Feasibility Studies for Production of Pellet

Grade Concentrate from Sub Grade Iron

Ore Using Multi Gravity Separator

Gottumukkala Venkateswara Rao,

R. Markandeya & Rajan Kumar

Journal of The Institution of

Engineers (India): Series D
Metallurgical & Materials and Mining
Engineering

ISSN 2250-2122
Volume 99
Number 1

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (2018) 99:63-70

DOI 10.1007/s40033-017-0147-y

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by The Institution
of Engineers (India). This e-offprint is for
personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (January–June 2018) 99(1):63–70
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-017-0147-y
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Feasibility Studies for Production of Pellet Grade Concentrate
from Sub Grade Iron Ore Using Multi Gravity Separator
Gottumukkala Venkateswara Rao1 . R. Markandeya2 . Rajan Kumar1
Received: 2 March 2017 / Accepted: 27 June 2017 / Published online: 26 July 2017
Ó The Institution of Engineers (India) 2017
Abstract An attempt has been made to utilise Sub Grade
Iron Ore by producing pellet grade concentrate from
Deposit 5, Bacheli Complex, Bailadila, Chhattisgarh, India.
The ‘as received’ Run of Mine (ROM) sample assayed
40.80% Fe, 40.90% SiO2. Mineralogical studies indicated
that the main ore mineral is Hematite and lone gangue
mineral is Quartz. Mineral liberation studies indicated that,
the ore mineral Hematite and gangue mineral Quartz are
getting liberated below 100 microns. The stage crushed and
ground sample was subjected to concentration by using a
Multi Gravity Separator (MGS). Rougher Multi Gravity
Separation (MGS) experimental results were optimised to
recover highest possible iron values. A concentrate of
55.80% Fe with a yield of 61.73% by weight with a
recovery of 84.42% Iron values was obtained in rougher
MGS concentrate. Further experiments were carried out
with rougher MGS concentrate to produce a concentrate
suitable for commercial grade pellet concentrate. It was
proved that a concentrate assaying 66.67% Fe, 3.12% SiO2
with an yield of 45.08% by weight and with a recovery of
73.67% iron values in the concentrate.
Keywords Sub Grade Iron Ore

