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

565-568, 1989

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

Printed in Great Britain

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

Fig. 1

Part.
4
9
12
8
6
3
10
11

957/1128

Typical information collected from a polished section using microscopy

TABLE 1

513/1952

Calculation of grade, recovery, and efficiency from

data included in Figure 1

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

2
5
7

392
0
0

2324
1861
543

2716
1861
543

14.4
0.0
0.0

100.0
96.0
93.3
83.8
72.8
65.2
59.2
47.1
40.0

29.7
0.0
0.0

A
(Fg)
0.275
0.248
0.233
0.185
0.142
0.117
0.101
0.072
0.058

(~g)

0.000
0.028
0.046
0.111
0.187
0.239
0.280
0.363
0.412

0.040 0.483
0.000 0.686
0.000 0.686
1.471

Total

Mass
B

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.

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

3.520

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

567

100

Degree of IIl~mtion
(18.7 %)

uS
a

<
E

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)

a
E

(i)

= E(Comb)

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)"

(3)

1 = E(Comb)

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 .

is measured,

and w i t h E(Grind) now known, E(Sep)

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'

No recovery of S

,,,"
>,
Z
w

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.