An experimental set-up for the study of flotation column optimization

R. del Villar1, A. Desbiens2, J.-F. Huard1, J. Bouchard2 and F.-O. Verret1

LOOP (Laboratoire d’observation et d’optimisation des procédés)
1
Department of mining, metallurgical and materials engineering
2
Department of electrical and computer engineering
Université Laval
Québec (QC), Canada G1K 7P4
rene.delvillar@gmn.ulaval.ca

ABSTRACT

Over the past ten years, the Laboratoire d’observation et d’optimisation des procédés
(LOOP) of Laval University has studied the instrumentation and stabilizing control of
pulp level and bias in flotation columns. The results obtained with a two-phase system
(water-air) at laboratory scale (5 cm by 6 m column) have recently been validated on a
three-phase system in a taller column (5 cm by 7 m). A pilot scale automated flotation
column (15 cm by 8 m), interfaced with an on-stream analyzer (Courier-30AP) has been
commissioned lately thanks to a grant from Canadian Innovation Fund for the study of
optimizing control strategies. This paper describes the components of this unique
experimental set-up and discusses the problems associated with the use of an industrial-
scale on-stream analyzer in a pilot scale set-up. Opportunities for advanced control and
optimization are also examined.

1 of 14
 INTRODUCTION

Separation by column flotation has become a standard in mineral processing. Newest

concentrators systematically include columns as part of their flowsheet whereas older
plants regularly use them to replace mechanical cells in their cleaning circuits. A great
deal of work has been accomplished to understand the influence of variables such as
froth depth, bias, gas hold-up and bubble surface area flux, on the metallurgical
performance of columns [1]. Due to measurement constraints however, the use of some
of these variables for automatic column operation control has not raised the same level of
interest. For instance, important variables such as bias and bubble surface area flux can
only be accurately measured at the laboratory scale.

Most recent developments in automatic control of industrial columns have been

limited to expert systems. Algorithmic model-based control has not received the same
interest as a result of the lack of exposure of plant engineers to advanced control
methods. Over the past years, a number of studies on the automatic control of laboratory
columns have been accomplished by LOOP researchers, most of them limited to water-
air systems. This work has recently been extended to bias and pulp level control in three-
phase systems. A summary of this work is presented in a parallel paper.

The present paper describes the opportunities for advanced stabilizing control of
columns and optimization based on economic criteria. The experimental set-up required
for such studies is also presented.

VARIABLE MEASUREMENT

The main variables used for stabilizing control of columns are the pulp-froth interface
position, also called froth depth or pulp level, and the bias rate. Bias and froth depth set-
points as well as gas flow rate can be manipulated to achieve a higher level of control
(metallurgical control of recovery or grade).

The pulp-froth interface position is important from a metallurgical point of view,

because it determines the relative importance of the cleaning and collection zones. It is
commonly measured using a float technique coupled to an ultrasonic detection device or,
less frequently, using a three-pressure transducer method. The approach privileged in this
work is based on the use of conductivity or temperature profiles across the interface. The
conductivity profile is a direct consequence of the varying gas content across the pulp-
froth interface. The gathered information can also be used to infer the bias. Conductivity
profile probes have been successfully tested by Gomez et al. [2], Bergh et al. [3], Pérez et
al. [4], and del Villar et al. [5]. The most important improvements to this technique are
the scanning time, which has improved from one minute [2] to less than one second [5],
and the accuracy in inflection point determination, i.e. the interface position [5].

2 of 14
 The bias is the second most important variable of the column flotation process
optimization, since it is partly responsible for the concentrate grade, through the froth
washing performance. Defined by Finch and Dobby [1] as “the net downward flow of
water through the froth” or by its equivalent “the net difference of water flow between
the tailings and the feed” (mass balance calculation around the collection zone), the bias
can be qualitatively interpreted as the fraction of the wash water flow useful for froth
cleaning. Since its measurement is costly (two pairs of flow meter and density meter) and
inaccurate (calculation of a small value from subtraction of two large values), the wash
water flow rate is more often used in industry. The latter does not correlate well with the
concentrate grade and recovery however, since it includes the fraction of wash water
flow short-circuited to the concentrate, thus not used for froth cleaning.

