International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mineral Processing

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j m i n p r o

A review of froth flotation control

B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers ⁎
Rio Tinto Centre for Advanced Mineral Recovery at Imperial College London, Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The last few decades have seen major advances in instrumentation and technology, and simplifications and
Received 6 August 2010 modifications of new flotation plant designs. This has allowed for significant developments in process control.
Received in revised form 19 April 2011 In particular, the development of base level process control (control of pulp levels, air flowrates, reagent
Accepted 8 May 2011
dosing, etc.) has seen significant progress. Long-term, automated advanced and optimising flotation control
Available online 14 May 2011
strategies have, however, been more difficult to implement. It is hoped that this will change as a result of the
Keywords:
development of new technologies such as machine vision and the measurement of new control variables, such
Froth flotation as air recovery.
Process control This review looks at each of the four essential levels of process control (instrumentation, base level flotation
control, advanced flotation control and optimising flotation control) and examines current and future trends
within each sub-level.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2. Key variables and considerations in the control of flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.1. Key variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.2. Effects of plant layout and the location of the cell in the circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.3. Types of process input disturbances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.4. System constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3. Instrumentation and base level flotation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.1. Pulp levels in cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.1.1. Instrumentation used for pulp level measurement and control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.1.2. Base level control systems for pulp level control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2. Air flowrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2.1. Instrumentation used for air flowrate measurement and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2.2. Base level control systems for air flowrate control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3. Slurry flowrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.1. Instrumentation used for slurry flowrate measurement and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.2. Implementation of slurry flowrate in control systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4. Elemental assaying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4.1. Instrumentation used for elemental analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4.2. Implementation of elemental assaying in control systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.5. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.5.1. Instrumentation used for density measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.5.2. Implementation of density measurement in control systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.6. Reagent addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.6.1. Instrumentation used for reagent addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.6.2. Base level control systems for reagent addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.7. Eh, pH and conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.7.1. Instrumentation for the measurement of Eh, pH and conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.7.2. Base level control systems for Eh, pH and conductivity control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44 20 7594 7360; fax: + 44 20 7594 7403.

E-mail address: j.j.cillifers@imperial.ac.uk (J.J. Cilliers).

0301-7516/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.minpro.2011.05.002
58 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71

3.8. Gas dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.8.1. Instrumentation used for the measurement of gas dispersion variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.8.2. Implementation of gas dispersion variables in control systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.9. Machine vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.9.1. Instrumentation and methods used for machine vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.9.2. Implementation of machine vision in control systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4. Advanced flotation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1. Advanced control of mass pull and re-circulating load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1.1. Mass pull control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1.2. Re-circulating load control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.2. Advanced control of grade and/or recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2.1. Model-based methods in advanced flotation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2.2. Expert systems in advanced flotation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5. Optimising flotation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.1. Modelling-based methods in optimising flotation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.2. Expert methods in optimising flotation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6. Examples of approaches found in advanced/optimising flotation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
7. Commercial advanced/optimising flotation control software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

1. Introduction methods are now commonly used in modern control strategies.

Froth flotation is one of the most broadly used separation methods
in the mineral processing industry. However, despite being intro-
duced in the early 1900s and numerous years of research and
development, flotation is still not fully understood and remains
relatively inefficient. As such, large economic gains stand to be made
through optimisation of many present processes (McKee, 1991;
Hodouin et al., 2000; Moilanen and Remes, 2008).
It is important to realise from the outset that process control
consists of several interconnected levels. Several authors, e.g. Roesch
et al. (1976); McKee (1991); Laurila et al. (2002); and Gupta and Yan
(2006), describe the process control of froth flotation by a hierarchy of
3–4 inter-connected layers. The hierarchy described by Laurila et al.
(2002) is presented in Fig. 1.
The lowest level is the instrumentation itself, which is the basis for
all process control. As such, the choice/design and maintenance of the
instrumentation is of central importance to any process control
system. Furthermore, the correct choice of instrumentation can only
be achieved if a detailed understanding of the functioning and
application of the required instrument, within a given process, is
acquired (Laurila et al., 2002).
Base level flotation control is focused on maintaining primary
variables at setpoints. These primary variables include: pulp level, air
flowrate and reagent addition rate. This is generally achieved through
the usage of conventional SISO PID control; although more advanced
Similarly, traditional base level flotation control was applied to single
cells, although modern control strategies are now regularly applied to
entire banks of cells (e.g. pulp level control).
The two higher tiers of flotation control are advanced flotation
control (AFC) and optimising flotation control (OFC). AFC involves the
rejection of the effects from input disturbances to the process (e.g. a
change in feed grade) and maintaining performance parameters —
grade and recovery (although care should be taken when defining
recovery; in a dynamic situation accumulation of material within the
system and lag times should be considered). OFC, on the other hand,
aims to maximise overall financial profitability (commonly by
maximising grade and recovery). Both AFC and OFC attempt to
achieve their objectives through manipulation of lower level control
setpoints. It thus follows that the efficiency of AFC and OFC systems
are dependent on satisfactory lower level flotation control systems
being in place. Several cells are generally controlled simultaneously;
and advanced control methods (which in control engineering
terminology classically refers to any control strategy more compli-
cated than SISO PID control; and more recently to computer based
technologies) are used as PID control is insufficient.
Numerous years of research into the automation of froth flotation
control has been conducted to increase process efficiency, with efforts
prior to the 1970s being largely unsuccessful. Several authors, such as
McKee (1991) and Laurila et al. (2002), agree that reasons for this
include: a lack of appropriate instrumentation and technologies, and

