© All Rights Reserved

0 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Bryan Adams Monin Cheater JEP.pdf
- Martyn - Teach yourself statistics.pdf
- Exam 1Key
- SLRM501
- Stanford Stats_Syllabus.docx
- Syllaubs Statistics in Medicine
- Ch 11 Solutions Manual
- dpm-sigma
- Artikel Review Semester 6
- 9709_w14_qp_72
- QM Syllabus
- Biology Lab Report
- statistics.docx
- Item
- Solutions Data Handling Paper
- State
- G 14 - 04 (2010)e1
- artigo TPACK 2018
- Outline Statistics
- Limpets Can Be Found on Bare Rock

You are on page 1of 11

1 Professor, Department of Mining and Petroleum Engineering; University of São Paulo, 05508-030, São

Paulo, SP, Brazil; ana.chieregati@usp.br

2 Plant Manager, Jacobina Mineração e Comércio, Yamana Gold Inc., 44700-000, Jacobina, BA, Brazil;

edvaldo.junior@yamana.com

3 Process Engineer, Jacobina Mineração e Comércio, Yamana Gold Inc., 44700-000, Jacobina, BA, Brazil;

janine.souza@yamana.com

ABSTRACT

Cross-belt samplers are designed to sample particulate material in processing plants usually when there is no

space to install a conventional linear falling stream sampler. Most of the available cross-belt samplers are

mounted on the top of conveyor belts and remove each increment from a loaded, moving conveyor with a 360-

degree rotation of an open-faced cutter in a plane perpendicular to the material flow. Despite the practicality

of this equipment and the fact that it occupies very little space in the plant, cross-belt samplers are well known

for collecting biased samples, especially due to the increment extraction error (IEE). Sampling consultants

around the world tend to condemn this sampling equipment, claiming that it is incapable of colleting the fine

material from the bottom part of the load, and, since the sampling probability is not uniform for all fragments

and depends on its position in the stream, this kind of sampler generates biased samples and its use should

be avoided. Furthermore, the greater the segregation effect between particles, the larger the bias. However,

some plants, whose initial design did not predict the installation of a falling stream sampler, must rely on cross-

belt samples for process control and reconciliation. For the past years, sampling equipment manufacturers

have been putting effort in modifying the cross-belt sampler design in order to comply with the principles of a

correct sampling. Changes to the cutter material, shape, position, speed and movement in relation to the

material flow have been made and are currently being tested for different types of ore with various chemical e

physical characteristics. This paper presents the continuous improvements made to the cross-belt sampler at

Jacobina, a gold mine of Yamana Gold in the northeast of Brazil, and describes recent tests performed for the

validation of the new cutter installed at the plant feed.

Keywords: Cross-belt samplers. Gold. Sampling.

INTRODUCTION

Cross-belt samplers are known for their bad reputation in minerals processing plants. Lyman et al. (2010)

carried out many experiments for bias testing cross-belt samplers, such as the t-tests and the Hotelling T

squared tests, concluding that the cross-belt sampler is always biased compared to belt cuts, because it is

incapable of collecting the material representing the complete cut on the belt.

However, some suppliers have developed a modified cross-belt cutter designed to operate in a way that

minimises the disturbance to the non-sampled material, producing more correct cuts and more representative

samples. Multotec, with collaboration with Dr. Dominique François-Bongarçon, named it the True-Belt®

Sampler and ensures that the new design complies with international sampling standards, guaranteeing the

structural absence of sample biases. Robinson, Sinnott and Cleary (2010) conducted several DEM simulations

using the modified cutter to investigate the mechanisms that might lead to sample bias in order to help coal

industry personnel to make better decisions about the use of cross-belt samplers.

This paper presents the new validation study for the modified cross-belt cutter installed on the flow that feeds

a ball mill at Jacobina. After validating the new cutter with a 20 paired data set (Chieregati et al., 2017), new

tests were performed to confirm the results for richer gold ores. The sampler was designed by Engendrar and

is shown in Figure 1, following the recommendations presented by Robinson, Sinnott and Cleary (2010). The

cutter is positioned with an approximate angle of 33.7° in relation to the belt in a way that the resultant of the

cutter speed and belt speed vectors is a vector of approximately 73.4°, almost perpendicular to the belt, as

shown in Figure 2. To generate such a vector, the cutting speed should be 1.5 times the speed of the conveyor

belt and the cutter should move against the flow.

