12th Australasian Aluminium Smelting Technology Conference

Queenstown, New Zealand 2018

COMMON ROOT CAUSES FOR ANODE PROBLEMS

WITHIN THE REDUCTION CELL
Roy A Cahill1 and Patrice Palau1
1
Pacific Aluminium, Pacific Technology Centre, Level 4 123 Albert St Brisbane QLD 4000.
Roy.cahill@pacificaluminium.com.au, Patrice.palau@riotinto.com

Abstract
In the aluminium smelting process, there will be times when anode problems occur. These
problems can have a significant impact on cell performance as well as the work flow in the
reduction lines. For significant events, when the problem extends across multiple cells, bays,
or lines, the overall production from the facility will decrease thereby impacting plant
revenue. Large events have been shown to cost from $1 million to as much as $10 million in
loss to the business. The following paper will define a number of typical anode problems
observed in the smelting process as well as review the more common root causes for these
problems. The more common root causes explored will extend to both the Carbon and
Reduction Departments with some examples from each.

Keywords: anode problem, anode spike, carbon dust, cracked anode

Introduction
In the aluminium smelting process, carbon anodes are set into a reduction cell, consumed via
the electrolytic reaction of converting Al2O3 to Al (metal), and removed as a spent butt at the
appropriate time to prevent stub or assembly damage. Within this internal process, issues can
arise resulting in what the industry terms as anode problems. Anode problems to be examined
in this paper will be transition joint failure between the rod and assembly, severed stubs that
can result in anode drop-offs, excessive airburn and anode reactivity with the result of
increased carbon dust in the cell, anode cracking or slabbing, broken carbon or carbon
corners, and formation of spikes or mushrooms on the working face of the anode (see Figure
1 for examples). Each of these issues can result in severe disturbance to the cell operation and
additional work for the cell operators. The net result of which is loss of metal production and
increased HSE risks.

For each one of these anode problems, experience has shown that they are caused by some
generic root causes in either the anode production process and/or the reduction process. A list
of each one with some explanation and examples will be provided in this paper. Compilation
of these common root causes can enable faster investigations for a large number of anode
problem events, and lead to faster resolution. It should also aid the Technical Specialists in
the training of new Operators and Engineers in their respective areas regarding how anode
problems can result if we fail to maintain proper cell operations and chemistries, or do not
adhere to the desired anode manufacturing process.

1
 Figure 1. Common anode problems experienced within a reduction cell.

Transition Joint (Clad) Failure

Transition joint failure in a cell refers to the complete breakage of the anode rod from the
anode yoke or assembly. Figure 2 provides some examples of failed transition joints. In most
cases, this joint is made up of a rolled or explosion bonded aluminium and steel cladding that
allows connection of the aluminium rod with the steel yoke. Cladding materials can vary
depending upon design, but all can exhibit failure under the right conditions.

Figure 2. Examples of transition joint failures that have occurred within a reduction cell.

Failure modes for transition joints can be caused by elevated temperatures throughout its life
and excessive loads. Over time, a transition joint will experience necking on the aluminium
side of the clad which occurs when the material can no longer stand the plastic deformation
and responds with a shrinkage in cross-sectional area, thereby reducing the ultimate tensile

2
strength of the joint. Yield strength and ultimate tensile strength both decrease dramatically at
a given temperature for the aluminium/aluminium welded joint (typically around 200-250⁰C),
see Figure 3a. Within a cell, the transition joint experiences its lowest temperature after set
and steadily increases through the life of the anode in the cell (Figure 3b). Excessive
temperatures in combination with load can then result in dramatically shorter service life or
catastrophic failure of the joint.

