PROCESS CONTROL IN METALLURGICAL PLANTS –

FROM AN XSTRATA* PERSPECTIVE

Philip Thwaites P.Eng.

Xstrata Process Support (XPS)**
XPS Centre, Falconbridge, Ontario, Canada.
(pthwaites@xstrataprocesssupport.ca)

Abstract

Some history and modern practice of Process Control in metallurgical operations is

reviewed. Clearly the early deliverables from the pioneer days in the 1950’s through to
the 1970’s and early 1980’s were under-appreciated. The discipline has since grown into
a more visible, sophisticated and accepted practice as a result of the assembly of
appropriately-recruited and trained individuals and teams, whom have successfully
negotiated deliverable projects that impact all metallurgical performance beyond early
milling processes. The skill set in these individuals and teams essentially includes
organizational behaviour in addition to their specialist technical attributes. A strong
network to internal and external specialists and experts is essential. Furthermore,
instrumentation and control technology has improved immensely. The challenge in the
current modern practice is to win support of senior management in operations for the
project cost, schedule and deliverables of Process Control. Once gained, this acceptance
then amounts to the logistics of project scope and delivery - a track record well-
demonstrated by the Xstrata Process Control Group.

Keywords: Process control, Instrumentation, Automation, Optimise, PROFIBUS,

AMIRA, PID, ExperTune, PlantTriage, Model Predictive Control, Multivariable,
Connoisseur, MonitorMV, FloatStar, Multivariate Modelling, PCA/PLS, Fault Detection,
FieldCare, Process Mineralogy, SAG, ASRi, XRF, Camera Imaging, Grinding, Flotation,
Electric Arc Furnace, Xstrata, Xstrata Process Support, Xstrata Technology, metso
minerals.

Copyright © 2007 IFAC {MMM’07, Automation in mining, mineral and metal processing
international symposium, Quebec City, Canada, August 21-23, 2007.}

Industrial Plenary Lecture: Applications of information processing and automatic control

in metallurgical plants.

* Xstrata is a global diversified mining group with its headquarters in Zug, Switzerland.
Xstrata’s businesses maintain a meaningful position in seven major international
commodity markets: copper, coking coal, thermal coal, ferrochrome, nickel, vanadium
and zinc, with recycling facilities, additional exposures to gold, cobalt, lead and silver
and a suite of global technology products. Xstrata Group's operations and projects span
18 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican
Republic, Germany, New Caledonia, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines,
South Africa, Spain, Tanzania, the USA and the UK. Xstrata employs approximately
43,000 people, including contractors.

