Minerafs Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp.

843-858, 1995
Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamoo Printed in Great Britain
089%6875(95)ooo47-x 0892-6875/95 $9.50+0.00

DETECTING PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS IN TRIALS WITH

TIME-VARYING MINERAL PROCESSES - THREE CASE STUDIES

T.J. NAPIER-MUNN
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
(Received 26 January 1995; accepted 16 March 1995)

ABSTRACT

Mineral processing engineers often conduct trials to improve the performance of their
plants. A common problem in such trials is detecting real but relatively small
improvements or changes in process performance against a background of very noisy
data. This large data variance is frequently caused by (among other things) long-term
time trena!s in performance, which can be a result of systematic changes in feed
conditions.

This paper &scribes two welt-known statistical procedures for dealing with such
situations, the paired t-test and the randomised block experiment. These methods are
illustrated through their application to three real case studies in base metal flotation
plants, ail involving yes-no decisions, and all using metal recovery as the main
performance criterion:

1. The evaluation of a new f7otation collector in a production plant.

2. The assessment of two altemative~otation circuit configurations in a pilot plant.

3. Determination of the value of introducing a regrind stage ahead of a flotation

circuit in a production plant.

The paper considers the practical problems encountered in these experiments, discusses
the compromises sometimes required in analysing imperfect experiments, and shows how
the statistical procedures can be used to make good decisions in the face of uncertainty.
The formulae ana computational procedures are given in fill to encourage their
application to similar situations in the practice of mineral processing.

Keywords
Experimental design; flotation; statistics; time series analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Mineral processing engineers are properly concerned with improving the performance of their plants. This
will often involve trials of new ways of doing things to determine whether an improvement can be obtained,
and if so, of what magnitude. If the improvement is judged to be real, a cost-benefit analysis may then be
conducted to decide: whether the change can be justified.

843
844 T.J.NAPIER-MUNN

The problem with this approach is the practical difficulty in determining whether a real process change has
occurred, in the context of the background noise of normal plant performance variations. Figure 1 shows
the daily copper and gold recovery in a large copper/gold concentrator under normal operating conditions
over a period of about 8 weeks. The gold recovery ranges from 58% to 84%, and often in a systematic way;
for example there appears to be a steady downward trend from about Day 14 to Day 43, and a rising trend
thereafter. In such an operation a real and sustained improvement of 1% recovery would be worth a great
deal of money. However, such a change is very difficult to detect unequivocally in the high amplitude noise
and systematic trends apparent in Figure 1.

90

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 80

Day

Fig.1 Daily copper and gold recovery, BCL

Statistical methods have been available for many years to deal with this kind of problem. Some were
developed to handle data from agricultural experiments, which share with their mineral processing
counterparts the necessity of dealing with the natural world, and the large and sometimes systematic
variations of property (in soil or ore) which this implies. It is the authors experience, however, that mineral
processing engineers are not well versed in such techniques. As a consequence, plant improvement trials
are often inappropriately designed, take too long, and lead either to no conclusion when a useful conclusion
could have been reached, or to the wrong conclusion.

It is the purpose of this paper to draw attention to some techniques which are appropriate in cases where
two conditions are being compared in a mineral processing plant, and a decision is required as to which,
if either, offers the best performance. It is also an objective to describe how the techniques are applied, and
this involves a review of some elementary statistical procedures. The techniques are illustrated through the
presentation and discussion of three real case studies from three different plants. As it happens, all are taken
from studies in flotation circuits, but the lessons are general in nature. The three cases are:

1. Determination of whether a new flotation collector gave improved recovery of gold in the
copper/gold concentrator whose performance is illustrated in Figure 1.

2. Determination of which of two circuit configurations in a lead/zinc pilot plant gave the
best metal recovery.

3. Determination of whether the introduction of a regrind mill ahead of zinc flotation gave
improved zinc recovery in a base metal concentrator.

Such cases are binomial in nature: the reagent is A or B, the circuit is on or off, the mill is in or out, and
 Detectingperformanceimprovements a45

the decision is yes or no. The paper does not concern itself with creeping optimisation in which a
particular optimum is sought through evolutionary change using for example simplex search or hill climbing
techniques. Such methods have their value, and are discussed in the literature [1,2].

BACKGROUND TO THE STATISTICAL APPROACH

As mentioned, the commonest problem encountered by the engineer charged with testing some new reagent,
machine or circuit configuration on a production plant is that the performance of such plants varies with
time anyway, both randomly and systematically. The causes of variation are legion, but some include:

0 Variations in feedstock characteristics (mineralogy, chemistry, size, dilution, etc). This is

the commonest cause, and usually the one with the greatest effect (see Figure 3 below).

