# Review No.

110

¢ ¢

Bed blending homogenisation Reprint of article published in World Cement Bulk Materials Handling Review 1994 By Ib Finn Petersen, F.L.Smidth & Co. A/S, Denmark

¢

L.Smidth & Co. Denmark .Bed blending homogenisation By lb Finn Petersen F. A/S.

Smidth..xn have been observed and they appear with the frequencies f(x1 ). the variance Var[X] of a stochastic parameter is defined by means of the expected value operator as: Var[X] = E[(X-E[X])2] A few general calculation rules exist for the variance operator (a and b are constants and X and Y are stochastic parameters): • The variance of the product of a constant and a stochastic parameter: Var[a X] = a2 Var[X] • The variance of the sum of a stochastic parameter and a constant: Var [X+b] = Var[X] • The variance of the sum of two stochastic parameters in cases where these measurements are independent of each other: Var [X+Y] = Var[X] + Var[Y] and in cases where these two stochastic parameters are not independent of each other: Var[X+Y] = Var[X] + Var[Y] + 2 Cov[X. The layers are represented in the reclaimed material by the weight fractions w1. The following values x1 . • The expected value of the product of a constant and a stochastic parameter is the product of the constant and the expected value of the stochastic parameter: E[aX] = a E[X] Similarly. examines the blending effect that can be expected from an homogenizing store for raw materials.: X out The expected value operator E [ ] will always involve weighting a parameter or an expression with the observed frequencies.XN.f(xn .. However with stores that involve a moving average concept (typically a circular store operated according to the continuous Chevron mode).wN. as in the calculation of the mean value above..L. + Xn1 = E[X 11 + .+f(xn )=1 The expected value E[X] (i.. In a homogenising store for raw materials a stockpile is built up of a large number of layers which afterwards are reclaimed in such a way that material from all layers are present in the reclaimed material. Copenhagen. and from these measurements their distribution can be evaluated or characteristic quantities (such as the mean... There exist a couple of general calculation rules concerning the expected value operator. Ib Finn Petersen.. The co-variance is a statistical quantity that measures the relationship between parameters X and Y... This is analysed theoretically using general statistics and the implications of particle size in relation to sample mass in connection with blending tests are evaluated..e..Y] appears in the expression. the time series compositional variation of the in-going material plays an additional and significant role.. + xn f(xn) In the case where the parameters are not independent of each other the so-called co-variation Cov[X.x2 .) where: f(x1 )+f(x2 )+. These layer compositions are to be considered as so-called stochastic parameters. these are deduced by direct calculation: • The expected value of the sum of a number of stochastic parameters is the sum of the expected value of each stochastic parameter: E[X 1 + ..i. + E[X n ] = w X = w X + .Y] Statistical background The characteristic of a stochastic parameter is that its value is never known exactly.) calculated.E[X]E[Y] where E[ ] again represents the expected value operator. consider a stochastic parameter X and assume that a number of discrete measurements of the magnitude of this parameter have been performed. Introduction It is commonly accepted that the number of layers in a blending bed is the decisive factor for obtaining homog-enisation... In order to see how these quantities are defined.N can be represented by X1.. in connection with bed blending the out-going standard deviation is of greater interest. A number of measurements can be performed. Accordingly.f(x2 ). + w X 1 1 2 2 i i N N However.. In order to calculate the blending effect that theoretically can be expected from such it is necessary to consider a little statistical theory.... + w X + .Bed blending homogenisation Using statistical theories.Y] = E[(X-E[X])(Y-E[Y])] = E[X Y] . the co-variance will be high.. BULK MATERIALS HANDLING REVIEW 1994 .. the most likely value) of our stochastic parameter X is defined as the mean: E[X] = x1 f(x1) + x2 f(x2 + ...wi.. F. the variance etc.. the composition of the reclaimed material is expected to become the weighted average operator i..Xi . Y] 1 1 2 2 1 2 Bed blending Assume that the pile consists of N layers and that the composition of each layer 1. According to the so-called statistical theory of bed blending the reduction in standard deviation from in-going to out-going material is related to the square root of the number of material layers simultaneously reclaimed. If these measurements resemble each other to a large extent.e. From a statistical point of view variances (squared standard deviations) are easier to handle than the standard deviations themselves and it is always possible to take the square root of a variance afterwards and thereby obtain the corresponding standard deviation. The co-variance between two stochastic parameters can be calculated according to: Cov[X. a Y + b ]= a a Cov[X. There also exists a calculation rule concerning the co-variance among linear expressions involving stochastic parameters: Cov[a X + b ...

