MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment

1
Module 2: Mass balancing and data reconciliation
This section is prepared using the reference by Morrison, R. (Mass Balancing Flotation
Data in Flotation Plant Optimization, Ed. C.J. Greet, AusIMM, Spectrum 16, 2010;
and Wills, B.A. and Napier-Munn, T.J. Mineral Processing Technology, 2006,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Chapter 3).
1. A single separation unit (single node)
1.1 Mass balancing
This is a common situation: it could be a single device such as a flotation cell or a
cyclone or a group of devices such as bank of flotation cells or the entire plant. This is
referred to as a single node. A general representation is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1 General arrangement for a single node
1.1.1 No error in the measurement
The global and component mass balances are:
(1)
(2)
where the upper case letters A, B and C are solid flow rates and lower case letters a, b, c
are components such as metal assays and size-by-size fraction for i components from 1
to n; and superscript
*
stands for the true value (measured with no error).
Dividing equation (1) by A
*
we have:
(3)
Defining the split factor |
-
as the ratio:
(4)
Then, a generalized mass balance equation is obtained:
(5)
In the ideal case the split factor can be calculated using any set of component i
(6)
The above equation is an example of what is known as a two product formulae.
* * *
C B A + =
*
i
* *
i
* *
i
*
c C b B a A + =
*
*
*
*
A
C
A
B
1 + =
*
*
*
A
B
=
*
i
* *
i
* *
i
c ) 1 ( b a + =
*
i
*
i
*
i
*
i *
c b
c a

=
A
B
C
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
2
1.1.2 Measurements with error
In reality measurements contain errors and equation (5) does not hold, i.e.,
(7)
In general, we have:
(8)
where A
i
are the errors obtained when evaluating equation (5) for each component i.
Equation (8) can be expressed as follows:
(9)
It is evident that equation (8) is linear with respect to | and it forms a linear system of
equations with 1 unknown (|) and n equations (n components).
(10)
The estimation of | can be cast as an optimization problem, where the objective is to
find the best |,i.e., the value that minimizes the sum of the squared errors, i.e.,
(11)
This problem is the Least Squares Estimation and has the following analytical solution:
(12)
Superscript
^
stands for optimal estimate in the sense of least squares.
You may note this has some similarities to the solution for the
1
coefficient in section
7.1 simple linear regression of Module 1. Indeed the problem can be formulated as a
linear regression problem.
Instead of Eq 9 we could write
(13)
You should satisfy yourself that the solution to this form, i.e., no
0
intercept term, i.e.,
the linear fit is forced through the origin, is the same as Eq 12. Thus a plot of (a
i
c
i
)
vs. (b
i
c
i
) should be a straight line through the origin and the slope estimated by linear
regression should be
^
.
i i i i
c ) 1 ( b - a A =
0 c ) 1 ( b - a
i i i
=
i i i i i
) c b ( - ) c - (a A =
(
(
(
(
]
1

A
A
A
=
(
(
(
(
]
1

(
(
(
(
]
1

n
2
1
n n
2 2
1 1
n n
2 2
1 1
c b
c b
c b

c a
c a
c a

, ) , )
, )