1

FIG 1 – Modified cutter for cross-belt samplers and resulting vector (courtesy of Engendrar).

FIG 2 – Cross-belt cutter movement on the belt (modified from Robinson, Sinnott and Cleary, 2010).

METHODOLOGY

Jacobina is an underground gold mine owned by Yamana Gold and located in Bahia, in the northeast of Brazil.

The auriferous mineralization currently mined is found in the conglomerates of metasedimentary rocks of the

Serra do Corrego Formation. The ore bodies, called reefs, are characterised by strata of predominantly

2

conglomerates with higher concentrations of gold located at the top of the layer. Total proven and probable

mineral reserves are estimated as 2.0 million oz with an average gold grade of 2.86 g/t.

For more than five years the operation has continuously improved sampling and sample preparation

procedures, performing sampling tests and optimising sampling protocols and equipment. For determining the

sampling constants K and , both the heterogeneity test and the sampling tree method were carried out.

Results showed a slight difference for the constants K and a larger difference for . Table 1 presents the

fundamental sampling error (FSE) for the optimised sampling and sample preparation protocol based on the

results of the heterogeneity test, where K = 274.12 and = 1.7278. Figure 3 illustrates the same protocol as

a flowchart. Although most of the gold particles are fine, the deposit also presents coarse gold, therefore, gold

grades are estimated by the weighting average of standard 50-g fire assay triplicates to minimise the nugget

effect.

TABLE 1 – Fundamental sampling error for each stage of the optimised sampling protocol at Jacobina’s lab.

stage

mass (g) mass (g) (cm) (g) (s2FSE) (sFSE rel)

1. Primary sampling 50,000,000 18,000 1.0 274.12 0.015223 12.34%

2. Crushing 18,000 18,000 0.10 5.13 0.000000 0.00%

3. Splitting 18,000 500 0.10 5.13 0.009976 9.99%

4. Pulverization 500 500 0.0104 0.10 0.000000 0.00%

5. Selection of analytical sample 500 50 0.0104 0.10 0.001849 4.30%

2

TOTAL (s FSE) 0.027048 16.45%

Based on previous consultant recommendations and aiming to improve the reconciliation between the mine

and the mill, personnel decided to carry out a bias test on the mill feed, where a standard cross-belt sampler

3

was installed. Before starting the test, some measures were taken, such as replacing the sampler cutter with

the modified cutter of Figure 1, replacing the old cutting blades with new ones (Figure 4) and calculating the

minimum sample masses for both grade (Equation 1) and particle size distribution analysis (Equation 2).

K d 274 11.73

MS 2 10,703 g 10.7 kg (1)

s FSE 0.162

d3 13

M S 18 f 18 0.5 16 5,625 g 5.6 kg (2)

s 2FSE 0.162

Where MS is the minimum sample mass, f is the shape factor, is the gold alloy density, d is the top size of

the particles, and sFSE is the maximum relative standard deviation of the fundamental sampling error.

The new cutting blades shape was, then, optimised by staining them with oil and verifying whether the blades

touched the belt or not after the cut.

The first test carried out to check the capability of the cross-belt sampler to collect unbiased samples was the

comparison between particle size distributions of both stopped belt and cross-belt samples. In the previous

optimisation work (Chieregati et al., 2017) three paired samples were collected at the cross-belt discharge

point and on the stopped belt just after the cross-belt cut. For the present study, two more paired samples

were collected at the same points. The cross-belt samples were represented by one whole cross-belt cut, while

the stopped belt samples were represented by 1-m cuts of particulate material on the belt, carefully collected

using a frame. The sample masses varied from 9 kg to 24 kg approximately, respecting the minimum sample

mass for size distribution analysis. All samples were screened between 3/8” and 400# and the gold grades

were determined for each size fraction.

Bias test

The second test carried out at Jacobina’s plant was the bias test, where 35 paired samples were collected at

the cross-belt discharge point and on the stopped belt. The stopped belt samples were represented by 1-m

cuts on the belt, which were taken carefully and whose masses varied from 22 kg to 24 kg, characterising the

4

unbiased method. The cross-belt samples were represented by the whole cross-belt cut, whose masses varied

from 6 kg to 11 kg, characterising the method to be checked. The conveyor belt was stopped right after the

cross-belt cut and the samples were taken close to the respective cut.