Based on the original findings of Moys and Finch [6], and Uribe-Salas et al. [7],
Pérez and del Villar [8] have modeled the relationship between the conductivity profile
and the bias by using an artificial neural network. The use of this sensor for automatic
control has been presented by del Villar et al. [5] and Milot et al. [9] for a two-phase
laboratory column operation. More recently, Bouchard et al. [10] have validated the use
of this technique for control purposes in a three-phase system laboratory column (5 cm
diameter by 7 m height). The temperature profile in the upper zone of the column has
also been used to infer the bias rate [11].

A third variable, commonly used for controlling the concentrate recovery, is the
gas flow rate. Even though easily measured, it is not however the most appropriate
variable to assess the particle-collection bubble capacity, i.e. the recovery. Besides the
degree of hydrophobicity of the particles, the mineral collection capacity mostly depends
on the bubble surface availability. For a same volume of gas, smaller bubbles provide a
larger surface for collection than larger bubbles, i.e. they exhibit a greater specific area.
Consequently, a better variable for recovery optimization would be the column gas
content, also called gas hold-up, a variable that is seldom monitored in plant practice. It
can be measured by a differential pressure technique, which normally provides average
values over a rather long column section. A better approach, allowing the evaluation of
local gas hold-up values, uses the Maxwell relation for mixtures [12] coupled to
conductivity measurements. Two approaches have been developed for this purpose, one
at McGill University [13] and the second one at Laval University [14].

Another variable, the bubble surface are flux (BSAF), has been investigated as a
possible key parameter for flotation modeling and diagnosis. For instance, Gorain et al.
[15], have used BSAF to evaluate the relationship between flotation rate constant and
various gas dispersion parameters in mechanical cells (superficial gas rate, bubble size,
gas hold-up, and BSAF), and have found the latter correlates best with the flotation rate
constant. Finch et al. [16] analyzed the concept of BSAF and presented an experimental
approach for its determination in mechanical cells. Recently, H.Li [17] found that both
the flotation rate constant and the carrying capacity correlate well with BSAF in a
laboratory flotation column. As a consequence of these and other findings, the BSAF
seems particularly interesting for automatic control of recovery.

3 of 14
 The metallurgical performance of flotation columns is often evaluated through the
concentrate grade and recovery. The tailings grade is also used in some cases. Mineral
(or metal) grades are continuously measured using an X-ray fluorescence or X-ray
diffraction instrument. In the absence of concentrate and feed flow rate measurements,
the solids recovery to the concentrate can be calculated from feed, concentrate and tailing
grades by using a mass balance. The recovery can then be easily calculated. This
approach however relies on the assumption of steady-state operation, a condition seldom
encountered in plant practice. The use of a dynamic mass balance would certainly help
solving this problem. A research project on this regard is currently undergoing at Laval’s
LOOP and its results will be used in the column optimization project.

The most widely used device for on-stream chemical analysis is undoubtedly the
Outokumpu Courier (30AP), a dispersive-wave X-Ray fluorescence instrument, which
can measure up to six different elements simultaneously and up to six streams
sequentially. The use of a multiplexer increases the number of analyzed streams up to 24.
The measuring time is 15 to 30 seconds per sample. Each measuring cycle, composed of
sample preparation, sample analysis, and system washing is about 2 min. The detection
limits range from 3 to 30 ppm in the pulp, whereas the minimum and maximum flow
rates feeding the instrument are 55 l/min and 300 l/min, respectively. These figures
represent a major problem for its use in our application. Figure 1 shows the main
components of the Courier AP30.

Multiplexers

Probe control system

Measurement probe
Water cooling system
Calibration sampler
Demultiplexer

Configuration station
to control computer

Figure 1 - Schematic of Courier AP30

4 of 14
 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

A grant from the Canadian Innovation Fund (CIF) has permitted the commissioning
of a fully-automated pilot-scale flotation column [18] interfaced with an on-stream
analyzer (Courier-AP30 from Outokumpu Oy) for the study of supervisory optimization
control strategies.