Figure 3. Charts on a) Impact of temperature on yield strength of alloy 4043 and b)

Transition joint temperature by stall as a function of anode life in a cell operating ~230kA.
[1]

Most Probable Causes for Failure

Carbon Operations
 Failure to detect a cracked weld or severely necked transition joint during rodding
inspection
 Poor weld quality will also contribute to reduced service life

Reduction Operations
 Transition joint exceeds maximum viable temperature. Can be caused by;
o Formation of spike on anode resulting in excessively high anode temperatures,
o High temperature of cell due to problematic or “sick” cell,
o High level of cover material on anode or build-up of alumina from feeders
o High current draw, e.g. during the start-up of a new cell or a slipped anode
 Excessive stress or load during removal of anode from the cell
o Crane travel in the horizontal direction during anode removal (high number of
bent rods would be a symptom of poor removal practices)
o Hard crust from excess fresh alumina in cover in combination with no
jackhammering done before anode removal

Figure 4. Pictorial examples of potential causes for transition joint failure

3
Severed Stubs – Drop Offs
Severed stubs are incidents when the steel stub loses connection with the anode and results in
a large portion of the carbon dropping into the cell. This causes additional work within the
reduction line and will have a large impact on the individual cell’s performance. For the
impacted cell, the severed stub will also increase the iron levels in the aluminium metal.
Depending upon the severity of the event, iron levels can reach as high as 3000ppm and take
up to a week or more before normal purity quality is produced again. Some examples of
severed stubs are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Examples of severed stubs and or drop offs in cell.

Most Probable Causes

Carbon Operations
 Anode can no longer last the desired rota resulting in bath coming over the top of the
anode and dissolving the stub
o Can be caused by a decrease in the baked anode density resulting in insufficient
carbon being set in the reduction cell
 Decreases in density can be caused by changes in raw materials; issues
with forming and/or mixing or; incorrect weighing of paste mass in mould
box.
o Increase in the anode reactivity (see later section)
 Cracks or carbon breakage (see later section on causes for broken carbon)
 Quality of cast iron/anode connection is low
o Too low pouring of cast iron in stub hole or cast iron completely missing
o Poor stub placement that results in stub sitting too high in the stub hole
(insufficient contact to hold anode weight)
 Can be caused by slumping of the stub hole or
 Severe coke adherence in stub hole
 Bent stubs not fitting into the stub hole

Reduction Operations
 Bath goes over the top of the anode, and the anode becomes submerged for a sufficient
period to result in dissolution of the steel stub
o Increase in bath height or bath height standard deviation
 Shift to larger cross sectional anode (less cell cavity remaining in cell and
higher fluctuations in bath height)
 Delays in bath tapping caused by various disruptions to work flow
 Deliberate change in bath height target

4
  Large change in sodium in alumina that increases bath generation within a
cell
 Poor liquid level control via insufficient bath tapping schedule, metal
tapping schedule, inadequate response plans
 Poor compliance to cover timing (to early will result in more bath
generation as it falls directly into the cell)
o Delay in anode setting resulting in the anode being in the cell past its actual
capability
o “Sick” cell (high or low temperature, high anode effect rate, large open holes in
the crust, ridging, etc)
 Anode effect kill routines that cause pumping of the anodes up and down
in the bath can push bath over the tops of anodes that are at the end of their
rota within a cell
o Squeezing of the anode cathode distance (cause by changes in the resistance of the
bath – i.e., chemistry, carbon dust)
o Severe airburn event (no cover or loss of cover for extended time of anode life or
insufficient cover, increased anode reactivity – see later section)
o Inappropriate or non-ideal bath donor cell management (management regime
causes stub damage)

Airburn
Airburn of carbon anodes occurs once the temperature increases above the ignition
temperature of the carbon block (typically 400-440⁰C). Some examples of airburned anodes
can be found in Figure 6. The reaction rates of carbon and oxygen changes with temperatures.
The changes in rate can be described by using an Arrhenius plot that maps the log values of
the reaction rate with the inverse of temperature [2]. The region of the Arrhenius plot that
shows the reaction rate of carbon and oxygen steadily increases with increasing temperature
is known as the “Reaction Control Region”. This region is where the reactivity of the carbon
and temperature has influence on the reaction rate as more oxygen atoms have sufficient
energy to overcome the activation energy of the carbon/oxygen reaction with increasing
temperature. However, once the temperature of the carbon anode reaches a temperature above
a range of ~530 to 630⁰C [2-4], the reaction becomes diffusion controlled. This is noted as
the “Diffusion Control Region” of an Arrhenius plot. Within this region, any oxygen
molecule, once it has diffused to the carbon surface, has sufficient energy to react with a
carbon atom within the anode matrix. Figure 7 shows an Arrhenius plot developed for carbon
anodes. [2] Rhedey and Sadler also published similar results. [3-4]

Figure 6. Some examples of airburned anodes from various Reduction Lines.