**Xstrata Process Support (XPS; previously known as the Metallurgical Technology

Group) is an expert group based in Sudbury (Ontario) Canada and at other various
Xstrata operating sites. Through the four business areas of: Process Mineralogy,
Extractive Metallurgy, Process Control and Materials Technology, XPS provides support
to Xstrata commodity businesses, with an objective of providing quality technical
expertise for operational support, growth initiatives and strategic development.
 1. INTRODUCTION
The objective of the third plenary lecture is to present
the state of the art of applied automatic control and
information processing in one or several MMM fields
(physical metallurgy, mineral processing, extractive
metallurgy, and mining). Mineral processing and
extractive metallurgy are the selected MMM fields
for this discussion.
In this paper, automation is understood in a broad
sense including: measurement and instrumentation;
process modelling and simulation; process monitoring
and data reconciliation; data mining and multivariate
statistics; fault diagnosis and fault tolerant control;
process control; monitoring of product quality and
control performance; off-line and on-line process
optimisation; maintenance scheduling and production
planning; as well as AI methods like: expert systems,
neural networks, fuzzy control.
To address as many of these areas of automation as
possible, this paper divides into the following
sections:
1. Introduction and Process Control Definition,
Objective and Cycle.
2. Elements Necessary for Successful Process
Control in Mineral and Metallurgical Plants,
covering:
2.1 People – Control / Process Knowledge;
2.2 Tools – Instruments; Systems; Technology;
2.3 Actions – Support; Management; Technology
transfer.
3. XPS Process Control Philosophy Summary.
4. The ‘Near Term’ Outlook.
5. Conclusions.
Examples and case studies are briefly presented
throughout the paper to illustrate the points being
made. Acknowledgements and references follow
after the conclusions section.
1.1 Process Control Definition
McKee (1999) states:
“Process control is a broad term which often means
different things to different people. For the purposes
of this (AMIRA) review, process control is considered
as the technology required to obtain information in
real time on process behaviour and then use that
information to manipulate process variables with the
objective of improving the metallurgical
performance of the plant. This was, in fact, the
objective of the early (metallurgical) control
systems.”
Furthermore he goes on to state:
• “Process Control is a long-established
technology.”
• “Within the minerals industry, single loop
pneumatic controllers became commonplace in
the 1950’s.”
• “By the mid 1960’s, process control was seen by
the mineral industry as a technology which
offered a great deal in terms of potential
improved plant performance.”
• “Work on flotation control systems began in the
early 1970’s based upon the availability of on-
stream analysis data.”
• “Although the flotation control task was
inherently more difficult than for grinding, there
were many promising flotation control systems
around the world in the mid to late 70’s” (and
early 80’s).
“Thus, all the elements necessary for successful
process control in mineral plants were known and
largely available (over) 20 years ago, and were:
• Instrumentation
• Control hardware and software
• A growing understanding of process behaviour
and dynamics
• Operator interfaces providing communication
between operator, the system and the process
• An understanding for the absolute necessity for
good instrument maintenance and the capability
to perform it
• An understanding of the need for skilled
personnel to develop / maintain control systems
• Proven successes of many systems
• Enthusiastic support of management for process
control
• The active and productive involvement of
research groups working with enthusiastic
operations personnel.”
Although it is now several years later, these key
elements have been selected to be discussed in this
paper, as they are also seen to be very relevant to the
approach of the XPS Process Control Group.
The goal of the XPS Process Control Group is plant
process control for Operational Performance
Excellence. The key elements to achieve this are
summarised and addressed in section 2 - Elements
Necessary for Successful Process Control in Mineral
and Metallurgical Plants, under the following sub
sections:
• 2.1 People – Control / Process Knowledge;
• 2.2 Tools – Instruments; Systems; Technology;
• 2.3 Actions – Support; Management; Technology
transfer.
1.2 XPS Overall Process Control Objective
More recently, Thwaites (2002) stated: “Installed
instrumentation calibrated properly with appropriate
resolution deadbands, and first order filters, is the
basis for good PID (proportional, integral and
derivative) control. This offers great potential to
plants in reducing variability, opening up
opportunities for optimization through increased
throughputs or reduced consumables (e.g. power,
steel, reagents etc.). Tools like Expert systems, MPC
(Model Predictive Control) Multivariable controls
(MVC) with LP (linear program) optimisers, and even
“higher-level” (cascade) PID controllers working on
analyzer information, provide the means to
accomplish significant returns, but these are all
dependent on a good/reliable instrumentation base
and robust regulatory control.” Figure 1 is a general
diagram, used for many years, to illustrate the overall
process control objective for any key variable.
Measure and understand the initial variability,
stabilise and then optimise to the constraint of the
process. Typically throughput benefits will come
from an increase in the setpoint, and consumable
savings will come from a decrease in the setpoint.
Once these have been achieved it is important to
‘maintain the gain’ by ensuring the changes are
robust, thus benefiting the plant.
Figure 1 Overall Objective: Stabilise – Optimise
In the process of stabilisation, it is very important to
consider ‘the whole loop.’ ABB (Forsman, 1998)
illustrated this very well, as shown in figure 2. Are
there any loops in manual? There can be several
reasons why controllers are in manual, for example:
instrumentation; tuning; operator training; saturation
and ability of control actions to influence the control
variable etc. Utilising tools like ExperTune (in 1999,
selected by Control Engineering as one of the best
products of the year), at the commissioning stage,
helps to identify the key issues preventing robust loop
control.
Consider the Whole Loop
Consider the whole loop
PC-program in
Advant OCS
Ramp rate
Deadband
D/A
4-20 mA
I/P
3-15 psi
Positioner
0-6 bar
Actuator
ABB Corporate Research
K. Forsman, 1998, No. 10
Figure 2 Consider the Whole Loop (ABB, Forsman)
Figure 3 illustrates the critical mill bearing pressure
measurements which required a basic filter so that the
data is usable for control and better represents the
real process issue. For sometime, following plant
commissioning, all process signals were
unnecessarily ‘noisy’ and it was not surprising that
much of the plant’s control was manual! Alarming in
this plant was also ineffective and poorly
commissioned.
Additionally, Process Metallurgists / Engineers also
need to be aware of ‘data compaction’ in the PMIS
(production management information system). Over
compaction, as over filtering, minimises the ability to
‘see’ the real process dynamic response. The XPS
Process Control Group is often requesting less
