Accepted Manuscript

A new method for gravity separation: Vibrating table gravity concentrator

Özcan Yıldırım GÜLSOY, Ergin GÜLCAN

PII: S1383-5866(18)31324-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.09.074
Reference: SEPPUR 14972

To appear in: Separation and Purification Technology

Received Date: 18 April 2018

Revised Date: 11 September 2018
Accepted Date: 25 September 2018

Please cite this article as: O. Yıldırım GÜLSOY, E. GÜLCAN, A new method for gravity separation: Vibrating
table gravity concentrator, Separation and Purification Technology (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.
2018.09.074

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
A new method for gravity separation: Vibrating table gravity concentrator

Özcan Yıldırım GÜLSOY a, Ergin GÜLCAN a,*

a
Hacettepe University, Mining Engineering Department, Mineral Processing Division, 06800, Beytepe,

Ankara, Turkey

* Corresponding author: ergingulcan@hacettepe.edu.tr; Tel.: +90–312–297–7600

Abstract

This paper discusses recently developed gravity concentration equipment, namely vibrating

table, and reports detailed descriptions of the equipment in terms of principles of design and

their effects on operational parameters. Vibrating table originally combines the known

physical phenomena of a teetered bed, resistance to water flow, vibration, and density

differences. The resulting effect of these combined forces can also be manipulated by

integrated settings of feed rate, solid %, plate inclination, and water rate. Following the

detailed description of the equipment, mineral separation tests with two different chromite

ores obtained from industrial applications were performed in order to investigate the

performance of the laboratory scale vibrating table. While former chromite ore had low grade

with complex mineralogy and inadequate liberation, the latter had high grade consisting of

liberated lumpy chromite particles. Experimental studies were focused on investigating the

effect of plate inclination, removal of slimes, ore type, size classification, and particle size on

separation performance. Within the tests performed with -600 µm, -800 µm, and -1000 µm

high grade chromite ores under certain conditions, it was observed that increase in particle

size results in a dramatic increase in recovery, while % grade decreases slightly. In another

test with high grade chromite ore, sustainable product qualities were achieved up to a

recovery of 93.22% in comparison with the 66.08% achieved with a conventional shaking
table, within and approx. 47-48% final grade level. Additionally, product grades and

recoveries up to 50.20%-58.36% with deslimed -400 µm low grade chromite feed and

53.68%-67.45% with deslimed -200 µm low grade chromite feed were obtained, respectively.

Keywords: Vibrating table, gravity concentration, hydrosizer, hydrocyclone, shaking table,

chromite ore

1. Introduction

In its simplest definition, gravity concentration is a class of methods which take advantage of

the density differences among mineral particles [1-3]. As a result, particles of which densities

are different from each other have their own relative movement against the forces of the

gravity depending on the factors such as viscosity of the environment, resistance to the

motion in viscous environment, density, weight, particle size, and shape or a relevant

combination of them [4]. Although interest in gravity concentration dates back to Homer's

Odyssey according to Wills’ [5], cultivating for modern methods and technologies for the

need of better recovery and production continued [6-8].

After decades of research and development, various number of gravity concentration

equipment and application have been reviewed successfully. Some of the most popular

examples and successful applications are the ones with jigs or centrifugal jigs (gold bearing

sulfide minerals, tin, mineral sands, chromite, iron, coal, etc. [9-12]), centrifugal gravity

concentrators such as Knelson and Falcon (gold, copper, platinum, chromite ore, coal, etc.

[13-17]), teetered bed separators (coal, chromite, manganese, etc., [18-20]), FGX dry

separators (coal [21, 22]), air table separators (coal [23, 24]), dense medium separators such

as dense medium cyclone (coal and minerals [25, 26]), spiral concentrators (chromite, sand,

coal, iron, etc. [27-29]), shaking tables (chromite, gold, rare earth minerals [30-33]), and

multi-gravity separators (chromite, coal, graphite, rare earth minerals [34-37]). Among the
afore mentioned methods and equipment, shaking tables are one of the oldest yet the most

effective appliances allowing to process a wide range of minerals and coal having various

particle size ranges from 15 millimeters down to 10-15 microns [38] [5] [31]. Capacity of a

shaking table is in the range between 0.5 tons per hour and approx. 1.5-2 tons per hour

depending on the particle size processed. Therefore, it is usually a standard in the industry to

install tens of shaking tables in series or parallel in order to process excessive tonnages,

especially in chromite processing. Hence, new problems arise due to the required space for

installation, equipment control difficulties accompanied by increase of the number of

installations, and need for more automated flowsheets.

Besides the wide range of use, easiness, and effectiveness of gravity concentration without

the need for any chemical intervention, low capacities of the equipment and increasing

demand for better production always made it the last resort to be considered when all other

methods fail. Therefore, search for enhanced gravity concentration methods are all in

progress either by investigating the better versions of current setups or attempting to invent

totally new perspectives based on gravity differences in order to achieve possible alterations

in % grade and recovery of final products [1] [2] [5] [7].

The purpose of this study is to investigate the performance of a recently developed gravity

concentration system, namely “vibrating table” [39], and highlight the effect of operational

parameters in altering the product qualities. Therefore, configured new system was revealed

in detail and exemplary chromite processing studies had been performed. Within the

experimental studies, vibrating table performance was investigated at various particle sizes

under different equipment specific parameters. For this purpose, either vibrating table was

integrated into some basic mineral processing flowsheets or used solely. Effect of size

classification and desliming prior to the operation was also investigated. Finally, performance

of a vibrating table in comparison with the shaking table had been tested under similar
conditions. Following the data collection, product qualities of each test and their possible

impact on overall performance was investigated.

2. Equipment descriptions

The recently developed gravity concentration system namely “vibrating table” shown in

Figure 1 allows the particles to be separated from each other due to density differences [39].

A heterogeneous mixture of particles is fed to the inclined chute1 either dry or wet with a

substantial solid percent. Sample particles17 are contained in a teetered bed12, within of which

volume the denser particles14 move downwards at relatively higher velocities in comparison

with lighter particles13. Consequently, the submerged dense particles14 are transported

horizontally upward from the teetered bed through the serrated surface of the groove10 of the

inclined chute1 by linear vibration. Vibration frequency9 is controlled by a unit9 which can be

adjusted depending on the sample characteristics. Meanwhile, the light particles13 and those

above the layer of the teetered bed drag to the tailing stream by the water3&4 through the

inclination direction, and they are separated. Water within the process is supplied via wash

water4 (WW) and teetering water (TW) jets3. While WW4 cleans the concentrate from by-

passing lighter particles13, TW3 helps form the fluidized bed where the actual separation takes

place. TW rate3, and WW flow4 are the most important operational parameters which are

adjusted by a water rate adjustment unit, and solenoid valve control unit7, respectively.