0 Variations in reagent or water quality.

0 Variations in operator style and ability.

0 Variations in machine characteristics (perhaps due to wear).

0 Variations in ambient conditions (temperature, humidity, etc).

The object then is to conduct the experiment in the time domain, whilst eliminating or accounting for the
interfering effects of time in order to expose the real effects being sought. If the new reagent gives a
consistent improvement of 1% in gold recovery, how can we detect this when the recovery already varies
uncontrollably from day to day by as much as lo%? Mineral processors deal with time variations in the
same sense that the agricultural scientists deal with spatial variation - the natural trends in fertility across
a plot of land whbch is being used to test different fertilisers, for example. The statistical solutions are
identical - to eliminate or separate the time (spatial) variation so that change due to the factors of interest
(reagent or fertiliser) are exposed.

Statisticians deal with such decision-making by setting up a hypothesis - the null hypothesis - which
assumes that no real change has occurred, unless proved otherwise. Such proof is a matter of probability
- the probability that an observed difference in performance is real (or significant), when compared with
the background noise or error, which is usually expressed as a variance. In the cases presented in this
paper, the error is (derived from natural or uncontrolled variations in the performance criterion with time.
Two techniques for dealing with such cases are discussed - the paired t-test, and the randomised block
design*.

In the ideal situation, the experiments should be designed with proper statistical principles in mind, and the
data analysed accordingly. In reality, however, this tends to be the exception rather than the rule; the data
are collected without much forethought and then presented for analysis, or production constraints make it
very difficult to utilise classical experimental designs. In such cases, as will be seen, some compromise in
the analysis may b,e necessary.

Case Study 1 -. Evaluation of a gold-specific flotation collector in the Bougainville Copper

Concentrator

Bougainville Copper Limited (BCL) operated a large copper/gold mine on Bougainville Island in Papua
New Guinea, until it closed in 1989. The mine treated 50 mtpa of low grade ore, and concentrated it by
means of flotation [3]. The feed ore contained up to 0.5 g/t of gold, which represented a substantial
proportion of the mines revenue. In 1986 it was decided to production test a new gold-specific flotation

* In all the statisticalanalyses reported in this paper, the Macintosh program StatView 512+ was used to perform
the analysis. Many other such packages are also available, for a variety of platforms including some
846 T. J. NAPIER-MUNN

programmable calculators.
reagent which offered the prospect of improved gold recoveries. An experiment was planned with the
objective of determining whether improved gold recovery could be achieved with the new reagent, without
a corresponding loss in copper recovery. In the light of production requirements, it was decided to adopt
an on-off strategy, running the new collector for a day (trial), then switching to the old collector for a
day (normal), and so on until in this case 56 sequential on-off pairs had been collected. Recovery was
deemed to be the performance criterion, and for each one-day period the recovery of gold and copper was
calculated by standard metallurgical accounting procedures based on feed and product assays.

Two comparisons are required: one between gold normal and trial conditions, to determine whether there
has been a significant increase in gold recovery, and one between copper normal and trial conditions,
to ensure that there has been no corresponding decrease in copper recovery.

In basic terms, for both gold and copper the data consist of two samples each of size 56, one representing
normal and one trial conditions. A t-test seems the most sensible option, as the comparison appears to be
a simple one between the means of the two samples. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in
recovery between normal and trial conditions. However, is the t-test valid, and if so, which version is the
appropriate one? One should recall the assumptions implicit in the test:

1. The data are normally distributed.

2. Each data point is a random independent sample of the population of all possible experimental
outcomes, under those conditions.
3. The two sample variances are estimates of the same population variance (i.e. they are not
significantly different to each other).

Assumption 3 is the easiest to check, using the variance ratio F-test (App. 2):

Fcu = 6.2915.08 = 1.24

FAu = 23.93120.34 = 1.18

The test is made with 55 and 55 degrees of freedom, and comparison with published tables shows that in
neither case does the calculated value of F reach significance at even the 80% probability level.
Accordingly, Assumption 3 is satisfied.

Assumption 1 is usually accepted a priori, partly because the power of the test resists departure from
normality quite well (i.e. it is robust), but mostly because it is usually difficult to test. In this case,
however, there are a lot of data, and StatView provides a quick visual view of the distribution under the
Compare menu: Frequency Distribution. Using this option on the four data sets suggests that the
distributions are adequately normal to meet the requirements of Assumption 1; Figure 2, for example, shows
the frequency distribution of the gold trial data. If a more rigorous assessment is required, one could use
the ~2 goodness-of-fit test to validate the assumption.

