Aluminum Smelting
Overview
The Development of Aluminum
Reduction Cell Process Control
Geoffrey P. Bearne
It was primarily the improved under-
standing and control of magnetic fields,
assisted more recently by the use of computer
modeling, that made modern aluminum
reduction cells more stable and has enabled
them to grow larger. However, the im-
plementation of improved process control
systems has not only underpinned the success
of new cell designs, but has also enabled
many older technologies to remain
competitive. While there is still much room
for improving reduction-cell control systems,
this task is increasingly difficult due to the
diminishing performance gains available.
INTRODUCTION
The control of aluminum reduction
lines 40 years ago, before the application
of computers, was simple; experienced
operators were revered for their ability
to treat cells from observation of the
flame. Even in the 1970s, aluminum
smelting was widely acclaimed as an art.
Today, most of the secrets of the process
appear to have been uncovered, but
applying the wealth of new knowledge
to improve process control has been
difficult. To improve a process, one has
to measure it; however, the highly
corrosive and distributed nature of the
reduction process has prevented the
application of any new sensors for
routine control. Instead, what has
changed is the way that existing sensors
have been used to improve the control.
For a given reduction cell technology,
there is a set of process parameters that
provide optimal performance. The ob-
jective of process control is to
keep the cell at its targets at all
times or to return the cell to tar-
get following a disturbance. In
practice, it is very difficult to keep
even one of the parameters on
target, so the real objective is to
minimize the variation. Specifi-
cally, operators wish to control
the following parameters:
• Bath chemistry (i.e., the con-
stituents of the bath). Alu-
mina is a special case be-
cause its concentration
changes quickly and the im-
plications of poor control are
large—anode effects or
sludge formation. Excess
aluminum fluoride (AlF3) Figure 1. A typical live exception screen display.
16
and other additives must be con-
trolled to maintain the bath proper-
ties and keep the bath liquidus tem-
perature constant.
• Heat balance. This balance must
be controlled to maintain constant
bath temperature and superheat.
• The anode cathode distance (the
distance between the anodes and
the metal pad), which is maintained
roughly constant to maintain cell
performance. It is important not to
go below a minimum value.
• Liquid-bath and liquid-metal vol-
umes. These should be kept con-
stant to prevent variation in such
factors as alumina concentration,
heat balance, etc.
In addition to these issues, it is also criti-
cal to maintain an even electrical current
distribution in the anodes.
The complexity of cell control is in-
creased dramatically by the fact that
hundreds of individual cells must be
managed collectively. Individual cell
control is, therefore, integrated into a
system to manage the whole line. This
system should automatically manage the
cells, flag those that need manual inter-
vention and identify the problem, and
identify and manage the changes that
are common to all cells. Although con-
trol systems are quite good at the first
requirement, there has been little devel-
opment in problem diagnosis or auto-
mated reduction-line management.
A key feature of the reduction process
is that it is controlled by exception. There
are some routine tasks, such as anode
setting, metal tapping, and a few mea-
surements on each cell, but manual in-
tervention would not be expected unless
a cell was identified as having a special
need. It is, therefore, a key function of
the process-control system to flag excep-
tion cells. Figure 1 is an example of a live
exception screen from the New Zealand
Aluminium Smelter Ltd. The black
squares represent cells that the process
computer has identified as needing at-
tention. Cell 329, for example, has re-
cently had multiple anode effects, indi-
cating an alumina feeding problem.
IMPROVEMENT THROUGH
PROCESS CONTROL
Improvement through process con-
trol requires three factors.
• A change to the control system to
reduce the process variation. This
could be a major change, such as
conversion to alumina point feed-
ing, or simply a control algorithm
improvement.
• A change in operating target to a
more beneficial point (e.g., reduc-
ing the cell power input, resulting
in lower bath superheat, facilitated
by the smaller mass of alumina fed
into the bath).
• Maintenance of the process at the
new target despite disturbances
such as alumina quality problems.
Sometimes the performance improve-
ment from the first step will be sufficient
to financially justify the change if there is
a substantial reduction in varia-
tion. Generally, however, the
improvement comes from the
target change. It is risky to change
the operating point without first
improving the control. For ex-
ample, lowering the bath tem-
perature without first improv-
ing the heat-balance control may
lead to operational problems
with very cold cells and negate
the benefit of the target change.
BARRIERS TO
EFFECTIVE PROCESS
CONTROL
There are a number of barriers
to the effective control of the re-
duction process. By nature, the
JOM • May 1999
process is difficult to observe; the liquid current-efficiency im-
metal and bath are very aggressive and provement of 0.3% to
will attack immersed sensors. The pro- payback in four years.
cess is highly distributed, so equipment Another example is use
has to be moved large distances or linked of a consumable sensor
by expensive wiring. Measurements can costing $10 and used ev-
typically only be made at the ends of the ery day per cell must cre-
cell and may not be representative of the ate a voltage saving of
whole. This is particularly the case if 130 mV per cell or a cur-
there has been a disturbance (e.g., a cold rent efficiency improve-
Breakeven OPEX $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
anode set close to the measurement ment of 0.9% to recoup ($US/cell/year)
point). The cells vary independently so the cost of the sensor CAPEX for 4 year $3,500 $7,000 $10,500 $14,000 $17,500 $21,000
each requires its own sensors, control alone. Note that modern payback ($US/cell)

hardware, and individual attention.