5
 Figure 7. Arrhenius plot of the air reactivity of a carbon anode. [2]

Most Probable Causes

Carbon Operations
 Increase in anode reactivity (see later section)
 For sites that utilizes aluminium spray on the anode surfaces to protect against airburn,
poor quality coverage of the spray or damage to the aluminium coating will impact
effectiveness [5]
o Poor coating of aluminium caused by temperature changes in the metal, air
pressures, or condition of the nozzles
o Poor sticking of the aluminium spray coating to the anode due to coarse anode
surface with loose grains
o Damage to the already sprayed anode caused by bumping or scraping of anodes
together or by other equipment during transport and handling

Reduction Operations
 Any exposed carbon will burn once the carbon surface has reached a temperature above
the ignition temperature of ~400-440oC.
o Inadequate initial cover after setting
 Delay in the covering due to disruptions to workflow
 No or insufficient cover applied
 Initial covering practice not to standard such as material not spread evenly
across anode top surface
 Poor quality of the cover material
o Wrong granulometry (too fine or too coarse particles will result in issues with the
cover staying on the anode)
o Incorrect cover chemistry
 Too much fresh alumina can cause very hard crusts that crack during
normal anode movements resulting in openings for air ingress to the anode
surface
 Likewise, no fresh alumina will prevent the cover from sintering
 High excess AlF3 in the cover material can result in a higher chiolite
content and lower melting point
 Timing of cover application

6
 o Depending on cell design, application of the cover too soon can result in most of it
dropping directly into the molten bath (this can lead to other issues such as anode
spikes)
 No or inadequate redressing of the tap hole anodes. Tap holes are opened regularly and
redressing is required to prevent excessive airburn of the tap hole end anodes
 Sick cell
o Cell with high temperature or excessive superheat can result in the melting of the
cover crust either in the centre channel or side channel. These openings then allow
air ingress to the anode.
o Localised high temperatures caused by anode spikes can also result in melting of
the cover crust

Some pictorial examples for causes of airburn on carbon anodes are provided in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Some pictorial examples of common causes for airburn on anodes.

Anode Reactivity/Carbon Dust in Cells

Carbon dust in cells is generated when preferential consumption of the pitch coke (carbon
generated from coking of the binder pitch) in the anode occurs from either reaction with CO2
or O2. This preferential oxidation results in sloughing of the aggregate into the cell. The
generation of dust can increase when the anode becomes more reactive or is exposed more
heavily to either CO2 or O2 gas. A number of papers have been published on anode reactivity
and possible ways of improving the reactivity or minimising the carbon dust generated. [5-
10] If carbon dust builds up in the reduction cell, it can lead to a large number of other issues
including increases in bath temperature, higher frequency of unscheduled anode changes,
higher frequency of anode spikes (to be discussed later), and lower metal production from the
afflicted cells. Some examples of recognizing higher anode reactivity or potential dust issues
are provided in Figure 9. As can be seen, the anode surface after cleaning can have a much
rougher texture with more coke particles protruding from the surface of the anode. Slots that
show much greater widths than designed can also be a sign of a more reactive anode.
“Scratch testing” of the returned butts can be used to give an indication of the proportion of
hard and soft butts. While “scratch testing” is thought of as a lagging indicator, it can provide
a substantial amount of information on the anode quality and practices within the reduction
lines. It can also give you an indication of what the reactivity of the next batch of anodes will
be that are made from these butts. Soft butts have been shown to increase the reactivity of the
anode that they produce. [11] The shape of the butts can also be a good indicator of a change
in the anode reactivity. More rounded shapes or decreased widths will result when the anode
is either more reactive or left in the cell too long. Colour of the cover material will also
indicate if dust generation or build-up has become an issue. Black or dark cover suggests that
more dust is being generated and this material will be recycled back to the cells in the next
round of cover material produced. A number of plants measure the carbon content in the

7
cover material regularly via laboratory testing and track its changes over time. Finally, carbon
dust can be observed during anode setting as it rapidly freezes on the exposed bath surface.

