International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 343–348

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Estimation of diameter and surface area flux of bubbles based on

operational gas dispersion parameters by using regression and ANFIS
B. Shahbazi a, B. Rezai b, S. Chehreh Chelgani c,⇑, S. M. Javad Koleini a, M. Noaparast d
a
Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-111, Iran
b
Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran 15875-4413, Iran
c
Young Researchers and Elites club, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
d
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran 14395-515, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) procedure and regression methods were used to predict
Received 9 September 2012 the Sauter mean bubble (bubble diameter) and surface area flux of the bubble in a flotation process. The
Received in revised form 7 October 2012 operational conditions of flotation, impeller peripheral speed, superficial gas velocity, and weight percent
Accepted 15 December 2012
solids were used as inputs of methods. By using the mentioned operational conditions, the non linear
Available online 4 June 2013
regression results showed that Sauter mean, and surface area flux of the bubble are predictable variables,
where the coefficients of determination (R2) are 0.57 and 0.74, respectively. To increase the accuracy of
Keywords:
prediction an ANFIS model with cluster radius of 0.4 was applied. ANFIS model was capable of estimating
Bubble diameter
Bubble surface area flux
both Sauter mean, and surface area flux of the bubble, where in a testing stage, satisfactory correlations,
Flotation R2 = 0.78, and 0.86, were achieved for Sauter mean, and surface area flux of bubble, respectively. Results
Regression show that the proposed ANFIS model can accurately estimate outputs and be used in order to predict the
ANFIS parameters without having to conduct the new experiments in a laboratory.
Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

1. Introduction
Some of the most important gas dispersion parameters are bub-
ble size (d32, 106), superficial gas velocity (Jg, cm/s), gas holdup (eg,
%) and bubble surface area flux (Sb, s1). Many investigators at-
tempted to present formulas that would describe relationships be-
tween operational conditions of flotation (that provided those
properties) and gas dispersion variables [1].
In determining the effect of bubble size on flotation, the first
step is the measurement of distribution of bubble size in flotation
cells under various conditions. Physical factors that would drasti-
cally be expected to affect bubble size are impeller type and speed,
as well as air flow rate. The bubble size would probably vary within
location in the cell according to the level of turbulence and the flow
patterns prevailing, but it would be useful to find some ‘‘global
mean’’ value to represent the overall conditions in the cell in terms
of bubble size.
Gorain et al. investigated the effect of gas dispersion properties
on the flotation rate constant in plant and pilot scale mechanical
cells over a range of operating conditions for four impeller types,
and found that the rate constant was not readily related to the bub-
ble size, gas holdup or superficial gas rate individually, but it was
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 702 9356.
E-mail address: SOS4552@gmail.com (S. Chehreh Chelgani).
related to bubble surface area flux, for example, for shallow froths,
the relationship was linear (k = PSb), where P summarized the
operational and chemical factors [2].
It is thought useful to develop empirical models to estimate gas
dispersion factors in different conditions, due to poor understand-
ing of gas dispersion phenomena and difficulty in measuring them
in flotation cells. Also, these models could be used readily for appli-
cations, such as cell comparison and selection, new cell installa-
tion, scale-up for plant design, cell optimization, circuit
modeling, simulation, etc. Table 1 shows the modeling of gas dis-
persion variables in previous investigations [1,3–6].
Using the laboratory data, computing techniques have been ap-
plied to many aspects of mineral processing that were mentioned
in the references of the paper [7–10]. Adaptive neuro fuzzy infer-
ence system (ANFIS) is one of the most popular and well docu-
mented neural fuzzy systems, which has a good software support
[11]. ANFIS has high potential in building neural fuzzy models with
good prediction capabilities, while previous investigations consid-
ered ANFIS models to estimate outputs more accurately than other
methods [12–14]. ANFIS architecture was chosen for the modelling
of this work.
The study presented herein aims to predict the Sauter mean
bubble (d32), and surface area flux of the bubble (Sb) based on oper-
ational conditions in quartz flotation. This is accomplished by
using multivariable regression (MR), and adaptive neuro fuzzy

2095-2686/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.05.007
344 B. Shahbazi et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 343–348

Table 1
Presented model for estimation of Sb and d32 [1,3–6].

