MODEL BUILDING TECHNIQUES FOR MINERAL

TREATMENT PROCESSES
By
W. J . Wh iten 1

ABSTRACT

Initially a few general comments are made about models and

modeL building. Then the techniques used at the University of
QueensLand are described. First the techniques used to put
experimentaL data into a form suitable fo r mocf.eL building are
discussed and then the steps used to build modeLs are des cribed.
It is shown how any known analyticaL information on the form of
the model can be built into the modeL and then the r emaining
parts of the mode L deduced from the avaiLable data . A convenient
factorisation of the modeL building procedure is int roduced to
reduce the size of the model building steps . Techniques for
testing the accuracy of the modeL and for the production of error
es timates when the model is used for simulation are described.
FinaLLy ~ techniques for increasing confidence in the abiLity of
the model to predict are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

A res ear ch group in the Department of Mining and Me t allurgy at the

Universit y of Queensland has been wor king s ince 1962 on the simul a tion,
optimisation and contr ol of mineral treatment processes . This work was
originally on grinding and c lassification processes . Later work has been on
crushing and flo tation. Currently, the main emphasis is on the flotation
process. The approach to this work has been to collec t dat a from i ndus trial
plants and pilo t p l ants and t o use them to construc t and verify digital
simul a tion models . These models are then used for optimisat ion and control
s tudies . Thus the construction of models is one of the most imp ortant parts
of the work of this research gr oup . It is for this reason that a s tudy of
the steps required for mode l building has been made . It has been possible t o
l a y down a procedure for th e constr uction of models. Of course , there are
many possible ways of constructing models and it is not claimed that t he
method described i s the only possible method. However, the t e ch niques described
have be en found of considerab le us e and provide a l ogical sequence of steps
t oward the construction of accurate and reliable models .

1. Research Officer, Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering,

University of Queensland.

129
 MODELS

A few general c omments about models and model building are appropriate
before limiting the scope of this paper.

A model is something that behaves in an analogous manner to the unit

(object or system) being modelled and hence, the model can be used to ob tain
information about the unit being modelled. Usually the models are analogous
only in some aspects and often are somewhat simpler than the uni t being
modelled . The form of a model may vary consider ably and examples range from
scale model s which may be l a r ger or smaller than the unit being modelled t o
an abstract symbolic representation.

A model may be used for simulation or for analytical analysis . In

simulation,the model is used to pr edict output from the unit given a description
of the input to the unit and a description of the model parameters (i.e. of the
unit being modelled), hence we have

i.e. the simulation S, using inputs I. and parameters P . , provides the calculated
1
outputs Ok . Hence, in simulation the model is used as ln alternative to
experimentation on the unit being simulated. On the other hand analytical
techniques manipulate the internal parts of a model usually to deduce some
generalization about the behaviour of the model .

Models may be developed by several techniques. Firstly, the component s

of the unit to be modelled may be replaced by analogous components . These
techniques include scale model s . Next, there are mathematical techniques wher e
t he physical laws applying to the parts of the unit being modelled are used to
d educe the behaviour of the unit . Finally, the model can be built by matching its
behaviour to the unit b ein g modelled, i.e. empi rical methods. These methods a r e
not necessarily mutuall y exclusive - in fact most large models are built using a
combination of these techniques.

Each of the above techniques is subject to errors . The first relies on the
an alogous replacements being accurat e subs titutes and in the case of physical
models the accuracy of measurement of physical values i s another source of error.
Inaccuracies in models derived by mathematical methods can be caused by
inappropriate use of physical laws, erroneous deduction or the use of
approximat ions to a llow the mathematics necessary for the deduction of the units
behaviour to be performed . Empirical l y derived models acquire err ors from the
data used in their derivation and from inappropriate interpolation a nd extra-
polation.

The planned us e of the model has a considerable effect on the type of model
which is developed. A model for use in mathematical techniques is usually
r es tricted to a certain form (e . g . linear). Considerations of accuracy , amount
of detail, development cost and operational cos t effect the nature of the
required model. Models suitab l e for one app lication can be quite unsuitable for
other appl ications . For instance, the models of an aircraft for transport
simulation and for fatigue simulation are totally different .