Fig. 1. Process control system level hierarchy for flotation processes (Laurila et al., 2002).
 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
the old design of flotation plants; which consisted of numerous
smaller cells making process control more complicated and cumber-
some. As such, operator intervention was the only method of process
control (and this is still largely true of many plants today).
However, the early 1970s saw extensive improvements in
available instrumentation and the research into the development of
automatic control of flotation began to show increasing promise
(McKee, 1991; Thwaites, 2007). Subsequently, there has been major
development in base level flotation control; although the develop-
ment of robust, long-term, automatic A/OFC systems has proven more
challenging. According to McKee (1991) this is partially due to “the
inherent complexity and unpredictability of the response of most flotation
circuits to upset conditions, unclear expectations of what a control
system can achieve, unrealistic objectives for control systems and
excessive complexity of the actual control strategies.” Osorio et al.
(1999) included coupling among control loops, long varying lag times,
and an “imperfect knowledge of the phenomenology of flotation and the
lack of appropriate and precise instrumentation” as contributors for
complicating control attempts.
Despite this, Laurila et al. (2002) believe that flotation is currently
facing “a new era in terms of automation and process control”, with
there being three main reasons for this:
• Henning et al. (1998), and Moilanen and Remes (2008) noted that
“flotation circuit design is moving away from multiple recycle streams
and towards simpler circuits.” This simplifies regulation and control
of the over-all process.
• Authors such as Kallionen and Heiskanen (1993), and Carr et al.
(2009) have noted that the sizes of flotation cells are increasing, the
main benefits being: a reduction in capital expenditure and
operational costs, lower energy consumption per cubic metre, less
items to maintain and a lower plant footprint. Fewer cells also mean
less instrumentation is required; allowing for less-intricate process
control systems. However, this does mean more accurate instru-
mentation is required. Fewer, larger cells also increase the incentive
for better base level control on each individual cell.
• Recent developments in instrumentation have seen the develop-
ment of tools such as fieldbus technology and image analysis, and
have allowed for the assembly of “smart instruments”; devices that
use self-diagnostics to provide information about the equipment
status and measurement quality.
Laurila et al. (2002) also highlight that as each flotation process is
unique (e.g. cell configuration, instrumentation, ore, chemistry, etc.) a
large variety of A/OFC strategies have been developed and imple-
mented, and a single, universal, control approach cannot be given.
The aim of this literature review is to broadly explore the various
control strategies that have been/are being, developed and utilised
from a metallurgist's perspective. This work shall begin with a look at
the key variables and considerations in the control of flotation. Each of
the four levels of flotation control will then be explored in detail.
Lastly, a description of some available commercial control systems
and conclusions are presented. It should also be noted that although
this paper focuses primarily on cell flotation devices, as opposed to
column flotation devices, much of the literature and theory is
applicable to both.
2. Key variables and considerations in the control of flotation
Froth flotation is a three phase separation process for complex ores
based on the manipulation of the difference in hydrophobicity of the
solids. Suspended, hydrophobic metal-rich particles are contacted
with, and subsequently combine to, air bubbles — whilst the more
hydrophilic gangue particles sink and are recovered to the tails
stream. The valuable-mineral loaded bubbles report to a froth phase
and overflow into a launder, before being recovered to the
concentrate stream. Although the process may sound relatively
59
simple other simultaneous sub-processes also occur. Examples
include: entrainment of gangue into the froth phase, coalescence of
bubbles, de-attachment of valuable particles from bubbles as they
impact the froth phase, etc. (Ventura-Medina, 2000). The feed
composition and upstream grinding stages prior to flotation also
significantly affect the process. Thus, in reality, the flotation process is
highly complex with Arbiter and Harris (1962) estimating that there
are approximately 100 variables that affect (to varying degrees) the
flotation process. Moreover, co-interactions between variables further
complicate control efforts. For example, an increase in air flowrate
may well result in a larger bubble size, which will subsequently affect
the bubble rise velocity, rate of attachment, gas holdup, froth depth,
etc. — meaning other variables may be affected and need manipulat-
ing after a given response time. As such, it is the high number of
variables and the complex, non-linear, inter-relationships between
these variables that make flotation control in specific very
challenging.
2.1. Key variables
Laurila et al. (2002) suggest that the following variables –
specifically from an A/OFC viewpoint – are most important:
• slurry properties (density, solids content)
• slurry flow rate (retention time)
• electrochemical parameters/potentials (pH, Eh, conductivity)
• chemical reagents and their addition rate (frothers, collectors,
depressants, activators)
• pulp levels in cells
• air flowrates into cells
• froth properties (speed, bubble size distribution, froth stability)
• particle properties (size distribution, shape, degree of mineral
liberation)
• mineralogical composition of the ore
• mineral concentrations in the feed, concentrate and tailings
(recovery, grade)
• froth wash water rate (especially in flotation columns)
Manipulating/measuring each of these variables simultaneously
may well be unnecessary to achieve a good process control result.
However, each of these variables and their effects on the flotation
process should be considered.
2.2. Effects of plant layout and the location of the cell in the circuit
The process layout is a key consideration in process control.
Recycle streams in particular can make process control (e.g. pulp level
control) more challenging, especially if accumulation and/or sudden
discharges of material are allowed to occur. Additionally, different
sections of the plant require different process control regimes; the
rougher and scavenger sections being operated at comparatively low
froth depths and high air flowrates, to achieve high mineral recovery;
whilst cleaner sections operate with greater froth depths and lower
air flowrates in a bid to increase grade (Laurila et al., 2002).
2.3. Types of process input disturbances
It is important to identify the frequency and severity with which
input disturbances can occur for a given flotation process. Wills and
Napier-Munn (2006) suggest that if the grinding circuit control
systems are running efficiently, variations in particle feed rate, pulp
density and particle size should be minimal — with the flotation
circuit being responsible for compensating for variations in mineral-
ogy and floatability of the ore.
60 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
2.4. System constraints
Existing circuit constraints need to be considered when imple-
menting a process control regime. Two types of constraints exist.
Firstly a process may be equipment constrained (e.g. a recovery
cannot be achieved because the required air flowrate rate cannot be
supplied). Secondly, a process may be constrained by another part of
the system; an example being the limitation of the maximum
recovery of a desired species, at a high concentrate grade objective,
within a flotation plant as a result of insufficient liberation by the
grinding circuit (McKee, 1991). Bergh and Yianatos (2011) add that
“in practise the plant operating point that satisfies the overall economic
goals of the process will lie close to the intersection of constraints.”
3. Instrumentation and base level flotation control
Information about the input disturbances, process operating
parameters and final product quality is required before optimisation
and control can be performed; with the quality of measured
information largely determining the efficiency of an implemented
control system. However, despite the availability of instrumentation
for the measurement of important parameters such as: ore compo-
sition, flowrates and less ore specific properties (e.g. pulp levels,
density, pH) — essential properties such as liberation degree, surface
chemistry, bubble size distribution, bubble loading, etc. remain
difficult to measure and infer (Bergh and Yianatos, 2011).
Currently, most existing instrumentation on flotation plants makes
use of analogue signal technology; with signals requiring conversion
into a digital format before interfacing with automation systems. As
such, it is thought that analogue technology is to be replaced by digital
fieldbus technology. This will result in completely digital communi-
cation between instrumentation and base level control systems at
source, and has already enabled the decentralisation of pulp level and
air flowrate base level control systems. This has also allowed for better
integration of base level control during flotation cell design (Laurila
et al., 2002). Continued development of base level control is now
largely focused “towards operational aspects that facilitate and speed up
the setting of control loops” (Moilanen and Remes, 2008).
3.1. Pulp levels in cells
3.1.1. Instrumentation used for pulp level measurement and control
Laurila et al. (2002) and Carr et al. (2009) suggest that the most
typical methods of pulp level measurement are:
• Float with a target plate and ultrasonic transmitter
• Float with angle arms and capacitive angle transmitter
• Reflex radar
Other methods mentioned in literature include:
• Hydrostatic pressure measurement. Authors such as Roesch et al.
(1976); Hamilton and Guy (2000); and Maldonado et al. (2008)
describe methods whereby the hydrostatic pressure is measured to
determine the pulp level. Accurate measurement requires that both
the slurry density and air holdup in the pulp be known.
• Microwave radar and ultrasonic transmitters. Microwave or ultra-
sonic beams are emitted towards the froth and are reflected at the
slurry surface before being measured, and the pulp level being
inferred (Hamilton and Guy, 2000).
• Conductivity and capacitance Hamilton and Guy (2000) describe two
techniques whereby the large difference in dielectric constant
between gasses and liquids is used to determine the pulp level.
Similarly, the difference in electric conductivity, measured using a
conductivity probe, can also be used to locate the froth–pulp
interface (Wills and Napier-Munn, 2006; Maldonado et al., 2008).
Laurila et al. (2002) add that accurate level measurement is often
problematic as the slurry–froth transition is not sharp and variations
in slurry density and/or very dense froth layers often exist. This
especially complicates methods using direct ultrasonic or hydrostatic
pressure measurements.
Lastly, Carr et al. (2009) highlight that “control valve options are
limited due to the eroding conditions and large variations in flowrate.”
Dart and pinch valves are generally used (neither being optimal), and
both being occasionally incorrectly sized. The optimal operating range
of these valves is 30–60% open, although these valves are commonly
seen operating at below 30% open. Operating a valve near the fully
closed position causes increased wear, while operating near the fully
open position reduces the control range of the valve.
3.1.2. Base level control systems for pulp level control
Stenlund and Medvedev (2000); Kämpjärvi and Jämsä-Jounela
(2003); and Carr et al. (2009) report that flotation cells traditionally use
feedback PI control to ensure pulp levels remain at desired set-points;
although Wills and Napier-Munn (2006) add that feedforward control is
also regularly integrated to account for flowrate variations upstream. This
is achieved by manipulating the tailings flow from the cell by adjustment
of the slurry outlet valve. This technique is effective for the control of
isolated cells, but is also commonly used to control a bank of cells in series.
This approach is problematic, as each individual cell control loop attempts
to independently maintain the pulp level at the set-point. As such, a
control action for one cell is a disturbance for the next; the net result
being that each cell drives the following cell off its set-point.
As such, sophisticated multivariable model-based control methods
have been developed; whereby the whole bank of cells is modelled
and compensations between adjacent cells calculated and/or consid-
ered. Two examples of multivariable control methods are presented in
Stenlund and Medvedev (2000). The first makes use of a ‘decoupling
controller’ model, where ‘compensator’ parameters are introduced
(representing the dependencies of each cell in a series on prior cells)
to counteract the interactions between cells. The second method
introduced is a multivariable model-based feedback controller, which
manipulates flows out of each cell simultaneously so as to continually
minimise a defined error function. Kämpjärvi and Jämsä-Jounela
(2003) described an alternative multivariable model whereby a feed-
forward controller was linked with traditional PI controls on each cell.
Moilanen and Remes (2008) described a similar feed forward control
algorithm. Despite this, Carr et al. (2009) reports that these “more
sophisticated methods… are rarely used in industrial processing plants.”
Commercial control packages such as FloatStar Level Stabiliser by
Mintek, or CellStation by Outotec, also aim to control all cell levels
simultaneously using advanced control techniques. Both have
reportedly been trialled successfully and installed on industrial plants
(www.mintek.co.za; www.outotec.com).
From an A/OFC perspective pulp level control is important as it dictates
the froth depth (defined as the distance from the pulp/froth interface to
the overflow lip). Theoretically, a deeper froth allows for increased
drainage of mechanically entrained gangue, and subsequently, a higher
concentrate stream grade (Wills and Napier-Munn, 2006). As such, A/OFC
systems commonly manipulate the setpoints of pulp-level controllers.
3.2. Air flowrates
3.2.1. Instrumentation used for air flowrate measurement and control
Laurila et al. (2002) report that there are three common methods
of measuring air flowrates in flotation processes. Two of the methods
make use of differential pressure metres, which “are popular in
industry, including flotation, due to their low price, simple principle and
fairly low requirement of maintenance.” The three methods are:
• Thermal gas mass flow sensor. The cooling effect of the air as it flows
past a sensor is measured and correlated to an air flowrate. These
 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
instruments are unobtrusive to the air flow, although they are
expensive and factory calibrated, making changes difficult.
• Differential pressure metre with venturi tube. Green and Perry (2007)
describe that the narrowed venturi tube acts as a restriction to the
flow, resulting in a pressure drop that is measured and a flow rate
determined. This method is reliable, produces tolerable pressure
drops and is accurate, although the venturi tube has large space
requirements and is expensive Laurila et al. (2002) add that “an
orifice plate is not a suitable solution due to the significant pressure loss
it causes”.
• Differential pressure transmitter with Pitot tube or annubar tube. Both
the Pitot tube and annubar element determine the gas flowrate, in a
pipe, by comparison of the internal pipe pressure and the static gas
pressure. The difference between the methods is that the Pitot tube
only has one measurement point, while the annubar element has
several measurement points and thus provides an average air
velocity. Both methods are deemed accurate and the observed
pressure drop is small. Fig. 2 illustrates the instrumentation used for
air flowrate measurement.
Problems associated with differential pressure metres include
large space requirements, with large sections of straight piping being
needed to ensure a fully developed flow profile. One solution is to
decrease the pipe size, as the required straight pipe length is related to
pipe diameter. Butterfly valves are used to control the air flow as they
are cheap and sufficient for the task (Laurila et al., 2002).
3.2.2. Base level control systems for air flowrate control
Wills and Napier-Munn (2006) elaborate just how important and
useful aeration control is; adding that “flotation generally responds
faster to changes in aeration, than to changes in froth depth, and
because of this aeration is often a more effective control variable”.
Similarly, they infer (by use of an example) that in comparison to
reagent addition, air is by far the “cheaper ‘reagent’ and leaves no
residual concentration if used in excess.” As such, air flowrate is
frequently incorporated into A/OFC systems, often in conjunction
with pulp level and/or reagent addition control systems; an example
being the simultaneous manipulation of air-flow rate and pulp level
to control mass pull.
Carr et al. (2009) note that “the control of flotation aeration is easier
than slurry level control”. Luyben and Luyben (1997), Laurila et al.
(2002), and Carr et al. (2009) agree that a simple, well-tuned,
feedback/feedforward PI/PID control loop is adequate to accurately
regulate air flow by manipulation of the control valve setting. Sizing of
the control valve is of central importance for effective control.
Oversized valves are often fitted to infer a smaller pressure drop,
but in reality result in a limited control response (Luyben and Luyben,
1997); and can significantly, and rapidly, affect flotation performance
and pulp level control. Smith et al. (2008), suggest that down-the-
Fig. 2. Illustration of (A) thermal gas mass flowmeter, (B) venturi tube with differential pressure metre and (C) Pitot tube.
61
bank air flowrate profile control is also advantageous. If the cell air
flowrates are not controlled individually, and air is fed to a group of
cells, butterfly valves are often operated manually to adjust the flow
to each cell. Lastly, Laurila et al. (2002) add that “flotation cells with
self-aspirating aeration mechanisms often do not have automatic airflow
control. The available range of airflow control is anyhow limited. This
problem is pronounced at high altitude.” This limits the potential for the
implementation of advantageous A/OFC strategies.
3.3. Slurry flowrates
3.3.1. Instrumentation used for slurry flowrate measurement and control
Magnetic flow metres are commonly used to measure slurry
flowrates and are based on Faraday's principle of induction, with the
device consisting of an electromagnet coiled around an insulated
length of pipe. Electrodes are installed at opposite sides of the pipe,
which enable an electric current to be generated through the flowing
fluid and measuring device. From this measured current a flowrate
can be determined. This method is non-obtrusive and modern
magnetic flowmeters take up to 30 measurements per minute. Slurry
measurement is problematic, however, as solids and air bubbles
decrease performance. Moreover, if magnetic solids (e.g. magnetite)
are present de-magnetisation is required (Laurila et al., 2002). Slurry
flowrates can also be controlled by variable or fixed speed pumps that
are capable of handling slurries. Suitable valve options have already
been discussed in Section 3.1.1.
3.3.2. Implementation of slurry flowrate in control systems
In flotation circuits, slurry flowrates are generally manipulated to
control pulp levels in cells (see Section 3.1.2), and are not controlled
to a setpoint. Nevertheless, the measurement of slurry flowrates are
important, as Laurila et al. (2002) point out, for A/OFC, and allow for
calculating re-circulating loads and performing mass balance calcu-
lations. Slurry flowrate measurement is also important for reagent
addition base level flotation control.
3.4. Elemental assaying
3.4.1. Instrumentation used for elemental analysis
On-line X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysers provide elemental
assays from process flow streams and are now considered standard
hardware on large scale flotation plants (Garrido et al., 2008). Several
points of the process can be sampled, with some modern XRF
analysers handling up to 24 streams and most machines being capable
of analysing for several elements and solids content. The time to
analyse a single sample can range from 15 s to a minute, and the
sampling cycle time is between 10 and 20 min — depending on the
number of sample points attached to the analyser (Laurila et al., 2002;
62 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
Bergh and Yianatos, 2011). Accuracy ranges from 1 to 6% and
detection limits are as low as 3–30 ppm (Moilanen and Remes,
2008). Moreover, Haavisto et al. (2008) introduce a new method of
analysis; “the visual and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopic analysis
of process slurries”. This measurement aims to be “a supplementary
method, which complements the on-line assay information available
from an XRF analyser.” It is further reported that “spectral information
can be used to accurately predict element contents in the slurry in
between successive XRF analyses”, and as these “measurements can be
taken with high frequency as opposed to sparse XRF analysis, a practically
continuous on-line estimate of the slurry contents is reached.” This
would allow for any process disruptions to be rapidly identified.
Despite the obvious benefits of online XRF analysis Garrido et al.
(2008) report that these analysers are generally “under-utilised
because operators do not trust the online information given by estimation
models”. They further describe a calibration method for estimation
models that “minimise the effects of the uncontrollable disturbances
during the estimation.”
3.4.2. Implementation of elemental assaying in control systems
Wills and Napier-Munn (2006) report that “the key to effective
(flotation) control is online chemical analysis, which produces real-time
analysis of the metal composition of process streams”. However, the
relatively long sampling cycle times mean that input disturbances of
high frequency can be missed, making it difficult to capture the
experimental data required to form dynamic models of the process
(Bergh and Yianatos, 2011); and take required control actions. Moreover,
Remes et al. (2007) conducted a study into the effect of speed and
accuracy of on-line elemental analysis on flotation control performance.
The study concluded that an increase in sampling cycle time results in a
strong decline in controllability, resulting in negative economic impacts.
3.5. Density
3.5.1. Instrumentation used for density measurement
Roesch et al. (1976) report that nuclear density metres are
commonly used for density measurement on flotation plants.
Gamma radiation is emitted by a radioactive isotope and the
attenuation of the radiation by the slurry is measured, from which
the density can be determined from a prior calibration. This method is
non-obtrusive to the process flow. This is in agreement with Laurila
et al. (2002), who add that air bubbles in the slurry often make use of a
nuclear density metre impossible and choice of location in the process
is an important consideration. Additionally, some on-stream XRF
analysers are now capable of density measurement.
3.5.2. Implementation of density measurement in control systems
Density measurements are used in mass balance calculations,
which are associated with A/OFC (Laurila et al., 2002). Furthermore,
control/manipulation is normally preformed in the grinding circuit/s
(Wills and Napier-Munn, 2006).
3.6. Reagent addition
3.6.1. Instrumentation used for reagent addition
A variety of alternative equipment for maintaining/setting reagent
addition rates are used industrially. Laurila et al. (2002) suggest the
main reasons for this are due to the seemingly negligible amounts that
need to be added (often measured in millimetres per minute) and the
large variety of different reagents added, each with their own
chemical properties and attributes. Common methods include:
• A simple on-off type dosing system which periodically opens a valve
and allows reagent to enter the process. Regular checks are required
to ensure the correct amount is added, as this method can be very
inaccurate.
• Metering pumps are also used, especially if volumes to be added are
very small or cost is of importance. This method is more accurate,
but the pumps are costly and require regular maintenance.
3.6.2. Base level control systems for reagent addition
Base level reagent addition control commonly consists of a
feedforward ratio-type control, as mentioned by Hodouin et al.
(2000), whereby the reagent addition rate is altered according to the
feed rate of ore to achieve a reagent (in slurry) concentration setpoint
(e.g. grammes of reagent per ton of ore). This reagent concentration
setpoint may then be altered retrospectively by operators in a
feedback fashion after considering composition results from an XRF
analyser. Similarly, the setpoint could be manipulated by an A/OFC
system to achieve a required metallurgical result; although Wills and
Napier-Munn (2006) add that this is more common with collector
control, with frother addition rate setpoints usually being set
manually.
3.7. Eh, pH and conductivity
3.7.1. Instrumentation for the measurement of Eh, pH and conductivity
Measurement of electrochemical potential (Eh), pH and conduc-
tivity provide information on the surface chemistry of the particles in
the slurry and are the only direct, non-intrusive methods of
determining what is occurring chemically within the flotation cell
(Ruonala, 1995). Laurila et al. (2002) report that pH is a commonly
measured electrochemical property, and is related logarithmically to
the hydronium ion activity in solution. Measurement is achieved by
using ion selective electrodes, although this is often problematic as
“the electrodes are easily contaminated by active substances in the
slurry.” As such, sampling systems are often used for pH measure-
ment, where washing of the electrodes and regular maintenance can
be performed.
Conductivity measurement can often be used instead of, or in
conjunction with, pH measurement — as both provide complimentary/
similar information. Conductivity metres are generally cheaper and
are more suitable for highly alkaline solutions, although their use
should be avoided in highly aerated systems. In addition, Wang and
Cilliers (1999), and Bennett et al. (2002) performed studies where
conductivity measurements were used to determine froth density and
flow regimes.
Eh measurement too is problematic, with Woods (2003) adding
that “maintaining electrode probes so that they respond appropriately in
these plants is difficult to achieve”, and concluding that the choice of
materials in Eh probes requires further research.
3.7.2. Base level control systems for Eh, pH and conductivity control
Base level control of pH involves maintaining the slurry pH at a
desired setpoint, through manipulation of acid or lime addition rates,
with PID control loops being adequate for the task (Laurila et al.,
2002). Long response times of the system mean a lag time should
follow any corrective action/s performed to fully appreciate the effects
it has had (Wills and Napier-Munn, 2006). Commercial controllers,
such as FloatStar pH Controller, are also available and use advanced
control methods.
Control of Eh usually involves the addition of nitrogen or air to the
system to alter the electrochemical potential (Woods, 2003). Much
research into improving metallurgical results through Eh manipula-
tion (A/OFC) has been published over the last four decades. Ruonala
et al. (1997); and Woods (2003) present thorough reviews of this
work on both laboratory and industrial scales, for several ore types. A
summary of a brief literature review, listing the ore-type the studies
were conducted on, is listed below in Table 1.
 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71 63