Also, as the production intensity is low
(typically only 0.5–2.5 tonnes of metal
per day), there is limited scope for in-
vestment per cell.
This last point can be demonstrated
by analyzing the financial benefit of pro-
cess improvements. This is best done by
cell as most process-control changes will
require either a device mounted on each
cell or additional actions on each cell.
Figure 2 gives an example of relation-
ships derived for a medium amperage
technology (100–200 kA) to relate pro-
cess improvement to allowable expen-
diture. The x axis has two scales: the
breakeven operating expenditure (the
additional operating expenditure
[OPEX] per cell that will equal the ben-
efit from the performance improvement)
and capital expenditure (CAPEX) for a
four-year payback (the capital expendi-
ture per cell that will give a four-year
payback for a particular performance
improvement).
The application of these relationships
can be demonstrated with an example.
Installation of new equipment on each
cell (e.g., an individual microprocessor
controller) costing $4,000, must create a
voltage saving of 40 mV per cell or a
Table I. Types and Typical Frequencies of Control Measurements
Measurement
Widespread Use
Cell Voltage
Line Current
Observation (Flame, Crust, Etc.)
Bath Depth
Metal Depth
Tapped Metal Weight
Bath Temperature
Bath Chemistry (AlF3, LiF, CaF2, MagF2)
Metal Purity (Fe, Si)
Cathode Voltage Drop
Alumina-Feed Dump Weight
Anode-Beam Position
Individual Anode Currents (by Rod Voltage Drop) Daily to weekly or on exception
Limited Use
Crust Breaker Position
Aluminum-Fluoride Feed Dump Weight
Sludge/Ridge Depth
Sidewall Ledge Position5
Direct Alumina Concentration
Superheat
Sidewall Temperature
Cathode (Collector Bar) Temperature
Sidewall Heat Flux
cells typically operate at Figure 2. Performance improvement/cost relationships for a
90–96% current effi- medium amperage cell installation.
ciency and 4.2–4.8 V.
In reality, analyzing the benefit is more
complex for a number of reasons.
• Most control equipment will have
capital and operating costs.
• Some control improvements can
reduce operating costs through
elimination of some measurements,
reduced staffing, etc.
• There may be other benefits, such as
improved plant security or reduced
environmental impact.
• The performance benefits are diffi-
cult to assess without long trials.
An example of this type of analysis
was given by Bonnardel and Homsi1 in a
paper describing the development of an
automatic bath height and bath tem-
perature measurement device. Use of
this device on high amperage and cell
technology was demonstrated to give a
number of benefits, including a 0.64%
increase in current efficiency. A two-
year return on investment was predicted
for the application of this technology in
a new reduction plant.
Improved control generally requires
more or better measurements; however,
it is evident that sophisticated distrib-
Frequency
Continuous (automatic)
Continuous (automatic)
Several times/day to daily
Daily to once in two days
Daily to once in two days
Daily to once in two days
Daily to weekly
Twice per week to two weekly
Daily to weekly
Weekly to annually
Weekly to occasionally
Continuous (automatic) on some
technologies
Continuously on one technology
Continuous on point feeders
On exception
Daily (with metal height)
Twice/week
Daily
Daily
Continuously
Continuously
Continuously
uted control equipment, frequent manual
measurements/actions, or costly con-
sumable sensors will be difficult to jus-
tify unless the resultant performance
improvement is high. In contrast, the
return on investment for a control algo-
rithm that creates a modest improve-
ment for negligible capital or operating
cost will be very high.
PROCESS-CONTROL
MEASUREMENTS
Measurements In Widespread Use
Table I is a list of the control measure-
ments used in the industry. The typical
measurement frequency is also given.
The only universal automatic mea-
surements are cell voltage and line cur-
rent. Visual inspection has become ex-
ceptional rather than routine for mod-
ern technologies, although it is still con-
sidered crucial at many plants. Bath and
metal depth are typically measured
manually at a frequency determined by
the work cycle (i.e., especially before
metal tapping). An automatic bath-depth
sensor has been patented2 but is not in
general use. The determination of metal
depth from anode position (e.g., from
the anode-changing crane) or from the
anode-beam position3 are utilized in
many plants. The weight of the tapped
metal per cell is commonly determined
from weight scales on the crane or tap-
ping vehicle; in some plants, this infor-
mation is transmitted automatically to
the process computer.
Bath temperature and chemistry mea-
surement frequencies vary greatly from
plant to plant. This is not surprising as
there are numerous variations of cell
heat balance control strategy in use in
the industry. Bath temperatures are in-
variably measured manually at one end
of the cell using thermocouples that last
for several hundred measurements. A
superstructure-mounted intermittent
bath temperature measurement probe
has recently been developed to permit
more frequent measurements without
manual intervention;1 however, continu-
ous bath temperature measurement is a
long way off, with thermocouple lives
greater than a few weeks seeming un-
likely.4 Laboratory-based bath chemis-

1999 May • JOM 17


Figure 3. Applications of pseudo-resistance for cell control.
try analysis (generally by x-ray diffrac-
tion) of ground bath samples, taken, at
most, every two days, appears to be the
widespread industry practice. To date,
no commercial in-situ sensors for bath
chemistry have been developed.
The use of sensors (in particular, lin-
ear transducers) to indicate anode-beam
position is becoming more widespread
due to the availability of reliable, low-
cost devices. It is not clear whether the
investment is fully justified by perfor-
mance improvement, but accurate indi-
cation of beam position is useful for metal
height measurement, tapping, beam rais-
ing, anode-effect termination, and bath-
resistivity determination.