130
 This paper describes techniques using experimental data for the
development of models which can be used for simulation on a digital
computer. When mathematical techniques can be applied to the construction
of part or all of the model they may be advantageously combined with the
techniques described. The aim of this model building is to produce a
model that contains all the available information on the unit being
modelled and does not use an excessive amount of computer time. Further,
it is required that the first derivatives of the model should be
reasonably well behaved. This allows the model to be used to generate
data, by simulation, for the development of local approximations used
in the application of analytical techniques.

Although digital simulation is used in the development of models

by the techniques described, the resulting model is not necessarily
restricted to use by digital simulation.

TYPES OF SIMULATION

As most of this paper is concerned with the use of simulation

techniques in model building it is desirable to note the main types of
simulation. Firstly, dynamic simulation gives a record of the model's
behaviour with varying time . The results of a dynamic simulation is
graphs or tables with time as the independent variable. Steady state
simulation calculates the condition of the output of the simulated unit
when it is operating under steady state conditions, i . e. the inputs and
outputs of the unit are not varying with time . Statistical simulation
uses random numbers to generate a series of sets of typical input data
and statistical techniques used to evaluate the variations in the output
from the models.

The model building techniques in this paper have been developed from
the construction of models for steady state simulation . However, they can be
applied to the development of models for use in statistical and dynamic
simulation but the amount of computer time required may become excessive.

MINERAL PROCESSING MODELS

At the University of Queensland, models have been constructed for

crushing, grinding and flotation plants. Substitution, mathematical, and
empirical techniques have been used for the construction of these models .
The crushing models, being the most recent, have made the greatest use of
the techniques described in this paper .

It has been our aim to include in the model as much physical

information about the plant being simulated as is reasonable . We are
convinced that the addition of this physical information increases the
accuracy and range of these models. The approach has been to construct
models of the unit operations in the plant and then use analogous
substitution to produce a model of the entire plant.

Dynamic simulation of a plant using models of the units in a plant

presents little difficulty provided there is a delay or lag around each

131
of the closed loops . This is almost always the case . Steady state simulation
of a plant requires an iterative technique to simulate the behaviour in the
closed loops of the plant. Usually, iterated simulation of each unit
around the loop (i.e. approximating a dynamic simulation of the plant coming
to equilibrium) is sufficient to obtain steady state operating conditions .
Relaxation methods are useful in reducing the number of iterations required.

The above approach provides useful informa tion about the loading and
operation of each unit in th e plant. Among other things, this allows the
restraints on the operation of the plant to be determined. It is easy to
inves tigate alternative flow charts for the plant and much useful information
for control s tudies can be obtained.

The aim has been to obtain models as accurate as possible using the
available data. If simpler models or models of a particular form are
required, they can then be developed using simulated data from the original
model.

An a lternative approach is to consider the whole plant as a black box

and to construct a model using empirical techniques. As most plants have a
l a r ge numbe r of operating variables, many sets of experimental data are
r eq uired to build a model containing the effect of each variable . The choice
of suitable functions for interpolating between data points is extremely
difficult for these models. In general, models built using this approach are
of low accuracy and limited range and do not provide the information needed
to determine the restraints on the operation of the plant. These models
provide no information on the effect of flow chart alterations and are of
limited use in control studies.

DATA COMPLETION

Usually, when conducting tes ts on a particular plant, it is not possible

to measure all the input and output variables of the units to be simulated.
Two options exist: either to build models of each unit in the plant
simultaneously using simulation of the whole plant in the model building
technique, or calculate the unmeasured values so that the data can be divided
into tests on the individual units. The advantages of factorising the model
building into a series of smaller independent problems are considerable,
especially during the initial stages of the model building .

Enough information is us ually available to calculate the unmeasured

values. In fact, the data are usually redundant and due to experimental -.
errors, inconsistent. Hence several different values can usually be calculated
for each unmeasured value . Least squares fitting techniques have been used to
obtain best estimates of the unmeasured variables and \i!hen considered desirable
t o correct the data values so that they a r e consis tent .