61.2 63.4 65.8 67.8 70 72.2 74.3 76.5 78.7 80.9

Mean of Interval (% recovery Au)
Fig.2 Frequency distribution of gold recovery data during reagent trials, BCL
 Detectingpeifomance improvements 84-l

The real problem is with Assumption 2, the requirement that each data point be a random independent
sample. Any practising mineral engineer knows that feed characteristics (as measured in this case by feed
grade) vary with time, and that recovery is usually correlated with feed grade. Figure 1 confirms that time
trends do exist in the recovery data and Figure 3 confirms that there is a statistically significant correlation
between recovery .and feed grade, for both copper and gold. Thus one could argue that the sequential grade
measurements are not random samples - each value depends to some extent on the preceding one. A time
trend therefore has two unfortunate effects: it raises the total variance (reducing the sensitivity of any
comparison test), and it can violate assumptions of sample independence.

50 I I I I

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Feed grade %
Fig.3 Correlation between metal recovery and feed grade for copper and gold, BCL

In the present case the best option would seem to be a paired t-test (testing sequential on-off pairs), since
this would tend toI reduce or eliminate the effect of any long-term trend, unless it was large within the
duration of a data pair. It would effectively work to a lower standard deviation than a 2-sample comparison
and thus be more sensitive. In a paired t-test, the null hypothesis is that the mean of the differences within
each pair is not significantly different to zero. In the present case, each data point is computed as the
difference between the normal and trial values in each pair.

Table 1 shows the basic statistics and the results of each test (the formulae for the calculation of t can be
found in App. 2).

Working with a calculator, the t-values can be easily calculated and their significance then tested by
reference to a table of t-probabilities. StatView, however, returns the probability levels directly, and they
are given in the table. They should be interpreted as the probability with which the calculated value of t
would arise by ch.ance, if the null hypothesis (no difference) was true. It is sometimes intuitively more
helpful to quote the value 100 (1-P) % (where P is the probability level), and to interpret this as the
probability of the observed differences being real. Thus for the paired t-test on the gold recovery (P =
0.0044), there is a 99.56% chance (i.e. a very good chance!) that the observed difference of 1.81% is real.
(It is the authors view that the 90% level can be used to discriminate significant from non-significant effects
in mineral processing applications, though the 95% level is preferred. However the choice is arbitrary and
should be based on experience; the 90% level carries with it a l-in-10 chance of being wrong).

In inspecting Table 1, the conclusions are clear. The new collector achieves a significant increase in gold
recovery with no change in copper recovery. The paired t-test is tbe more sensitive, as evidenced by the
lower probability Ilevel. Because we are only interested in one-direction movement (up in the case of gold,
and down in the case of copper), a one-tailed test is appropriate.
848 T. J. NAPIER-MUNN

TABLE 1: Basic statistics for 2-sample and paired t-tests for Case Study 1

Observations

Diierenee (%) 1.807 0.029

S.D. of Diierence 4.978 2.155
@I

Paired t-value 2.72 0.10

Probability 0.0044 0.460

P-sample t-value 2.03 0.064

Probability 0.0223 0.475

If a cost-benefit analysis is to be conducted, it becomes important to place confidence limits on the observed
improvement of 1.81% in gold recovery. The 90% confidence limits are given by

to .los
(1)
6

where 0.10 is the 90% 2-sided t-value for n- 1 degrees of freedom = 1.67

S is the standard deviation of the difference = 4.98%

n is the number of observations = 56.

Substituting the values in equation 1 gives limits of f 1.11%. We are therefore 90% sure that the true
increase in gold recovery lies between 0.70 and 2.92%. In a conservative analysis, one might then wish to
work with the lower figure of 0.7%.

The greater sensitivity of the paired t-test can be appreciated when determining how many pairs of results
would have been required to determine with 90% confidence that a statistically significant increase in gold
recovery had occurred. This can be easily assessed in StatView by progressively adding results in
chronological order to the paired or 2-sample t-tests. The answers are:

Qum% Paired t-test 2-sample t-test

No. of pairs 12 24

t-value I so6 1.405

Probability 0.0801 (92.w) 0.0835 (91.6%)

Mean Diffennce 2.144 1.853

 Detecting performance improvements 849

The 2-sample t-test would thus have taken twice as long as the paired test to reach the same conclusion,
even though it is working to twice as many degrees of freedom (2n - 2, compared with n - 1). In neither
case was anything like the full 56-pair database required, though it is nearly always true that the more data
there are, the greater the confidence in the final result.