Enhanced gravity separation
Multi Gravity Separation

Pellet grade concentrate
Bacheli and Bailadila
& Gottumukkala Venkateswara Rao
gvrao@nmdc.co.in
1 erates. These are termed as Sub Grade Iron Ores.
R&D Centre, NMDC Limited, Hyderabad 500007,
Telangana, India
2 depletion despite revision of thresh hold value of iron to
Department of Metallurgical Engineering, JNTUH College of
Engineering Hyderabad, Kukatpally 500085, Telangana,
India
Introduction
India is bestowed with huge resources of iron ore. Iron ore
occurs in different geological formations. However, major
economic deposits are associated with volcano sedimentary
Banded Iron Formations (BIFs) of Precambrian age. Geo-
graphically, the Precambrian BIFs are distributed in five
broad belt zones, where from hematite—an enriched ore
for iron making in the country, is mined [1, 2].
All most all the five iron ore belts were explored for
high grade ores only. India has large resources of low
grade/sub grade iron ore in this belt, although exploration
efforts were highly inadequate. As per United Nations
Frame work of Classification (UNFC) of mineral resources,
total resource of iron ore in the country is around 28.52
billion tonnes [3]. Hematite and Magnetite are the main
Iron ores. Hematite reserves are estimated to be about
17.88 billion tonnes, which were again classified as reserve
category (8.09 billion tonnes) and remaining resource
category (9.79 billion tonnes). Total resources of Magnetite
are estimated as 10.64 billion tonnes in which 0.02 billion
tonnes were classified as reserve category and 10.62 billion
tonnes under remaining resource category. Majority of
Hematite iron ores (over 85%) reserves are of medium to
high grade (?62% Fe) and are directly used in blast fur-
nace and DRI plants in the form of sized lumps or sinters
[3]. The remaining Hematite ores are to be beneficiated for
exploration. These low grade iron ores are in the form of
Banded Hematite Quartzite (BHQ), Banded Hematite Jas-
per (BHJ), Banded Hematite Chert (BHC) and conglom-
With high grade iron ore reserves under the threat of
45% (total Fe), it is obligatory on the part of mining
industry to consider exploitation and utilisation of low/lean
123
 Author's personal copy
64
grade and sub grade iron ores which hitherto were side
lined as waste. The fresh exploration strategy would have
to be drawn with cut off grade ores as a target.
MGS was used to concentrate chromite ore and its
tailings to recover chromite values [4–11]. Rao et al.
[12–17] carried out extensive studies on beneficiation of
low grade and sub grade iron ores to produced pellet grade
concentrate using spiral concentrator, Floatex Density
Separator and Multi Gravity Separator. Multi Gravity
Separator was also found to be effective to reject graphite
from lead concentrate [18–20]. Multi gravity separator was
used for recovery of mineral values and recovery of iron
values from fine iron ore particles [21, 22]. Several
scholars tried to optimise the variable and attempted to
derive equations for concentrate grade and yield [23–26]
using enhanced gravity methods. MGS is used in this
experimental process to produce a commercial grade iron
ore concentrate from SGIO as the ore and gangue particles
are being liberated below 100 microns.
Materials and Methods
The Sample and its Characterisation
The ‘as received’ ROM sample of Sub Grade Iron Ore
(SGIO) from Bacheli complex, Bailadila, Chhattisgarh,
India is an admixture of lump, fines and friable ore; where
the fines contribute in higher proportion (up to 36%). The
size of the ‘as received’ sample varies from 150 mm to less
than 1 mm. The lump samples show alternate bands of iron
and silica.
The ‘as-received’ sample was mixed thoroughly and
representative samples were drawn for size analysis,
characterisation, Screen Assay Analysis and beneficiation
studies. Chemical analysis was carried out by standard
procedures (wet) and Induction Coupled Plasma (ICP)
Table 1 Chemical analysis of ‘as received’ ROM sample
Constituent Fe FeO SiO2 Al2O3
Assay % 40.80 0.70 40.90 0.24
Table 2 Liberation studies of ‘as received’ Sub Grade Iron Ore sample
Ore/Gangue mineral Grain size (Microns)
Hematite (H) Large 220–100
Intermediate 100–30
Small \30
Quartz Large 220–100
Intermediate 100–30
Small \30
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (January–June 2018) 99(1):63–70
(Model JY2000-2 and Make JOBINYVON). The ‘as
received’ sample assayed 40.80% Fe, 40.90% SiO2 and all
other constituents are well within the limits. Chemical
analysis of the ‘as received’ ROM sample is presented in
Table 1.
Mineralogical studies indicate that the main ore mineral is
Hematite and lone gangue mineral is Quartz. The same was
supported by XRD Studies. The liberation studies indicate
that the average particle size for liberation is below 100
microns. Liberation studies are presented in Table 2 which is
self explanatory. Bond’s Ball Mill Work index for the ‘as
received’ ROM sample was found to be 10.45 kW/T.
A representative sub sample of ‘as received’ sample was
drawn by adopting standard sampling methods and sub-
jected to size analysis by using standard sieves (100, 80,
50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 6, 3 mm up to 37 micron). All the
products were dried and weighed separately. The screen
assay analysis of ‘as received’ sample is presented in
Table 3. These size fractions were ground to \200 mesh
(75 microns) and subjected to chemical analysis. From
Table 3 it could be observed that the highest concentration
of Iron (49.20%) is in -3 ? 1 mm size fraction where as
the lowest concentration (22.40%) is found in -65 ? 100
mesh (-212 ? 152 micron). From Table 3, it can be
observed that Iron distribution (Fe) is in the range of
22.40–49.2%, whereas, SiO2 ranged from 28.52 to 67.60%
in individual size fractions of ‘as received’ sample.
A representative portion of ‘as received’ ROM sample
was stage crushed and ground to\100 mesh (150 microns).
A portion of the representative ground sample was sub-
jected to wet size analysis. All the size fractions were dried,
weighed and subjected for chemical analysis individually.
The screen assay analysis of stage crushed and ground to
0.150 mm is presented in the Table 4. The size analysis of
‘as received’ sample and ground sample are presented in
Fig. 1. The P80 size of ‘as received’ sample and ground
sample are 55 mm and 75 microns respectively.
LOI P S TiO2 CaO MgO MnO
0.22 0.05 \0.01 0.091 0.119 0.110 0.045
Area (%) Unliberated grains (%) Fully liberated grains (%)
10 95 5
55 65 35
35 40 60
20 80 20
35 65 35
45 60 40
 Author's personal copy
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (January–June 2018) 99(1):63–70 65