Figure 9. Typical observations that would be seen if anode reactivity has increased or carbon
dust build-up is occurring.

Most Probable Causes

Carbon Operations
 Increase in sodium and/or calcium in the anode
o Poor cleaning of the returned anode butts
 Decrease in cleaning efficiency of the equipment
 Increase in number of airburn cavities that trap bath and cannot be cleaned
o Increase in percentage of burn-off anodes (anodes that have dropped into a cell)
recycled into the anode aggregate recipe
o Contamination (usually from scrap or waste material bunkers – no concrete pads)
o Change in raw material or change in blend rate of cokes being utilised (coke and
pitch)
 Decrease in sulfur concentration in the anode
o Raw material change (usually coke)
o Over baking in the bake furnace leading to de-sulphurisation in the anode
 Poor forming of taller slots or decrease in forme slot integrity compared to normal
 Packing coke stuck to surface of anode or in formed anode slots will contribute directly to
carbon dust in the cell
 Segregation of large and small coke particles on anode surface
o Poor or inadequate paste distribution in mould box
 Change in baffle operation used to deflect paste evenly within the mould
box
 Change in granulometry
o High number of start-up anodes from paste plant (paste plant OEE is low)
 Low baking level or increase in proportion of anodes at lower end of desired baking level
o Shorter fire cycles to meet production demand needs can result in inadequate time
at required soak temperatures (lower baking level)
o Changes in refractory condition of the bake furnace
o Changes in anode size with no change in baking temperature curves/targets in the
baking furnace
o Deterioration in the bake furnace condition (deformed flue walls) will result in
poorer heat distribution within the pit resulting in potential underbaking of top and
bottom layer anodes

8
 o Deterioration in the condition of the bake furnace burners can result in larger
temperature distributions within a given pit or series of sections
 Lower than optimal pitching level will promote carbon dust generation within a cell
o Pitching level should typically be increased with
 Increase in fines percentage in the aggregate recipe
 Decrease in butts percentage in the aggregate recipe
 New coke shipment with higher porosity or lower bulk density
 Increase in QI content in the pitch

Reduction Operations
 Decrease in normal butt size will increase current density, higher anode temp, more anode
consumption
o Delay in normal anode setting (smaller butt will generate more dust than normal
size butt) [8]
 Anodes not delivered on-time for setting
o Severe airburn (see previous section)
o Increase in amperage with no increase in anode size, or decrease in rota
o Development of gap between crust and anode surface
 Hard crust
 High bath height event
 High superheat
 Cover chemistry
 Increase in anode rota will increase the amount of dust generated at end of anode life [8]
 Increase in bath temperature will increase specific carbon consumption due to current
efficiency decrease, and higher anode temperatures [6]
 Squeezing of the anode-cathode distance (ACD)
o Increases potential for anode spikes (shorter time to remelt bath) that can generate
dust
o Changes bath flow rates underneath the anode (flow restriction) that can influence
the ability for the cell to purge carbon dust – increase in dust build-up
 All the Pacific Aluminium smelters have experienced increase in dust levels after power
outage events
o May be caused by uptake of sodium in some anodes that result in a brief high
reactivity level just after the outage and until skin is consumed [12]
 Change in skimming practices (halt in pacman or manual skimming)
 Plungers or point feeders not opening feeder holes (cell cannot burn off or purge dust)
 Too high bath level (increase in anode side surface submerged in bath – low current
density)
 Poor tap hole maintenance/practices

Some examples of causes for carbon dust are provided in Figure 10 and 11, while some
Reduction line examples are provided in Figure 12 - 14.