The determination of individual an-
ode currents by measurement of the volt-
age drop over a short distance of anode
rod or stem has been a standard practice
on prebake anode cells for many years.
Due to the manually intensive nature of
the work, it is mainly limited to a quality
assurance (QA) tool or for problem diag-
nosis on exception cells. Some technolo-
gies have been equipped with probes
built into their superstructures to allow
continuous anode current measurement.
However, it would appear that the addi-
tional information from this source, al-
though useful in identifying problem
anodes, metal-pad instability, and the
onset of anode effects, has not been suf-
ficient to justify the cost and complexity
of installation and use. Hence, its appli-
cation remains very limited.
Measurements in Limited Use
Table I also provides a list of control
measurements that have been tested in
trials or are in limited use in the indus-
try. Sensors have been developed for
point-feeder crust breakers to indicate
the position of the breaker shaft when
lowered. This is to identify instances
when the breaker fails to penetrate the
crust, leading to alumina feeding prob-
lems and anode effects. Commercially
available options use either a full stroke
of the pneumatic cylinder as an indica-
tor of success or the detection of an elec-
trical circuit when the breaker contacts
liquid bath.6
Equipment for the accurate labora-
tory analysis of alumina concentration
in the bath is available, and it is thought
18
that at least one smelter
has tried routine alu-
mina-concentration
analysis for control pur-
poses. 7 However, be-
cause of the time delay
and cost, the absolute
measurement of alumina
concentration is gener-
ally only used for refer-
ence or trial purposes.
Meters for in-situ alu-
mina concentration have
also been developed and
tested,8 but the process improvement
obtained does not appear to justify the
labor and maintenance costs.
A commercial superheat probe capable
of simultaneous bath temperature and
liquidus temperature determination to
within ±1°C is available.9 This device
requires a manual measurement be taken
at the cell using a consumable probe;
hence, the cost of this measurement is
relatively high. While useful for research
purposes, it has yet to prove viable for
routine control purposes.
Other attempts at developing mea-
surements for control purposes have also
been directed at improving cell-heat bal-
ance. Known to have been investigated
are sidewall temperature, sidewall heat
flux, and cathode (or collector bar) tem-
perature. The first two were unsuccess-
ful as it was determined that changes in
sidewall temperature and heat flux ap-
preciably lagged changes in bath tem-
perature. A reliable measurement of cath-
ode temperature is very difficult as the
thermocouples are rapidly attacked by
sodium and bath; however, thermo-
couples installed inside the collector bars
are believed to have survived for years.
It is not known if these temperatures
have been used for control purposes.
REDUCTION PROCESS
CONTROLS
Utilizing the measurements described
above for effective control is difficult.
Table II lists the control actions used. It
can be seen that the level of automation
is very low. On an individual cell, auto-
matic control is limited to anode-beam
position (all cells), alumina feed volume
Table II. Actions Used to Control Reduction Cells
Control
Intensity of Electrical Current (Line Only)
Anode Beam or Söderberg Anode Position
Individual Anode Position (Prebake Anode Cells)
Alumina Feed Volume/Mass
AlF3 (and Other Modifier Additions) Volume/Mass
Bath Removal (Tapping) and Addition
Metal Removal (Tapping) and Addition
Addition or Removal of Anode/Crust Covering Material Manual
Adjustment of Composition of Anode/Crust
Covering Material (Bath/Alumina Blend)
Skimming Carbon/Removing Crust/Sludge, Etc.
Anode-Effect Suppression (Green Pole/Compressed Air) Manual, limited automatic
(bar and point-feed break cells), AlF3
additions (generally only point-feed
cells) and bath additions (only cells
equipped with crushed bath feeders).
The few reported variations from this
include the control of individual anodes
on the Alcoa P-225 cell10 and automatic,
compressed air suppression of anode
effects on Söderberg lines.11
Hence, there are significant limitations
to the application of additional informa-
tion for improved control decisions. The
heat input to the cell can be varied auto-
matically by changing the current (all
cells) or the cell resistance (by altering
the beam position). The alumina feed
rate can be altered, the quantity of alu-
minum fluoride added can be adjusted,
and anode effects can generally be sup-
pressed automatically. Reports can be
generated to instruct operators to tap
more or less metal or to adjust bath depth,
and alarms can be issued to indicate that
the process requires manual interven-
tion. The option of individual anode
positional control has not been embraced
by the industry because the additional
cost does not appear to be justified.
PROCESS-CONTROL
DEVELOPMENTS
There has been much evolution and
improvement in reduction-cell process
control.12 The key control functions are
alumina feed, noise, and heat-balance
control. The calculation and use of
pseudo-resistance is also an essential part
of the control.
Originally, reduction cells were main-
tained at a target voltage by manual
adjustment of the position of individual
anodes or the anode beam. Anode-beam
adjustment was later mechanized and
subsequently automated to provide con-
stant voltage control. Following the in-
troduction of computers in the mid-
1960s, resistance control (now called
pseudo-resistance control) was devel-
oped. This was necessary as it was not
practical, or necessarily desirable, to keep
the line current constant at all times. The
pseudo-resistance is calculated from
R = 1,000 (U – Vext)/I
where R is pseudo-resistance (µΩ), U is
Usual Control Mode
Auto or manual
Auto
Manual (auto on one technology)
Auto or manual
Auto or manual
Manual removal
Auto or manual addition
Manual
Manual
Manual
air suppression
JOM • May 1999

Figure 4. A pseudo-resistance versus alu-
mina concentration relationship.
the cell voltage (V), Vext is the voltage
extrapolated to zero current (typically
taken as 1.65 V), and I is the line current
(kA). Although not technically correct,
Vext is often referred to as the back EMF
of the cell. A detailed explanation of this
issue is given by Haupin.13
It is fortuitous that the cell pseudo-
resistance can be readily determined
automatically because it provides key
information for cell-control purposes.
