Minerals Engineering, Vol. 1 I, No. 10, pp.

949-958, 1998
© 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon All rights reserved
0892--6875(98)00082-X 0892-6875/98/$ - - see front matter

ANALYSING PLANT TRIALS BY COMPARING

RECOVERY-GRADE REGRESSION LINES

T.J. NAPIER-MUNN

Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, Isles Road, Indooroopilly,

Qld. 4068, Australia. Email: T.Napier-Munn@mailbox.uq.edu.au
(Received 8 April 1998; accepted 19 June 1998)

ABSTRACT

It is shown that metal recovery in mineral processing plants is often linearly correlated
with feed or concentrate grade, particularly in flotation. This correlation can be used to
analyse the data from plant trials in which two operating conditions are being compared,
such as different reagent regimes or circuit configurations.

The method involves the statistical comparison of the two linear recovery-grade
regression lines corresponding to the two operating conditions. Details of the method and
examples of its use are given.

Although not as efficient as a formal experimental design, the method can be used where
such designs are impractical, or in the analysis of historical data. © 1998 Published by
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords
Process Optimisation; froth flotation

INTRODUCTION

In mineral processing plants, it is sometimes necessary to conduct comparative trials of an alternative

operating condition, such as a new reagent or circuit configuration, to determine whether better performance
can be achieved. This is particularly true of flotation plants. Deciding whether or not an improvement has
in fact occurred is often difficult because production data are typically very noisy, exhibiting high frequency,
high amplitude oscillations and low frequency trends and cycles. A 1% improvement in metal recovery may
be economically significant, but detecting it is problematic when recovery varies over a 10% range from
day to day, a common situation.

Appropriate experimental designs are available for the conduct of such trials. Their purpose is to achieve
a decision at a given level of confidence (typically 90% or 95%) in the minimum number of trials (ie at
minimum cost) under the prevailing conditions. Two such designs, the paired t-test and the randomised
block design, were discussed in an earlier paper [1].

It sometimes happens, however, that practical considerations prevent the implementation of formal designs.
Such situations arise for example when a planned test is interrupted by equipment failure, major oretype

949
950 T.J. Napier-Munn

changes invalidate the experiment, or production schedules compromise the experimental design. It may also
be necessary to analyse historical data which were not collected under conditions of a planned trial. This
paper suggests a method for such cases. It exploits the observation that metal recovery (a common
performance criterion) is often correlated with feed grade, and sometimes with concentrate grade. The
correlation can usually be represented by a simple linear relationship, and the object of the analysis is to
determine whether the relationship for the "trial" condition is significantly different to (better than) the
relationship for the "normal" condition.

Advantages of the method are that it requires no special test design to be used, it can be applied
retrospectively to historical data, and the data need not be sequential but can be accumulated over various
time intervals. It assumes only that the general recovery-grade correlation applies throughout, and the data
conform to some statistical criteria discussed below. A disadvantage is that more observations are usually
needed than for a formal experiment, due to the lack of a rigorous design and the reliance on natural
fluctuations in grade. The number of observations required will however reduce as the strength of the
recovery-grade correlation increases.

RECOVERY-GRADE RELATIONSHIPS

Figure 1 shows daily recovery vs feed grade correlations for a copper-gold flotation plant over 56 days.
Figure 2 shows a similar correlation for a nickel flotation plant over 133 days. The positive correlation
between recovery and grade is visually apparent in each case. However, the significance of the correlation
can (and should) be rigorously tested by forming

t-- Rtn-2

where R is the correlation coefficient

R= ~ xy-(~ x~ y)/n
(2)

and n number of x-y observations

~x = sum of x (grade) observations
~y= sum of y (recovery) observations etc.

100
Copper
9O
e ~ R= 0.374

7O

6O R = 0.655

50 I I I I
025 0,35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
FeedGrade(% or O/~)

Fig. l Daily recovery vs feed grade for copper-gold flotation plant.

 Analysing plant trials by comparingrecovery-graderegressionlines 951

t is then compared with two-sided t-tables with (n-2) degrees of freedom at the desired level of
confidence--preferably 95%, but 90% is sometimes acceptable; where n is greater than about 100, this is
equivalent to a comparison with the normal distribution table. Applying this procedure to the three
correlations shown in Figures 1 and 2 shows that all the correlations are statistically significant to better than
99% confidence.

A • •

........I I
0.5 1 1.5 2
Feed Grade (% Ni)

Fig.2 Daily recovery vs feed grade for nickel flotation plant.