Additionally, the water level of the teetered bed is also critical. Denser particles14 are drawn

away from the bed, travel horizontally upwards on the serrated surface of the groove10, and

leave the system through product discharge16. Inclination of the chute is set via a tilt

adjustment bar11 placed under the chute, which also effects water level cut point18 of the

teetered bed. Meanwhile, lighter particles13 having lower specific gravity tend to layer on the

top of the denser particles14. Consequently, with the effect of drag force of the water flow,
lighter particles13 leave the system from tail discharge15. It is important to note that, gravity

powered separation process is started after a steady state fluidized bed is formed. Therefore,

after reaching the steady state, properties of the bed forming material are constant unless

there is a change in the operational parameters.

The inclined chute1 is vibrated via one or two magnetic vibration device(s) depending on the

width of the chute. This unit provides single-directional vibrations. The chute can be

manufactured to have a width of 20 cm to 100 cm and a length of 50 cm to 150 cm. The chute

is fixed to the magnetic vibration unit2 which is a ready-to-use system with amplitude and

frequency control. The unit is mounted on a horizontal steel plate5 whose inclination is

adjustable. The steel plate5 is mounted on the main frame6 (a table with four legs) to fix the

device in place (Figure 1).

The groove10 on the inclined chute1 can be made of stainless steel, painted normal steel,

fiberglass, etc., a sufficiently hard and durable material. The serrated groove surface10 may

be smooth, rough or saw-toothed as the sandpaper surface. The surface of the groove10 can be

made as desired by coating.

3. Experimental studies

3.1. Sample characterization

In the experimental work, run of mine samples from two different operating chromite

processing plants in Sivas and Denizli regions of Turkey were studied. In order to evaluate

the method from different angles, dissimilar chromite samples had been selected according to

mineralogical, grade, liberation and lithological considerations. Chromite ore of Sivas region

had low initial grade and insufficient liberation degree in comparison with the Denizli

region’s ore. Therefore, characterization studies had been performed individually for each ore

as follows.
3.1.1. Characterization of the low grade chromite ore

Detailed characterization studies of the relatively problematic low grade chromite ore were

carried out on physical, chemical and mineralogical bases. Hence, particle size distribution,

specific gravity, mineralogy, and basic mineralization related to grain sizes were determined.

The brief mineralogy of the ore was determined by optical microscopy and XRD method,

while quantitative mineralogy and liberation analysis were carried out with scanning electron

microscopy. Specific gravity (SG) of the as-received sample was measured as 2.69 with a

pycnometer of which top particle size was 14.47 mm (f80=12.3 mm). Fe2+Cr2O4, Fe2O3, SiO2,

CaCO3, Mg2SiO4 (lizardite), and Mg(OH)2 contents of the low grade chromite ore were

determined by chemical analysis as 5.04-5.25 %, 0.209%, 0.205%, 1.24 %, 86.46%, and

5.48%, respectively. Previous studies and visual observations showed that chromite

liberation of this particular ore was starting below 600 μm [40] and reaches up to approx.

80% below 212 μm. Accordingly, sample preparation efforts were focused on crushing the

original sample down to 400 µm (f80=348 μm) and 200 µm (f80=151 μm), respectively.

X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis had also been performed with the main batch to determine

primary minerals along with the chromite [40]. Chromite ore showed reasonable peaks

related with the contents observed in chemical analysis. In the analysis of the XRD patterns,

Lizardite (Mg3Si2O5.OH), Brusit (Mg.OH) and chromite (Fe+2Cr2O4) minerals were primarily

determined.

Mineralogical analysis showed that the main mineral in the ore is forsterite, which is a

magnesium silicate mineral, and it is present in a very high amount such as 86%. Other major

minerals are brucite and chromite. Both minerals are found in approximately 5-5.5% of the

ore. The percentages of Cr and Fe in chromite were 46.46% and 24.94%, respectively.
Forsterite and brucite have lower density values than chromite concentration, which

presumably provides an advantage in gravity enrichment.

About 15% of chromite is bonded with other minerals. Additionally, 13.46% of this amount

is originated from forsterite mineral. Forsterite is more free than chromite, with a total of

approx. 2% locked with other minerals including chromite.

3.1.2. Characterization of the high grade chromite ore

High grade chromite ore delivered to the laboratory was below 300 mm in size, having a

significant number of lumpy and high quality chromite particles within. Cr2O3, Fe2O3, SiO2,

Al2O3, and MgO contents of the high grade chromite ore were determined by chemical

analysis as approx. 33-38%, 24.30%, 4.63%, 13.38%, and 18.33%, respectively. Chromite

liberation of high grade ore was starting below 1000 μm and reaching up to approx. 75-80%

below 425 μm. Majority of the chromite (Cr2O3) was reported as free and liberated from the

host minerals providing a more convenient angle for concentration methodology design.

Therefore, lump particles in the original sample batch were initially classified into two

different grade batch by hand-picking. Hence, two distinct groups of sample batches having

approx. 32-33% and 37-38% chromite content were obtained, respectively. Due to the high

liberation tendency and % chromite grade, each sample group was ground below 1 mm

(f80=825 μm for the former and f80=812 μm for the latter). For more detailed examination,

additional size reduction had been performed with high grade chromite ore batches depending

on the application.

3.2. Methodology overview

Following the sample preparation via subsequent crushing and grinding, various chromite

processing flowsheets either to apply solely using vibrating table or in combination with

other gravity type equipment were designed based on the properties of the sample batch.
Brief summary of the experimental methodology is given in Table 1. Initially, vibrating table

tests were performed with -400 µm and -200 µm low grade chromite samples under varying

plate inclinations of 9°, 7°, and 5° for the former and 4°, 3°, and 2° for the latter particle sizes

(Figure 2a). Following, same plate inclinations were applied to process -400 µm and -200

µm low grade chromite samples right after removing the slimes with hydrocyclone (Figure

2b). TW was kept constant in order to keep the solid ratio of the feed around 30% by weight.

WW was also set constant to 0.75 liters per minute (for a 20 cm chute opening) of water for a

clear observation of recovery changes related with the change in plate inclination.