There are statistical tests for bias verification between pairs of samples, whose theoretical foundations and

experimental procedures are described in international standards (Standards Australia, 2003; International

Organization for Standardization, 1991). In the experimental methods given in these international standards,

the results obtained from the method to be checked (referred to as “Method B”) are compared with the results

of a reference method (referred to as “Method A”), which is considered to produce practically unbiased results.

When the difference between the results obtained from Method B and those obtained from Method A is not

considered statistically significant, Method B may be adopted as the routine method.

The reference method for checking the bias is the stopped belt method. Although the standards do not specify

the procedures to collect the samples and how to calculate the minimum sample masses, the authors used

Pierre Gy’s Theory of Sampling (Gy, 1992; Pitard, 1993) to guarantee that the sample collected on the stopped

belt would be correct (unbiased), and to calculate minimum sample masses for both grade and size distribution

analysis, as previously presented.

Based on the standards, bias is assessed by application of the t-test (one-sided) at the 5% significance level,

by determining whether the difference between the results of Method A and of Method B are due to random

variations or are statistically different. The minimum number of paired sets of measurements is 20, however,

it depends on the standard deviation of the differences based on the data set and the absolute value of the

bias, , to be detected. This method may also be applied for checking a possible significant difference in the

results obtained from samples of one lot collected in different places, such as loading and discharging points.

Method B is considered unbiased when |t0| < t. The value of t is related to the number of sample pairs, k (see

Appendix 1), and t0 can be calculated as follows.

d

t0 (3)

sd

k

Whered is the mean of the differences, di, between measurements obtained in accordance with Method A

and B, sd is the standard deviation of the differences and k is the number of paired data sets. The number of

pairs, k, is considered sufficient when the required number of pairs nr ≤ k. If nr ≥ k, additional experiments

must be carried out on nr-k data sets. The required number of data sets, nr, can be found in Appendix 1,

according to the value of the standardised difference, D.

D (4)

sd

Where is the magnitude of the bias to be detected and sd is the standard deviation of the differences.

The graphs presented in Figure 5 show the particle size and the gold grade distributions for the cross-belt

samples compared to the stopped belt samples. The stopped belt sample masses varied from 23 kg to 24 kg,

and the cross-belt sample masses varied from 9 kg to 10 kg.

5

FIG 5 – Comparison of particle size and grade distribution between cross-belt and stopped belt samples.

Results show very similar particle size distributions and similar gold grade distributions. The more significant

discrepancies between gold grades are seen in the size factions with smaller retained masses, which was to

be expected, since smaller masses present higher standard deviation of the fundamental sampling error.

Furthermore, the 50-g fire assay technique can generate itself an error which is difficult to estimate.

However, the relative grade estimation error was small: 5.0% for the first paired sample (the gold grade

weighted average for the stopped belt sample was 3.302 g/t, and for the cross-belt sample was 3.467 g/t), and

4.2% for the second paired sample (the gold grade weighted average for the stopped belt sample was 2.561

g/t, and for the cross-belt sample was 2.668 g/t).

Bias test

The bias test described in the previous section was conducted on 35 paired samples taken on the stopped

belt (reference method or “Method A”) and by the cross-belt sampler (method to be checked or “Method B”).

Even though there is an average positive bias of 2.02% in favour of the cross-belt samples, the relative grade

estimation error using the 35 paired samples was only 1.72% and the statistical test shows no significant bias

between Method A and Method B, seeing that |t0| < t as per Table 2. The number of pairs was sufficient to

detect an absolute bias of 0.4 ppm (chosen based on a maximum relative standard deviation of the

fundamental sampling error of 16% and on the average gold grade of all samples), seeing that nr ≤ k.

Therefore, the modified cross-belt sampler may be adopted as a routine sampling method to estimate the

processing plant feed grade.

6

TABLE 2 – Bias test: Method A (stopped belt) × Method B (cross-belt sampler).

