Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DOI 10.1007/s12666-015-0809-0
TECHNICAL PAPER
Received: 30 December 2014 / Accepted: 7 December 2015 / Published online: 21 December 2015
The Indian Institute of Metals - IIM 2015
& G. V. Rao
vrgottumukkala@gmail.com; gvrao@nmdc.co.in
1
1 Introduction
Reserves of high-grade iron ores are diminishing all over
the world at an alarming rate. As a result, alternative ways
of augmenting and conserving precious and non-renewable
natural resources are being seriously considered. One such
attractive option is the recovery of metal values from
slimes/tailings. Iron ore tailings containing around
4860 % Fe are generated from the iron ore washing plants
and are disposed into tailing ponds without any further
utility. These tailings in the form of slimes are not suitable for iron making due unfavorable granulometry, presence of higher amount of gangue constituents. Several
beneficiation techniques have been tried from time to time
to reduce the gangue so that the beneficiated products could
be effectively used.
Most of the iron ore mines in India produce hematite
ores and have washing plants to produce lumps as well as
fines. In this process, a part of fine gangue material is
removed from the product. Around 810 million tonnes of
slimes containing around 4860 % of Fe are discarded
every year [1]. These slimes cannot be used in iron
123
144
making as they contain higher amount of gangue (Sengupta and Prasad [2]). Several beneficiation techniques
have been tried from time to time to reduce the gangue so
that the beneficiated products could be effectively used
for iron making [1, 3, 4]. Several researchers [57]
worked on the reduction of alumina from iron ores,
focusing flocculation techniques that resulted in success
of varying degrees. Beneficiation studies with Bellary
Hospet region was studied by a group of researchers [8].
The beneficiation of iron ore slimes produced from
washing plants and tailing ponds of Kiruburu mines was
studied [9] using wet high-intensity magnetic separators
(WHIMS) followed by classification in hydro-cyclone
whereby a concentrate assaying 63 % Fe and 3.3 % alumina was produced with an overall iron recovery of
56 %. Though multi-gravity separation is a useful technique for treating iron ore slimes in general and for
reducing alumina in particular, it is not very successful
commercially due to its low capacity. Separation of
Barsua, Bolani, and Kiriburu iron ore slimes was studied
[3] using classification by hydro-cyclone followed by
high-intensity magnetic separation. Their results show that
it is possible to obtain a concentrate assaying 6065 % Fe
with 6080 % recovery. Srivastava et al. (2001) [15] used
classification in a hydro-cyclone followed by spiral concentration for iron ore slimes obtained from washing
plants and tailing ponds of Kiriburu mines. The experimental results show that it is possible to raise the iron
content up to 64.17 % at a yield of 37.3 % with simultaneous decrease in the alumina content, down to 1.17 %.
Roy and Das [10] also tried separating the gangue (viz.
quartz and kaolinite from iron-bearing minerals, mostly
hematite and goethite), to produce a suitable concentrate
for downstream processing. Earlier studies (Vijaya Kumar
et al. [11, 13]) indicated that silica and alumina could be
reduced by reverse cationic column flotation of a preconcentrate as a value addition step and also from screw
classifier overflow obtained from two different operating
beneficiation plants. In another study [12] involving
flotation column and reverse flotation process, high
depressant dosage was suggested to achieve high grade
concentrates with low impurity content. They could
achieve approximately 60 % mass recovery and 80 %
iron values recovery in the flotation stage. A team from
SAIL has studied recovery of valuable iron ore concentrate from projects of iron ore processing plant of Dalli
Mines [14].
Fe
FeO
SiO2
Al2O3
LOI
Na2O
K2O
MgO
TiO2
Assay %
49.40
0.28
13.51
8.44
5.16
0.050
0.010
0.066
0.066
0.030
0.016
123
145
14
% Fe
% SiO2
% Al2O3
12
% LOI
Percentage
Size (Microns)
10
8
?211
1.23
55.80
10.20
5.62
2.82
-212?152
1.71
55.80
10.20
5.62
2.82
-152?104
2.41
58.20
8.06
4.82
3.34
-104?75
1.79
60.00
6.56
4.21
2.94
-75?66
1.87
60.00
6.56
4.21
2.94
-66?44
4.02
62.40
4.66
3.34
2.20
-44?35
4.18
58.80
6.58
5.29
3.24
-35?26
29.80
54.50
8.20
9.10
4.10
-26?18
16.97
50.10
10.90
10.50
5.99
-18?12
15.70
43.10
18.10
11.80
8.10
-12?9
-9
9.12
11.20
39.80
34.50
21.90
29.00
12.60
13.50
8.50
8.00
Head (Cal)
100.00
Head (Act)
49.21
13.58
9.80
5.68
49.40
13.51
9.80
5.16
120
100
80
10
100
1000
Size (Microns)
Alumina
LOI
60
40
20
0
10
100
1000
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
100
1000
Size in microns
%Fe
%SiO2
% Al2O3
below by using a Warman cyclosizer. The chemical analysis of various size fractions are presented in Table 2. It