=
n
j
2
j j
n
i
i i i i
c - b
c - a c - b

, ) , ) j
2
n
i
i i i i
n
i
2
i

c b c a minimize

= A
i
+ = ) c b ( ) c - (a
i i i i
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
3
Lets do a couple of example mass balances to illustrate what we have learned thus far.
Example 1: Mass balance around a section of a flotation circuit using metal assays
(taken from Morrison, 2010)
In Table 1 we have metal assay data from a section of flotation circuit where A is feed,
B Cu concentrate and C tailings. Well examine three solutions.
Solution 1: Using Eq 6
The solution is included in Table 1.
Table 1 Metal assays around a flotation section; balance solved using Eq 6
Metal ai bi ci ai-ci bi-ci (ai-ci)/(bi-ci)
Pb(%) 4.02 4.07 4.04 -0.02 0.03 -0.667
Zn(%) 15.8 7.8 15.5 0.3 -7.7 -0.039
Cu(%) 0.43 22.4 0.2 0.23 22.2 0.010
Fe(%) 14.3 16.1 13.5 0.8 2.6 0.308
Observations: There is an obvious problem: the ratios in the last column are the
estimates of (Eq. 6), which should be a unique value independent of which component
is used in the calculation. Clearly the ratios show significant variation, with some
physically impossible negative ratios. We do learn valuable lessons, however.
Considering the table and the analytical solution, Eq 12, it is evident that if there is no
difference between two of the assays, viz.
i i i i
c b or b a = = , then there is no solution.
There are two corollaries:
1. The closer are the assays the less reliable is the estimate of . For example,
the Pb assays are the least useful.
2. It is always advisable to use a component that is separated in the unit. In this
case the Cu is the target component to be separated and thus makes the logical
choice to solve the balance.
We could use these lessons to eliminate some values, for example all except the based
on the Cu assays ( = 0.010) and this notion should always be kept in mind but
there is an argument that the there is something beneficial to estimating the best by
using all the data.
Solution 2: Using the analytical solution, Eq 12
Table 2 gives the result using the analytical solution.
Table 2 Solution using Eq 12
ai bi ci ai-ci bi-ci (bi-ci)*(ai-ci) (bi-ci)^2
Pb(%) 4.02 4.07 4.04 -0.02 0.03 -0.0006 0.0009
Zn(%) 15.8 7.8 15.5 0.3 -7.7 -2.31 59.29
Cu(%) 0.43 22.4 0.2 0.23 22.2 5.106 492.84
Fe(%) 14.3 16.1 13.5 0.8 2.6 2.08 6.76
Sum 4.8754 558.8909
Beta 0.00872
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
4
Observations: We now have a single value, 0.0087; i.e., the best estimate is that 0.87%
of the feed solids (mass) reports to the B stream, i.e., the Cu concentrate, or, its
complement, 99.13% reports to the C steam (tailings)). (From the process perspective
obviously the amount of concentrate is small as the low Cu feed assay implies.)
Note that the result is closest to that given in Table 1 by the Cu component. Given
corollary 2 above, it appears that the Cu component actually does have the strongest
impact. We can judge this from Table 2 where the largest contribution to both the
numerator and denominator sums in Eq 12 is from the Cu component. In this regard the
Cu component carries the most weight.
Solution 3: Using linear regression, Eq 13
Equation 13 expresses the linear regression solution and the plot , ) , )
i i i i
c b vs c a . is
shown in Figure 2. In this case we force the solution through the origin, as Eq 13
requires (i.e., same solution as Eq 12). The plot hardly encourages the straight line
notion but the regression model faithfully returns the slope 0.0087; i.e., the same
solution for
^
as the analytical solution, as must be the case. The lack of agreement
simply reflects the scatter shown in Table 1 for the ratio in the last column.
y = 0.0087x
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-10 0 10 20 30
(bi-ci)
(
a
i
-
c
i
)
Figure 2 Linear regression result with forcing through the origin
Another approach is to use Solver to search for
^
that minimizes the sum of squares, Eq
11. We will return to that method of solution in section 1.2 when we introduce
uncertainty in the measurements. Before we do that, however, lets consider another
common mass balance, one based on size analysis.
Example 2: Mass balance around a hydrocyclone using particle size distribution data
Table 2 shows data collected around a hydrocyclone where A is feed, B underflow
(coarse product) and C overflow (fine product). Given this unit is designed to separate
on the basis of particle size this is the best component to use in the mass balance.
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
5
Size, um % in size class
ai bi ci ai-ci bi-ci (ai-ci )/ (bi-ci)
>208 26.09 39.3 3.66 22.43 35. 64 0. 6293
208-74 36.3 38.93 32.7 3.6 6.23 0. 5778
74-37 15.46 10.51 24.37 -8.91 -13.86 0. 6429
<37 22.15 11.26 39.27 -17.12 -28.01 0. 6112
Solution: The table includes the ratio to calculate . This time, compared to the metal
assay data in Table 1, the ratio is reasonably consistent. (From experience this
reasonable agreement with Eq 13 is often seen in hydrocyclone and other size
separation devices.) Figure 3 shows the linear regression plot and the model (this time
not forcing through the origin just to show that well behaved data do correspond to a
straight line through the origin (the intercept is 2x10
-15
). The best estimate of
^
is 0.623;
that is, 62.3% of the solids report to (are recovered to) the underflow.
y = 0.6234x - 2E-15
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
(bi-ci)
(
a
i
-
c
i
)
Figure 3 Linear regression result (note, data are well-behaved and show the expected
straight line through the origin, in this case there is no need to use the force through the
origin option)
The two examples above illustrate cases where we have more than one component on
which to base a mass balance: in Example 1 we had four metal assays; in Example 2 we
had four size classes (or size intervals). In principle only one component is needed for
the balance so in these two examples the mass balance is said to be over-defined and
the extra components sometimes referred to as redundant data. In a mathematical
sense they are redundant but as you can already see they help derive a best estimate of
the mass split rather than relying on only one component to strike the balance, even
one based on the component that is most separated in the unit under question. The
description redundant is rather unfortunate in that regard.
Obviously we could have had more components, more metal assays (or related assays,
such as ash content in coal), or more size classes (or even metal assays of size classes,
as you will encounter in assignment 4/5). One component possibility common in both
examples would be % solids. Especially in the case of the hydrocyclone water recovery
to underflow is an important parameter in modeling the performance (efficiency) curve.
To estimate water recovery we need to % solids data. This is not too onerous as the
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
6
cyclone samples we collect will be slurry and thus a weigh, dry and weigh again
procedure will give us the % solids information. Using % solids we can approach the
mass balance problem in the same general manner as we did for sizes (or metal assays)
so long as we recognize we have shifted the base of reference to slurry. Well illustrate
a mass balance with % solids data collected around a hydrocyclone.
Example 3: Mass balance around a hydrocylone using % solids data
The data is shown in the Figure 5.
Figure 5 Example % solids data around a hydrocyclone
The mass balances are set up as follows:
1. Using size data
690 . 0
4 . 73 8 . 22
4 . 73 5 . 38
c b
c a
A
B
Cc Bb Aa : m 74 -
C B A : solids
=