Model Parameter Application Advatage Disadvantage

Sb ¼ 123N 0:44
s ðQA Þ0:75 As0:1 P 0:42
80
Ns is impeller peripheral speed, Q/A is air flow rate Industrial Simple model Effect of pulp density is not known and
per unit cell cross-sectional area, As is impeller mechanical flotation is not applicable for laboratory
aspect ratio and P80 is 80% passing feed size cell flotation cells
Sb ¼ Sb max abJ b1 eaJg
b
Sbmax is the maximum bubble surface area flux Laboratory new High bubble Model is not applicable for mechanical
g
achievable, a is a parameter which determines the flotation cell surface area flotation cells
position of the curve along the Jg-axis, and b is a (JKMRC) flux
parameter which determines the shape of the
curve
Sb = aQAwb Where Qa is the air supplied to the cell; a is the Laboratory Model yields a Obtaining surface of the bubbles in the
volume fraction of air that overflows the weir in mechanical flotation more accurate overflowing froth is difficult and the
the form of unbroken bubbles and wb is the cell and realistic effect of many other operational
specific surface of the bubbles in the overflowing values variables is unknown
froth
Sb = 5.5eg eg is gas holdup Flotation columns Gas holdup is The effect of many operational
and mechanical cells, easier to variables is unknown
both laboratory and measure
plant scale
d32 ¼ 1þa:dbexpð
max
1
a is a dimensionless parameter and d is a Laboratory Simple model a and d are unknown for different
Þ
4d2 dimensionless parameter related to the geometric mechanical flotation operational conditions
standard deviation cell

inference system (ANFIS) models. The prediction capabilities of the

Valve
models are also compared. The tests included the determination of
Camera Viewing chamber
impeller peripheral speed (Ns), superficial gas velocity (Jg), weight
percent solids (Pd), Sauter mean bubble (d32), and surface area flux
of the bubble (Sb) in a laboratory. In order to establish predictive Lamp
models, statistical and soft computing techniques were used with
laboratory results as inputs and outputs, and prediction perfor-
Sampling tube Vbelt
mances were then analyzed.

2. Material and methods

All gas dispersion measurements were carried out in a labora-
tory at Denver flotation cell. Impeller diameter of 7 cm was used
for agitation in a cell with a square section of 13 and 12 cm height,
and impeller diameter of 9 cm was used for agitation in a cell with
a square section of 16 and 20 cm height. Impeller rotating speeds
were 700, 900, 1100 and 1300 r/min, and superficial gas velocities
were 0.32–0.79 cm/s and weight percent solids were 0–20%. The
type of impeller was a Rushton turbine with 8 paddles, and a stator
was used around the rotor. All measurements were done without
any baffling in the flotation cell.
MIBC (methyl iso-butyl carbinol), and quartz particles (solid
density of 2.65 g/cm3 and particle size of 500  106) were used
for flotation procedures. Concentration of frother was 22.4  106,
and C/CCC (CCC, critical coalescence concentration) was 2. The
quartz sample was used for the gas dispersion study in a 3 phase
system with no flotation of quartz. Thus, all gas dispersion mea-
surements were carried out without any collector addition.
3. Experimental data
3.1. Bubble size distribution
The adopted mean bubble diameter was the Sauter diameter,
which is calculated by the following equation [15]:
P 3
ni di
d32 ¼ P 2
ð1Þ
ni di
where n is the number of bubbles; and d the bubble diameter.
In this work, a bubble viewer (Fig. 1) was used to measure bub-
ble size distribution, and raise velocity. It consists of a sampling
tube attached to a viewing chamber with a window inclined 15°
0.13 m Air line
Standpipe
Shaft
Bubble 0.12 m
Air rotameter
Stator Air valve
Impeller
0.07 m
Fig. 1. Bubble diameter measurement for different impeller speeds and air flow
rates.
from the vertical angle. During sampling, in order to limit changes
in the bubble environment, the closed assembly is filled with water
of similar nature to that in the flotation cell, and the tube is im-
mersed to the desired location below the froth. As bubbles slide
up the inclined window illuminated from behind, they rise into
the viewing chamber, and are imaged by a digital video camera.
According to Girgin et al.’s investigation, in order to prevent
bubble coalescence, the frother was initially added to the water
in the cell, and then the viewing chamber was filled with it [16].
With regard to the results, for 2.56 < Ns < 6.12 m/s, 0.32 < Jg < 0.79 -
cm/s, and 0 < Pd < 20%, bubble diameter was obtained at
330  106 < d32 < 1150  106. The laboratory results are shown
in Table 2.
3.2. Bubble surface area flux
A term that incorporates both the superficial gas velocity and
the Sauter mean diameter is the bubble surface area flux which
was calculated by the following equation for all operating condi-
tions [17]:
 B. Shahbazi et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 343–348 345