In the experimental work with two distinct high grade chromite samples, while the former

one with approx. 32-33% chromite was directly fed to the vibrating table in three distinct size

fractions (namely -1000, -800, and -600 µm) (Figure 2a), latter with approx. 37-38%

chromite content was first classified with hydrosizer. 1st reservoir and a combination of 2nd,

3rd, and 4th reservoirs of hydrosizer were separately fed to the both vibrating table (Figure

3a) and shaking table (Figure 3b) in order to conduct a reasonable comparison between

sibling instruments. In the tests applied to hydrosizer products, two different quality product

were collected through the surface ending line of the shaking table along with a middling

product which is usually reprocessed (Figure 3b). Considering that the vibrating table

outputs consist of a concentrate and a tailing, an additional cleaner stage was applied to the

1st stage vibrating table tail which enabled a convenient comparison with shaking table

(Figure 3a). Nevertheless, combined products were also compared in terms of grade and

recovery values attained.

Finally, -600 µm high grade (approx. 37-38%) chromite sample was fed to the hydrocyclone

for the removal of the fines (d50=-75 µm) and clayey content (Figure 4). After

representatively sampling from the underflow (U/F) stream of the hydrocyclone, -600+75 µm

product was wet classified with a 212 µm screen forming two narrowly sized fractions
namely -600+212 µm and -212+75 µm samples. Then, -600+75 µm, -600+212 µm, and -

212+75 µm samples were fed to the vibrating table, separately. After first stage vibrating

table tests of three size fractions, each chromite concentrate and tail of each operation was

subjected to subsequent cleaner and scavenger stages in order to further increase final product

quality and decrease the loses.

Within the tests performed with -1000, -800, and -600 µm fractions of 32-33% grade

chromite samples, concentrates of the first stage cleaning was re-processed through a second

stage. While plate inclination, TW, and feed rates were kept constant in both cleaning stages,

WW was increased from 0.5 to 1 lpm (for a 20 cm chute opening) in order to investigate if

further increase in final product quality could be achieved. In other words, while adjusting

WW rate, plate inclination was set to a moderate 8°, TW was controlled maintaining a solid

ratio of the feed around 30% by weight, and feed rate was set to a constant of approx. 0.25 t/h

through all tests.

Additionally, within each test, approx. 4.5-5 kg sample batches were used. Bed forming

material in vibrating table operations is a constant amount of the sample accumulated in

inclined chute after reaching the steady state. It was also collected and evaluated separately

after each test to be used within the recovery calculations in order to better reflect the mass

balance of laboratory scale tests. In a real life-continuous vibrating table operation, bed

forming material can be neglected by directly sampling from products. Final chromite

recoveries in products were calculated via Equation 1.

Equation 1

where

R: chromite recovery [%],

C: total amount of concentrate [grams],

c: chromite grade in concentrate [%],

F: total amount of feed [grams],

f: chromite grade in feed [%].

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Effect of operational and geometric parameters on separation performance

4.1.1. Effect of plate inclination on separation performance

Following the experimental studies, products of each test was collected, weighed, and %

Cr2O3 contents were analyzed. Vibrating table test parameters of low grade chromite sample

and product qualities were reviewed in Table 2. Also, change in chromite recoveries and

grades of final products depending on the particle size, plate inclination, and desliming were

presented in Figure 5a-d. Results showed that vibrating table performed best especially at

finer particle sizes and when the slime was fairly removed. These findings also corroborate

the mineralogical analysis results of low grade chromite ore. On the other hand, at higher

plate inclinations fine particles were also removed with the help of teetering and washing

water resulting with the highest recovery achievement with -200 µm feed (at plate inclination

of 4°). Even so, -200 µm deslimed feed at 4° plate inclination ensured the highest grade

(Figure 5d). Based on Figure 5a-d, it is safe to conclude that both grade and recovery

increase as the inclination of the plate of the vibrating table is increased. Although desliming

has positive effects on overall recovery, lower grades were observed with -200 µm deslimed

feed samples in comparison with -200 µm feed samples (Figure 5b and 5d). The only

exception to this behavior was observed with -400 µm deslimed feed (plate inclination=9°) at
which coarser than expected particles was presumably reported to the tailings provoking a

limit to the equipment settings (Figure 5c).

4.1.2. Effect of feed particle size and WW (wash water) rate on separation performance

All three -1000 µm, -800 µm, and -600 µm size fractions of the high grade chromite sample

having approx. 32-33% chromite were fed to the vibrating table under similar operating

parameters other than particle size and WW rate in order to observe their effects on

separation performance. In all tests, a second stage cleaning operation was applied to

chromite concentrate at relatively higher WW rates while keeping other operating parameters

constant. 1st and 2nd stage cleaning concentrates obtained under two different WW rates were

combined forming a single chromite product. Results of the separation tests were given in

Table 3. Separation performances of three distinct particle sizes calculated considering

combined products were presented in Figure 6a. Additionally, the effect of WW rate on %

chromite recoveries and % chromite grades of final products were given in Figure 6b and

Figure 6c, respectively. In Figure 6a, effect of particle size on Cr2O3 grade and recovery

were discussed on the basis of combined 1st and 2nd stage products. Results showed that

sufficient liberation at -600 µm particle size provoked a slightly higher grade. On the other

hand, loses were also higher resulting with the lack of the resistance to the WW and low G-

force action. With -1000 µm feed, grade of final product decreased down to 37.63 % Cr2O3,

while chromite recovery in the final product was increased up to 81.63% within a single stage

operation. In Figure 6b-c, effect of increasing solely the WW rate was presented while

keeping plate inclination (8°) and feed rate (0.15 t/h) constant (for a 20 cm chute opening) for

given particle sizes. Results showed that under WW rate of 1 lpm, although chromite

recovery was significantly lower at finer sizes in comparison with 0.5 lpm WW rate, %

chromite grades were higher due to obtaining a cleaner product. Similarly, higher WW rate
increased the % grade of final product of coarse size fraction (-1000 µm) slightly without any

significant decrease in % recovery of final product in comparison with 0.5 lpm WW rate.

The WW jet pipe of the equipment extends along the bed and stands perpendicular to the

flow. The diameter of WW pipe is less than 0.5 mm with holes drilled along at every 0.5-1

cm width, thus the water can be sprayed smoothly. The rate of WW should be set according

to plate inclination and feed particle size. WW is an important separation parameter and

should be provided intermittently, ideally with an opening and closing time interval in

between 0.5 seconds and 20 seconds resulting with a WW rate of 0.5 and 1.25 lpm,

respectively. When processing finer particle sizes, lower WW rates result in higher % grade

and % recoveries in final products, and vice versa while processing coarser sizes due to the

increasing mass of the individual chromite grains.