Typical control applications of pseudo-
resistance are shown in Figure 3.
Anode effects are generally detected
from the cell voltage (typically when the
voltage has exceeded 8 V for a few sec-
onds), at which time anode-effect sup-
pression is initiated. The line current
and voltage are sampled at frequencies
between 0.03 Hz and 20 Hz, depending
upon the technology, to produce an
unsmoothed or raw pseudo-resistance
for control purposes. Raw values are
used for tapping control (where rapid
anode beam moves are required to main-
tain anode-cathode distance as the metal
height decreases) and for noise control.
Filtering is used to produce a smooth
pseudo-resistance for resistance control
purposes. Resistance control refers to
selecting an appropriate pseudo-resis-
tance target for the cell and maintaining
it via adjustments of the anode-beam
position. Only minor developments have
been made to the way that the resistance
is measured and adjusted, generally to
improve the sensitivity of the measure-
ment (through more frequent sampling)
and the accuracy of the anode-beam
movements. What has changed and dif-
fers between technologies is how the
target pseudo-resistance is modified for
control purposes.
Further smoothing of the pseudo-re-
sistance signal may also occur, and
pseudo-resistance slope or “rate of
change of resistance” calculations (dR/
dt) are also made. These are used indi-
vidually or together in various technolo-
gies for alumina-feed control.
Alumina-Feed Control
Alumina-feed control was mecha-
nized and automated in the early 1960s
by the introduction of break and feed in
the center of the cell using either bar or
1999 May • JOM
point crustbreakers and feeders. Bar-
breaker cells have feeders that typically
deliver 10–30 kg of alumina. In practice,
the alumina is fed to reform the center
channel crust, so the quantity dumped
at each break and feed may be as much
as 100 kg. Hence, there may be a delay of
more than a hour between breaks.
It is believed that the Alcoa P-155 cell
at Rockdale (1961) was the first full re-
duction line implementation of point-
feed technology.14 Point-fed cells have
feeders that typically deliver 1–3 kg of
alumina. Two main design variations
exist: an integral breaker/feeder, where
the alumina feeds as the crust breaker is
operating, and an independent breaker
and feeder, where the intent is to deliver
the alumina into the open hole left by the
crust breaker. The latter method appears
preferable from an alumina dissolution
perspective,15 however, little informa-
tion is available on the impact of feeder
type on operational performance. De-
velopment of the point feeder made it
possible to dissolve most of the alumina
directly upon addition but it was still
necessary to rely on the incidence of
anode effects to return to a known alu-
mina concentration.
Around the same time that alumina-
feed control was being automated, it
was observed that the anode polariza-
tion and, hence, cell pseudo-resistance
increased with decreasing alumina con-
centration.16 Alumina concentration con-
trol strategies were then developed that
used this change in pseudo-resistance.
The discovery has been applied with
success to most feeding technologies. In
some side-break plants, the pseudo-re-
sistance increase with reducing alumina
concentration is used to alert the opera-
tor, who manually breaks and feeds the
cell.17 Clearly, however, it is the tech-
nologies with mechanized feeders that
have been able to utilize resistance track-
ing to the best effect.
Welch18 identified in 1965
that “for each operating
current density there ex-
ists a discrete alumina
concentration that de-
fines a minimum reduc-
tion cell voltage” and
published theoretical
voltage/alumina con-
centration curves. These
curves, now generally
used in pseudo-resis-
tance form, are the basis
for modern alumina-
feed strategies. Figure 4
shows the typical rela-
tionship for pseudo-re-
sistance versus alumina
concentration at constant
anode-cathode distance.
It should be noted that
differences of opinion
exist as to the alumina Figure 5. Underfeed/overfeed strategy characteristics.
concentration corresponding to the mini-
mum resistance.19 Industrial measure-
ments indicate that the minimum occurs
between 3.5 wt.% and 5.5 wt.%. It is
accepted, however, that the alumina con-
centration corresponding to the mini-
mum resistance does not vary with ACD,
temperature, or excess aluminum fluo-
ride content of the bath.
Around the time of Welch’s publica-
tion, several companies were develop-
ing practical ways of utilizing the phe-
nomenon for alumina-concentration con-
trol. U.S. patents filed in 1968 indicate
the successful development of resis-
tance-based underfeed/overfeed20 and
demand feed.21 Because the change in
pseudo-resistance with alumina concen-
tration is relatively small, it is necessary
to operate on the left-hand side of the
minimum (i.e., at low alumina concen-
tration) or at least to return there peri-
odically to obtain a reference. Fortu-
nately, this appears to be the region of
highest current efficiency.
Today, there have been refinements to
the alumina concentration control strat-
egies, but the principles have not really
changed in 30 years. For bar-breaker
cells, demand feed, a commonly used
strategy, has been very successful. For
point-fed cells, there appear to be two
main variations: underfeed/overfeed
and three-phase feed strategy.