Pair Au (ppm) Absolute Relative

index difference di difference

CROSS BELT STOPPED BELT

B-A B-A

1 2.59 1.94 0.648 33.33%

2 2.45 2.09 0.361 17.32%

3 1.73 2.32 -0.583 -25.18%

4 1.66 2.64 -0.979 -37.10%

5 3.19 2.05 1.146 55.97%

6 1.91 1.72 0.190 11.03%

7 2.40 1.79 0.609 33.95%

8 2.70 3.54 -0.837 -23.64%

9 3.18 2.30 0.880 38.27%

10 2.40 2.50 -0.096 -3.85%

11 2.56 2.76 -0.196 -7.10%

12 3.41 2.47 0.936 37.86%

13 3.32 3.67 -0.351 -9.56%

14 3.07 3.65 -0.581 -15.92%

15 1.83 3.44 -1.618 -46.98%

16 2.55 1.76 0.789 44.93%

17 1.75 1.53 0.211 13.75%

18 1.96 2.66 -0.700 -26.31%

19 3.31 2.72 0.595 21.91%

20 3.20 3.10 0.102 3.29%

21 3.39 3.59 -0.197 -5.49%

22 2.28 2.04 0.238 11.67%

23 2.69 3.50 -0.810 -23.13%

24 2.65 2.45 0.204 8.33%

25 3.58 3.73 -0.145 -3.89%

26 2.53 2.60 -0.063 -2.43%

27 2.31 2.05 0.264 12.88%

28 1.51 2.77 -1.265 -45.63%

29 2.59 2.33 0.258 11.07%

30 2.29 2.79 -0.493 -17.69%

31 2.83 3.10 -0.264 -8.53%

32 1.92 1.57 0.346 22.02%

33 2.60 2.14 0.457 21.36%

34 1.53 1.45 0.078 5.39%

35 1.45 2.11 -0.659 -31.29%

Mean 2.49 2.54 -0.044 2.02%

Variance 0.371 0.453 0.416 6.66%

k 35

Sum -1.526

SSd 14.133

sd 0.645

t0 see Equation 3 -0.400

t for 35 pairs (see Table 3) 1.691

UNBIASED? is Method B unbiased? YES |t 0 | < t

(%) bias to be detected (sFSE = 16% relative) 0.40

D standardised difference 0.62

nr required number of pairs (see Table 4) 32

SUFFICIENT? was the number of pairs sufficient? YES nr ≤ k

7

The relative difference plot shown in Figure 6 indicates that the cross-belt samples tend to overestimate low

grades (<2.5 g/t) and to underestimate higher grades (>2.5 g/t). This result confirms the tendency observed in

the 20 sample pairs used for the first bias test (Chieregati et al., 2017) and should be taken into consideration

when feeding the plant with lower or higher grades.

FIG 6 – Relative difference plot between results: cross-belt stopped belt (reference method).

However, this graph must be carefully analysed, and the authors recommend that the fire assay technique be

checked to verify the chemical analysis biases that may be generated.

CONCLUSIONS

As proved by Robinson’s DEM simulations, all cross-belt samplers will generate some bias, with material from

different positions across the width of the belt and from top to bottom of the load on the belt being unequally

represented in samples. The bias depends on the amount of segregation of the material on the belt, on the

grade distribution by size fraction, and on the cutter design and operational parameters as well. The question

is how to decide whether the likely amount of bias is acceptable or not.

This study described two tests that help estimating the bias of an optimized cross-belt sampler and checking

if it is statistically significant or not. The bias test approach is purely statistical; however, it allows detecting a

bias and can be compared with the size distribution analysis of paired data in order to confirm its results.

Knowing that the grades vary according to the size fraction, when the particle size distribution of a reference

method corresponds to the one of the method to be checked, it is presumed that the method to be checked

will present no bias.

All reference samples in this study were taken respecting the minimum sample masses as per Gy’s Theory of

Sampling. Following the company’s procedure to minimise the nugget effect, standard 50-g fire assays were

performed on triplicate samples whenever there was enough mass. Results showed equivalent particle size

distributions for the stopped belt and the cross-belt samples, and the bias test proved that the cross-belt

samples are unbiased. Therefore, it can be stated that the modified cross-belt sampler is appropriate to

estimate Jacobina’s plant feed grades. However, caution should be taken whenever the average feed grade

is considerably higher or lower than 2.5 g/t.

Therefore, considering both the studies carried out for low grade gold ores (Chieregati et al., 2017) and high

grade gold ores, the modified cutter design may reverse the bad reputation that cross-belt samplers have

acquired over the years.

8

REFERENCES

Chieregati, A C, Amaral, Jr., E A and Souza, J C O, 2017. Validation of a modified cross-belt sampler for reconciliation

purposes. In: World Conference on Sampling and Blending, VIII. Perth, pp 247-251 (The Australasian Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy: Carlton).

Gy, P M, 1992. Sampling of heterogeneous and dynamic material systems: theories of heterogeneity, sampling and

homogenizing, 653 p (Elsevier: Amsterdam).