Table 1
Summary of literature review for Eh measurement/control in froth flotation.
Author and date
Berglund (1991)
Bruckard et al. (2007)
Chander and Fuerstenau (1975) Copper and chalcocite
Clark et al. (2000)
Guo and Yen (2005)
Hayes and Ralston (1988)
Hicyilmaz et al. (2004)
Hintikka and Leppinen (1995) Complex sulphide ores and gold bearing ores
Kirjavainen et al. (1992)
Kocabağ and Güler (2007)
Leppinen et al. (1997)
Qing et al. (2008)
Roos et al. (1990)
Roos et al. (1990)
Shen et al. (1997)
Uribe-Salas et al. (2000)
Walker et al. (1984)
Yuan et al. (1996)
3.8. Gas dispersion
problems with the design include the requirement of a range of orifice
valves to suit all gas velocities and the build up of froth within the
Mineral type system (Torrealba-Vargas and Finch, 2006; Gomez and Finch, 2007).
Pyrite, sphalerite-galena, chalcopyrite
Arsenopyrite, lollingnite and arsenic from 3.8.1.2. Gas holdup measurement sensor. “The sensor is based on
tin bearing ores Maxwell's model that relates the concentration of a non-conducting
dispersed phase to the conductivities of the continuous phase and the
Chalcocite, chalcopyrite and bornite
dispersion.” This requires two measurements in separate vessels (see
Enargite and chalcopyrite
Galena, chalcopyrite and sphalerite Fig. 3, part B); one vessel measures the conductivity of the aerated pulp;
Pyrite the other measures the conductivity of the air free pulp (achieved using
a syphon). The ratio of these measurements is used to solve Maxwell's
Copper ores with rich copper–zinc–lead pyrite ores model and estimate the gas holdup. This method ensures continuous
Pyrite, galena, chalcopyrite
measurement; although care is required when choosing the opening
Copper and zinc rich complex ores
Lead–silver–zinc complex ores sizes of the syphon to ensure no bubbles enter the vessel and result in
Chalcocite and covellite inaccuracies (Gomez et al., 2003; Gomez and Finch, 2007).
Copper and chalcopyrite
Sphalerite and pyrite
3.8.1.3. Bubble size measurement sensor. The McGill bubble sizing
Galena, chalcopyrite and pyritic ore
Chalcocite device (see Fig. 3, part C) is able to measure the full bubble size
Complex copper/zinc sulphide ore with distribution found in the pulp phase. A sample is drawn from the pulp
pyrite and pyrrhotite via a tube and directed into a sloped viewing chamber (the sloped
window allows for a near mono-layer of bubbles to form) exposed to a
pre-set light source. The continuous flow of bubbles is then captured
via image analysis. The accuracy of the measurement is difficult to
establish, although the method is widely used and continues to evolve
by improvements dictated by field trials (Gomez and Finch, 2007).

3.8.1. Instrumentation used for the measurement of gas dispersion
variables
Gomez and Finch (2007) report that “gas dispersion is the collective
term for superficial gas (air) velocity (volumetric air flowrate per unit
cross sectional area of cell, Jg), gas holdup (volumetric fraction of gas in a
gas-slurry mix, εg) and bubble size distribution (Db)”. The publication
also details the equipment used for the measurement of these
variables.
3.8.1.1. Superficial gas velocity measurement sensor. The sensor consists
of a vertically positioned tube; the lower end is partially submerged in
the pulp zone to collect bubbles (see Fig. 3, part A). The continuous
version has an orifice valve mounted on the air outlet. When air is
allowed out of the orifice valve, time is given for a pressure steady-
state to be reached and measured (i.e. the rate of air into the column is
equal to that out the orifice valve). The volumetric air flowrate is
then inferred from a previous calibration and Jg calculated. Current
3.8.2. Implementation of gas dispersion variables in control systems
A recent publication by Bartolacci et al. (2008) focused on using
gas dispersion sensors in conjunction with a Froth Stability Column
and machine vision (both still to be discussed). Air flowrate, pulp
level, reagent dosage and feed rate were varied whilst dispersion
parameters, froth stability, bubble surface area flux and metallurgical
results were measured. The results indicated a high dependence of
grade and recovery on dispersion parameters and froth stability; a
clear indication of the potential of these measurements being
integrated into an A/OFC system.
3.9. Machine vision
3.9.1. Instrumentation and methods used for machine vision
Machine vision makes use of cameras positioned above flotation
cells to record digital images of the froth surface. Several froth features
can be extracted from these images and used for control purposes.