Finally it is worth reflecting on the experimental design used. It is clear that there are systematic time trends
in the data (Figure 1). It is likely that the paired values are close enough together in time to render any
long-term trend relatively unimportant in the paired t-test. However if time trends are suspected, then a
design should be adopted which eliminates or blocks out the unwanted effect (time). Such an arrangement
is the randomised block design, which is illustrated in the following two case studies.

Case Study 2 - Assessmentof different flotation circuit contigurations in the pilot evaluation of the
Hellyer base metal orebody

In 1986, Aberfoyle Resources Limited were trialling their recently discovered Hellyer polymetallic orebody
in the old Cleveland tin concentrator in NW Tasmania [4]. As part of this exercise, and a concurrent PhD
study, Lauder [5] ran some tests with a 0.5 t/h flotation pilot plant, the purpose of which was to explore the
effects of circuit configuration on the grade-recovery performance for lead and zinc. Several configurations
were trialled. In the experiments reported here, the four double cells of the pilot plant were set up in a
rougher-scavenger arrangement (Figure 4), and two relative section capacities were tested: one in which
three of the four cells were configured as scavengers (Circuit A), and the other in which only one of the
cells was a scavenger (Circuit B), the balance in each case being roughers. The conditions were set up for
lead roughing, but the recovery of zinc to lead rougher concentrate was of particular interest in these tests.
Recycle

Feed

Concentrate
Fig.4 Circuit for Lauders pilot flotation trials of Hellyer ore
(The tests described here involved varying the relative capacity
of the two stages, and thus the volume of the recycle stream)

It was known that, as in the BCL study, time-based feed variations would be an interfering factor, and it
was also thought desirable to replicate all the experiments to provide an internal estimate of experimental
error. Taking these and other practical constraints into account, the following experimental procedure was
therefore adopted:

1. Set up one of the circuits, say Circuit A, and the required operating conditions, and allow the
circuit to reach steady state.

2. Run a test (i.e. take the necessary samples).

3. Repeat the test immediately (the replicate).

4. Switch to Circuit B, and allow the circuit to reach steady state.

5. Repeat stelps2 and 3.

850 T. J. NAPIER-MUNN

In each case, the metallurgical balance was constructed in the usual way and the recoveries of lead and zinc
calculated. Steps l-5 essentially occupied one working day. The whole procedure was then repeated on two
subsequent days, with the order in which Circuits A and B were tested on each day being randomised,
producing 12 experiments in all. The sequence of events in the time domain therefore looked as follows:

TIME +

This is known in statistical jargon as a replicated block design, and it has the following features:

1. The experiment is replicated; every time a particular set of factor levels (in this case, circuit
configuration) is tested, it is tested more than once (in this case, twice).

2. The experiment is blocked, that is to say it is repeated in blocks which conform to a factor which
is often of no interest in itself but which it is suspected may cause significant variation in the
results and thus interfere with the interpretation of the experiment (in this case the blocks are units
of time).

3. The order in which the different conditions are tested in each block should normally be
randomised, and the experiment would then be properly termed a replicated randomised block
design. (In the present case, in which the number of conditions (two) and blocks (three) is small,
this is almost trivial, but for large experiments it becomes very important). However, this
experiment was not fully randomised because the replicate pairs within each block were conducted
together for the practical reasons explained earlier; nevertheless, this is not expected to compromise
the analysis in this case.

The point of the design is that it allows the significance of the main effects and their interactions to be
rigorously tested (are they real or arent they?) whilst eliminating, and indeed separately testing for, the
effect of the interfering factor (here, time); this factor is therefore blocked out.

The interpretation of the experiment is conducted with an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), a powerful
general statistical procedure which partitions the total variation of the data according to its source, in this
case:

0 The variance due to the effects being investigated (circuit)

0 The variance due to the block effect (time)

0 The variance due to interaction effects

0 The variance due to basic experimental error (the replications).

The significance of the first three are then tested separately against the fourth to judge whether they are real
or not, using the variance ratio F-test.