Table 3 Screen Assay Analysis of ‘as received’ sample

Size (mm/mesh) Size (Microns) Wt% %Fe %SiO2 %Al2O3 %LOI

?100 mm ?100,000 1.74 45.80 34.34 0.16 0.02

-100 ? 80 mm ?80,000 8.30 36.40 47.86 0.09 0.26
-80 ? 50 mm ?50,000 13.90 39.40 43.12 0.09 0.28
-50 ? 40 mm ?40,000 5.60 40.40 41.40 0.50 0.04
-40 ? 30 mm ?30,000 5.60 39.40 41.98 0.22 0.08
-30 ? 20 mm ?20,000 6.18 41.60 39.72 0.20 0.06
-20 ? 10 mm ?10,000 9.65 42.80 37.88 0.27 0.11
-10 ? 6 mm ?6000 4.63 45.20 34.26 0.27 0.10
-6 ? 3 mm ?3000 6.18 47.40 31.32 0.22 0.05
-3 ? 1 mm ?1000 4.63 49.20 28.52 0.36 0.10
-1 mm ? 20 mesh ?853 1.48 45.20 33.36 0.34 0.12
-20 ? 28 mesh ?599 1.31 40.00 41.30 0.36 0.12
-28 ? 35 mesh ?422 1.53 31.00 55.36 0.33 0.07
-35 ? 48 mesh ?297 1.26 25.80 62.00 0.25 0.24
-48 ? 65 mesh ?211 1.88 22.60 66.86 0.24 0.17
-65 ? 100 mesh ?152 2.44 22.40 67.60 0.19 0.11
-100 ? 150 mesh ?104 1.73 26.80 60.40 0.17 0.10
-150 ? 200mesh ?75 1.54 33.60 51.14 0.06 0.20
-200 ? 250mesh ?66 4.15 39.00 42.92 0.10 0.13
-250 ? 325mesh ?44 2.03 43.20 37.48 0.08 0.30
-325 ? 400 mesh ?37 5.30 44.20 35.38 0.13 0.21
-400 mesh -37 8.93 45.20 33.84 0.51 0.50
Head (Cal) 100.00 40.59 41.03 0.23 0.18
Head (Act) 40.80 40.90 0.24 0.22

Table 4 Screen assay analysis of stage crushed and ground to 0.150 mm sample
Product size (mesh) Size (Micron) Wt% %Fe %SiO2

?100 mesh ?152 Nil – –

-100 ? 150 mesh -152 ? 104 8.64 36.30 48.20
-150 ? 200 mesh -104 ? 75 11.58 36.00 48.00
-200 ? 250 mesh -75 ? 66 8.88 37.70 45.20
-250 ? 325 mesh -66 ? 44 17.07 40.50 42.20
-325 ? 400 mesh -44 ? 37 4.68 41.50 38.48
-400 mesh -37 49.15 43.00 36.00
Head (Cal) 100.00 40.64 40.44
Head (Act) 40.80 40.90

Distribution of Iron and Silica in various size fractions of
stage crushed and ground sample, is presented in Fig. 2,
which is the feed for the experimental work. XRD pattern
(Difractogram) of as received SGIO sample is presented as
Fig. 3. From XRD studies and mineralogical studies it was
confirmed that the main minerals are Hematite and Quartz.
From the Table 4 and Fig. 2, it can be observed that iron
(Fe) is distributed in the range of 36.00–43.00% and Silica
(SiO2) 36.00–48.20% in the stage crushed and ground
sample.
Experimental Results and Discussion
Experimental Method
The Multi Gravity Separator (MGS) of 200 kg/h capacity
(Make: Richard Mozley Ltd, UK Model: C900) was used
in this experimental work. Its structure and operating
conditions are reported elsewhere [4]. Feed to MGS was
prepared by mixing 500 grams of dry sample with 1 litre of

