Flotation Machines

ion machines have experienced considerable change over the past st 60 years in terms Mechanical flotation of cell capacity (unit cell size). Decade 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s (est.) Largest Size cu. ft. cu. m. 20 0.6 50 1.4 100 2.8 300 8.5 500 13.6 2,000 54.5 4,000 100 12,000 300 24,000 600

Mechanical cells operate horizontally with 4 or 6 tanks combined together as a single bank. Each cell has its own impellor and the adjacent tanks are open allowing by-passing (short-circuiting) circuiting) and recycling. Rougher banks are raised slightly above the scavenger banks to permit independent cell level control and feed the scavenger bank through a control valve. Launders are hung on both sides of o the tanks to collect concentrate and allow it to be pumped to the next stage (cleaners, recleaners, regrind circuit, or back to the feed). Over the years there have been many different flotation cell manufacturers (Denver, Agitair, Wemco-Fagergren, Dorr-Oliver, Oliver, Outokumpu, Sala, Wedag, Booth, etc.) each of which has their own unique impellor design.

Different Mechanical Flotation Cell Impellors.

Different Mechanical Flotation Cell Shapes or Configurations. Outotec's TankCell innovation has revolutionized flotation machines since the early 1990s. Prior to that decade, most mechanical machines were rectangular or square in cross cross-sectional sectional area and banks b of such machines were open-flow flow meaning there was significant by by-passing and short-circuiting circuiting between adjacent cells. The e Tank Cell concept examined fluid-dynamics dynamics flow conditions in each cell and increased the unit cell volume significantly. Each individual cell was separated allowing accurate down-the-bank down sampling of internal rnal tailings and concentrate samples. Each individual cell feeds the next cell through a control valve. The tanks in series must be lowered by a meter of so as one proceeds down the bank.

Air Dispersion

Outotec's TankCell

Cylindrical tanks appear to offer considerable advantages over rectangular ones. . These include: include

- Lower cost to manufacture (cells can be custom-designed) - Easier to control - Lower energy to maintain the pulp in suspension and distribute air - Significant improvements in hydrodynamics (reduced dead space) - Reduced floor space per unit volume The evolution of the TankCell follows the development of a number of innovations that include the Column cell (1964), the DAVCRA cell (1965), the Flash Flotation cell (1988), the Jameson cell (1990). These cells reduce floor space per unit volume and permit installation of flotation within the grinding circuit to recover final grade concentrate particles at coarser sizes than would normally be met in a conventional flotation circuit.

Outotec's Flash Flotation Cell

Flash Flotation Installation and Control System.

4 Flotation Cell Selection The selection of the size, number and type of flotation cells for a particular application depends on two important factors: - required flotation residence time; and - dry solids recovery rate for a given: - froth surface area (t/hr/m2), and - concentrate lip length (t/hr/m). Residence time is influenced by ore type - mineralogy, associations, liberation, kinetics, and reagent additions (collector and frother). In terms of the amount of concentrate to be recovered, selection also depends on ore type and characteristics such as particle size, specific gravity, water recovery, and mineral grade. The stage of flotation is important. The rougher stage recovers 10% to 20% of the solids in the feed while scavengers recover 5% to 15% while the cleaner mass recovery can approach 80%. Lab-scale tests and scale-up factors determine the residence time required in the plant. However, the froth carry-over flow rate (dry concentrate per froth surface area per hour, t/m2/hr) and lip loading rate (dry concentrate per froth lip length per hour, 1.5 t/m/hr minimum and maximum) are difficult to scale-up from the lab because the froth is continuously scraped-off during a lab test and the type of process is batch rather than continuous flow through. So these values are determined via calculation to give ranges that should not be exceeded by cell size selection and layout. With cleaner cells where a high percentage of the solids are recovered into the froth phase, carry-over flow rate and lip loading rate are much more important than residence time. Application Carry-over rate (t/hr/m2) Rougher 0.8 - 1.5 Scavenger 0.3 - 0.8 Cleaner 1.0-2.0

