Modeling of Gravity Concentration

Unit Operations

A. K. Majumder
Department of Mining Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur - 721 302, India

What is gravity
concentration?

Light
s

Heavie
s

Example from Nature

Gold Panning (Agricola 1556)

Basic Principle : Differential Particle

Settling Velocities

The above two plots indicate that the time required for a particle to reach
its terminal velocity is quite short, ranging from 0.001 to 0.4 seconds.

Why Gravity Concentrators?

Oldest mineral processing unit operations

Simple to use
Environment friendly
Major unit operation in coal washing, beach
sand processing, pre-concentration
Ability to process ultra fines due to recent
innovation
Full potential not explored excellent
research opportunities

Broad Classification
Flowing Film Concentrators
Centrifugal Separators
Separators based on Fluidization

Modeling of Flowing Film Concentrators An

Example of Fluid Dynamic Approach

Limitations?
Inefficient to treat very fine particles (1G separators)
Low throughput
Equipment selection
Non-availability of tailor made designs

Lack of fundamental understanding?

 Traditional textbooks: Analyses of single

particles only
Sivamohan & Forssberg, 1985: No universal
theory available
Mayer,1964; Kelly & Spottiswood,1982; Holtham,1990:
Only the particle sorting mechanisms of some individual
devices explained.

Subasinghe,1983 & Turner,1984: Developed

simulation models either based on hydrodynamic
relations with the empirical constants or purely
empirical.

Aim
To

Develop

Mathematical

Model

to

Describe Fluid Flow Behaviour and Particle

Sorting Mechanism in a Simple Sluice (an
inclined rectangular channel).

Modelling Strategy
Basic Assumption : Fully Developed Flow
Free surface
Velocity
profile
Overflow
Concentration
profile

Splitter
Underflow

Wall

Schematic of Experimental Set Up

Picture of the Splitter and Sample Collector Assembly

Splitter Blade
Sample Collector

Picture of an Adjustment Wedge and a Metric Dial Indicator

Dial Indicator

Adjustment Wedge

Was the splitter causing the flow to

thicken at the discharge?
CFD Analysis
Close scrutiny of the splitter design

Predicted Velocity Contours with 0.5mm Thick Splitter

Flow thickening
Original splitter

Predicted Velocity Contours with Knife-Edge

(0.2mm thick) Splitter

Knife edge splitter

No flow thickening

Depth Gauge
Feed Box

Launder
Splitter
Assembly
Flow Meter

Vezin Samplers

Sump
Test Rig

Example of Water Split Data

Fractional Flow vs Splitter Height (m m )

Fra ctiona l Unde rflow

1.0
0.8
Flow = 0.76 l/s

0.6

Flow = 1.13 l/s

Flow = 1.33 l/s

0.4

Flow = 1.51 l/s

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Splitter Height (mm)

2.5

3.0

Model Development & Validation

Law of the Wall Approach
Theoretical velocity profile in turbulent boundary layer
flow

Basic Equations
If Re < 600 then flow is laminar and

ux(y) =

gh sin
2
f

ux u

*2

1 y
h

y /

ux
u* y
A ln(
) B
*
u

Otherwise,

(Viscous sub-layer)

(Log profile)

y
q ( y ) u x ( y ) dy
0

Volumetric flow per unit width

Now if the linear and logarithmic profiles are matched at y = hm,

hm u * 2
y u*

* y
u

q( y )
ydy
A ln(
) B dy

0
hm

y
q( y ) y ( y A ln y ) Ay (ln y 1) Ay
2

*h
u
m
y m

2
m

Where,

Predicted Water Velocity Profiles

1.8
1.6

Velocity (m/s)

1.4
1.2

0.76 l/s

1.0

1.12 l/s

0.8

1.34 l/s

0.6

1.51 l/s

0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Fractional Depth

0.8

1.0

Comparison of Water Split Data

Predicted Fractional Underflow

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Actual Fractional Underflow

1.0

OBSERVATIONS
Theoretically

Law of the Wall does not Fully

Apply to Sluice Geometry

Predicted

Velocity Profiles are not Smooth at the

Transition Point
Therefore, a new model has been derived for the
fluid velocity profiles over the channel based on the
conservation of mass and momentum theories in
conjunction with the mixing length expression for the
turbulence model.