Table 2
Results of experiments for quartz flotation in different operational conditions.

No. Peripheral Gas velocity Percent Bubble size Surface No. Peripheral Gas velocity Percent Bubble size Surface
speed Ns (m/s) Jg (cm/s) solids Pd (%) d32 (106) area Sb (s1) speed Ns (m/s) Jg (cm/s) solids Pd (%) d32 (106) area Sb (s1)
1 3.30 0.21 15.00 400 31.41 34 6.12 0.53 15.00 400 80.14
2 6.12 0.21 15.00 470 26.53 35 6.12 0.53 0.01 730 43.36
3 6.12 0.21 10.00 480 26.42 36 4.76 0.63 10.00 760 49.84
4 6.12 0.21 0.01 490 25.77 37 4.76 0.63 20.00 770 48.85
5 5.18 0.21 10.00 520 24.02 38 4.76 0.63 0.01 810 46.89
6 3.30 0.21 0.01 560 22.50 39 4.03 0.63 10.00 860 43.83
7 5.18 0.21 0.01 650 19.27 40 4.03 0.63 20.00 980 38.49
8 4.24 0.32 15.00 410 46.87 41 4.76 0.79 10.00 500 95.31
9 4.03 0.32 20.00 500 38.31 42 4.03 0.79 10.00 610 77.85
10 4.24 0.32 0.01 510 37.50 43 4.03 0.79 20.00 730 64.55
11 4.76 0.32 0.01 520 36.92 44 3.30 0.47 0.01 890 31.83
12 6.12 0.32 0.01 550 35.03 45 6.12 0.32 15.00 450 42.58
13 5.18 0.32 15.00 570 33.55 46 4.03 0.32 0.01 790 24.23
14 5.18 0.32 10.00 630 30.44 47 4.03 0.79 0.01 930 51.07
15 4.76 0.32 20.00 660 29.16 48 4.24 0.21 15.00 500 25.38
16 5.18 0.32 0.01 670 28.54 49 4.76 0.47 20.00 590 47.86
17 4.76 0.32 10.00 780 24.62 50 2.56 0.32 10.00 830 23.21
18 4.03 0.32 10.00 820 23.32 51 5.18 0.53 10.00 620 51.39
19 3.30 0.32 20.00 840 22.82 52 5.18 0.53 0.01 650 46.48
20 2.56 0.32 0.01 930 20.73 53 6.12 0.42 0.01 510 49.60
21 3.30 0.32 10.00 1150 16.72 54 4.24 0.32 10.00 560 34.16
22 6.12 0.42 15.00 330 77.12 55 4.24 0.21 0.01 580 21.64
23 5.18 0.42 15.00 330 77.52 56 5.18 0.42 10.00 570 44.30
24 6.12 0.42 10.00 430 58.09 57 4.03 0.63 0.01 730 51.74
25 5.18 0.42 0.01 700 36.07 58 2.56 0.32 20.00 880 21.83
26 4.03 0.47 20.00 520 53.73 59 3.30 0.21 10.00 690 18.27
27 4.03 0.47 0.01 590 48.11 60 6.12 0.32 10.00 430 44.64
28 4.03 0.47 10.00 620 45.76 61 5.18 0.21 15.00 420 30.31
29 4.76 0.47 0.01 810 34.70 62 4.24 0.21 10.00 640 19.60
30 4.76 0.47 10.00 870 32.51 63 6.12 0.53 10.00 540 59.00
31 3.30 0.47 20.00 900 31.25 64 3.30 0.32 0.01 960 19.92
32 3.30 0.47 10.00 1050 26.92 64 4.76 0.79 20.00 870 54.37
33 5.18 0.53 15.00 330 95.54 66 4.76 0.79 0.01 730 64.82

