88 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
the increase in air recovery may be related to increments
in overflowing froth velocity due to shallower froth depths.
Figure 4 shows the level control for the different pulp
height setpoints sent from the E-MPC. While the trends
of the pulp heights in the systems are the same as the set-
points, the values are usually different, which may be
related to the differences between the parameters of the
Proportional-Integral (PI) in the laboratory-scale system
and the model used for the E-MPC. Those parameters are
different because the sampling times are not the same in
both cases, i.e., the PI controller had a sampling time of 1
second, while the model used in the E-MPC strategy cor-
responded to 10 seconds.
40
60
80
46 [%]
75 [%]
47 [%]
56 [%]
47 [%]
71 [%]
31 [%]
56 [%]
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [min]
50
60
70
Figure 2. Mineral recovery and concentrate grade for changes in feed flowrates (Q
feed )
0
20
40
60
Predicted (from E-MPC) Process
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [min]
50
60
70
Figure 3. Air recovery and superficial air velocity (j
g )for feed flow rate changes (Q
feed )
Recovery
[%]
Concentrate
grade
[%]
Q
feed
[lpm]
Air
recovery
[%]
j g SP
[cm
s
-1
]
Q
feed
[lpm]
the increase in air recovery may be related to increments
in overflowing froth velocity due to shallower froth depths.
Figure 4 shows the level control for the different pulp
height setpoints sent from the E-MPC. While the trends
of the pulp heights in the systems are the same as the set-
points, the values are usually different, which may be
related to the differences between the parameters of the
Proportional-Integral (PI) in the laboratory-scale system
and the model used for the E-MPC. Those parameters are
different because the sampling times are not the same in
both cases, i.e., the PI controller had a sampling time of 1
second, while the model used in the E-MPC strategy cor-
responded to 10 seconds.
40
60
80
46 [%]
75 [%]
47 [%]
56 [%]
47 [%]
71 [%]
31 [%]
56 [%]
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [min]
50
60
70
Figure 2. Mineral recovery and concentrate grade for changes in feed flowrates (Q
feed )
0
20
40
60
Predicted (from E-MPC) Process
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [min]
50
60
70
Figure 3. Air recovery and superficial air velocity (j
g )for feed flow rate changes (Q
feed )
Recovery
[%]
Concentrate
grade
[%]
Q
feed
[lpm]
Air
recovery
[%]
j g SP
[cm
s
-1
]
Q
feed
[lpm]