Demand Feed
Demand feed works on the principle
that if the scheduled break and feed is
stopped, the resulting reduction in alu-
mina concentration will cause an increase
in pseudo-resistance, which can be de-
tected and used to trigger the next feed—
hence, feeding on demand. The control
strategy may use a critical change in the
pseudo-resistance (often referred to as
delta R) to trigger the change in feed rate,
a critical resistance slope (dR/dt), or
19
both. This strategy can then be used to
either periodically track the cell to a
known alumina concentration after a
number of scheduled feeds or to trigger
all feeds so that no alumina is added
other than by demand. A more detailed
description of an early strategy is given
by Wilson and Tabereaux.22
Demand-feed strategies are generally
used in conjunction with scheduled an-
ode effects (routine stopping of feeding
until an anode effect occurs). This is
because there are control-reliability is-
sues that can result in overfeeding and
excess sludge formation. Bar-breaker
cells, therefore, typically have average
anode-effect frequencies of 0.5–1.5 an-
ode effects per day. Refinement of the
strategy may permit a dramatic reduc-
tion in frequency. Individual trial cells
with bar-breaker technology have been
operated for long periods with anode-
effect frequencies below 0.1 anode ef-
fects per day, indicating that this is prob-
ably ultimately achievable for entire re-
duction lines.
Underfeed/Overfeed
This refers to a type of point-feed con-
trol strategy that sequentially adds alu-
mina at a rate lower than consumption,
then higher than consumption and uses
the change in pseudo-resistance slope
(dR/dt) to determine when to change
the feed rate. To prevent anode moves
from interfering with determination of
the alumina-related pseudo-resistance
changes, the control deadbands are set
outside of the normal range of variation.
Hence, anode-position adjustments are
limited to the times when the feed rate
changes. Figure 5 shows a simple under-
feed/overfeed strategy; a detailed ex-
planation of this type is given in an
Aluminium Pechiney patent.23
Three-Phase Feed Strategy
An alternative for point-feed cells is
the three-phase feed strategy, which
cycles the feed rate from base or con-
sumption feed rate to underfeed and
then overfeed, using the change in
Table III. A Comparison of Four Heat-Balance Control Strategies
Control Strategy A–Entner26
Measures Bath temperature
Excess AlF3
AlF3 feed rate
Cell voltage
Basis Equations whose coefficients AlF3 addition determined
are calculated with
regression models
from measured data
Variables Cell resistance target
AlF3/Na2CO3 additions
Performance Excess AlF3 sd. 1.1%
Temperature sd. 5.5°C
sd—standard deviation.
20
pseudo-resistance to determine when to tance may provide a voltage saving (per-
change the feed rate. When fed at the haps up to 50 mV for a typical point-
base feed rate, the pseudo-resistance of feeder technology). However, caution is
the cell will remain virtually constant, required as it will result in a less respon-
and anode-beam adjustments are made sive control. If the alumina-concentra-
at this time. The pseudo-resistance will tion variation were to increase as a re-
then rise during underfeed (if the alu- sult, this could nullify the benefit. It is
mina concentration is in the desired suspected that modern point-feed strat-
range), and overfeed will be triggered egies have developed to a stage where
once a critical resistance change and/or there is more to be gained from improv-
slope have been reached. A detailed ex- ing the ability to recover quickly from
planation of this strategy is given by disturbances than from refinements to
Robilliard and Rolofs.24 the basic strategy. Identifying and rank-
ing the sources of alumina-concentra-
Future Directions
tion variation is a valuable exercise. The
Industrial results indicate that cells major contributors are unlikely to be the
using either of the point-feed strategies control strategy.
described above are capable of current As the alumina concentration can drift
efficiencies above 95% and specific en- out the desirable control range in min-
ergy consumptions of 13 DC kWh/kg. utes, an alternative alumina concen-
Certainly, alumina-concentration varia- tration sensor will have to be cell
tion of less than 1% would be expected mounted and automated to be used for
for stable cells. It is believed that most control purposes. Sensors have been tried
point-feed control strategies are varia- experimentally, but are not readily
tions of these two options. Probably the automated and are unlikely to meet the
main difference between implementa- financial justification requirements. For
tions relates to the feed rates used for this reason, it is probable that the pseu-
underfeed. Very stable cells with reli- do-resistance change with alumina
able feeding are able to underfeed closer concentration will continue to be used
to the consumption rate (e.g., at 75%) as for control for many years, and therefore,
the small change in pseudo-resistance the concentration will be required to
can be detected effectively. Less stable oscillate about the target. The cost of this
cells are likely to be underfed at a lower oscillation, in voltage terms, is small,
rate (typically 50% of consumption or contributing perhaps 20–40 mV that
below) so that the change is faster and, could potentially be saved.
