Fuel 86 (2007) 9097 www.fuelrst.

com

Application of BoxBehnken design and response surface methodology for modeling of some Turkish coals
N. Aslan *, Y. Cebeci
Mining Engineering Department, Cumhuriyet University, 58140 Sivas, Turkey Received 21 February 2006; received in revised form 1 June 2006; accepted 13 June 2006 Available online 21 July 2006

Abstract The aim of our research was to apply BoxBehnken experimental design and response surface methodology for modeling of some Turkish coals. As a base for this study, standard Bond grindability tests were initially done and Bond work indexes (Wi) values were calculated for three Turkish coals. The BoxBehnken experimental design was used to provide data for modeling and the variables of model were Bond work index, grinding time and ball diameter of mill. Coal grinding tests were performed changing these three variables for three size fractions of coals (3350 + 1700 lm, 1700 + 710 lm and 710 lm). Using these sets of experimental data obtained by mathematical software package (MATLAB 7.1), mathematical models were then developed to show the eect of each parameter and their interactions on product 80% passing size (d80). Predicted values of d80 obtained using model equations were in good agreement with the experimental values of d80 (R2 value of 0.96 for 3350 + 1700 lm, R2 value of 0.98 for 1700 + 710 lm and R2 value of 0.94 for 710 lm). This study proved that BoxBehnken design and response surface methodology could eciently be applied for modeling of grinding of some Turkish coals. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: BoxBehnken design; Response surface methodology; Modeling

1. Introduction Grinding has a signicant impact on economical ore dressing and processing, therefore the development of the grinding process and the dimensioning of the mills has an outstanding role. In the usual case, the dimensioning of mills for ore processing is primarily based on the determination of the Bond work index [1]. The grindability of coal is also an important practical and economical property to coal handling and utilization aspects. Thus, engineering experimenters wish to nd the grinding conditions under which a certain process attains the optimal results. That is, they want to determine the levels of the design parameters at which the response reaches

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 346 2191010x1574; fax: +90 346 2191173. E-mail address: naslan@cumhuriyet.edu.tr (N. Aslan). 0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.06.010

its optimum. The optimum could be either a maximum or a minimum of a function of the design parameters. One of methodologies for obtaining the optimum is response surface technique [2]. It is essential that experimental design methodology is a very economic way for extracting the maximum amount of complex information, a signicant experimental time saving factor and moreover, it saves the material used for analyses and personal costs as well [3]. The objectives of this study are to establish the functional relationships between the some grinding variables (Bond work index, grinding time and ball diameter of mill) on product 80% passing size (d80) for three dierent size fractions of some Turkish coals. In the following sections, the requirements for the Box Behnken with response surface method and their applications to the design of experiments and modeling the eects of Bond work index, grinding time and ball diameter of mill were described for some Turkish coals.

N. Aslan, Y. Cebeci / Fuel 86 (2007) 9097

91

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Response surface methodology Response surface methodology is a collection of statistical and mathematical methods that are useful for the modeling and analyzing engineering problems. In this technique, the main objective is to optimize the response surface that is inuenced by various process parameters. Response surface methodology also quanties the relationship between the controllable input parameters and the obtained response surfaces [2]. The design procedure of response surface methodology is as follows [4]: (i) Designing of a series of experiments for adequate and reliable measurement of the response of interest. (ii) Developing a mathematical model of the second order response surface with the best ttings. (iii) Finding the optimal set of experimental parameters that produce a maximum or minimum value of response. (iv) Representing the direct and interactive eects of process parameters through two and three dimensional plots. If all variables are assumed to be measurable, the response surface can be expressed as follows: y f x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; . . . ; xk 1

b X 0 X X 0 Y

where X 0 is the transpose of the matrix X and (X 0 X)1 is the inverse of the matrix X 0 X. 2.2. Materials Both Bond grindability tests and batch-grinding tests were carried out with three dierent kinds of Turkish coals (Alpagut, Divrigi and Tuncbilek). Table 1 shows the results of analyses for these three coals. In grinding of the coal samples, jaw and roll type crushers were used and particles of sizes less than 3350 lm were obtained. The ne sieve analyses of materials obtained with the crushers are given in Fig. 1. For grinding tests, three dierent size ball diameters (25 mm, 40 mm and 55 mm) were used in dry medium. Table 2 shows the ball mill characteristics used in the coal grinding tests. As a base for this study, standard Bond grindability tests were initially done and Bond work indexes (Wi) values were calculated for three Turkish coals. Batch grinding tests were also performed to determine model parameters, and then mathematical model equations were derived using software.