This is important to remember when applying this expression.E[X(t+h)-X(t)])2 ] = Var[X(t+h)] + Var[X(t)] . the basic idea is to consider not the time series X(t) itself but rather BULK MATERIALS HANDLING REVIEW 1994 Random variations The blending of random variation is similar for both longitudinal and circular stores.. Finally. If the compositions of individual layers vary.400) no significant variation in the average composition reclaimed is to be expected because of variation in composition among individual layers. and by taking a number of samples at constant time or tonnage intervals. + wN XN ] = w12 Var [X1] + w22 Var[X2] + .. the reclaimed average composition will at any time be a fixed average composition of the individual layers. the layers are inclined in the pile and as a consequence some layers will become fully reclaimed and new layers will come into contact with the reclaimer as the reclaimer moves around in the store. A similar moving average situation occurs with Cone Shell stacking. The homogenisation of these different variations patterns is considered below.. Inserting this expression in the variogram gives: Gam[h] = Var[X(t)] . +2 wN-1 wN Cov[XN-1’ XN ] Or written as a general formula: Var [Xout] = the increment functionX(t)-X(t+h). In order to characterise this variation pattern.. Obviously the mean value of this increment function should be zero i. The only time that variation in composition among individual layers plays a role is during reclaimation of the end cones...... both with a longitudinal and a circular store.. the reclaimed average composition also will vary. Co-variance and the variogram For bed blending situations involving a moving average. This procedure is continued as long as a respectable number of pairs corresponding to the still increased lag can be located.. From a statistical point of view a respectable number of pairs is in the order of magnitude 20. In cases where compositional variations in the stacked material are random. and the overall variance Var[X(t)] is constant. the variance in the reclaimed material becomes: Var[Xout ] = Var[w1 X1 + w2 X2 + . = wN2 Var (XN ) +2w1 w2 Cov[X1’ X2] +. Provided the pile has been stacked in a large number of layers (200 . the co-variances does not play a significant role.e.. + wN XN ] = w12 Var [X1 ] + w22 Var[X2 ] + . the situation is quite different. Xj ) 1 1 2 Pure statistical theory is one thing but how and where does it apply in practical bed blending situations? The additional covariance terms in the above expressions for the out-going variance originate from variation in the reclaimed composition from individual layers in the pile.The variance in the reclaimed material can be calculated directly by applying the above calculation rules concerning the variance operator on the expression for Xout’ In cases where the compositions of the layers in the pile are independent of each other.. a characterisation of the in-going variation pattern is of interest. where the lag h is a time interval. Compute differences between all pairs of samples with a lag of 1 hr and calculate the variance of these differences and divide by 2. Cov (Xi .: E[X(t+h)-X(t)] = E[X(t+h)J .X(t)] between sample with a time lag h is also only a function of the lag. When operating in the full cross-section of the pile. calculate the variance of these differences and divide by 2.. = wN2 Var (XN ) and in cases where the compositions of the layers in the pile are not independent of each other the variance in the reclaimed material becomes: Var[Xout ] = Var[w1 X1 + w2 X2 + ..E[X(t)] = 0 In addition the (semi) variogram Gam[h] is defined as half of the variance of the increment function: Gam[h] = Var[X(t+h)-X(t)]/2 Evaluation of the variance of the increment function by means of the general calculation rules above leads to the following: Var[X(t+h)-X(t)] = E[(X(t+h)-X(t) .X(t)] where Var[X(t)] is the overall variance of the input variation to the store. reclaimed material will become a moving average taken over the material quantity seen by the reclaimer. The reclaimed material will at any time have the average composition of all layers represented in the reclaimer cut.X(t)] = 2 Var[X(t)] . Consequently..wj .Cov[h] The variogram defined above is a practical tool for determining the co-variances in a time series of samples. the variogram value corresponding to a given lag can be interpolated and the co-variance between two samples of the specified lag can be calculated using the above expression relating the co-variance with the variogram... the variance of all samples is calculated..w1 . + wi Xi + . the variogram value corresponding to a lag of 1 hr is calculated as follows.. The resulting variation in the reclaimed average composition is exactly as the above co-variance contributions describe... The variance in the reclaimed material becomes: . so obviously the co-variance Cov[X(t+h). the composition of the layers will be independent of each other and all co-variances between layers will be zero. From a plot of the calculated variogram values versus lag. the value obtained is the variogram value corresponding to a lag of 2 hr. However. It should be noted that the co-variance can never become negative.X(t)] The variogram Gam[h] is only a function of the lag h. ∑ W Var [X ] = ∑ ∑ 2.. the value obtained is the variogram value corresponding to a lag of 1 hr.... Fixed average If the concern is the out-going variation during reclaiming of a single pile in a longitudinal store stacked according to the Chevron method and reclaimed by a bridge reclaimer. The in-going material enters on a belt.2 Cov[X(t+h)..Cov[X(t+h).. Variation patterns In practice it is to be expected that a combination of three variation patterns can appear in the material to be piled: • Random variations • Periodical variations • Variations where co-variance exists over a range of material quantity.. + wi Xi + . Then compute differences between all pairs of samples with a lag of 2 hr.2 Cov[X(t+h).. Moving average However... if the concern is a circular store operated according to the continuous Chevron mode. Accordingly the co-variance can be written as a function of the lag: Gam[h] = Var[X(t)] . the compositional variation X(t) with respect to time or tonnage can be displayed. If it is assumed that sampling has been carried out at 1 hr intervals.