hence, more easily detected. The main constraint to reducing the
As stated, the objectives must be to bath temperature appears to be the
reduce the variation and then change to freezing of sludge on the cathode sur-
a more beneficial operating point. Clearly face. This causes an imbalance in the
the industry would like to operate at the electrical current distribution and, ul-
alumina concentration for maximum timately, metal-pad instability (the bath
productivity and lower bath tempera- component of sludge invariably has a
ture as a result of lower bath-liquidus lower excess AlF3 concentration than the
temperature and/or superheat. bulk bath and, thus, has a higher freezing
The optimal alumina concentration point).25 Therefore, it is necessary to
has yet to be determined, as noted by substantially reduce or eliminate sludge
Kvande et al.,19 probably because it is formation in order to significantly reduce
governed by many factors, including cell the bath temperature. This may in the
technology, control strategy, and work first instance require conversion to point
practices. Shifting the operating point to feed, but even with point-feed operation,
the alumina concentration that corre- sludge may be formed by
sponds to the minimum pseudo-resis- • Feeding at too fast a rate or too large
B–Peyneau27 C–Madsen28 D–Desclaux29
Bath temperature Bath temperature Bath temperature
Excess AlF3 Excess AlF3 Cell age
Cell age
Fluorine content of
reacted alumina
Cathode voltage drop
Resistance target change based AlF3 additions based
mainly by latest excess AlF3 on latest bath temperature on deviation of
and latest bath temperature (to maximum of 360 mV) bath temperature
Resistance target based on AlF3 addition rate modified from target (two-day
excess AlF3 concentration based on excess AlF3 weighted average).
and cathode voltage drop analysis and temperature
Cell resistance target Cell resistance target AlF3 additions
AlF3 additions AlF3/Na2CO3 additions
Excess AlF3 sd. 1.0% Excess AlF3 sd. 1.6% Excess AlF3 sd. 2.0%
Temperature sd. 5°C30 Temperature sd. 9°C Temperature sd. 10°C
JOM • May 1999

Figure 6. Noise signals from stable and un-
stable cells.
a quantity to dissolve directly on
addition.
• Feeding when not required due to
poor reliability of the control strat-
egy (e.g., during instability).
• Blockage and subsequent clearing
of feeder holes, resulting in large
doses of alumina.
• Uncontrolled feeding from other
sources, such as anode setting, an-
ode-effect treatment, or crust col-
lapse.
All four points are serious constraints
to lowering the bath temperature. They
are also constraints to reducing bath su-
perheat as the energy available to heat
and dissolve the alumina will be less.
The use of smaller dump weights or a
continuous feeder should eliminate point
one even at lower superheats and in
baths with low alumina solubility, but
will have no impact on the other causes
of sludge. These will give limited benefit
without other changes to the control or
operation.
There is scope for increasing the reli-
ability of the feed control so that the
frequency of spurious overfeeds is re-
duced, and the ability to cope with cell
instability is improved. The availability
of increased computer-processing power
close to the cell means that more sophis-
ticated pseudo-resistance-based algo-
rithms can be utilized without making
the control itself overly complex (which
can be a major problem if people are to
interact with it).
Noise Control
The raw voltage or pseudo-resistance
signals from the reduction cell contain
fluctuations that can be used to identify
problems with the cell operation. Identi-
fication and use of this information to
take corrective action is generally re-
ferred to as noise control. Prior to the use
of computers in the reduction lines, cell
operators were aware that problem pots
could be identified by variations in cell
voltage that created a swinging or kick-
ing needle on the volt meter (hence, the
terminology swinging or kicking cell).
More detailed analysis identified that
• Stable (i.e., normally operating cells)
display a background noise that is
essentially random but has a fre-
quency of 0.5–2 Hz and an ampli-
tude of less than 30 mV. This is due
1999 May • JOM
to rapid changes in anode current
density and localized disturbances
in the metal pad from the formation
and release of bubbles in the ACD.
• Unstable cells display (in addition
to the bubble noise) another noise
component with a lower frequency.
The shape and frequency of this
component will vary depending
upon the cause of the instability and
the characteristics of the cell.
Most, if not all, process-control sys-
tems will identify and respond to the
signal noise of a lower frequency. The
sophistication of these approaches dif-
fers markedly between smelters. In their
simplest form, noise-control strategies
detect the amplitude of the noise, and if
this instability remains for a reasonable
time (e.g., ten minutes) will increase the
cell resistance by raising the anode beam.
This action will be repeated a few times
if the noise remains, and if unsuccessful
in stabilizing the cell, an alarm will be
raised. It is, however, well known that
different frequencies of noise indicate
different physical problems in the cell. A
component with a frequency of 0.05–
0.001 Hz is due to a standing wave in the
metal-bath interface (often referred to as
metal roll); whereas, a component with a
frequency above 0.2 Hz is usually attrib-
uted to an anode problem, such as a
spike or low-set anode. These observa-
tions have led to control routines that
differentiate between high- and low-fre-
quency noise, either by filtering or calcu-
lating the period of the dominant signal,
and enact different responses. Figure 6
shows examples of typical metal- and
anode-related noise.
The logical progression is to relate
noise-wave shapes to specific cell prob-
lems and, hence, provide more appro-
priate control responses or information.
For example, a particular shape might
indicate a low bath level, triggering a
message to the operator to check the
bath depth. Development of this form of
control requires considerable effort to
monitor live resistance traces, link them
to operational problems, and then estab-
lish repeatability. Once the relationships
Figure 7. The reduction in process variation required for a 5°C target temperature change using
Strategy A from Table III.
are established, pattern-recognition soft-
ware could be used to identify the wave
forms. It is believed that some compa-
nies have progressed wave recognition.
Most causes of cell instability will re-
quire operator intervention at the cell, so
full automation of noise control is not
possible. But, with the drive toward re-
duced staff, there will be significant ben-
efit in improved diagnosis of causes of
instability. Instability information, with
alumina feed and process event data,
could be analyzed by an expert system
for guidance.
