CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN COPPER FLOTATION CIRCUITS

S. Schwarz, D. Alexander and R. Coleman

JKTech Pty Ltd
University of Queensland
Isles Road, Indooroopilly, QLD 4068, Australia
s.schwarz@jktech.com.au

ABSTRACT
As part of the Australian Mineral Industries Research Association (AMIRA)
P9 project, methods of characterising both the ore and the machines in flotation
circuits have matured considerably over the past 15 years. Machine characteristics
include gas dispersion measurements, such as bubble size, gas hold-up and superficial
gas velocity. Ores can be characterised in terms of floatability parameters on a size
and mineral basis. Measurements have been performed on various copper plants in
many countries around the world over the last 5 years. This paper outlines the cell and
ore floatability characteristics of each copper plant and provides a discussion on the
differences between these plants. In general, most porphyry copper ore bodies are
processed at high tonnage through several parallel banks of cells at each stage of
flotation. The floatability parameters of these copper ores are very similar in terms of
rate of flotation and proportion of fast, slow and non-floating material. The cell
characteristics are also similar, with superficial gas velocity, bubble sizes, and gas
hold-up values being of similar magnitude. Investigation of the similarities and
differences of the modern copper flotation circuits has allowed an increase in
understanding of the particularities of copper flotation. Comparison against other
copper circuits provides a benchmark and opportunities for future optimisation.

INTRODUCTION
For many years, research has focused on attempting to understand the
flotation process. The Australian Mineral Industries Research Association (AMIRA)
P9 project is a collaborative research project between the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre (JKMRC) at the University of Queensland in Australia, the Centre
for Minerals Research at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, and the
Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering at McGill University in
Canada. This project has developed a methodology and tools to help metallurgists
better understand and optimise their flotation plants.
The methodology involves conducting surveys on operating flotation plants,
performing batch flotation tests on samples of streams taken from the plant and
characterising various parameters related to the flotation cells. This methodology has
been described elsewhere [1-3] and has been applied to over 50 operating plants
world-wide. Several sites have published improvements to their flotation circuit
performance using the methodology and the JKSimFloat software program that
encapsulates the research outcomes from the AMIRA P9 project [4-9].
This paper focuses on the application of the AMIRA P9 methodology to
modern copper flotation circuits world-wide, with comparisons made on both ore and
machine characteristics. Table 1 indicates the range of copper ores included in this
study.

Site
A

B
C
D
E
F
G

Table 1 Description of copper ores studied

Major Cu minerals
Ore type
Average Feed
Grade (% Cu)
Breccia
complex
1.5
Chalcopyrite
Bornite
Chalcocite
Metallic Cu
Porphyry Cu-Au
0.82
Chalcopyrite
Porphyry Cu-Au
1.1
Chalcopyrite
Bornite
Disseminated
1.3
Chalcopyrite
Porphyry
2.1
Chalcopyrite
Porphyry Cu-Au
0.75
Chalcopyrite
Bornite
Porphyry
1.0
Chalcopyrite
Bornite
Chalcocite
Porphyry
1.3
Chalcopyrite
Covellite
Chalcocite

Average Feed
Rate (Mtpa)
11

17
5.5
2.6
2.2
49
43

40

ORE CHARACTERISTICS
Ores can be characterised in terms of floatability parameters, relating to both
the rate and proportion of various floating species. The methodology used in this
study separates particles of similar floatabilities into components, with an average
floatability rate, as suggested by Imaizumi and Inoue [10]. These components are
assumed to adequately describe the floatability distribution of a mineral entering a
flotation circuit. A non-linear optimisation procedure to determine the number and
value of these floatability components was developed [11-12], including batch test
data and using the concept of nodal analysis [13].
The comparison between the floatability parameters is given in Figure 1 and
Figure 2, with the P values describing the ore floatability for each component and the
m values indicating the proportion of each component in the feed to the flotation
plant. Note that this analysis is solely for the copper minerals, which have been
combined where more than one major copper mineral is present in the feed.
1.00E+00

1.00E-01

Floatability

1.00E-02

1.00E-03

P1
P2
P3

1.00E-04

1.00E-05

1.00E-06

1.00E-07
A

Site

Figure 1 Comparison of P values for copper minerals feeding different copper

flotation plants
The P values indicated in Figure 1 show that most of the porphyry copper
deposits could be characterized by two floatability components, often denoted as fast
floating and slow floating. The breccia complex (site A) and disseminated ore
types (site D) required an additional floatability component to accurately characterise
the ore processed through the flotation plant, possibly due to the more complex

mineralogy. Site E also required an additional component, however there was less
than 1% of this component in the feed (shown in Figure 2), and can therefore be
considered insignificant.
100
90
80

Proportion in feed (%)