To illustrate the calculations and the interpretation of the results, one set of zinc recovery data from
Lauders experiments will be analysed. The raw data and the detailed calculations for the ANOVA are given
in Appendix 1. (The calculations in Appendix 1 are given in full to allow the reader to utilise this design
in any similar case; the extension to three or more conditions or four or more blocks is straightforward).
 Detecting performance improvements 851

The resulting ANOVA is reproduced in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Analysis of Variance for Case Study 2

Source of Variation Sum of Squares Degrees of Mean Square

Freedom

Between days (time) 12.452

Between circuits 7.208

lnteractiin (days/circuits) 2.315

Error 4.335

TOTAL 26.310

The various source:s of data variation are first tested by comparing their mean squares (variances) with the
error mean square using the F-test. Firstly, the interaction effect reflects any difference in the nature of the
circuit effect at different times. MS, / MS, = 1.60, with 2 and 6 degrees of freedom. Since Fgq(,,,) = 3.46,
this value is not significant and the interaction mean square is therefore merely a reflection of the prevailing
experimental error. As long as there is no reason to expect some interaction, MS, can now be combined
with MS, to give a better estimate of error, with more degrees of freedom associated with the estimate.
MSCoMB = (2.315 + 4.335)/(6+2) = 0.831. This is now the best estimate of the inherent error variance in
carrying out such experiments, and its corresponding standard deviation (d(0.831) = 0.912) is a useful value
to be used in planning future comparative experiments of this kind.

The next step is to test the between-days effect similarly:

(MSt,/MSCoMB) = 7.49 with 2,8 d.f. Comparison with tables shows this to be significant with +97.5%
confidence. Finally, the circuit effect, the one actually being investigated, is tested: (MS@lScoMB) = 8.67
with 1,8 d.f. Again this is significant with +97.5% confidence. We can therefore conclude:

1. The change in circuit has a real effect on zinc recovery. The magnitude of the effect can be
estimated as the difference in mean zinc recovery for Circuits A and B. This value is 1.55%,
Circuit B having a consistently higher recovery than Circuit A.

2. The variat:ion in zinc recovery with time is also real.

3. There is no interaction between circuits and time.

4. The standard deviation due to experimental error is about 0.91% Zn.

In this study it has been shown that the randomised block experiment is appropriate for situations in which
time (or some variable correlated with time) has an interfering effect. Such designs will usually require more
experiments than a more primitive design, but they will avoid an incorrect decision in which the blocked
variable might otherwise dominate the factor of interest. In statistics, as in other spheres of human activity,
there is indeed no such thing as a free lunch. A similar though rather more complex example is considered
in the final case study.

Case Study 3 - Determination of whether a re-grinding stage should be incorporated ahead of the
zinc circuit in the Woodlawn Mines Concentrator

This study reflects elements of both the BCL work, in that it involves a sequence of on-off trials, and the
Hellyer study, in wlhich a randomised block design was used. Woodlawn Mines, a subsidiary of Denehurst
Limited, mines and processes a complex fine-grained polymetallic ore in New South Wales, near the
852 T.J.NAPJER-MUNN

Australian federal capital city of Canberra [6]. In 1994, Woodlawn wished to assess the value of using a
spare ball mill, currently out of circuit, to grind zinc flotation circuit feed, following lead flotation. The
benefit was expected to be increased recovery of zinc at the same grade. The method adopted by the plant
staff was the on-off approach. The mill was run for six days, and the daily metallurgical performance
(concentrate grade and metal recovery) was recorded. The mill was then switched out of circuit, and after
allowing a day for the circuit to settle down, six more days of performance data were collected. This week-
on, week-off cycle was to be repeated continuously (with an occasional unavoidable interruption due to
operating constraints), until a firm conclusion as to the benefit or otherwise had been reached. The full
dataset actually comprised five full fortnightly cycles, plus an additional one week in the middle of this
period with the mill in circuit (66 days in all).

The key performance criterion of interest was the zinc recovery. Figure 5 shows a time plot of zinc recovery
over the full dataset. It is immediately clear that, as with the BCL case, the data are noisy, and that the
process is non-stationary, i.e. zinc recovery changes with time. The average recovery drops from about 80%
to perhaps 72% over the first 36 data points, and thereafter (with some scatter) climbs back up to about
75%. The day-to-day variation is also high, and the whole dataset has a range from lowest to highest of
about 15%. It is a tall order to try and find an expected improvement of about 1% in such noisy data, and
it is for this reason that it is necessary to apply appropriate statistical procedures to compare the two
operating conditions.

0 4 6 12 16 20 24 26 32 36 40 44 46 52 56 60 64
Day
Fig.5 Zinc recovery vs time, Woodlawn

It will be apparent by now to the reader that an appropriate design for such situations is the randomised
block, with time being the blocked variable.

In the present case, however, the experiment was not conducted as a true randomised block, and this led
to the need to adopt a modified analysis. The difficulty is illustrated in Figure 6, which is a plot of the zinc
recovery with time (as in Figure 5) divided into the five fortnightly comparison blocks. The original
intention was to compare the first six results in each block with the second six, assuming each set of six
to be replicates. However, Figure 6 shows that there appear to be strong time trends within eachfortnightly
block, and since the tests have not been random&i within each block, the second weeks results are always
likely to be different to the first art the rime trend alone. For example in block 2, in which the downward
trend is particularly clear, the mean values of the first and second weeks were 75.64 and 74.45%. (This
illustrates the need for proper randomisation of such trials).