9
 Figure 10. Examples of how carbon quality can contribute to carbon dust in the cell: 1)
increases in Ca in the anode has been demonstrated to increase the CO2 reactivity dust index
[10], and 2) poor particle segregation in anode caused by issues with paste distribution in
mould box can decrease anode integrity thus increasing potential to generate dust in the
reduction cell.

Figure 11. An example of the amount of packing coke that can be found in an anode and add
directly to carbon dust in the cell is shown in (1) while 2) shows the impact of first a decrease
in firing cycle on anode Lc values followed by an issue with the burners. Each bake furnace
event shows an increase in the number of anodes below 30Å Lc (more reactive).

Figure 12. Various examples of how cover material can increase the amount of carbon dust
build-up in a reduction cell: 1) development of a channel due to hard crust or melting of
bottom of crust on the anode allowing for gases to flow across top of anode and react to
generate dust, 2) poor granulometry of cover composition can prevent proper sintering and
allow air ingress to the anode surface, and 3) broken side channel increases airburn and
carboxy reaction on the anode and generates dust in the cell.

10
 Figure 13. Increasing the rota or extending the time the anode spends in the cell was
demonstrated by Perruchoud et al. [8] to increase the amount of dust generated from the
anode.

Figure 14. Schematic representation of how reducing the anode/cathode distance (ACD) will
reduce the bath volume under the anode and concentrate the carbon dust. The decreased
distance can also impact velocity and flow characteristics in the bath and potentially change
the cells ability to purge carbon dust.

Anode Cracking and Broken Carbon

Anode cracking or breakage during its functional life within a Reduction cell can also have
major consequences on cell performance. Anode corner shedding or cracking during anode
setting can result in the formation of an anode spike or increase the amount of carbon dust in
the cell if the carbon is not removed. Breakage of the carbon butt after removal from the cell
and during the butt cleaning process can also have an indirect impact to cell performance if
the broken carbon is crushed and recycled back to the cell in the cover material. Pacific
Aluminium has found that, at least for one site, broken carbon being recycled back to the cell
through the cover circuit was one of the largest contributors to carbon dust in the cells. For
the common causes for anode breakages, they will be separated into two categories;
1) breakage shortly after anode set, and
2) breakage at end of life.

Figure 15 provides some examples of different breakage categories.

At the end of anode life within a cell, additional stresses are applied to the anode from the
differential expansion of the steel stubs and yoke crossbar, if not properly designed, versus
the carbon anode. The expansion coefficient for steel is higher than that of the carbon anode

11
and this translates to the steel pins exerting additional pressure on the anode [13-14]. This
additional stress can lead to cracks forming in the vertical plane of the anode typically
between the stubs. The formation and or presence of these cracks at the end of the anode rota
can lead to more breakage of the anode butt during cleaning or during removal from the
reduction cell.

Figure 15. Some examples of anode cracking just after initial anode setting and at end of life
within the cell.

Most Probable Causes

Carbon Operations (Just After Setting and End of Life)

 Increase in coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the baked anode (thermal shock)
o Change in raw materials – using coke with higher CTE
 Too high anode forming temperature will produce horizontal cracks in green anode
o Can be caused by high mixing temperatures
 Over compaction in former resulting in “rebound” crack formation within the green anode
o Increase in pressing pressure (for press anode formers)
o Increase in vibration time (for vibro compactors)
 High baked density anodes are more susceptible to thermal shock
 Presence of large density gradient within the anode (more susceptible to thermal shock
and can generate an inherent weakness at end of anode life)
o Large change in paste distribution
 Paste delivered more to one side of mould box
 Mix of cold paste and hot paste placed in mould box (stop starts, decrease
in number of mixers operating for batch plant)
 Change in granulometry
o Holes in one or more screens during aggregate fraction separation
o Change to crushing system (gap setting in roll crusher or in hammermill)
o Change in aggregate recipe
 Anode placed too close to the flue wall in a baking furnace will result in high up-heat
rates and formation of cracks in the baked anode close to the anode surface
 Handling of green anodes when they are still too warm and in the plastic phase