P
6J g layer 5 is a circle node labeled that computes the overall output
Sb ¼ ð2Þ
d32 as the summation of all incoming signals [18,20,21].

where Sb is the bubble surface area flux; Jg the superficial gas veloc-
ity; and d32 the Sauter mean bubble diameter. According to this re-
search for 2.56 < Ns < 6.12 m/s, 0.32 < Jg < 0.79 cm/s, and
0 < Pd < 20%, the bubble surface area flux is obtained at
16.72 < Sb < 95.54 s1. Table 2 shows the laboratory results.
4. ANFIS procedure description
As an implementation of a first order sugeno fuzzy inference
system, ANFIS model has a specific architecture and learning rule
[18,19]. ANFIS includes a multilayer feed forward network struc-
ture that consists of a total of five layers to implement different
node functions where each node performs a particular function
of incoming signals. Both square and circle node symbols are used
to represent different properties of adaptive learning. To perform
desired input-output characteristics, adaptive learning parameters
are updated based on gradient learning rules [18].
To describe ANFIS architecture, a model with two input vari-
ables is shown in Fig. 2. In this model, suppose that the rule base
of ANFIS contains two fuzzy if-then rules of Takagi and Sugeno’s
type as follows:Rule 1: If x is A1 and y is B1, then f1 = p1x + q1y + r1.-
Rule 2: If x is A2 and y is B2, then f2 = p2x + q2y + r2.
In Fig. 2, fuzzy reasoning is illustrated and the corresponding
equivalent ANFIS architecture is also shown in Fig. 3. In this struc-
ture: every node in layer 1 is a square node; every node in layer 2 is
Q
a circle node labeled which multiplies the incoming signals and
sends the product out; every node in layer 3 is a circle node labeled
N; every node in layer 4 is a square node; and the signal node in
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Regression
In a mechanical flotation cell, the size of the bubbles generated
depends on the impeller diameter, impeller speed and air flow rate.
In general, the mean bubble size decreases with increase in impel-
ler speed, and also increases with increase in air flow rate [22,23].
In addition, the bubble surface area flux may be assumed to be
dependent on impeller peripheral speed, superficial gas velocity
and weight percent solids.
In this study, impeller peripheral speed (Ns) was used instead of
impeller speed (N) to determine the contemporary influence of
impeller speed and impeller diameter in the models. Also, superfi-
cial gas velocity was applied for modeling instead of air flow rate
per unit cell cross-sectional area (Q/A).
Inter correlation is a term used to denote the correlation of a
number of variables among themselves, as distinct from the corre-
lations between them and an ‘output’ or dependent variable. The
correlation between two variables reflects the degree to which
the variables are related. The most common measure of correlation
is the Pearson Product Moment Correlation (called Pearson’s corre-
lation for short). When computed in a sample, it is designated by
the letter ‘‘r’’ and is sometimes called ‘‘Pearson’s r’’. Pearson’s cor-
relation reflects the degree of linear relationship between two vari-
ables. It ranges from +1 to 1. A correlation of +1 means there is a
perfect positive linear relationship between variables [24].
By a least square mathematical method, the inter correlation of
impeller peripheral speed (Ns), superficial gas velocity (Jg), and
346 B. Shahbazi et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 343–348

A, B is of triangular membership function type

μ (Y1 )
μ ( X 1 ) A1 B1
f = p1 x + q1 y + r1
1 1 1 1

w1
( w1 f1 + w2 f 2 )
X1 Y1 f = = (w1 f 1 + w2 f 2 )
( w1 + w2 )