70
60

m1
m2

50

m3
Non

40
30
20
10
0
A

Site

Figure 2 Comparison of m values for copper minerals feeding different copper

flotation plants
The porphyry ores in general had more fast floating material (shown as m1 in
Figure 2) compared to the slow floating material (shown as m2). In contrast, the more
complex ores in sites A and D showed more slower floating material compared to the
proportion of the fast floating component. Note that most sites had a similar amount
of non-floating material present in the ore, indicating that similar overall circuit
copper recoveries should be obtainable with optimum cell operation and circuit
configuration.
To more accurately describe the floatability of a particular ore, analysis must
consist of both the P and m values. For example, there may be a component with a
relatively high P value but only a small amount exhibiting this floatability, and may
not be significant in terms of overall circuit performance.
CIRCUIT CHARACTERISTICS
Winckers [14] describes the processing of the copper mineral deposits, with a
general flotation circuit shown in Figure 3. As discussed previously, porphyry copper
deposits tend to be processed through high tonnage flotation plants, often with several
parallel banks of cells at each stage of flotation. There is a general move towards

larger cells along with the increased tonnage being processed in modern copper
plants.
Flotation Feed

Rougher

Final Tail

x rows x # cells
Regrind Circuit

Cleaner
x rows x # cells

Clnr Scav

x rows x # cells

Recleaner
x rows x # cells

Final Concentrate

Figure 3 - Typical copper flotation circuit

Site A contained a slightly different circuit, but maintained the same general
layout. This site recycled the tail from the first cleaner stage back to the feed of the
rougher circuit, and also contained three stages of cleaning. The differences in circuit
configuration were presumably to recover the high proportion of slower floating
material in this ore (as shown in Figure 2).
The other sites contained parallel banks of rougher and scavenger cells, with
these concentrates combining to feed the regrind and cleaning circuits. Other
inclusions for individual sites included deslime cyclones, coarse cleaner circuits,
cleaner column cells, Jameson cleaner cells, etc.
Although all of these sites had a similar general circuit layout, there was
variation in overall copper recovery from 81% through to 93%. This was probably
due to the pyrite content in the ore, where the circuits were designed to maximise
both copper grade and recovery. The floatability parameters of gangue minerals is
outside the scope of this paper, but have a significant influence on the operating
philosophy of the flotation plants.
MACHINE CHARACTERISTICS
Gas dispersion measurements such as superficial gas velocity, bubble size and
gas hold-up can indicate how well the gas is being dispersed throughout a flotation
cell. These measurements directly impact the flotation efficiency within the pulp

phase [15, 16] and are an important parameter when benchmarking flotation cells.
These parameters have been measured in over 1800 flotation cells worldwide and a
database has been developed to capture the typical results [17].
Superficial gas velocity (Jg) is a measure of the aeration ability of a cell and is
directly related to the flotation kinetics [18]. A mechanical Jg probe, developed at the
JKMRC as part of the AMIRA P9 project, was used to determine the superficial gas
velocity in the flotation cells. Full details of the use and set-up of this probe can be
found in Gorain et al [19] and Power et al [20].
Gas hold-up (g) measures the volume fraction of air contained within the pulp
phase of the flotation cell, with excess air volumes reducing the cell capacity. A
pneumatic gas hold-up probe was developed at the JKMRC, also as part of the
AMIRA P9 project. This probe is described in detail in Power et al [20] and Gorain et
al [21].
The bubble size (db) within the pulp phase of a flotation cell significantly
influences the efficiency of particle-bubble contact and attachment. Bubble sizing
measurements were conducted using the McGill bubble size analyzer, developed at
McGill University in Canada, as part of the AMIRA P9 project. Full details of the
apparatus and methodology are given in [22-24].
These parameters were measured in various operating copper flotation plants
over the past 10 years, with a summary of the plants surveyed given in Table 2 and
the average gas dispersion measurements shown in Figure 4.

Table 2 Description of copper plants studied for gas dispersion characteristics

Cell volumes
Site
Location
Cell types
(m3)
A
Australia
Outokumpu, Dorr-Oliver, Wemco
18-160
B
Australia
Outokumpu
11-160
C
Australia
Dorr-Oliver, Jameson
28
D
Australia
Agitair, Outokumpu, Wemco
1-100
E
Canada
Outokumpu
7-37
F
Indonesia
Outokumpu, Wemco
14-127
G
Chile
Wemco, Columns
160-215
H
Chile
Outokumpu, Dorr-Oliver
44-100
I
Australia
Agitair
3
J
Australia
Denver, Dorr-Oliver, Wemco
2-17
K
PNG
Outokumpu
38
L
Chile
Outokumpu, Wemco, Columns
28-160
M
Chile
Wemco, Columns
43-160
N
Chile
Wemco, Columns
5-86
O
USA
Wemco
9
P
Africa
Outokumpu
2-42
Q
Sweden
Outokumpu, Columns
4-58