International Organization for Standardization, 1991. ISO 10226:1991 – Aluminium ores – Experimental methods for

checking the bias of sampling, September 1991.

Lyman, G, Nel, M, Lombard, F, Steinhaus, R and Bartlett, H, 2010. Bias testing of cross-belt samplers. In: Journal of the

Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, volume 110, number 6, pp 289-298 (The Southern African

Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg).

Pitard, F F, 1993. Pierre Gy’s sampling theory and sampling practice: heterogeneity, sampling correctness, and statistical

process control, second edition, 488 p (CRC Press: Boca Raton).

Robinson, G K, Sinnott, M D and Cleary, P W, 2010. Summary of results of ACARP project on cross-belt cutters. In: Journal

of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, volume 110, number 6, pp 331-338 (The Southern African

Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg).

Standards Australia, 2003. AS 2806.6-2003 – Aluminium ores – Sampling – Part 6: Methods for checking the bias of

sampling. Originated as AS 2806.6-1994, second edition, June 2003.

9

APPENDIX 1: BIAS TEST TABLES

Number of paired

t

data sets

k

20 1.729

21 1.725

22 1.721

23 1.717

24 1.714

25 1.711

26 1.708

27 1.706

28 1.703

29 1.701

30 1.699

31 1.697

32 1.696

33 1.694

34 1.692

35 1.691

36 1.690

37 1.688

38 1.687

39 1.686

40 1.685

41 1.684

42 1.683

43 1.682

44 1.681

45 1.680

46 1.679

47 1.679

48 1.678

49 1.677

50 1.677

51 1.676

61 1.671

81 1.664

121 1.658

241 1.651

1.645

10

TABLE 4 – Required number of data sets, nr, determined by the value of the standardised difference, D.

Range of Required

standardized number of

difference data sets

D nr

0.30 ≤ D < 0.35 122

0.35 ≤ D < 0.40 90

0.40 ≤ D < 0.45 70

0.45 ≤ D < 0.50 55

0.50 ≤ D < 0.55 45

0.55 ≤ D < 0.60 38

0.60 ≤ D < 0.65 32

0.65 ≤ D < 0.70 28

0.70 ≤ D < 0.75 24

0.75 ≤ D < 0.80 21

0.80 ≤ D < 0.85 19

0.85 ≤ D < 0.90 17

0.90 ≤ D < 0.95 15

0.95 ≤ D < 1.00 14

1.00 ≤ D < 1.10 13

1.1 ≤ D < 1.2 11

1.2 ≤ D < 1.3 10

1.3 ≤ D < 1.4 8

1.4 ≤ D < 1.5 8

1.5 ≤ D < 1.6 7

1.6 ≤ D < 1.7 6

1.7 ≤ D < 1.8 6

1.8 ≤ D < 1.9 6

1.9 ≤ D < 2.0 5

2.0 ≤ D 5

11

- Bryan Adams Monin Cheater JEP.pdfUploaded byNaga Nagendra
- Martyn - Teach yourself statistics.pdfUploaded byAnonymous tcPTEUOGJ
- Exam 1KeyUploaded byLeila Tatum
- SLRM501Uploaded byUtsav Ghulati
- Stanford Stats_Syllabus.docxUploaded byFemi Giwa
- Syllaubs Statistics in MedicineUploaded byGabin Kenfack
- Ch 11 Solutions ManualUploaded byDiego Ortiz
- dpm-sigmaUploaded byLucinei Santos
- Artikel Review Semester 6Uploaded byLiyana Rose
- 9709_w14_qp_72Uploaded byZee
- QM SyllabusUploaded byUtsav Ghulati
- Biology Lab ReportUploaded byrashmi_harry
- statistics.docxUploaded bystevie kunkeyani
- ItemUploaded byveh de mesa
- Solutions Data Handling PaperUploaded byKrish
- StateUploaded byAsim
- G 14 - 04 (2010)e1Uploaded byjose flores
- artigo TPACK 2018Uploaded byAlexandre Henrique Santos
- Outline StatisticsUploaded byJhay-r Lanzuela Taluban
- Limpets Can Be Found on Bare RockUploaded byapi-26229242
- Conceptual AssignmentUploaded byAmitav
- Household Gasoline Demand in CanadaUploaded bykeilerkeiler
- MAT212Uploaded bykrishna135
- MAT212.pdfUploaded bykrishna135
- statistics part 5 and 6Uploaded byapi-311379563
- Q'Vive PMP Formulas PMBOK5 v2Uploaded byHIbo-MarwoSaid
- Risk and ReturnUploaded byMuaiad
- six sigmaaaUploaded byarifmukhtar
- Stat and Prob 2 SolUploaded bymitrasah
- Copy of Six Sigma Catapult ProjectUploaded byRohan Gupta