123
 Author's personal copy
66 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (January–June 2018) 99(1):63–70

120

Cumulave weight % Passing

100
80
60
40
20
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Size in Microns
ROM Ground product

Fig. 1 Size analysis of ‘as received’ sample and stage crushed and ground sample

50
48
46
44
Percentage

42
40
38
36
34
32
30
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Size in microns
%Fe % SiO2

Fig. 2 Distribution of Iron and silica in size fractions of stage crushed and ground -0.150 mm product

Counts
Si O2

4000 iron oxide 1

3000

2000
Fe2 O3

Fe2 O3; Si O2

1000
Fe2 O3
Si O2

Fe2 O3

Si O2
Fe2 O3

Si O2

Fe2 O3

Si O2
Si O2

Si O2

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Position [°2Theta] (Copper (Cu))

Fig. 3 Images illustrating XRD patterns of ‘as received’ SGIO

123
 Author's personal copy
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (January–June 2018) 99(1):63–70 67

water which gives 33.33% solids concentration (by
weight). The mixture was stirred continuously to maintain
uniform suspension. The MGS variables were adjusted at
the required level as per the experimental design. The feed
slurry was then fed to the MGS feed vessel at a constant
flow rate while MGS was in operation. The machine was
kept running until the material flow is finished, which took
about 2–3 min and cleaned thoroughly for the next
experiment. Upper cover of the separator was removed and
remaining material in the drum was thoroughly washed.
Tailing (light product) was collected through back launder
and Concentrate (heavy product) through front launder.
Experimental Results
Experiments were conducted in two stages by using Multi
Gravity Separator. The first stage (rougher MGS) was
aimed to recover maximum possible iron values in the
concentrate and the second stage (cleaner MGS) was aimed
to produce commercial grade pellet concentrate.
The main operating variables of MGS are shake
amplitude, shake frequency, drum rotational speed
(RPM), drum angle of inclination, wash water flow rate
(LPM) and feed percent solids. In the Rougher MGS
experiments drum rotational speed (RPM), drum angle of
inclination and wash water are varied and all other
parameters are kept constant. A sinusoidal shake with
amplitude varying between 12 and 25 mm is superim-
posed upon the motion of the drum in an axial direction.
The shake frequency ranges between 2 and 6 cps. For the
first cycle of experiments shake amplitude 18 mm and the
shake frequency 4 cps are maintained constant and for
second cycle of experiments wash water flow rate of 4
LPM and shake frequency of 4 cps were maintained
constant. The experimental variable were selected based
on Box Behnken Model [12] and responses were recor-
ded. The products were collected weighed, dried and
subjected for chemical analysis. Concentrate grade, yield
and percent recovery of iron values are calculated and
presented in Table 5.
Optimisation Studies
From the Table 5, it could be observed that it is not pos-
sible to produce pellet grade concentrate in the first cycle
of experiments. Hence, this has to be further processed for
obtaining a concentrate suitable for pellet feed. This can be
done after optimising the responses of the rougher MGS
cycle. It is a known fact that the concentrate grade and
yield are always inversely proportional to each other in any
mineral processing operation. It can be observed from the
test results that rougher MGS cannot produce a mar-
ketable product of 65% Fe in a single unit operation eco-
nomically. It may be possible to produce pellet grade
concentrate of around 65% Fe from rougher MGS Con-
centrate after subjecting to cleaner MGS cycle. To produce
an economically viable Blast Furnace grade or Direct
Reduction (DR) grade product (pellet feed) and yield
should be optimised for rougher MGS concentrate. Opti-
misation of rougher MGS were done based on percent
recovery of iron values and its grade. Experiment no. 10
could produce a concentrate of 55.80% Fe, 19.90% SiO2
with a recovery of 84.42% Iron values. The variation of
concentrate grade (%Fe) and concentrate yield (wt%) for

Table 5 First cycle of Experimental results with ground sub grade iron ore
Experiment Process variables (Coded/Actual) Response variables of concentrate % SiO2 in
run no. concentrate
Drum angle of inclination Wash water flow rate Drum speed Yield Grade Recovery of iron
(degrees) (LPM) (RPM) (wt%) (%Fe) values