Typical values for these parameters are 1.0 0.4 cm/s for superficial gas
velocity, 10 3% for gas hold-up and 1.3 0.2 mm for Sauter mean bubble size
(from [17]). The values shown in Figure 4 generally lie within the typical ranges, with
some sites deviating significantly from the norm.
In some sites (especially sites P and Q), the flotation cells were operating at
low air rates and large bubble sizes. It has been shown that increasing the air rate
and/or reducing the bubble size in the pulp phase increases the recovery across the
pulp phase in a linear relationship with the bubble surface area flux [25]. It was
interesting to also note the low gas hold-up values measured in these sites. Low gas
hold-up values can indicate insufficient air being introduced to these flotation cells,
with values less than 5% often requiring immediate attention for the cells to perform
as required.
Research is currently being conducted to better understand the link between
gas dispersion parameters and metallurgical performance [26, 27]. It appears that
most sites are unique in their combination of gas dispersion parameters established to
obtain the optimum flotation performance in terms of grade and recovery.

Superficial gas velocity (cm/s)

(a)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Site

(b)

25

Gas hold-up (%)

20
15
10
5
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Site
(c)

4.0

Bubble size (mm)

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Site

Figure 4 Comparison of gas dispersion parameters for flotation cells in different

copper plants (a) superficial gas velocity, (b) gas hold-up and (c) average bubble size

APPLICATIONS
From the above analysis, it is evident that porphyry copper ores have similar
characteristics in terms of ore floatability with gas dispersion values measured in the
flotation cells within typical operating ranges. The methodology enables the
floatability of green-fields copper ores to be ranked in comparison with other copper
ores using specific batch flotation tests developed at the JK Centre. Using these
floatability parameters and the extensive database of gas dispersion measurements in
different cell types, sizes and duties, JKSimFloat can then be used to design a
flotation circuit for a particular green-fields ore to achieve a specific grade and
recovery in the pre-feasibility stage.
CONCLUSIONS
Using the methodology that has developed from the AMIRA P9 project over
the past 15 years, flotation plants can be characterised in terms of both ore floatability
and machine characteristics. This methodology has been utilised in many copper
flotation plants around the world with some notable similarity of trends observed. The
floatability of the porphyry ores could be characterised by two parameters, denoted as
fast floating and slow floating with similar magnitudes. An additional floatability
parameter was required for the more complex copper mineralogy, although the orders
of magnitude remained similar.
In general, porphyry copper ores are processed at high tonnage rates through
large flotation cells. There is a unique combination of cell size, superficial gas
velocity, gas hold-up and bubble size parameters, required to obtain the optimum
metallurgical performance for each ore type. This information can be used to
benchmark and design other copper flotation plants, using a combination of the
databases, batch flotation tests and JKSimFloat.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Professor JP Franzidis, Dr Emmy
Manlapig, the staff and students of the AMIRA P9 project and its sponsors for the
work and the funding, which developed the methodology. In addition, the authors
wish to thank various site personnel who have also developed these models,
especially Anglo American Research Laboratories, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton.
Finally, acknowledgement is given to the many JKMRC and JKTech personnel who
have developed models at the various sites around the world.
REFERENCES
1.

D.J. Alexander, and R.D. Morrison, Rapid estimation of floatability

components in industrial flotation plants, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 11, 1998,
133-143.

2.

D.J. Alexander, K.C. Runge, J-P. Franzidis, and E.V. Manlapig, The
application of multi-component floatability models to full scale flotation

circuits, Proceedings of the AusIMM 7th Mill Operators Conference,

Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Kalgoorlie, 2000, 167-178.
3.

M.C. Harris, K.C. Runge, W.J. Whiten, and R.D. Morrison, JKSimFloat as a
practical tool for flotation process design and optimisation, Proceedings of the
SME Mineral Processing Plant Design, Practice and Control Conference, SME,
Vancouver, 2002, 461-478.

4.

D.J. Alexander, and P. Wigley, Flotation Circuit Analysis at WMC Ltd.

Olympic Dam Operation, Proceedings of the AusIMM 8th Mill Operators
Conference, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Townsville,
Queensland, Australia, 2003.

5.

D.J. Alexander, T. Bilney, and S. Schwarz, Flotation Performance

Improvement at Placer Dome Kanowna Belle Gold Mine, Proceedings of the
37th Annual Canadian Mill Operators Conference, Ottawa, 2005.

6.

S. Schwarz, and B. Kilgariff, Flotation optimisation studies of the Perilya

Broken Hill Lead Circuit, Proceedings of the Centenary of Flotation
Symposium, Brisbane, 2005.