The overall difference in mean zinc recovery for the two conditions is 1.2%, the recovery with the mill
being higher than without. An improvement of 1% in recovery was regarded by Woodlawn as important
enough to justify the permanent inclusion of the mill in the circuit, if it could be demonstrated that the
improvement was real.
 Detectingperformanceimprovements 853

90 *
1st block 2nd block 3rd block 5th block
In onl

0 m
E Q
I m 1 ??
mm
? ?mm ?? ??
D
??
??
mm 'mm#mri9 mm m
0 ??
mm I
Q

60 .. ,.,..,.C ,.,..,..,..,..,..,..,* -r- I I fl

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64

Day

Fig.6 Woodlawn zinc recovery, partitioned into five 2-week (12 data point) comparison blocks

The nature of the data imposes two problems:

1. Who is to say whether the observed difference in recovery of 1.2% is due to the mill, or to a
dominant trend in recovery over the test period caused by other factors?

2. The large amplitude of the data creates large variances which render the observed difference not
statistically significant by the normal tests (e.g. a t-test) - thus we cannot reject the null
hypothesis that the difference has arisen by chance.

The important thing is that the treatments tested within the block must not be affected by trends within the
block. As noted earlier, this is usually ensured by randomising the test order. Block-to-block variation is
then taken care of separately by the subsequent ANOVA. In the present case the order was not randomised,
but we can obtain a synthetic randomisation by choosing blocks within which we are fairly sure there are
no time trends, and by choosing shorter blocks to limit the time effect. This is not strictly kosher statistical
procedure but, as so often in practical statistics, it is an acceptable compromise.

Inspection of the data (Figure 6) suggests that by taking groups of three replicated observations with the
mill in (instead of six) and matching them to the adjacent three replicates with the mill out, a total of nine
blocks of three on-three off observations can be found, within which the time trend is unlikely to be
significant. These are shown in Figure 7. The total number of data points used in the analysis is 54, half
with the mill and half without.

We are now treating the data as a randomised replicated block design, with time as the blocked variable,
each block having three on and three off observations (the replications), there being nine blocks in all. We
are hoping that the fact that the observations within each block have not been randomised will not matter,
and we have certainly reduced the possibility of this by shortening the length of each block and increasing
the number of blocks.

The ANOVA can be calculated in the same way as that for the Hellyer data, but for brevity the calculations
will not be repeated here. The final ANOVA is given in Table 3. In this case the (insignificant) interaction
term has been incorporated into the error term.

As before, the first two mean squares are divided by the error mean square to form the F-values in the
penultimate column. By comparison with published tables, at the appropriate number of degrees of freedom,
the time and mill mean squares are found to be significant with +99% and +90% confidence respectively
(final column). We can therefore conclude that the apparent improvement in zinc recovery when using the
854 T. J. NAPIER-MUNN

mill (averaging 1.2% in this dataset) is real. We can also conclude that, as suspected, there are real time-
dependent effects which are independent of whether the mill is in or out of the circuit.

New block number (a block is 2 adjacent sets of 3 observations each)

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64
Day

Fig.7 Woodlawn zinc recovery data, partitioned into nine l-week (6 data point) comparison blocks

Table 3: ANOVA for zinc recovery, Case Study 3

Source of Variation Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. %

Squares Freedom Square

Due to block (time) 236.97 8 29.621 4.61 +99

Due to treatment (mill) 20.597 1 20.597 3.20 90-95
Error 282.89 44 6.429 _

Total 540.46 53

A separate analysis demonstrated that there was no corresponding change in zinc concentrate grade, and
Woodlawn therefore decided to incorporate the mill permanently into the flowsheet.

The error mean square (6.43) is a measure of the inherent variance due to experimental error, i.e. the error
which is left after time and mill effects have been accounted for. Again, this provides a useful estimate of
experimental error which can be used in planning future experiments. The corresponding standard deviation
is J(6.43) = 2.54%.