cos(2π h/T)) 2 =A /2cos(2π h/T) The quantity (P/T) is actually the number of periods represented in the material seen by the reclaimer.special attention much be given to slow variations in the composition of the piled material... Consider the case where the composition in the material fed to the store varies as a sinusoidal function with period T and the amplitude A i. + wN2 Var[XN ] When this is used in the expression for the variance of the reclaimed material. and let the period Tand lag h be measured in tons. Blending of periodical variations in a store Involving moving average. 200 and 400 layers seen by the reclaimer have demonstrated that the number of layers has no significant influence on the blending effect.. The ratio P/T (the number of periods seen by the reclaimer) must be larger than 3 in order to obtain a blending effect of 10:1 of periodical variations in a pile involving moving average. It has the following form: BULK MATERIALS HANDLING REVIEW 1994 .A /2 (1 .typically a circular store stacked according to the continuous Chevron method . + wi X i + . Although every layer is not represented with exactly the same weight fraction when a pile stacked according to the continuous Chevron method is reclaimed. i. The results of these evaluations have therefore been represented by a single curve in Figure 1.. = Var[X N ] = Var[X in ] The variance of reclaimed material becomes: Var[X out ] = Var (Xin ]/N Remember that the blending effect is evaluated on the basis of the standard deviation ratio. The co-variance contributions from all layers in the pile must be summarised in order to calculate the variance in the reclaimed material. Periodical variations For blending beds involving a moving average . the co-variance is also a periodic function with the same period simply because X(t)=X(t+T) .Var[Xout ] = Var[W 1 X1 + w2 X 2 + ...Gam[h] 2 2 = A /2 . is to be expected when a random variation exists in the material stacked in the pile. Very often the material stacked in a pile originates from the same front in a quarry.. In other words.e. In geostatistics the so-called spherical variogram model is widely used.: X(t) = A sin (2π t/T) or in the general form: which corresponds to a blending effect of: The variance of this periodical function over a full period.typically a circular store stacked according to the continuous Chevron method . all layers in the reclaimed material are represented with the weight fraction 1/N .. it is a good approximation and will be used below to simplify the analysis. The composition of the stacked material will be very similar when samples with a small lag are considered. for the case of a periodical variation X(t) with period T.. The lag between all pairs of layers can be summarised as follows: Leg (t) P/N 2 P/N 3 P/N (N-2) P/N (N-1) P/N Number of layer pairs (N-1) (N-2) (N-3) 2 1 Figure 1.e... Let the amount of material seen by the reclaimer be P tons represented in N layers. i.....e.cos(2π h/T)) which corresponds to the co-variance function: Cov[h] = Var[X(t)J . from t = 0 to t = 2πT is: Var[X(t)] = A2/2 Similarly.. where N is the number of layers in the pile. Evaluations of this expression for 100. Assuming the same variances in all layers: Var[X 1 ] = Var[X 2 ] = . the variogram can be calculated directly over a full period to: Gam[h] = A2/2 (1 . Variations with a co-variation within a quantity range In connection with blending beds involving a moving average . The lag between each layer will then be P/N tons. the co-variance will decline from a large value to zero over a material quantity..special attention must be given to the blending of periodical variations. + wNX N] = w1 2 Var[X1 ] + w2 2 Var[X2 ] +. It is therefore to be expected that there exists a similarity in composition within a quantity range.. Various variogram functions have been introduced to describe this phenomenon. Each layer contains P/W tons of material.... corresponding to a blending effect equal to the square root of the number of layers in the pile. whereas the composition will be completely different when samples with larger lags are considered.. the following result is obtained: Var(X ) = A /2N ou t + (A2/N2) (N-1) cos(2π P/N/T) + (A2/N2) (N-2) cos(2π 2P/N/T) • • + (A2/N2 ) 2 cos(2π (N-2)P/N/T) + (A2/N2) cos(2π (N-1)P/N/T) 2 and for the case of a Chevron pile reclaimed by a bridge scraper all the weight fractions (wi) will be identical and equal to 1/N. The above expression. Obviously.