Table 1 Analyses of coal samples on original, dry in air and dry basis Coals Original Moisture (wt%) Ash (wt%) Volatile matter (wt%) Fixed carbon (wt%) Higher caloric value (kJ/kg) Lower caloric value (kJ/kg) Coke (wt%) Gas (wt%) Moisture (wt%) Ash (wt%) Volatile matter (wt%) Fixed carbon (wt%) Higher caloric value (kJ/kg) Lower caloric value (kJ/kg) Coke (wt%) Gas (wt%) Moisture (wt%) Ash (wt%) Volatile matter (wt%) Fixed carbon (wt%) Higher caloric value (kJ/kg) Lower caloric value (kJ/kg) Coke (wt%) Gas (wt%) 20.91 14.58 29.47 35.05 19,270 17,976 49.63 51.30 20.51 15.29 27.82 36.39 18,198 16,918 51.67 49.11 8.98 27.55 27.25 36.23 20,015 19,027 63.78 37.29 Dry in air 18.40 15.04 30.40 36.16 19,881 18,625 51.20 48.80 18.27 15.72 28.60 37.41 18,709 17,462 53.13 46.87 5.42 28.63 28.31 37.64 20,798 19,865 66.27 33.73 Dry 18.43 37.25 44.32 24,3641 23,376 62.75 37.25 19.23 34.99 45.78 22,890 21,911 65.01 34.99 30.27 29.93 39.80 21,990 21,145 70.07 29.93

where y is the answer of the system, and xi the variables of action called factors. The goal is to optimize the response variable y. It is assumed that the independent variables are continuous and controllable by experiments with negligible errors. It is required to nd a suitable approximation for the true functional relationship between independent variables and the response surface. Usually a second-order model is utilized in response surface methodology [24]. y b0
k X i1

Alpagut

bi xi

k X i1

bii x2 i

k1 k XX i1 j2

Divrigi

bij xi xj e

where x1, x2, . . . , xk are the input factors which inuence the response y; b0, bii (i = 1, 2, . . . , k), bij (i = 1, 2, . . . , k; j = 1, 2, . . . , k) are unknown parameters and e is a random error. The b coecients, which should be determined in the second-order model, are obtained by the least square method. In general Eq. (2) can be written in matrix form. Y bX e 3

Tuncbilek

where Y is dened to be a matrix of measured values, X to be a matrix of independent variables. The matrixes b and e consist of coecients and errors, respectively. The solution of Eq. (3) can be obtained by the matrix approach [2,4].

92

N. Aslan, Y. Cebeci / Fuel 86 (2007) 9097

100

Table 3 The values of F80, P80, Gbg and Wi of each coal sample Coal Alpagut Divrigi Tuncbilek F80 (lm) 3.16 1.82 2.15 P80 (lm) 350 340 305 Gbg (g/rev) 2750 2400 2650 Wi (kW h/t) 12.05 22.05 17.16

Weight percent less than size (%)

10

Divrigi Alpagut Tunbilek

1 10 100 1000 10000

Sieve (m)
Fig. 1. Cumulative under size distribution of coals after crushing by using roll crusher.

Table 2 Ball mill characteristics Mill Internal diameter, D (mm) Length, L (mm) Volume, V (cm3) Material Diameter 1, d (mm) Diameter 2, d (mm) Diameter 3, d (mm) Loading for diameter 1 (%) Loading for diameter 2 (%) Loading for diameter 3 (%) Specic gravity Critical speed Diameter 1, Nc (rpm) Diameter 2, Nc (rpm) Diameter 3, Nc (rpm) Operational speed Diameter 1 NO (rpm) Diameter 2, NO (rpm) Diameter 3, NO (rpm) Divrigi coal (g) Alpagut coal (g) Tuncbilek coal (g) 200 190 6000 Alloy steel 25 40 55 48 50 52 7.8 101 106 111 76 78 82 211 200 217