4.1.3. Effect of TW (teetering water), feed rate and solid % on separation performance

Chute of the laboratory scale experimental setup manufactured with the dimensions of 20 cm

in width ×5 cm in height ×50 cm in length. Due to the design principle, effective separation

takes place in teetered zone and flowing water film carry low density particles through tail

discharge while denser particles move down through product discharge (Figure 7). In order

to determine the solid percent within the system, water and material supplies of the operation

was instantly shut down after the steady state was reached. Solid % determination tests were

performed with -1000 µm high grade chromite sample under constant feed rate of 0.25 t/h at

varying TW rates. Plate inclinations of 11° and 5° were applied for each test separately.

Following, solid % measurements were carried out with the remaining material in chute and

results were presented in Table 4. It was observed that, although plate inclination and TW

have primary importance, solid % within chute does not change significantly with feed rate

after steady state is reached. It is also important to note that higher feed rates would only
increase loses to the tailings due to the chute’s effective volume limited by plate inclination

and TW rate. Additionally, higher TW rates also decrease the performance by over-teetering

the bed in separation zone resulting with the material loses through tailing discharge with

excessive water flow.

The ore to be separated within the device is fed dry from the water level cut point.

Considering the addition of water via TW and WW jets, a value in the range of approx. 11-

58% solids by weight was observed for the feed having 1000 µm top size. Outside these

limits of solid %, an efficient teetered bed could not be constructed. Therefore, an average

30% solids by weight was preferred throughout the experimental studies. In case of feeding a

slurry, solid percent should be calculated accordingly.

Within the experimental studies, an inclined chute having a 20 cm product discharge width

was used. Under the conditions of 30 % feed solid by weight, 7° plate inclination, approx. 5

lpm TW rate, 0.75 lpm WW rate, and with a chute supposedly having 100 cm opening,

capacities for -1000 µm and -200 µm feeds was calculated as 0.25 t/h and 0.12 t/h,

respectively. It is important to note that these values are representative and collected

approximately from the laboratory scale equipment. Also, these throughput values of the

operations were measured without any classification or slime removal prior to the

application. Considering the fact that for a sustainable process control within most of the

operations in mineral processing, properly classified and deslimed narrow size fractions are

preferred. Hence, capacity values may momentously increase for a single vibrating table unit

due to the use of sufficiently classified feed. While an industrial scale up would presumably

increase the capacity, given values are only monitored and circumscribed representing a

laboratory scale operation.

4.2. Advances of vibrating table in comparison with shaking table

In order to make a reasonable comparison between one of the most common gravity type

equipment used specifically for chromite processing in the industry and the vibrating table,

classified identical high grade chromite samples were fed to both equipment, separately. At

the outset, -1000 µm high grade chromite (approx. 37-38%) sample was fed to the hydrosizer

at optimum vertical water velocities decreasing through the reservoirs. Although hydrosizer is

principally a classifier, relatively higher water rate at first reservoir ensured a slightly higher

grade product (41.96%) and coarser particles to accumulate within. Due to the mass pull

amounts of each reservoir, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th reservoirs were merged forming a single

hydrosizer product along with the 1 st reservoir (Table 5). Additionally, 12.90% weight of the

initial sample having 33.89% Cr2O3 was lost as slimes during hydrosizer operation.

Following, “Hydrosizer 1st reservoir” and combination of the “Hydrosizer 2 nd, 3rd, and 4th

resevoirs” were fed to the shaking table and vibrating table, separately. Shaking table tests

were applied as schematically illustrated in Figure 3b and obtained product qualifications

were presented in Table 6. In response to two different product qualities achieved within a

shaking table, an additional scavenger stage was applied to the 1 st stage tailings with

vibrating table and results were given in Table 7. Additionally, step by step comparisons

between product qualities of shaking table and vibrating table operations were rendered in

Figure 8. Considering the tests with “Hydrosizer 1st reservoir”, although individual and

combined product grades achieved with shaking table are slightly higher, recoveries were

evidently elevated with vibrating table reaching up to 93.22% in comparison with the 66.08%

recovery of shaking table’s combined products (Figure 8a). When combined 2 nd+3rd+4th

reservoirs of hydrosizer was processed, overall product recoveries were reported as 59.18%

and 52.88% for shaking table and vibrating table, respectively (Figure 8b). Moreover, grades

of the final products of both equipment were approx. at 48-49% Cr2O3 level. It is important to

note that, these tests were performed under optimum conditions with simplest possible
analogous flowsheets. Considering the operational differences of both vibrating table and

shaking table, linking additional cleaning stages up to the process, applying more advanced

equipment settings such as varying water speeds and different inclinations, and feeding

narrower particle sizes could ramp up the performance of the operation.

In the fashion of real life operations, use of the shaking tables are favorable when sample to

be fed has adequate liberation and is classified prior to processing [30]. These universal rules

for the success of gravity concentration are also considered to be valid for vibrating table as

discussed in afore experimental sections. It was observed that capacities of vibrating table for

-1000 µm and -200 µm original feeds was calculated as 0.25 t/h and 0.12 t/h with a chute

supposedly having 100 cm opening. The capacity of an average shaking table (1.5-2.5 m×3.0-

4.0 m) varies according to size of feed particles and the concentration criteria, and reportedly

they can handle up to 2 t/h of 1.5 mm sand and perhaps 1 t/h of fine sand [5]. These figures

may decrease down to 0.2-0.5 t/h when fine size fractions were processed.

An average feed rate of 30% solid by weight could be accepted as optimum for a vibrating

table operation due to the experimental results. On the other hand, although the quantity of

water used in the feed pulp varies, shaking table’s normal feed dilution in comparison with

the vibrating table were reported as 20-25% solids by weight for ores, and 33-40% solids for

coal [2, 5].

Shaking tables are used in a variety of applications, and depending on the application an

industrial shaking table is approx. 2-5 meters long and 1-3 meters wide. Hence, single

shaking table occupies a large area and most operations require tens of tables in order to

handle excessive tonnages. In contrary, although an industrial scale vibrating table operation

has not been undertaken yet, installation space required for vibrating table is predicted to be

significantly less than shaking table according to the experimental results.

Within aforementioned experimental crosscheck between shaking table and vibrating table, it

was observed that vibrating table either caught up or outperformed the performance of the

shaking table under the given conditions. Considering the factors such as capacity, space

required for installation, etc., vibrating table was proved to be a strong alternative to

conventional shaking tables when sibling operations were considered.