12
 o Insufficient cooling of green anode caused by issues with water spray nozzles or
higher temperature cooling water
o Unevenness between the transport carrier with the anode forming plate can result
in crack formation during pushing of the newly formed anode onto the carrier
 Slumping of formed anodes slots in the bake furnace
o Higher than optimal pitching level
o Loading green anodes into hot pits or using hot packing coke in pits
o Insufficient packing coke around the anode in the pit caused by poor loading
practices or deformed flue walls
 Having one longer stub in rodded anode resulting in preferential current draw through
that stub versus other stubs (excessive stress)
 Reduced anode density (thinner butt – end of life cracking)

Reduction Operations
 Cracks and broken carbon during or just after anode setting
o Anodes set too low resulting in higher current draw at beginning of life (thermal
shock)
o High superheat in cell increases potential for more cracks from thermal shock
(generally 15°C or more)
o High cell temperature (setting in a “sick” cell)
o Change in metal pad profile or current distribution resulting in non-uniform ACD
 Cathode issues for individual cell
 High metal pad instability
 Low metal pad heights (over tapped cell)
 Line current changes
o Anode set on lumps of bath/carbon/sludge
 No or poor cavity cleaning done prior to new anode set
o Anode set into ridged cell (hard muck under anode)
o Anode set at an angle – initial current draw in smaller area and low ACD
 At end of anode life
o High cover over the anode assembly resulting in high thermal expansion
differential between stub and carbon
o Thin butts leading to insufficient carbon to endure stub thermal expansion forces
 Airburn (around feeder holes; in general)
 Longer rota or missed set (in cell past scheduled rota)
 Increased amperage with no change in anode rota
o Jackhammer practices during anode change

Some examples of Carbon causes for anode cracking can be found in Figure 16 and 17, and
Reduction examples of causes for broken or cracked carbon are provided in Figure 18-21.

13
 Figure 16. Presence of large cracks in the green anode may not “heal” during the baking
process and increase the potential for breaking during its life within the reduction cell.
Example (1) shows a crack formed from high forming/mixing temperatures and (2) shows a
crack formed during handling of the green anode.

Figure 17. Examples of cracked anodes caused by rapid up-heat rates within the bake
furnace. This is typically driven by anodes being too close to the flue wall by either poor
loading practices or deformations in the wall itself (as shown by the second photo).

Figure 18. Carbon breakage can occur at the end of the rota due to (1) the anode butt being
too thin to withstand the thermal expansion of the stubs or (2) from the stubs and assembly
being buried in cover resulting in a higher expansion.

14
Figure 19. Example shows period of time when one reduction line had higher superheats and
observed a higher frequency of anode cracking during setting.

Figure 20. Anodes set in the cell at a crooked angle can result in a small area taking much
higher current too soon resulting in a crack in the carbon or corner breakage.

Figure 21. Improper cavity cleaning can result in the new anode set on a carbon clump. This
can result in anode drawing a large portion of the current that then over stresses the anode to
a point that slabbing or breakage occurs.

15
Anode Spikes/Mushrooms
Anode spikes can be described as protrusions that develop on the working face (bottom) of
the anode during its time in the reduction cell. If the spike is of sufficient size, it can short
circuit the current pathway so that a large portion of the anode current is passed directly to
the metal pad. Due to this lower resistance pathway, the short circuited anode will show
significantly increased current – as long at the other anodes in the cell are not affected as
well. This short circuit prevents metal make and will increase the temperature of the affected
anode severely. The high heat generated from an anode spike can then have secondary effects
such as cover crust melting, severe airburn, carbon breakage or anode drop-offs, stub
damage, and/or iron contamination of the metal. Because of all these impacts, it is imperative
that spikes are discovered as early as possible to lessen their impact on the cell performance.
Pacific Aluminium has observed as much as a 2% current efficiency loss during spike
occurrence.