It is interesting to contemplate what would have happened had the time effect not been blocked out. This
can be approximated by combining the block and error MS (MS,,M, = 10.00) and re-testing the mill MS
against the combined MS (this is also roughly equivalent to doing a straight two-sample t-test). F = 2.06
with 1 and 52 d.f., which does not reach significance at the 90% level. We would therefore have erroneously
concluded that the observed difference with and without the mill was not real. This illustrates the value of
a properly designed experiment. It is also interesting to note, by calculating the ANOVA sequentially as
each block is added to the data base, that the positive conclusion was only reached on the ninth and last
block. Unlike the BCL situation, in which a conclusion could have been reached after only 24 days, the
whole dataset (accumulated over 3 months) was required. The reason is the much higher variance inherent
in the Woodlawn data.
 Detecting performance improvements 855

Were such a trial to be run again, consideration should be given to using a fully randomised block design.
One such arrangement is illustrated in Figure 8.

Block 1 Mock 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Block 7

1001 0110 1010 0011 1010 0101 0110

Time

Fig.8 Suggested design for the Woodlawn trial. (I = mill in, 0 = mill out) - cf Case Study 2.
The I-O order within each block has been randomised

The length of time represented by each test (I or 0) and each block will depend mainly on practical
considerations, such as the ease of switching the mill, the impact of changeover on plant performance, and
the time taken for the circuit to reach steady state again after the change. The number of blocks required
will depend on the magnitude of the change being sought relative to the inherent noise (error) in the data.

To minimise the total period over which the experiment is to be run, the duration of each test (mill in or
out) should be minimised, to say 24 hours, with another 24 hours following to allow the circuit to settle
down after switching the mill. Thus each block will last a maximum of 8 days (compared with 14 at
present), and less in cases where the same treatment is tested more than one day in a row (e.g. Blocks 3
and 4 in Figure 8). The ANOVA should be calculated after each block and the experiment terminated after
a firm conclusion is reached.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has demonstrated that the performance of mineral processes is subject to strong and uncontrolled
variation, which makes it difficult to evaluate the trials of alternative process conditions, such as a new
reagent or a modified circuit. An important contributor to the overall performance variation is often a
systematic trend witlh time, usually though not exclusively caused by changes in plant feed characteristics.
Time trends can dorninate and obscure the (often small) improvements being sought in the process trial.

There are many well known statistical procedures which can be used to deal with this problem, but they
do not appear to enjoy much currency in the practice of mineral processing. The paper has described the
use of two such methods, the paired t-test and the randomised block design, through three real case studies.
The purpose has been to illustrate the kind of practical problems encountered in such trials, and to
demonstrate how these techniques can be employed to handle these situations. Both the paired t-test and
the randomised block effectively remove (or account for separately) a proportion of the total data variance,
thus rendering the evaluation of the factor of interest more efficient. The net result is that a more reliable
conclusion can be reached in fewer trials (and thus more cheaply) than if cruder experimental procedures
were followed.

It is not claimed that these methods are appropriate in every case. Also, many other statistical procedures
exist which should be considered when designing a trial. However, in the authors experience one or other
of these two will be appropriate in a majority of cases in which interfering time trends are anticipated, and
a relatively small improvement is being sought.

It is recommended that rigorous statistical procedure always be followed when conducting any mineral
processing trial, and that these two methods in particular be considered. It is also recommended that the
proper thought be given to the objectives, design and analysis of the experiments before they are conducted,
rather than trying to analyse data obtained from a poorly designed experiment. The former course will
always be the more efficient option, and in many cases the only way of reaching a useful and cost-effective
conclusion.
856 T.J.NAPIER-MUNN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to thank Bougainville Copper Limited, Aberfoyle Resources Limited and Woodlawn
Mines for permission to use the data quoted in the paper.

REFERENCES

1. Bacon, D.W., Application of EVOP and other optimization techniques to processing plants. Can.
Min. Met. Bull., 1178-I 183 (Oct. 1967).
2. Mular, A.L., Empirical modelling and optimization of mineral processes. Minerals Sci. Eng., 4, No.
3, 30-42 (July 1972).
3. Tilyard, P.A., Recent developments in grinding and flotation at Bougainville Copper Ltd., Papua
New Guinea. Trans. Inst. Min. Met., C89-C95 (Sept. 1981).
4. Richmond, G.D. & Lai, K.F., Metallurgical development of the Hellyer ore. 3rd Mill Ops. Co@
Cobar, May (Aus. Inst. Min. Met), 9-14 (1988).
5. Lauder, D.W., Flotation circuit performance theory. PhD. Thesis, University of Queensland
(JKMRC), (1988).
6. Jackman, R., Scamardella, M. & Tilyard, P.A., Metallurgical practice and process developments
at Woodlawn Mines Concentrators. 5th Mill Ops. Con., Roxby Downs, (Aus. Inst. Min. Met.),
129-136 (Oct. 1994).
7. Davies, O.L. (ed.), Statistical Methods in Research and Production. Oliver and Boyd (3rd Ed.),
(1961).
8. Chatfield, C., Statistics for Technology. Penguin (3rd Ed.), (1983).