Model Development
The basic Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes equations can
be written in cartesian form for this geometry as

u y
u x

0
x
y

u x
u x
p

u x
u y
l , xy t , xy l , xx t , xx g sin
x
y
x y
x

u y

u y

u x
u y
l , xy t , xy l , yy t , yy g cos
x
y
y x
y

For fully developed flow with Newtonian molecular

viscosity,, and a turbulent eddy viscosity,t, the
equations reduce to

u x ( x) f ( y )
du x
d
t g sin 0

dy
dy

dp
g cos 0
dy

 t l

2
mix

du x
dy

(Prandtls Mixing Length Model)

l mix ky

putting

du x
t k y
dy
2

After integration and putting this correlation

in the basic equations we have,
2

du x
du x

k y
gy sin C1 ( x) 0
dy
dy
2

p gy cos C 2 ( x) 0
Boundary condition: at

y hf

du x dy 0

(No shear at top

layer)

du x
du x

g (h f y ) sin 0
k y
dy
dy
2

p g ( h f y ) cos

If we introduce two dimensionless parameters

*
u
y

and

ux
u *
u

then

 du

dy

1 du
1
y
2 2 1 0
(ky ) dy (ky )
h f

Quadratic, so we can have our desired velocity

profile in differential form as
du
1

dy 2 ky

1 4 ky

y
1

h
f

Predicted Water Velocity Profiles

1.8
1.6

Ve locity (m /s)

1.4
1.2

0.76 l/s

1.0

1.12 l/s

0.8

1.34 l/s

0.6

1.51 l/s

0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Fractional Depth

0.8

1.0

Comparison of Water Split Data

Predicted Fractional Underflow

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Actual Fractional Underflow

1.0

Comparison of Predicted Water and Slurry Velocity

Profiles
3.0
Water

Velocity (m/s)

2.5

'Slurry'

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0

100

200

300

400

Dimensionless Depth

500

600

CONCENTRATION PROFILES OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT

Bagnolds theory states that in a suspension of particles in a shear flow of

water the Bagnolds force acts perpendicular to the plane of shear that
results due to a pressure gradient in the flow. The resultant force on the
particle is then proportional to the square of the particle diameter and the
rate of shear.

LIMITATIONS
Contribution of Bagnold force to particle sorting process is unknown

Very difficult to explain in an analytical form

POTENTIAL ENERGY THEORY

The theory states that a bed of particles will stratify in such a way as to
minimise the potential energy of the bed by changing the location of its
centre of gravity.

King (1987) applied this theory to model stratification behaviour of uniformly

sized particles in a jig bed successfully.
Jonkers and Lyman (1999) further extended this model to incorporate
particle size distribution effect.
However, these models work on a solids - only basis and in a jig the particle
bed may be considered in the collapsed/packed state.
For particle suspension needs incorporation of a bed voidage model; very
difficult to mathematically describe random particle packing.

SEDIMENTATION - BACKMIXING MODEL APPROACH

If particle concentration is ci(h), i =1,2,3,,N then

N

water concentration is 1-

c ( h)
i 1

Diffusive flux to the particles:

dci (h)
i
dh

Eddy Diffusivity

Sedimentation Flux :

Vertical Water Velocity

v(h) ui (h)ci (h)

Settling Velocity

Net flux of ith particle type in steady state

dci (h)
q i v(h) ui (h) ci (h) i
dh
And for water

N
d

q w v(h) 1 ci (h) w 1 ci (h) 0

dh
i 1
i 1

By rearranging we can write

N

v ( h)

w
j 1

u jc j

j 1

j 1

1 c j w

cj

ui c j

dci (h)
j 1

i
ci (h) ui
N
N c

dh
j
1

j
w

j 1
j 1 j

Hunts analytical solution for concentration

profile
ci ( ) exp ui ( ) (h)
ci (h)
N
1 c j ( ) 1 expu j ( ) (h)
j 1

and

Where

dh
( h)
( h)
h
h
( h)
(1 ) ku * H
H
H

If we know the particles individual concentrations

at middle of the flow then using these equations

2.439 u N
u*

cN ( y)

c N ( ) 1

y
1

h
f
c N ( )

h
f

2.439 u N

y u*
y

hf
hf

c N 1 ( ) 1
y
y

hf
hf

.... c1 ( ) 1

y
1
hf
y
hf

u*

2.439 u1
u*

2.439 u N 1

Solids Recovery in Underflow

Experimental Data with Uniform Density

Solids

100
80

0.73 l/s

60

1.45 l/s

1.05 l/s
1.80 l/s

40
20
0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Flow Height (mm)