Recovery-grade correlations are not always as strong as this. Figure 3 shows a recovery-feed grade
correlation for 140 days operation of a zinc flotation plant, and Figure 4 a recovery-concentrate grade
correlation for 50 days operation of a lead flotation plant. The two correlation coefficients and corresponding
t-values (Eq. 1) are:

zinc: R=0.208 n= 140 t=2.50

lead: R=0.294 n=50 t=2.13

75
7O

i; 45
40
35
• R = 0.208

30 I I 1 I .... I
6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00
Feed Grade (%Zn)
Fig.3 Daily recovery vs feed grade for zinc flotation plant.

85

,",e
I70, e ~
R=-0.294
65 •
60 P I
30 40 50 50
con. gTede(% Oh)
Fig.4 Daily recovery vs concentrate grade for lead flotation plant.
952 T.J. Napior-Munn

Although the correlation coefficients are low, and there is a lot of scatter in the data, both values of R are
nevertheless significant, at greater than the 95% level of confidence. Part of the secret is the large datasets
used. Table 1 shows the critical values of R for 90, 95 and 99% confidence and for various dataset sizes,
obtained by rearrangement of Eq. 1. Clearly, values below 0.2 are often significant if the dataset is large
enough.

TABLE 1 Critical values for R for 90, 95 and 99% significance

11 Critical Value of R
90%Level 95% level 99% level
20 0.38 0.44 0.56
40 0.21 0.31 0.39
60 0.17 0.25 0.33
80 0.15 0.22 0.28
100 0.13 0.20 0.25
150 0.11 0.16 0.21
200 0.09 0.14 0.18

It should be emphasised that the method described below depends only on the fact that such correlations
exist and remain reasonably stable over time. The physicochemical causes of the relationships need not
concern us, although it is interesting to speculate. Reasons sometimes advanced for the positive
recovery-feed grade correlation (eg Figures 1-3) are:

A fixed a m o u n t of the valuable mineral(s) is always "unrecoverable", and as feed grade increases
the proportion of "recoverable" mineral increases, which is reflected in an increased recovery.

When operating a concentrator to a specified concentrate grade and an approximately constant

tailings grade (a common practice, particularly in flotation), any increase in feed grade will appear
dominantly as an increase in recovery, and the relationship will be approximately linear over the
normal ranges of feed and concentrate grades. This can be shown by simple simulations using the
2-product formula.

The negative recovery-concentrate grade correlation (eg Figure 4) is probably a reflection of the well known
grade-recovery curve which is mainly a function of the feed mineralogy and separation conditions (Figure
5). Operators will generally run the plant in a restricted portion of the curve, for which a linear correlation
is an adequate approximation.

,........ .......... ,.°.....,.......°.°..., .............. .... ........... ....,.. ......... . ............ ,

i Rscovery

Fig.5 The grade-recovery curve.

 Analysing plant trials by comparingrecovery-graderegressionlines 953

In both cases the data scatter is due to the many other influences at work, not least the uncertainties of
sampling, assay and mass balancing, the time intervals chosen (typically a shift or a day), and normal
operating variation.

F I T T I N G AND COMPARING THE REGRESSION LINES

Two datasets are required, representing a number of recovery-grade data pairs for constant time intervals
(eg a shift or a day) for the two operating conditions it is desired to compare, eg with and without a new
reagent. They need not be of equal numbers of pairs.

The procedure for fitting the two regression lines (estimating the gradient and intercept) is well known. In
this case, the performance criterion, usually recovery, is treated as the y-variable and grade as the x-variable.
The method then involves comparing the two lines obtained under the two operating conditions, eg "normal"
and "trial". The gradients are compared first. If they are significantly different, then the lines are different
in some way and the comparison need not proceed. If one line is consistently higher than the other over the
data range of interest, then one might conclude that recovery is significantly higher for that condition.
However if the lines cross in the area of interest, no valid comparison can be made; more data are probably
required. Certainly, it suggests trends that may be worthy of further investigation.

If, as, often happens, the lines are judged parallel (no significant difference in gradient), then the separation
between the lines is tested to determine whether one condition gives a significantly higher recovery than
the other. One could do this by comparing the intercepts. However this is unwise since in these kinds of
datasets the intercept is often strongly extrapolated from the actual data range, and this can lead to the
practical difficulty of concluding a real difference in intercepts when in fact the lines are very close over
the range of interest (A in Figure 6), or the reverse (B in Figure 6). The problem is overcome by comparing
the mean separation of the lines, centered around the means of the two datasets (ie in the range of interest),
using a method proposed by Hald [2].

lines)
Different
intercepts
................................ Rangeof data

rated)

,~lrne
intercept

Fig.6 Comparing intercepts can be misleading when the range of data is small and far removed from the
y-axis.