Fig. 3. Schematics of (A) gas velocity, (B) gas holdup and (C) bubble size measurement devices (Gomez and Finch, 2007).
64 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
These features are categorised into three types; namely: physical,
statistical and dynamic properties. Within each category several
methods exist for extracting different variables and/or features. For
example bubble size, a physical property of a froth, is one feature that
may be extracted through usage of bubble edge or watershed
algorithms. An extensive amount of literature has been written
about the methods by which features are extracted from froth; with a
full, recent, literature review being carried out by Aldrich et al. (2010)
(see Table 2).
Aldrich et al. (2010) highlight that the use of physical features
for control purposes remains problematic. Issues associated with
physical feature extraction include:
• It is commonly observed that the surface bubbles of flowing froths
are significantly larger than those in the layers immediately below;
the lower layers forming the predominant portion of the volume
overflowing into the launder. This cannot be corrected for readily.
• Neethling et al. (2003) observed that the surface film size
distribution is not necessarily representative of the bubble size
distribution in the underlying froth layer Wang and Neethling
(2009), however, have determined a method to relate surface film
size to underlying bubble size distribution.
• The watershed method often over-segments larger bubbles and
under-segments smaller bubble sizes.
Mobility feature extraction has been shown to be particularly
useful within the context of A/OFC.
3.9.2. Implementation of machine vision in control systems
It is common in industry for operators to control and regulate a
flotation plant by visual inspection of the froth surface. Indeed, an
understanding of processes occurring within the froth phase is central
to understanding the overall behaviour of flotation systems (Glembotskii,
1972; Cutting et al., 1986; McKee, 1991; Mathe et al., 1998). The structure
of froths has a significant effect on grade and recovery; with several
publications (e.g. Supomo et al., 2008; Moilanen and Remes, 2008)
suggesting a link between froth velocity and metallurgical performance.
As such, the development and implementation of machine vision was an
attempt to refine and automate the control based on the froth appearance.
Currently, numerous commercial machine vision systems are available;
making the on-line measurement of froth velocity possible. This is useful
in the implementation of A/OFC, an example being the measurement and
control of mass pull. Moreover, the faster dynamics of machine vision
(1 min) compared to XRF technology (10–20 min), open the possibility
Table 2
Overview of methods used for feature extraction by machine vision (Aldrich et al., 2010).
Type Methods Froth variables or features
Physical Edge Bubble size and shape
Watershed Bubble size and shape
Statistical Spectral RGB
FFT
Wavelets
Texture
Co-occurrence matrices Spatial and neighbouring grey level
Fractals Fractal descriptor
Latent variables PCA
Neural networks
Dynamic Mobility Bubble tracking
Block matching
Pixel tracing
Stability
for building better predictive flotation A/OFC models, based on visual
aspects of the froth as opposed to stream grades (Bergh and Yianatos,
2011).
4. Advanced flotation control
AFC, also known as stabilising control, aims to reject the effects of
input disturbances (e.g. a change of ore type) and maintain the
flotation process as close to steady state as possible (McKee, 1991;
Laurila et al., 2002). This is generally achieved by controlling mass
pull; recycle load; stream grade and/or recovery to setpoints (usually
set by operators or an optimising controller), with the manipulated
variables being the setpoints of base level controllers (i.e. pulp level,
air flowrate, reagent addition rate and pH/conductivity). As such,
effective AFC is only possible if robust, efficient base level flotation
control systems are in place.
4.1. Advanced control of mass pull and re-circulating load
An effective method of keeping the plant's mass balance at steady
state is to maintain constant mass pulls and/or re-circulating loads at
setpoints (often in conjunction with maintaining grade and/or recovery).
4.1.1. Mass pull control
Mass pull refers to the amount of concentrate collected. A recent
paper by Supomo et al. (2008) describes the successful installation
and operation of VisioFroth, a commercial machine vision based
control system developed by Metso, at PT Freeport in Indonesia. The
control system measures the velocity of the overflowing froth, and
then adjusts the froth-depth to achieve the desired mass pull. An
alternative commercial package, FloatStar Flow Optimiser by Mintek,
uses density and flowrate measurements to calculate mass pull. The
required mass pull is then obtained through manipulation of pulp
level and air flowrate (www.mintek.co.za).
4.1.2. Re-circulating load control
Re-circulating material through a flotation plant results in decreased
residence time of material per flotation cell, but does allow for the
valuable material to spend more time in the flotation plant as a whole;
and, subsequently, increases the overall recovery (Wills and Napier-
Munn, 2006). However, this re-circulating load may need to be varied to
account for input disturbances (McKee, 1991). FloatStar Flow Optimiser
is an example of a commercial control package which uses the
References
Banford et al. (1998); Forbes and De Jager (2004b); Forbes et al. (2006); Lin et al.
(2007a,b); Wang et al. (2003); Wang and Stephansson (1999)
Forbes and De Jager (2004a); Sadr-Kazemi and Cilliers (1997); Ventura-Medina and
Cilliers (2000); Yang et al. (2008)
Bonifazi et al. (2005a,b); Gebhardt et al. (1993); Hargrave et al. (1996, 1998); Hargrave
and Hall (1997); Morar et al. (2005); Oestreich et al. (1995); Siren (1999);
Vathavooran et al. (2006)
Moolman et al. (1994)
Bartolacci et al. (2006); Liu and MacGregor (2007, 2008)
Hargrave and Hall (1997); Holtham and Nguyen (2002)
Aldrich et al. (1995, 1997); Bezuidenhout et al. (1997); Moolman et al. (1994, 1995a,b)
Bonifazi et al. (2000); Hargrave and Hall (1997); Hargrave et al. (1998)
Bartolacci et al. (2006); Liu et al., (2005); Liu and MacGregor (2007, 2008)
Estrada-Ruiz and Perez-Garibay (2009); Hyötyniemi and Ylinen (2000); Jeanmeure
and Zimmerman (1998); Kaartinen and Hyötyniemi (2005); Moolman et al. (1995c);
Niemi et al. (1997)
Botha (1999)
Barbian et al. (2007); Forbes and de Jager (2007); Holtham and Nguyen (2002);
Moolman et al. (1994); Supomo et al. (2008)
Nguyen and Holtham (1997)
Barbian et al. (2003, 2005, 2006); Moolman (1995); Morar et al. (2006)
 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
measurement and manipulation of mass pull rates to regulate the
amount of material recycled (www.mintek.co.za).
4.2. Advanced control of grade and/or recovery
AFC commonly refers to strategies that aim to maintain grade
and/or recovery (Laurila et al., 2002). However, McKee (1991) states
that “A [stabilising] control system which is capable of firstly stabilising
circuit performance, and then driving the circuit to a desired grade or
recovery operating point, would undoubtedly be considered highly
successful.” — highlighting the importance of the stabilising aspect of
AFC.
The review of the successfulness of alternative AFC strategies is
made difficult, as follow-up reports of implemented control strategies
are uncommon, as noted by McKee (1991); who suggested that this
was because most control systems do not remain in operation for
periods of years after installation and are shut down. Furthermore,
Wills and Napier-Munn (2006) add that few (if any) plants can claim
to have fully automated control systems that can run the plant un-
supervised for long periods of time. Thus it seems that despite the
large body of literature devoted to the subject, the successful
application of AFC (and indeed OFC) techniques into industrial
application have been largely unsuccessful. Reasons given for this in
literature include:
• Design of control systems are insufficiently thought out during plant
design stages (Narraway et al., 1991; Thwaites, 2007; Bergh and
Yianatos, 2011); and major control variables are often only
identified once the plant is operational (Wills and Napier-Munn,
2006). This commonly results in poorly designed, incompetent,
control systems being installed on new plants; with later (often
inadequate) modifications being required; or additional ad-hoc
control systems being added on as ‘after-thoughts’.
• A vast knowledge of control systems and jargon is required to
develop, install and maintain A/OFC systems; with the majority of
operators/metallurgists/management not having a background in
control engineering (Hodouin et al., 2001; Thwaites, 2007; Wills
and Napier-Munn, 2006).
• As already discussed, the non-linear, complex behaviour of flotation
systems complicates modelling attempts; making the design of
robust, effective controllers – that can deal with large ranges of
operating conditions – difficult.
It is partially for these reasons (specifically the latter two) that
Wills and Napier-Munn (2006) argue that the best control systems
are those that interact with the operator (i.e. supervisory control
systems), giving explanations, when alterations to setpoints/variables
of base level flotation control systems are required; and as such,
experienced, conscientious operators currently remain a competitive
alternative towards any automated control system.
According to Gupta and Yan (2006), there are broadly two types of
AFC used in mineral processing (a hybrid between the two is also
possible). These are:
• Use of model-based methods
• Use of expert control systems
The evolution and current trends of each of these branches will
now be discussed.
4.2.1. Model-based methods in advanced flotation control
Model-based methods can be further sub-categorised into two
categories, namely: empirical and phenomenological modelling (Polat
and Chander, 2000).
Empirical models make use of statistical methods to relate
measured input and output plant data, such that multivariable models
relating between two or more independent and dependant variables
can be established and used for predictive control (e.g. controlling
65
collector addition rate based on concentrate grade). Furthermore,
continual analysis of plant data and corrective adjustment of the
predictive (model-based) controller make it adaptive to changing
conditions (i.e. adaptive control). Adaptive control is especially
important within the context of flotation control, which is prone to
non-linear, complex behaviour. As such, many predictive flotation
control systems often (but not always) include adaptive control
aspects. By 1991, Thornton noted that although the amount of
literature devoted to multi-variable model-based control was exten-
sive, the number of applications in industry was still comparatively
small; with McKee (1991) noting that 5 control strategies were
particularly common at the time (and largely remain so). These are:
• “Feed back control of collector addition to maintain recovery set points.
• Feed forward control of collector based on the calculated metal content
of the new feed.
• Maintaining concentrate flows within limits, usually by varying
aeration rates or pulp levels.
• Maintaining circulating loads within limits, again by variation of
aeration rates or pulp levels.
• Controlling aeration rates or pulp level to obtain concentrate grade set
points.”
Despite the apparent popularity of adaptive multivariable model-
based controllers, Desbiens et al. (1994), and Gupta and Yan (2006)
note issues with the stability of adaptive control; with the controllers
becoming saturated, and un-adaptive, after a period of time.
Moreover, in spite of the majority of the predictive multivariable
control strategies being based on empirical correlations, research and
development of phenomenological models – whereby relationships
between cause and effect are devised through an understanding of the
physics of the flotation process – for use in predictive controllers was
also conducted. As such, phenomenological modelling methods can
broadly be classified into 3 groups; namely: kinetics, population
balance and probabilistic based modelling (Polat and Chander, 2000).
The success of phenomenological modelling, within an AFC context, is
debatable.
The use of first-order flotation kinetics modelling is thoroughly
covered by Polat and Chander (2000), and has undoubtedly received
the most attention in literature. Kinetics modelling “is based on
the assumptions that the rate of the particle–bubble collision process is
first-order with respect to the number of particles and that the
bubble concentration remains constant”. Numerous batch experiments
(Imaizumi and Inoue, 1963; Tomlinson and Flemming, 1963; Harris
and Chakravarti, 1970; Jameson et al., 1977; Dowling et al., 1985;
Rastogi and Aplan, 1985) and continuous flotation tests (Jowett and
Safvi, 1960) support the use of the first-order rate equation. This has
allowed a flotation cell to be modelled using the chemical reactor
analogy; whereby the removal of solids from the pulp phase is defined
by a first order rate equation. This means a bank of cells can be
approximated by perfectly mixed CSTR's in series (Gaudin, 1957;
Niemi and Paakkinen, 1969; Atkins et al., 1986; Yianatos and
Hendrìquez, 2006). Subsequently, efforts have been made to
accurately determine the so called ‘over-all flotation rate constant’
(or k). This is not trivial, as k is dependent on particle size, degree of
liberation, air flowrate, agitation, etc. To account for this, various
continuous distribution functions of k have been devised (Polat and
Chander, 2000); although previous reviews by Dowling et al. (1985)
conclude that no single distribution model could sufficiently repre-
sent k; and Roesch et al. (1976), suggest that attempts based on the
first order kinetics assumption are “approximative and hide secondary
details”.
Alternatively, a population balance model is presented by Bascar
(1982), Bascar and Herbst (1982), and Bascur (2000). The three phase
model represents each mineralogical species and particle size, with