compaction, while the IT support is often interested in
maximum (and default) compaction. Similarly, PMIS
systems should also, but often don’t, capture
important setpoints and outputs.
Regulatory Control improvements
(Mill Bearing Pressure measurement)
Careful:
1) Appropriate filtering;
2) PI Data compaction.
39
Figure 3 Correct Filtering and Pi Data Compaction
Referring back to figure 1 then, process control
objectives can therefore be summarised as the
management of tools and resources to: minimise
process variation; optimise process performance;
minimise (variable) costs; control product quality;
and maximise safety.
In general a well established hierarchy (Jones, 1996),
as shown in figure 4, is followed. Economic returns
considerably increase beyond loop regulatory control.
Filter
A/D
4-20 mA
Filter
mV
Filter
FT
ABB
38
Figure 4 General Process Control Hierarchy (Jones)
While process and area optimisation can have
considerable financial returns, it is well recognised
(and reported), by those practising process control,
that this can only be achieved by having a robust and
solid regulatory lower level.
(McKee, 1999). “Svedala (metso minerals) advocate
a systematic approach to process control:
• start by defining what is important through an
analysis of the process (an audit) to determine
what is required and the level of control;
• understand the process and ensure the basics for
good control are in place (e.g. instrumentation);
• match the installed system to the capability of the
people available;
• recognize the on-going commitment required for
success;
• with regard to the actual control, consider three
levels as follows:
• basic PID - via DCS or equivalent;
• supervisory (cascade control, dead-time
compensation, etc. - via DCS or equivalent);
• optimising (e.g. expert system, adaptive) -
via a package such as G2 or implemented
within the DCS.”
However, it is important to understand that
process control will not correct inherent design,
instrumentation related flowsheet, and actual
flowsheet problems in a plant.
(McKee, 1999). ‘There is a need to determine, and
if necessary correct, the condition of the plant as a
pre-requisite to control development. A good
example is the importance of classifier operation and
its effect on comminution circuit performance.
Techniques exist (plant sampling, modelling and
simulation) to audit the actual plant operation.
Correcting plant limitations should be seen as a first
step in the control approach.’
1.3 XPS Process Mineralogy
XPS Process Mineralogy
1. Sample
Sampling and Statistics
3. Optimise
2. Measure
PROCESS
M
ce
MINERALOGY
in
ien
e
ra
c
lP
lS
ro
ra
ce
ne
ss
Mi
in
g
Figure 5 XPS Process Mineralogy (Lotter)
The hybrid Process Mineralogy group at XPS was
started up in 1997. The key deliverable from this
young discipline is to reliably formulate and
demonstrate the optimum flowsheet for the
processing of a given orebody (Lotter et. al., 2002;
Lotter et. al., 2003). This hybrid approach of
sampling and statistics, geology, mineralogy and
mineral processing outperforms conventional mineral
processing because it describes the flowsheet in terms
of representative sampling and minerals instead of
assays. Ongoing improvement in the concentrator
operations, for example by Process Control projects
that reduce variance, is thereafter benchmarked with
Statistical Benchmark Surveying. The Process
Control is easier to implement when a concentrator
operation is on a Process Mineralogy platform,
because the flowsheet allows for more responsive
controls.
1.4 Effective Process Control Cycle (for new
processes / plants)
(McKee, 1999). “A good implementation requires a
well defined operating philosophy and an associated
control strategy.”
Effective Process Control Cycle
(for New Processes / Plants)
Deliverable
(Stage)
Process Flowsheets &
Process Opt. Control Philosophy
(Production) (Development)
Overall Process Control Objective
Measure Control Optimise
As-builts constraint P&IDs
higher production
(Commissioning)
setpoint
(Basic Eng)
units
lower costs
better
poor control control best control
time
Falconbridge Limited - Proces s Control
Control Config. Logic Diagrams
(Construction-EPCM) (Detailed Eng-EPCM)
16
Figure 6 Effective Process Control Cycle
The XPS Process Control Group continually make the
point that process control involvement during the
early engineering stages (of a project) ensures
effective start-up and the fastest turn-around to on-
line process optimisation. Figure 6 shows the Group’s
‘effective process control cycle’. This also fits in
well with the Company’s (Xstrata Copper Canada)
95% Confidence
Six Sigma stage gate process (also shown in figure 6).
The Kidd Metallurgical Site Montcalm project was
taken through the full Six Sigma stage gate
procedure, ensuring all specified design criteria were
met before proceeding to the next stage. This required
the process control plan (Gillis, 2002) to be
developed very early on in the process. P&IDs
(Piping and Instrument Drawings) were first
developed during 2002 and a detailed process control
philosophy was written up as well. This philosophy
detailed every loop, the expected flows, setpoints,
operating ranges, limits, alarms, interlocks, etc.
The control philosophy generally specified only lower
level (regulatory) loops with some cascade loops
included where necessary. The approach taken was to
have the regulatory loops ready for use at circuit start-
up and to develop higher-level controls later as
required. Following commissioning all control loops (Thwaites, 1993), {(Flintoff and Mular, 1992) and
had been inspected, optimised and documented with (McKee, 1999)} as illustrated in figure 8, show that
the ExperTune software package, thus allowing the successful process control is more than the tools – the
Process Engineers and Operators to focus on sensors, PLC / DCS, control software, process
optimum process beneficiation, i.e. Operational information etc.
Performance Excellence.
It has been the experience of the XPS Process Control
The XPS Process Control Group are often called into Group, that successful process control results from a
Plant processes after start-up to ‘correct and fix’ combination of tools (including sensors, PLC/DCS
poorly commissioned process controls, sometimes etc), knowledge – fundamental process knowledge
after a considerable time period following the new and control engineering, i.e. people, with the ability to
process commissioning. make actions through the support and acceptance of
the operations staff/management. Engineering and
Figure 7 shows a recently modified SAG circuit (after I/S are also important players in successful process
several millions of dollars of capital investment) control implementation.
showing a tremendous variability of the feed tonnage
(lower trend; stnd. dev. of 9.7 tph on an av. of 131
tph) and bearing pressure – indicating ‘mill load’ Process Control Is More Than Tools
(upper trend; stnd. dev. of 24 kPa on an av. of 4,454 Modified from Noranda Technology Exchange Conference (Dec. 93) by PT
kPa) following ‘commissioning’ of the new
People Technology
equipment and few basic controls. Needless to say, Transfer
this ‘fundamental and critical control’ affecting the Knowledge:
whole mill, was soon switched to ‘manual’ placing Process
Safety / Environment
onus on the operator to maintain mill throughput Coordinated Economics Teamwork
Control Engineering
while not exceeding any of the equipment constraints! Effort
Much of the operators’ time was then consumed with PROCESS