Media charge

The material is packed to 700 cm3 volume using a vibrating table. This is the volumetric weight of the material to be used for grinding tests. For the rst grinding cycle, the mill is started with an arbitrarily chosen number of mill revolutions. At the end of each grinding cycle, the entire product is discharged from the mill and is screened on a test sieve (Pi). The oversize fraction is returned to the mill for the second run, together with fresh feed, to make up the original weight corresponding to 700 cm3. The weight of product per unit of mill revolution, called the ore grindability of the cycle, is then calculated and used to estimate the number of revolutions required for the second run, to be equivalent to a circulating load of 250%. The process is continued until a constant value of the grindability is achieved, which is the equilibrium condition. This equilibrium condition may be reached in 612 grinding cycles. After reaching equilibrium, the grindabilities for the last three cycles are averaged. The average value is taken as the standard Bond grindability (Gbg) [59]. The products of the total nal three cycles are combined to form the equilibrium rest product. Sieve analysis is carried out on the material and the results are plotted, to nd the 80% passing size of the product (Pi). In this study, the samples are crushed in a laboratory scale jaw crusher and roll crusher, and then the standard Bond grindability tests were performed. The Bond work index values (Wi) are calculated from the equation below [59]. W i 1:1 P 0:23 G0:82 10= i bg 44:5 p p P 80 10= F 80 5

Mill Speed

Material charge

Where Wi is the work index (kW h/t); Pi, test sieve size at which the test is performed; Gbg, Bonds standard ball mill grindability, net weight of ball mill product passing sieve size Pi produced per mill revolution (g/rev.); P80, sieve opening which 80% of the product passes (lm); F80, sieve opening which 80% of the feed passes (lm) [59]. For each coal, F80, P80, Gbg, and Wi values calculated are given in Table 3. 2.4. Experimental design for grinding tests

2.3. Standard Bond grindability tests The standard Bond grindability test is a closed-cycle dry grinding and screening process, which is carried out until steady state condition is obtained. This test has been described as follows [59].

Experimental design is widely used for controlling the eects of parameters in many processes. Its usage decreases number of experiments, using time and material resources. Furthermore, the analysis performed on the results is easily realized and experimental errors are minimized. Statistical methods measures the eects of change in

N. Aslan, Y. Cebeci / Fuel 86 (2007) 9097

93

Fig. 2. BoxBehnken design. (a) The design, as derived from a cube; (b) representation as interlocking 22 factorial experiments [15,16]. Table 4 The level of variables chosen for the BoxBehnken design Variable Symbol Coded variable level Low 1 Ball diameter d, (mm) Grinding time t, (min) Bond work index Wi, (kWh/t) x1 x2 x3 2.5 2 12 Center 0 4 6 17 High +1 5.5 10 22

In this study, the BoxBehnken experimental design was chosen for nding out the relationship between the response functions (d80) and variables (ball diameter, grinding time and Bond work index) for three dierent size fractions (3350 + 1700 lm, 1700 + 710 lm, 710 lm). BoxBehnken design [1015] is rotatable second-order designs based on three-level incomplete factorial designs. The special arrangement of the BoxBehnken design levels allows the number of design points to increase at the same rate as the number of polynomial coecients. For three factors, for example, the design can be constructed as three blocks of four experiments consisting of a full two-factor factorial design with the level of the third factor set at zero [15]. BoxBehnken design requires an experiment number according to N = k2 + k + cp, where (k) is the factor number and (cp) is the replicate number of the central point [15]. BoxBehnken is a spherical, revolving design. Viewed as a cube (Fig. 2(a)) [15,16], it consists of a central point and the middle points of the edges. However, it can also be viewed as consisting of three interlocking 22 factorial design and a central point (Fig. 2(b)) [15,16]. It has been applied for optimization of several chemical and physical processes [1219]. For the three-level three-factorial BoxBehnken experimental design, a total of 15 experimental runs, shown in Table 4 are needed. The model is of the following form [13]: y b0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3 b11 x2 b22 x2 b33 x2 1 2 3 b12 x1 x2 b13 x1 x3 b23 x2 x3 6 Where y is the predicted response, b0 model constant; x1, x2 and x3 independent variables; b1, b2 and b3 are linear coefcients; b12, b13 and b23 are cross product coecients and b11, b22 and b33 are the quadratic coecients [13]. The coecients, i.e. the main eect (bi) and two factors interactions (bij) have been estimated from the

operating variables and their mutual interactions on process through experimental design way [10].