=
+ =
+ =

2. Using % solids
69 . 0
5 . 54
4 . 70
* 531 . 0
531 . 0
5 . 36 4 . 70
5 . 36 5 . 54
: solids
: slurry
= |
.
|

\
|
= |
.
|

\
|
=

= |
.
|

\
|
+ =
+ =
solids
slurry
Aa
Bb
c b
c a
B
A
Cc Bb Aa
C B A
We see that the estimated solids mass split is the same using either component, as it
should be, but in the second case we had shifted the base to that of slurry (the symbols
are italic to remind we have shifted the base). Consequently the first mass split
calculated is that of slurry; i.e., 53.1% of the slurry in the cyclone feed reports to (is
recovered to) the underflow. From the slurry split we can calculated the solids mass
split (or solids recovery to underflow), as shown where Bb now is the solids mass flow
rate in the underflow and Aa the solids mass flow rate in the feed.
%- 74 m
% sol ids
73.4
22.8
38.5
70.4
36.5
54.5
A
B
C
%- 74 m
% sol ids
%- 74 m
% sol ids
73.4
22.8
38.5
70.4
36.5
54.5
A
B
C
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
7
We noted that water recovery to underflow was important in modeling the cyclone
performance curve. We can calculate knowing the slurry mass split and the % solids
data as follows:
, )
, )
, )
, )
345 . 0
5 . 45
4 . 29
* 531 . 0
100
100
= =
|
|
.
|

\
|

water
a
b
A
B
That is, 34.5% of water in the feed reports to (is recovered to) the underflow. This
parameter is often given the symbol R
w
.
1.1.3 Allowing for different levels of measurement error
The optimization problem formulated in Eq 11 assumes that all components in all
streams are measured with the same accuracy which is usually not the case. Depending
on circuit and equipment configuration it may be more difficult to sample one stream
compared to another and component assays may have different degrees of measurement
accuracy. We need a way to express measurement uncertainty in Eq 11.
The general solution is to weight the measurements in some fashion and minimize the
weighted errors; that is
(14)
where
i
is the weighting factor that reflects the uncertainty associated with
measurements of the i
th
component. The is usually chosen to be the inverse of the
variance of the error associated with the i
th
component, i.e.
(15)
Then the optimization problem to solve is the following:
where (Eq 9)
(16)
The inverse of the variance is used in order that measurements with high uncertainty
(high variance) have less impact on the solution; or, conversely, the measurements with
low uncertainty (low variance) have more weight in the minimization, i.e., are given
more weight in the estimation of
^
.