The shape and timing of the spike formation can provide a substantial amount of information
on the mechanism that caused the spike to form on the anode surface. For this paper, the
types of spikes will be classified based on the criteria and pictures provided in Figure 22. The
composition or make-up of a sludge spike or carbon spike has been determined to be
typically stratified layers of porous carbon material between frozen layers of bath and
alumina. [15] The flat spike is comprised of anode carbon that has been protected from
electrolytic consumption by the formation of a frozen layer of bath in a localised area on the
bottom of the carbon surface. The protrusion results from the preferential consumption of the
carbon around the frozen area.

While the actual cell condition will influence the probability of forming an anode spike, the
main initiator based on numerous studies is the act of anode setting. [16-19] Anode setting is
a large disturbance to the cells heat balance and it is this disturbance and the practices
employed during setting that can result in the initiation of an anode spike. Wai-Poi and
Rolofs [18] found that the superheat in a cell dropped by as much as 50% within the first 3hrs
of an anode set. Similar results had been previously modelled by Grjotheim et.al. [20]
Grjotheim showed a 40% drop in superheat with anode setting in a cell. The smelter case
study documented by Wai-Poi and Rolof demonstrated [21] that the probability of forming an
anode spike after setting increased dramatically if the average or starting superheat in the
cells was 6⁰C or less.

16
 Figure 22. Definition utilised in this paper for classifying the three types of anode spikes
that can form during normal cell operation.

Most Probable Causes

Carbon Operations
 Increase in broken pieces of carbon within the cell (see “Anode Cracking/Broken
Carbon” section)
 Presence of carbon dust in cell due to an increase in anode reactivity (see “Anode
Reactivity/Carbon Dust in Cell” section)

Reduction Operations
 Anode setting practices
o Anode set on material within the cell during set
 Cavity cleaning not done or done insufficiently
o Anode set too low resulting in high current draw prior to remelt of frozen bath on
anode bottom
 High current draw on anode edges before bath melts on centre of anode
bottom
 Corner pop off that ends up under an anode
o Cover material not applied at right time and sinks to bottom of cell
 High level of carbon dust in cell and insufficient cavity cleaning (sludgy spike)
 Low superheat in cell or localised region within the cell (insufficient superheat to melt
frozen bath off anode before current pick-up or from adjacent or opposite anodes from the
anode(s) set)
o Spike on an anode that is adjacent or opposite to the last anode set within the cell
(damage to crust, refreeze of bath on adjacent anode while at full current draw or
pacman material pushed underneath the next anode during cavity cleaning – see
example of mechanism in Figure 23)

17
 Low ACD operation can increase the potential for anode spikes if practices or cell
chemistry is not maintained or enhanced
 Poor current distribution within a cell thus creating bigger area of low metal pad
velocities or collection points for carbon dust in cell that increases potential for spike
formation when anode setting occurs in those stalls

Figure 23. Schematic showing the frozen bath layers formed on a newly set anode and
anode directly opposite the anode recently set [16] along with actual flat spike observed on a
routine changed anode removed from the cell. Flat spike found on an end of life anode
demonstrates the impact of freezing bath on an opposite anode thus creating the carbon
protrusion and then insufficient time to burn the protruded carbon back into profile before its
scheduled removal from the cell.

Another example of how a spike could form after anode setting is provided in Figure 24.

Figure 24. An example showing the potential impact of cover material falling to the bottom
of the cell during anode change on anode spike formation. The anode with the spikes shown
has a good shape with sharp edges and the slot showing very little signs of reactivity. The
most likely cause of the two spikes formed on this anode is from crust getting under this
anode after setting of an adjacent anode.

Conclusions
Anode problems can have a major impact on cell performance and metal production from the
affected cell. Understanding the potential causes for these issues can enable quicker
identification upon occurrence and ultimately prevention.

18
Anode problems have been shown to be caused by various issues during the manufacture of
the anode but also from the conditions or practices utilised in the Reduction cell. Better
control of all these factors, if employed, can ensure more stable operation of the aluminium
smelter and overall improved performance.

