Shaking Table vs Centrifugal Concentrator: Which Is Right for Your Operation?

When designing or upgrading a gravity gold recovery circuit, choosing the right equipment is critical. Two of the most widely used gravity separators are shaking tables and centrifugal concentrators such as Knelson or Falcon Concentrators. Each has distinct strengths and limitations. Understanding when to use each — or when to use both — can make a significant difference to your overall gold recovery and operating costs.

How Each Technology Works

A shaking table uses differential motion and water flow across a riffled, inclined deck to separate minerals by density and size. Gold and heavy minerals migrate to the concentrate end of the table, while lighter gangue is washed off. A centrifugal concentrator uses enhanced gravitational force — typically 60 to 200 times gravity — to trap dense gold particles in a rotating bowl while lighter material is flushed out with water.

Recovery Range and Particle Size

Centrifugal concentrators excel at recovering very fine gold — typically down to 10–20 microns — and are excellent as primary roughers on high-tonnage mill discharge or cyclone underflow streams. However, they produce a bulk gravity concentrate that still requires upgrading before it can be smelted. Shaking tables, by contrast, are exceptional at producing a clean, high-grade concentrate directly from the feed. When fed a pre-concentrated product from a centrifugal concentrator, a well-tuned shaking table can produce 90%+ gold grade concentrate suitable for direct smelting.

Throughput Capacity

Centrifugal concentrators handle much higher feed rates per unit than shaking tables — a single Knelson or Falcon Concentrator can process 50–400 tonnes per hour of mill discharge. Shaking tables typically process >2 tonnes per hour. This makes centrifugal concentrators the preferred choice for primary gravity recovery on large milling circuits, with tables positioned downstream for concentrate upgrading.

Capital and Operating Costs

Centrifugal concentrators have higher capital costs and require automated flushing cycles, control systems, and regular maintenance of rotating components. Shaking tables are mechanically simpler, with lower maintenance requirements and no automated cycle management. For small to mid-scale operations, a shaking table circuit can achieve excellent gold recovery at a fraction of the capital and complexity of a centrifugal concentrator circuit.

The Recommended Approach: Use Both

In most mid-to-large gravity gold circuits, the optimal configuration uses a centrifugal concentrator as a primary rougher to catch fine gold at high tonnage, followed by an MST Shaking Table as a cleaner to upgrade the bulk concentrate to smelting grade. This combination maximises both recovery and concentrate grade. For small-scale operations processing pre-classified feeds, a shaking table alone often provides the simplest, most cost-effective solution.