The lag between each layer will then be P/N tons. variation in chemical composition within the particles also plays a role.200 and 400 layers seen by the reclaimer.3 P 2/2N/a .h /2a ) when h<a Cov[h] = 0 when h>a and If we disregard the fundamental sampling error. It contains the fundamental sampling error or the composition heterogeneity discussed later. The difference in results demonstrates the importance of sample size on standard deviation.e. This effect of sample size on the resultant standard deviation is analysed comprehensively by means of the When this is used in the expression for the variance of the reclaimed material. The lag between all pairs of layers can be summarised as follows: Leg (t) P/N 2 P/N 3 P/N (N-2) P/N (N-1) P/N Number of layer pairs (N-1) (N-2) (N-3) 2 1 Blending effect H a/p ratio Figure 3. This sample method gave an out-going standard deviation of 1. All layers are represented in the reclaimed material by the weight fraction 1/N. In order to calculate the variance for the reclaimed material for the case where the compositional variation of stacked material corresponds to a spherical variogram.h 3 /2a 3 ) + C0 when h < a and Gam[h] = C + C0 when h > a The parameters involved have names: C + C0 is the Sill which corresponds to the overall variance. this corresponds to a blending effect of: Figure 3 shows results from evaluating this expression for 100. Gam[h] = C ( 3h/2a . This can be demonstrated by two different sampling methods of the out-going material from a store.56 % CaO. a is the composition range from a high degree of similarity to none at all. the Nugget effect. It corresponds to the variance that can be found among samples taken at the same spot. This also demonstrates that the range in the spherical variogram corresponds to the material quantity where the co-variance drops from full value to zero. and let the range a and lag h be measured in tons. In the first sampling every sample of reclaimed material consisted of 5 increments of 50 kg each.P W/a3 ) out + 2C/N2 (N-2) ( 1 . The sample size effect From the above analysis it is obvious that the variation pattern of the material to be blended plays a significant role in connection with type selection of the store type. where a blending guarantee is to be fulfilled on the basis of sampling prior to and after the store.04 % CaO. giving a total sample size of 250 kg. Every layer contains P/N tons of material. The number of layers has no significant influence on the blending effect and the results have been represented by a single curve. where the standard deviations have been corrected for analytical and preparational errors.e. This gave an out-going standard deviation of 0. The corresponding co-variance function becomes: 3 3 Cov[h] = C (1 . In the second method every sample of the reclaimed material consisted of 3 increments of 135 kg giving a total sample size of 405 kg.2 P3 /W/a3 ) + 2C/N2 ( 1 . Let the amount of material seen by the reclaimer be P tons represented in N layers. i.3 P (N-1)/2N/a . The co-variance contributions between all layers seen by the reclaimer must be summarised in order to calculate the variance in the reclaimed material. It can be concluded that the range of co-variance to material seen by reclaimer ratio (a/P) has a strong decreasing influence on the blending obtained and clearly demonstrates that stores involving the moving average concept are susceptible to slow variations in material composition. the following result is obtained: Var[X ] = C/ N 3 + 2C/N2 ( N-1) (1-3 P/2N/a .(N-1) P3 /W/a3 ) BULK MATERIALS HANDLING REVIEW 1994 .3h/2a . we only have to sum over the layers N/a where: and Gam(a/h) Na=N(a/P) Na=N When a < P When a > P and The general formula becomes: (a/h) Figure 2. Blending of material with a co-variation within a quantity range in store involving moving average. The material had a particle top size of approximately 30 mm. i.In this summation only co-variance contributions greater than 0 have to be summed. However. C0 is the Nugget effect. a similar exercise to that for evaluating periodical variation has to be carried out. General spherical variogram function.