this task. Tools: Action:

constraint

Sensors setpoint
higher production Operations
PLC / DCS lower costs Engineering
Control Software better
I/S
Process Information poor control control best control
MTG (XPS)

SAG Feed Rate Control 11

SAG Control - Decem ber 27, 2005

180

170
Se tpo int = 4450 k Pa
4500
Figure 8 Process Control is More than Tools
160 4450

2.1 People – Control / Process Knowledge

Tonnage - mtph

150
SAG KPA

140 4400

(McKee, 1999; Commentary by Sommer, 1992):

130

120 4350

110 Tonnage • “Many countries lack experts who are trained in

process control, and who have a good
kPa
100 4300
04:48:00 09:36:00 14:24:00 19:12:00 00:00:00 04:48:00 09:36:00

Time

SAG Feed SAG Load

understanding of the process and control
In Cascade control (constant kPa),
The SAG tonnage varies tremendously Average
Std Dev.
mpth
131.3
9.7
kPa
4 454
24
engineering expertise.”
to maintain the requested setpoint. Minimum
Maximum
100.5
152.7
4 392
4 503 • “Process engineers in mineral-processing plants
42
are generally not well trained in process control
and, except in very large companies, there are
Figure 7 SAG ‘Basic’ Feed Rate Control (Early) usually no process-control engineers on the
plant.”
(McKee, 1999). “In grinding, control of AG/SAG
mill circuits is the dominant area. While some This section addresses both of these points.
systems have emerged which provide a reasonable
level of control, there is still much not understood The XPS Process Control Group’s philosophy is
about the dynamic behaviour of these mills, and there summarised as follows:
is considerable scope for further development.”
Section 2.2.2 discusses a ‘SAG Charge Controller’ Employ appropriate number of skilled resources:
(Bartsch, 2006). • Having technical ability and training;
• Championing process control and process
2. ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL improvements;
PROCESS CONTROL IN MINERAL AND
METALLURGICAL PLANTS Participate and have projects in Operations linked
to the Business Unit plans, covering:
This section discusses the elements necessary for • Operations support, audits, process analysis
successful process control in mineral and studies and support of Six Sigma projects.
metallurgical plants and what is required to attain
operational performance excellence. Support capital project design engineering:
• Ensuring appropriate levels of instrumentation
and controls using control strategies based upon
an ‘approved’ operating philosophy and
standards.
Capabilities and services of the Group are primarily:
• Process design and commissioning;
• Controls auditing;
• Control loop optimisation;
• Advanced controls;
• Slow process response;
• Off-gas system controls.
The Group maintains an ability to identify and deliver
robust process control technology and engineering
solutions to operations and strategic projects.
Solutions implemented are based upon solid control
engineering practice and operating experience from
throughout Xstrata operations. Enabling, and
appropriate technologies, are used through the
involvement of engineering specialists who may
involve, or work with other outside specialists /
consultants / contractors complementing the Group’s
skill sets and competencies.
All the current members of the Group are from an
Engineering background covering Mineral
Processing, Metallurgical, Chemical and Electrical
Engineering. Several have Masters’ and some have a
PhD in some aspect of control or advanced control.
The Group has many years of experience with a
diverse and comprehensive background. Academic
background covers degrees from the following
academic institutions:
• Laval, Québec
• Malaviya National Institute of Technology
(India)
• The University of Manchester (UK) MSc
program “Advanced Control and Systems
Engineering”
• McGill, Québec
• McMaster, Ontario
• Natal, (South Africa)
• Nottingham (UK)
• Ottawa, Ontario
• Queens, Ontario
• Sheffield (UK)
• RSM, Imperial College University, (UK)
• TUNS, Nova Scotia
• U of T, Toronto, Ontario
For example (Manchester University website), MSc
in Advanced Control and Systems Engineering:
“Over the past decade our MSc program
demonstrated its success in terms of producing high
quality graduates that lead to both industrial and
academic positions. The program consists of both
fundamental theory as well as practical experience
through laboratory exercises, computer-based
simulation and industrial case studies. Control
Engineering is a multi-disciplinary subject, with
applications across a wide range of industrial
sectors. While an introduction is usually provided
during undergraduate engineering programmes,
especially in Electrical Engineering, these cannot
allow sufficient time to cover modern developments in
detail and develop sufficient practical skills. The
Control Systems Centre's MSc programme aims to
equip graduates, from a variety of scientific and
engineering disciplines, with both the theoretical and
the practical skills necessary to apply modern control
techniques to a wide range of industrial problems
and/or embark on further research. A strong feature
of the programme is the dissertation project, which
constitutes half of the credit rating and is the means
by which students can be introduced to some of the
most important topics in modern control.”
Figure 9 Manchester U. Control System Centre, Lab
Attention has not just been on the XPS Process
Control Group capabilities and competencies. For
several years now, the XPS Process Control Group
has facilitated basic ‘Process Control Training’
generally addressed to all new (Metallurgical)
Engineers in Training (EITs), Process Engineers and
Instrumentation Technicians. The course involves
three day sessions focused on approx. fourteen
students per session. This is both necessary as well as
‘good common sense’ in increasing the awareness
and importance of process control in modern plants.
We have seen huge impacts in ‘empowering’
operations, e.g. Falcondo as a result of taking this
training. Presently there are considerable
opportunities to extend to the ‘new’ Xstrata
operations. While this training has actually been
given by Lakeside Process Controls (Koehler),
similar sessions are given by Top Control (Ruel),
metso minerals (Vien, 2006) and more recently,
AMIRA (in the P893A Project Extension - ‘Training
in Process Control’).
P893A Extension (Mujica et al., 2005) aims to
analyse aspects of training in instrumentation,
automation systems, process control and robotics
technologies in copper mining companies. While
primarily focused for the South American operations’
(operators), AMIRA would probably be open to
extending this training to any interested, paying
customer.
 2.2 Tools – Instruments; Systems; Technology etc.
There are also specific vendor training programs,
such as: Invensys, Emerson, E&H, METSIM, ABB, (McKee, 1999; Commentary by Paton, 1993). “It
Perceptive Eng. etc. These are very important to fully would appear that less than full advantage has been
realise the benefits of installed control systems and taken of the advances made in the last two decades in
their associated software. Figure 10 shows excellent control hardware and software, instrumentation, and
process control training equipment being integrated to control theory.”
an Emerson DeltaV (DCS) control system at MIT
(Madras Institute of Technology – Anna University, The Ontario Plants of Xstrata have specific
India). More such systems are required to introduce (discounted) procurement agreements covering
Canadian engineering graduates to process control! instrumentation from Emerson (e.g. Fisher-
Rosemount), Siemens, and E&H. Each manufacturer,
and associated supplier, provides excellent
MIT (Madras Institute of Technology – instrumentation that is significantly better than that
Anna University) Dept. of Instrumentation supplied to plants in 1993. For example, E&H’s new
Dept. of Instrumentation Hi lights:
Memosens pH instrumentation (Tell, 2007) with
Instrumentation & Control;
Electrical & Electronics;
integrity memory, figure 12, can substantially reduce
Computer Sciences; calibration time, is easily interchangeable, can
Management Sciences
rejuvenate while awaiting service, and can easily be
connected to an asset management system –
providing a complete service and diagnostic history.
Standardising on manufacturers (and associated
suppliers) like E&H, Emerson and Siemens, has
distinct benefits to Xstrata operations and the XPS
Process Control Group. Furthermore, difficult
23 measurement issues, often found in milling and
metallurgical plants, can be communicated back to
Figure 10 Process Control Training Equipment at supplier R&D facilities through user groups and
MIT (India) forums. ‘Customer Advisory Councils’ are held by
E&H yearly, in three different regions of the country;
Process knowledge comes from projects and work in and recently an international forum was held
the plants and piloting facilities. A centralised (XPS specifically to address the mining sector.
Centre) and decentralised (plants) model is practised
that allows ongoing connectivity to operations,
mentoring, technology transfer, resource time
management, benchmarking, and performance
management (see figure 11). New Engineers are not
left on their own, but instead tap into experience and
operating examples throughout the Xstrata operating
plants. Furthermore, key standards and practised
methodologies are communicated and utilised as
much as possible. Some of these are discussed in
Memosens/Liquiline
Digital pH Systems– Maximize process up-
section 2.2 Tools – Instruments; systems etc.
time
E+H Canada

Centralized and Decentralized Slide 1

(Embedded) Process Control Group

Figure 12 E&H Memosens – Digital pH System
Perceptive
(note, no physical electric connection)
Koniambo
Lakeside Kidd Creek
Falcondo Engineering
Strathcona
Mill
Collahuasi
Control
Benchmarking
Resources
Time Other ‘key standards and methodologies’ that are
Sudbury
Management
important in applying a common methodology while
Smelter Support
Centre
(XPS)
Altonorte
ensuring a timely implementation:
Performance Technology
Monitoring Transfer

XPS
Pilot
Mentoring CCR
1. Control and control related systems:
Plants
• Support & exploit installed DCS (generally
Horne
Smelter
Raglan
NB
Smelter
ABB
ABB, Foxboro & Fisher-Rosemount) and
Hybrid PLC systems (like Modicon, utilising
Synergy

Most Plants have no Process Control or Control Engineering Resources 24

IEC61131 i.e. Concept – a multi-function
programming language);
Figure 11 Centralised and Decentralised (Embedded) • PROFIBUS for Fieldbus;
Group Model • ExperTune for optimal loop tuning and
PlantTriage for continuous loop monitoring;
• Smith Predictor for single loop time delays;
 • ASRi (Automatic Setpoint Regulation
System) for Crusher {gap} Controls;
Entire Grinding Controls Focus:
• Connoisseur (Invensys) for (MPC) Model (Liberation efficiency and throughput)
based Control; Wipfrag 21-CV-04

•
(Size analysis)
OPC for interfacing different systems. ASRi

Sandvik Cone Crusher

Hydrocone H4800
(250 kW) Flotation
A B
2. Plant Management Monitoring (PMIS – 150 mt 21-CV-01
21-CV-06 21-CV-05

Surge Bin
Production Management Information System):
Cyclone Feed Density Control

11-CV-03 SAG Mill Cyc

CycO/F
P/Box
O/F Density by
Density by
P/Boxwater
water addition
addition
Raglan SAG Feed Rate Control
24’ diameter DI

• OSI Pi.
SAG C on tr ol - De c e mb e r 27 , 2 00 5

Underground
PI

(2240 kW)
180 4500
Se tp o in t = 445 0 k Pa PIC
170 RSP O UT
DIC
CONSTRAIN circulating

