: 6.7-6.9

Milled FeSi produced in different size ranges

30-95% 45m
Coarser, low viscosity grades achieve medium densities of up to 3.3

Atomised FeSi
More spherical particles
Medium is of lower viscosity
Used to achieve densities as high as 4

DMS Medium
Ferrosilicon

DMS Drum

Gravity DMS Drum Separator

Drum Separator
Side view

Gravity DMS Drum Separator

Drum Separator
End view

Gravity DMS Drum Separator

Sinks Launder

WEMCO Heavy Media Drum Separator

Sinks Handling

Centrifugal DMS DSM Cyclone

Dutch State Mines (DSM)

Cyclone Separator

Used for finer feeds, 0.04 to

0.0005 m

Separation is made by the action

of centrifugal and centripetal
forces.

The heavier portion of the feed

leaves the cyclone at the apex
opening (5), and the lighter
portion leaves at the overflow top
orifice

Centrifugal DMS DSM Cyclone

Dense Media Separation on Iron Ore

Cut SG of 3.6-3.8
Not considered at SG 4 due to impact of high FeSi viscosity

Ferrosilicon is used in water atomised, gas atomised or finely milled

forms

Typical DMS Flowsheet

DMS PFD

Case Studies

DMS results: Operation A

The operations product grades are

> 65% Fe
Density cut point for achieving grade is considered to be 4.2
So, no chance

Description

Weight (g)

Weight (%)

Fe (%)

+3.8sg

7.3

3.8

61.54

-3.8+3.6sg

28.6

15.0

57.11

-3.6+3.3sg

146.0

76.9

55.95

-3.3sg

4.0

2.1

52.19

Total (+1.18mm)

185.9

97.8

56.27

-1.18mm

4.1

2.2

46.47

Calculated Head

190.0

100.0

56.05

Head Assay

55.67

Jig results: Operation A

Notice grade is achieved

Notice also the mass yield

Jigging Test Runs

Lump product

Pilot plant results for 11 test runs

Product (32-62mm)

Weight (%)

% Fe Grade

Fe Recovery (%)

Feed Run 1

100

60.1

101.2

Conc. Run 1

85

65.4

92.5

Reject Run 1

15

34.6

8.6

Feed Run 4

100

62.1

99.3

Conc Run 4

86.8

66.5

93

Reject Run 4

13.2

29.7

6.3

Feed Run 7

100

59.7

99.9

Conc. Run 7

85.4

65.3

93.4

Reject Run

14.6

26.4

6.5

Jig results: Operation B

Pilot plant overall
results

Laboratory tests average

Conc.

63.4

63.1

Rejects

53.2

53.5

Feed

58.8

60.2

Conc.

63.2

63.1

Rejects

52.8

53.2

Feed

59.6

59.9

Fe Grade %
Product (32-6mm)

Products (6-1mm)

Design %

Actual %

Product
(32-6mm)

Weight

Fe Grade
%

Fe Recovery
%

Weight
%

Fe Grade
%

Fe Recovery
%

Conc.

67.0

63.5

70.1

72.2

63.5

74.8

Mids.

20.0

57.3

18.9

19.4

58.8

18.6

Rejects

13.0

47.0

10.1

8.4

47.7

6.5

Feed

100.0

60.7

100.0

100.0

61.3

100.0

Product
(6-1mm)

Weight
%

Fe Grade
%

Fe Recovery
%

Weight
%

Fe Grade
%

Fe Recovery
%

Conc.

63.4

63.5

66.3

64.1

63.4

66.3

Mids.

25.6

61.6

26.0

28.1

58.6

26.9

Rejects

11.0

47.0

8.5

7.8

44.7

5.7

Capex and Opex

Costing

Process Design Criteria

Haematite
Plant throughput: 900 tph
Minus 2 mm rejected
Lump/fines split 60/40 = 540/260 t/h
Jig unit: lump and fines: under bed pulsed: Batac
DMS unit: Lump & Fines: Cyclones
Lump size: +8 -32 mm/Fines +2 -8 mm

Parameter

Jig

DMS

Number: lump

Number: fines

Medium

None

FeSi

Capex and Opex

Capex

Direct Costs

Equipment
Installed

Bulk
Earthworks &
Civils

Platework,
Structural &
Piping

Electrical &
Instrumentation

Buildings

Design
Contingency

Freight

Total
Costs

DMS

$16,01M

$3,13M

$3,65M

$2,55M

$0.58M

$2,59M

$1.00M

$27.0M

Jigs

$16,71M

$3,27M

$3,81M

$2,66M

$0.61M

$2,71M

$1,04M

$30.8M

Area

Opex
Fixed

Variable

Misc.

Labour

Power

Reagents &
Consumables

Maintenance

DMS plant

$0.56

$0.73

$4.41

$0.34

Jig plant

$0.56

$1.04

$0.75

$0.35

Total

% Total

$/tonne

Costs

$0.04

$6.08

35.5%

$0.00

$2.70

12.5%

References

Mills, Chapter 18, Mineral Processing Plant Design Mular, Bhappu

Editors, SME, 1980

THANK YOU
www.midasengineering.com.au
www.midasengineering.com