The parameters var(c) and var(d) can be determined by using two sampling schemes with different increment mass and. Chap. the variance of a sample that contains (∆m n)/(λgfd 3) particles will have the variance ( λ g f d 3 var(par))/(∆m n) i.5 according to Gy) 3 λ = particle density [kg/m ] 2 var(par) = compositional variance within particles [%CaO ] d = particle top size [m] The following quantities can then be expressed as follows: fd 3 = volume of one top size particle [m3] 3 gfd = volume of one average size particle [m3] 3 λgfd = mass of one average size particle [kg] A sample of masszim ∆m n [kg] will then contain the number (∆m n)/(λ g f d 3) particles. 3.: Which gives the following simultaneous equations: With the solution: This demonstrates that composition heterogeneity will be directly proportional to material density and to particle top size raised to the 3rd power (i. This is easily done using P. Variance due to the composition heterogeneity which is caused by the difference in composition within particles. eventually. However. Amsterdam.042=1. O. K. Variance due to the distribution heterogeneity caused by the manner in which the particles of all compositions are distributed. MERKS. Variance due to analysis and preparation errors. giving the following data: Sampling method 1 2 Increment mass (kg) ∆m 1 ∆m 2 Number of increments n1 n2 Corrected total variance Var1 (t) Var2 (t) This gives the following results when the above equations are solved: Composition heterogeneity : var(c) = 354.1961 DAVID. The data obtained is as follows: Sampling method 1 2 Increment mass (kg) 50 135 Number of increments 5 3 Corrected total variance (% CaO)2 1.e. and is not supposed to do anything about. Oliver Boyd. The test results above indicate that a sample mass of the order of 400 kg is necessary with a material of top size 30 mm.4 (1985). Mixing reduces distribution heterogeneity. The distribution heterogeneity is an effect that the store should certainly be able to reduce and this has actually been achieved. This contribution is independent of sample mass. This contribution cannot be reduced by mixing but it is of course affected by grinding. the top size particle volume). The consequence of this relationship is that sample mass should be chosen such that it is proportional to the particle top size raised to the 3 rd power. This model involves splitting up the total variance obtained in a sampling scheme into the following contributions: Where : var(t) var(c) var(d) var(pa) ∆m n = = = = = = total variance compositional variance of 1 kg increment distribution variance variance of analysis and preparation mass of increments in sampling scheme number of increments per sample The Visman sampling model thus divides the total variance into three terms: 1. Gy’s analysis of the fundamental sampling error.562=0. with material for vertical mill feed where a top size of 100 mm is common.L. 2. Geostatical Ore Reserve Estimation. Sampling and Weighing of Bulk Solids. which is obviously totally impractical for a test. BULK MATERIALS HANDLING REVIEW 1994 The two tests above exactly fit this concept. Statistical Methods in Research and Production. Elsevier.composition homogeneity and distribution heterogeneity. Composition heterogeneity is dependent on sample mass. It is worthwhile considering what composition heterogeneity involves. Vol. Bibliography CONRADSEN. 5. This term represents an effect that the store cannot. DAVIES.e. Chap. M. En Introduktion til Statistic IMSOR 1976.London.32 . a different number of increments per sample.7 [ (%CaO)2 kg ] 2 Distribution heterogeneity : var(d)=-1. From very basic statistical concepts it is obvious that when a sample that comprises a single particle has the variance var(par).W. Although this effect of particle size will vanish in the subsequent grinding process.Visman sampling model. The variance due to analysis and preparation errors can be determined from the results of double determinations in analysis and preparation. The following quantities for the material in question are defined: g = size range factor (normally 0.67 [(%CaO) ] Obviously the composition heterogeneity which actually originates from the differences in composition within the particles dominates. this leaves the two first terms to be determined . Series onBulk Materials Handling. J. it does indicate that there is no need to run a stockpile with an extremely high number of layers. The small negative value for the distribution heterogeneity is merely an indication that this term has been completely eliminated (it might as well have been zero but for numerical reasons the exact value zero is not obtained). 0 (Danish text).25 according to Gy) f = particle shape factor (normally 0. 1979. a sample mass of the order of 14 000 kg would be needed.08 1.