IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF FLOTATION MACHINES

A. Rinne, A. Peltola and H. Myllykangas

(Outotec, Finland)
E-Mail: antti.rinne@outotec.com

Introduction

Average planned lifetime of new operations is often 20 years or more. However in engineering phase it is seldom borne in
mind that certain operational expenditures may significantly increase during plant lifetime. Decades of relatively
inexpensive energy and the lack of concern for environmental aspects have kept energy consumption of concentrator key
equipment at the same level. Only increased equipment size has reduced energy consumption compared to solutions that
were taken into use 40 years ago.

In (Rinne A., Peltola A., 2007) flotation life cycle costs were discussed and it was shown that even with current energy
prices the initial investment cost is negligible compared to energy cost over the lifetime of 25 years. Life cycle energy cost
is even higher compared to additional investment that is needed to ensure optimal energy efficiency of the equipment. The
ratio between investment costs and energy price varies from place to place but the order of magnitude in different cases
doesn’t change. It is only the question of payback time, is it a couple of months or a couple of years.

This paper discusses energy efficiency of flotation machines. Practical methods for improving energy efficiency and site
results of three energy efficient flotation machines are introduced.

On energy efficiency

Interest towards more energy efficient operations has significantly increased during recent years when discussion around
carbon dioxide emissions and global warming has spread all over. Also discussions on energy price trends in the future
more and more often estimate that times of cheap energy will be over in several areas of the world.

When increasing overall energy efficiency of a concentrator plant it is necessary to focus on all possible areas.
Comminution needs a lot of energy, but the total operating power of larger flotation plant is several megawatts and there is
also a big potential to save more when attention is paid to pumps and other auxiliary equipment. Compared to direct
investment cost flotation machines provide a good potential for energy saving. Direct investment cost of a large flotation
cell is approximately one tenth of energy costs over life cycle of 25 years. Blower costs are included in the calculation,
foundations and auxiliary equipment such as pumps are not included and it is assumed that energy price does not change
during the 25 years. Equipping such a flotation machine with variable speed drive (VSD) and high efficiency components
does not increase the investment cost more than 10 percent. If such arrangement easily provides energy saving potential of
more than 10 percent it is easy to calculate payback time for higher investment cost.

There are several factors that affect overall energy efficiency of a flotation plant. They can be divided into flotation plant
and flotation machine level factors. The most important plant level factors are careful process design and the decision about
cell sizes. It is nowadays possible to estimate process design parameters such as needed flotation volume with great
accuracy. Calculations with Outotec’s HSC Sim software that have been based on proper mineralogical analyses have
shown precise results compared to measurements from real processes. The cell size also plays a big role. The energy
consumption of 100 m3 cells compared to 300 m3 cells is approximately 20-30 % higher.

The most important flotation machine level factor is the mixing mechanism selection and speed. This selection is typically
done based on initial mineralogical test work in small scale and earlier experiences with similar ores. It is not possible to
risk the complete concentrator performance by optimising too much and selecting too low mixing power and in practice this
situation leads to solutions with certain safety margins. Although these safety margins are not big in percentage they can be
big in terms of power draw and electricity costs. A straightforward solution to optimize mixer speed and power is the use of
variable speed drive (VSD). No matter what the nominal speed of the mixer is the optimum speed can be selected. With
certain ores the optimum speed can even be higher compared to nominal.
On drive mechanism efficiencies and selection

The selection of drive mechanism has certain effect on overall efficiency, especially when selected and assembled against
recommendations. The selection of correct size gear reducer is important as well as proper aligning of belts. Direct motor
drive without reducers represents ideal solution in terms of efficiency but it has other disadvantages. Following examples
clarify different drive options and explain current solutions.

A standard drive solution of a mechanical flotation machine consists of a rotor, a shaft, and a drive unit mounted on top
structures of the tank (see Figure 1). The drive performs several functions. In addition to providing torque to the rotor, it
must also provide support for the shaft and accept the rotor forces. This leads to the fact that the drive cannot be selected on
the basis of the output torque alone. Careful attention must be paid to the bearing loads and deflection of the shaft resulting
from forces and moments acting on the rotor.

Electric
Motor Driven
motor
(driving) pulley
pulley
Gear
reducer

Shaft

Rotor

Bearing
Electric unit
motor

Figure 1. Left: Cross section of a TankCell with a Direct Gearbox Drive. Right: A Single Stage V-Belt Drive.

To increase torque and adjust rotation speed, the drive usually includes either belt or gear reducer connected to an induction
motor. Induction motors work best when the number of poles is two, four, or six. The number of poles can be increased but
there are many properties – such as relative start-up torque – which get worse with higher number of poles.