In most cases, a quick estimate of these carry-over constraints can be obtained by limiting the residence time in any single cell to approximately 1.0 minutes. If the calculated value lies between 0.75 to 1.25 minutes, the circuit should perform well. However, should the design fall outside these ranges, then one should perform a detailed calculation of carry-over rate per surface area and lip length. If the residence time requirement is met with a certain cell size selection but froth carry-over rate and/or froth lip loading rate are exceeded, one must increase the number of flotation cells (i.e., select a smaller size cell) to increase the surface area or concentrate lip length. Unfortunately this solution can add to capital costs as well as floor space and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. Outotec have recently customising the launder configuration to increase froth surface area and lip length without increasing the number of cells, by designing several configurations for the TankCell. Different launder designs give a customized solution for each application and site. Launders can be customized, even on retrofits, to improve recovery and save on operating costs. The correct froth crowding characteristics will reduce air requirements as well according to Outotec. Launder Configurations - Central donut launder - Internal launders - External launders (smaller cells < 50 m3) - Radial launders

5 Froth Depth / Pulp Level Froth depth is also an important factor to achieve good quality/quantity trade-off. Generally the roughers are controlled to a froth depth between 15 to 30 cm, while the scavengers will range between 5 to 10 cm. Cleaner cells will generally be operated with the highest froth depth possible - perhaps as much as 200 cm, and on some column (or vertically configured) cells, froth depths as much as 1.2 m have been observed. At these depths, wash water onto the froth phase is generally required to sustain the froth. If the flow rate of concentrate becomes very low (changes in mineralogy or ore tonnage), then the froth may require reagent changes (amounts and type) to be sustainable. Example of Sizing a Flotation Circuit: Design for 100,000 tpd of ore @ S.G. 3.0 and 40% solids Calculate the volumetric flow rate of pulp into the cell: Solids volumetric flow rate = (100,000/3.0)/(24*60) = 23.15 m3/min Water volumetric flow rate = (100,000/1.0)*(0.6/0.4)/(24*60) = 104.17 m3/min So the total volumetric flow rate = Q = 127.32 m3/min From lab testwork, the scaled-up required flotation time = 12 minutes So, the total required plant volume = V = 127.32 * 12 = 1,527.84 m3 Adjust for impellor, air hold-up, and froth phase = V * 1.2 = 1,833.4 m3 -------------------------------------------------Try a unit cell size of 25 m3 Total number of cells required = 1,833.4 / 25 = 73.3 cells Number of parallel banks required to achieve 1 min residence time per cell = 127.32 * 1 min * 1.2 / 25 = 6.11 banks For 6 banks: residence time / cell = 6 * 25 / (127.32 * 1.2) = 0.98 minutes (excellent) Design: 6 banks of 12 cells = 72 * 25 = total volume of 1,800 m3 to give a total residence time of 11.8 minutes --------------------------------------------------Try a unit cell size of 50 m3 Total number of cells required = 1,833.4 / 50 = 36.7 cells Number of parallel banks required to achieve 1 min residence time per cell = 127.32 * 1 min * 1.2 / 50 = 3.05 banks For 3 banks: residence time / cell = 3 * 50 / (127.32 * 1.2) = 0.98 minutes (excellent) Design: 3 banks of 12 cells = 36 * 50 = total volume of 1,800 m3 to give a total residence time of 11.8 minutes ---------------------------------------------------

