Advanced Controller for Grinding Mills: Results from a Ball Mill Circuit in a

Copper Concentrator
Anoop Mathur, Sujit Gaikwad,
Honeywell Technology Center
Robert Rodgers, Nels Gagnon
BHP, Pinto Valley Operations
Pierre Rousseau
Honeywell HiSpec

Abstract
We describe an advanced multivariable controller for grinding mills which will, in spite of the severe
disturbances in a mining environment, significantly improve throughput while maintaining product particle
size. Some grinding operations are subjected to power excursions or spillage (such as in Semi-Autogenous
and Autogenous mills), uncertainty in measurement, low ore bin, centrifuging and so on. The controller
uses specific algorithms to detect these abnormal conditions and reconfigure itself on-line to provide the
best performance. Results of using this advanced controller on a ball mill circuit operation in a copper
concentrator are presented. The controller stabilized the mill operation and resulted in a 4.18% throughput
increase in ground ore that is finer than the desirable size.

INTRODUCTION

In the past fifteen years, model-based control techniques have been successfully used in the process
industry. These multivariable controllers stabilize operations by explicitly designing for process constraints
such as deadtimes, nonlinearities, and dynamic interactions. The controllers' robustness (that is, its ability
to stabilize operations under various operating conditions) and ease-of-use have contributed to the
widespread acceptance at the operations level. Because of this ability, the processes are operated closer to
constraints, which can increase throughput at specified product quality or produce product at the best
economic value. Payback periods from as little as one month to a typical six months have been reported. It
is these economic and robustness factors that have contributed to the enormous success of the multivariable
controllers, especially in the petrochemical industries.

Mineral processing facilities involve a large number of dynamically complex unit operations, with
comminution being a typical example. Recent application of the multivariable control techniques for
grinding has shown significant improvement in process stability with a strong return on investment for
throughput-limited ball mills and Semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) mills. Given this large operational
benefit, several mineral processing facilities are currently evaluating and implementing these strategies.
The key to successful acceptance in this industry will be the ability of these controllers to handle unusual
process upsets and to recognize operation realities such as:

A change in quality of ore type and ore size (F80). These types of changes can lead to process
upsets such as mill spills and/or power excursions in SAG mills, centrifuging in ball mills,
etc.
The constant need to adjust plant operation objectives because of frequent problems with
equipment upstream (such as primary crushers) or downstream (such as performance of
flotation, or regrind mills), with availability and maintenance of critical sensors (such as pulp
density, particle size measurements), or with the hardness/softness of ore. These adjustments
can shift the trade-off between the desired particle size distribution and throughput and change
the operational constraints for the grinding mill.
To be successfully accepted, multivariable controllers in mineral processing must provide easy or automatic
reconfiguration to accommodate operational situations and to keep the process stable and operating at or
near optimum. SmartGrind, developed at Honeywell, is such a controller. It handles these and other
situations unique to plants in different regions of the world (Luse, Mathur et al, 1997). It combines the
powerful model-based controller RMPCT with the advanced techniques based on neural networks, or rules,
to provide the best performance guaranteed by the core RMPCT controller under different operating
scenarios.

Results at a copper refinery indicate an improvement of 4.18% increase in throughput over and above the
existing advanced intuitive logic based controller on site. In many plants, benefits of 2% to 10% can be
expectedwhich is significant in mineral processing. Typically, a 1% improvement in throughput of
usable product represents over a million dollar increase in revenue per site.

Thus, any techniqueeven a rule-based expert control system can show improvement and pay for itself in a
short period when compared to a PID or manual operation. However, the mineral industry should look at
the experience of the petrochemical industry in evaluating the life cycle cost and the future potential of
systematic expansion to plant wide optimization offered by model-based techniques.