2.5

3.0

Size Wise Recovery of Glass Beads An Example

Fractional Recovery

1
0.8
196 microns

0.6

165 microns
137.5 microns

0.4

115.5 microns

0.2
0
0

0.5

1.5

Flow Height (mm)

Classification Even in Close Size Range

D im e

.
7

l /
s

.
0
5

l
/
s

.
4
5

l /
s

1
.
8

18
16
14
12

10

4
0

w
t

%GB

8
6
4
2
0
0

0
.

0.
4
F

r
a

cti
o

0.
n
a

D
e

0.

p
th

18

Dimensionless Velocity

16
14
12

~40 wt.%GB

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fractional Depth

Predicted Slurry Velocity Profiles Using Glass Beads

l
/
s

Concentration Profile (New Model)

Volum e tric Fra ctiona l Conce ntra tion

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

196 Microns

0.6

165 Microns

0.5

137.5 Microns

0.4

115.5 Microns

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.001

0.01

0.1

Fractional Depth

A Typical Predicted Concentration Profiles (Log Scale)

P r e d ic te

C o mp ar a tiv e
196

M
i
c

rons

165

M
i
c rons

137.5

Pl ot
M
ic rons

115. 5

M
i
c rons

1. 0

0. 8

0. 6

0. 4

0. 2

0. 0

0.0

0. 2

0.4

Ac t
ua l

0.6

S oli
ds

0. 8

1.0

S pl
it

Com parative Plot AT 40% GB (R-Z)

Predicted Solids Split

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Actual Solids Split

Comparative Data Using Richardson and Zaki ( ~ 40 wt.% GB)

P r e d ic t

C o mpa r a t iv e
196

M
ic rons

165

M
i
c r ons

137. 5

P lo t
M
i
c rons

115. 5

M
i
c r ons

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0

0
.2

0.4

Ac t
ua
l

0.6

S ol
ids

0
.8

1.0

Sp l
it

Comparative Plot AT 40% GB (B-T)

Predicted Solids Split

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Actual Solids Split

Comparative Data Using Brauer and Thiele ( ~ 40 wt.% GB)

Glass Beads & Ilmenite Mixture Data

Fractional Recovery

1.0
0.8
GB at 2.3 l/s

0.6

ILM at 2.3 l/s

GB at 1.4 l/s

0.4

ILM at 1.4 l/s

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Splitter Height (mm)

2.5

3.0

F ra c tio n a l V o l u m e tri c C o n c e n tra tio n

A Typical Predicted Concentration Profiles of Ilmenites

0.8

ILM 196 Microns

0.6

ILM 165 Microns

ILM 137.5 Microns
0.4

ILM 115.5 Microns

0.2

0
0.001

0.01

0.1

Fractional Depth

F ra c tio n a l V o lu m e tric C o n c e n tra tio n

A Typical Predicted Concentration Profiles of Glass Beads

0.06
0.05
0.04
GB 196 Microns
GB 165 Microns

0.03

GB 137.5 Microns
GB 115.5 Microns

0.02
0.01
0
0.001

0.01

0.1

Fractional Depth

P r e d ic te d

C om pa r a tiv e
1
9
6

M
i
cro n
s

16
5

M
i cro
ns

1
37
.5

Plo t
M
i
cro n
s

1
15
.5

M
i cro
ns

1 .0

0 .8

0 .6

0 .4

0 .2

0 .0

0
.0

0 .2

0 .4

Ac tual

0
.6

S olid s

0
.8

1
.0

S pli t

Comparative Plot AT 40% GB (B-T)

