Segregation Free Analysis (SFA) for

calibrating the constants K and Alpha

for use in Gys formula
Richard Minnitt School of Mining Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Private
Bag 3, WITS. 2050. Telephone: +27 11 717 7416. Fax: +27 11 339 8295.
Email: Richard.Minnitt@wits.ac.za

Dominique Francois-Bongarcon PhD, President, AGORATEK International, 1720-B Marina

Ct., San Mateo, CA 94403, USA. Telephone: +1 650 574 5411. Fax: +1 650 574 5244.
Email: dfbgn@att.biz

Francis Pitard President, Francis Pitard Sampling Consultants, 14800 Tejon Street,
Broomfield, CO 80023, USA. Telephone: +1 303 451 7893. Fax: +1 303 280 1396:
Email: fpsc@aol.com www.fpscsampling@aol.com
 Structure of the presentation

CONTEXT AND CONCERNS

A new approach
Underlying theory
Experimental results
Calibration curve
Liberation size
Nomogram
Conclusions
 Types and sources of sampling errors
Random errors (INE, FSE, GSE, no bias) must be managed

Systematic errors (DE, EE, PE, AE, cause bias) can be eliminated

Random errors - Constitutional Heterogeneity - differences in

grade between particles in the lot

A given lot, a given fragment size, a given sample mass

Reduce the error - reduce the particle size

Random errors can only be managed and maintained at

acceptable levels through appropriate sampling protocols
 Managing Random Sampling Errors

Causes poor ore/waste

selection decisions,
profit/loss decisions,
poor reconciliations,
poor metal accounting
Sampling error can be
reduced by maximising
the sample mass,
reducing fragment size,
minimising steps
 Sampling Error Characteristics
Sampling error Random Systematic
type
Other names In-situ Nugget Effect (INE), DE, EE, PE, WE, introduce a
Fundamental Sampling Error (FSE) Bias
Sources Sub-sampling Faulty technique
Measurement Heterogeneity Test, Duplicate Test against alternative
approach Sampling Analysis techniques
Measure Variance, Coefficient of Variation Relative difference
Quality assurance Field duplicate sampling Less than 3%
target imprecision less than 50%
Improvement Increase sample mass, decrease Change or improve
strategy fragment size, decrease sampling techniques
steps
 Concerns about current methods
A range of calibration methods used for establishing the
sampling parameters for use in Gys formula for the FSE
Heterogeneity Test proposed by Gy and championed by others,
uses a single fragment size, may not be applicable to other
fragment sizes.
The Duplicate Sampling Analysis (Sampling Tree Experiment)
method proposed by Dominique Francois-Bongarcon
QEM-Scan methods could, - depending on costs and sample
representivity, - replace the fire-assay-type methods of
calibration
 Three problem areas
1. Introduction of Grouping and
Segregation Error during riffle splitting

2. Inaccuracies in fragment size

classification for each series, and; Used with permission, Eduardo Magri 2011

3. Removal of outliers from the data

(undermines the integrity of the
method)
 Shakespearian aside: Research the GSE
Pierre Gy performed 124
experiments to investigate the
behaviour of the granulometric
factor
Did he ever anticipate this
outcome?
We have new technologies to
research the GSE problem
X-Ray tomography and
geostatistics as a means of
characterising and
parameterising the GSE Used with permission, Eduardo Magri 2011
 Structure of the presentation

Context and concerns

A NEW APPROACH
Underlying theory
Experimental results
Calibration curve
Liberation size
Nomogram
Conclusions

Used with permission, Eduardo Magri 2011

 Sieve analysis of the ores
Passing but not Mass (g) Relative Percent Cumulative Percent
>25000 >25000 2626 1.28% 1.28%
25000 19000 12936 6.30% 7.58%
19000 16000 17956 8.74% 16.32%
16000 13200 32986 16.06% 32.38%
13200 11200 19286 9.39% 41.77%
11200 9500 17866 8.70% 50.47%
9500 8000 16956 8.26% 58.72%
8000 6700 16086 7.83% 66.55%
6700 4750 16496 8.03% 74.58%
4750 3350 13886 6.76% 81.34%
3350 2000 12036 5.86% 87.20%
2000 1000 9156 4.46% 91.66%
1000 710 3936 1.92% 93.58%
710 500 1674 0.82% 94.39%
500 212 5641 2.75% 97.14%
212 150 3237 1.58% 98.72%
<150 2637 1.28% 100.00%
Total 205397
 Relative and cumulative mass of Average fragment sizes passing
fragment sizes comprising the lot between two screen sizes
Seventeen screen sizes,
25.0cm to 0.015cm, used
to screen 205.80 kg of
crushed ore

Riffle splitting protocol

for each screened
fraction to produce 32
samples (RHS of
diagram)

448 samples submitted

for 50g fire assay
 Mitigates two problems

1. Mitigates Grouping and Segregation Error during riffle

splitting

2. Eliminates the need to classify each Series for fragment size

 Structure of the presentation

Context and concerns

A new approach
UNDERLYING THEORY
Experimental results
Calibration curve
Liberation size
Nomogram
Conclusions
 Modification of some parameters

1 3
R e la tiv e
2
c fg ' d d M AX
MS

Where g is the Granulometric Factor derived in this case for closely sieved materials
Ratio r = dMAX/dMIN for different fragment sizes
Granulometric factor g versus r
(for closely sieved materials, r = dMAX/dMIN))