Table 5 BoxBehnken design with actual/coded values for three size fractions and results Run no. Actual and coded level of variables x1(d) (mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 25 (1) 55 (+1) 25 (1) 55 (+1) 25 (1) 55 (+1) 25 (1) 55 (+1) 40 (0) 40 (0) 40 (0) 40 (0) 40 (0) 40 (0) 40 (0) x2(t) (min) 2 (1) 2 (1) 10 (+1) 10 (+1) 6 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0) 2 (1) 10 (+1) 2 (1) 10 (+1) 6 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0) x3(Wi) (kW h/t) 17 (0) 17 (0) 17 (0) 17 (0) 12 (1) 12 (1) 22 (+1) 22 (+1) 12 (1) 12 (1) 22 (+1) 22 (+1) 17 (0) 17 (0) 17 (0) Experimental d80 3350 + 1700 (lm) 2550 2100 750 980 770 840 1070 1050 1100 300 1280 450 850 850 850 1700 + 710 (lm) 910 900 230 410 450 520 625 640 830 200 950 410 540 540 540 710 (lm) 250 370 150 180 105 180 185 190 120 85 180 90 145 145 145

94

N. Aslan, Y. Cebeci / Fuel 86 (2007) 9097

Table 6 Experimental and predicted values of d80 for three size fractions Test no. 3350 + 1700 lm Experimental, d80 (lm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2550 2100 750 980 770 840 1070 1050 1100 300 1280 450 850 850 850 Predicted, d80 (lm) 2355 1973 778 1175 841 814 1066 1050 1224 131 1479 296 850 850 850 1700 + 710 lm Experimental, d80 (lm) 910 900 230 410 450 520 625 640 830 200 950 410 540 540 540 Predicted, d80 (lm) 919 890 239 400 469 490 578 688 802 239 978 371 540 540 540 710 lm Experimental, d80 (lm) 250 370 150 180 105 180 185 190 120 85 180 90 145 145 145 Predicted, d80 (lm) 238 340 179 192 103 188 169 199 134 65 208 69 145 145 145

experimental results by computer simulation programming applying least square method using MATLAB 7.1.
3000

3. Results and discussion A three-factor three-coded level BoxBehnken design was used to determine the response (d80) for dierent size fractions (3350 + 1700 lm, 1700 + 710 lm and 710 lm). Bond work index (Wi), grinding time (t) and ball diameter (d) were independent variables studied to predict the response (d80). Independent variables and their levels for the BoxBehnken design used in this study are shown in Table 4. Using the relationships in Table 4, the actual levels of the variables for each of the experiments in the design matrix were calculated and experimental results obtained as given in Table 5. From the experimental results listed in Table 5 and Eq. (4), the second-order response functions representing d80 can be expressed as a function of Bond work index (Wi), grinding time (t) and ball diameter (d). The relationship between responses (d80) and variables were obtained for coded unit for three size fractions as follows:

Predicted d80 (m)

2250

R2 = 0.96

1500

750

0 0 750 1500 2250 3000

Experimental d80 (m)

Fig. 3. Relation between experimental and predicted of d80 for 335 + 1700 mm.

1000

400
2

800

R = 0.98

R = 0.94 300

Predicted d80 (m)

600

Predicted d80 (m)

0 200 400 600 800 Experimental d80 (m) 1000

400

200

200

100

0
0 0 100 200 300 Experimental d80 (m) 400

Fig. 4. Relation between experimental and predicted of d80 for 1700 + 710 mm.

Fig. 5. Relation between experimental and predicted of d80 for 710 mm.

N. Aslan, Y. Cebeci / Fuel 86 (2007) 9097

95

For 3350 + 1700 lm model equation y 1 850 21:25x1 568:75x2 105x3 447:5x2 1 297:5x2 2 365x2 3 170x1 x2 225x1 x3 7:5x2 x3 7

For 710 lm model equation y 3 145 28:75x1 51:88x2 19:38x3 69:38x2 1 23:13x2 49:38x2 22:5x1 x2 17:5x1 x3 2 3 13:75x2 x3 9

For 1700 + 710 lm model equation y 2 540 33:13x1 292:5x2 76:88x3 15:63x2 1 56:88x2 2 0:63x2 3 47:5x1 x2 11:25x1 x3 8 22:5x2 x3

The responses at any regime in the interval of our experiment design could be calculated from Eqs. (7)(9). The experimental and predicted values of d80 for three size fractions are given in Table 6.

