An approach to modelling

industrial unit processes:

application to a spiral
concentrator for minerals
P. T u c k e r

Warren Spring Laboratory, Department of Trade and Industry, Stevenage,

Hertfordshire SG1 2BX, UK
(Received June 1984; revised March 1985)

A suite of computer models which simulate process operations in common

use in the minerals processing industry is being developed. Application of
the models is described with reference to a particular process device, the
spiral concentrator. The paper sets out to explain the basic strategy behind
the unit process modelling approach and discusses in detail the overall
model structure adopted. The model aims to provide a set of equations,
with sufficient physical significance to give a reasonable fit to any specific
data set, and which can be systematically adjusted (through auxiliary
models, user judgement and experience) to provide meaningful perform-
ance predictions over a broad range of operating conditions. The approach
is thought to be applicable to a wide variety of processes. The model has
been tested using a variety of ores, separated on plant-scale equipment and
practical examples are given. The scope and limitations of the method are
reported, drawing on the results of parallel experimental work. The extent
to which this kind of approach can be used as a predictive tool in process
design applications and in the day-to-day running of mineral processing
plant is discussed.

Key words: mathematical models, mineral processing, unit processes

Simulation techniques are growing in importance in the
mineral processing industry with respect to the design,
specification and optimization of processing plant. Warren
Spring Laboratory 0VSL) is currently developing a suite of
computer models to describe the unit processes involved
in this industry, these models being linked through mass-
balancing techniques to provide simulations of complete
mineral processing circuitsJ This paper is concerned with
one class of unit process model: the modelling of gravity
concentration devices. The application of the models is
illustrated through reference to a particular type of
gravity concentration device, the spiral concentrator of
the Humphreys/GEC type. The approach was to develop
established modelling techniques into a generalized format
that could be readily applied to a wide range of unit pro-
cesses and to all ores likely to be processed by those devices.
Emphasis was placed on providing a model that gave im-
mediate answers to everyday problems and that could be
directly applied by the industrial user.
Gravity concentration devices have a long history in the
minerals processing industry. They are used for the up-
grading of ores where significant differences in specific
gravity exist between the minerals of interest and the
residual (gangue) material. Spiral concentrators are relatively
inexpensive devices (with no mechanical moving parts) for
the separation of heavy minerals from an ore, offering a
relatively high throughput per unit of installed capacity and
plant space requirement. In the spiral concentrator, the ore
(ground to at most 1 mm) is introduced, in the form of a
slurry, at the top of a spiral channel. The particles with the
highest densities diffuse across the bed of flowing particles
towards the inner radius of the cl~annel, where they are cut
out of the main stream (.into a concentrate product) at one
or several take-off ports. Sample cutters or flow diverters
control how much material may be removed in this way.
For the GEC-type spiral concentrator, 15 take-off ports are
provided equally spaced down the length of the spiral track.
The separation performance for a given mineral ore is deter-