n
i
2
i i

minimize
2
n
i
i

minimize

|
|
.
|

\
|
Ai

) c (b ) c (a
i i i i i
= A
2
i
i

1
=
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
8
The variance of the error A
i
is a function of the errors in the measured compornents.
Thus, we need a way to propagate the uncertainty in the measurements to give
2
i
A
.
Recalling that the propagation of error for a function is sum of the product of the
variance of each input and the square of its partial derivative, then the solution applying
to our problem (Eq 8) is
(17)
Then, the problem to be solved is the following:
where: (18)
Example: We will use example 1, the flotation data with metal assays introduced earlier
The error model will be:
2
assaying
2
sampling total
+ =
Experience has generated the following variances on the components for each stream:
Table 3 The relative sampling and assaying errors (standard deviations) associated
with data in Table 1
Tails
sampling assays %rel error sampling assays %rel error sampling assays %rel error
Pb 5.0 10.0 11.1803 1.0 2.0 2.2361 10.0 20.0 22. 3607
Zn 5.0 5.0 7.07107 1.0 2.0 2.2361 10.0 10.0 14. 1421
Cu 5.0 1.0 5. 0990 1.0 0.5 1.1180 10.0 5. 0 11. 1803
Fe 5.0 0.1 5. 0010 1.0 1.0 1.4142 10.0 7. 0 12. 2066
Feed Concentrate
This generates the absolute standard deviation on the measurements:
Table 4 The absolute standard deviation applying error model
ai bi ci sigma ai sigma bi sigma ci
Pb(%) 4.02 4.07 4.04 0.449 0. 091 0. 903
Zn(%) 15.8 7.8 15.5 1.117 0. 174 2. 192
Cu(%) 0.43 22.4 0.2 0.022 0. 250 0. 022
Fe(%) 14.3 16.1 13.5 0.715 0. 228 1. 648
2
c
2
i
i 2
b
2
i
i 2
a
2
i
i 2
i i i i

a

|
|
.
|

\
|
c
A c
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
A c
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
A c
=
A
, )
2
c
2
2
b
2 2
a
2
i i i i
- 1 + + =
A
2
n
i
i

minimize

|
|
.
|

\
|
A

) c b ( - ) c - (a
i i i i i
= A
, )
2
c
2
2
b
2 2
a
2
i i i i
- 1 + + =
A
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
9
Now we can assemble the data to solve for .
2

i
:
2
c
2 2
b
2 2
a
2

i i i i
) (1 + + =
Table 5a Tabulating
2
i
A

i
a

i
b

i
c

2
c
2 2
b
2 2
a
2

i i i i
) (1 + + =
0.449 0.091 0.903
) 8154 . 0 ( ) 1 ( ) 0083 . 0 ( 2016 . 0
2 2
+ +
1.117 0.174 2.192
) 8049 . 4 ( ) 1 ( ) 0303 . 0 ( 2477 . 1
2 2
+ +
0.022 0.250 0.022
) 0005 . 0 ( ) 1 ( ) 0625 . 0 ( 0005 . 0
2 2
+ +
0.715 0.228 1.684
) 7159 . 2 ( ) 1 ( ) 0520 . 0 ( 5112 . 0
2 2
+ +
2
i
:
2
i i i i
2
i
)] c (b ) c [(a =
Table 5b Tabulating
2
i
A
Metal
i
a
i
b
i
c
2
i
A
Pb 4.02 4.07 4.04
2
)] 03 . 0 ( 02 . 0 [
Zn 15.8 7.8 15.5
2
)] 7 . 7 ( 30 . 0 [
Cu 0.43 22.4 0.20
2
)] 2 . 22 ( 23 . 0 [
Fe 14.3 16.1 13.5
2
)] 60 . 2 ( 80 . 0 [
The last steps in assembling the data are to determine the ratio
2

2
i
i
/ and the
summation ) / (
2

n
i
2
i
i

. All the steps are readily performed in Excel.