4.3. An exemplary vibrating table integrated gravity concentration flowsheet

Final tests were solely performed with high grade chromite (approx. 37-38%) sample. Slimes

(approx. -75 µm) of -600 µm sample batch was removed with hydrocyclone and

representative hydrocyclone underflow material was screened through a 212 µm screen

(Table 8). Consequently, a deslimed -600+75 µm batch along with the classified -600+212

µm and -212+75 µm sample batches. These size fractions were fed to the vibrating table

separately. Subsequent cleaner and scavenger stages were also applied to each product and

tail. Overall and combined results of the vibrating table tests of classified hydrocyclone

products were given in Table 9. Additionally, product grade and recovery comparisons of

three distinct sample batches were compared in Figure 9. Plate inclinations, WW rates, and

feed rates were chosen optimum and constant specifically for processing each sample batch.

Results showed that relatively coarser -600+212 µm sample batch provided highest recovery.

Addition of the finer -212+75 µm fraction decreased the overall recovery of Cr 2O3 due to the

increasing loses. Contributing to these observation, overall product grades of -600+212 µm, -

600+75 µm, and -212+75 µm operations were observed in the range of 47-49% Cr2O3 with

higher loses in finer particle sizes. Consequently, it was observed that feeding narrow and

relatively coarser size fractions ensure more distinct operational stability resulting with

higher grade and recovery values.

5. Conclusions
A gravity concentrator namely “vibrating table” has been developed with the objective of

increasing the product quality of density based physical separation processes. The system is

mainly composed of a vibration unit, an inclined chute, TW and WW jets. The principle idea

of the separation is to combine the involved forces of a teetered bed, resistance to water flow,

vibration, and density differences in order to benefit best from gravitational separation.

Influence of the operating parameters on vibrating table performance had been investigated

by performing separation tests with mineralogically distinct chromite ore samples. In the

experimental studies effect of particle size and chute inclination, effect of removing slimes,

and effect of combining with other physical separation and classification equipment on

separation performance had been reviewed. Additionally, a relevant comparison between

performances of the vibrating table and a shaking table had been tested under similar

conditions. Results showed that:

 Both grade and recovery increase as plate inclination of the vibrating table is fairly

increased considering the particle size of the sample.

 Desliming predictably decreased the chromite loses. In addition to the positive effects

of removing the slimes prior to operation, overall performance is also highly effected

by the equipment settings applied whether slime is removed or not. For instance,

feeding -400 µm deslimed sample at 9°plate inclination provoked a lower recovery

but higher grade due to the loses to the tailings.

 Liberation has great importance on determining feed particle size. Vibrating table test

results of -1000 µm, -800 µm, and -600 µm high grade (approx. 32-33%) chromite

samples at similar plate inclinations showed that mass pulls to the tailings increase

(15.50%, 23.89%, and 44.86% weights, respectively) as particle size decreases.

  Relatively coarser -600+212 µm high grade chromite sample batch of hydrocyclone

underflow provided the highest recovery. Therefore, it was concluded that size

classification prior to vibrating table operation result with better performance values.

Results suggest that industrial application of the vibrating table could be used for processing

distinct chromite samples having a specific liberation degree and typical mineralogy.

Vibrating table was proved to be a strong alternative to the gravity concentration equipment

used for similar tasks due to the experimental results, thanks to the design ability of using

combined gravitational forces, practicality, and space-saving construction. Since the

equipment is very new, studies on gold and rare earth mineral processing will be evaluated in

future studies.

Acknowledgements

The authors kindly acknowledge the financial support of Hacettepe University Scientific

Research Projects Coordination Unit (HU BAP) and Hacettepe University Technology

Transfer Center (HT-TTM) for providing technical assistance during patent process.

Conflict of interest

There is not a potential conflict of interest, including any personal or other relationships with

other people or organizations within the three years of beginning the submitted work, which

could inappropriately influence or be perceived to influence their work. All credits on this

study belong to its authors. Acknowledging the financial support from Hacettepe University

Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit is the only condition that was deemed

necessary by this institute so that there were no conflicts of interest.

References
[1] Burt R.O., The role of gravity concentration in modern processing plants, Minerals

Engineering Vol. 12 No. 11 (1999) 1291-1300.

[2] Gupta A. and Yan D.S., Mineral Processing Design and Operations, Amsterdam: Elsevier

(2006) p516.

[3] Burt R.O. and Mills C., Gravity Concentration Technology, Elsevier Science Publishing

Company Inc, New York (1984) p605.

[4] Honaker R.Q. and Richard W., Advances in Gravity Concentration, SME Littleton

Colorado USA (2003) p196, ISBN: 0-87335-227-0

[5] Wills B.A. and Napier-Munn T., Wills' Mineral Processing Technology, Elsevier Science

& Technology Books (2006) p512.

[6] Kelly E.G. and Spottiswood D.J., Introduction to Mineral Processing, Wiley (1982) p.491.

[7] Fuerstenau M.C. and Han K.N., Principles of Mineral Processing, Colorado Society for

Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc. SME (2003) p573.

[8] Mular A.L., Halbe D.N., and Barratt D.J., Mineral Processing Plant Design, Practice and

Control, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc. SME (2002) p2422.

[9] Cierpisz S., A dynamic model of coal products discharge in a jig, Minerals Engineering

Vol. 105 (2017) 1-6

[10] Richards, R.G. and Jones T.A., Kelsey centrifugal jig-an update on technology and

application, SME Annual Meeting Denver (2004) No. 04-21.

[11] Laplante A. and Gray S., Advances in gravity gold technology, Developments in

Mineral Processing Vol. 15 (2005) 280-307.

[12] Maré E., Beven B., Crisafio C., Chapter 10: Developments in nonmagnetic physical

separation technologies for hematitic/goethitic iron ore, Mineralogy, Processing and

Environmental Sustainability-Iron Ore (2015) 309-338.

[13] Lins F.F., Veiga M.M., Stewart J.A., Papalia A., Papalia R., Performance of a new

centrifuge (Falcon) in concentrating a gold ore from texada island, B.C. Canada, Minerals

Engineering Vol. 5 Issues 10–12 (1992) 1113-1121.

[14] Olyaei Y., Aghazadeh S., Gharabaghi M., Mamghaderi H., Mansouri J., Gold, Mercury,

and Silver Extraction by Chemical and Physical Separation Methods, Rare Metal Materials

and Engineering Vol. 45 Issue 11 (2016) 2784-2789.

[15] Uslu T., Sahinoglu E., Yavuz M. Desulphurization and deashing of oxidized fine coal by

Knelson concentrator, Fuel Processing Technology Vol. 101 (2012) 94-100.

[16] Naude C., Effect of gravity recovery on overall plant recovery, Sadiol-A case study,

Annual Meeting of the CMP Ottava (2009) 427-444.

[17] Honaker R., Das A., Nombe M., Fine coal cleaning using a Centrifugal Fluidized Bed

Separator, SME Annual Meeting No. 05-96 (2005).