0307-904X/85/05375-05/$03.00
1985Butterworth& Co. (Publishers)Ltd. Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, October 375
I n d u s t r i a l u n i t processes: P. T u c k e r
mined both by the positioning of these cutters (machine
settings) and by the ambient operating conditions (mass
flowrates, water content of the slurry etc.). The way in
which these features are accounted for, in the model, is
detailed below.
Modelling s t r a t e g y
The modelling approach adopted was designed to provide
models of direct use at plant operational or design level.
Any data needed for input had to be both simply and
readily obtainable. The specific model objectives were:
To assist in the selection of a particular type of gravity
device for a given minerals separation problem.
To provide an estimate of its performance over the range
of normal operating conditions and likely changes in
process feed.
To link with other process models in the simulation of
overall plant performance.
To be effective the model must also be portable between
the various types of ore likely to be encountered. A stan-
dard means of characterizing the ore is therefore required.
Here, the most quantifiable and repeatable description of
the major material properties is given by the characteriza-
tion of the respective size and density distributions of the
particles.
Separation performance is characterized by means of
coefficients of material transfer. These describe the prob-
ability of material being transferred from the main stream
to the individual output flow streams. The coefficients are
formulated in terms of material properties (particle size and
density). The process simulation reduces essentially to the
specification of these coefficients together with their depen-
dences on the internal machine settings and the external
operating conditions.
The separation performance can be represented as:
Ai/TKii = Brii (1)
where Aq is the mass flow of the ith density fraction of the
jth size fraction in the process feed. TK 6 is the material
transfer coefficient describing the partition to the Kth out-
put flow stream (BK). Experimental tests have established
that the transfer coefficient, for any given device, can be
adequately described by a single functional form (fp) over
the whole range of normal operating conditions; the func-
tion being formulated using a number of adjustable (model)
parameters (P):
TKii = re(i, j, CPK, O r ) (2)
where CPK refers to the machine setting controlling the Kth
flowstream and OV refers to other variables (e.g. external
flow conditions). As detailed later it has proved most
practical to deconvolute the expression for T into two
parts:
TKii = fp(i, 1, CPK) (3)
with
P = function(OV) (4)
To simulate existing plant, a least-squares fit is applied
to the residuals between the measured (TM) and calculated
(T) transfer coefficients; i.e. minimizing:
Y. ZT. (TMx~i- TKq) 2
Kii
The simplex method of Nelder and Mead 2 is used, optimiz-
376 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, October
ing on the set of model parameters (P), in providing the
best fit. For use of the model in the predictive mode, prior
specification of the parameter set (P) allows the function
(fp) to be directly evaluated for each particle category (i,j)
and hence for BK to be calculated. The functional form (fp)
that can be chosen is subject to a number of constraints:
It must be generally applicable to all ores likely to be
encountered.
It must be robust enough to guarantee a solution.
The solution must provide a set of model parameters
that are unique.
These model parameters must be relatable to the physical
operating conditions.
When simulating measured performance, the model
should be relatively insensitive to measurement error
(i.e. it should smooth out rather than exactly follow this
error).
In order to satisfy these constraints, it has proved essen-
tial to select relatively simple functions for the simulation,
the functions being limited to a maximum of four model
parameters. The major restriction prohibiting the use of
more complex functions, and more parameters, arises
through the uncertainties which can often occur in the
measured process data. The limitation on the number of
model parameters, that can be reliably used, has required
(at least in the early stages of model development) a
restriction on the number of variables that can be included
in the function fp. The variables relating to the external
operating conditions are treated separately in the model.
They are accounted for in terms of their producing syste-
matic changes in the parameter set (P). The remaining
variables, which are used directly in the evaluation off/,,
can be varied without affecting the values of P.
General model structure
The gravity model structure, developed according to the
considerations listed above, is shown schematically in
F~,ure la. The key to its operation lies in establishing the
appropriate model parameters; once these are specified, the
whole separation performance is described. Three paths are
envisaged by which this can be achieved:
(1) The model function is fitted by regression to a set of
transfer coefficients derived experimentally.
(2) Appropriate parameters are drawn from a data bank.
Here, user judgement and experience will play a major
role.
(3) Model parameters (derived via paths (1) or (2)) are per-
turbed to take account of any change in operating
conditions. This can be accomplished through an
auxiliary model.
The general model structure has been developed such
that it is device independent. The separation mechanisms
exploited by individual gravity separation devices (e.g.
hydrosizers, spirals, shaking tables etc.) and their respective
performances do, of course, differ widely. Figure lb illu-