Heat-Balance Control
Heat-balance control is another area
where there has been significant devel-
opment; it is probably fair to say that
every company has its own method, and
some companies have many different
methods. The objective of heat-balance
control is to maintain the bath chemistry
(generally ignoring the alumina concen-
tration) and the bath temperature con-
stant and on target, hence, maintaining a
constant superheat. In its simplest form,
this involves adding aluminum fluoride
to compensate for losses, the largest of
which is usually the reaction with so-
dium oxide in the alumina to form bath.
Pseudo-resistance changes are also made
to compensate for changes in cell heat
balance, especially when the cells are
considered to be cold.
Many papers have been published on
aspects of heat-balance control (gener-
ally under bath ratio control or tempera-
ture control), and there is clearly still a
lot to learn. However, some basic prin-
ciples are evident.
• Consistency of actions on individual
cells is critical to minimize varia-
tion. This requires well specified
procedures that are faithfully fol-
lowed.
• Consistency of inputs is also criti-
cal, particularly the current, the fluo-
ride loading on secondary alumina,
and the bath content of the anode
cover material.
• Accurate measurements are vital.
Taking temperature measurements
21
 or bath samples at inappropriate
times (e.g., after an anode effect) or
using poorly calibrated instruments
will make control very difficult.
• The more frequent the measure-
ments, the better (taking into ac-
count the previous point), as the
dynamics of the process dictate that
the cell is constantly changing state,
and it is beneficial to identify the
trends.
• There is probably no one optimal
control strategy for all technologies
due to different hardware, raw ma-
terials, operating points, and work
cultures. However, there appears to
be a trend toward control based
more on bath temperature than bath-
chemistry analysis.
Table III compares heat-balance con-
trol strategies from literature; they are
attempts by different companies at con-
trolling the same factor. Comparing the
strategies, it can be seen that all use bath
temperature as a control measure. Three
strategies use the measurement of ex-
cess aluminum-fluoride concentration;
whereas, strategy D relies on tempera-
ture alone. The base aluminum-fluoride
additions are determined either by long-
term consumption (strategy A) or by cell
age. The control bases vary markedly
between the strategies, both in principle
and by degree of complexity; some use
regression equations, others use the lat-
est temperature or bath chemistry mea-
surement or both. As one might expect,
the control variables are similar—add-
ing aluminum fluoride, and more rarely,
sodium carbonate, and altering the cell-
resistance target.
There are major differences between
the aggressiveness of the control actions,
with some responding slowly and cau-
tiously, while others make large changes
to try to correct deviations from the tar-
get. Strategy C, for example, will in-
crease the cell-resistance target by up to
an equivalent of 360 mV if the last tem-
perature result was very low. In terms of
performance, there is some variation,
with the best reported being a 1% stan-
dard deviation in excess aluminum fluo-
ride and 5°C in bath temperature. The
cell technology will affect the perfor-
mance. For example, Comalco has de-
veloped a temperature-based control
that, in contrast to strategy D, achieves
excess AlF3 and bath-temperature stan-
dard deviations of 1.0% and 6°C, respec-
tively. It is likely that different strategies
can achieve a similar performance.
Dynamic models of reduction cell en-
ergy and mass balance have been devel-
oped since the 1970s. Although origi-
nally used as research tools, efforts have
been made to apply these, generally in
simplified form, for control purposes.
Earlier linear models were not success-
ful.31 More success was reported in the
1980s using a nonlinear model, which
22
was in continuous operation on two cells
for a year.32 Predicted temperatures were
found to be within 4°C of manual mea-
surements over a six-day run. It is not
known whether this model was subse-
quently used for control. No other con-
trol applications have been identified.
Thus, although several companies are
known to have worked on model-based
control, there is little evidence of suc-
cess. This is probably because the mod-
els have a tendency to drift and require
regular correction from measurements,
thus negating their benefit. Also, the
higher complexity means that they will
not be accepted unless their performance
is significantly better than conventional
systems.
In 1990, Tikasz and Potocnik predicted
that dynamic models would make a
comeback as part of expert systems.33 It
was proposed that an expert system
would interface with the existing con-
trol and a process simulator. The simula-
tor would be updated on a regular basis
with process data and would provide
predictions to the expert system. So far,
it appears that the only reduction line
application of expert systems was
HALDRIS, a knowledge-based sys-
tem (without a process model) devel-
oped by Hydro Aluminium and used at
a Söderberg plant.34
Future Directions
The benefits of improved heat-balance
control will come from reduced varia-
tion directly35 and from the ability to run
at a more beneficial operating point.
Control at lower temperatures is desir-
able, but is inherently more difficult be-
cause the allowable variation is less, and
the rate of change of the bath-liquidus
temperature increases with increasing
AlF3.
The average bath temperature for cells
using strategy A in Table III is 962°C.
Assume that the cells are operating at
the lowest average temperature that the
capability of the control strategy will
permit. This implies that the minimum
acceptable temperature is 945°C. In or-
der to operate at an average temperature
5°C lower, an improvement in tempera-
ture standard deviation from 5.5°C to
about 4°C would be required. This con-
cept is shown in Figure 7. Clearly there
are benefits in further improving heat-
balance control but it will not be easy to
achieve.
The application of dynamic models
may ultimately be able to improve bath
heat-balance control by predicting the
longer term trends; whether this will
happen remains to be seen, as consider-
able research money has already been
spent with little success. Model-based
systems certainly have the potential to
improve the control at plants subject to
current modulation as a result of peak
shaving or other arrangements with the
power supplier.