References
[1] A. Berkovich and S. Kenning, Calculations and Estimations for BSL Line1&2 Transition
Joint: Loading; Failures; Service Life and Repair Costs, Internal Report, 2015.
[2] J.A. Osborne and R.C. Hannah, The reactivity of Bell Bay Anodes, Internal Report No
150, 1981.
[3] N. Bird, B. McEnaney, and B.A. Sadler, Some Practical Consequences of Analysis of the
Carboxy and Airburn Reactions of Anode Carbons, Light Metals, 1990, 467-471.
[4] P.J. Rhedey, Carbon Reactivity and Aluminum Reduction Cells, Light Metals, 1982, 713-
725.
[5] K. Murray, S. Lix, S. McDonald, and S. Woodward, Airburn Elimination Project – Final
Report, Internal Report, 2011.
[6] E.A. Hollingshead and V.A. Braunwarth, Laboratory Investigation of Carbon Anode
Consumption in the Electrolytic Production of Aluminium, Extractive Metallurgy of
Aluminum Vol 2, 1963, 31-50.
[7] A. Adams, R. Cahill, Y. Belzile, K. Cantin, and M. Gendron, Minimizing Impact of Low
Sulfur Coke on Anode Quality, Light Metals, 2009, 957-962.
[8] R.C. Perruchoud, K.L. Hulse, and W.K. Fischer, Dust Generation and Accumulation for
Changing Anode Quality and Cell Parameters, Light Metals, 1999, 509-516.
[9] B. Sadler and B Welch, Reducing Carbon Dust? – Needs and Possible Directions, Ninth
Australasian Aluminium Smelting Technology Conference and Workshops, 2007.
[10] A. Tomsett, E. Andrews, and S. Hamilton, Reducing Carbon Consumption in Pre-baked
Aluminium Reduction Cells, Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Aluminium Smelting
Technology Conference, 2014.
[11] W. Schmidt-Hatting, A. A. Kooijman, and R.C. Perruchoud, Investigation of the Quality
of Recycled Anode Butts, Light Metals, 1991, 705-720.
[12] R.C. Perruchoud, M.W. Meier, and W.K. Fischer, Bath Impregnation of Carbon Anodes,
Light Metals, 1996, 543-549.
[13] T. Weng and M.B. Hsu, Temperature and Stresses in Carbon Anodes in an Aluminum
Reduction Cell, Light Metals, 1984, 977-987.
[14] M.W. Meier, W.K. Fischer, R.C. Perruchoud, and L.J. Gauckler, Thermal Shock of
Anodes – A Solved Problem?, Light Metals, 1994, 685-694.
[15] N. Bird, NZAS Anode Spike Investigation, Internal Report TN:87:375, 1987.
[16] G.C. Barber, “The Impact of Anode-Related Process Dynamics on Cell Behaviour
During Aluminium Electrolysis”, PHD Thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand,
1992.
[17] R. Ødegård, A. Solheim, and K. Thovsen, Current Pickup and Temperature Distribution
in Newly Set Prebaked Hall-Herould Anodes, Light Metals, 1992, 457-463.
[18] N. Wai-Poi and B. Rolofs, Impact of Energy Management and Superheat on Anode
Spike Formation, Light Metals, 2001, 535-539.
[19] A. Jassim, S. Akmetov, B. Welch, M. Skyllas-Kazacos, J. Bao, and Y. Yao, Studies
Toward Balancing the Current in Smelting Cells, Proceedings of the 11th Australasian
Aluminium Smelting Technology Conference, 2014.

19
[20] K. Grjotheim, B.J. Welch, and M.P. Taylor, Relating Operating Strategy and
Performance in Aluminium Smelting Cells – An Overview, Light Metals, 1989, 255-
260.
[21] B. Rolofs and N. Wai-Poi, The Effect of Anode Spike Formation on Operational
Performance, Light Metals, 2000, 189-193.

20