You are on page 1of 23

The effect of process variations on

slurry rheology, washer performance


and control strategy
Fiona Sofra, Rheological Consulting Services, Australia
Adrian Knight, Rheological Consulting Services, Australia
The process
Lateritic ore processing

Following leaching, pregnant liquor is recovered via counter


current washing/decantation (CCD).

Multiple washing trains operating in parallel

Flocculants induce rapid settling

Following washing, tailings are pumped for further thickening


and final disposal
The Problem
Last washer in the train was experiencing exceedingly high rake torques with
over torque occurring often

Underflow and pipeline blockages, washer train shutdowns had occurred as a


result of production of excessively thick/high yield stress underflows

Excessive turbidity in last washer overflow - operators reacted by increasing


floc dosage rates

However, the underflow SG/solids concentration was relatively stable and


within operational limits

Some trains operating with greater stability than others not known why at
the outset of the study
Preconceptions/assumptions
Underflow yield stress directly related to flocculation (type,
dose, conditions), causing raking and pumping problems

So
Assumption that suboptimal flocculation was causing operational issues

Therefore
Investigation of sediment rheology flocculated under various conditions will
determine optimum flocculation conditions and address operational issues
Testwork
Shear yield stress was primary measurement in all instances

Torsion
Head

Samples collected over 11 days H Vane


Unflocculated material testing
D
Last washer feed bucket flocculation
V

Varied flocculant type and dosage rate Sample

Concentration of flocculated sediment and generation of shear yield stress


profiles for partially sheared flocculated material
Testwork - Unsheared
Unsheared shear yield stress of flocculated sediment using custom
built cylinder

Flocculated sediment shear history effects

PSD measurement of all collected sample


(after site testwork)
Effect of Flocculant Type and Dose

Trialled 10, 20, 30 and 50gpt of each flocculant type (1, 2 and 3)

Inconclusive results despite consistent shear history.

The best performing flocculants and doses also had most favourable PSDs
(more coarse) in terms of achieving a lower yield stress for a given solids
concentration.
Flocculant Type
500
Day 3 LWF 50gpt Floc 1
450
Day 8 LWF 50gpt Floc 2
400 Day 10 LWF 50gpt Floc 3 Mean: 34mm
350 d50: 8mm
d90: 92mm
Yield Stress (Pa)

300

250
Mean: 41mm
200
d50: 8mm
150 d90: 130mm Mean: 50mm
100
d50: 10mm
50 d90: 161mm
0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
Solids Mass Fraction (x)

typical results at all doses tested


inconclusive due to inconsistent PSD PSD effects dominated
Thickener feed PSD Variation
250

200
Particle Size (um)

150 d50
d80
d90
100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Day

high variability, especially in coarse fraction


Flocculant Dose

typical results for all flocculants within dose ranges tested


Effect of PSD Variations on Yield Stress

Mean: 45mm
d50: 9mm
d90: 138mm

Mean: 46mm
d50: 8mm
d90: 147mm

Mean: 63mm
d50: 16mm
d90: 198mm
Preliminary finding

High feed PSD variability effects dominate flocculation effects

Therefore
Optimising flocculant type or dose will have little effect without prior
consideration of process variability and control

Two washers - different control strategies, with different results

A) Bed height B) Bed pressure


Control Strategy A:
Bed Height Control
Control Parameter Control Responses Other Influences
Downstream Controls
High Reading Increase UF Pump Speed

Operator Inputs
Decrease Floc Dosage

Bed Height

Downstream Controls
Decrease UF Pump Speed

Overflow turbidity
Low Reading Increase Floc Dosage
Bed Height response to underflow pump
IN PRACTICE
Bed height responds rapidly to changes in UF pump speed
Makes UF pump speed good control variable for this strategy
Bed Height response to floc dose
IN PRACTICE
Bed height responds relatively quickly to changes in floc dosage
Minimises fluctuations in floc dosage rate to mostly well within 50% of set points
Bed Height Control effect on rake pressure
IN PRACTICE
Provides relative operational stability for long periods of time
Bed height and rake pressure stay mostly within 25% of set points
Control Strategy B:
Rake Pressure Control
Control Parameter Control Responses Other Influences
Downstream Controls
High Reading Increase UF Pump Speed

Operator Inputs
Decrease Floc Dosage

Rake Pressure

Downstream Controls
Decrease UF Pump Speed

Overflow turbidity
Low Reading Increase Floc Dosage
Rake pressure response to underflow pump
IN PRACTICE
As rake pressure increases, UF pump cannot operate efficiently
Rake pressure and UF pump are out of sync and do not stabilise
Rake pressure response to floc dose
IN PRACTICE
Floc dose is out of sync with rake pressure due to temporal differences
Floc dose also used to control overflow clarity and is unreliable as control parameter
Rake Pressure Control effect on bed height
IN PRACTICE
Significant amounts of fluctuation in both rake pressure and bed height
Bed height and rake pressure fluctuate to in excess of 50% of set points
Control Philosophy Comparisons
Washer Control Strategy A
Parameter Maximum Deviation (%) Average Deviation (%)
Bed Height 23.46 5.75
Rake Pressure 31.96 11.59

Washer Control Strategy B


Parameter Maximum Deviation (%) Average Deviation (%)
Bed Height 83.43 20.24
Rake Pressure 66.08 17.00
Conclusions
Rheological assessment showed that operational variations, mostly feed
rate and PSD effects dominate flocculation effects in terms of rheological
issues

Optimising flocculant type or dose will have little effect without prior
consideration of feed variability and process control

Analysis of control strategy shows some strategies can exacerbate effects


of process variation whereas other control strategies can smooth these
effects

Operator intervention must be considered and operators trained to


recognise knock-on effects of manual changes made.
In hindsight

Gather historical feed and operating data during testwork


planning phase

Be prepared to question long-held operational


assumptions

You might also like