A geometallurgical model is currently built in two different ways. The first and the most common way relies on geometallurgical testing, where a large number of samples are analysed for metallurgical response using small-scale laboratory tests, eg Davis tube testing. The second, mineralogical approach focuses on collecting mineralogical information over the orebody and building the metallurgical model based on mineralogy. At Lule University of Technology, Sweden, the latter method has been adopted and taken further in four ongoing PhD studies. The geological model gives modal composition by the help of element-to-mineral conversion and Rietveld X-ray diffraction. Texturally, the orebody is divided into different archetypes, and liberation measurements for each of them are carried out in processing fineness using IncaMineral, a SEM-based technique. The grindability and liberation spectrum of any given geological unit (sample, ore block, domain) are extrapolated from the archetypes. The process model is taken into a liberation level by mass balancing selected metallurgical tests using the particle tracking technique. The approach is general and can be applied to any type of ores. Examples of ongoing studies on iron and massive sulfide ores are given.CITATION:Lamberg, P, Rosenkranz, J, Wanhainen, C, Lund, C, Minz, F, Mwanga, A and Amiri Parian, M, 2013. Building a geometallurgical model in iron ores using a mineralogical approach with liberation data, in Proceedings The Second AusIMM International Geometallurgy Conference (GeoMet) 2013 , pp 317-324 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).