If M. a re the measured values, M~ the correc ted measured va lues , U.

l.
the unmeasured * U. ) =l. 0 the restraints, then the least J
values and fk (M.,
squares problem is to minim1.se the ~urn of squared errors

E (M~ - M. ) 2
l. l.
i

with respect to theM.* and U. subject to the restraints:-

1. J
132
0
In mineral processing plants the unmeasured values are usually mass flow rates
and the restraints are normally the mass balance equations for each compone nt
in the pulp streams.

This problem can be sol ved for ei ther U. alone or both t he U. and M*. .
1
Techniques for so lution do n ot r equi r e the f ]functions to be linear .
Deming (1964) gives t echniques for the solution of the general case and
special cases t hat have simp l er solutions . Appendices 1 and 2 give the
solution for two common mass b alance problems that occur i n mineral processing.

The use of this technique t o calcula t e the unmeasured values has been
very successful but the correction of measured values tends to put occasional
small negative percentages int o the l arger screen sizes . This propert y makes
correc tion (by this method) of the measured values somewhat unacceptable.
Unless there is much r edundancy in the origina l data, the corrected data is
only sli ghtl y more accura t e than t he o riginal . For these reasons we have used
the best estimate of the unmeasured variables and the uncorrect ed meas ured
variables for model building . The model building t echniques do not require
consistent data .

MODEL BUILDING

The data for model b uildin g now consists of a series of tests each g1v1ng
a description of i nput a nd out p ut from the unit p lus the values of the oper ating
parameters for each test. We shall l ook, f irs t in out line, t hen in g reater
detail, at a method using simulation , optimisation and r egression t echniques t o
aid the model building. The met hods described provide techniques fo r ob t aining
t he bes t model of a particula r form, aids to finding suitable forms for a model ,
a method f or obj e c tive evalua tion of the model and a means to predict the
accuracy of the resulting model.

Outline of the Model Building Technique

1. Propose form for model which includes unknown parameters.
2. Write a computer program to simulate the unit using the proposed model .
Test for corr ect implementation .
3a. Cal c ulate t he unknown parame ters within each test by non- linear
l eas t squares estimation .
or
3b . Calcula t e parameters over a ll t es t s by non-linear least squares
estimation then proceed to s tep 7.
4. The c l oseness of f it i n 3 is examined for unsatisfactory behaviour .
5. Prediction of the model p~ameters from 3a is a ttempted f r om the operating
par amet ers using regression techniques .
6. The prediction equations found in 5 ar e p r ogr ammed into the model a nd
t est ed for correct implementation.
7. The model predictions are compar ed with a ll the available data and the
err or terms are tes t ed fo r any s ignif icant non-random behaviour .

133
 8. Random number gene r a t ors are incorporated into the model to simulate
the random behaviour of the difference between the model and the data .
These additions are again tested for correct implementation.

9. A comparison of the predicted errors with the actual error s is made for
each test.

10. Other tests s uch as behaviour in conjunction with other models or

predictions from internal sections of the model are used to increase
the confidence in the models ability to predict.

Should the results of any of the above comparisons be unsatisfactory the

model is r evised at some level an d the above procedure continued from that
l evel .

Details of the Model Building Steps

Before discussing each step of the model building in detail some notation
is introduced.

I. are the input values f or each test,

1
P. are t he operating parameters ,
J
ok a r e the output values for each test,
Mi a r e the model parameters

Thus the data for each test consists of t he values I., P. and Ok. The distinction
1 J
between the Ii and Pj is not always clear and may to some ext e nt be chosen t o
sui t s t ep 1 . In general, the Ii describe t he material being fed to the machine
and the Pj the machine itself. e . g . fo r a hydrocyclone, th e input par ameters
may be the feed t onnages of ore and water, and the s ize distribution of the feed
whi l e the operating parameters are the vortex finder and spigot diameter .

Each step of the model building procedure is described in detail in t he

following paragraphs. Examples t o illustrate the various steps a r e taken f rom
the const ruction of models of the vibrating scr een and the cone crusher . Appendices
3 and 4 give further details on these model s .