1 3 2 200 47.70 54.60 63.83 21.20

2 5 2 200 53.60 57.00 74.88 18.04
3 4 4 200 43.44 56.80 60.48 18.20
4 3 6 200 18.34 62.00 58.26 11.00
5 5 6 200 49.60 57.70 70.15 17.20
6 3 4 175 12.00 62.00 18.24 11.00
7 5 4 175 19.00 60.80 28.31 12.46
8 4 6 225 59.00 54.11 78.23 22.10
9 3 4 225 54.34 53.60 71.39 23.00
10 5 4 225 61.73 55.80 84.42 19.90
11 4 2 175 19.50 60.80 29.06 12.70
12 4 6 175 13.70 59.60 20.01 14.50
13 4 2 225 65.37 50.00 80.11 27.80

123
 Author's personal copy
68 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (January–June 2018) 99(1):63–70

64.00 the first cycle (rougher MGS) is shown in the Fig. 4. From
62.00 the Fig. 4, it can be observed that as the concentrate yield
increases, the concentrate grade decreased and vice versa.
Concentrate Grade (%Fe)

60.00
Relation between MGS concentrate grade (%Fe) and yield
58.00
(wt%) is shown in Fig. 4 which resembles theory. Figure 5
56.00 shows the distribution of iron and silica content in the
54.00 rougher MGS concentrate produced.
52.00
Second Cycle (MGS Cleaner) Studies
50.00

48.00 In the second cycle also the parameters were selected based
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 on Box Behnken Method design table. In the second cycle
Concentrate Yield (Weight percent)
the variables are drum angle of inclination, drum amplitude
Fig. 4 Relation between concentrate yield and concentrate grade and drum speed. All other parameters, except the ones
(%Fe) mentioned, are maintained constant. 13 No’s of experi-
ments were conducted in the second cycle. Products were
30.00
collected, dried, weighed and subjected for chemical
Concentrate Silica content (Percent)

28.00 analysis. MGS cleaner concentrate grade yield with respect

26.00 to original and iron values recovery were calculated which
24.00 are presented in Table 6.
22.00 Experiment No 16, 20 and 22 were able to produce a
20.00 concentrate of ?65%Fe with a yield of 45.84, 45.08 and
18.00 47.86% respectively with respect to original (column 8).
16.00 The % SiO2 in the concentrate is 4.41, 3.16 and 5.20% for
14.00
experiment 16, 20 and 22 respectively. The iron values
12.00
recovery in the concentrate is highest for experiment no. 22
10.00
49.00 51.00 53.00 55.00 57.00 59.00 61.00 63.00 (76.55%), and lowest for experiment 26 (70.03%). The best
Concentrate Iron content (Percent) results are for experiment no. 20, which is able to produce a
concentrate of 66.67%Fe, 3.16% SiO2. With 73.67%
Fig. 5 Relation between concentrate iron content and Silica content recovery of iron values in the concentrate, which can be

Table 6 Second cycle of Experimental results with Concentrate produced from first cycle
Experiment Actual values of variables Concentrate Concentrate Concentrate Yield (With Recovery of
Run No. yield (wt%) grade (%Fe) grade (%SiO2) respect to iron values
Drum angle of Stroke Drum original)
inclination (degrees) length speed
(mm) (RPM)

14 2 10 200 77.49 64.31 6.54 47.84 75.39

15 4 10 200 79.66 59.06 14.05 49.17 71.18
16 2 20 200 74.23 65.80 4.41 45.82 73.89
17 4 20 200 82.39 60.34 12.22 50.86 75.21
18 2 15 180 79.83 59.10 13.98 49.28 71.38
19 4 15 180 78.87 62.47 9.17 48.69 74.54
20 2 15 220 73.03 66.67 3.16 45.08 73.67
21 4 15 220 80.15 56.98 17.03 49.47 69.09
22 3 10 180 77.54 65.25 5.20 47.86 76.55
23 3 20 180 79.00 61.57 10.45 48.76 73.59
24 3 10 220 77.57 63.89 7.14 47.88 74.98
25 3 20 220 79.86 61.90 9.98 49.30 74.79
26 3 15 200 81.21 56.99 17.00 50.13 70.03