strates the way in which these differences are taken into
account and how the general model is applied to individual
unit processes. Each unit process is represented by a module
(set of subroutines) which contains all the device-specific
information; the major part of this is the mathematical
function (fp) used to describe the separation mechanism.
The individual modules are designed so that they can be
 Industrial unit processes: P. Tucker
Feed characteristics Feed characteristics mass flow measurements on the various flow streams
size/density/(assey/shape)
: .... Data bank ...... : around each device. On-line instrumentation seldom being
I Mechine i t
.~in~ --- . . . . . . . . . . l~ Model available, mass flow measurements can usually only be
Operational achieved through the timed diversions of each flow stream
performance r~parameters
!. lp-.. in turn. Accuracy of such measurement is often severely
limited through problems associated with difficult or
wityJ wityJ
restricted access and the high volume flowrates (subject to
deOJ >IVMode,t _.t 1
mo
I= both long- and short-term fluctuations) in many of the
I Plarameters T [
streams. Samples taken from each ~tream are subsequently
Operating conditions: divided into size fractions (by sieve analysis), each size
throughput;
Grade/recovery pulp density; Grade/recovery fraction then being progressively subdivided into density
partition analysisetc. wash-water partition analysisetc. bands (by sink-float techniques using heavy liquids). The
(i) (ii) number of particle categories (i.e. data points) that are
a achieved in practice is subject to the constraints imposed
by representative sampling of each category while keeping
Dwicemedules the cost of the analysis down. Large volumes of material
may have to be treated to obtain representative samples, 3
~ ~ -~ Spiral concentrator ] measurement errors and analysis time both accumulating
with each stage of treatment. Gross errors and inconsisten-
~ ~ _ - :----- ~ i.......
..- ~I Hydrosizer ]
cies can be smoothed out. A self-consistent set of data can
Dense media separator ] be produced by performing a materials balance around the
process unit prior to the modelling itself. The quality'of
Shaking table J
empirical fit to this data is of course subject to the quality
""] Jig I and quantity of the data points themselves.
etc.
b G E C spiral c o n c e n t r a t o r m o d u l e
Figure I (a) Schematic of gravity model structure: (i), regressive The modelling strategy was to construct a set of equations
mode; (ii), predictive mode. (b) Modular structure of gravity model describing the particle distribution profiles across the spiral
channel, and to compute from these, together with the
cutter settings, how much of each distribution was collected
at each sample port. The derivation of the model functions
quickly and readily linked into the general model. This was based on experimental measurements of the distribu-
modular approach permits flexibility in model application. tion profiles. Typical experimental results are shown in
It also allows for the individual process descriptions to be Figure 2.
readily modified and upgraded as a greater understanding A good approximation to the GEC spiral operation can
of the separation processes is developed. be made by considering the spiral bed as two radial zones:
The general part of the gravity model contains those the inner zone (spanning the whole range of sample cutter
routines which are universal to all concentration devices: positions) to a radius R = R0 ("-0.4 x fractional bedwidth);
and the outer zone from Re to the outside of the bed. The
Common data input routine problability of a particle of density p lying between a radius
Optimization procedures O and R is well described by a function of the form:
Standard mineral processing calculations.
The model output is structured in terms that can be (R~o~ tanh (P -- 1-~P'
readily understood and used directly by mineral process-
ing engineers. The mass flow of a given particle category in
where P1 is the first model parameter and b a scaling con-
a given output stream is expressed (1) as a percentage of
stant. The index ,v lies between 0 and 1, only diverging
the total mass flow in that stream and (2) as a percentage of
significantly from 0 for low density, coarse material. The
the mass flow, of that category, in the process feed. These
probability of a particle of density/~ lying between a radius
quantities are termed grade and recovery, respectively.
described by a probability function, 4:
While the separation potential for an ore is governed by
the particle size, shape and density and does not directly K ): . (d.~Ip-'/b'l-''s
depend on the mineralogy, in the commercial environment = e2 exp --Ko
(
the mineralogy (product assay) is the prime concern. Con-
volution of the model output with feed stock assay allows S Ip-l/b31-
the model results to be restructured in terms of mineral +e3 -
grades and recoveries.
S is the particle size, d is a reference size (~ 125/lrn), P2,/3
are model parameters. K is the port number measured from
Scope of the method
the top of the spiral and Ko a scaling constant. The first term
The precision of the simulation depends ultimately on the in the expression for accounts for the fines trapped close
precision to which the model parameters can be identified. to the outer radius and includes the dependence of path
In the simulation of existing installations, the limit is con- length down the spiral. The second term making up
trolled by the accuracy by which operational performance relates to the proportion of coarse material whose equi-
can be measured. Transfer coefficients are derived from librium radius lies within the outer radial zone. Thus for a

Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, October 377

Industrial unit processes: P. Tucker

For use of the model in its predictive capacity, the

,0 ' x
accuracy of the prediction depends on the accuracy of
0.8
,

S= 300/~m specification of the model parameters. The sensitivity of
S = 63 ~m ~ x the model to errors in this specification is shown in
o., i ,, LY J Figure 3. The results refer to the spiral concentration of
a magnetite/garnet/quartz mixture. The minimum r.m.s.
0.4 " X V ! ! "Erroron ~ / error corresponds to the 'best fit' set of model parameters.
The additional errors in model output introduced by mis-
0.2 ) " V =2.7~f measureddatat
#=2.7 specification of the most sensitive and least sensitive para-
4, meters are shown. In general, with the current models,
I I ! ._....i~" ; ii I I ]
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 performance predictions can usually be made to within
Fractional bed width +5% additional error above the 'best fit' value.
Figure 2 Cross-bed particle distribution profiles; discrete points
represent measured values, solid curves show model fit
Application of the model
Use of the model is illustrated here through reference to a
Tab/e I Model fit to measured performance data (tungsten ore)
particular applications area: assessment of the potential for
Simplex evaluation separation of an economic mineral prospect. The following
steps are used:
Model parameters
(1) The ore sample is first characterized in terms of particle
Iterations P1 P2 P3 r.m.s. (% error) size and density.
(2) The separation device is specified and the appropriate
1 2.0000 1.0667 0.9750 13
10 2.0815 1.6790 1.2343 6.7 module linked into the general gravity model.
20 2.9753 2.3872 1.2141 3.8 (3) Model parameters are drawn from a data bank, taking
30 3.0322 2.4010 1.3010 3.7 those derived for a similar ore.
36 3.0188 2.4004 1.2899 3.7 (4) Model predictions on performance are made.
(5) A range of operating conditions are explored to define
Percentage transfer to concentrate (products 1-13) the optimum area of operation. Here, new estimates
Size of the model parameters are generated through the
auxiliary models to correspond to each set of operating
Density 53.0 125.0 250.0 350.0 All
conditions.
2.85 Calculated 23.14 39.61 15.85 7.85 17.65
At this stage, which is prior to any experimental work, a
Measu red 18.35 38.62 19.30 8.83 18.36
quantitative estimate is provided on whether a given con-
3.10 Calculated 31.86 54.35 29.63 17.98 33.31
centration device would be suitable for treating the ore.
Measured 36.99 57.42 30.03 9.33 32.90
If not, then another separation device could be specified
4.15 Calculated 66.07 88.89 86.99 76.53 80.92
and the procedure repeated from (2) above. Also, at this
Measured 64.06 87.74 86.00 79.42 80.83
stage, quantitative guidelines have been given defining
All Calculated 27.17 43.68 19.35 10.02 21.33
the range of operating conditions where optimum per-
Measured 24.99 43.32 22,37 10.24 21.88
formance is most likely to be achieved.
(6) Experimental work is now undertaken, using the
given cutter setting, CPK, the model function becomes: conditions established in the computer feasibility
study.
(CPK/R0)~ tanh] ((p -- 1)/b 1)Pl" CPK[
TKii-- [~b+ t a n h ( ( p - - 1)/bl)P1. Ro]

The fit to measured distribution profiles is shown by Figure 12 _ ~ I I I l t I I I