1. Propose Mode l Form

It is at this stage that the next form of the model to be tested is chosen.
Any analytical knowledge of the model form can be included at t his point. The
pri mar y aim at this stage is to propose a model which will , given t he inpu t fo r
a singl e tes t, predict the output. The effect of the operating parameters Pj
can be omi tted at this stage as t heir effect , which is between tests rather than
within a t es t, is i n cluded in the model at a l ater s tage . Thus the model
building problem is fac t ored into the simpler problems of within test behaviour
and between test behaviour .

This proposed model may contain unknown parameters or functions that need
not be i ndependent of the operating conditions . Arbitrary functions are reduced
to parameter s by using appr oximating analytic or spline forms . Approximation
using sp line functions has been found very sa tisfactory . The model now contains

134
some model parameters N
... and is of the form:
S (I., N )
1 Y.
-+ *
Ok

i . e . the model S provides estimated outputs Ok* from the inputs Ii and model
parameters N . The number of model parameters should be kept low enough to
1
allmv their calculation from an individual test, hotvever, see 3b for details
on the required actions if this is not possible.

Depending on how much is known about the unit, the model can vary from
entirely theoretical to empirical. In some cases smoothness conditions on
certain relations between input and output values may be all that is known.

Example - proposed model form. The basis of the vibrating screen model
is an efficiency curve developed from a probability approach and containing a
model parameter corresponding to the number of attempts a particle makes to
pass through the screen . This efficiency curve provides a method of
calculation the product sizings given the feed sizing. The operating parameters
are the screen size and the feed tonnage rate.

In the case where a model has proved unsatisfactory it is often difficult

to deduce what changes are required to improve the model. The op timisation
techniques used to evaluate the model try to make the best out of any
deficiency and thus often hide its true source. In revising a model the
following questions should be asked.

(a) What is the precise nature of the model deficiencies?

(b) When the tests are grouped according to the errors (sign and
magnitude) are the groups also defined by any of the measured data?
(c) Do any of the model parameters have unlikely (unexpected) values
or behaviour between tests?
(d) Should smoothness restraints on unknown functions be increas ed
or decreased?
(e) Can extra parameters or functions be introduced to test some
of the assumptions built into the model form?

For (d) and (e) it may be desirable to use what is already known to reduce the
number of original model parameters.

The alteration of a model requires careful thought on the nature of the

required alteration and possibly several attempts before an adequate form is
found, e . g. during the modelling of the cone crusher, the fit to all but the
largest size fractions was poor . This was investigated by altering the shape
of the breakage and selection functions. A correction to all but the fine
size fractions was obtained by restricting the form of the breakage function and
later the fines were corrected by the introduction of a separate fines producing
mechanism.

135
2. Program Model
The model proposed in 1 is programmed for simulation on a digital
computer . Techniques from numerical analysis may be required for such
things as solution of differential equations, integration and interpolation.
After the model is coded it must be tes ted thoroughly . It should be tes ted
for at least several different sets of input values Ii and for the correct
effect of changes of each of t he model parameters . This testing is important
as the subsequent use of this program with optimisation routines is s uch that
errors in coding will not be detected.

Possible grounds fo r model revision are in the numerical techniques

which may not have been adequate for the required usage . e.g . During the
modelling of the vibrating screen it was found that the efficiency constant
calculated in s tep 3a varied with the relation of the vibrating screen
aperture to sizes of the measurement screens. This was traced to inadequate
approximation of the average efficiency between the measurement screen sizes.

3a. Calculate Mode l Parameters

A best estimate of the model parameters M~ is cal culated for each set
of test data using non- linear least squares fitting, i . e.

*2
Ok) w. r. t. the M~

* are calculated from S(I. , M~ ). Osborne (1969) and Powell (1965)

where the Ok
give the numerical details of this type of calculation.

If the operating parameters P. are the same for groups of tests, it may
be advantageous to group these test~ together and find the model parameters which
provide a best fit over these groups of tests. This will provide a more accurate
estimate of the model parameters or permit more model parameters in the proposed
model .

The res ult from this section is a table of cal cul ated model parameters
against measured operating parameters.