each particle species being classed according to state in the slurry (i.e.
free in pulp, attached to bubble in pulp, free in the froth, attached to
66 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
bubble in froth). Kinetic equations relate transfer of particles between
slurry states and hydrodynamic considerations (e.g. power dissipa-
tion into pulp, gas holdup in pulp, etc.) are incorporated into the
population balance. This makes it possible to simulate the effects of
manipulated variables such as air flowrate, pulp level, agitation, etc.
on a flotation process.
Despite much research into both empirical and phenomenological
based modelling, authors such as Bergh and Yianatos (2011) and
McKee (1991) highlight several issues that still exist; the latter
concluding that “Multivariate predictive control is ideally the solution
for high quality control. However, to be applicable without losing its
benefits, good measurements, acceptable regulatory control of local
objectives (i.e. base level controls), reliable dynamic models, explicitly
stated process constraints and new methods to promote robustness are
needed. Flotation processes have weaknesses in most of those aspects.” It
is for reasons such as these that expert control systems (where
decision making by operators is automated by use of artificial
intelligence) are used.
4.2.2. Expert systems in advanced flotation control
The potential of expert systems in the mineral industry was
recognised as early as 1983 (Bearman and Milne, 1992); and were
introduced into A/OFC as modelling of flotation systems is difficult,
they are suitable for the handling of non-linear systems, and they
automate (and standardise) decision making by operators. Although
several methods of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based control systems
exist, three important techniques include:
• Artificial neural networks (ANN) — data-driven computing devices,
comprising of a large number of neurons, inter-connected by a pre-
determined network of synapses on a large scale. These neurons are
arranged in several layers and adjustable numerical weights are
associated with the connecting synapse network (see Fig. 3). Neural
networks are trained by iteratively updating the associated weight
matrix, such that a set of outputs can be predicted for a given set of
inputs. As such, an ANN based controller can be ‘taught’ how to
manipulate base level control system's setpoints to maintain a given
metallurgical objective; an example being the changing of collector
addition rate to maintain recovery (Aldrich et al., 1997; Gupta and
Yan, 2006) (Fig. 4).
• Inductive machine learning — makes use of mathematical models to
generate rules and form induced decision trees, and is based on the
concept of information entropy. A set of samples, each with a
corresponding vector of classifying attributes (e.g. bubble size, froth
velocity, etc.) is assessed. The vector is then split according to the
most informative attribute (each split forming a branch of the
decision tree); with each newly formed subset subsequently being
re-split (according to a different attribute) until each subset consists
Fig. 4. Simplified diagram of a neural network (Gupta and Yan, 2006).
of examples of a specific class. As such, a given system (e.g. a froth
surface) can be categorised — and appropriate control action taken if
required (Aldrich et al., 1997; Filipic and Junkar, 2000).
• Fuzzy logic — reasoning that serves to be approximate rather than
precise. Compared with binary logic, where a result is false or true
(or quantitatively 0 or 1), fuzzy logic caters for a degree of truth
(anywhere between 0 and 1). Flotation system parameters (e.g.
pulp level) are divided into fuzzy sets (according to defined
membership functions), which can subsequently be combined to
form fuzzy subsets. A response to a fuzzy set/subset is then applied,
using IF–THEN rule based strategies (Gupta and Yan, 2006). For
example, if froth velocity and air rate are the variables being
arranged into fuzzy subsets, the control logic might be something
like: IF froth velocity is low AND air rate is high, THEN decrease froth
depth; ELSE IF froth velocity is low AND air rate is low/medium,
THEN increase air rate; ELSE do nothing.
One area in which AI has been used extensively is the identification
and categorisation of froth images from machine vision. Aldrich et al.
(1997) trialled and compared inductive learning techniques with a
back-propagation neural net method in industry; with all methods
being found to be equally capable of classification of various froth
features. Similarly, Cipriano et al. (1998) used rule-based expert
control, combined with machine vision, to control rougher cells. The
supervisory controller was able to identify froth characteristics and
subsequently suggest actions to be taken to the operators. More
recently, Supomo et al. (2008) reported on the successful use of the
commercial control software VisioFroth on PT Freeport, in Indonesia.
The system combines expert control with machine vision to control
mass pull, and has reportedly resulted in increased recovery.
Similarly, PlantVision by KnowledgeScape also makes use of expert
control.
In a comparison between expert control and multivariable model-
based control methods, Zavala et al. (1995) compared a supervisory
system of multiple SISO PID regulators, a multivariable model-based
predictive controller and an expert rule-based controller on a
simulated flotation system. The findings included that: the expert
system readily became saturated, the PID controllers were difficult to
tune, while the model-based controller required a linear model of the
system; the suitability of such a model to handle all disturbance types/
magnitudes being unlikely. Tighter control was obtained with the
model-based controllers. Subsequent studies by Pérez-correa et al.
(1998) and Osorio et al. (1999) altered the model-based controllers to
become more flexible to varying conditions (although a high degree of
on-line mathematical manipulation was required); and altered the
expert controllers to avoid control saturation while achieving high
recoveries — despite severe simulated input disturbances.
The combination of AI and model-based methods is also possible.
Cubillos and Lima (1997, 1998) noted that using ANN to model
flotation systems is problematic (due to the many associated degrees
of freedom and the heavy computational requirements). However,
such issues are averted, and the full advantages of ANN realised, by
implementing neural network systems into predictive model-based
control systems, such that the AI system is responsible for updating/
modifying constants within the model with time; thus allowing the
hybrid controller to remain adaptive. Testing of this hybrid control
strategy offered promising results, with the controller reportedly
being robust and flexible.
5. Optimising flotation control
The upper-most tier of process control in flotation is OFC, which by
definition aims to maximise the financial feasibility of the process.
This is achieved by determining where on the theoretical grade–
recovery curve is most profitable to operate and, subsequently, shifting
the operating point orthogonally to further maximise profit (see Fig. 5).
 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
Fig. 5. Grade–recovery curve illustrating optimising control objective (Wills and
Napier-Munn, 2006).
This in turn creates recovery and/or concentrate grade setpoints for the
lower AFC/base level control structures (Laurila et al., 2002). However,
OFC should only affect lower control levels if the process is at steady
state (McKee, 1991).
Grade–recovery curves vary according to feed grade and can be
altered through manipulation of plant operating variables such as air
rates. In this way, grade–recovery curves can be optimised (Neethling
and Cilliers, 2008). An example of this is presented by Hadler and
Cilliers (2009), whereby the grade–recovery curve for a bank of four
rougher cells was optimised by maximising the stability of the froth
within each cell.
The use of froth stability as a parameter was first presented by
Moys (1984), who published a study whereby the horizontal velocity
of the froth could be related to the froth stability, α (also defined as
the air recovered into the launder in the form of unbroken bubbles).
Using this quantitative measure of froth stability, Woodburn et al.
(1994) developed a semi-empirical froth-based flotation model that
combines a conceptual froth structure with the kinetics of flotation;
the latter being based on the flux of bubble surface area overflowing
from the cell (see Eq. (1)).
ΨB = αQ a Sb ≈ðζvf hwÞ Sb
In this model the flux of bubble surface area (ΨB) is calculated
from the volumetric air flowrate into the cell (Qa), the specific bubble
area (Sb) and the air recovery, α. This is approximately the same as
relating ΨB to the specific bubble area, froth velocity (vf), froth height
(h), weir length (w) and the volume fraction of the froth that is air (ζ),
usually taken as unity. This relationship was simplified by Barbian
et al. (2003), who suggested the value of α can be calculated by
Eq. (2).
α≈ζ vf h w=Q a
Barbian et al. (2003, 2005, 2006) measured froth stability at
laboratory and industrial scales using two different methods; air
recovery and the Froth Stability Column. The air recovery was
determined using image analysis to measure the froth velocity, with
the overflowing froth height being measured visually. The Froth
Stability Column is an alternative measure of froth stability compris-
ing a non-overflowing column in which the froth rises unhindered.
The rate of froth growth and maximum froth height achieved are used
to give a quantitative measure of froth stability. A good correlation
was shown between the two froth stability measures, suggesting the
potential for both as future measures of froth stability at an industrial
scale. Of greater interest, however, were the results shown by Barbian
et al. (2006), where a peak in froth stability was shown as the air
flowrate increased. A peak in air recovery (or ‘PAR’) was also shown in
the study by Hadler and Cilliers (2009), in which air flowrate was
67
varied to four cells in a rougher bank, and the air rate that yielded the
PAR identified in each of the cells. Moreover it was shown that
operating the cells at their PAR air rates resulted in a higher mineral
recovery being obtained.
The link between operating cells at PAR air rates and improved
flotation performance was also shown in studies presented by Smith
et al. (2010) and Hadler et al. (2010), where it was shown that
optimising air recovery in a bank of cells resulted in either a higher
concentrate grade, a higher mineral recovery, or in many cases both.
This has important implications for control as air recovery is a single
quantitative variable that can be measured and maximised; and the
process optimised in terms of grade and recovery.
Other methods of OFC exist; some using modelling and others
resorting to expert control methods.
5.1. Modelling-based methods in optimising flotation control
Many model-based optimising flotation controllers are algorithms
that locate the optimal operating point on the grade–recovery curve;
and then present recovery and grade setpoints to lower control
systems and/or plant operators/management. Flintoff (1992) presents
the principal of iso-economic contours; which are presented as
negatively sloped straight lines on a grade–recovery curve that are
calculated according to the price of final product, smelting costs,
transportation costs, etc. The optimal operating position is then found
by locating the point at which the calculated iso-economic contour is
tangent to the grade–recovery curve (generated from plant data).
Other modelling-based optimising controllers are more complex,
and also consider operating parameter limits and technical details (i.e.
not solely economical factors). Muñoz and Cipriano (1999) present a
model-based control strategy that aims to both regulate and optimise
a combined primary grinding and flotation circuit. The optimising
branch of the controller aims to maximise financial profit using non-
linear dynamic modelling; encompassing both technical (e.g. mill
power limits, sump level limits, etc.) and economic criteria (e.g. metal
prices, grinding costs, etc.). More recently, Maldonado et al. (2007),
proposed a method “considering phenomenological models for each
flotation bank of the circuit, validated using process data obtained from
ð1Þ several sampling surveys.... The control objective is the minimisation of
the Cu tailing grade in each bank given a final Cu concentrate grade.” This
is achieved through dynamic programming methods, such that non-
linear behaviour can be accounted for; with promising simulation
results being obtained.
5.2. Expert methods in optimising flotation control
Laurila et al. (2002) suggest “new expert systems are concentrating
to solve the issue of feed type classification, which is a challenging and
important task.” It has already been mentioned that the grade–
ð2Þ recovery curve is a function of the ore type, and hence it is logical that
operating parameters and dosing rates should be altered accordingly
if possible. Laine (1995) adds that the performance of such a control
strategy is decided by the ability of the system to effectively classify
the feed ore, which in turn is dependent on the information received
by the classification algorithm. The on-line measurement technique
must extract adequate useful information; whilst the algorithm must
be able to effectively (and readily) classify ore into one of the defined
ore type classes. This would allow for a feedforward type controller to
alter upstream operating parameters so as to optimally process each
defined ore type. An example of such an expert system is presented by
Jämsä-Jounela et al. (2000); where Kohonen self organising maps
(a type of ANN) are used for classification of the ore feed information
gathered from instrumentation. Once the ore is classified, the expert
control system alters the setpoints of lower control systems and sends
information to operators; with the performance being indicated by an
“economical success index display”.
68 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71