The solution is now to search for the value
^
that minimizes the summation. This
search could be conducted manually (in Excel) but the obvious approach is to use the
Excel Solver tool.
To start Solver you need a first guess of
^
; we can use the 0.0087 calculated assuming
equal measurement errors. The answer from Solver is 0104 . 0
^
= .
We consider 0104 . 0
^
= is the best estimate as we have not only used all the components
but also taken into account our knowledge of the measurement errors due to sampling
and assaying. Interestingly, if you check Table 1 you will see that this best estimate is
close to mass split ( ) given by the Cu component, which we noted was the best one to
use as it is the component being separated.
As a note of caution, it is possible that the solution is sub-optimal, that is there may be
more than one minimum and we may not have found the smallest minimum. We could
validate by giving different starting guesses and checking if the solution remains the
same. This is not an issue with this set of data but it is a general warning when using
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
10
Solver to check as other situations may not be so obvious. If the answer does not look
right, and as an engineer you will often have a sense of what is realistic, check it.
1.2 Data reconciliation
1.2.1 Illustrating the need to reconcile data
Consider the metal assay data and calculation of recoveries (after all the estimation of
the mass split is just a step towards estimating this important process parameter among
others).
Example 4: Recovery to concentrate
The calculation can be achieved two ways, directly from the feed and concentrate assays
or from reconstituted feed (there is actually a third way which we will leave you to
contemplate). We will illustrate using the Cu data first:
Method 1: Direct from feed and concentrate
% 2 . 54 5418 . 0
) 43 . 0 (
) 4 . 22 (
* 0104 . 0
a
b

Aa
Bb
R
^
1
= = = = =
Method 2: From reconstituted feed
The feed is reconstituted by adding the concentrate and tails in proportion to the mass
split:
43 . 0 2 . 0 * 9896 . 0 4 . 22 * 0104 . 0 )c (1 b a
^ ^
= + = + =
We see that the reconstituted feed assay is the same as the measured, as it should be but
Im sure you would not expect this to the case all the time given the errors in the
measurements. (The close agreement is anticipated recalling that the best estimate mass
split, 0.0104, is close to that given by the Cu data alone, 0.010.) Subsequent calculation
of recovery using the reconstituted feed approach is likewise not materially affected:
% 1 . 54 5407 . 0
2 . 0 * 9896 . 0 4 . 22 * 0104 . 0
4 . 22 * 0104 . 0
)c (1 b
b
R
^ ^
^
2
= =
+
=
+
=
The result is essentially the same and thus the recovery calculation method, 1 or 2, does
not matter.
Now consider the Zn data.
Recovery of Zn to concentrate
% 51 . 0
8 . 15
8 . 7
* 0104 . 0 R
1
= =
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
11
% 53 . 0
5 . 15 * 9896 . 0 8 . 7 * 0104 . 0
8 . 7 * 0104 . 0
R
2
=
+
=
While the difference is not large (one reason is because
^
is small in this case) the two
calculation methods should yield the same result. The effect of this difference, i.e., the
effect of calculation choice, will likely magnify once we consider circuits and not just a
single node.
Some of you will have noticed an even more significant problem with the raw metal
assay data: in the example with Zn it is evident that the feed assay (15.8%) is higher
than either the concentrate (7.8%) or tails (15.5%) assay. This is also the case for Pb. A
moments thought will show that this is not physically possible, the fact that it occurs is
because of the measurement errors. This physically impossible situation does contribute
to the difference between calculation routes, but inspection of the better behaved
particle size data will show the same effect. For example, calculation of recovery to
underflow of the -74 + 37 m fraction gives R
1
= 42.4% and R
2
= 41.6%.
1.2.2 Reconstituted feed method
We have seen from the above examples that we can calculate recovery using the
reconstituted feed approach. This has some merit, as discussed by Morrison (2010):
i. It uses 2/3 of the original data (the concentrate and tails);
ii. The calculated recovery is constrained to 0-100% (using direct calculation
could produce R > 100%);
iii. It is computationally simple.
Prior to modern computing power the reconstituted feed method was virtually the only
way to avoid inconsistent recovery calculations. The method works well for single
nodes but is progressively harder to apply to combinations of nodes, i.e., circuits. A
preferable solution anyway is one that spreads the adjustment among all the
components and all the streams. We can do this based on the best estimate of
1.2.3 Data adjustment: using
^