The column, made of Plexiglas, has an inside diameter of 15 cm (6”) and a total
height of 8 m. All streams (pulp and water) handling is achieved using Masterflex
peristaltic pumps. The pulp is prepared in a 250 l capacity conditioning tank, and is then
transferred to another 250 l feed tank, for continuous operation. The column feed port is
located about 180 cm from the column overflow lip. The concentrate overflows into a
concentric launder measuring 25 cm in diameter by 34 cm in height (tallest side) from
which it is continuously drained by gravity.

Air is injected at the bottom of the column through a stainless steel sparger of 10 µm
(100 cm2 effective sparging area), whereas wash water is sprayed over the overflowing
froth through a perforated copper tube. Air and wash water flow rates are measured by an
MKS mass flow meter and controller (50 l/min maximum flow rate) and a turbine flow
meter, respectively. Feed, tailings, and concentrate flow rates are measured using Fisher
& Porter ¼” magnetic flow meters (0 to 20 l/min).

Pulp-froth interface and bias rate are estimated from a conductivity profile measured
using eleven ring-type stainless-steel electrodes mounted flush against the inner wall of
the column upper section. The various pairs of electrodes are sequentially excited to
avoid current propagation between pairs. The electrodes are excited using AC current
(1000 Hz sinusoidal of 3V pick value) to avoid ionisation of the liquid. The alternative
current must then be transformed to direct current for its manipulation in the conductivity
calculation card.

All the instruments and the actuators (pumps and valves) are connected to a data
acquisition system (ModBus OPTO-22) linked to a MMI/SCADA software (FIX32
version 6.15 from Intellution). The pumps are controlled using a Moore 353 controller
with a 0.1s sampling period, allowing a better flow rate control than FIX, whose
sampling period is at best one second.

Interfacing an industrial scale OSA (Courier) to a pilot scale flotation column

Since the pilot scale column was installed in a laboratory located in Quebec City, ore
supply and tailings disposal could become a major issue for the operation of a relatively
large diameter column. On the other hand, a too small column would lead to a
concentrate production difficult to measure by the Courier (55 l/min minimum flow). A
pilot scale column of 15 cm diameter and 8 m in height seemed to be a reasonable
compromise. Nevertheless, a number of adjustments had to be implemented to comply
with the Courier specifications. Three approaches were considered to match column

5 of 14
stream characteristics and Courier limitations: (a) sample dilution, (b) sample accumu-
lation, (c) sample re-circulation.

(a) Sample dilution. The Courier requires a minimum sample flow rate of 30 l/min to
ensure a reliable measurement. Since the flow rates around the pilot column were
lower than that, a possible solution consisted of adding a known flow rate of clean
water to the sample. This approach could be used for rich samples, e.g. concentrate,
since the lower detection limit of the Courier is 3 ppm. To carefully control the
amount of added water, a flow meter and an actuator for each water stream have to
be considered.

(b) Sample accumulation. This approach consists in cumulating the stream flow during
a given time until enough sample has been obtained to feed the Courier for a batch
measurement. Since three streams must be analyzed and each analysis is completed
in two minutes (one minute for analysis and one minute for washing the Courier),
then each stream can be cumulated for five minutes before being analyzed. The
disadvantage of this approach is that the grade being obtained from the Courier is an
average value (five minutes) rather than an instantaneous one. This low-pass filtering
effect is more or less important for process optimization since it usually relies on a
static model.