3b. Calcu l ation of Model Parameters over all Tests

An alternative is to calculate the model parameters using all the available
sets of test data. In this case, the effect of the operating parameters must be ~
inc luded in the model, however, some unknown model parameters can be used in these
extra relations. Usually, this step is only feasi b le after the general outline of
the model has been determined and at this stage it can be useful for filling in
certain details of ~he model. The calculation is similar to 3a except that t he
e rror terms (Ok- Ok) now come from all the tests and the model uses the I., P.
* However, as there are usually mor e parameters 1and J
and M~ to calculate the Ok.
many more error terms than in 3a, this fitting problem is somewhat larger .

Example: In modelling the cone crusher,the production of fines proved very

difficult to calculate from s ingle tests. At this stage the f orm of the rest
of the model was fairly well defined so that it proved possible to cal culate
parameters describing the fines production by fitting the model to a ll of the
available test data.
136
4. Examination of the Fit to Individual Tests
It i s clear that the final model cannot provide better predictions than
the fi t t o individual tests . Thus an unsatisfactory model can be rejected at
this s tage . Generally the closeness of fit a t this stage should be excellent
and an examination of*all tests should show no consistent deviations from the
data for any of the 0. values . If the model is rejected at this stage the model
1
building goes back t o s tep 1 or occasionally step 2.

5. Prediction of Model Parameters

The next step i s to s tart add ing the effects of the operating variables
to the model. This i s done by deriving a n equation to predict the model
paramet e r s f rom the operating parameters. This is normally a linear leas t
squares c urve fitting problem. The t echniques used a r e multiple linear
r egr ession (Efroymson, 1960) a nd multiple spline regression (Appendix 5) . The
l a tter t echnique was developed to overcome some of the problems in the former.
Multipl e spline regression is particularly useful in determining the form of
multi-dimensional functions and once the form i s known a suitable a na lytic
form may be apparent . The physical interpretation of the equations develope d
should be examined t o ensure t he model is based in a reasonable manner on the
behaviour of t he real world.

Bot h multiple linear regression and multiple spline regression provide

e rror estimat es which are used t o aid the determination of a regressi on equa tion .
It i s normal t o set to zer o , coeff i cients not significantly different from zero
and thus simp li fy t he form of the regr ession equation . The e rror es timates are
al so used l ater in the model building .

A r evisi on at this s tage i s indicated when the model fits the tes ts
individually (s t ep 4) but does no t predict over all the tests satisfactorily
(step 7). Attemp t ed physical interpretations of the equations may provide
some i n formation on desi rable or possible chan ges . Possible revisions at t his
s t age are as foll ows .

(a) For multiple linear r egression, a lte r the transforma tions used or
for multiple spline r egr essi on, a lte r the smoothness of the spline
func tions.
(b) I ntroduce mor e of the operating parameter s into the
regression equation.
(c) Allowing for the interaction between the operating variables
(i . e . add a p r oduct or product of splines term into the regr ession).
(d) Introdu ce into the regression a variable not previously recognised
as an opera t i ng variable .

Example: During the a na l ysis of the con e crusher model large errors were
found in certain tests. The fit a t step 4 was reasonable and the r egression
equation could not be s ignificantly improved using the defined operating
variab l es . An examination of the errors i ndicat ed they were linked wi th the
percent of plus one inch material in the feed . The introductio n of this
variable as an operating variab le significantly increased the accuracy of the
model .

137
6. Camp letion of Model
The regression equations found in step 5 are added to the model so that
the simulation now predicts the behaviour with change s in the opera ting
parameters. The resulting program must be tested for correct impleme ntation
otherwis e there is a chance that the model will be rejected due to a
programming error.

7. Evaluation of Mode l

At this step we evaluate the quality of the model. T~e procedure i s

to look for non-random behaviour in the error terms (0. - 0. ). If only
1
random behaviour is found then the model has explained all Ehe s ys tematic
behaviour of the available data and thus, can be considered satisfactory at
least until unsatisfactory behaviour is demonstra ted.

The model is used to generate the calculated outputs for each test a~d
the error terms (0. - O.*) are then obtained by subtraction. We can now
1 1
look at the corresponding error terms for s ystematic variations over all of
the tests. The simples t test is a t-test for mean error different from zero.
If the means are not significantly different from zero, the model is unbias ed
with respect to the available data.