Storage Bins
160 4450
load by trimming Cyc

Tonnage - mtph
150 Feed Density SP

SAG KPA
Select
140 4400 LI LIC Logic
OUT

130

120 4350
SY H/L ADJUST FEED SP
DI FI MIC Lim OR
OUT CYC FEED DEN SITY SP
110 Tonnage
H/L
kPa L im DIC
OUT
100 4300
04:48: 00 0 9:36:0 0 1 4:24:0 0 1 9:12:0 0 0 0:00:0 0 0 4:48:0 0 0 9:36:0 0 Cyc Feed Density by
Ref: FTC Report ‘ R agla n: Cyclone Density C ontrol’, E. Bartsch, 11 November 2005
Tim e trimming O/F density SP

In Cascade control (constant kPa), SAG Feed SAG Load

mpth kPa
The SAG tonnage varies tremendously Average
Std Dev.
131.3
9.7
4 454
24
to maintain the requested setpoint. Minimum
Maximum
100.5
152.7
4 392
4 503

FFE Impact Meter 21-CV-02 6 x 15” Krebs GMAX

3. On-line Failure and Fault Detection: Metso Double Deck
Vibrating Screen (8’ x 16’)
1- 8 x 40 mm
Cyclones
Vort: 4.5”, Apx: 3”

• MonitorMV (Perceptive Engineering) for 2- 5 x 4 mm, 3 x 8 mm

Ball Mill
14’ dia. x 21’
Furnace analysis and on-line Fault (2240 kW)

Detection.
• LeakNet (EFA Technologies) for pipeline 52

leak detection.
Some specific examples are discussed below.
2.2.1 ASRi (Automatic Setpoint Regulation)
The Sandvik ASRi Controller for Crushers (shown in
figure 13) offers an excellent approach to crusher
regulatory controls. Easily interfaced through OPC,
the unit provides an ‘off the shelf’ system with
several control options, the most common being
crusher gap control. These units are presently
installed at Xstrata’s Kidd, Strathcona and Raglan
Mills. The latter is integrated in an important overall
automatic grinding circuit control strategy (Bartsch,
2006) where varying the crusher gap setpoint has
been necessary for overall circuit control.
ASRi (Automatic Setpoint Regulation)
Sandvik Technology - Crushing Plants
Crusher Gap Control:
Kidd Mill -> Strathcona Mill -> Raglan Mill
Figure 14 Entire Grinding Controls Focus
Figure 14 illustrates an example of integration of
several components of technology in order to achieve
SAG mill control. Wipfrag image cameras provide
key continuous information regarding the changing
feed size distribution as it enters the mill. An ASRi
system is incorporated into the controls to allow rapid
change in the nature of the recycle materials, through
crusher gap control, and cyclone overflow density
control is used to manipulate both the cyclone feed
density and the circulating load around the
subsequent ball mill. Overall these are utilised in a
multivariable (MV) charge controller as shown in
figure 15. Embedded in the control system, power,
charge, feed size and assay information are utilised in
a fuzzy controller to control SAG feed rate, and
grinding circuit density, crusher gap. Addition of mill
speed, when possible, further adds to the controller’s
effectiveness. The Concept fuzzy controller is a
simple alternative to an Expert System typically used.

Field Device Charge Controller

Inputs Outputs
(Measurements) (Set-points)

Power Fuzzyfication Feed Rate

DCS
Display Charge Density
(via OPC) (water addn)
Impactmeter Fuzzy Rules
28 Crusher Gap
Granulometry
(prediction !) Mill Speed
Figure 13 (Sandvik) ASRi Controller for Crushers De-fuzzification
Assays
Programmed in
2.2.2 SAG Charge Controller existing plant PLCs

44

(McKee, 1999). “In grinding, control of AG/SAG mill

circuits is the dominant area.” “there is still much
not understood about the dynamic behaviour of these
mills, and there is considerable scope for further
development.”
“It often appears that process control systems are
expected to do the impossible in having to respond to
extreme and unpredictable variations in plant feed
conditions (e.g. feed size and hardness to AG/SAG
grinding, extreme ore type changes to flotation).”
Figure 15 (Bartsch, 2006) SAG Charge Controller
2.2.3 Flotation Level and Froth Imaging
(McKee, 1999): “Robust control of flotation circuits
remains a major challenge.” (Akzo Nobel): “In an
ideal situation, collectors should absorb selectively
on the valuable minerals, and depressants should
absorb selectively on the unwanted gangue minerals.
Unfortunately, this is almost never the case and the
right combination of collectors and depressants
require the dedicated chemicals; and a lot of fine-
tuning in the flotation process.”
Flotation is so fundamental to the separation of
copper, zinc, nickel and lead sulphides. Therefore it
plays a very important part to the Xstrata operations.
Optimum flotation performance is reliant on good
level control, air sparging and flow control, as well as
precise chemical additions. Significant opportunities
are found in flotation operations by attention to these
fundamental controls. Flotation control has, should
have, and will continue to have, a lot of attention from
plant metallurgists and control engineers (Thwaites,
1983 and 1986; Flintoff and Mular, 1992; and Gillis,
2000). It is the process area of significant upgrading
of commodity minerals / metals.
Flotation Level Controls
Level Control:
• Absolute basics for Flotation.
• The movement of the pulp level setpoint provides opportunities for
flotation optimization if there is tight control in each cell. (Ref., PT, 1983)
31
Figure 16 Flotation level controls (Thwaites)
Figure 16 illustrates two different methods that have
been used to improve basic flotation level
measurement using accurate (and low cost) ultrasonic
level sensors. At the (Xstrata Cu) Collahuasi mill,
following commissioning, it was necessary to
upgrade all of the flotation level measurements to this
style of unit – thus improving flotation performance.
Froth Camera Imaging Technology
32
Figure 17 Froth Camera Imaging Technology
Flotation cameras (metso minerals, 2004) are now
offered by several different suppliers (including,
JKTech, metso minerals and MinnovEX). Froth
texture, froth velocity and bubble size are some ‘new
variables’ available to the control engineer. What is
exciting about this technology is the much faster
dynamics (typically 1 min. or less) that cameras can
operate at, as compared to XRF (X-ray fluorescence)
technology updating at 10 to 20 mins. Froth velocity
is a more direct indicator of mass pull, i.e. recovery,
and froth texture and bubble size is a good indicator
of acceptable or poor flotation performance. More
work is required here before Xstrata operations fully
benefit from this ‘recent’ exciting technology. XRF
assay information still remains fundamental to
flotation optimisation.
Figure 18 illustrates the flotation level and froth
velocity changes during a typical disturbance. The
velocity information reveals not only the significance
of the level disturbance, but also that the base pull
(recovery) is too low! By displaying the velocity
signal, this is now immediately evident to the
operator!
Rougher Level Disturbance
Level
Setpoint
1. Velocity (mass pull)
changes by over
Froth 1000%!
Velocity
2. Baseline ‘pull’ is
only 0.5 – 1 cm/s! :
Level SP too low?
34
Figure 18 Rougher Level Disturbance (Bartsch)
Metso minerals, (2004) suggest the cascade of froth
velocity to the cell level control – as practised at
Escondida, and under test at Xstrata’s Strathcona
Mill.
2.2.4 On-Demand Sample Automation and Points on
Control Structure
Flotation performance is difficult to control because it
is integrally tied to the performance of the online
sampling systems for the XRF.
Best practise at Xstrata is the use of automation for
the sampling system (Thwaites and Løkling, 2002).
As shown in figure 19, primary samples are only run
when the analyser needs them. They are then
automatically shutdown and flushed with water.
Lower maintenance and higher on-line times result.
This is necessary for advanced, robust controls of the
flotation process.
 the Best Process Control), focussed his article on
On-Demand Sampling Automation ‘Choosing between PID and model predictive control
depends on understanding your process and all its
interactions.’ “MPC controllers do a much better job
at controlling around constraints. Because MPC can
predict future behaviour, collisions, with constraints
can be anticipated. In response, control moves can
be applied that will bring the process to rest against
the constraint limits.”