123
 Author's personal copy
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (January–June 2018) 99(1):63–70 69

Legend

Weight % % Fe
%SiO2 % Iron values
Recovery

‘As Received’ ROM Sample

100.00 40.80
40.90 100.00

Stage Crushing and Grinding

to -100mesh (0.150mm)

Multi Gravity Separator

(Rougher)
61.73 55.80 38.27 16.61
19.90 84.42 74.77 15.58

Rougher MGS Concentrate Rougher MGS Tails

Reject 1

Multi Gravity Separator

(Cleaner)
16.65 26.36
45.08 66.67 65.22 10.75
3.16 73.67

Cleaner MGS Concentrate Cleaner MGS Tails

Reject 2

Final Concentrate Final Reject

45.08 66.67
3.16 73.67 54.92 19.57
71.88 26.33

Fig. 6 Process flow sheet adopted for producing pellet grade concentrate from SGIO with Metallurgical balance

used for pelletisation. The process adopted for production
of pellet grade concentrate from SGIO by using MGS is
shown in Fig. 6.
Conclusion
1. The ‘as received’ sample is very low grade and termed
as Sub Grade Iron Ore which assayed 40.80% Fe, and
40.90% SiO2 and all other elements are within their
critical limits.
2. The main mineral constituents of the ‘as received’
sample are Hematite and Quartz.
3. The mineral liberation studies indicated that the
hematite is getting liberated below 150 microns.
4. It was not possible to produce pellet grade concentrate
by rougher unit operation using Multi Gravity Separa-
tor. During this operation the highest grade concentrate
produced assayed 62.00% Fe, 11.00% SiO2 with a
yield of 18.34% by weight and the lowest grade is
50.00% Fe with an yield of 65.37% by weight.