The formulae required for the calculations are as follows: The two datasets are designated A and B.
Assuming their correlation coefficients are significant (ie the recovery-grade trends do exist), the first step
is to compute and compare the residual mean squares of the two regression lines, given in each case by:
954 T.J. Napier-Munn

2 y2 (~ y)2 ~ xY
(~' / - L~ x~
, y)
s~: ~ - n (3)

x~_(~n ¢
The comparison is made by an F-test of the ratio of the two mean squares, the larger value being in the
numerator (F>I). The ratio is then compared with F-tables at the desired level of confidence, with (n A -2)
and (n B -2) degrees of freedom. If there is no significant difference, then the comparison can proceed. If
there is a difference, proceed with caution (or abandon the comparison) as the error variances appear to be
drawn from different populations, and should not strictly be combined as is required.

The gradients are then compared, also by an F-test:

v:,[: r~-(I; x,~'~,l x.Y~):-s~-s~

(4)
Fgradients
(s:,s~)
(nAt ns- 4)

where

x2: x: -
x2 etc.
nA

XAYA-- ~ XAYA_~ XA~ YA etc.

nA

and S 2, S 2 are the residual mean squares for datasets A and B (Eq. 3).

This value of F is tested against F-tables with 1 and (n A + n B -4) degrees of freedom. If significant, the
regression lines are different, and this conclusion must be interpreted in the context of the data, as noted

earlier. If not, a pooled or mean gradient, a, can be computed as

x2, E x~
The mean separation or difference between the lines (in units of the y-variable, such as recovery) is
 Analysing plant trials by comparingrecovery-graderegression lines 955

dy/x -" (~'A-YB)-~t(XA-X~) (6)

where )/A =mean of y-values of dataset A, etc. The variance of this estimate is

V(dy,x) _-sfl ÷ 1 + (XA-XB)2 ] (7)

nA n. 2 2

where S 2 is the pooled variance given by

(8)
n A÷ n B- 2

where S 2 and S 2 are given by equation (3).

The significance of dy/x is tested by

t -- dy/x with (nA+n B- 4) d.f. (9)

If this t-value is significant, the separation of the lines is real, with a mean value of dy/x. If y is recovery,
then it is concluded that the recovery for one dataset is significantly greater than that for the other.

These formulae can easily be entered into a spreadsheet for routine use.

EXAMPLES

Two examples are given of experiments comparing operating conditions in base metal flotation plants, one
in a copper-gold concentrator using recovery-feed grade data, and one in a lead-zinc concentrator using
recovery-concentrate grade data.

Example 1

A new gold-specific reagent was trialled in the concentrator whose recovery-feed grade correlations are
shown in Figure 1. The trial was conducted in 56 pairs of on--off tests, which were originally analysed by
a paired t-test [1]. Gold recovery was the performance criterion. Figure 7 shows the two regression lines
(trial and normal), and the relevant statistics are compared in Table 2. Inspection of the lines shows that
the trial line does indeed lie above (greater recovery) than the normal line over the operating range, but a
statistical analysis is required to determine if this apparent difference is real.
956 T . J . Napier-Munn

85 ¸
[] •

0~7°I
~ 65

55
~ •
I'I
Normal
Trial
50 L i n e a r (Normal)

45 =lm~'m'Linear (Trial)
i i i I
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Feed Grade (g/t Au)

Fig.7 Daily gold recovery vs feed grade for trial of gold-specific flotation reagent.

The two correlation coefficients are highly significant. The test for the residual means squares (F= 1.15)
shows that they are not significantly different, so the rest of the comparison can proceed. The slopes are
not significantly different (F <1), but the t-value for the mean separation of the lines reaches significance
at more than 97.5%. We may therefore conclude that that the trial reagent does produce a significantly
higher gold recovery than the normal. The value of the difference is a moot issue. It can be estimated either
as the mean difference (trial-normal = 1.8%) or as the separation of the lines (1.5%). The two are not
statistically different. The separation of the lines might be preferred since it is this value that has been
tested, and it is weighted towards the region in which most of the data were collected (the centre of the
line).