The XPS Process Control Group obtains process

identification information from tools (like Invensys’
Connoisseur) that allow PRBS (pseudo random
Excellent practise is NOT DONE in our Canadian Mills!
36 binary sequence) tests on the process. These more
complex tests, would follow the simple initial step
Figure 19 XRF On-Demand Sampling Automation tests used for identifying basic process dynamics.

Robust and accurate assays allow better flotation However successful and beneficial, these systems will
control, often in a layered approach as shown in not be robust in the long run unless there is an
figure 20 (Gillis, 2000). This allows for a appropriate and knowledgeable resource capable of
compromised control when key measurements maintaining and supporting them.
become unavailable. Layered control also allows for
the implementation of additional controls at a later 2.2.6 Failure, Fault Detection and PCA/PLS
date.
(King, 2007). “Similarly, the value of process control
must be recognized. In the 50 year time span being
Flotation Control: Points on Control reviewed in this (JOM) paper, process control has
Structure and importance of layering emerged from its infancy in instrumentation—sensor,
alarms, level controls, etc., to the much higher levels
Set Point:
of operational prediction and performance
Operator Recovery or
Grade Target
optimization. An example is the use of multivariate
Metallurgical
Control
analysis techniques in smelters to alert operators
Measurement:
(Tail or Conc
Set Point:
when furnace run-out conditions are being
Assay)
Gram/Ton approached.”
Ratio Control
Measurement:
Tonnage or
Tonnage*Head Grade
Set Point:
cc/min While online systems like EFA Technologies Inc.
Flow Control ‘LeakNet’ fault (leak) detection system have been
All of the Met. Loops are PI/PID controllers for supportability
available for oil and slurry pipelines for several years,
If problems occur, operators may turn off one level of control at a time, independently for
each reagent 37
similar applications to the metallurgical industry’s
key process equipment are very limited. One such
Figure 20 A Layered Approach for Flotation (Gillis) system (figure 21) has been developed (Thwaites et
al., 2004; Nelson and Hyde, 2007).
2.2.5 MPC (Model Predictive Control)
Furnace Integrity & Performance
MPC applied to Xstrata processes was addressed by Using Multivariate Modelling (PCA/PLS)
Sandoz (2006). Included were:
(Off & On-line) System:

• Roasters (Connoisseur e.g. Kidd Zinc - 1993);

• Flotation Process (G2/Generalised Predictive
Extension:
Control – GPC) – originally implemented by Technology has also been extended to:

Noranda in 1999; • Kidd S Furnace

(running on-line); 84 of 400
• Flotation Level Control (FloatStar, Mintek – thermocouples on bathline.
Monitor MV 3/15/2004 7:52:31 AM
1000 250 79.22990

• Sudbury Ni furnace
SPE
800 Under Range

Collahuasi, 2004);
DEG C
(running on-line); 27 th’ on
700
600
500
tapholes; 500 on Furnace.
• 12 Nickel Shaft Furnaces (Connoisseur) at
400
300
200
Present work is extending to:
• Falcondo Ni Electric arc
Falcondo (2002). (Ryan);
0 150

Furnaces;
10:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00 1:00 4:00 7:00
CF BathLn MonMV SR SPE
C Fce Front of CBL32-C1938

• Kidd Copper Smelter (DIY on DCS) – Matte

C-Furnace Blowing Status 3/15/2004 7:52:31 AM
500 289.89
nM3/min
0
10:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00 1:00 4:00 7:00
47
Grade Control (2002);
CF Sum of All Gases