In order to provide optimal conditions for air bubble and mineral grain collisions, the circumferential speed of the rotor has
to be kept in certain range. Especially in larger machines this means that the motor speed has to be reduced.

A question arises if it would be possible to get rid of reducers by using very low speed electric motors. According to studies
made by Outotec, the answer is that at least it is not economically feasible. The cost of an electric motor seems to be
proportional to torque provided by the electric motor. The reducers give a mechanical advantage as a belt drive or gear
reducers multiply the torque by the transmission ratio as presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Mechanical advantage of the reducers.

Low-speed motors usually require more advanced control technology than just direct online coupling. For example low
speed permanent magnet motors are usually driven via frequency converters. The frequency converters, despite lots of
positive quantities, seem to reduce the overall efficiency by approximately 2 %.

The industry normally uses following rating for efficiencies (ABB, Airila & al.):
o Process performance induction motor = 95 %
o Permanent magnet motor = 95%
o Frequency converter = 98 %
o Bearing unit = 99 %
o Wrapped V-belts = 90-95 %
o Notched Raw Edge V-belts = 95-98 %
o Two-stage gearbox = 98 %

Let us consider a flotation machine drive which requires 250 kW (P) mixing power at 75 rpm (n) with three possible
arrangements.

1. A v-belt drive with notched raw edge v-belts and a bearing unit 10-pole motor and 1:8 belt transmission.
2. A two-stage gearbox that also provides support for the shaft 4-pole motor and 1:20 gear reducer.
3. Low speed permanent magnet motor and a bearing unit.

The torque is power divided by angular velocity, which gives us requirement of

P 250000W W
T 31830 31830Nm
1 s 1 s s
n 2 60 75 2 60
min min min min
torque at mixer shaft.
This means that following motors are compared:

1. 10-pole induction motor with 3 979 Nm torque (v-belt drive)

2. 4-pole induction motor with 1 591 Nm torque (direct gear drive)
3. Permanent magnet motor with 31 830 Nm torque (direct motor drive)

As discussed earlier, a variable speed drive has potential for significant savings in power draw. Therefore, the comparison is
made assuming that all of the alternatives include a frequency converter. In reality, options one and two can be operated
without frequency converters, which decreases investment costs and increases efficiency but simultaneously means un-
optimized rotation speed and mechanism power draw.

The feasibility of direct drive is a function of thee parameters:

1. Cost of permanent magnet motor vs. induction motors [$/Nm]

2. Cost of reducers [$]
3. Cost of electricity [$/kWh]

Let us assume, that v-belt transmission and gear reducers are mature technologies and their relative cost will remain at the
same level when compared to electric motors.

Investment and energy costs of each drive arrangement for 20 years operating life are represented in Figure 3 using the
following cost-factors:

1. Electric motor cost: $/Nm-figure from Outotec’s recent projects

2. Actual costs of Outotec’s v-belt drive and gear drive components for the informed torque
3. Cost of electricity 0,1 $/kWh
4. Cost of capital 6 %

Figure 3. Relative investment and energy costs.

With today’s price levels the direct drive does not appear to be economical. Even 100% increase in energy cost would still
mean over 15 years payback time compared to direct gear drive with VSD.

Economical justification for direct drives would require that cost per provided newton meters would cheapen significantly
below the cost per provided newton meters in traditional induction motors. When aiming to approximately five (5) years
payback time, a newton meter from a permanent magnet motor should cost approximately one third of the newton meter
from an induction motor. At the moment the cost difference in $/Nm is almost non-existent.

Site results

Test work has been done to determine energy saving potential of flotation cells in practice. Metallurgical results and
electricity consumption were measured with different mixer speeds.

Case Harjavalta

Performance of TankCell® 50 flotation machine at the slag copper concentrator of Boliden Harjavalta smelter site was
measured during two days in October 2007. Flotation feed is relative fine but high solids content and heavy material leads to
average slurry SG of 1,8. TankCell®-50 machine is equipped with VSD that enables easy change of mixer speed. Feed,
concentrate and tailings were collected during every measurement round. Every sample consists of three to five composites
to eliminate sampling errors. Other variables were kept the same during measurements.

Average results from two days test period are presented in Figure 4. Measurements were taken in power draw range from
0,6 kW/m3 to 1,1 kW/m3 including blower power. In this range mixer circumferential speed is all the time within values that
typically ensure proper air dispersion. All the differences in metallurgy during the test period seem to have no connection at
all to mixer speed and power draw. The number of samples is too small to determine optimum metallurgical point but from
power draw point of view results are clear. Based on test results typical mixer speed of normal operation of this TankCell®-
50 machine was decreased. No signs of weaker metallurgy have been recorded after the change. In this case with heavy
particles one possible limiting factor for very low power draws is sanding. Sanding often happens during longer time
periods and it would require long-term careful test work to find out limits.