MILL CONTROL: GENERAL CONCEPTS

The problem of designing controllers for efficient control of grinding mills has been studied in the
literature, but has not seen significant application in actual mineral processing plants (Jerez et al 1985,
Ciprano et al 1989, Rajamani et al 1991). The first successfully implemented multivariable process control
(MPC) is described for a SAG mill circuit in a bauxite processing refinery at Wagerup, Australia (Refs:
Gopinath, Mathur et al, 1995 and Le Page, Freeman et al 1996, Luse, Mathur et al 1997). The MPC
controller presented in this paper is perhaps the first successful implementation of MPC for ball mills
described in the literature.

Current MPC software has its roots in a set of heuristic, model-based control algorithms proposed and
implemented within the process industry in the late 1970s (Richalet et al, 1978; Cutler and Ramaker, 1980).
Subsequent to that, many important developments in MPC formulation enabled the current robust
multivariable design that can handle input and output constraints and deadtime and can incorporate
optimization. In this way, it provides a powerful control technique that is ideally suited for process control
applications. The methodology in a general MPC algorithm is as follows:

A model (generally, a dynamic interaction model identified on-line) of the process is run in parallel
with the plant and subjected to the same inputs as the plant.
The model is used to compute a predicted output trajectory over a certain number of future points
or horizon at each sample point.
An optimization problem is then set up to minimize the deviation of this predicted output from a
desired trajectory into the future. The decision variables are computed control moves.
The first control move is implemented on the plant and model, and the process is repeated.

This sets up the so-called moving horizon framework of MPC. Process variable constraints are included
explicitly in the control calculation when the optimization step is set up, subject to the satisfaction of these
constraints. All MPC methods share this basic philosophy; the differences in methods of prediction and
error minimization are purely algorithmic. The controller product from Honeywell is a robust multivariable
predictive controller (RMPCT). SmartGrind uses RMPCT as the core controller with smart modules that
detect non-normal situations and reconfigure the RMPCT.

Figure 1 shows a block diagram of the SmartGrind controller.

 Ore Characteristics
RMPCT
Op tim iz e r
S m a rt Mo d u le s

P re d ic tio n Grin d in g
CV, MV Co n tro lle r OP s Mill P Vs
History
Neural Network
Throughput Mo d e l
Optimizer

Figure 1. Block diagram of Total PlantTM SmartGrind multivariable predictive controller

MILL CONTROL: BALL MILL CONTROL EXAMPLE

Process Description
The copper concentrator in Pinto Valley, Arizona processes a 0.4% grade copper ore from a nearby open
pit mine. The unit operations consisting of crushing, grinding, and flotation process about 65,000 tons of
ore per day in six overflow ball mills. The concentrate is transported to a smelter a few miles away. The
crushed ore from primary and secondary ores is conveyed into bins. The ore from the bins is fed into the
ball mill using a conveyor belt. The ball mill grinding circuit is illustrated in Figure 2.
35.5%
P SM
P r im a r y Ba ll Mill No. 5
28.6 % +65
1.72 SGU 32.6 % Solids
Solids, F low GP M 9.1 P SI
66.7 %
Tr im Wa t er Add, GP M
Begin St op
H igh U'F low Solid OP T OP T 81.8%
P ower ,kW

Or e F eed, t ph

% Solids
78.9
Cir cu la t in g
Loa d
474%
Gr in d
Index 10.8

Adva n ce Ala r m
Con t r ol Su m m a r y
Su m p Wa t er Add
GP M

Opt im izer 6 Mills

Displa y
13.1 AMP S
su m p level: 86.4%
Ma n u a l Mode Gr ou p
P r eset Ou t pu t Displa y

Figure 2. Ball Mill Grinding Circuit

The ball mill is in closed circuit with a sump and three cyclone classifiers. The ore and trim water are added
to the ball mill and the outflow from the ball mill goes to a sump where additional water is added. The
slurry from the ball mill is pumped out of a sump into two cyclone separators. The underflow from the
cyclone is returned to the ball mill. Balls are added periodically to the mill on a per shift basis or when the
power draw drops below a preset value at nominal operating conditions.