[18] Kapure G., Kari C., Rao S.M., Rao N.D., The feasibility of a slip velocity model for

predicting the enrichment of chromite in a Floatex density separator, International Journal of

Mineral Processing Vol. 82 Issue 2 (2007) 86-95.

[19] Tripathy S.K., Mallick M.K., Singh V., Rama Murthy Y., Preliminary studies on teeter

bed separator for separation of manganese fines, Powder Technology Vol.239 (2013) 284-

289.

[20] Zhang W., TBS teeter bed and its application of coarse slime separation. Coal

Processing and Utilization (2009) 3:36-29.

[21] Luo Z., Zhao Y., Yu X., Duan C., Song S., Yang X., Effects of characteristics of

clapboard unit on separation of <6mm fine coal in a compound dry separator, Powder

Technology Vol. 321 (2017) 232-241.

[22] Akbari H., Zhang B., Yang F., Mohanty M.K., Sayeh M., Rahimi S., Application of

Neural Network for Modelling the Coal Cleaning Performance with FGX Dry Separator.

Book: Separation technologies for minerals, coal, and earth resources. SME. Colorado. USA.

(2012) 189-739.

[23] Chalavadi G., Singh R. K., Das A., Processing of coal fines using air fluidization in an

air table, International Journal of Mineral Processing Vol. 149 (2016) 9-17.

[24] He J., Zhao Y., He Y., Luo Z., Li H., and Duan C., Hydrodynamic characteristics of the

dense medium gas–solid fluidized bed for coal beneficiation and cleaning, Particulate Science

and Technology Taylor & Francis Group (2015) 1–11.

[25] Marion C., Williams H., Langlois R., Kökkılıç O., Waters K.E., The potential for dense

medium separation of mineral fines using a laboratory Falcon Concentrator, Minerals

Engineering Vol. 105 (2017) 7-9.

[26] Bosman J., Dense medium Separation-Does size really count, 6th Samancor Symposium-

Dense Media’97, Broome, Western Australia AC Partridge and IR Partridge (Eds), Paper C2

(1998).

[27] Boucher D., Deng Z., Leadbeater T.W., Langlois R., Waters K.E., Speed analysis of

quartz and hematite particles in a spiral concentrator by PEPT, Minerals Engineering Vol. 91

(2016) 86-91.

[28] Palmer M. and Vadeikis C., New Developments in Spirals and Spiral Plant Operations,

XXV International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC), Brisbane, Qld, Australia, (2010).
[29] Zeilinger J.E. and Deurbrouck A.W., Physical Desulphurization of Fine Size Coals on a

Spiral Concentrator, USBM Rep. of Inv. (1976) 8152.

[30] Dehaine Q., Filippov L.O., Joussemet R., Rare earths (La, Ce, Nd) and rare metals (Sn,

Nb, W) as by-products of kaolin production – Part 2: Gravity processing of micaceous

residues, Minerals Engineering Vol. 100 (2017) 200-210.

[31] Manser R.J., Barley R.W., Wills B.A., The shaking table concentrator — The influence

of operating conditions and table parameters on mineral separation — The development of a

mathematical model for normal operating conditions, Minerals Engineering Vol. 4 Issues 3–4

(1991) 369-381.

[32] Zhao Y., Zhang Y., Bao S., Liu T., Jiang M., Separation factor of shaking table for

vanadium pre-concentration from stone coal, Separation and Purification Technology Vol.

115 (2013) 92-99.

[33] Bergmann C., Govender V., Corfield A.A., Using mineralogical characterization and

process modelling to simulate the gravity recovery of ferrochrome fines, Minerals

Engineering Vol. 91 (2016) 2-15.

[34] Çiçek T., Cöcen I., Applicability of Mozley multigravity separator (MGS) to fine

chromite tailings of Turkish chromite concentrating plants, Minerals Engineering Vol. 15

Issues 1–2 (2002) 91-93.

[35] Patil D.P., Govindarajan B., Rao T.C., Kohadi V.P., Gaur R.K., Plant trials with the

multi gravity separator for the reduction of graphite, Minerals Engineering Vol. 12 Issue 9

(1999) 1127-1131.

[36] Chan B.S.K., Mozley R.H., Childs G.J.C., Extended trials with the high tonnage multi-

gravity separator, Minerals Engineering Vol. 4 Issues 3–4 (1991) 489-496.

[37] Yıldız N., Cevher Hazırlama ve Zenginleştirme, Ankara: ERTEM Basım Yayın Dağıtım

Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (2010).

[38] Terry R. L., Minerals Concentration By Wet Tabling, Min. Proc. (1974) 15.

[39] Gülsoy ÖY, inventor; Özcan Yıldırım Gülsoy. Bir Titreşimli Yer Çekimi Ayıracı. PCT

Patent: PCT/TR2017/000093. TURK patent: 2016/11469. 2016 August 15.

[40] Büşra Özsoy. Development of beneficiation flowsheets of chrome ore from Yellice

region [dissertation]. Ankara-Turkey: Hacettepe University, 2016.

Highlights

 A recently developed and patented gravity concentration equipment was studied.

 Geometrical and operational parameters were disclosed in detail.
 Separation performance was investigated with distinct chromite ore tests.
 Effect of particle size, ore type, liberation, and desliming were discussed.
 Up to 93.22% recovery and 50.20% grade values were achieved.
A new method for gravity separation: Vibrating table gravity concentrator

Özcan Yıldırım GÜLSOY a, Ergin GÜLCAN a,*

a
Hacettepe University, Mining Engineering Department, Mineral Processing Division,
06800, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
* Corresponding author: ergingulcan@hacettepe.edu.tr; Tel.: +90–312–297–7600

10 3
15
8 1. Inclined chute
1
7 2. Magnetic vibration unit
3. Teetering water jet
4 2 9 4. Wash water jet
5 5. Vertical steel plate
11 6. Main frame
7. Solenoid valve control unit
8. Solenoid valve
6 9. Vibrator frequency control unit
10. Serrated groove surface
11. Tilt adjustment bar
17 1 14 4 12. Teethered bed
18 13. Lighter particles
15 13 14. Denser particles
16
15. Tail discharge
16. Product discharge
12 17 16 17. Sample particles (ore)
18. Water level cut point
3
2
Side view 15
Side perspective view

(a)

(b)
Figure 1. Vibrating table gravity separator schematical representation (a) and actual views
(b)
 Feed Over flow
(Slimes)
Chromite Feed
product Hydrocyclone
Under
Vibrating table flow Chromite
Tail product

Vibrating table
Tail
(a) (b)