Used with permission, Dominique Francois-Bongarcon, AGORATEK, 2011

 Modification of some parameters

1 3
R e la tiv e
2
c fg ' d d M AX (1)
MS

* M S L n d M A X L n c fg ' d
3
L n
2
(2)
R e la tiv e

Ln[ Rel * M S ] Ln[d ] [(3 )Ln(d ) Ln(cfg' )]

2
MAX
(3)

Ln[ Rel * M S ] Ln[d ] Ln[K]

2
MAX (4)
y mx c
 Structure of the presentation

Context and concerns

A new approach
Underlying theory
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Calibration curve
Liberation size
Nomogram
Conclusions
Histogram and descriptive statistics - 448 gold assays
Statistic Value
Mean 1.06 g/t Au
Standard Error 0.025 g/t Au
Median 0.98 g/t Au
Mode 0.85 g/t Au
Standard Deviation 0.53 g/t Au
Sample Variance 0.28 g/t Au2
Coeff of Variation 0.50
Kurtosis 59.52
Skewness 5.04
Range 7.82 g/t Au
Minimum 0.01 g/t Au
Maximum 7.83 g/t Au
Count 448
Average gold grade versus fragment sizes
 Structure of the presentation

Context and concerns

A new approach
Underlying theory
Experimental results
CALIBRATION CURVE
Liberation size
Nomogram
Conclusions
 Primary data reduction
Parameter Value

Mean (g/t) 1.02

Variance (g/t2) 0.09

Std Dev (g/t) 0.31

Relative Std Dev 0.30

Top screen (cm) 0.67

Bottom screen (cm) 0.48

Size (cm) 0.59

Average Mass (g) 302.18

Relative variance versus nominal fragment size
Variance versus Nominal fragment size
Variance versus Nominal fragment size
(Sichels t estimator)
Comparison of the three calibration curves
 Establishing K and Alpha ()

The constant K is The slope is

determined using determined from
the formula: the slope of the
calibration curve
Ln K
3
L n c fg ' d

 Calibrated values of K and Alpha
DFB Grubbs Test Sichels t estimate

Correlation Coefficient (R2) 0.96 0.97 0.96

Number of data points

77 6 1
removed
LnK 2.9 3.64 4.88

K 18.17 38.09 131.6

Alpha 1.4 0.94 1.04

Gold grain liberation size
4 23 42
(microns)
 Structure of the presentation

Context and concerns

A new approach
Underlying theory
Experimental results
Calibration curve
LIBERATION SIZE
Nomogram
Conclusions
 Calculation of Liberation Size
Parameters Value
Grade (g/t) 0.80
g/g (100000) 0.000000803
/g* 19933261.44
K (calibrated) 131.6
f 0.5
g 0.6
c 19933261.44
Alpha (calibrated for SFA) 1.04
(1/(3-)) 0.51
cfg 5979978.43
sqrtdl (K/(f*c*g)) 2.20119E-05
* = Density for gold-silver alloy ~ 16g/cc
 Calculation of Liberation Size
3
K c . f . g ' .d
1

K 3
d
c. f .g '
1
1 3 1 .6
dl 3 1 .0 3 8
10000
1 9 9 3 3 2 6 1 .4 0 .5 0 .6

1

d l 0 .0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 6 7 1 .9 6 2 1 0 0 0 0
d l 0 .0 0 4 2 2 8 c m o r
d l 4 2 .3 m ic r o n s

d (cm) 0.00423007
d (m) 42.30
 Structure of the presentation

Context and concerns

A new approach
Underlying theory
Experimental results
Calibration curve
Liberation size
NOMOGRAM
Conclusions
 Fundamental Sampling Error (2FSE)
Size (cm) Mass(g) DFB Grubbs Test Sichels t
7.5 1000000 0.00047 0.00063 0.00121
5.5 1000000 0.00034 0.00046 0.00085
5.5 300000 0.00112 0.00155 0.00283
1.9 300000 0.00036 0.00056 0.00084
1.9 30000 0.00361 0.00557 0.00842
0.5 30000 0.00087 0.00154 0.00184
0.5 5000 0.00522 0.00923 0.01103
0.1 5000 0.00094 0.00196 0.00176
0.1 500 0.00938 0.01960 0.01760
0.0075 500 0.00059 0.00162 0.00092
0.0075 50 0.00593 0.01618 0.00919
Sampling nomograms for a hypothetical ore
Nomograms trend lines
 Structure of the presentation

Context and concerns

A new approach
Underlying theory
Experimental results
Calibration curve
Liberation size
Nomogram
CONCLUSIONS
 Conclusions
Segregation Free Analysis (SFA) method improves on the DSA method in three ways:
1. It overcomes the GSE introduced during riffle splitting of the series;

2. It overcomes the need for inaccurate fragment size classification; calibration of fragment sizes using
closely spaced screens is very accurate

3. It overcomes the need for eliminating outliers

SFA data yield a straight line;

SFA is a point-by-point estimate of the relative variance at different size fractions;

SFA allows for better determination of the liberation size;

SFA simplifies the calibration process:

1. Crush 40kg of run of mine ore, and screen large, intermediate, and small size fractions;

2. Riffle split each size fraction into 32 samples, and;

3. Assay the samples and plot the calibration curve

Thank You!