TABLE 2 Comparison of gold recovery reagent

Statistic Normal Trial

N o of d a t a p o i n t s 56 56
m e a n recovery (%) 69.02 70.83

Correl.coeff. - value 0.655 0.481

- t/d.f. 6.38/54 4.03/54
- Sig~nificance level >99.5% >99.5%

Residual M S (S2) - value 13.91 15.93

- F/d.f. 1.145/1;108
- Si~,nificance level not significant

Intercept - value 51.58 57.25

- variance 7.73 11.63

Gradient - value 36.26 27.65

- variance 32.32 46.99
- F/d.f. 0.942/1;108
- S i s ~ f i c a n c e level n o t significant

iS e p a r a t i o n o f l i n e s - value 1.48

- variance 0.535
- t/d.f 2.20/108
- Significance level >97.5%
 Analysing plant trials by comparing recovery-grade regression lines 957

Example 2

An alternative operating condition was trialled in the lead circuit of a lead-zinc concentrator (Figure 4), with
lead recovery as the performance criterion. In this case, concentrate grade was used as the x-factor, rather
than feed grade. 50 trial results were compared with 40 normal results. Figure 8 shows the two regression
lines, and Table 3 the statistics. Once again, neither the residual mean squares nor the gradients are
significantly different, so the comparison can safely be made on the basis of the mean separation of the
lines. The observed separation is highly significant (t=5.32 with 86 d.f.), and it can therefore be concluded
that the trial condition is indeed superior to the normal. The difference is quite large (4.4% recovery of
lead), and this accounts for the strong conclusion.

80 13 •
75

.s t
55 -~1 , Normal
. II 13 Trial
1"1 Limit (Normal)
,s tl - Linear(Trial)
40 ~ I .... I I
40 45 50 55 60
Con. grade (% Pb)

Fig.8 Daily lead recovery vs feed grade for trial of new flotation reagent.

TABLE 3 Comparison of operating condition in lead-zinc concentrator

Statistic Normal Trial

No of data points 40 50
M e a n Pb recovery (%) 68.09 72.51

Correl. coeff. value - 0.276 - 0.294

t/d.f. 1.77/38 2.13/48
- Significance level >90% >95%

Residual M.S. (S2) value 16.77 17.08

F/d.f. 1.02/48;38
, - Significance level not sisnificant

Intercept - value 103.0 92.4

variance 388.8 87.4

Gradient - value -0.692 - 0.389

variance 0.153 0.033
F/d.f. 0.491/1;86
- Significance level not significant

Separation of lines - value 4.67

variance 0.771
t/d.f. 5.32/86
- Significance level >99.5%
958 T. J, Napier-Munn

CONCLUSIONS

When conducting trials in mineral processing plants, every effort should be made to use the appropriate
experimental designs, because this will always produce a result more efficiently (ie at less cost) than
otherwise. For example, the trial described in Example 1 would have produced a positive result at the 95%
confidence level after only 14 pairs of tests using the formal paired t-test, whereas 39 were required using
the method described in this paper. However, the present method is useful when a formal design cannot be
employed, or where historical data are being used.

In the author's experience, the pre-condition for use of the method--a significant correlation between
recovery and grade--is very frequently encountered in the case of feed grade, and less so for concentrate
grade, as might be expected where the process is operated to a constant concentrate grade specification for
smelter requirements.

The linear assumption is normally justified, and evidence for significant curvature is rare. Considerable
scatter in the correlation can be tolerated, as long as sufficient data points are available. An advantage of
the method is that data can be taken from any operating period in the past, as long as the linear
recovery-grade correlation is preserved (which is easy to ascertain) and that the two datasets are selected
rationally, ie with a minimum of known interfering factors other than that being evaluated. As long as the
correlation is reasonably strong, the method is generally more powerful than the 2-sample t-test.

The procedure can be summarised as follows:

1. Obtain appropriate recovery-grade data, and test for linear correlation.

. Test the residual mean squares of the regression lines. If they are different the error structure for
the two datasets may be different, and one should proceed with caution.

. Compare the gradients. If they are different, the lines are different, and careful interpretation is
required in the context of the data. If the lines do not cross in the central range of the data, it may
be possible to conclude that one recovery set is really greater than the other.

. If the lines are parallel (similar gradients), test for their separation. If the separation is significant,
then the objective has been achieved; the best estimate of the recovery difference is the separation
itself. If not, it may be decided that there is no difference, or that more data should be collected.

Clearly, the method of comparing regression lines is general and is not confined to evaluating
recovery-grade relationships.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Useful discussions with Dr Denny Meyer of Massey University are acknowledged. Bougainville Copper,
WMC Resources, Mount Isa Mines and BOC Gases are thanked for supplying the data.

REFERENCES

. Napier-Munn, T.J., Detecting performance improvements in trials with time-varying mineral

processes--three case studies. Minerals Engineering, 1995, 8(8), 843-858.
2. Hald, A., Statistical Theory With Engineering Applications. John Wiley and Sons (1952).

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e on papers p u b l i s h e d in Minerals Engineering is invited, p r e f e r a b l y b y e-

m a i l to m i n . e n g @ n e t m a t t e r s . c o . u k , or b y F a x to + 4 4 - ( 0 ) 1 3 2 6 - 3 1 8 3 5 2