Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 619–626

This article is also available online at:

www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

CFD modelling of bubble–particle attachments in flotation cells

P.T.L. Koh *, M.P. Schwarz
CSIRO Division of Minerals, Bayview Avenue, Box 312, Clayton South, Victoria 3169, Australia

Received 12 July 2005; accepted 6 September 2005

Available online 19 October 2005

Abstract

In recent years, computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling of mechanically stirred flotation cells has been used to study the com-
plexity of the flow within the cells. In CFD modelling, the flotation cell is discretized into individual finite volumes where local values of
flow properties are calculated. The flotation effect is studied as three sub-processes including collision, attachment and detachment. In the
present work, these sub-processes are modelled in a laboratory flotation cell. The flotation kinetics involving a population balance for
particles in a semi-batch process has been developed.
From turbulent collision models, the local rates of bubble–particle encounters have been estimated from the local turbulent velocities.
The probabilities of collision, adhesion and stabilization have been calculated at each location in the flotation cell. The net rate of attach-
ment, after accounting for detachments, has been used in the kinetic model involving transient CFD simulations with removal of bubble–
particle aggregates to the froth layer.
Comparison of the predicted fraction of particles remaining in the cell and the fraction of free particles to the total number of particles
remaining in the cell indicates that the particle recovery rate to the pulp–froth interface is much slower than the net attachment rates. For
the case studied, the results indicate that the bubbles are loaded with particles quite quickly, and that the bubble surface area flux is the
limiting factor in the recovery rate at the froth interface. This explains why the relationship between flotation rate and bubble surface
area flux is generally used as a criterion for designing flotation cells. The predicted flotation rate constants also indicate that fine and large
particles do not float as well as intermediate sized particles of 120–240 lm range. This is consistent with the flotation recovery generally
observed in flotation practice. The magnitude of the flotation rate constants obtained by CFD modelling indicates that transport rates of
the bubble–particle aggregates to the froth layer contribute quite significantly to the overall flotation rate and this is likely to be the case
especially in plant-scale equipment.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flotation bubbles; Flotation kinetics; Flotation machines; Modelling

1. Introduction local values of flow properties are calculated. The detailed

Researchers have recently started to use computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) for modelling mechanically stirred
flotation cells to study the complexity of three-phase (air–
water–solids) flows within the cells (Koh and Schwarz,
2003). Flotation cells are conventionally designed using
empirically derived relations. In CFD modelling, the flota-
tion cell is discretized into individual finite volumes where
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Peter.Koh@csiro.au (P.T.L. Koh).
understanding of flow gained using this approach allows
modification to existing equipment and operation to im-
prove flotation performance.
The flotation effect is modelled as three sub-processes
involving collision, attachment and detachment. A turbu-
lent collision model is used to estimate the rate of bub-
ble–particle encounters, employing the local turbulent
velocity, and the size and number concentrations of bub-
bles and particles in different parts of the cell. The proba-
bilities of collision, adhesion and stabilization are also
calculated such that attachment rates can now be esti-
mated. The detachment rates are also estimated from the