We have found the best estimate of | (at least as based on the raw data); the problem
now is to adjust the component values a
i
, b
i
, c
i
such that regardless of which component
is used the same mass balance is achieved and subsidiary calculations like recovery are
independent of the route taken.
Replacing the | on the left side of Eq 8 will produce the smallest errors (in the sense of
least squares) on the right side of the same equation.
(19)
We want to determine the reconciled component values i i i c , b , a that make Eq 19 equal
zero; i.e.
i i i i

c )

1 ( b

- a A =
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
12
(20)
We can write the measured component as the sum of the reconciled value plus an error.
(21)
where Aa
i
, Ab
i
, Ac
i
are the errors or adjustments.
Substituting Eq 21 in Eq 19 we obtain (after a little manipulation):
(22)
Then, the problem can be formulated as follows (keeping in mind we are using the
weighted sums of squares):
with the constraint
(23)
and we want 0 i
^
=
This is a constrained minimization problem as the values of
i
a etc must satisfy the
constraint. This problem is solved using the Lagrangian multiplier (see Appendix)
i
to
impose the constraint. The constraint is then
0 ) (1 a i
^
c
^
b
^
i i
i i
=
(
]
1

(24)
Adding Eq 24 to the sum of squares gives a modified sum of squares. The modified
sum of squares is (the 1/2 is introduced to enable a cancelation as you will see):
(24)
(25a)
(25b)
0 c )

1 ( b

- a
i i i
=
i i i
a a a A + =
i i i
b b b A + =
i i i
c c c A + =

(
(
]
1

|
|
.
|

\
|
A
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
A
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
A
A A A
n
i
2
c
i
2
b
i
2
a
i
c , b , a
i i i
i i i
c

a
minimize
i
^
i i i
c )

1 ( b

- a = A A A
i i i i

c )

1 ( b

- a A = A A A
j
i i i i i
n
i
2
c
i
2
b
i
2
a
i
, c , b , a

- )c

- (1 - b

- a

a
2
1
J minimize
i i i
i i i
+
(
(
]
1

|
|
.
|

\
|
A
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
A
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
A
=

A A A
i

i
2
a i i
2
a
i
i
a 0

a
a
J
i
i
= = + =
c
c

b 0

b
b
J
i
2
b i i
2
b
i
i
i
i
= = =
c
c
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
13
(25c)
(25d)
Replacing Eqs 25a, 25b and 25c in Eq 25d we obtain:
(26)
From where we can isolate
i
:
(27)
The i
^
is calculable from the known values of i
^
A (Eq 26, see Table 5b with
^
known)
and
2
i
A
(Table 5a, with
^
known). Then from (25a), (25b) and (25c) we can calculate
the adjustments:
(28)
And finally the reconciled (adjusted) values are calculated as follows:
(29)
Example: Continuing the same flotation data set
i
:
Pb:
a
i
b
i
c
i i
^
A
2
i
A

(0.8154) ) (1
(0.0083) 0.2016 (0.03) 0.02
2
2
^
+
+
4.02 4.07 4.04 -0.0203 1.0001
, ) , )

- 1 c 0

- 1

c
c
J
i
2
c i i
2
c
i
i
i
i
= = =
c
c
, )
i i
2
c
2
i
2
b
2
i
2
a

i i i
=
2
i
2
c
2 2
b
2 2
a
i
i
i
i i i

1 (

A
A
=
+ +
A
=
i
2
a i

a
i
= A
i
2
b i

i
=
i
2
c i

1 ( c
i
=
i i i
a a a A =
i i i
b

b b A =
i i i
c c c A =
, ) 0

1 b

J
i i i i
i
= =
c
c
2
i
i
i

A
A
=
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
14
0.0203
(1.0001)
0.0203) (