• Nickel Smelter Electric Arc Furnace

Figure 21 Furnace Integrity & Performance Using
(Connoisseur) – Fe:SiO2 control (2005).
Multivariate Modelling (PCA/PLS) – Off to On-Line
There are many references covering the applicability
(Nelson and Hyde, 2007). “Extending the campaign
of MPC. Recently, Gordon (2007), in the 11th and
life of the Mitsubishi furnaces at Xstrata Copper’s
final article in a process control series (topic: Select
Kidd Metallurgical Division Copper Smelter has been
a major focus of attention for many years. One aspect
of this effort is real time monitoring to detect
abnormal conditions and safely shut the furnaces
down before significant damage occurs. Traditional
real time methods of monitoring the integrity of
refractory furnaces containing molten metal include
alarms on individual temperatures of the refractory
or cooling water. Integrity monitoring systems that
look at many different signals and alarm only
changes in the relationships between the signals have
been implemented on the smelting and converting
furnaces. The systems are based on principle
components analysis (PCA) models and implemented
with the MonitorMV software package. These provide
much more sensitive and selective alarms so that
changes in integrity are alarmed well in advance of
any event. At a critical alarm level, the converting
furnace is set to automatically shut down so that
operating personnel can review the situation.”
The application was developed in concert with
Perceptive Engineering, UK (Sandoz, 2003) and is
described in detail in the Canadian Patent, No.
2,469,975 (Thwaites et al., 2004).
2.3 Actions – Support of Management; Technology
Transfer etc.
(McKee, 1999). “Enthusiastic support of
management for process control” “The elements
which make up a control system have always required
skilled support and they always will. Where this
support exists for instrumentation, control hardware
and software and process control knowledge, the
systems are invariably successful. Whether the
systems are relatively simple or quite complex, it must
be recognized that process control is not a simple
technology.
Ultimately, the necessary level of management
support and commitment is essential. It is
remarkable how often large investments in control
are made in the clear knowledge that the necessary
support is unlikely to be available. Under these
circumstances, dissatisfaction with the eventual
outcome is guaranteed.”
As shown in figure 8, (Thwaites, 1993) the
Operations support is a ‘pillar’ for good process
control. After all, they are the client who knows best
what the process and plant economics are, and the
areas requiring focus for maximum benefit. They
should understand enough control to identify what is
operating in their plant and what the potential of the
systems are. The right KPIs (key performance
indicators) can be very beneficial here.
3. XPS Process Control PHILOSOPHY SUMMARY
Two of the four business groups at the Xstrata
Process Support Centre, the Process Mineralogy
Group and the Extractive Metallurgy Group, operate
pilot facilities (figure 22) that cover milling and
flotation processes, as well as hydrometallurgical and
pyrometallurgical processes. These are excellent
facilities to utilise ‘state of the art’ instrumentation,
like Coriolis meters, as well as fieldbus technology
(e.g. PROFIBUS), thin client MMI systems together
with integrated controls (mostly with Concept - a
IEC61131 programming language).
XPS Process Support:
Pilot Plants
¾Complete Control System:
¾Design
¾Engineering
¾Commissioning
¾Optimisation
¾Instrumentation:
¾Selection.
¾Installation.
¾Development (with suppliers)
¾State of the art system
hardware and software tools
(IEC-61131).
Philosophy & practice of XPS piloting is engineer to equivalent, or higher standard as the
Plants, thereby obtaining key controls knowledge & providing excellent process data. 28
Figure 22 XPS Process Support: Pilot Plants
The philosophy and practise of XPS piloting is to
engineer to an equivalent or higher standard as the
operation plants, thereby obtaining key controls
knowledge, by obtaining excellent process data.
Often these data are used in detailed engineering
studies.
Figure 23 shows the application of (Emerson)
Coriolis meters to the pumping station of an oil
pipeline. While this is a ‘simple process’ it
summarises very well key steps in the improvement
of the process of pumping oil over many kilometres.
Prior to the Group’s involvement there only existed a
pressure measurement at the inlet and on at the outlet,
both were monitored by a Pi PMIS system.
Oil Pipeline –
Measurement & Control
• New flowmeters – inlet & outlet;
• 2 additional Pressures; plus Tank Levels;
• Pressure / Flow Difference Calculations; Pump
Amps/Volts; Pump Status Pressures;
Flowrates; into PI for continuous monitoring;
• Robust Communications;
• Pressure Controller on inlet and outlet;
• Leak Detection System;
• Auto Shutoff Valves for isolation; and a
segmentation strategy;
51
Figure 23 Oil Pipeline – Measurement & Control
Additional instrumentation added included: flow
measurement (Coriolis) at the inlet and outlet,
additional pressure measurements along the pipeline,
and tank levels. All measurements were then
continuously monitored and captured by the Pi PMIS warning conditioning monitoring, with soft sensors
historian including: pressure / flow difference integrated to plant control systems.
calculations, and pump amps / volts measurement.
Robust communications, plus pressure controllers on
the inlet and outlet, were installed and commissioned. Perceptive Engineering’s Focus:
Finally a leak detection system (EFA Technologies, (Vision)
2002) was commissioned using the added process 40

35
Soft Sensors
data. Ultimately, auto shutoff valves together with a Classification for
30

FeO
25

segmentation strategy, bring this process to one of

20

Intelligent
Quality Control & “Soft” Sensors
15

10
0 20 40 60
Operating
Sample No.
80
Plans120
100

‘state of the art’ - mitigating operational risk.

Optimisation
& Scheduling Management
Information Systems
Operating Constraints
Performance Reports

Advanced Process
Control

Figure 24 summarises the XPS Process Control Conventional

Setpoints

Control System
Group’s philosophy in applying common
Regulatory Controls

Early Warning Process

40
Valve position Integration
Condition Monitors
methodologies, tools, approaches, synergies and
35
SPE

30
Confidence Limit Conventional Sensors
25
& Instrumentation

technical exchanges to mills, pyrometallurgical,

SPE
20

15

10

hydrometallurgical plants, and plants of the future

5

Integrated Condition Monitoring

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time

(pilot plants). This applies to copper, zinc, nickel and Advanced Process Control 70
operations as well as acid plants, petroleum and
power plants owned and operated by Xstrata.
Figure 25 Vision: Perceptive Engineering (Sandoz)

Process Control Philosophy Beyond the ‘tools and systems’ new improved
Competitive Advantage mineral beneficiation processes, are gaining a
worldwide acceptance (at an increasingly rapid pace),
like Xstrata Technology’s IsaMill (Pease, 2007) and
Process Control DELIVERY
ISASMELT (Bakker and Arthur, 2007). These
provide interesting opportunities to further process
MILLS Pyromet Hydromet Plants Competitive control and PCA/PLS analysis and on-line systems.
of the
Plants Plants
future Advantage It is indeed an exciting time to be working in the
Common Methodologies / Tools / Approaches
minerals and metallurgical control industry.
Synergies and Technical Exchanges