123
 Author's personal copy
70
5. The highest recovery of iron values in the rougher
MGS unit operation is 84.42% and assayed 55.80% Fe,
19.90% SiO2 with an yield of 61.73% by weight.
6. A cleaner MGS concentrate of 66.67% Fe and 3.16%
of SiO2 with a yield of 45.08% by weight and 73.67%
iron values were recovered.
7. The concentrate produced by two stage concentration
using Multi Gravity Separator is well within the range
of pellet feed concentrate.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank NMDC management
for permitting to conduct studies and to publish this paper. The
authors wish to acknowledge all the individuals for their assistance in
executing the test work, particularly scientists of R&D Centre,
NMDC Limited, Hyderabad for their valuable discussion and
suggestions.
References
1. G.S. Roonwal, Iron ore deposits and Banded iron ore formations
of India (Daya Publishing house, New Delhi, 2012), p. 123
2. Deepak Vidhyarthi, Indian Iron ore Mining, 1st edn. (Mintech
Publication, Bhubaneswar, 2007)
3. Anonymous, Iron & Steel Vision-2020, Indian Bureau of Mines,
Ministry of Mines, August 2011, Chapter 2, pp 13–35
4. B.S. Chan, R.H. Mozley, G.J.C. Childs, Extended trails with the
High Tonnage Multi Gravity Separator. Miner. Eng. 4, 489–496
(1991)
5. B.S. Chan, R.H. Mozley, G.J.C. Childs, The Multi Gravity sep-
arator (MGS): A Mine scale Machine. Red ruth, Richard Mozley
Limited 1993
6. A. Bandopadyaya, Multi gravity separator – An equipment for
separation of fines. Process. Fines 2, 81–92 (2000). (NML
Jamshedpur)
7. N. Gence, Beneficiation of Elazig-Kefdag Chromite by Multi
gravity separator. Trans. J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 23, 473–475 (1999)
8. H. Ozdag, Enrichment of chromite from slimes and tailings of
shaking tables by multi gravity separator. Innovation of Mineral
Processing Sudbury, Canada, p. 267 (1994)
9. S.G. Ozkan, B Ipekoglu, in Concentration studies on chromite
tailings by multi gravity separator. 17th International Mining
Congress and Exhibition (IMCET) (Turkey, 2001), pp. 765–768
10. T. Çiçek, I. Cöcen, Applicability of Mozley Multi-Gravity
Separator (MGS) to Fine chromite Tailings of Turkish Chromite
Concentrating Plants. Miner. Eng. 15, 91–93 (2002)
11. K.T. Sunil, M.Y. Rama, V. Tathavadkar, B.D. Mark, Efficacy of
multi gravity separator for concentrating ferruginous chromite
ore. J. Min. Metall. 48A(1), 39–49 (2012)
12. G.V. Rao, et al, Beneficiation of BHQ from Bacheli, Bailadila,
Chattisgarh, India. XI International Seminar on Mineral
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (January–June 2018) 99(1):63–70
Processing Technology (MPT-2010), NML Jamshedpur,
December 2010
13. G.V. Rao et al., Process amenability studies of sub grade iron ore
from Bacheli complex, Bailadila sector, India. XXVI IMPC 2012
Proceedings, New Delhi, India. Paper No. 793, pp 1842–1860
(2012)
14. G.V. Rao, R. Markandeya, S.K. Sharma, Application of gravity
methods for beneficiation of sub grade iron ore. In Proceedings of
XIII International Conference on Mineral Processing Technol-
ogy, MPT-2013, CSIR – IMMT, Bhubaneswar
15. G.V. Rao, S.K. Sharma, R. Markandeya, Modeling and optimi-
sation of Multi Gravity Separator for recovery of Iron values from
Sub grade Iron ore. in Proceedings of XXVII International Min-
eral Processing Congress (IMPC 2014), 2014, Santiago, Chile
16. G.V. Rao, R. Markandeya, R. Kumar, Feasibility studies on
beneficiation of Sub Grade iron Ore from Deposit 5, Bacheli
Complex, Bailadila, Chattisgarh using Mozley Mineral Separator.
in Proceedings of XV International Conference on Mineral
Processing Technology, MPT – 2016, TCS- TRDDC Pune during
05-01-2016 to 07-01-2016
17. G.V. Rao, R. Markandeya, Rajan Kumar, Optimisation of process
variables for Recovery of Iron Values from Sub Grade Iron Ore
by using Enhanced Gravity Separation. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol.
(IJERT) 5(1), 900–909 (2016)
18. K.U. Bhaskar, B. Govindarajan, J.P. Barnwal, R. Venugopal,
M.R. Jakhu, T.C. Rao, Performance and modeling studies of an
MGS for graphite rejection in a lead concentrate. Int. J. Miner.
Process. 67(1–4), 59–70 (2002)
19. D.P. Patil, B. Govindarajan, T.C. Rao, V.P. Kohad, R.K. Gaur,
Plant trials with the multi-gravity separator for reduction of
graphite. Miner. Eng. 12, 1127–1131 (2000)
20. P. Yerriswamy, J.P. Barnwal, B. Govindarajan, B.K. Gupta, T.C.
Rao, Influence of variables of multigravity separator on rejection
of graphite from a lead concentrate. Miner. Process. Extr. Metall.
111(3), 156–159 (2002)
21. R. Singh, P. Bhattacharyya, K.K. Bhattacharyya, Studies on
recovery of mineral values using an enhanced gravity separator.
Advanced Gravity Seoaration (AGS), NML Pub, pp. 47–56
22. S. Roy, Recovery improvement of fine iron ore particles by multi
gravity separation. Open Miner. Process. J. 2, 17–30 (2009)
23. A.K. Majumder, J.P. Barnwal, Modeling of enhanced gravity
concentrators - present status. Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev.
27(1), 61–86 (2006)
24. N. Aslan, H. Kaya, Beneficiation of chromite concentration waste
by multi gravity separator and high intensity induced roll mag-
netic separator. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 34(2B), 285–297 (2009)
25. N. Aslan, Multi-objective optimization of some process param-
eters of a multi gravity separator for chromite concentration. Sep.
Purif. Technol. 64, 237–241 (2008)
26. N. Aslan, Application of response surface methodology and
central composite rotatable design for modelling and optimisation
of multi gravity separator for chromite concentration. Powder
Technol. 185, 80–86 (2008)