SmartGrind was installed on Mill No.5 and its performance was compared to the neighboring Mills 3 and 4.
The following measurements were made: ore feed rate, trim water flow, sump water flow, cyclone feed
slurry specific gravity, power draw, particle size measurement (per cent passing +65 mesh), sump level, and
cyclone pressure. In addition, periodic lab measurements are made of ore feed size, product size
distribution, and chemical analysis to the flotation. On mills other than No.5, automatic PID controls with
operator supervision controlled the mills. On these mills, trim water flow is in ratio to the ore feed rate and
the sump level is controlled by manipulating sump water addition. An intuitive-logic based (constrained-
model based) controller was installed to adjust the trim water ratio by monitoring PSM, ore feed rate, and
power draw. On Mill 5 we disabled this constraint-based model controller and used SmartGrind with the
Controlled Variables (CVs) and Manipulated Variables (MVs), shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Control and Manipulated Variables:

Control Variables Manipulated Variables
Particle Size Ore Feed Rate
Sump Level Sump Water Addition
Mill % Solids Trim Water Addition
Power Draw
Cyclone feed density
Cyclone feed flow rate
Circulation Load %

System Identification

Figure 3. Input-Output Model: Results of System Identification of Ball Mill

Step tests identify the input-output dynamic model of the plant. Figure 3 shows the model at nominal
operating point representing the dynamic interactions of controlled variables to the three manipulated
variables: ore feed rate, trim water flow and sump water flow.

The first row shows the response of particle size measurement (PSM) to the manipulated variables.
Reducing ore feed rate, or adding water either to the mill or to the sump reduces the PSM as expected.
However, the gain with trim water is higher than with the sump water. This may be because of the
flushing action when water is added directly to the mill. Also notice the lead with water addition. When
water is added to the sump the PSM response is almost immediate, which may be one of the reason why
operators tend to use sump water to counter disturbances to PSM.

Control Performance Results

Figure 4 shows the performance of the SmartGrind controller.

Figure 4. . SmartGrind controller on at 9:15am. Feed rate increased from 465 tph to 475 tph and
PSM decreased. Response to Ore type Change at 9:40 am.

The SmartGrind controller was switched on at 9:12am on this day. Notice that the controller immediately
increased the feed rate and trim water, resulting in a decrease in PSM and increase in throughput. At about
9:35am there was an ore type change (a disturbance), the controller responded by increasing the trim water
addition. The sump water addition decreased slightly in order to maintain the sump level. A higher
weighting on the feed rate prevented the controller from using this manipulated variable to counter short
term disturbances to PSM. It was deemed better to take short term variations in PSM and keep the
throughput steady and high.

Table 2 shows a production analysis comparison for Mill 5 with SmartGrind with that of Mill 4 controlled
with the constrained model based controller under operator supervision. Both the mills processed the same
number of tons of material per hour; however, the PSM with Mill 5 was smaller than for Mill 4. The total
floatable tons per hour (production rate of 65 or smaller mesh) increased by 4.83%. Also, the specific
power consumption decreased by 1.2%.

TABLE 2: Results from 65 hour SmartGrind control comparison (10/9/97-10/12/97)

Variable Mill 5 Mill 4 Difference % change
-65 mesh , tph 360 344 16.6 4.83
Ore Feed Rate, tph 476 477 -0.9 -0.19
PSM, % passing +65 mesh 24.3 27.9 -3.6 -13.0
Power, kW 3233 3271 -38 -1.2
Circulating load, % 527 485 41 8.5

Similar results calculated with data in January showed a increase of 2% in production rate.

ESTIMATED BENEFITS
Each grinding circuit has its own control issues and objectives. Some are throughput limited, some have
spillage problems or power excursions, and some have many types of ore with different optimum load
points for each type. Because each circuit has different objectives, SmartGrinds benefits will vary from
site to site.