A2 μ (Y2 ) B2
μ( X 2 ) f 2 = p2 x + q2 y + r2
w2
X2 Y2

Fig. 2. Reasoning scheme of ANFIS.

weight percent solids (Pd), with Sauter mean bubble (d32) and sur-
Layer 4
face area flux of bubble (Sb) were determined (Table 3). According Layer 1 Layer 2
Layer 3
to the presented results in Table 3, the increase of the impeller x y Layer 5
peripheral speed and weight percent solids can decrease the Sauter A1 w1 w1
mean bubble, and the increase in superficial gas velocity can in-
x Π N
A2 Σ f
crease it. Also, the increase of all three mentioned operational con-
ditions (Ns, Pd, and Jg) will increase the surface area flux of the y B1 Π w2 N
w2
bubble. B2 x y
Linear and non linear multivariable regressions were examined
by comparing their statistical significance using a coefficient of Fig. 3. Schematic of ANFIS architecture (Ramezanianpour et al., 2004).
determination (R2).

d32 ¼ 1094:731  115:408Ns þ 316:895J g  4:717Pd ; 5.2. ANFIS results

2
R ¼ 0:47
d32 ¼ 1039:784  94:873Ns þ 217:131J g þ 96:826Pd
 14:761P2d þ 0:494P3d ;
2
R ¼ 0:57
Sb ¼ 26:109 þ 6:879Ns þ 74:445J g þ 0:424P d ; R2 ¼ 0:65
Sb ¼ 21:244 þ 4:788N s þ 84:602J g  8:393P d þ 1:323P 2d  0:045P3d ;
R2 ¼ 0:74
The difference between the measured and predicted values for all
samples is illustrated in Fig. 4. According to the results, non linear
regressions are a more accurate predictor of both Sauter mean bub-
ble (d32) and surface area flux of the bubble (Sb). On the other hand,
to increase the accuracy of predictions, a model of adaptive network
based fuzzy inference system was studied.
ð3Þ
MATLAB software provides three different fuzzy system gener-
ators: ‘‘fuzzy’’, ‘‘GENFIS1’’ and ‘‘GENFIS2’’ [25]. If explicit knowl-
edge of the system is not available, it can be applied as either
‘‘GENFIS1’’ or ‘‘GENFIS2’’ provided a training data set is available.
According to the ability of generators, GENFIS2 was applied in this
ð4Þ investigation.
GENFIS2 (Generate fuzzy inference system structure) creates a
Sugeno-type FIS structure using subtractive clustering and requires
ð5Þ separate sets of input and output data as input arguments. When
there is only one output, GENFIS2 may be used to generate an ini-
tial FIS for ANFIS training. GENFIS2 accomplishes this by extracting
a set of rules that models the data behavior. The rule extraction
ð6Þ method first uses the subclust function to determine the number
of rules and antecedent membership functions and then uses linear
least squares estimation to determine each rule’s consequent equa-
tions. This function returns a FIS structure that contains a set of
fuzzy rules to cover the feature space.
Generally, GENFIS2 function generates a model from data using
clustering, and requires you to specify a cluster radius. The cluster
radius indicates the range of influence of a cluster when you con-

12 Mean=0 20 Mean=0
Std. Dev. =124.48 Std. Dev. =9.34
10 N=66 N=66
15
Frequency

8
Frequency

6 10

4
5
2

0 0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Difference between actual and predicted Difference between actual and predicted
-6 -1
d32 (10 ) Sb (s )

Fig. 4. Distribution of the difference between measured Sauter mean bubble (d32), and surface area flux of bubble (Sb) values and their estimated values obtained from non
linear regressions Eqs. (4) and (6).
 B. Shahbazi et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 343–348 347

R-square=0.78
*Mean diff. =0 Actual Sb R-square=0.86 Actual Sb
Std. dev. diff. =102.97 ANFIS predicted Sb 70 *Mean diff. =0 ANFIS predicted Sb
1000 Std. dev. diff. =5.74
60
800 50

Sb (s )
d32 (10-6)

-1
600 40
30
400
20
200 10

0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16
Sample number Sample number
*diff.= difference

Fig. 5. Differences between actual and ANFIS estimated of Sauter mean bubble (d32), and surface area flux of bubble (Sb).