Goal: Operation Performance Excellence !
69
Figure 24 Process Control Philosophy
4. THE ‘NEAR TERM’ OUTLOOK
Instrumentation is so much better than it was 25 years
ago and procurement agreements with key, major
suppliers allows the latest technology into the plants
where they are ultimately proven for both accuracy
and robustness. Utilisation of ‘asset management’
systems (like E&H’s FieldCare) will help to ensure
instrumentation is performing appropriately. But this
is also where other tools, like PlantTriage (ExperTune
Inc.) and online PCA/PLS models (MonitorMV,
Perceptive Engineering) can play an important part –
quickly identifying and reporting failed
instrumentation to mitigate costly productivity losses
and expensive equipment problems / failures. Well
tuned, adaptive – where necessary, control loops
operating in auto are essential for Operational
Performance Excellence. While most are still PID
and cascade PID, there are excellent MPC (model
predictive control) and MV (multivariable) fuzzy
controllers operating robustly.
Figure 25 (Sandoz, 2003) illustrates integrated
condition monitoring and advanced process control.
Their tools (e.g. MonitorMV and ControlMV) are
presently running online doing classification, early
5. CONCLUSIONS
(Konigsman, 1992). “Process control is now an
essential part of any concentrator operation. It
provides a proven vehicle for improving operation
economics by increasing revenues and reducing
costs. A substantial number of Canada’s mineral
processing plants have incorporated this technology,
and most have realized impressive returns on
investment. The question one must ask is whether we
are tapping the full potential of this technology. It is
the opinion of the MITEC Mineral Processing
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that the answer
to this question is “No!”
(King, 2007). ‘Is the Best Yet to Come?’ “Similarly,
the value of process control must be recognized. In
the 50 year time span being reviewed in this paper,
process control has emerged from its infancy in
instrumentation—sensor, alarms, level controls, etc.,
to the much higher levels of operational prediction
and performance optimization.
Plant automation is often seen as the project
deliverable, when what is really required is plant
control. There are many approaches, instrumentation,
and multiple control systems, together with numerous
‘advanced control’ packages to select from. Process
control has been presented here (and previously by
Flintoff and Mular, 1992) as more than just tools.
Successful plant implementation is reliant on these
together with process knowledge, a solid control
engineering background / experience, and the
operations team willing to act / implement / support
the implementations. Together robust solutions can
be realised, minimising process variation and
optimising process performance. This will result in
an easier, efficient and safer process to operate.
Furthermore, at present metal prices, financial gains
can be substantial (on a project to project basis). The
SAG charge controller, referenced in section 2.2.2,
was recently evaluated in contributing to a 5 to 8 tph
(3.6% to 5.5%) mill production gain – value to
Xstrata Nickel at $20M to $30M per year!
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author acknowledges the inspiration provided by
Don McKee, through the AMIRA P9L final report.
(D. McKee spent 10 years developing control
systems, first at Mount Isa, then Climax Molybdenum
in Colorado; he is now a Director of the Sustainable
Mineral Institute, SMI, University of Qld.). The
author would also like to thank XPS Management for
permission to present / publish this material and all
present / past members of the Xstrata Process Control
Group whom have contributed in many ways to the
examples discussed in this paper. Additionally, the
excellent support of the many operational clients is
much appreciated and makes a difference. The
discussion and examples for this paper have drawn
upon experiences gained at the following Xstrata
operations:
Strathcona Mill Sudbury Ni Smelter
Raglan Mill Nikkelverk Refinery
Collahuasi Mill Falcondo Site
Kidd Site Brunswick Smelter
Altonorte Smelter Horne Smelter
Mt. Isa Cu Smelter CCR Refinery
Pilot Plant Activities
7. REFERENCES
Akzo Nobel, Flotation Depramin depressants website.
Bakker, M., and Arthur, P. (2007). Growth and acceptance of the
ISASMELT process. CIM Magazine, p 45-47. March/April 2007.
Bartsch, E. (2006 & 2007). Raglan SAG Charge Controller.
Ginding Control Update 1 of 2007. Int. presentation and memo.
EFA Technologies Inc. (2002). ‘LeakNet’ fault detection
presentation.
Flintoff and Mular. (1992). A practical Guide to Process Controls
in the Minerals Industry.
Gillis, J. (2000) Flotation Control Review. Internal presentation.
Gillis, J. and Lacombe, P. (2002) Montcalm Process Control
Philosophy. Internal document.
Gordon, L. (2007). Select the Best Process Control. Choosing
between PID and model predictive control depends on
understanding your process and all its interactions. Control
Engineering, p. IP1 to IP8. January 2007.
Jones, R. (1994 and 1996). What is Process Control? An
Introductory Guided Tour. Plant-Wide Control and Real-Time
Process Databases (PMIS). Number 19 and Number 23, Process
Control Application Notes - For the Resource Industries. Noranda
Technology Centre.
King, M. (2007). The Evolution of Technology for Extractive
Metallurgy over the Last 50 Years - Is the Best Yet to Come? JOM
Vol.59, No.2.
Koehler, T. Lakeside Best Practices in Regulatory Process Control.
Course Training.
Konigsman, K. (1992). Foreward - A practical Guide to Process
Controls in the Minerals Industry (Flintoff and Mular).
Lotter, NO, et al. (2002). The Development of Process Mineralogy
at Falconbridge Limited, and Application to the Raglan Mill, CIM
Bulletin, vol. 95, no. 1066, pp. 85-92, November/December 2002.
Lotter, NO, et al. (2003). Sampling and Flotation Testing of
Sudbury Basin Drill Core for Process Mineralogy Modelling.
Minerals Engineering. September 2003, 16, pp. 857-864.
Lovett, D., Sandoz, D., and Ryan, L. (2007). Automatic Control
Development for the Falcondo Ferronickel Electric Arc Furnace.
IFAC MMM’07. Quebec City.
McKee, D. (1999). P9L Process Control - The Optimisation of
Mineral Processes by Modelling and Simulation 1996 to 1999 Final
Report Vol.1. AMIRA.
Metso minerals. (2004). Visions Systems for the Mineral
Processing Industry. Workshop presentation. Ottawa, Canada.
Mujica, L., Yacher, L., Coetzer, L., Cipriano, Z. (2005). A Review
and Benchmark of Process control and Automation at Copper
Concentrators. AMIRA Project P893. Santiago, Chile.
Nelson, P. and Hyde, A. (2007). Integrity Monitoring of Xstrata
Copper’s Kidd Metallurgical Division Mitsubishi 3-Line Furnaces
Using Multivariate Methods. Cu2007, Toronto, Canada.
Pease, J. (2007). Xstrata Technology and the Current Market.
Xstrata Technology Update Edition 8 – March 2007.
Ryan, L. (2004). Falconbridge Dominicana Reduction Shaft
Furnace Advanced Control Development. TMS (Minerals, Metals
& Materials Society) Laterite Symposium. Charlotte, NC, USA.
Sandoz, D. (2003). Multivariate Statistical Process Analysis,
Monitoring and Control. Training presentation for MonitorMV.
Perceptive Engineering.
Sandoz, D. (2006). The Exploitation of Model Predictive Control
in the Mineral Processing Industry. Presentation. Laurentian
Mineral Process Modelling, Simulation and Control Conference,
Advanced Control Forum. June 2006.
Tell, I. (2007) E&H Memosens – Digital pH System. Presentation.
Thwaites, P. (1983). Continued development of copper flotation
control at the Kidd Creek concentrator. CIM Bulletin. Dec. 1983.
Thwaites, P. (1986). Computer Controlled Reagent Addition
Strategy and Hardware for the Control of a Copper and Zinc
Flotation Process. 3rd Meeting of the Canadian Industrial
Computer Society. Montreal.
Thwaites, P. (1993). Presentation for 1993 Noranda Technology
Conference. Internal presentation.
Thwaites, P., Løkling, R. (2002). Observations &
Recommendations for Further Improvements in the Control
Systems & Process Controls at Collahuasi. Internal memo.
Thwaites, P., Sandoz, D., Nelson, P., McEwan, M., Norberg, P.,
Kak, D. and Gillis, J. (2004). System and Method for Furnace
Monitoring and Control. Canadian Patent, No. 2,469,975.
Thwaites, P. and MacKey, P. (2005). India Trip Report: Canada –
India Trade Mission; IIM Seminar; IIT & IISc Visits. Int. memo.
Vien, A. (2006). Process Control Short Course. MPMSC. Sudbury.