6 ------------------------------------------------------Try a unit cell size of 75 m3 Total number of cells required = 1,833.4 / 75 = 24.4 cells Number of parallel banks required to achieve 1 min residence time per cell = 127.32 * 1 min * 1.2 / 75 = 2.04 banks For 2 banks: residence time / cell = 2 * 75 / (127.32 * 1.2) = 0.98 minutes (excellent) Design: 2 banks of 12 cells = total volume of 1,800 m3 to give a total residence time of 11.8 minutes ------------------------------------------------------Try a unit cell size of 100 m3 Total number of cells required = 1,833.4 / 100 = 18.3 cells Number of parallel banks required to achieve 1 min residence time per cell = 127.32 * 1 min * 1.2 / 100 = 1.53 banks For 1 bank: residence time / cell = 1 * 100 / (127.32 * 1.2) = 0.655 minutes (too fast) Try 2 banks = 2 * 100 / (127.32 * 1.2) = 1.31 minutes (too slow) Design: 2 banks of 9 cells = total volume of 1,800 m3 to give a total residence time of 11.8 minutes ------------------------------------------------------Try a unit cell size of 150 m3 Total number of cells required = 1,833.4 / 150 = 12.2 cells Number of parallel banks required to achieve 1 min residence time per cell = 127.32 * 1 min * 1.2 / 150 = 1.02 banks For 1 bank: residence time / cell = 1 * 150 / (127.32 * 1.2) = 0.98 minutes (excellent) Design: 1 banks of 12 cells = total volume of 1,800 m3 to give a total residence time of 11.8 minutes -----------------------------------------------------Try a unit cell size of 200 m3 Total number of cells required = 1833.4 / 200 = 9.2 cells Number of parallel banks required to achieve 1 min residence time per cell = 127.32 * 1 min * 1.2 / 200 = 0.76 banks For 1 bank: residence time / cell = 1 * 200 / (127.32 * 1.2) = 1.31 minutes (too slow) Design: 1 bank of 10 cells = total volume of 2,000 m3 to give a total residence time of 13.1 minutes -----------------------------------------------------

7 ----------------------------------------------------Try a unit cell size of 250 m3 Total number of cells required = 1,833.4 / 250 = 7.3 cells Number of parallel banks required to achieve 1 min residence time per cell = 127.32 * 1 min * 1.2 / 250 = 0.61 banks For 1 bank: residence time / cell = 1 * 250 / (127.32 * 1.2) = 1.64 minutes (very slow) Design: 1 bank of 8 cells = total volume of 2,000 m3 to give a total residence time of 13.1 minutes --------------------------------------------------Finally, try the largest capacity unit cell size - Outotec's 300 m3 cell Total number of cells required = 1833.4 / 300 = 6.1 cells Number of parallel banks required to achieve 1 min residence time per cell = 127.32 * 1 min * 1.2 / 300 = 0.42 banks So a single bank will give a residence time / cell = 1 * 300 / 127.32 * 1.2 = 1.96 minutes (really slow) Design: 1 bank of 6 cells = total volume of 1,800 m3 to give a total residence time of 11.8 minutes ----------------------------------------------------So there are several possible answers (there may be others): The most flexible design is for a cell size of 25 m3 - 6 banks of 12 cells per bank It gives the highest operating flexibility, but will use more energy and have increased maintenance costs. If one bank must be shut down for maintenance, 83% of the plant capacity is still available. The least expensive design is a cell size of 300 m3, however, the mill will have no flexibility and the cells will be operating very slowly which will lead to level control problems. Summary Cell Size (m3) 25 50 75 100 150 200 250 300

Residence Time/Cell (min.) 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.31 XX 0.98 1.31 XX 1.64 XX 1.96 XX

Number of Banks 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1

Number of Cells per bank 12 12 12 9 12 9 8 6

Total Volume (m3) 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 2,000 2,000 1,800

Total Residence Time (min.) 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 13.1 13.1 11.8

Probably the best trade-off between capital costs and operating flexibility would be the 75 m3 design.

8 Estimated Capital Costs Capital cost of flotation equipment like most mining equipment scales up according to its capacity using an exponent of 0.6. So the cost of a 300 m3 cell will be about 4.4 times that of a 25 m3 cell, yet will give 12 times the volume.

= 4.44

But in our example, there are only six 300 m3 cells required compared to seventy-two 25 m3 cells. So the relative total capital costs of the two solutions will be 300 6 = 4.44 100 = 37% 25 72 For the different examples calculations, the following relative capital costs are obtained: Cell Size (m3) 25 50 >>>>>> 75 100 150 200 250 300 Total Number of cells 72 36 24 18 12 9 8 6 Relative Unit Cell Cap. Cost 1.00 1.52 1.93 2.30 2.93 3.48 3.98 4.44 Total Cost 72.0 54.7 46.3 41.4 35.2 31.3 31.8 26.6 Relative Capital Costs (%) 100 76 64 <<<<<< 58 49 43 44 37

If the lip length and froth surface area constraints can be met with innovative launder design, then perhaps 2 banks of six 150 m3 cells might be acceptable which would reduce the capital costs by over 50%.