Predicted Solids Split

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Actual Solids Split

Model Validation at 40% Solids (Ilmenite)

P r e d ic te d

C o mp ar ative
19
6

M
i
c ro
n
s

1
65

M
i
c ro
n
s

1
37
.5

P lo t
M
i cro
ns

1
1
5 .5

M
i
c ro
n
s

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0 .0

0 .2

0
. 4

Actu al

0
.6

S o lids

0
.8

1
.0

S plit

Comparative Plot AT 40% GB (R-Z)

Predicted Solids Split

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Actual Solids Split

Model Validation at 40% Solids (Glass Beads)

Microphotograph of Ilmenite Particles

Possible Applications
Modeling of Unit Operations based on Flowing Film
Concentration like Pinched Sluices, Reichert Cones,
Tables, Trays, Spirals etc.
Modeling of Centrifugal Separators like Falcon C Series,
MGS etc.
Modeling Slurry Flow Behaviour in Open Channels like
in Rivers, Canals etc.
Modeling Slurry Transportation

Centrifugal Separators
1. Cyclone Separators

Heavy Medium Cyclones (Coal Washing Mostly)

Hydrocyclones

(Versatile unit)

2. Enhanced Gravity Separators

Knelson Concentrator
Falcon Concentrator
Kelsey Jig
Mozley Multi Gravity Separator

Enhanced Gravity Concentration What Is It?

Effect of centrifugal force on particle settling velocities

How they actually separate particles an example?

Tremendous potential for EGCs in the area of fine

particulate processing

Sl.No

1
2
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
15

Riffle 2

G Forces
Riffle 3

Riffle 4

Riffle 5

N in RPM

30.2
43.4
61.2

24.6
35.4
49.9

19.0
27.3
38.6

13.4
19.3
27.2

7.8
11.3
15.9

Superficial Water Velocity

(cm/s)
1000
1200
1425
8.82
19.24
24.29
29.06
35.48
38.00
39.57
42.59
45.25
52.30
64.06

17.17
25.81
31.49
37.84
39.62
42.26
46.10
48.57
51.04
60.74
67.36

23.87
24.85
30.24
34.07
39.47
43.56
46.08
48.25
51.38
57.65
65.25

1000.0
1200.0
1425.0

80
1000 rpm

70
Settling Velocity (cm/s)

Pressure
(PSI)

Riffle 1

15 psi

60
Riffle 1

50

Riffle 2

40

Riffle 3

30

Riffle 4

3 psi

Riffle 5

20
1 psi

10
0
1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

2.4

Average Sp. Gr. of Particle

Hydrodynamic analyses provided will also help in identifying the

optimum combination of fluidization pressure and bowl rotational
speed to treat a specific mineral in a Knelson concentrator.

Some Controversial Thoughts

What is NGM hydro-dynamically?

Overflow
Feed

Diameter
of
Cyclone

Included
angle

Spigot

Underflow

Definition of Near Gravity Materials in Coal

Preparation Is It Correct?

The degree of difficulty in washing a typical

coal at a particular specific gravity depends
on the amount of material occurring within
0.1 specific gravity range.
Conceptually, these NGM have equal
probability either to report through overflow
or underflow and thus controlling consistent
product quality in a plant becomes very
difficult.

Possible Inferences
Case 1: No particle having specific gravity
more than 0.1 from the desired separation
density should report to overflow.
Case 2: Similarly, no particle having specific
gravity less than 0.1 from the desired
separation
density should
report
to
underflow.
Unfortunately, in reality this doesnt happen
like this. Why?

Arguments
Case 1: This can happen if a broad size
range of particles is processed.
Case 2: This cannot happen as in the
spigot region (for a DMC) the medium
density is always higher than the feed
medium density. So, in the definition
the incorporation of negative sign
needs rethinking.