- Metsim Balance de MasaUploaded byOsterlin Mayhua Capcha
- Example 20Uploaded byLimbert Edwin Bustillos
- 4.Extraction of MetalsUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Implementation of An Alternative Sampling Protocol at a Typical UG2 Conc...docxUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Presentation 2 DFB 'Cfg'Uploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- The use of duplicates.pdfUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- presentation 1 DFB Flaws in flows.pdfUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Sampling 2018 - The Rocklabs Gravity Gold Concentrator.pdfUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Sampling 2018 ESBENSEN keynote Universal power of TOS ... 201018.pdfUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Sampling 2018 ESBENSEN Optimal grade comparison experiment 201018.pdfUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Sampling 2018 ESBENSEN Variographic Total .... 201018_201018Uploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Richard MinnittUploaded bygustavoanaya96
- Media Charge_Linear Wear_Ball MillsUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Media Charge_Linear Wear_Ball Mills.xlsUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Media Charge_Linear Wear_Ball MillsUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- 10. Ramon Sotomayor.congreso de Flotación 07-08 Junio, Intermet - Rev0Uploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- 9. Flotacion Ppt-Flotación 2018 - Alexis Campos (1)Uploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Bern Klein Bulk Sorting Abstract2Uploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Reorder the Letter to Make Names of CountriesUploaded byHeidy Paola
- Xtration Per SolventUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- Olympus SZ-61TR ManualUploaded byRonnie Ocampo
- Calculo de KR20 PruebaUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- ScreenSim_Single.xlsxUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- license.txtUploaded byMuhammad Khairi Mohamed Din
- Rosin Rammler RegressionUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya
- AUploaded byLuis Katsumoto Huere Anaya

- EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF ENDODONTOLOGY: ABSTRACTS FROM THE BIENNIAL CONGRESS 2015*Uploaded byCHOUCHOU12485
- Analytics Practice QuestionUploaded bysujit9
- BSBRES401 - Analyse and Present Research InformationUploaded by채무병
- 4Uploaded byHassan Khan
- MFA Credit RatingUploaded byMarco Alekssandro DelaVega
- Psy245 Lecture 2 Anova on SPSSUploaded bySubayyal Ahmed
- Analysis of Questionnaires and qualitative data- non-parametric tests.pdfUploaded byirene299
- Article BiophInt Assessing Shelf Life From Real Time and Accelerated Studies 2003Uploaded byTom Nuyts
- The Philosophy of Quantitative MethodsUploaded byjayro1974
- Moore 16Uploaded byankuriitb
- krebs_chapter_01_2014.pdfUploaded byJosiana Gonçalves Ribeiro
- swindVerificationUploaded byalexandrepayet
- Business Research Study Material_calicut universityUploaded bylindamarysimon
- ChiSquareTest_LectureNotesUploaded byJam Knows Right
- S2 Hypothesis Tests - Tests on BinomialUploaded bysushdhake5009
- Consumer Behaviour ProjectUploaded bySachin Dhamija
- 1058_ftpUploaded byAndika Saputra
- HypothesisUploaded byDeep Eyes
- Using Goal Setting to Enhance Positive AffectUploaded byRaja Nurul Jannat
- T-Test_In_SPSSUploaded byFaisal Rahman
- 4. Human Resources - IJHRMR-Competency Mapping of Management-Stella-ArockiamUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- ECOS394D_Summer2017_SyllabusUploaded byAmin Oskouei
- Commerce Syllabus (1)Uploaded byMeeta Sharma
- Introduction to Research Methodology FinalUploaded byabhishekniift
- inferential statistics project3Uploaded byapi-362845526
- Jntua MBA R14 SyllabusUploaded bychavs
- Articulo Tsai & WardellUploaded byTatiana Silva Ruíz
- The Impact of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) on the Internal Controls Case Study: Esfahan Steel CompanyUploaded byTendy Kangdoel
- T2.Statistics Review (Stock & Watson)Uploaded byAbhishek Gupta
- 29. M.E. CSE.Uploaded byjanu13