Table 3 (r = 0.41, 0.59, respectively), and an increase in superficial gas

Inter-item correlation matrix for input variables and Sauter mean bubble (d32), and
surface area flux of bubble (Sb).
Variable Sb Ns
Surface area (Sb) 1.00 0.360
Peripheral speed (Ns) 0.36 1.000
Gas velocity (Jg) 0.70 0.004
Percent solids (Pd) 0.18 0.070
Bubble size (d32) 0.41 0.590
sider the data space as a unit hypercube. Specifying a small cluster
radius will usually yield many small clusters in the data, (resulting
in many rules). Specifying a large cluster radius will usually yield a
few large clusters in the data, (resulting in fewer rules) [25]. The
cluster radius is specified as the third argument of GENFIS2. Here
we recall the GENFIS2 function as using a cluster radius of 0.4.
From a total of 66 sets of data, used in the predictions by ANFIS,
50 data sets were used for training, and 16 data sets for testing.
ANFIS training can be made more efficient if certain preprocessing
steps (normalizing processes) are performed on the inputs and tar-
gets [26]. In the present study, all input and output data in the
training phase were preprocessed by normalizing the inputs and
targets so that they have means of zero and standard deviations
of 1:
Ap  meanAps
Np ¼
stdAp
where Ap is the actual parameter; Aps the mean of the actual param-
eters; stdAp the standard deviation of the actual parameters; and NP
the normalized parameter of the input data [11].
The distributions of differences between ANFIS estimated
parameters and their actual values are shown in Fig. 5. As a com-
parison between Figs. 4 and 5, it can be seen that ANFIS model esti-
mates the measured Sb and d32 values with high accuracy. It can be
obviously concluded that ANFIS model approximates the measured
Sb and d32 values with quite a high accuracy, better than the regres-
sion techniques. According to Fig. 5, the coefficient of determina-
tion between actual and ANFIS predicted Sb and d32 are 0.86, and
0.78, respectively.
6. Conclusions
Two methods of predicting the Sauter mean bubble (d32), the
surface area flux of bubble (Sb) using regression, and adaptive net-
work based fuzzy inference system are put forth. 66 experimental
data sets are used for the prediction operations. The inter-correla-
tions (r) between different operational conditions with Sauter
mean bubble showed that with an increase in the impeller periph-
eral speed (Ns) and weight percent solids (Pd) d32 decreases
velocity (Jg) can increase Sauter mean bubble (r = 0.27). Also, an in-
crease in all mentioned operational conditions (Ns, Pd, and Jg) will
Jg Pd d32 increase the surface area flux of the bubble (r = 0.36, 0.18, and
0.700 0.18 0.41 0.70 respectively). Through the modeling data, the coefficient of
0.004 0.07 0.59 determination (R2) between the prediction value and the experi-
1.000 0.06 0.27 mental value of Sb and d32 were 0.74, and 0.57, respectively, while
0.060 1.00 0.13
0.270 0.13 1.00
by using the ANFIS method for modeling and predicting, R2 was in-
creased to 0.86, and 0.78, respectively. The results showed that
mentioned operational flotation conditions can be used as predic-
tors of Sb and d32 successfully. As a comparison between regression
and ANFIS, it was found that the performance of the ANFIS model is
better than regression models. Therefore, it can be effectively used
in the estimation of Sb and d32.
References
[1] Finch JA, Xiao J, Hardie C, Gomez CO. Gas dispersion properties: bubble surface
area flux and gas holdup. Mineral Eng 2000;4(13):365–72.
[2] Gorain BK, Franzidis JP, Manlapig EV. Studies on impeller type, impeller speed
and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. Part 4: effect of bubble