Copper Recovery and Grade vs. Power Draw

90
Recovery/Grade [%] .

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0,60 0,75 0,85 1,00 1,10

Power Draw [kW/m3]

Cu Recovery [%] Cu Grade [%]

Figure 4. Copper recoveries and grades with different nominal power draws at Boliden Harjavalta TankCell®-50.
Case Pyhäsalmi

Performance of a TankCell® 60 flotation machine at Inmet’s Pyhäsalmi Mine in Finland was measured over longer period
in 2008-2009. This test cell is equipped with large motor and VSD to enable continuous operation with several different test
set-ups. Test cell was configured to work as the first cell of pyrite flotation circuit that removes left over zinc from slurry
improving the quality of pyrite concentrate. P80 of the feed is between 80-90 m and average slurry SG 1,7.

Tests were started by evaluating extreme conditions that clearly limit cell metallurgy. Different mechanism sizes and speeds
were tested with different air feed rates. Maximum values during the initial tests were almost 3,0 kW/m3 mixing power and
over 2,0 cm/s superficial gas velocity (Jg). The first limiting factor with extremely small cell nominal power draws was
rotor circumferential speed. It is likely that it is possible to use the test cell with even smaller nominal power draws with
smaller mixing mechanisms but sanding will be limiting factor below certain values. During this test work no sanding was
observed.

Based on initial results FloatForce-1050 mechanism was selected to be the mechanism in further tests. Superficial gas
velocity (Jg) was fixed to 1,0 cm/s that is very close to value that has been found out to be good during several years of
operation in the same cell. Mixer nominal power draws were fixed to values 0,5 kW/m3, 1,0 kW/m3 and 1,5 kW/m3 that
approximately correspond total power draws of 0,6 kW/m3, 1,1 kW/m3 and 1,6 kW/m3 when blower power is taken into
account.

Several thousand samples were taken during these tests to increase statistical reliability of the results. Feed rate and density
observed continuously in order to discard samples where feed fluctuation was too big. Average results of one test set-up are
presented in Figure 5. Results show clearly that there are no significant differences in results between varying mixer power
draws. Another result set shows even smaller differences with same nominal power draws. Based on old test results,
Pyhäsalmi mine has been running the cell with a low nominal power over years and these results confirm old observations.
There is no need to use higher power draws, but would it be possible to use even less power? Test work will continue.

Zinc Recovery and Grade vs. Power Draw

70,0
Recovery/Grade [%] .

60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
0,6 1,1 1,6

Power Draw [kW/m3]

Zn Recovery [%] Zn Grade [%]

Figure 5. Zinc recoveries and grades with different nominal power draws at Pyhäsalmi TankCell®-60.

Case Chuquicamata

Outotec’s TankCells operating in porphyry copper operations are well known for low power consumption. TankCell® 300
flotation cell was tested at Chuquicamata site in Chile against two TankCell® 160 cells that were proven to be state-of-the-
art technology when they were commissioned in 2001. More detailed reports of this test work will be presented elsewhere.
Summary of metallurgical and energy consumption results presented in Table 1 indicate also here that lower energy may
lead to better performance.
Table 1. Comparison of 160 and 300 m3 cells at Codelco Chuquicamata (Grönstrand, S. & al.).

Cell type 2x TankCell® 160 TankCell® 300 TankCell® 300

Mechanism type OK-FreeFlow FloatForce® FloatForce®
(2001) +FlowBooster
-10% speed

Comparative
(Reference) + 3,7 % units + 5,3 % units
Copper Recovery

Comparative
(Reference) +1,0 % units +1,1 % units
Copper Grade

Specific Energy
(Mechanism + 0,71 kW / m3 0,66 kW / m3 0,58 kW / m3
blower)

Comparative
(Reference) -7% - 18 %
Energy

Summary

This paper discusses the fundamental design features of flotation cell drives, starting from the speed reducing elements and
their characteristics. It was shown that a direct electric drive with permanent magnet motors and frequency converters is not
yet feasible for these drives due to their investment cost. The use of frequency converters in standard drives provides
biggest energy saving potential when mixer speed can be reduced from nominal speed.

Test campaigns from three sites were reported. Results from those cases indicate that a decrease in power input did not
affect metallurgy, at least adversely.

References

ABB, Frequency converter and permanent magnet motor brochures, 2009.

Airila, M. & al., Fundamentals of machine element design, WSOY, 1997.

Grönstrand, S. & al., On hydrodynamic set-up of the TankCell 300, Flotation 09 conference proceedings.

Rinne, A., Peltola, A., On lifetime costs of flotation operations. In: Minerals Engineering, Volume 21, Issues 12-14,
November 2008.