APPENDIX 1

DATA AND CALCULATIONS FOR CASE STUDY 2 -

A REPLICATED RANDOMISED BLOCK DESIGN (HELLYER)

Data - Zinc Recovery (%)

Circuit 1 Day/replication I Totals

I l/l I l/2 I 2/l I :212 3/l 312

A 7.3 8.3 7.1 6.3 4.4 4.3 37.7

B 8.0 8.5 9.6 7.0 7.0 6.9 47.0

Totals 15.3 16.8 16.7 13.3 11.4 11.2 84.7

The procedure for calculating the ANOVA is given in many statistical texts; Davies [7] provides particularly
good examples. There are many computer programs that will return an equivalent ANOVA, but beware the
nomenclature in both computer programs and statistics texts; the useage can be confusing. [In StatView
V1.0, use the Zway ANOVA-replicated. In StatView 512+, use the ANOVA repeated measures,
combining the interactions AC, BC and ABC with the repeats to form the error MS].
 Detecting performance improvements 857

The manual procedure can easily be computed on a pocket calculator, as follows:

(9 Correction for mean D = 84.72/12 = 597.841

(ii) Total sumI of squares (SS) = [7.32 + 8.32 + . . . + 7.02 + 6.92] - D

=: 624.150 - 597.841 = 26.309

(iii) SS between the six subgroups (i.e. the groups cross-classified by day and circuit) = [(7.3 + 8.3)2
+ (7.1 + 6.3)2+ . . . + (7.0 + 6.9)2]/2 - D = 619.815 - D = 21.974
(.Note: any SS should be divided by the number of observations in each of the groups
making up the sum, in this case, 2).

(iv) SS between days = [(15.3 + 16.8)2 + (16.7 + 13.3)2 + (11.4 + 11.2)2] / 4 - D = 610.293 - D =
12.452

(VI SS between circuits = (37.72 + 47.02) / 6 - D

= 605.048 - D = 7.208

The ANOVA is then constructed as follows:

ANOVA

Source of variation SS D.f. MS.

(iv) Between days 12.452 2 6.226

(v) Between circuits 7.208 1 7.208

(vi) Interaction (days/circuits) 2.314 2 1.157

(vii) Within subgroups (error) 4.335 6 0.723

(ii) Total 26.309 11 -

where (vi) = (iii) - (iv) - (v)

(vii) = (ii) - (iii)

Degrees of freedom: (ii) Total = 12-l = 11

(iv) Days = no. days - 1 = 2
Circuits = no. circuits - 1 = 1
:2, Subgroups = no. subgroups - 1 = 5
(vi), (vii) Others: calculate as for SS.

APPENDIX 2

STATISTICAL FORMULAE

These formulae and discussions of their use are given in nearly all statistical texts (e.g. Ref. 8), as are the
appropriate tables for judging the significance of the computed statistic. The formulae are repeated here for
convenience.
858 T. J. NAPIER-MUNN

The F-test

The F-test is used to compare two variances. F = s,*/s~*, where s t* = larger variance and s22 = smaller
variance (F 2 1). The value of F is compared to tables of the F-distribution with (nt - 1) and (n2 - 1) d.f.
If H, : sl* > s22 , then a single-tailed test is used. If Hl : s12 # sz2, then a two-tailed test is appropriate.
(Ht is the alternative to the null hypothesis - that there is a difference).

The 2-sample t-test

To test the significance of the observed difference x, -x2 between the means of two samples of size n1

and n2 with standard deviations sl and s2, calculate

z1-;;2 @I,-l)s::+(n&
t = where s =
Sp$ig n, +I$-2

(s2 is called the pooled variance). Compare this value of t with tables, using (nl + n2 - 2) d.f., at the
desired probability level.

When the sample sizes are the same (nt = n2 = n), then th e f ormulae simplify considerably to:

x1-s
S= and t = -
4%
The confidence limits on the difference (?, -!$re given by + t s (l/n, + l/n2)o.5 where t is obtained from

t-tables with an appropriate confidence level and (nl + n2 - 2) d.f.

The Paired Comparison t-test

This test is used to compare the mean value of the difSerence within several pairs of tests (each pair
consisting of one normal and one trial experiment, for example).

Here the null hypothesis is that each pair of results is equal (Xii = x2i)p or that each difference di = 0. For
n pairs:

d
5 <a,-&
i=l
t = - where sd =
n-l
sd6

The confidence limits on the mean difference d are given by &tsJ&.