Experimental Investigation into the Kinetics of the Falcon UF Concentrator

Enhanced gravity separators such as Falcon concentrator which uses additional centrifugal force, are the most common gravity concentration techniques used for fine particles processing. Hence, understanding the kinetics and separation mechanisms within these separators is of paramount interest. Recent research yielded a predictive physical model for the Falcon Ultra Fine (UF) which however does not explain some results obtained with industrial ores. This study aims to identify the mechanisms involved in Falcon UF separation with the objective of confirming or rejecting the hypotheses on which the current model is built and suggesting potential points of improvement. The Falcon UF kinetics is investigated through the processing of complex low-grade and fine-grained ores from the Altenberg tin deposit (Germany), the Tabuaço tungsten deposit (Portugal) as well as a synthetic iron ore. Saturation tests are performed on the Falcon UF by controlling the separation efficiency in terms of recovery and enrichment ratio with time or feed mass. Results show an evolution of Falcon UF performance with time in contradiction with the stationary separation hypothesis on which the physical model is based. Observation of the concentrate bed suggests the presence of erosion figures in furrows which may play locally an active role in the separation. In terms of Falcon UF separation timing, three phases can be distinguished. First, upon initial feeding of the bowl, a bed quickly grows unselectively and ultra-fine particles are ejected from the bowl until the bed reaches its final profile. Next, actual separation occurs with selective concentration of dense particles. Finally, capture sites saturate and recovery drops. The evolution of partition curves over time confirms the existence of two separation mechanisms. First, differential particles settling within the flowing film responsible for the ejection of small size particles during the whole separation cycle which is already accounted for in the physical model. The second mechanism involved may be explained by the action of lift force, neglected in the physical model, which acts preferentially on coarse particles deposited at the surface of the bed resulting in coarser particles being rejected in the tailings. Hence, the addition of a lift force component to the existing model is suggested to account for this second separation mechanism.