Figure 2. Schematic view of the tests in which feed samples were either directly fed to the
vibrating table or after removal of slimes via hydrocyclone (a; applied to -400 µm and -200
µm low grade chromite samples; and -1000 µm, -800 µm, and -600 µm high grade chromite
samples. b; desliming was applied to -400 µm and -200 µm low grade chromite ores)
Hydrosizer
Feed Slime

1st 2nd, 3rd and 4th

reservoir reservoirs

To Cleaner and
Scavenger steps
Chromite
Product to Cleaner product

Vibrating table Vibrating table

Tail to Scavenger Cleaner tail
Chromite
product

Vibrating table
Scavenger
(a)
Hydrosizer

Feed Slime

1st 2nd, 3rd and 4th

reservoir reservoirs

Shaking table

1st product
2nd product Tail Shaking table
Midling

1st product
2nd product Tail
Midling
(b)
Figure 3. Schematic view of the -1000 µm high grade chromite sample tests in which feed
samples were primarily classified via hydrosizer (a: vibrating table tests, b: shaking table
tests)

Over
flow
Feed
Hydrocyclone

Underflow Vibrating table

-600+75 µm Chromite
product

to cleaner step
Tail

to scavenger step

Vibrating table Chromite

212 µm screen product

to cleaner step
Tail
Chromite to scavenger step
Vibrating table
product
to cleaner step

Tail to scavenger step

Figure 4. Schematic view of the vibrating table tests with -600 µm high grade chromite
samples in which feed samples were primarily classified via hydrocyclone

100
90 Mass pull, % Weight
Cr₂O₃, %
80 Cr₂O₃ Recovery, %
70
60
%

50
40
30
20
10
0
4 6 8 10
Plate inclination, °

(a)
 100
90 Mass pull, % Weight
80 Cr₂O₃, %
Cr₂O₃ Recovery, %
70
60

%
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Plate inclination, °

(b)
100
90 Mass pull, % Weight
Cr₂O₃, %
80 Cr₂O₃ Recovery, %
70
60
%

50
40
30
20
10
0
4 6 8 10
Plate inclination, °

(c)
100
90 Mass pull, % Weight
Cr₂O₃, %
80
Cr₂O₃ Recovery, %
70
60
%

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Plate inclination, °

(d)
Figure 5. % grade and % recovery comparison of the low grade chromite sample vibrating
table test products (a: 400µm, b: 200µm, c: 400µm deslimed, d: 200µm deslimed)
 100

80

60

%
40

20 Cr₂O₃, %
Cr₂O₃ Recovery, %
0
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Feed top size, microns
(a)

70
Cr₂O₃ Recovery, % (WW=0.5 lpm)
60 Cr₂O₃ Recovery, % (WW=1 lpm)
50
40
%

30
20
10
0
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Feed top size, microns
(b)

60
Cr₂O₃, % (WW=0.5 lpm)
Cr₂O₃, % (WW=1 lpm)

50
%

40

30
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Feed top size, microns
(c)

Figure 6. % grade and % recovery change in of the -1000 µm, -800 µm, and -600 µm high
grade chromite (approx. 32-33%) sample vibrating table test products (a: combined product
qualities, b: % recovery change due to change in WW rate and particle size, c: % grade
change due to change in WW rate and particle size)
 water level
teetered bed

Ѳ - plate inclination
tail discharge product discharge
Figure 7. Schematical representation of the separation zones within a vibrating table

Hydrosizer 1st reservoir

VT, Cleaner 1 + Scavenger 1 chromite product

VT, Scavenger 1 chromite product

VT, Cleaner 1 chromite product

ST, 1st+2nd stage chromite product

ST, 2nd stage chromite product

ST, 1st stage chromite product

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cr₂O₃ Recovery, % Cr₂O₃, %

(a)

Hydrosizer 2nd+3rd+4th reservoirs

VT, Cleaner 1 + Scavenger 1 chromite product

VT, Scavenger 1 chromite product
VT, Cleaner 1 chromite product
ST, 1st+2nd stage chromite product
ST, 2nd stage chromite product
ST, 1st stage chromite product

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cr₂O₃ Recovery, % Cr₂O₃, %

(b)

Figure 8. Comparison of the high grade chromite (approx. 37-38%) sample shaking table and
vibrating table test results applied to classified products obtained from hydrosizer reservoirs
(a, 1st reservoir; b, combination of 2 nd, 3rd, and 4th reservoirs) (ST, shaking table; VT,
vibrating table)
 100
90
80
70
60

%
50
40
30
20
10
0
-600+75 µm -600+212 µm -212+75 µm

Cr₂O₃, % Cr₂O₃ Recovery, %

Figure 9. Comparison of the high grade chromite (approx. 37-38%) sample vibrating table
test results applied to classified products obtained from hydrocyclone underflow
A new method for gravity separation: Vibrating table gravity concentrator

Özcan Yıldırım GÜLSOY a, Ergin GÜLCAN a,*

a
Hacettepe University, Mining Engineering Department, Mineral Processing Division,
06800, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
* Corresponding author: ergingulcan@hacettepe.edu.tr; Tel.: +90–312–297–7600

Table 1. Brief roundup of experimental procedures

Feed sample description Equipment Classification Operation intricacies

-400 µm low grade ore Vibrating table not applied 9°, 7°, and 5° plate inclinations applied
-400 µm low grade ore Vibrating table deslimed with hydrocyclone 9°, 7°, and 5° plate inclinations applied
-200 µm low grade ore Vibrating table not applied 4°, 3°, and 2° plate inclination applied
-200 µm low grade ore Vibrating table deslimed with hydrocyclone 4°, 3°, and 2° plate inclination applied
-1000 µm high grade ore Vibrating table not applied Lowest liberation
-800 µm high grade ore Vibrating table not applied Moderate liberation
-600 µm high grade ore Vibrating table not applied Highest liberation
-1000 µm high grade ore Shaking table classified with hydrosizer 1st reservoir was fed
-1000 µm high grade ore Shaking table classified with hydrosizer Combined 2nd, 3rd, and 4th reservoirs were fed
-1000 µm high grade ore Vibrating table classified with hydrosizer 1st reservoir was fed
-1000 µm high grade ore Vibrating table classified with hydrosizer Combined 2nd, 3rd, and 4th reservoirs were fed
-600 µm high grade ore Vibrating table deslimed with hydrocyclone -600+75 µm of U/F was fed after screening
-600 µm high grade ore Vibrating table deslimed with hydrocyclone -600+212 µm of U/F was fed after screening
-600 µm high grade ore Vibrating table deslimed with hydrocyclone -212+75 µm of U/F was fed after screening