To generalize, it is typical to realize a throughput increase of 2% or more by applying this control scheme.
These throughputs can result from a new maximum constraint on throughput, a reduction of the standard
deviation of average throughput, an avoidance of downtime through stable controls or a combination of all
of these. Furthermore, the tuning and maintenance requirements for traditional controls are alleviated,
pushing constraints is automated, and the mill operators operate their grinding circuits with an economic
objective rather than to a particular setpoint.

SmartGrind is also beneficial to mills that are not throughput limited. By using neural networks and
multivariable predictive control schemes, these mills can grind ore to a smaller range of sizes and reduce
their overall power consumption, increasing recovery and reducing power costs. SmartGrind can reduce the
standard deviation of the ore size range by 50%, increasing recovery significantly.

SmartGrinds SmartModules make it possible to customize the application to address the needs of
individual mills.

In this ball mill example, we calculated that by using SmartGrind, a throughput increase of 4.18% of for the
desired product ( smaller than +65 mesh particle) was realized in October 1997. This increase is generally
attributable to increased availability of the mill and to the way the multivariable controller manipulated
water addition to the mill and to the sump. The local control philosophy is to add water at a specific ratio
to the ore feed rate and let sump level be controlled by water addition to the sump. The dynamics of the
plant indicated that the water addition to the mill should be as high as possible. Over time, the operators
learned this and began to control the mills under their supervision with a higher ratio of water to ore feed
rate than used before. Thus, performance data collected in December 1997 showed an increase in
throughput of 2% when the mill was controlled with SmartGrind rather than under operator supervision.

The benefit of 2% increase in throughput translates to an estimated increase in revenue of over $2.5 million
per year for the site.

CONCLUSIONS
To be successfully accepted, multivariable controllers, in mineral processing must provide easy or
automatic reconfiguration to accommodate severe disturbances, such as low ore bin due to upstream
problems with crushers or downstream problems with flotation cells, in order to keep the process stable and
operating at or near optimum. The SmartGrind controller from Honeywell successfully handled these and
other typical disturbances in a mineral processing plant.

Results at a copper refinery indicated an improvement of 4.18% increase in throughput over and above the
existing advanced intuitive logic based controller on site. In many plants, benefits of 2% to 10% can be
expectedwhich is significant in mineral processing. Typically, a 1% improvement in throughput of
usable product represents over a million dollar increase in revenue per site.

Thus, any techniqueeven a rule-based expert control systemcan show improvement and pay for itself in a
short period when compared to a PID or manual operation. However, the mineral industry should look at
the experience of the petrochemical industry in evaluating the life cycle cost and the future potential of
systematic expansion to plant-wide optimization offered by model-based multivariable control techniques.

References
CIPRANO, A. , VARELA V.,CATALDO G. AND GONZALEZ G., 1989
Automation in Mining, Mineral and Metal Processing - Proc. 6th IFAC Symposium, Beunos Aires,
Argentina (V. Koppel ed.), pp 75-79
CUTLER C.R. and RAMAKER B.L., 1980
Procedings of American Control Conference, San Francisco, CA, Paper WP5-B
GOPINATH R., MATHUR A., LE PAGE G. and FREEMAN N., 1995
Proc. International Mineral Processing Symposium, Kanpur, India
JEREZ J.C., TORO H., and VON BORRIES G.H., 1985
Automation for Mineral Resource Development - Procedings 1st IFAC Symposium, Brisbane,
Australia, pp 275-282
FREEMAN N. KEENAN W., HANCOCK S., LE PAGE G., 1994
5th Mill Operators Conference, Olympic Dam, Australia.
LUSE J., MATHUR A. and FREEMAN N., 1997
7th Canadian Symposium on Mining Automation, Alberta, Canada
RAJAMANI R.K. and HERBST J.A., 1991
Chemical Engineering Science, Vol 46(3), pp. 861-879
RICHALET, J.A., RAULT A., TESTUD J.D., and PAPON J, 1978
Automatica, Vol 14, pp 413-428