3000

2000
Product 80% passing size (d80)

Product 80% passing size (d80)

2500

1500

1000

2000

500

800 1 Gr 0.5 ind ing tim e (t)

1 0
,m

0.5 -0.5 1 mm (d), -0.5 eter diam Bal l

in

-1

-1

Bo nd 0.5 wo rk 0 in de x( W -0.5 i ), kW h/t

0 1

1 0.5 -0.5 -1 -1

min (t), time ding Grin

Fig. 6. Response surface plots showing the eect of ball diameter (x1) and grinding time (x2) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 3350 + 1700 lm size fraction.

Fig. 8. Response surface plots showing the eect of grinding time (x2) and Bond work index (x3) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 3350 + 1700 lm size fraction.

Product 80% passing size (d80)

2000

Product 80% passing size (d80)

1500 1250 1000 750 500 1

Gr ind

1500

1000

500 1 Bo n

0.5 dw ork

ind

0 -0.5 ex (W i ), k Wh

0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1
d Ball iame ter mm (d),

0.5
ing

1 0 0.5 -0.5 min 0 -1 -0.5 -1

e( t),

tim

/t

me all dia

ter (d

), mm

Fig. 7. Response surface plots showing the eect of ball diameter (x1) and Bond work index (x3) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 3350 + 1700 lm size fraction.

Fig. 9. Response surface plots showing the eect of ball diameter (x1) and grinding time (x2) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 1700 + 710 lm size fraction.

96

N. Aslan, Y. Cebeci / Fuel 86 (2007) 9097

Product 80% passing size (d80)

500

Product 80% passing size (d80)

600

300

200

400

100

300 1

Bon

0.5

1 0 0.5 -0.5 0 -1 -0.5 -1

Ball d iam d), eter ( mm
i ),

dw

ork

ind

ex

0 1 Gr

(W

ind

kW

h/t

0.5 ing tim

1 0
e( t),

-0.5
mi n

-1

-1

0 -0.5 eter diam Ball

0.5 m d), m (

Fig. 10. Response surface plots showing the eect of ball diameter (x1) and Bond work index (x3) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 1700 + 710 lm size fraction.

Fig. 12. Response surface plots showing the eect of ball diameter (x1) and grinding time (x2) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 710 lm size fraction.

Product 80% passing size (d80)

1200

Product 80% passing size (d80)

1000 800 600

500 400 300 200 100 1 0.5 Bo nd wo rk i nd

400 1 Bon 0.5 dw 0 ork ind ex (W -0.5 i ), k Wh /t

1 0.5 -1 -1 0 in -0.5 (t), m time ding Grin

1 0 0.5 -0.5
i ),

ex

(W

-1

-0.5 -1

0
mete r (d),

mm

Fig. 11. Response surface plots showing the eect of grinding time (x2) and Bond work index (x3) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 1700 + 710 lm size fraction.

kW

h/t

dia Ball

The actual and predicted values of d80 obtained using model equations (Eqs. (7)(9)) are presented in Figs. 35. Predicted values and mach with the experimental data points, indicating a good tness (R2 value of 0.96 for 3350 + 1700 lm, R2 value of 0.98 for 1700 + 710 lm and R2 value of 0.94 for 710 lm). 3.1. Eect of variables on d80 In order to gain a better understanding of the results, the predicted models are presented in Figs. 614 as the 3D response surface plots. Figs. 68 show the 3D response surface plot for coarse size fraction (3350 + 1700 lm). Fig. 6 shows the eect of ball diameter and grinding time on product 80% passing

Fig. 13. Response surface plots showing the eect of ball diameter (x1) and Bond work index (x3) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 710 lm size fraction.

size. This gure shows good results both at center of grinding time and at center of ball diameter level studied. Fig. 7 shows the eect of ball diameter and Bond work index on product 80% passing size and Fig. 8 shows the eect of grinding time and Bond work index on product 80% passing size. Figs. 911 show the 3D response surface plot for middle size fraction (1700 + 710 lm). Fig. 9 shows the eect of ball diameter and grinding time on product 80% passing size. Fig. 10 shows the eect of ball diameter and Bond work index on product 80% passing size and Fig. 11 shows the eect of grinding time and Bond work index on product 80% passing size. It shows the best grinding at low Bond work index and high grinding time.