Next we determine if the input variables and operating variables can be

used to e xplain any of the erro r terms. Multiple linear regression or multiple
spline regression can be used for this purpose. The multiple spline regression
is preferred for larger numbers of data s ets as it can detect local as well as
global deviations. If a particular variable cannot predict any significant
variations from zero in any of the error terms up to the limit imposed by the
number of tes ts, the model has explained the effect of tha t single variable
over the available data. To say that the model has explained the effect of all
the variables it is necessary to test that the interactions between variables
do not predict significant variations in the error terms. The multiple spline
regression again provides a convenient method of doing this.

Should the model building prove unsatisfactory in thes e tests the model
building continues from step 1 or step 5 in an attempt to improve the model.

8. Incor-poration of Error Prediction

This step incorporates the knmvn random error behaviour into the model so
that the accuracy of the model can be estimated by simulation. The basic idea
is to perturb the model parameters with random numbers dis~ributed with the same
distribution as the known error structure of the parameters (obtained in step 5).
From a series of simulations with these perturbed model parameters, the
prediction error can be obtained directly from the variations in the predicted
output.

Two error structures exist. The first is the error in the data and the
second the error in the model prediction$ . The second is, due to redundancy in
the data, usually the smaller, i.e. the model is more accurate than the original
data. The error in the data can be predicted by adding to each model parameter
a random normal variable with standard deviation as calculated for that model
parameter in the regression. Usually the model parameters are relatively

138
independent so that no correction for correlation is required, however, a
correction can be calculated if it is needed. For the errors in model
prediction, the error structure is calculated from a quadratic expression
involving the invers e of the correlation matrix (Deming, 1964). Random normal
variables with appropriate standard deviation are again added to the model
parameters. Often it is possible to simplify this error calculation by
neglecting ins ignificant correlation terms. Thus for both error structures
\ole have

S (I. N 0
1 "-
) -+ 0.
J
*
where the e i are random normal variables with zero mean and a standard deviation
calculated as described above. Simulation is used to provide sufficient samples
of the oj* to determine the size of the error, for instance, as a standard
deviation. Both error predictions are programmed and tested for correct
implementation. The calculated error in model prediction should be tested
under various limiting conditions to verify reasonable error prediction.

Should revisions to the error prediction be required the following should

be considered.

(a) Addition of another model parameter to carry some of the

error structure . This is normally required if the error
prediction is too low for certain of the output values.
(b) Incorporation of the effects of correlation between model
parameters or the coefficients in the regression equations.
(c) The use of random number generators to provide distributions
other than normal.

Experience has shown that this step causes little trouble at least when the
number of tests is relatively small.

9. Comparison of Errors

It is necessary to check that the error structure is being properly

reproduced . For each set of data the expected errors in the data values are
calculated and compared with the actual errors. Also the actual errors for
corresponding values over all tests should be checked to ensure that the
distribution is similar to that predicted. If the errors are not being
adequately predicted we return to step 8 .

If the errors in the data can be predicted satisfactorily the calculated

errors for the model predictions can be expected to provide reasonably
accurate estimates of the accuracy of the model.

10. Further Tests

The best way to further test a model is to obtain further data on the unit
being simulated so that predictions can be compared with measured values.

139
The error estimates a llow an objective evalua tion of the accuracy of the
predictions. Unfortunately, additional data is not always readily available.

Other me thods of increasing confidence in the ability of the model to

predict allow the use of data which is not in a form suitable for the model
construction. For instance the behaviour of several units in a circuit may
be easier to obtain data on than the individual units . The models of the
individual units should predict the observed behaviour of the circuits . Error
estimates can be calculated for circuits by the same method as used for the
calculation in the case of single units and these again permit an objective
evaluation. Incomplete data sets often allow certain aspects of a model to
be further tested.

Prediction from internal parts of the model provides another way of

inc reasing t he confidence in the model, e.g . in the cone crusher model it has
proved possible to predict the power accurately from the amount of breakage
calculated in the model.

In short, the additional tests involve exercising the model to verify

reasonable behaviour and the comparison with data not suitable for use in
model building . If the model fails any of these additional tests it is
necessary to revise the model and continue the model building from one of the
above steps . When more data is collected and the model proves satisfactory
the model builder may wish to revise the error estimates to reflect the
additional information available on the operation of the unit .