0892-6875/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2005.09.013
620 P.T.L. Koh, M.P. Schwarz / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 619–626
fluid turbulence. The net rate of attachment, after account-
ing for detachments, is used in the combined CFD kinetic
model involving transient population-balance simulations
with removal of bubble–particle aggregates to the froth
layer.
In this paper, the local turbulent energy dissipation rates
used in the kinetic model are obtained by CFD modelling
of the cell. This is a significant improvement over other
models where assumptions based on an average dissipation
rate or an assumed Gaussian distribution for turbulent
velocities for the whole cell (e.g. Bloom and Heindel,
2003) have been used. CFD modelling provides a realistic
approach to flotation models without the additional
assumptions on turbulent energy dissipation rates.
Flotation in a cylindrical tank fitted with a Rushton
turbine impeller is studied in this paper since commercial
flotation equipment are mostly of this type fitted with ro-
tor–stator system. For comparison, a laboratory flotation
cell designed by CSIRO Minerals is also modelled.
2. Flotation kinetics
Flotation is generally modelled as a first-order rate pro-
cess with respect to the number of particles and number of
bubbles in the attachment step, and a detachment process
with respect to the number of bubble–particle aggregates.
The kinetic equation for the bubble–particle encounters is
described by the rate of removal of the number of particles
in a given volume as follows:
dN p1
¼ k 1 N p1 N b þ k 2 N a ð1Þ
dt
where Np1 is the number concentration (m3) of free parti-
cles, Nb is the number concentration of bubbles available
for attachment, Na is the number concentration of bub-
ble–particle aggregates, k1 is the particle–bubble attach-
ment rate constant, and k2 is the particle–bubble
detachment rate constant. In a given volume within the flo-
tation cell, the total number of particles consists of free
particles (Np1) and particles that are attached to bubbles
(Np2), both as functions of time
N pT ¼ N p1 þ N p2 ð2Þ
with NpTo as the initial particle concentration. In general,
bubbles will have any number of particles attached as they
move up toward the froth layer, with the number of parti-
cles per bubble varying with time and position, as well as
from bubble to bubble. To simplify the situation, it is as-
sumed in this paper that certain bubbles are fully loaded
with particles while the remaining bubbles are clean. The
number of bubble–particle aggregates (Na) is then related
to the total number of bubbles (NbT) by an average loading
parameter (b) as follows:
N a ¼ bN bT ð3Þ
The average loading parameter (b) in a given volume varies
with time and position in the cell. The number of bubbles
that are available for attachment (Nb) is also related to
the total number of bubbles as follows:
N b ¼ ð1  bÞN bT ð4Þ
So, the attachment–detachment kinetics in Eq. (1) can be
re-written as follows:
dN p1
¼ k 1 N p1 N bT ð1  bÞ þ k 2 N bT b ð5Þ
dt
An interpretation of the new equation is that the kinetics is
now based on the free surface area available for particle
attachment with a bubble loading parameter b such that
b = 0 for clean bubbles and b = 1 for fully loaded bubbles.
The number of particles that can be attached to a single
bubble is given by S which is the ratio of the total surface
area of the bubble to the particle projected area as follows:
 2
db
S¼4 ð6Þ
dp
where dp is the particle diameter and db is the bubble diam-
eter. Realistically, it is not possible for the particles to cov-
er the whole bubble surface due to packing, shape and
other factors. As a first approximation, it is assumed that
the attached particles occupy about half of the total bubble
surfaces when the bubbles are fully loaded. The maximum
number of particles per bubble ratio (Smax) is then de-
scribed by
 2
db N p2
S max ¼ 0:5S ¼ 2 ¼ ð7Þ
dp bN bT
By rearranging the above equation, the bubble loading
parameter b can be obtained from
N p2
b¼ ð8Þ
S max N bT
The present method is a significant improvement over pre-
vious models in modelling the number of particles that can
be attached to a bubble. The first model proposed by
Bloom and Heindel (1997) had assumed that only bubbles
which do not already have a particle attached to them are
capable of picking up a particle, and that the average num-
ber of particles on a bubble was equal to 1.0. This assump-