Pb
Pb
+ =

=
Adjustments
i
a
:
4.024 a
0.0041) ( 4.02 a
a a
0.0041
.0203) (0.2016)(0
i
i
a i
i
a
i
2
a a
i
i
i i
=
=
=
=
= =
i
b
:
4.070 b
) 10 * (1.76 4.07 b
b b
10 * 1.75
104) .0203)(0.0 (0.0083)(0
i
6
i
b i
i
6
b
^
i
2
b b
i
i
i i
=
=
=
=
= =

i
c
:
4.024 c
(0.0164) 4.04 c
c c
0.0164
0.0104) .0203)(1 (0.8154)(0 ) (1
i
i
c i
i
c
^
i
2
c c
i
i
i i
=
=
=
=
= =
Raw Adjusted
i i i
c b a i i i c b a
Pb 4.02 4.07 4.04 4.024 4.070 4.024
You can check for yourself that i
^
A is zero (its actually -0.0005 but close enough without
carrying more decimal places).
The adjusted data now avoids the problem in the raw data, the impossibility of the feed
assay being lower than either of the other two (the fact that i i c a = is because
^
is so
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
15
small and we are restricting the number of decimal places). Below is the result from the
Excel spreadsheet for all the assays.
Table 6 Raw and adjusted data
Raw
ai bi ci ai bi ci
Pb 4.02 4. 07 4.04 4.024 4.070 4. 024
Zn 15.8 7.8 15.5 15.720 7.800 15.804
Cu 0.43 22.4 0.2 0.430 22.399 0. 200
Fe 14.3 16.1 13.5 14.175 16.100 14.155
Balanced
The adjusted data are all well behaved: for example, for each component feed assays
are between the concentrate and tails assays, as they must be; and regardless of recovery
calculation method (1 or 2) the same recovery will be calculated. Lets check the last
claim.
% 52 . 0
72 . 15
80 . 7
* 0104 . 0 R
1
= =
% 52 . 0
80 . 15 * 9896 . 0 8 . 7 * 0104 . 0
80 . 7 * 0104 . 0
R
2
=
+
=
Recall that before we had R
1
= 0.51 and R
2
= 0.53.
1.2.4 Analyzing the adjustments
The methodology assumes the errors in measurement are random. This may not be the
case. The adjustments might help reveal bias. One way is to plot the adjusted vs.
measured. We would expect that the adjustments would be distributed around the
equality line, some above some below. Figure 6 illustrates this plot for the Pb data. The
result is as expected for random errors: the adjustments are distributed above and below
the equality line. If the adjusted data were all above (or below) the line we would
suspect a bias in the measurement which would warrant trying to find the source. This is
akin to residual analysis and we could have plotted the difference (adj meas) vs. adj
and reached the same conclusion if the differences were all positive (or negative).
Pb
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08
Measured
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
Figure 6 Adjusted vs. Measured for Zn data
Another indication of possible bias is if the adjustments are large, for example more
than 2 times the
i
for that measurement (i.e., an adjustment > 95% confidence interval
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
16
on the measurement). Mass balance software (see below) will flag adjustments using
this criterion drawing attention to possible biases.
1.2.2 Data reconciliation: a more general solution
The method described above first estimates
^
from the raw data and uses this estimate
to adjust the measurements. We can ask if this
^
is the best estimate. We could use it
as a first guess guess and renew our search to minimize the sum of squares of the
measurement adjustments:
2
ik
2
ik ik
k
2
ik
2
ik i ik