Effect of Particle Size

Particle Size Distribution of Feed Coal to DMC
Size Range(mm) Mean Size (mm)
-37+25
31
-25+20
22.5
-20+15
17.5
-15+10
12.5
-10+6
8
-6+0.5
3.25
-0.5
0.25

Wt%
35.47
25.46
10.92
5.40
9.45
12.05
1.25

Cumulative Wt%
35.47
60.93
71.85
77.25
86.70
98.75
100.00

The average particle size (d50) of feed coal is calculated to be 26 mm (approx)

Hydrodynamic Analyses
10

Settling Velocity (cm/s)

8
7

31 mm
26 mm
22.5 mm
17.5 mm

12.5 mm
8 mm

3.25 mm

0.25 mm

2
1
0
1200

B
1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

Particle Density (kg/m^3)

The conventional definition of assessing NGM at a given density of

separation needs re-evaluation as it ignores particle size effect and the
particles having densities less than the feed medium density can in no
way report through underflow in a DMC

How do we define efficiency?

More than 80 per cent of feed coal is washed in
the gravity circuits.
Therefore, true efficiency evaluation of a gravity
concentrator is an important parameter.
Various definitions are available but they dont
meet the requirement of combining the grade
and the yield both.
Conventional distribution curve analysis is
the most popular method.

What is distribution curve analysis?

Washability Results of a Two Product Separation
Mean Relative
Density
1.20
1.25
1.35
1.45
1.55
1.65
1.75
2.00

Overflow
Underflow
Calculated Feed
% Clean
% Ash % of Feed % Reject % Ash % of Feed % Weight % Ash
Coal
Coal
0
18.35
11.24
26.22
26.22
16.48
1.5
0
100.0

0
5.02
10.65
16.73
23.62
30.62
39.05
0

0
9.49
5.82
13.57
13.57
8.53
0.78
0.00
51.7

0
0
0
0
5.02
30.52
25.3
39.16
100.0

0
0
0
0
22.81
33.03
40.05
60.06

0
0
0
0
2.423
14.729
12.210
18.899
48.3

0
9.49
5.82
13.57
15.99
23.26
12.99
18.90
100.0

0
5.02
10.65
16.73
23.50
32.15
39.99
60.06
31.14

% Distribution

100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
84.85
36.67
5.98
0.00

Distribution Point

Distribution Curve
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

SG75
SG50
SG25

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Av. Sp. Gravity

Separation density (SG50) = 1.62

Ep = (SG25 SG75)/2 = (1.67-1.58)/2 = 0.045

Observations
This is basically a probability function based
approach mathematically no problem.
Ep value is calculated based on a SG50 value
of 1.62.
But SG50 is a variable itself, it depends on
process and design variables as well as
operators skill.
Therefore, Ep doesnt reveal the true
efficiency of the equipment.

An Illustrative Example
The

washability data presented were generated using

a 76 mm Cyclone operated at a feed medium density
of 1.47.
This means the targeted ash was 12.5 % at 32 %
yield.
However, even at SG50 = 1.62 if Ep = 0 then we
generate clean coals having 19 % ash with 58 % yield.
We would then say the equipment is being operated
at its best condition although the product quality is
much inferior to the targeted one.
This has happened as the distribution curve doesnt
consider ash distribution in the product.

Graphical Explanation

Target

Compared

My Comments
In coal washing the objective is to have a product of
specific quality (ash content) of maximum quantity
whereas the conventional approach of analyzing the
data appears to be based on maximizing the quantity
definitely not at a specific quality.
Therefore, it is felt that the so called density of
separation has got hardly any objective oriented
relevance.
The true efficiency of a gravity circuit should be
evaluated based on direct comparison of product
(quality and quantity) with the targets prior to
separation.

Related Important Publications

Flowing Film Concentrators

1. Majumder, A. K., Lyman, G. J., Brennan, M. and Holtham, P. N. (2006)
Modelling of flowing film concentrators: Part 1 water split behaviour.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 80:71-77. (Elsevier)
2. Majumder, A. K. (2010) Modeling of Particle - Fluid Interactions in a
Flowing Film Concentrator, International Journal of Mineral
Processing, Volume 97, pp 7-19. (Elsevier)
3. Majumder, A. K. (2009) A device for measuring thin fluid flow depth
over an inclined open rectangular channel. Journal of Fluids
Engineering (ASME), 131, 104501 4.