(c) Sample recirculation. This approach

consists in re-circulating the sample MX1
being passed through the Courier to
the multiplexer inlet until enough
material has being accumulated.
Using this approach, 30 liters are
required for the analysis, half the
amount required without it. This
Courier
technique requires a re-circulating
pump, two extra valves and a flow of
water for cleaning the recycling pipe
between consecutive analyses. An
even better approach would be to re-
circulate the sample to the Courier
inlet instead than to the multiplexer
(see figure 2).
Figure 2 - Sample recirculation

The retained solution is a combination of the above three. The concentrate and
tailings were accumulated in different containers. If necessary, a known amount of water
was added to increase the volume of sample to be processed. At the time of the analysis,
the proper container was emptied into the multiplexer and the re-circulation loop started.
Once the analysis was completed, the material trapped in the re-circulating pipe was

6 of 14
flushed through a valve and the pipe was washed with water. Figure 3 shows the final
arrangement.

wash water water

water flowmeter Water flowmeter

pulp flowmeter

feed concentrate
Tails

pulp flowmeter

wate

MX1

Pulp flowmeter

Courier
Air controller/flowmeter FIX Courier

Ai

disposal

Figure 3 - Final arrangement

Preliminary tests and encountered problems

Besides some early transmission problems between the Courier PLC and the control
computer, derived from a faulty RS 422 transfer block, the major problem encountered is
related to the measurement of the concentrate flow rate.

The froth overflows from the top of the column to a concentric container (concentrate
launder) where it is broken by fine jets of water. The pulp stream produced evacuates the
column by gravity but it still contains an important amount of bubbles, which make
uncertain the use of a flow meter for concentrate flow rate measurement. Moreover, the
amount of lauder water added to the concentrate must be precisely measured in order to
deduct its value from the pulp flow meter reading.

The first problem was solved with an intermediate container allowing the bubble
disengagement before any flow rate measurement. Since the flow meter must be placed

7 of 14
on a vertical upward-flow pipe, the container evacuation pipe was hooked to a pump
which delivers the pulp to the Courier storage tank through a vertical upward-flow pipe,
where the flow meter was installed. The problem associated to this set-up is that the
pump rate must be equal to the diluted concentrate rate, otherwise the flow meter reading
does not represent the real concentrate rate, either because it sucks air (when the
pumping rate is greater than the concentrate rate) or because some concentrate remains in
the container (when it is smaller).

A solution to this problem was considered consisting in eliminating the pump and
placing the concentrate flow meter in the vertical upward-flow pipe of a U-shape pipe
configuration as shown in Figure 4. Although this set-up solves the previous problem, it
introduced another problem, the particle accumulation in the corners of the U pipe.

Flow meter

Figure 4 - Measurement of concentrate flow rate

Other solutions have been envisaged but none has yet been implemented. The
simplest one would be to accumulate the concentrate in a graduated tank (or a container
placed on a scale) and measuring the concentrate flow rate (free of bubbles) via level (or
weight) change. A second solution would be to use a dilution method, where a known
amount of tracer (e.g. NaCl solution) is mixed to the concentrate rate and the
conductivity of both the tracer solution and the combined stream are then measured. A
system of two mass balance equations (total mass and NaCl) would allow the calculation
of the diluted concentrate flow rate, wherefrom the dilution water flow rate can be
deducted to calculate the true concentrate rate.

Figures 5 and 6 show the main control-computer screen and the Courier PLC screen.

8 of 14
Figure 5 - Main control-computer screen

Figure 6 - Courier PLC screen

9 of 14
 AUTOMATIC CONTROL

The experimental set-up creates a semi-industrial environment. It offers similar

challenges to an industrial column without the production constraints. All required
dynamic tests can be performed without any restriction. The project aim is to
demonstrate that model-based optimization and control designed with state-of-the-art
methods is clearly profitable.

The ultimate objective of automatic control is to continuously adjust process

operation to maintain the best profitability despite disturbances and uncertainties while
respecting constraints such as safety and environmental issues. To achieve this goal, a
hierarchical indirect optimization structure is often selected. Figure 7 shows the
hierarchical structure, typical time periods and flotation variables for each level. Taking
into account the market variations and operating costs, production and economic
planning make possible the selection of adequate grade and recovery set points. For the
plant to respect these targets, the optimizer calculates the set points of secondary
variables such as froth depth, bias, gas hold up, bubble surface area flux, etc. A MIMO
(multiple input - multiple output) advanced controller then calculates the appropriate
flow rates (wash water, tailings, gas, collector, etc.) set points. The flow rates are
regulated to their target values by SISO (single input - single output) controllers which
manipulate the actuators.