Table 3
Summary of literature review focusing on various types of control.

Branch Type References

Modelling based Feedback predictive MIMO Hodouin et al. (1993)

Feedback and feedforward predictive MIMO Del Villar et al.(1999); Desbiens et al. (1998b); Ding and Gustafsson
(1999); Hodouin et al. (2000); Hulbert (1995); Zavala et al. (1995)
Non-linear mathematical modelling Benaskeur and Desbiens (1999); Delport (2005); Desbiens et al. (1998a);
Maldonado et al. (2007)
Adaptive control Desbiens et al. (1994); Jämsä-Jounela (1992); Sbarbaro (1999); Thornton
(1991)
Modelling/AI based hybrids Hierarchical combination of expert Bergh et al. (1995); Cubillos and Lima (1997, 1998); Gaulocher et al.
and modelling (2008); Núñez et al. (2010)
AI based Supervisory control Benford and Meech (1992); Bergh et al. (1996, 1998, 1999); Bergh and
Yianatos (1999); Cipriano et al. (1991); McKay and Ynchausti (1996)
Fuzzy logic Carvalho and Durão (1999, 2000, 2002); Cipriano et al. (1998); Hirajima
et al. (1991); Osorio et al. (1999); Suichies et al. (1998, 2000)
Neural networks Aldrich et al. (1997); Cortez and Durão (1995); Durão and Cortez (1995);
Moolman et al. (1995d)
Inductive learning Aldrich et al. (1997)
Integrated flotation and grinding control Modelling and/or AI based Bascur (1991); Muñoz and Cipriano (1999); Pulkkinen et al. (1993); Sosa-
Blanco et al. (2000)

However, despite the various OFC strategies outlined in literature,
many mineral processing plants currently rely on operators and plant
management to manually select setpoints of lower control systems,
based on past experience, in order to optimise the process (Laurila
et al., 2002).
6. Examples of approaches found in advanced/optimising
flotation control
Various methods of achieving AFC and OFC have been discussed. A
summary of examples using some of these different advanced
methods are presented in Table 3 (adapted from (Hodouin et al.,
2001)). It should be noted that although the methods are divided into
groups, some overlap between methods is inevitable (e.g. adaptive
model-based controllers are inevitably also classed as predictive
controllers).
7. Commercial advanced/optimising flotation control software
Various commercial A/OFC systems are available on the market
and have been trialled and implemented in industry; many of which
have already been mentioned in this communication.
One such control package is the FloatStar suite; which consists of
FloatStar Level Stabiliser, FloatStar pH controller, FloatStar Flow
Optimiser (these first three have already been discussed), FloatStar
Grade–Recovery Optimiser and FloatStar Reagent Optimiser. FloatStar
Grade–Recovery Optimiser, an OFC, uses online grade analysis to
ensure that recovery is maximised for a specified grade; through
manipulation of level, air flowrate, re-circulating load and reagent
addition setpoints across the plant. FloatStar Reagent Optimiser uses a
combination of control approaches (such as fuzzy logic and non-linear
multivariable predictive control) to automate the manipulation of
reagent addition rates (see Fig. 6; www.mintek.co.za).
Several commercial systems make use of machine vision; these
include: VisioFroth by Metso (www.metso.com), FrothMaster by
Outotec (www.outotec.com) and PlantVision by KnowledgeScape
(www.kscape.com). Measured variables include froth velocity, bubble
size distribution, stability and colour. Expert systems are used to
manipulate variables such as pulp level, air addition rate, reagent
addition and/or water addition in a bid to increase recovery at a set (or
improved) concentrate grade. Each of these systems has been
successfully trialled and incorporated on plants. For example, VisioFroth
was successfully implemented on the PT Freeport plant in Indonesia
(Supomo et al., 2008) (Table 4).
8. Conclusions
Despite several advances in base level controls since the 1970s,
reports of fully automated advanced and optimising flotation control
systems operating successfully (and unassisted) for long periods
remain scarce. It is hoped, however, that through continued
development of new, robust technologies (e.g. machine vision and
air recovery measurement) and the continued simplification/modifi-
cations of plant designs (requiring less-intricate control systems),
long term, automated advanced and optimising flotation control
will be achievable. Such an outcome would indeed be financially
rewarding.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof. Raymond Shaw, Dr. Stephen
Neethling and Dr. Kathryn Hadler of Imperial College London for their
valuable input and advice.