) y (y
minimize

) adj (meas
minimize

i
k i
(30)
where
2
ik
is the absolute variance in the measurement of component i in stream k. The
solution is iterative each estimate of being substituted in the equivalent to Eq 23; i.e.,
the same matrix, search and Lagrangian mathematics is employed as already described.
Wills and Napier-Munn provide a comprehensive review of the method.
Commercial mass balancing software uses this general approach, including MinProBal
that you will use. The program uses a non-linear search algorithm to find the mass flow
splits and the Lagrange solution for measurement adjustments. The user manual
provides some more background.
The results for the two approaches, i.e., that based on
^
from the raw data and the
general solution using Eq 30, will generally not yield the same result. For example, for
the flotation/metal assay data solving Eq 16 for the un-weighted case (solving Eq 12 or
13)
^
= 0.00870 whereas using un-weighted MinProBal
^
= 0.00807. Which is better is
a not a particularly useful debate as we do not have a gold standard, some independent
way of measuring the true mass split. Most operations use mass balancing software and
consistent use of one software will produce data that is useful to identify trends in
performance (daily recoveries, for example), is a necessary first step to building models,
including from data mining. And, always check the adjustments as discussed in
section 1.2.4.
The mathematics has been described using a single separation unit, i.e., a single node.
To solve for circuits we need a way to describe them that the mass balance software can
read.
2. Circuits
2.1 Nodal diagrams
The mass balancing/data adjustment methodology described above is the basis for
solving for circuits. We need a way to represent a circuit, a network, such that the
software can read the information. We start with a single node.
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
17
2.1.1 Single node
sampling point
Feed Tail
Concentrate
1
1 2
3
Nodal diagram Coding
Stream Node
From To
Node no.
1
2
3
0 1
1 0
3 0
Where 0 means outside the block (see
dashed box around node)
2.1.2 Multiple nodes (Cu-Pb-Zn concentrator)
Feed
Water
Cu-Pb (BULK) ROUGHER
Cu-Pb CLEANER
Cu-Pb rougher conc
Cu-Pb cleaner conc
Zn ROUGHER
Zn rougher conc
Zn rougher tail
Note: bulk is termed used when more than one component is concentrated
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
18
1
2
3
1
2
3
5
4
6
8
9
Nodal diagram Coding
Stream Node
From To
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1
1 3
1 2
0 2
2 0
2 3
3 0
3 0
Note: the water is added to node 2 in the diagram as there is no sample taken between
water addition and node 2.
2.1.3 Example with grinding
When we have size reduction in the circuit we can still balance on solid flows and
overall metal assays as solids and metal units are conserved (in = out); but particle size
data, assay size-by-size and liberation data are not conserved. We need two nodal
diagrams to accommodate this.
Feed
Water
Cu-Pb (BULK) ROUGHER
Cu-Pb CLEANER
Cu-Pb cleaner conc
Zn ROUGHER
Zn rougher conc
Zn rougher tail
REGRIND
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
19
1
2 4
1
2
3
5
4
8
9
3
6
7
Coding
Stream Node
From To
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1
1 4
1 2
0 2
2 3
3 0
3 4
4 0
4 0
A. Pulp streams and overall assays (the associated mass flows are conserved across regrind mill, node 2
1
3
1
2
3
5
4
8
9
2
6
7
Coding
Stream Node
From To
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1
1 3
1 0
- -
0 2
2 0
2 3
3 0
3 0
B. Particle size, size-by-size assays, liberation (these data are not conserved across the regrind mill, node omitted)
2.2 Mass balance software.
There are several commercial packages, among the most common (in my experience)
are JKSimMet (JKTechnology) and Bilmat (Algosys); the one we will use is MinProBal
(C.R. Larsen), which has kindly been made available for teaching purposes.
References
Morrison, R. Mass balancing flotation data, on Flotation Plant Optimisation: A
Metallurgical Guide to Identifying and Solving Problems in Flotation Plants (Ed. C.J.
Greet) 2010, AusIMM The Minerals Institute, Spectrum Number 16, Chapter 3 pp. 65-
82
MIME 442: Module 2 Mass balancing and data adjustment
20
Wills, B.A. and Napier-Munn, T.J. Mineral Processing Technology: An Introduction to
the Practical Aspects of Ore Treatment and Mineral Recovery, 7
th
Edition, 2006,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Chapter 3 (in particular pp. 65-89).
Appendix: Lagrange multipliers
Consider the following unconstrained optimization problem
) ( min x f
x
A simple way to find x that minimizes f(x) is to set the derivative of f(x) with respect to x to zero.
0
) (
=
dx
x df
Conditions on the second derivative must apply for x to be a minimum.
Now, considered the following constrained optimization problem
) ( min x f
x
subject to:
g(x)=0
In this case we need to find the value of x that not only minimizes f(x) but also satisfies the constraint
g(x) = 0. In this case we can not just to set the derivative of f with respect to x to zero to find the
optimal value of x. This can be solved by using the Lagrange multiplier, , to translate the constrained
optimization problem into an unconstrained optimization problem. In the present case the problem is to
find the values of x and that minimize the extended objective function:
) ( ) ( ) ( min
,
x g x f x J
x
+ =

This is an unconstrained problem and we can solve by setting the derivatives to zero:
0
) (
=
dx
x dJ
0
) (
=
d
x dJ