Colum n variables Tim e period

Profit Production and economic planning Day

Primary variables:
Grade, recovery
Optimization Hour

Secondary variables:
Froth depth, bias,
gas hold up, bubble
M IM O advanced control M inute
surface area flux, etc

Flow rates: wash SISO control SISO control

water, tailings, Second
loop - actuator loop - actuator
gas, collector, etc.

Figure 7 - Hierarchical indirect optimization

Such a hierarchical indirect scheme is often preferred to a direct optimization in

which the optimizer and the advanced controller form a single unit. In fact, an indirect
structure allows an independent selection of the optimization and control time periods.

10 of 14
Faster disturbances can thus be compensated for by the controller without significantly
affecting the optimization. The optimizer can also be switched to the manual mode while
keeping the controller in the automatic mode.

Figure 8 depicts the corresponding detailed control structure. The plant sensors
provide raw measurement of secondary variables. Since measurements may be corrupted
by bias, noise and even sensor failures, an observer is essential. Observation [19] and
data reconciliation [20], supervised by process and sensor fault detection and diagnosis
techniques [21], extract consistent and reliable information from raw measurements, can
infer unmeasured process states or temporarily replace defective sensors, etc. The real-
time optimization [22] algorithm minimizes an economic criterion to continuously
operate the plant at maximum profitability. It is based on a model linking economic
considerations to the primary variables. Since the model is usually static, it is therefore
important to properly evaluate the plant steady-state condition before performing any
calculations. The model must be regularly updated, e.g. every time a new steady-state is
attained. The MIMO advanced controller must handle constraints and interactions
between all variables. Typical constraints are actuator limited range of action and slew
rate. Safety concerns, sensor ranges, and operating strategies also introduce bounds in
process variables. At this level, a model predictive control [23, 24] is often recommended
because of its ability to easily deal with constraints and multivariable processes. At the
inner level, the SISO flow rate loops are usually based on PI controllers. Ideally, the
performances of all controllers are continuously monitored [25] to correct their tunings
when required. All these algorithmic aspects, except production and economic planning,
are presently studied by LOOP’s researchers.

Market Operating costs

Production and
economic planning
Performance analysis
Primary
variables Secondary
SISO control

set points variables SISO loop

Sensors

set points MIMO set points

Optimization Plant
advanced
loops

control
Observed and
reconciled Observation, Secondary
secondary dynamic data variables raw
variables reconciliation measurements

Process and sensor fault

detection and diagnosis

Figure 8 - Automatic control strategy

11 of 14
 CONCLUSIONS

The study of optimal flotation column operation has been made possible by the
implementation of a fully instrumented pilot scale flotation column. The different
components of this unique experimental set-up and the problems associated with its the
use of an industrial-scale on-stream analyzer in a pilot scale set-up were discussed. A
review of new sensors for secondary variables was given, and opportunities for advanced
control and optimization were also examined. With the availability of this pilot plant,
several research projects currently underway at LOOP should demonstrate that model-
based optimization and control designed with state-of-the-art methods is profitable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering Research
Council), NATEQ (Le Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les
Technologies), la Compagnie Minière Québec Cartier, and COREM (Consortium en
Recherche Minérale) for their support throughout this work.

REFERENCES

1. J.A. Finch and G.S. Dobby, Column Flotation, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1990.

2. C.O. Gomez, A. Uribe-Salas, J.A. Finch and B.J. Huls, “A level detection probe for
industrial flotation columns”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Processing Complex Ores – 28th Annual Conference of Metallurgists of CIM,
Dobby, G.S. and Rao, S.R., Eds., Pergamon Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
1989, 325-334.

3. L.G. Bergh and J.B. Yianatos, “Control alternatives for flotation columns”,
Minerals Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 6, 1993, 631-642.

4. R. Pérez, R. del Villar and F. Flament, "Level detection in a flotation column using
an artificial neural network". Proceedings of the XXIV APCOM Conference, Eds.
J.Elbrond and X.Tang, Montréal, November 1993, 174-181.