References
Atkins, J.E., Barton, G.W., Johnston, R.D., 1986. Synthesis and evaluation of alternative
Fig. 6. Graphical representation of a fuzzy logic generated reagent addition calculation, based control schemes for a chalcopyrite flotation circuit. International Journal of Mineral
on concentrate and tailings grade by FloatStar Reagent Optimiser (www.mintek.co.za). Processing 16, 29–42.
 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
Table 4
Summary of commercial packages (Aldrich et al., 2010).
System AceFlot Frothmaster
Company/institution Outokumpu, Finland
Year of launch 1994 1996
Major installations Chile Finland, Cadia Valley (Australia),
Macraes (New Zealand)
Aldrich, C., Moolman, D.W., Eksteen, J.J., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 1995. Characterization of
flotation processes with self-organizing neural nets. Chemical Engineering
Communications 139, 25–39.
Aldrich, C., Moolman, D.W., Douws, F.S., Schmitz, G.P.J., 1997. Machine learning strategies
for control of flotation plants. Control Engineering Practise 5 (2), 263–269.
Aldrich, C., Marais, C., Shean, B.J., Cilliers, J.J., 2010. On-line monitoring and control of
froth flotation systems with machine vision: a review. International Journal of
Mineral Processing 96 (1-4), 1–13.
Arbiter, N., Harris, C.C., 1962. Flotation kinetics. In: Fuerstenau, D.W. (Ed.), Froth
Flotation. Edward Brothers Inc., New York, pp. 215–246.
Banford, A.W., Aktas, Z., Woodburn, E.T., 1998. Interpretation of the effect of froth
structure on the performance of froth flotation using image analysis. Powder
Technology 98 (1), 61–73.
Barbian, N., Ventura-Medina, E., Cilliers, J.J., 2003. Dynamic froth stability in froth
flotation. Minerals Engineering 16, 1111–1116.
Barbian, N., Hadler, K., Ventura-Medina, E., Cilliers, J.J., 2005. The froth stability column:
linking froth stability and flotation performance. Minerals Engineering 18 (3),
317–324.
Barbian, N., Hadler, K., Cilliers, J.J., 2006. The froth stability column: measuring froth
stability at an industrial scale. Minerals Engineering 19 (6–8), 713–718.
Barbian, N., Cilliers, J.J., Morar, S.H., Bradshaw, D.J., 2007. Froth imaging, air recovery and
bubble loading to describe flotation bank performance. International Journal of
Mineral Processing 84 (1–4), 81–88.
Bartolacci, G., Ourriban, M., Bouajila, A., Gomez, C., Finch, J., Goyette, G., 2008. On-site
use of hydrodynamic sensors to improve metallurgical performance of flotation
machines. In: Kuyvenhoven, R., Gomez, C., Casali, A. (Eds.), Procemin2008, V
International Mineral Processing Seminar, pp. 357–366. Chapter 6.
Bartolacci, G., Pelletier Jr., P., Tessier Jr., J., Duchesne, C., Bossé, P.-A., Fournier, J., 2006.
Application of numerical image analysis to process diagnosis and physical
parameter measurement in mineral processes — part I: flotation control based on
froth textural characteristics. Minerals Engineering 19 (6–8), 734–747.
Bascar, O.A., 1982. Modelling and computer control of a flotation cell. PhD thesis,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Bascar, O.A., Herbst, J.A., 1982. Dynamic modelling of a flotation cell with a view toward
automatic control. XIV IMPC, CIM, Toronto, Canada.
Bascur, O.A., 1991. Integrated grinding/flotation controls and management. In: Dobby,
G.S., Argyropoulos, S.A., Rao, S.R. (Eds.), Proceedings of copper 91, 2. Pergamon
Press, Oxford, pp. 411–428.
Bascur, O.A., 2000. An interactive dynamic flotation model framework. Proceedings of
XIV International Mineral Processing Congress, Rome, Italy, pp. 21–31.
Bearman, R.A., Milne, R.W., 1992. Expert systems: opportunities in the minerals
industry. Minerals Engineering 5 (10–12), 1307–1323.
Benaskeur, A.R., Desbiens, A., 1999. Lyapunov-based decentralised control of a rougher
flotation phenomenological simulator. In: Hodouin, D., Bazin, C., Desbiens, A. (Eds.),
Control and Optimisation in Minerals, Metals and Materials Processing, pp. 323–332.
Benford, P.M., Meech, J.A., 1992. An advisory package for flotation operators using a
real-time expert system. Mineral Engineering 5 (10–12), 1325–1331.
Bennett, M.A., West, R.M., Luke, S.P., Williams, R.A., 2002. The investigation of bubble
column and foam processes using electrical capacitance tomography. Minerals
Engineering 15, 225–234.
Bergh, L.G., Yianatos, J.B., Acuña, C.P., 1995. Hierarchical control strategy for flotation
columns. Minerals Engineering 8 (12), 1583–1591.
Bergh, L.G., Yianatos, J.B., Cartes, F., 1996. Hierarchical control strategy in columns at El
Teniente. In: Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Column Flotation, Column '96. CIM, Montreal, pp. 369–380.
Bergh, L.G., Yianatos, J.B., Leiva, C.A., 1998. Fuzzy supervisory control of flotation
columns. Minerals Engineering 11 (8), 739–748.
Bergh, L.G., Yianatos, J.B., Acuña, C.A., Pérez, H., López, F., 1999. Supervisory control at
Salvador flotation columns. Minerals Engineering 12 (7), 733–744.
Bergh, L.G., Yianatos, J.B., 1999. Supervisory control experience on large industrial
flotation columns. In: Hodouin, D., Bazin, C., Desbiens, A. (Eds.), Control and
Optimisation in Minerals, Metals and Materials Processing, pp. 299–310.
Bergh, L.G., Yianatos, J.B., 2011. The long way toward multivariate predictive control of
flotation processes. Journal of Process Control 21, 226–234.
Berglund, G., 1991. Pulp chemistry in sulphide mineral flotation. International Journal
of Mineral Processing 33, 21–31.
Bezuidenhout, M., Van Deventer, J.S.J., Moolman, D.W., 1997. The identification of
perturbations in a base metal flotation plant using computer vision of the froth
surface. Minerals Engineering 10 (10), 1057–1073.
Bonifazi, G., Massicci, P., Meloni, A., 2000. Prediction of complex sulfide flotation
performances by a combined 3D fractal and colour analysis of the froths. Minerals
Engineering 13 (7), 737–746.
Bonifazi, G., Giacontieri, V., Serranti, S., Volpe, F., 2005a. A full color digital imaging
based approach to characterize flotation froth: an experience in Pyhaslami and
69
JKFrothCam SmartFroth VisioFroth
JKMRC, Australia UCT, South Africa Metso
1999 2000 2001
Australia Anglo Platinum (South Africa) Escondida (Chile), Freeport
(Indonesia), Australia
Garpenberg plants. Beijing International Conference on Imaging: Technology and
Applications for the 21st Century, pp. 172–173.
Bonifazi, G., Serranti, S., Volpe, F. And, Zuco, R., 2005b. Characterization of flotation froth
colour and structure by machine vision. Computers and Geosciences 27 (9), 1111–1117.
Botha, C.P. 1999. An online machine vision froth flotation analysis platform. M.Sc.
thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Bruckard, W.J., Kyriakidis, I., Woodcock, J.T., 2007. The flotation of metallic arsenic as a
function of pH and pulp potential — a single mineral study. International Journal of
Mineral Processing 84, 25–32.
Carr, D., Dixon, A., Tiili, O., 2009. Optimising large flotation cell performance through
advanced instrumentation and control. Proceedings of 10th Mill Operators
Conference, Adelaide, 2009, pp. 299–304.
Carvalho, M.T., Durão, F., 1999. Performance of a flotation column fuzzy controller.
In: Mastorakis, M.E. (Ed.), Computer and Computational Engineering in Control,
pp. 220–225. Athens.
Carvalho, M.T., Durão, F., 2000. Strategies for fuzzy control of a water/air column.
Proceedings of the XXI International Mineral Processing Congress, pp. 17-23.
Carvalho, M.T., Durão, F., 2002. Control of a flotation column using fuzzy logic inference.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 125, 121–133.
Chander, S., Fuerstenau, D.W., 1975. Electrochemical reaction control of contact angles
on copper and synthetic chalcocite in aqueous potassium diethyldithiophosphate
solutions. International Journal of Mineral Processing 2, 333–352.
Cipriano, A., Medina, A., Martinez, C., Gonzalez, G., 1991. Supervisor and control
strategy for a flotation plant. Proceedings of the IFAC Workshop on Expert Systems
in Minerals and Metals Process, Helsinki.
Cipriano, A., Guarini, M., Vidal, R., Soto, A., Sepúlveda, C., Mery, D., Briseño, H., 1998. A real time
visual sensor for supervision of flotation cells. Minerals Engineering 11 (6), 489–499.
Clark, D.W., Newell, A.J.H., Chilman, G.F., Capps, P.G., 2000. Improving flotation recovery
of copper sulphides by nitrogen gas and sulphidisation conditioning. Minerals
Engineering 13 (12), 1197–1206.
Cortez, L., Durão, F., 1995. An expert neural network to control a mineral flotation
process. Proceedings of the XXV APCOM, Brisbane, pp. 431–436.
Cubillos, F.A., Lima, E.L., 1997. Identification and optimising control of a rougher
flotation circuit using an adaptable hybrid-neural model. Mineral Engineering 10
(7), 707–721.
Cubillos, F.A., Lima, E.L., 1998. Adaptive hybrid neural models for process control.
Computers and Chemical Engineering 22, S989–S992 (suppl.).
Cutting, G.W., Barber, S.P., Newton, S., 1986. Effects of froth structure and mobility on
the performance and simulation of continuously operated flotation cells.
International Journal of Mineral Processing 16, 43–61.
Delport, R., 2005, Process identification using second order volterra models for
nonlinear model predictive control design of flotation circuits M.Sc. thesis,
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Pretoria.
Del Villar, R., Grégoire, M., Pomerleau, A., 1999. Control of bias and level in a laboratory
flotation column. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral
Processors. CIM, Ottawa, pp. 425–442.
Desbiens, A., Hodouin, D., Najim, K., Flament, F., 1994. Long-range predictive control of a
rougher flotation unit. Mineral Engineering 7 (1), 21–37.
Desbiens, A., del Villar, R., Milot, M., 1998a. Identification and gain-scheduled control of
a pilot flotation column. In automation in mining, mineral and metal processing.
Proceedings of an IFAC Symposium. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 337–342.
Desbiens, A., Hodouin, D., Mailloux, M., 1998b. Non-linear predictive control of a rougher
flotation unit using local models. Automation in Mining, Mineral and Metal Processing.
Proceedings of an IFAC Symposium. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 297–302.
Ding, L., Gustafsson, T., 1999. Modelling and control of a flotation process. In: Hodouin,
D., Bazin, Desbiens, A. (Eds.), Control and Optimization in Minerals, Metals, and
Materials Processing. Metallurgical Society of the CIM, Montréal, pp. 285–298.
Dowling, E.C., Klimpel, R.R., Aplan, F.F., 1985. Model discrimination in the flotation of a
porphyry copper ore. Mineral and Metallurgical 87–101 (May).
Durão, F., Cortez, L., 1995. Neural network controller of a flotation process. Proceedings
of the XIXth IMPC, Vol. 1, pp. 245–250.
Estrada-Ruiz, R.H., Perez-Garibay, R., 2009. Effect of particle size on the flotation
performance of a complex sulphide ore. Journal of the Southern African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy 109 (7), 441–446.
Filipic, B., Junkar, M., 2000. Using inductive machine learning to support decision
making in machining processes. Computers in Industry 42, 31–41.
Flintoff, B.C., 1992. Measurement issues in quality control. Presented at the 1992
Toronto CMP Branch Meeting.
Forbes, G., De Jager, G., 2004a. Bubble size distribution for froth classification.
Sixteenth Annual Symposium of the Pattern Recognition Association of South
Africa, pp. 99–104. Langebaan, South Africa.
Forbes, G., De Jager, G., 2004b. Texture measures for improved watershed segmentation
of froth images. Fifteenth Annual Symposium of the Pattern Recognition
Association of South Africa, pp. 1–6. Grabouw, South Africa.
70 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
Forbes, G., De Jager, G., Bradshaw, D.J., 2006. Effective use of bubble size distribution
measurements. XXIII International Mineral Processing Congress, pp. 554–559.
Istanbul, Turkey.
Forbes, G., de Jager, G., 2007. Unsupervised classification of dynamic froths. SAIEE Africa
Research Journal 98 (2), 38–44.
Garrido, C., Toledo, H., San Martin, P., Villanueva, A., 2008. Calibration methodology and
calibration maintenance in courier analyzers for copper — molybdenum flotation
process. In: Kuyvenhoven, R., Gomez, C., Casali, A. (Eds.), Procemin2008, V
International Mineral Processing Seminar, pp. 339–345. Chapter 6.
Gaudin, A.M., 1957. Flotation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gaulocher, S., Gallestey, E., Lindvall, H., 2008. Advanced process control of a froth
flotation circuit. In: Kuyvenhoven, R., Gomez, C., Casali, A. (Eds.), Procemin2008, V
International Mineral Processing Seminar, pp. 327–337. Chapter 6.
Gebhardt, J.E., Tolley, W.K., Ahn, J.H., 1993. Color measurements of minerals and
mineralized froths. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 10 (2), 96–99.
Glembotskii, V.A., 1972. Flotation. Primary Sources, New York.
Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2007. Gas dispersion measurements in flotation cells.
International Journal of Mineral Processing 84, 51–58.
Gomez, C.O., Cortes-Lopez, F., Finch, J.A., 2003. Industrial testing of a gas holdup sensor
for flotation systems. Minerals Engineering 16, 493–501.
Green, D.W., Perry, R.H., 2007. Perry's chemical engineers' handbook, 8th edition. Mc-
Graw Hill. Section 8 – Process Control.
Guo, H., Yen, W.-T., 2005. Selective flotation of enargite from chalcopyrite by
electrochemical control. Minerals Engineering 18, 605–612.
Gupta, A., Yan, D.S., 2006. Mineral processing design and operation, First edition.
pp. 622–671. Chapter 18.
Haavisto, O., Kaartinen, J., Hyötyniemi, H., 2008. Optical spectrum based measurement
of flotation slurry contents. International Journal of Mineral Processing 88, 80–88.
Hadler, K., Cilliers, J.J., 2009. The relationship between the peak in air recovery and
flotation bank performance. Minerals Engineering 22, 451–455.
Hadler, K., Smith, C.D., Cilliers, J.J., 2010. Recovery vs. mass pull: the link to air recovery.
Minerals Engineering 22, 994–1002.
Hamilton, J.A., Guy, P.J., 2000. Pulp level control for flotation — options and a CSIRO
laboratory perspective. Minerals Engineering 14 (1), 77–86.
Hargrave, J.M., Miles, N.J., Hall, S.T., 1996. The use of grey level measurement in
predicting coal flotation performance. Minerals Engineering 9 (6), 667–674.
Hargrave, J.M., Hall, S.T., 1997. Diagnosis of concentrate grade and mass flowrate in tin
flotation from colour and surface texture analysis. Minerals Engineering 10 (6),
613–621.
Hargrave, J.M., Brown, G.J., Hall, S.T., 1998. A fractal characterisation of the structure of
coal froths. Coal Preparation 19 (1–2), 69–82.
Harris, C.C., Chakravarti, A., 1970. Semi-batch flotation kinetics: species distribution
analysis. Transactions AIME 247, 162–176.
Hayes, R.A., Ralston, J., 1988. The collectorless flotation and separation of sulphide
minerals by Eh control. International Journal of Mineral Processing 23, 55–84.
Henning, R.G.D., Schubert, J.H., Atasoy, Y., 1998. Improved flotation performance at
Fimiston plant through better level control. Presented at International Symposium
on Gold Recovery, Montreal.
Hicyilmaz, C., Emre Altun, N., Ekmekci, Z., Gokagac, G., 2004. Quantifying hydropho-
bicity of pyrite after copper activation and DTPI addition under electrochemically
controlled conditions. Minerals Engineering 17, 879–890.
Hintikka, V.V., Leppinen, J.O., 1995. Potential control in the flotation of sulphide
minerals and precious metals. Minerals Engineering 8 (10), 1151–1158.
Hirajima, T., Takamori, T., Tsunekawa, M., Matsubara, T., Oshima, K., Imai, T., Sawaki, K.,
Kubo, S., 1991. The application of fuzzy logic to control concentrate grade in column
flotation at Toyoha mines. Proceedings of international conference on column
flotation '91, Sudbury, Canada, Vol. 2, pp. 375–389.
Hodouin, D., Flament, F., Bazin, C., 1993. Predictive control of flotation plants.
Emerging Computer Techniques for the Minerals Industry. SME, Littleton,
Colarado, pp. 3–12.
Hodouin, D., Bazin, C., Gagnon, E., Flament, F., 2000. Feedforward–feedback predictive
control of a simulated flotation bank. Powder Technology 108, 173–179.
Hodouin, D., Jämsä-Jounela, S.-L., Carvalho, M.T., Bergh, L., 2001. State of the art and