tion was replaced in their latest model (Bloom and Heindel,
2003) by an average loading based on total numbers of par-
ticles and bubbles in the flotation cell.
In the kinetic equation, the particle–bubble attachment
rate constant k1 (m3/s) is defined by
k1 ¼ Z 1P cP aP s ð9Þ
and the particle–bubble detachment rate constant k2 (1/s) is
defined by
k 2 ¼ Z 2 P d ¼ Z 2 ð1  P s Þ ð10Þ
where Pc, Pa and Ps are the probabilities of particle–bubble
collision, adhesion and stabilisation against external forces.
Pd is the probability a bubble–particle aggregate will be-
come unstable and is assumed to be equal to (1  Ps). Ps
 P.T.L. Koh, M.P. Schwarz / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 619–626
is included in both the particle–bubble attachment rate
constant k1 and in the detachment rate constant k2 because
the processes involve different turbulent eddies acting inde-
pendently of each other. The eddy that facilitates attach-
ment can also cause detachment of the aggregate during
the attachment process. Z1 is related to the particle–bubble
collision frequency dependent on the size of the particles
and bubbles, and hydrodynamics of the flotation pulp. Z2
is the detachment frequency of particles from bubbles.
Based on work of Abrahamson (1975), Schubert and
Bischofberger (1979) applied the following equation for
the number of particle–bubble collisions per unit time
and volume in flotation cells. The equation is valid only
in turbulent flows where inertial effects are the primary
cause of collisions
 2
dp þ db  2 1=2
Z 1 ¼ 5:0 U p þ U 2b ð11Þ
2 is used. The equation is valid for particles smaller than
where Up is the turbulent (rms) fluctuating velocity of the
particle relative to the fluid, and Ub is the turbulent (rms)
fluctuating velocity of the bubble relative to the fluid. In
typical flotation processes, these velocities (Ui = Up or
Ub) are a function of the local turbulent energy dissipation
rate as follows (Leipe and Möckel, 1976):
7=9  2=3
0:4e4=9 d i qi  qf
Ui ¼ ð12Þ
m1=3 qf
where e is the turbulent energy dissipation rate per unit
mass, m is the kinematic viscosity, qf is the fluid density,
and qi is the density of the particle (p) or bubble (b). The
condition for use of the above model with independent
bubble or particle velocities is that the diameter of the par-
ticle or bubble must be greater than the critical diameter,
dcrit in the following equation:
15lf U 2f
d 2i > d 2crit ¼ ð13Þ
qi e
where lf is the fluid viscosity and Uf is the mean fluid veloc-
ity deviation. In applying the case to bubbles, the critical
diameter is based on the virtual mass which is estimated
by qi = 0.5qf using the fluid density. The criterion is used
to determine the applicability in terms of particle and bub-
ble diameters in various turbulent regimes within the flota-
tion cell.
In regions where velocities for the particle and bubbles
are not independent, the collision equation by Saffman
and Turner (1956) is applicable for fine particles and bub-
bles confined within eddies in low turbulent dissipation re-
gions as follows:
rffiffiffiffiffiffi 3
8p d p þ d b e 1=2
Z1 ¼ ð14Þ
15 2 m
The bubble–particle detachment frequency Z2 is depen-
dent on the relative velocity between the particle–bubble
aggregate and the surrounding fluid, and is estimated by
621
pffiffiffiffiffiffi 1=3
C1e
Z2 ¼ ð15Þ
ðd p þ d b Þ2=3
where C1 is an empirical constant with a value of 2 as sug-
gested by Bloom and Heindel (2003).
The collision efficiency Pc accounts for the tendency of
particles to follow the fluid streamlines around the bubble
and avoid actual contact, which is especially true for parti-
cles that are much smaller than the bubble. The equation
for the collision probability proposed by Yoon and Luttrell
(1989) for intermediate bubble Reynolds number in the
range of 0.2 < Reb < 100 is applied:
  2
4 0:72 d p
P c ¼ 1:5 þ Reb ð16Þ
15 d 2b
where the bubble Reynolds number based on Reb = dbUb/m
100 lm and bubbles smaller than 1 mm with immobile sur-
faces due to adsorbed surfactants.
The probability of adhesion Pa is determined by the slid-
ing time of the particles on bubble surfaces and the induc-
tion time for rupture of the disjoining film between the
particle and bubble. If the sliding time is longer than the
induction time, adhesion is likely. Yoon and Luttrell
(1989) derived an expression for the adhesion probability
dependent on the particle and bubble sizes, the bubble Rey-
nolds number and the induction time as follows:
  