was found that 80 % feed was passing through 35 lm. It
was observed from the table that size fraction \18 lm
were having lower iron content (\50 % Fe). The ?150 lm
and -18 lm fractions were relatively rich in alumina and
silica. The iron content varies from 34.50 to 62.40 %, silica
content varies from 4.66 to 29.00 % whereas alumina
content varies from 4.21 to 13.50 % in various size fractions. However, a sharp decrease in iron content
123
146
Counts
Fe2 O3
Donimalai-Sample-Slimes
Fe2 O3
Fe2 O3
Fe2 O3
Fe2 O3
Fe2 O3
Fe2 O3
Fe2 O3
Al2 Si2 O5 ( O H )4
Al2 Si2 O5 ( O H )4
500
Fe2 O3
1000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fig. 5 Photomicrograph
displays distribution of medium
to fine grains of Hematite (H),
few Pseudo Ore (PSO), irregular
shaped Quartz (Q) and
Ferruginous Clay (FCL) at
ground mass (Under
Transmitted Light25X)
Fig. 6 Photomicrograph
exhibits distribution of medium
to fine grain, irregular-shaped
Hematite (H), few Goethite
(G) and Quartz (Q) and
Ferruginous Clay (FCL) at
groundmass (Under Transmitted
light100X)
123
70
80
147
Fig. 7 Photomicrograph
displays medium to fine size
Hematite (H), irregular shaped
Quartz (Q) and few Pseudo ore
(PSO) (Under Transmitted
Light100X)
Fig. 8 Photomicrograph
displays distribution of coarse to
fine grain of Hematite (H) and
few Goethite (G). Ferruginous
Clay (FCL) at ground mass
(Under Reflected Light100X)
123
148
Wt%
% Fe
% SiO2
% Al2O3
% LOI
Underflow
65.09
57.00
8.70
5.69
3.59
Overflow
34.91
36.60
21.32
17.19
8.22
Head (Cal)
Head (Act)
100.00
49.88
13.11
9.71
5.21
49.40
13.51
9.80
5.16
Wt%
% Fe
Fe recovery
4000
32.60
67.60
44.61
8000
36.40
67.60
49.81
10,000
12,000
38.90
42.60
67.40
67.50
53.07
58.21
13,000
45.40
65.50
60.20
15,000
45.00
65.00
59.21
123
149
Wt%
% Fe
% SiO2
% Al2O3
% LOI
Fe units recovery
57.69
42.69
67.40
1.12
1.30
1.22
Tailings
22.40
36.60
21.32
17.19
8.22
Head (Calculated)
65.09
56.80
8.07
6.77
3.63
% Fe
% SiO2
Wt%
% Al2O3
% LOI
Fe units recovery
60.30
45.18
65.93
1.45
1.94
1.56
Tails
20.91
36.67
21.77
15.99
8.06
Head (Calculated)
65.09
56.98
7.67
6.24
3.55
i.e. Feed rate (m3/h and kg/h), feed percent solids, wash
water rate (LPM) and magnetic field intensity (Gauss/
Tesla) were varied during the experiments in WHIMS.
The WHIMS tests were conducted by using WHIMS,
Jones P40 model supplied by M/s Humboldt Wedag,
Germany.
A number of tests were conducted to beneficiate the
intermediate product obtained (hydro-cyclone underflow)
and to optimise the concentrate grade and yield to produce
a concentrate suitable for pelletisation. The optimisation
123
150
4 Conclusions
Following conclusions were drawn:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
123
References
1. Prakash S, Das B, Mohapatra B K and Venugopal R, Sep Sci
Technol 35 (2000) 2651.
2. Sengupta P K and Prasad N, Iron Ore Processing and Blast
Furnace Iron Making (ed: S K Gupta, V I Litivinenko and E F
Vegmann), Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
(1990), p 1.
3. Das B, Mohapatra B K, Reddy P S R, and Das S, Powder Handl
Process 7 (1995) 41.
4. Pradip, Int J Miner MetalsMater Eng 59 (2006) 551.
5. Mahiuddin S, Bandopadhyay S, and Baruah J N, Int J Miner
Process 11 (1989) 285.
6. Gujraj B, Sharma J P, Baldawa A, Arora S C D, Prasad N and
Biswas A K, Int J Miner Process 11 (1983) 285.
7. Hanumantha Rao K and Narasimhan K S, Int J Miner Process 14
(1985) 67.
8. Suresh B, Subhransu S S, Singh A P, Abhishek K, Raju M, Uma
Devi T, Sah R, and Ranjan M, Beneficiation of Iron Ore slimes
from Bellary-Hospet, India, in Proceedings of XXVI, IMPC, New
Delhi (2012) p 5272.
9. Prasad N, Ponomarev M A, Mukherjee S K, Sengupta P K, Roy P
K and Gupta S K, Introduction of new Technologies for Beneficiation of Indian Hematite Ores, Reduction of a Losses and
Increase in Their Quality, in Proceedings XVI International
Mineral Processing Congress (ed: E Forsberg), Elsevier Science
Publishers, B. V. Amsterdam (1988), p 1369.
10. Roy S and Das A, Miner Process Extract Metall Rev, 29 (2008)
213.
11. Vijaya Kumar T V, Rao D S, Subba Rao S, Prabhakar S and
Bhaskar Raju G, Int J Eng Sci Technol 2 (2010) 634.
12. Rocha L, Cancado R Z L and Peres A E C, Miner Eng 23 (2010)
842.
13. Vasumathi N, Vijaya Kumar T V, Subba Rao S, Prabhakar S and
Bhaskar Raju G, Recovery of Values from Tailing Ponds of Iron
Ore Washing Plants, in Proceedings of XXVI, IMPC, New Delhi
(2012), p 5703.
14. Pan S K, Chowdhury G M, Sinha V, Saha S K and Rai S, Recovery of Valuable Iron Ore Concentrate Particles from the
Process Rejects of the Iron Ore Processing Plant of Dalli Mines
of SAIL, India, in Proceedings of XXVI, IMPC, New Delhi
(2012), p 4075.
15. Srivastava M P, Pan S K, Prasad N and Mishra B K, Characterisation and Processing of Iron Ore Fines of Kiruburu deposit of
India, Volume 61, Issue 2, (2001), pp 93-107.