surface area flux on flotation kinetics. Mineral Eng 1997;10(4):367–79.
[3] Gorain BK, Franzidis JP, Manlapig EV. The empirical prediction of bubble
surface area flux in mechanical flotation cells from cell design and operating
data. Mineral Eng 1999;12(3):309–22.
[4] Vera MA, Franzidis JP, Manlapig EV. The JKMRC high bubble surface area flux
flotation cell. Mineral Eng 1999;12(5):477–84.
[5] Ventura-Medinaa E, Cilliers JJ. Calculation of the specific surface area in
flotation. Mineral Eng 2000;13(3):265–75.
[6] Grau RA, Heiskanen K. Bubble size distribution in laboratory scale flotation
ð7Þ
cells. Mineral Eng 2005;18(12):1164–72.
[7] Cilek EC. Application of neural networks to predict locked cycle flotation test
results. Mineral Eng 2002;15:1095.
[8] Chehreh Chelgani S, Jorjani E. Artificial neural network prediction of Al2O3
leaching recovery in the Bayer process at the Jajarm alumina plant (Iran).
Hydrometallurgy 2009;97:105–10.
[9] Venkoba Rao B, Gopalakrishna SJ. Hardgrove grindability index prediction
using support vector regression. Int J Mineral Process 2009;91(1-2):55–9.
[10] Aldrich C, Marais C, Shean BJ, Cilliers JJ. Online monitoring and control of froth
flotation systems with machine vision: a review. Int J Mineral Process
2010;96(1–4):1–13.
[11] Lotfi AZ. Fuzzy logic toolbox for use with MATLAB. Math Works
1995;38:109–12.
[12] Cai CH, Du D, Liu ZY. Battery state-of-charge estimation using Adaptive Neuro-
Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy
Systems, 2003;1068–1073.
[13] Chehreh Chelgani S, Hart B, Grady WC, Hower JC. Study relationship between
inorganic and organic coal analysis with gross calorific value by multiple
regression and ANFIS. Int J Coal Prep Util 2011;31:9–19.
[14] Tayebi Khorami M, Chehreh Chelgani S, Hower JC, Jorjani E. Studies of
relationships between free swelling index (FSI) and coal quality by regression
and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system. Int J Coal Geol 2011;85(1):65–71.
[15] Rodrigues RT, Rubio J. New basis for measuring the size distribution of
bubbles. Mineral Eng 2003;16:757–65.
[16] Girgin EH, Do S, Gomez CO, Finch JA. Bubble size as a function of impeller
speed in a self-aeration laboratory flotation cell. Mineral Eng 2006;19:201–3.
[17] Finch JA, Dobby GS. Column flotation. New York: Pergamon Press; 1990.
[18] Jang JSR. ANFIS: adaptive network-based fuzzy inference systems. IEEE Trans
Syst Man Cybernetics 1993;23(3):665–85.
[19] Kulkarni AD. Computer vision and fuzzy neural systems. New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall; 2001. 64.
348 B. Shahbazi et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 343–348
[20] Jang JSR, Sun CT. Neuro-fuzzy modeling and control. Portugal: Civil-Comp
Press; 2004. 138.
[21] Ramezanianpour AA, Sobhani M, Sobhani J. Application of network based
neuro-fuzzy system for prediction of the strength of high strength concrete.
Amirkabir J Sci Technol 2004;5(59-C):78–93.
[22] Shahbazi B, Rezai B, Koleini SMJ. Bubble-particle collision and attachment
probability on fine particles flotation, bubble–particle collision and
attachment probability on fine particles flotation. Chem Eng Process
2010;49:622–7.
[23] Shahbazi B, Rezai B, Koleini SMJ. The effect of hydrodynamic parameters on
probability of bubble-particle collision and attachment. Mineral Eng
2009;22:57–63.
[24] SPSS, Version 13. SPSS Inc. Help Files, 2004.
[25] Ting FTC, Bjorlie SC. Effect of petrographic composition on heating value of
lignite. AAPG Bull 1973;57:963.
[26] Chehreh Chelgani S, Shahbazi B, Rezai B. Estimation of froth flotation recovery
and collision probability based on operational parameters using an artificial
neural network. Int J Mineral Metal Mater 2010;5:526–34.