At present, it would appear that more
frequent measurements are the most ef-
fective way to improve the control, and
this will generally mean more emphasis
on bath temperature. Automating and
increasing the frequency of bath-tem-
perature measurement appears to have
potential to improve control for large
cell technologies.1 Direct superheat
measurement looks attractive for con-
trol if it can be done cheaply and reliably.
As an experimental tool, it will certainly
be useful in helping to understand
why some strategies work better than
others.
References
1. O. Bonnardel and P. Homsi, Light Metals 1999, ed. C.E.
Eckert (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1999), pp. 303–309.
2. “Bath Temperature and Level Measurement Device and
Process,” French Patent FR2727985 (December 1994).
3. G.A. Guomundsson, Light Metals 1999, ed. C.E. Eckert
(Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1999), pp. 297–302.
4. Qiu Zhuxian et al., JOM, 46 (8) (1994), pp. 28–30.
5. J.J. del Campo and F. Blanco, Light Metals 1995, ed. J.W.
Evans (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1995), pp. 413–421.
6. D. Stefanidis and D. Georgantonis, Light Metals 1993, ed.
S.K. Das (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1993), pp. 271–276.
7. “Process for Measuring and Controlling the Concentration
of Alumina in Electrolyte Cells for Aluminium Production,”
European Patent 901,226,134 (27 November 1990).
8. N.E. Richards et al., Light Metals 1995, ed. J.W. Evans
(Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1995), pp. 391–404.
9. P. Verstreken, JOM, 49 (11) (1997), pp. 43–46.
10. G.T. Holmes et al., Light Metals 1980, ed. C.J. McMinn
(Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1980), pp. 401–410.
11. S.R. Brandtzaeg and K.A. Paulsen, Light Metals 1998, ed.
B.J. Welch (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1998), pp. 603–606.
12. G. Bearne, Proceedings of the 6th Australasian Technology
Workshop, ed. B.J. Welch and M. Skyllas-Kazacos (Sidney,
Australia: U. of NSW, 1998), pp. 91–130.
13. W. Haupin, Light Metals 1998, ed. B.J. Welch (Warrendale,
PA: TMS, 1998), pp. 531–537.
14. G.T. Holmes, Light Metals 1995, ed. J.W. Evans
(Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1995), pp. 371–373.
15. B.J. Welch, Second International Alumina Quality Workshop
(Perth, Australia:1990), pp. 15–22.
16. W.E. Haupin J. of the Electrochem. Soc., March (1956), pp.
174–78.
17. H.J. Meyer and D.G. Earley, Light Metals 1986, ed. R.E.
Miller (Warrendale, PA: TMS 1986), pp. 365–370.
18. B.J. Welch, Austr. Institute of Min. & Met. Proceedings No.
214 (Carlton South, Australia: AusIMM, 1965), pp. 1–19.
19. H. Kvande et al., Light Metals 1997, ed. R. Huglen
(Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1997), pp. 403–408.
20. “Reduction Cell Control System,” U.S. patent 3,622,475
(1968).
21. “Alumina Feed Control,” U.S. patent 3,625,842 (1968).
22. C.A. Wilson and A.T. Tabereaux, Light Metals 1983, ed.
E.M. Adkins (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1983), pp. 479–493.
23. “Process and Apparatus for Accurately Controlling the
Rate of Introduction and the Content of Alumina in an
Igneous Electrolysis Tank in the Production of Aluminum,”
U.S. patent 4,431,491 (filed 1981).
24. K.R. Robilliard and B. Rolofs, Light Metals 1989, ed. P.G.
Campbell (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1989), pp. 269–273.
25. X. Liu, Proceedings of the 5th Australasian Technology Work-
shop (Sidney, Australia: U. of NSW, 1995), pp. 619–625.
26. P.M. Entner, Light Metals 1996, ed. W. Hale (Warrendale,
PA: TMS, 1996), pp. 445–449.
27. J.M. Peyneau, International Symposium on Reduction and
Casting (NewYork: Pergaman Press, 1988), pp. 189–195.
28. D.J. Madsen, Light Metals 1992, ed. E. Cutshall (Warrendale,
PA: TMS, 1992), pp. 453–456.
29. P. Desclaux, Light Metals 1987, ed. R.D. Zabreznik
(Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1987), pp. 309–313.
30. C. Vanvoren, Aluminium Pechiney, best industrial result
(private communication 1999).
31. T. Saksvikroenning et al., Light Metals 1976, ed. S.R.
Leavitt (New York: AIME, 1076), pp. 275–286.
32. E. Sorheim and P. Borg, Light Metals 1989, ed. P.G.
Campbell (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1989), pp. 379–384.
33. L. Tikasz and V. Potocnik, Light Metals 1990, ed. C.M.
Bickert (Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1990), pp. 197–202.
34. W.K. Rolland et al., Light Metals 1991, ed. E.L. Rooy
(Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1991), pp. 437–442.
35. F.J. Stevens et al., Light Metals 1992, ed. E. Cutshall
(Warrendale, PA: TMS, 1992), pp. 541–547.
Geoffrey P. Bearne is a manager in the Reduction Divi-
sion of Comalco Research and Technical Support.
For more information, contact G.P. Bearne,
Comalco Research and Technical Support, 15
Edgars Road, Thomastown, Victoria 3074, Aus-
tralia; telephone 61-39-9469-0769; fax 61-3-9462-
2700; e-mail geoff.bearne@riotinto.com.
JOM • May 1999