Table 2. Low grade chromite sample vibrating table test parameters and product qualities
Test Feed top size, Desliming Plate Vibration Mass pull, Cr₂ O₃ in Cr/Fe in
notation µm inclination frequency % product, % product
1 400 µm not applied 9° max. 4.27 45.87 1.22
2 400 µm not applied 7° moderate 7.36 44.55 1.19
3 400 µm not applied 5° moderate 8.93 38.77 1.02
4 400 µm with hydrocyclone 9° max. 7.53 50.20 1.34
5 400 µm with hydrocyclone 7° moderate 8.88 41.15 1.10
6 400 µm with hydrocyclone 5° moderate 12.68 36.22 1.07
7 200 µm not applied 4° moderate 8.37 42.67 1.30
8 200 µm not applied 3° low 7.09 33.23 1.01
9 200 µm not applied 2° low 7.87 25.00 0.98
10 200 µm with hydrocyclone 4° moderate 10.34 53.68 1.51
11 200 µm with hydrocyclone 3° low 7.43 39.10 1.10
12 200 µm with hydrocyclone 2° low 4.44 29.77 1.02
Feed 5.04 0.33

Table 3. Vibrating table test results of -1000 µm, -800 µm, and -600 µm high grade chromite
(approx. 32-33%) samples
-1000 µm feed -800 µm feed -600 µm feed
8° plate inclination Weight Cr₂ Cr₂ O₃ Weight Cr₂ Cr₂ O₃ Weight Cr₂ Cr₂ O₃
% O₃ Recovery % O₃ Recovery % O₃ Recovery
% % % % % %
1st stage Cr2O3 47.02 36.42 51.46 37.28 39.88 44.44 37.22 44.86 49.46
product
2nd stage Cr2O3 25.17 39.88 30.16 15.21 45.68 20.77 5.28 46.74 7.31
product
Combined chromite 72.19 37.63 81.63 52.49 41.56 65.20 42.50 45.09 56.77
product
Bed forming 12.31 16.22 6.00 23.62 20.35 14.37 12.64 21.44 8.03
material
Tailing 15.50 26.55 12.37 23.89 28.61 20.43 44.86 26.49 35.20
Feed 100.00 33.28 100.00 100.00 33.46 100.00 100.00 33.76 100.00
Table 4. Change in separation solid % due to TW rate, WW rate, and feed rate

Feed rate, kg/h* TW rate, lpm* Plate inclination,° Measured solid %**
24 8 11 11.69
24 2 11 23.80
24 8 5 37.84
24 2 5 51.40
50 8 11 18.03
50 2 11 35.33
50 8 5 49.35
50 2 5 58.26
*Values calculated for laboratory scale vibrating table with a 20cm chute opening. **2.7 g/cm3 bulk density
value for the chromite ore sample was used within calculations.

Table 5. Hydrosizer test results of -1000 µm high grade chromite (approx. 37-38%) samples

-1000 µm feed to hyrdosizer

Weight, % Cr2O3, % Fe, % Cr2O3 Recovery, %
Hydrosizer 1st reservoir 48.17 41.96 9.59 51.96
Hydrosizer 2nd+3rd+4th resevoirs 38.93 36.76 8.58 36.79
Hydrosizer Slimes 12.90 33.89 8.30 11.24
Feed 100.00 38.89 9.03 100.00

Table 6. High grade chromite (approx. 37-38%) sample shaking table test results applied to
classified products obtained from hydrosizer reservoirs
Feed from hydrosizer 1st reservoir hydrosizer 2nd+3rd+4th reservoirs
Weight Cr₂ O₃ Cr₂ O₃ Weight Cr₂ O₃ Cr₂ O₃
% % Recovery % % Recovery
% %
1st stage chromite product 20.53 49.00 23.99 13.12 49.68 17.22
2nd stage chromite product 37.03 47.66 42.09 32.54 48.79 41.96
Middling 41.14 33.79 33.16 46.39 29.08 35.66
Tailing 1.31 24.45 0.76 7.96 24.54 5.16
Feed 100.00 41.92 100.00 100.00 37.83 100.00
1st+2nd stage chromite product 57.55 48.13 66.08 45.65 49.04 59.18

Table 7. High grade chromite (approx. 37-38%) sample vibrating table test results applied to
classified products obtained from hydrosizer reservoirs
Feed from hydrosizer 1st reservoir hydrosizer 2nd+3rd+4th reservoirs
Weight Cr₂ O₃ Cr₂ O₃ Weight Cr₂ O₃ Cr₂ O₃
% % Recovery % % Recovery
% %
Cleaner 1 chromite product 80.64 47.26 91.57 23.08 48.38 30.93
Scavenger 1 chromite product 2.22 30.91 1.65 16.31 48.57 21.94
(1st stage tail cleaned)
Cleaner 1 bed forming material 6.86 15.58 2.57 4.43 17.55 2.15
Scavenger 1 tail 9.00 13.70 2.96 54.53 28.33 42.80
Cleaner 1 tail 1.28 40.63 1.25 1.66 47.20 2.17
Feed 100.00 41.62 100.00 100.00 36.10 100.00
Cleaner 1 + Scavenger 1 82.86 46.83 93.22 27.36 48.41 52.88
chromite product

Table 8. Hydrocyclone test results of -600 µm high grade chromite (approx. 37-38%)
samples

Feed to -600 µm hyrdocyclone

 Weight, % Cr₂ O₃ , % Cr₂ O₃ Recovery, %
Underflow (-600 µm) 92.27 39.00 94.93
Overflow (slimes) 7.73 24.87 5.07
Feed 100.00 37.91 100.00

Table 9. High grade chromite (approx. 37-38%) sample vibrating table test results applied to
classified products obtained from hydrocyclone underflow
Feed from Hydrocyclone U/F -600+75 Hydrocyclone U/F -600+212 Hydrocyclone U/F -212+75
Weight Cr₂ O₃ Cr₂ O₃ Weight Cr₂ O₃ Cr₂ O₃ Weight Cr₂ O₃ Cr₂ O₃
% % Recovery % % Recovery % % Recovery
% % %
Rougher chromite product 57.62 48.83 69.98 33.73 50.06 41.21
Scavenger chromite product 7.09 32.56 5.74 3.91 37.56 3.58
Scavenger bed forming material+tail 35.30 27.66 24.28 27.30 9.97 7.08 62.36 36.27 55.20
Feed 100.00 40.21 100.00 100.00 38.43 100.00 100.00 40.97 100.00
Rougher+scavenger chromite product 64.70 47.05 75.72 72.70 49.12 92.92 37.64 48.76 44.80