challenges in mineral processing control. Control Engineering Practise 9, 995–1005.
Holtham, P.N., Nguyen, K.K., 2002. On-line analysis of froth surface in coal and mineral
flotation using JKFrothCam. International Journal of Mineral Processing 64 (2–3),
163–180.
Hulbert, D.G., 1995. Multivariable control of pulp levels in flotation circuits. Automation
in Mining, Mineral and Metal Processing, Proceedings of an IFAC Symposium.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 309–314.
Hyötyniemi, H., Ylinen, R., 2000. Modelling of visual flotation froth data. Control
Engineering Practice 8 (3), 313–318.
Imaizumi, T., Inoue, T., 1963. Kinetic consideration of froth flotation as a rate process.
Proc. VI Int. Min. Proc. Congr., Cannes, p. 581.
Jameson, G.J., Nam, S., Moo Young, M., 1977. Physical factors affecting recovery rates in
flotation. Mineral Science and Engineering 9, 103–108.
Jämsä-Jounela, S.-L., 1992. Simulation study of self-tuning adaptive control for rougher
flotation. Powder Technology 69, 33–46.
Jämsä-Jounela, S.-L., Karesvuori, J., Laurila, H., 2000. Flotation process neural data analysis
and on-line monitoring. In: Tagami, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual
Operator's Conference of the Canadian Mineral Processors, pp. 441–457. Ottawa.
Jeanmeure, L.F.C., Zimmerman, W.B.J., 1998. CNN video based control system for a coal
froth flotation. Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Cellular Neural
Networks and Their Applications, pp. 192–197.
Jowett, A., Safvi, S.M., 1960. Refinement in methods of determining flotation rates.
Transactions AIME 217, 351–357.
Kaartinen, J., Hyötyniemi, H., 2005. Combining multi-camera-data of flotation circuit
with PCA and PLS. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication
Series, pp. 121–125.
Kallionen, J., Heiskanen, K., 1993. Effective flotation of a difficult nickel-ore based on
intelligent mineral technology. Minerals Engineering 6 (8–10), 917–928.
Kämpjärvi, P., Jämsä-Jounela, S.-L., 2003. Level control strategies for flotation cells.
Minerals Engineering 16, 1061–1068.
Kirjavainen, V., Lyyra, M., Laaplas, H., Heiskanen, K., 1992. Study on using potentiostatic
control in selective sulphide flotation. Minerals Engineering 5 (10–12), 1279–1286.
Kocabağ, D., Güler, T., 2007. Two-liquid flotation of sulphides: an electrochemical
approach. Minerals Engineering 20, 1246–1254.
Laine, S., 1995. Ore type based expert control system for Hitura concentrator. In: Barker,
I.J. (Ed.), Preprints of the 8th IFAC International Symposium on Automation in
Mining, Mineral and Metal Processing, pp. 321–327. Sun City.
Laurila, H., Karesvuori, J., Tiili, O., 2002. Strategies for instrumentation and control of
flotation circuits. Mineral Processing Plant Design, Practise and Control, Volume 1,
pp. 2174–2195. ISBN-10: 0873352238.
Leppinen, J.O., Hintikka, V.V., Kalapudas, R.P., 1997. Effect of electrochemical control
on selective flotation of copper and zinc from complex ores. Minerals Engineering
11 (1), 39–51.
Lin, X.-Z., Zhao, G.A., Gu, Y.B., 2007a. A classification of flotation froth based on
geometry. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics
and Automation, pp. 2716–2720. ICMA 2007, Art. No. 4303987.
Lin, X.-Z., Gu, Y.-Y., Zhao, G.-Q., 2007b. Calculation of the specific area of the froth in
flotation. Meitan Xuebao/Journal of the Chinese Coal Society 32 (3), 304–308.
Liu, J.J., MacGregor, J.F., Duchesne, C., Bartolacci, G., 2005. Flotation froth monitoring
using multiresolutional multivariate image analysis. Minerals Engineering 18 (1),
65–76.
Liu, J.J., MacGregor, J.F., 2007. On the extraction of spectral and spatial information from
images. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 85 (1), 119–130.
Liu, J.J., MacGregor, J.F., 2008. Froth-based modeling and control of flotation processes.
Minerals Engineering 21, 642–651.
Luyben, M., Luyben, W., 1997. Essentials of process control. McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 0-07-
039172-6.
Maldonado, M., Sbarbaro, D., Lizama, E., 2007. Optimal control of a rougher flotation
process based on dynamic programming. Mineral Engineering 20, 221–232.
Maldonado, M., Desbiens, A., del Villar, R., 2008. An update on the estimation of the
froth depth using conductivity measurements. Minerals Engineering 21, 935–939.
Mathe, Z.T., Harris, M.C., O'Connor, C.T., Franzidis, J.-P., 1998. Review of froth modelling
in steady state flotation systems. Minerals Engineering 11 (5), 397–421.
McKay, J.D., Ynchausti, R.A., 1996. Expert supervisory control of flotation columns. In:
Gomeze, C.O., Finch, J.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Column Flotation, Column '96. Montréal, CIM, pp. 353–367.
McKee, D.J., 1991. Automatic flotation control — a review of 20 years of effort. Minerals
Engineering 4 (7–11), 653–666.
Moilanen, J., Remes, A., 2008. Control of the flotation process. In: Kuyvenhoven, R.,
Gomez, C., Casali, A. (Eds.), Procemin2008, V International Mineral Processing
Seminar, pp. 305–313. Chapter 6.
Moolman, D.W., Aldrich, C., Van Deventer, J.S.J., Stange, W.W., 1994. Digital image
processing as a tool for on-line monitoring of froth in flotation plants. Minerals
Engineering 7 (9), 1149–1164.
Moolman, D.W. 1995. The on-line control of an industrial flotation plant using
videographic images and signal processing, PhD thesis, University of Stellenbosch,
South Africa.
Moolman, D.W., Aldrich, C., Van Deventer, J.S.J., Bradshaw, D.J., 1995a. Interpretation of
flotation froth surfaces by using digital image analysis and neural networks.
Chemical Engineering Science 50 (22) 3501–2513.
Moolman, D.W., Aldrich, C., Van Deventer, J.S.J., Stange, W.W., 1995b. The classification
of froth structures in a copper flotation plant by means of a neural net. International
Journal of Mineral Processing 43 (3–4), 193–208.
Moolman, D.W., Aldrich, C., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 1995c. The analysis of videographic data
with neural nets. Chimica Acta Slovenica 42 (1), 137–142.
Moolman, D.W., Aldrich, C., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 1995d. Monitoring of froth surfaces on
industrial flotation plants using connectionist image processing techniques.
Minerals Engineering 8 (1–2), 23–30.
Morar, S.H., Forbes, G., Heinrich, G.S., Bradshaw, D.J., King, D., Adair, B.J.I., Esdaile, L.,
2005. The use of a colour parameter in a machine vision system, smartFroth, to
evaluate copper flotation performance at Rio Tinto's Kennecott Utah copper
concentrator. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series,
pp. 147–151.
Morar, S.H., Hatfield, D.P., Barbian, N., Bradshaw, D.J., Cilliers, J.J., Triffet, B., 2006. A
comparison of flotation froth stability measurements and their use in the
prediction of concentrate grade. Proceedings of the XXIII International Minerals
Processing Congress, pp. 739–744. Istanbul, Turkey.
Moys, M.H., 1984. Residence time distributions and mass transport in the froth phase of
the flotation process. International Journal of Mineral Processing 13, 117–142.
Muñoz, C., Cipriano, A., 1999. An integrated system for supervision and economic
optimal control of mineral processing plants. Mineral Engineering 12 (6), 627–643.
Narraway, L.T., Perkins, J.D., Barton, G.W., 1991. Interaction between process design and
process control: economic analysis of process dynamics. Journal of Process Control
1, 243–250.
Neethling, S.J., Lee, H.T., Cilliers, J.J., 2003. Simple relationships for predicting the
recovery of liquid from flowing foams and froths. Minerals Engineering 16 (110),
1123–1130.
Neethling, S.J., Cilliers, J.J., 2008. Predicting and correcting grade–recovery curves:
theoretical aspects. International Journal of Mineral Processing 80, 17–22.
 B.J. Shean, J.J. Cilliers / International Journal of Mineral Processing 100 (2011) 57–71
Niemi, A., Paakkinen, U., 1969. Simulation and control of flotation circuits. Automatica
5, 551–561.
Niemi, A.J., Ylinen, R., Hyötyniemi, H., 1997. On characterization of pulp and froth in
cells of flotation plant. International Journal of Mineral Processing 51 (1–4), 51–65.
Núñez, F., Tapia, L., Cipriano, A., 2010. Hierarchical hybrid fuzzy strategy for column
flotation control. Minerals Engineering 23, 117–124.
Nguyen, K.K., Holtham, P., 1997. The application of pixel tracing techniques in the flotation
process. Proceedings of the First Joint Australian and New Zealand Biennial Conference
on Digital Imaging and Vision Computing and Applications, pp. 207–212.
Oestreich, J.M., Tolley, W.K., Rice, D.A., 1995. Development of a color sensor system to
measure mineral compositions. Minerals Engineering 8 (1–2), 31–39.
Osorio, D., Pérez-correa, J.R., Cipriano, A., 1999. Assessment of expert fuzzy controllers
for conventional flotation plants. Minerals Engineering 12 (11), 1327–1338.
Pérez-correa, R., González, G., Casali, A., Cipriano, A., Barrera, R., Zavala, E., 1998.
Dynamic modelling and advanced multivariable control of conventional flotation
circuits. Minerals Engineering 11 (4), 333–346.
Polat, M., Chander, S., 2000. First-order flotation kinetics models and methods for
estimation of the true distribution of flotation rate constants. International Journal
of Mineral Processing 58, 145–166.
Pulkkinen, K., Ylinen, R., J.ams.a-Jounela, S.L., J.arvensivu, M., 1993. Integrated expert
control system for grinding and flotation. Proceedings of the XVIIIth IMPC
Congress; The Australasian Institute of Minerals and Metals, Sydney, Australia,
pp. 325–334.
Qing, W.-Q., He, M.-F., Chen, Y.-P., 2008. Improvement of flotation behaviour of Mengzi
lead–silver–zinc ore by pulp potential control flotation. Transactions of Nonferrous
Metals Society of China 18, 949–954.
Rastogi, R.C., Aplan, F.F., 1985. Coal flotation as a rate process. Minerals and
Metallurgical Processing 137–145 (Aug.).
Remes, A., Saloheimo, K., Jämsä-Jounela, S.-L., 2007. Effect of speed and accuracy of on-
line elemental analysis on flotation control performance. Minerals Engineering 20,
1055–1066.
Roesch, M., Ragot, J., Degoul, P., 1976. Modeling and control in the mineral processing
industries. International Journal of Mineral Processing 3, 219–246.
Roos, J.R., Celis, J.P., Sudarsono, A.S., 1990a. Electrochemical control of chalcocite and
covellite-xanthate flotation. International Journal of Mineral Processing 29, 17–30.
Roos, J.R., Celis, J.P., Sudarsono, A.S., 1990b. Electrochemical control of metallic copper
and chalcopyrite-xanthate flotation. International Journal of Mineral Processing 28,
231–245.
Ruonala, M., 1995. The use of electrochemical mixed potential measurements for the
process control and expert system development at the Hitura mine. Proceedings of
Automation in Mining, Mineral and Metal Processing.
Ruonala, M., Heimala, S., Jounela, S., 1997. Different aspects of using electrochemical
potential measurements in mineral processing. International Journal of Mineral
Processing 51, 97–110.
Sadr-Kazemi, N., Cilliers, J.J., 1997. An image processing algorithm for measurement of
flotation froth bubble size and shape distributions. Minerals Engineering 10 (10),
1075–1083.
Sbarbaro, D., 1999. Adaptive non-linear predictive control of a simulated flotation
cell. In: Hodouin, D., Bazin, C., Desbiens, A. (Eds.), Control and Optimization in
Minerals, Metals, and Materials Processing. Metallurgical Society of the CIM,
Montréal, pp. 311–321.
Shen, W.Z., Fornasiero, D., Ralston, J., 1997. Effect of collectors, conditioning pH and
gases in the separation of sphalerite from pyrite. Minerals Engineering 11 (2),
145–158.
Siren, A.K., 1999. The characterization of flotation by colour information and selecting
the proper equipment. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Intelligent Processing and Manufacturing of Materials, vol. 1, pp. 471–476.
Smith, C., Neethling, S., Cilliers, J.J., 2008. Air-rate profile optimisation: from simulation
to bank improvement. Minerals Engineering 21, 973–981.
Smith, C.D., Hadler, K., Cilliers, J.J., 2010. Flotation bank air addition and distribution for
optimal performance. Minerals Engineering 23, 1023–1029.
71
Sosa-Blanco, C., Hodouin, D., Bazin, C., Lara-Valenzuela, C., Salazar, J., 2000. Economic
optimisation of a grinding and flotation plant. Minerals Engineering 13 (10–11),
999–1018.
Stenlund, B., Medvedev, A., 2000. Level control of cascade coupled flotation tanks.
Control Engineering Practice 10, 443–448.
Suichies, M., Leroux, D., Dechert, C., 1998. An implementation of generalised predictive
control in a flotation plant. Automation in Mining, Mineral and Metal Processing,
Proceedings of an IFAC Symposium, pp. 425–442.
Suichies, M., Leroux, D., Dechert, C., Trusiak, A., 2000. An implementation of generalised
predictive control in a flotation plant. Control Engineering Practise 8, 319–325.
Supomo, A., Yap, E., Zheng, X., Banini, G., Mosher, J., Partanen, A., 2008. PT Freeport
Indonesia's mass-pull control strategy for rougher flotation. Mineral Engineering
21, 808–816.
Thornton, A.J., 1991. Cautious adaptive control of an industrial flotation circuit.
Minerals Engineering 4–12, 1227–1242.
Thwaites, P., 2007. Process control in metallurgical plants. Annual Reviews in Control
31, 221–239.
Tomlinson, H.S., Flemming, M.G., 1963. Flotation rate studies. Proc. VI Int. Min. Proc.
Congr., Cannes, p. 563.
Torrealba-Vargas, J.A., Finch, J.A., 2006. Continuous air rate measurement in flotation
cells: some fundamental considerations. International Journal of Mineral Proces-
sing 81, 85–92.
Uribe-Salas, A., Martìnez-Cavazos, T.E., Nava-Alonso, F.C., Méndez-Nonell, J., Lara-
Valenzuela, C., 2000. Metallurgical improvement of a lead/copper flotation stage by
pulp potential control. International Journal of Mineral Processing 59, 69–83.
Vathavooran, A., Batchelor, A., Miles, N.J., Kingman, S.W., 2006. Applying froth imaging
techniques to assess fine coal dewatering behaviour. Coal Preparation 26 (2), 103–121.
Ventura-Medina, E., 2000. Flotation froth structure and performance. PhD Thesis,
Chemical Engineering Department, University of Manchester.
Ventura-Medina, E., Cilliers, J.J., 2000. Calculation of the specific surface area in
flotation. Minerals Engineering 13 (3), 265–275.
Walker, G.W., Stout, J.V., Richardson, P.E., 1984. Electrochemical flotation of sulphides:
reactions of chalcocite in aqueous solution. International Journal of Mineral
Processing 12, 55–72.
Wang, W., Bergholm, F., Yang, B., 2003. Froth delineation based on image classification.
Minerals Engineering 16 (11), 1183–1192.
Wang, M., Cilliers, J.J., 1999. Detecting non-uniform foam density using electrical
resistance tomography. Chemical Engineering Science 54, 707–712.
Wang, Y.A., Neethling, S.J., 2009. The relationship between the surface and internal
structure of dry foam. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering
Aspects 339, 73–81.
Wang, W.X., Stephansson, O., 1999. A robust bubble delineation algorithm for froth
images. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Processing
and Manufacturing of Materials, vol. 1, pp. 471–476.
Wills, B.A., Napier-Munn, T.J., 2006. Wills' Mineral Processing Technology, 7th edition.
Elsevier, pp. 267–344. Chapter 12.
Woodburn, E.T., Austin, L.G., Stockton, J.B., 1994. Froth based flotation kinetic model.
Chemical Engineering Research and Design 72 (A2), 211–226.
Woods, R., 2003. Electrochemical potential controlling flotation. International Journal
of Mineral Processing 72, 151–162.
Yianatos, J.B., Hendrìquez, F.D., 2006. Short-cut method for flotation rates modelling of
industrial flotation banks. Minerals Engineering 19, 1336–1340.
Yuan, X.-M., Pålsson, B.I., Forssberg, K.S.E., 1996. Flotation of a complex sulphide ore I.
Cu/Zn selectivity control by adjusting pulp potential with different gases.
International Journal of Mineral Processing 46, 155–179.
Zanin, M., Wightman, E., Grano, S.R., Franzidis, J.-P., 2008. Quantifying contributions to
froth stability in porphyry copper plants. International Journal of Mineral
Processing 91, 19–27.
Zeng, X., Franzidis, J.-P., Manlapig, E., 2004. Modelling of froth transportation in
industrial flotation cells Part I. Development of froth transportation models for
attached particles. Minerals Engineering 17, 981–988.