5. R. del Villar, M. Grégoire and A. Pomerleau, “Automatic control of a laboratory

flotation column”, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1999, 291-308.

6. M.H. Moys and J.A. Finch, “Developments in the control of flotation columns”,
International Journal of Mineral Processing, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988, 265-268.

12 of 14
7. A. Uribe-Salas, C.O. Gomez and J.A. Finch, “Bias detection in flotation columns”,
Column'91 – Proceedings of an International Conference on Column Flotation,
Agar, G.E. and Huls, B.J. and Hyma, D.B., Eds., Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, 1991,
391-407.

8. R. Pérez and R. del Villar, “Measurement of bias and water entrainment in flotation
columns using conductivity”, Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, Vol.36, No5, 1997,
299-307.

9. M. Milot, A. Desbiens, R. del Villar and D. Hodouin, “Identification and multi-

variable nonlinear predictive control of a pilot flotation column”, Proceedings of the
XXI International Mineral Processing Congress, Rome, Italy, 2000, A3.120-A3.127

10. J.Bouchard, R.delVillar, A.Desbiens and V.Aubé, “On-line bias and froth depth
measurement in flotation columns: a promising tool for automatic control and real-
time optimization”. Proceedings of the 2003 SME Annual Meeting, Cincinnati
(USA), February 24-26, 2003.

11. H. Vermette, R. del Villar and R. Pérez, “Medición del bias en columnas de
flotación mediante perfiles de temperatura y conductividad”, Proceedings of the VII
International Meeting on Extractive Metallurgy, Hermosillo (Mexico), May 7-9,
1997, 84-98.

12. Maxwell, J.C., A Treatise of Electricity and Magnetism, Third edition, Part II,
Oxford University Press, London, 1954, 435-449.

13. C.O.Gomez, F. Cortés-Lopez, J.A.Finch, “Industrial testing of a gas holdup sensor

for flotation systems”, Minerals Engineering, Vol.16, 2003, 493-501.

14. R. Pérez and R. del Villar, “On-line air hold-up measurement in flotation columns”,
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, Vol.38, No.2, 1999, 141-148.

15. Gorain, B.K., J.P.Franzidis and E.V.Manlapig, “Studies on impeller type, impeller
speed and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell” Part 4: Effect of bubble
surface area flux on flotation performance”, Minerals Engineering, Vol.10, No.4,
1997, 367-379.

16. Finch, J.A., C.O.Gomez, C.Hardie, G.Leichtle, R.Filippone and D.Leroux, ‘Bubble
surface area flux: a parameter to characterize flotation cells”, Proceedings of the
31st Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, January 19-21,
1999, 199-210.

17. Li, H., Étude expérimental de paramètres de mise à l'échelle de colonnes de

flottation, Ph.D. thesis, Département de génie des mines, de la métallurgie et des
matériaux, Université Laval, Québec, 2003.

13 of 14
18. Huard, J.F., Automatisation d’une colonne de flottation pilote et analyse chimique
en continu à l’aide d’un Courier AP30, M.Sc. thesis, Département de génie des
mines, de la métallurgie et des matériaux, Université Laval, Québec, 2003

19. T. Kailath, A. Sayed and B. Hassibi, Linear Estimation, Prentice-Hall, 2000

20. S. Narasimhan and C. Jordache, Data Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection: An
Intelligent Use of Process Data, Gulf Publishing Co., 2000

21. J. Gertler, Fault detection and diagnosis in engineering systems, Marcel Dekker,
New York, 1998.

22. T.F. Edgar, D.M. Himmelblau and L.S. Lasdon, Optimization of Chemical
Processes, 2nd edition, McGraw Hill, 2001.

23. J.M. Maciejowski, Predictive Control with Constraints, Prentice Hall, 2002.

24. B. Kouvaritis and M. Cannon (Eds), “Non-Linear Predictive Control: Theory and
Practice”, IEE Control Series, No. 61, 2001.

25. B. Huang and S.L. Shah, Performance Assessment of Control Loops: Theory and
Applications, Springer Verlag, 1999.

14 of 14