CONCLUSION

The above procedure has proved suitable for the production of models
which explain the available data to a known accuracy.

Currently, although a computer is used in most of th e model building

steps, t here are still many points that require manual intervention by the
model builder. It is our aim to further develop this procedure and to
include more automation so that as many as possible of the manua l s teps can
be e liminated. Where manual steps are necessary it is hoped to provide the user
with the relevant information in a clear and concise form. When this is
done, model building should be a more rapid and more reliable procedure.
However, the ability of the model builder to describe the real world in .:
mathemat ical or equivalent terms to provide the basis or form of the model
will still affect the range and accuracy of the model.

REFERENCES

Deming, W. E. , 1964 . Statistical Adjustment of Data~ (Dover : New York).

Efroymson, M.A., 1960. Multiple Regression Analysis, in Mathematical

Methods for Digital Computers~
Vol. 1 , (Eds . Ralston, A., and Wilf, H.S.),
pp . 191-203 (Wiley: New York) .

Osborne, M. R. 1969. Gauss and Modified Gauss Methods for Non-Linear Least
Squares Method, in Least Squares Methods in Data Analys is ~ (Eds . Anderssen,
R.S . , and Osborne, M. R. ), CC 2/69, pp . 97-104 . (Australian National Univers ity :
Canberra.)

140
Powell , M. J.D., 1965 . A method of Minimizing a Sum of Squares of Non- linear
Functions Without Cal culating Derivatives, ComputeP JoUTnal ~ 7 : 303-307.

W. J., 1970 . The Use of Multi-dimensional Cubic Spline Functions

~fuiten,
for Regression and Smoothing, to be published .

141
 APPENDIX 1

Mass flow in a stream split into two

Not ation
The subscripts refer to the various component in the streams.
a. Measurement fractions in the first product
1
b. Measured fractions in the second product
1
C·
1 Measured fractions in the feed
e The mass f l ow rate of the feed
Sai Calculated mass flows in the first product

Sb.1 Calculated mass flows in the second product

e c. Calculated mass flows of the feed

1
ct The fraction of mass going to the first product .

Fl ow Chart

The solution is obtained by minimising

: [ cai - ctai) 2 + (bi - (1-ct)bi) 2 + (ci - ci) 2 ]

1

with respect to ct a. c.
1 1

but subject to a. +b.

1 1

thus obtaining
E(bi- ai)(ci - bi)
I: (b. - a.) 2
1 1

and
a. eta.+ (c. - (1- ct)b. - cta.)/3
1 1 1 1 1

b. (1-a )b. + (c . - (1- a )b. - cta 1.)/3

1 1 1 1

c. c . - (c. - (l··ct)b. - ctai)/3

1 1 1 1

142
 APPENDIX 2

Two streams combining then spl itting

Notation

The subscripts refer to the various components in the stream .

a.1. Measured fractions in the feed stream

b. Measured fractions in circulating load at split with product

1.

ci Measured fractions in circulating load at join with feed

d. Measured fractions in product

1.

8 The mass flow rate of the feed

eai Calculated mass flows in the feed

Sb. Calculated mass flows in the stream b

1.

Sci Calculated mass flows in the stream c

Sdi Calculated mass flows in the product

a Ratio of flow in c to that in a.

The mass flows within the pairs a,d and b,c are assumed the same.

Ftow Chart

'c
I
b \

The least squares problem is

minimise [ [(ai - a 1.. ) 2 + (b.1. - a b. ) 2 + (c.

1. 1.
- a c.) 2 + (d.
1. 1.
- d.) 2 ]
1.
i
with respect to a a. b. c. d.
1. 1. 1. 1.

but subject to a. + c. 0. +cr.

1. 1. 1. 1.

The solutions is
[ (b. - c.)(a. -d.)
1. 1. 1. 1.
2
L(b. - c.)
1. 1.

143
and

ai a.~ - ~

bi ab. + ~
~

ci a c ~. - ~

d. d.~ + F,;
~

where ~ (a.~ - ab. + a c. - di)/4

~ ~

144