7.

R.G. Coleman, H.E. Urtubia, D.J. Alexander, A comparison of BHP-Billitons

Minera Escondida Flotation Concentrators, Proceedings of the 38th Annual
Canadian Mill Operators Conference, Ottawa, 2006.

8.

S. Schwarz, and D. Alexander, JKSimFloat V6.1PLUS: Improving flotation

circuit performance by simulation, Proceedings of the Mineral Process
Modelling, Simulation and Control Conference, Laurentian University,
Sudbury, 2006, 35-47.

9.

S. Schwarz, D. Alexander, W.J. Whiten, J-P. Franzidis, and M.C. Harris,

JKSimFloat V6: Improving flotation circuit performance and understanding,
Proceedings of the XXIII International Mineral Processing Congress, Istanbul,
2006, 1717-1722.

10.

T. Imaizumi, and T. Inoue, Kinetic considerations of froth flotation,

Proceedings 6th International Mineral Processing Congress, A. Roberts, Ed,
1965, 581-605.

11.

M.C. Harris, A practical framework for flotation circuit modelling and

simulation, Paper presented at SAIChE 97, the 8th National Meeting of the
South African Institute of Chemical Engineers, Cape Town, 1997.

12.

D.J. Alexander, and R.D. Morrison, Rapid estimation of floatability

components in industrial flotation plants. Minerals Engineering, Vol. 11, 1998,
133-143.

13.

K.C. Runge, J. Frew, M.C. Harris, and E.V. Manlapig, Floatability of streams
around the Cominco Red Dog Lead Cleaning Circuit, Proceedings of the

AusIMM 6th Mill Operators Conference, Australasian Institute of Mining and

Metallurgy, Madang, 1997.
14.

A. Winckers, Overview of recent developments in flotation technology and

plant practice for copper gold ores, Proceedings of the SME Mineral
Processing Plant Design, Practice and Control Conference, SME, Vancouver,
2002, 1124-1141.

15.

H. Schubert and C. Bischofberger, On the hydrodynamics of flotation

machines, International Journal of Mineral Processing, Vol. 5, 1978, 131-142.

16.

B.K. Gorain, J-P. Franzidis, and E.V. Manlapig, Studies on impeller type,
impeller speed and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell part 1:
effect on bubble size distribution, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 6, 1995,
615-635.

17.

S. Schwarz, and D.A. Alexander, Gas dispersion measurements in industrial

flotation cells, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 19, 2006, 554-560.

18.

N. Ahmed and G.J. Jameson, Flotation kinetics, Mineral Processing and

Extractive Metallurgy Review, Vol. 5, 1989, 77-99.

19.

B.K. Gorain, J-P. Franzidis, and E.V. Manlapig, Studies on impeller type,
impeller speed and air flow rate in an industrial flotation cell part 3: effect on
superficial gas velocity, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 9, 1996, 639-654.

20.

A. Power, J-P. Franzidis, and E.V. Manlapig, The characterisation of

hydrodynamic conditions in industrial flotation cells, Proceedings of the
AusIMM 7th Mill Operators Conference, Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Kalgoorlie, 2000, 243-255.

21.

B.K. Gorain, J-P. Franzidis, and E.V. Manlapig, Studies on impeller type,
impeller speed and air flow rate in an industrial flotation cell part 2: effect on
gas hold-up, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 8, 1995, 1557-1570.

22.

F. Chen, C.O. Gomez, and J.A. Finch, Technical note: bubble size
measurement in flotation machines, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 4,
2001, 427-432.

23.

J.R. Hernandez-Aguilar, C.O. Gomez, and J.A. Finch, A technique for the
direct measurement of bubble size distributions in industrial flotation cells,
Proceedings 34th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors of CIM,
22-24 January Ottawa, 2002, 389-402.

24.

J.R. Hernandez-Aguilar, R.G. Coleman, C.O. Gomez, and J.A. Finch, A

comparison between capillary and imaging techniques for sizing bubbles in
flotation systems, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2004, 53-61.

25.

B.K. Gorain, J-P. Franzidis, and E.V. Manlapig, Studies on impeller type,
impeller speed and air flow rate in an industrial flotation cell part 4: effect of
bubble surface area flux on flotation performance, Minerals Engineering, Vol.
10, 1997, 367-379.

26.

J.A. Torrealba-Vargas, C.O. Gomez and J.A. Finch, Continuous air rate
measurement in flotation cells: a step towards gas distribution management,
Minerals Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2004, 761-765.

27.

J.E. Nesset, J.R. Hernandez-Aguilar, C. Acuna, C.O. Gomez and J.A. Finch,
Some gas dispersion characteristics of mechanical flotation machines,
Minerals Engineering, Vol. 19, Nos. 6-8, 2006, 807-815.