2. The function described above is one of a number that
have been evaluated and tested against experimental data
10
for a range of ores under a wide range of operating con-
ditions. It has provided an acceptable fit to all data sets so
far collected.
Typical model fits to measured performance are listed %

in Table 1. The results refer to a tungsten ore. Parameter

convergence data for the optimization are included for refer- 6
ence. The results record the individual transfer coefficients
(Tii) for each of four size fractions subdivided into three
density bands. They refer to transfer to the spiral concen-
trate, the combined product from 13 outlet ports. The -- sensitive -
parameter
root-mean-square error on the model fit is -+3.7%. The 2~
residuals themselves show no systematic trend either as a
function of size or density. In general, for a wide variety of
0 I I I I I I I 1 I
ore types, the r.m.s, error on the model fit was found to -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
be of approximately the same magnitude as the repeat-
ability of the measurements themselves (typically -+2%- % error on input
-+6%). Figure 3 Sensitivity analysis: magnetite/garnet/quartz

378 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, October


Measured [ ] Predicted
100
90
80
70
8o
50
40
3O
2O
10
0
Low > Density > High Low > Density
Recovery Grade
Figure 4 Prediction of spiral performance; beach sand
(7) A more precise set of model parameters is established
through regression on the test data.
(8) More precise predictions of operational performance
as a function of operating conditions would follow
(with further experimental verification if necessary).
The procedure is illustrated here with reference to the
spiral concentration of a beach sand. Model parameters,
initially derived for a magnetite/garnet/quartz mixture,
were selected. These were adjusted to values for the en-
visaged operating conditions for the extraction of the
heavy minerals (rutile, ilmenite, zircon etc.) from the sand.
The computer predictions of performance are compared
with the results of subsequent independent work in Figure
4. It is apparent that the computer modelling study has
indeed provided an adequate, quantitative framework upon
which further process development and design can now be
based.
Application to other types of separation device
The principles outlined above, for the spiral concentrator,
can be applied equally to other separation devices. For a
shaking table, for example, equations can be formulated
to describe the particle distribution profiles, along the
discharge edges of the table, and how these profiles vary
with the machine settings (table slope, amplitude of knock)
and the feed flow conditions. The compositions of the out-
put products are controlled by sample cutters, as before,
collecting the respective products over sections of the table
perimeter. With a hydrosizer, a series of closely sized pro-
Industrial unit processes: P. Tucker
ducts are achieved by allowing particles to progressively
settle out from a horizontal flowstream across a compart-
mentalized tank; a vertically rising water current within
each compartment controls the settling rate. Here, the
settling equations form the basis for the model equations.
The machine settings in this case relate to the water veloci-
ties within each compartment and to the settings of the
discharge values at the base of each compartment. Feed
flow conditions are treated by an auxiliary model as before.
High Conclusions
The WSL gravity models, as part of a comprehensive
mineral processing modelling package, have been designed
to have immediate application in the industry. Emphasis
has been placed on providing direct utility at process level
over a wide applications area. Close cooperation with com-
mercial processing organizations has been maintained
throughout the model development. Initial verification
studies have shown that the models explored to date appear
adequate to fulf'd their envisaged roles. It is envisaged, how-
ever, that as more process data are accumulated and the
underlying physics explored in greater depth then more
precise empirical relationships will be defined and more
sophisticated modelling techniques will prove possible
allowing the models to be refined.
Acknowledgement
The work was supported by the Primary Raw Materials
Programme of the Commission of the European Com-
munities (Contract No. MSM-083-UK) and the Materials
and Minerals Requirements Board of the Department of
Trade and Industry.
References
I Cutting,G. W. 'Simulation package for mineral processing flow-
sheet design: factors influencing the development of a practical
system for everyday use', Prec. Syrup. Applications of Com-
puters and Mathematics in the Mineral Industries, London, 1984,
IMM: London, 1984
2 Nelder,J. A. and Mead, R. 'A simplex method for function
minimization', Comp. J. 1965, 7, 308
3 Gy, P. 'Sampling of ores are metallurgical products during con-
tinuous transport', Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. 1965, 74, 165
Appl. Math. Modelling, 1985, Vol. 9, October 379