N. Aslan, Y. Cebeci / Fuel 86 (2007) 9097

97

Product 80% passing size (d80)

250 200

for modeling of some Turkish coals grinding circuits and that it is economical way of obtaining the maximum amount of information in a short period of time and with the fewest number of experiments. References

150 100 50 1
Bo nd
[1] Csoke B, Hatvani Z, Papanastassiou Z, Solymar K. Investigation of grindability of diasporic bauxites in dry, aqueous and alkaline media as well as after high pressure crushing. Int J Miner Process 2004;74: 1238. [2] Kwak JS. Application of Taguchi and response surface methodologies for geometric error in surface grinding process. Int J Machine Tools Manuf 2005;45:32734. [3] Kincl M, Turk S, Vrecer F. Application of experimental design methodology in development and optimization of drug release method. Int J Pharm 2005;291:3949. [4] Gunaraj V, Murugan N. Application of response surface methodologies for predicting weld base quality in submerged arc welding of pipes. J Mater Process Technol 1999;88:26675. [5] Bond FC, Maxson WL. Standard grindability tests and calculations. Trans Soc Min Eng AIME 1943;153:36272. [6] Yap RF, Sepulude JL, Jauregui R. Determination of the Bond work index using an ordinary laboratory batch ball mill. Designing and Installation of comminution circuits. New York: Soc. Min. Eng., AIME; 1982. p. 176203. [7] Austin LG, Brame K. A comparison of the Bond method for sizing wet tumbling ball mills with a size-mass balance simulation model. Powder Technol 1983;34:26174. [8] Magdalinovic N. A procedure for rapid determination of the Bond work index. Int J Min Process 1989;27:12532. [9] Deniz V, Ozdag H. A new approach to Bond grindability and work index: dynamic elastic parameters. Miner Eng 2003;16:2117. [10] Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS. Statistics for experimenters. New York: Wiley; 1978. [11] P Box GE, Wilson KB. J R Statist Soc B 1951;13:1. [12] Box GEP, Benhken DW. Technometrics 1960;2:195. [13] Montgomery CD. Design and analysis of experiments. Singapore: John Wiley and Sons, Pte. Ltd; 2001. [14] Ferreira SLC, Santos WNL, Quintella CM, Neto BB, Boque-Sendra JM. Doehlert Matrix: a chemometric toll for analytical chemistry review. Talanta 2004;63:10617. [15] Souza Anderson S, dos Santos Walter NL, Ferreira Sergio LC. Application of BoxBehnken design in the optimization of an on-line pre-concentration system using knotted reactor for cadmium determination by ame atomic absorption spectrometry. Spectrochimica Acta Part B 2005;609:73742. [16] Massart DL, Vandeginste BGM, Buydens LMC, Jong SD, Lewi PJ, Smeyers JV. Handbook of chemometrics and qualimetrics Part A. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2003. [17] Kannan N, Rajakumar A, Rengasamy G. Optimization of process parameters for adsorption of metal ions on straw carbon by using response surface methodology. Environ Technol 2004;25:51322. [18] Rana P, Mohan N, Rajagopal C. Electrochemical removal of chromium from wastewater by using carbon aerogel electrodes. Water Res 2004;38:281120. [19] Annadurai G, Sung SS, Lee DL. Optimisation of oc characteristics for treatment of highly turbid water. Sep Sci Technol 2004; 39:1942.

0.5 wo rk in

1 0
de x(

0.5 -0.5 0 -1
Wh /t

-0.5 -1

i ), k

ing Grind

time (

t), min

Fig. 14. Response surface plots showing the eect of grinding time (x2) and Bond work index (x3) on product 80% passing size (d80) for 710 lm size fraction.

Figs. 1214 show the 3D response surface plot for ne size fraction (710 lm). Fig. 12 shows the eect of ball diameter and grinding time on product 80% passing size, Fig. 13 shows the eect of ball diameter and Bond work index on product 80% passing size and Fig. 14 shows the eect of grinding time and Bond work index on product 80% passing size. 4. Conclusion In this study, the application of response surface methodology and BoxBehnken design from the point of view grinding tests was discussed. The three-level three-factorial BoxBehnken experimental design was applied in the study. Variables of model investigated in this study were: ball diameter (x1), grinding time (x2) and Bond work index (x3) for coal grinding. The mathematical model equations were derived for grinding of some Turkish coals using sets of experimental data and a mathematical software package (MATLAB 7.1). Predicted values of d80 obtained using model equations were in good agreement with the experimental values of d80 (R2 value of 0.96 for 3350 + 1700 lm, R2 value of 0.98 for 1700 + 710 lm and R2 value of 0.94 for 710 lm). In order to gain a better understanding of the eect of the variables on product 80% passing size, the predicted models are presented in as the 3D response surface graphs. This study proved that BoxBehnken design and response surface methodology could eciently be applied