Coal Washing
1. Majumder, A. K. and Barnwal, J. P. (2004) Development of a new coal
washability index. Minerals Engineering, 17:93-96. (Elsevier)
2. Majumder, A. K., Barnwal, J. P. and Ramakrishnan, N. (2004) A new
approach to evaluate the performance of gravity based coal washing
equipment. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization,
24:1-8. (Taylor & Francis)
3. Majumder, A. K., Shah, H. and Barnwal, J. P. (2006) Comparative study on
magnetite medium stability in a Vorsyl separator and in a heavy medium
cyclone. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization,
26:165-179. (Taylor & Francis)
4. Majumder, A. K., Shah, H., Choubey, S., Barnwal, J. P., Kundu, A. K. and
Dhillon, P. S. (2009) Applicability of a dense medium cyclone and Vorsyl
separator for upgrading non-coking coal fines for use as a blast furnace
injection fuel. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization,
29: 23-33. (Taylor & Francis)
5. Majumder, A. K.and Barnwal, J. P. (2011) Processing of Coal Fines in a
Water Only Cyclone, Fuel, Volume 90 (2) PP 834-838. (Elsevier)

Hydrocyclone
1. Majumder, A. K., Yerriswamy, P. and Barnwal, J. P. (2003) The fish hook
phenomenon in centrifugal separation of fine particles. Minerals
Engineering, Vol. 16, Issue 10: 1005-1007.
2. Majumder, A.K., Shah, H., Shukla,P. and Barnwal, J.P. (2007) Effect of
operating variables on the shape of fish-hook curves in cyclones,
Minerals Engineering, Volume 20, pp.204-206 (Elsevier).
3. Aurlien Davailles, Eric Climent, Florent Bourgeois and Arun Kumar
Majumder (2012) Analysis of swirling flow in hydrocyclones operating
under dense regime, Minerals Engineering, Volume 31, pp.32-41.
(Elsevier)
4. Shah, H., Majumder, A. K. and Barnwal, J. P.(2006) Development of
water split model for a 76 mm cyclone. Minerals Engineering,Vol.19,
Issue 1:102-104 (Elsevier)

Enhanced Gravity Concentrators

1. Majumder, A. K., Tiwari, V. and Barnwal, J. P. (2007) Separation characteristics of
coal fines in a Knelson concentrator-a hydrodynamic approach. International
Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 27:126- 137. (Taylor & Francis)
2. Majumder, A. K., Bhoi, K. S. and Barnwal, J. P. (2007) Performance evaluation of
a MGS Treating coal fines. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing, 24(3):133138. (SME)
3. Majumder, A. K. and Barnwal, J. P. (2006) Modelling of enhanced gravity
concentrators - present status. Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy
Review, 27:1-26. (Taylor & Francis)
4. Yerriswamy, P., Majumder, A. K., Barnwal, J. P., Govindarajan, B. and Rao, T. C.
(2003) Studies on Kelsey jig treating Indian coal fines. Trans. IMM (Section C),
Dec, Vol.112.
5. Majumder, A. K. and Barnwal, J. P. (2008) New possibilities in fine coal
beneficiation techniques. IE (I) Journal (MN), 89: 3-8.
6. Majumder, A. K. and Barnwal, J. P. (2011) Performance Evaluation of a Knelson
Concentrator to Upgrade Placer Minerals, Journal of the Institution of
Engineers (India), Mining Engineering, Volume 91, PP. 19-21.

Solid-Fluid Interactions
1. Majumder, A. K. (2007) Settling velocities of particulate systems - a
critical review of some useful models. Minerals and Metallurgical
Processing, 24(4): 237 242. (SME)
2. Majumder, A. K. and Barnwal, J. P. (2004) A computational method to
predict particles free terminal settling velocity. IE (I) Journal (MN), 85:
17-19.

Controversial Topics
1. Majumder, A. K. and Barnwal, J. P. (2006) The concept of separation
density in coal preparation revisited. MGMI Transactions, Vol. 102,
No. 1 & 2: 69-73.
2. Barnwal, J. P and Majumder, A. K. (2006) Definition of near density
materials in coal preparation revisited. MGMI Transactions, Vol. 102,
No. 1 & 2: 89-92. (Awarded Silver Medal)

THANK YOU