2 ð45 þ 8Re0:72b ÞU b t ind
P a ¼ sin 2 arctan exp ð17Þ
15d b ðd b =d p þ 1Þ
where tind is the induction time and Ub is the bubble rela-
tive velocity. The induction time is a function of the parti-
cle size and contact angle which can be determined by
experiment and correlated in the form
tind ¼ Ad Bp ð18Þ
where parameters A and B are independent of particle size.
From measurements with particles and bubbles of various
sizes in solutions of varying ionic strength, Dai et al. (1999)
found that parameter B is constant with a value of 0.6, and
parameter A is inversely proportional to the particle con-
tact angle h. Based on these findings, the following equa-
tion was constructed by the present authors and applied
in the CFD model:
75 0:6
tind ¼ d ð19Þ
h p
where tind is given in s, h in degrees and dp in m. The prob-
ability of adhesion can now be calculated for given values
of bubble size, particle size and contact angle.
The probability of stability Ps accounts for the stabiliza-
tion or destabilization of the bubble–particle aggregate.
Schulze (1993) proposed a form as follows:
 
1
P s ¼ 1  exp 1   ð20Þ
Bo
622 P.T.L. Koh, M.P. Schwarz / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 619–626

where the modified Bond number (Bo*) is defined as the ra- conical shroud similar to a Denver-type mechanism. Air is
tio of detachment to attachment forces, and is given by injected at a rate of 8 l/min through a nozzle located within

  1=3   
2=3 d p

d 2p Dqp g þ 1:9qp e 2
þ db
2
þ 1:5d p
4r
db
 d b qf g sin2 p  h2
Bo ¼ 

6r sin p  h sin p þ h 

 ð21Þ
2 2

where g is the acceleration due to gravity, r is the surface the stator and directed downwards at the impeller which is
tension, and Dqp = (qp  qf). In the derivation by Schulze, stirring at 1200 rpm.
the acceleration (force) that determines the detachment of a
particle from the bubble is dependent on the intensity of 4. Results and discussion
turbulence in the flow. It is assumed that turbulent vortices
of dimensions corresponding to those of the bubble–parti- CFD predictions indicate a complex flow field within the
cle aggregate cause the detachment. From their validation flotation cell and much of the action occurs in the impeller
experiments, Bloom and Heindel (2003) suggested a modi- region. The flow around the cell is important as it deter-
fied form as follows: mines the paths taken by the bubble–particle aggregates to-
   wards the froth layer. Profiles of the flow field obtained
1
P s ¼ 1  exp As 1   ð22Þ include turbulent energy dissipation, volumetric fraction
Bo
of air phase and particle–bubble collision rate.
where As is an empirical constant with a value of 0.5. The cumulative distribution of the turbulent energy dis-
sipation rates in the stirred cell have been reported (Koh
3. Model description et al., 2000) from which two regions in the flotation cell
are represented: the impeller region having higher values
Multi-phase flow equations for the conservation of of the turbulent energy dissipation rate and the remainder
mass, momentum and turbulence quantities have been of the cell having lower dissipation values. In the popula-
solved using an Eulerian–Eulerian approach in which the tion balance, the bubble number concentration is obtained
pulp (liquid–solid) and the gas phases are treated as inter- by dividing the local gas holdup by the bubble volume.
penetrating continua. Two mesh blocks have been gener- The probabilities of collision, adhesion and stabilization
ated for modelling the rotating impeller and the have been calculated using values of turbulent energy dissi-
stationary stator within the tank. Transport equations have pation rates found in the flotation cell. Two contact angles
been solved using the multiple frames of reference tech- have been used in the calculation for comparison. The
nique in the CFX-4.4 (2001) computer code. Source terms attachment rate, (Z1PcPaPsNbT) is plotted as a function
include buoyancy for the gas phase. The froth layer is not of particle diameter in Fig. 1. This rate represents the initial
included in the computational domain; only the pulp zone rate of contact between particles and clean bubbles.
is simulated. At the froth–pulp interface, gas bubbles with
attached particles are transferred from the pulp zone to the
froth layer at the rate bubbles arrive at the interface. For
the flotation kinetics, the transfer of particles between the
pulp and bubbles is achieved by applying source/sink terms
in the population-balance equation in Eq. (1). The tran-
sient simulation uses adjustable/variable time steps such
that the mass error is less than 0.1% for each time step.
A stirred tank cell used in flotation experiments has been
simulated. A flat-bottomed cylindrical tank of diameter
T = 0.195 m was fitted with a standard Rushton turbine
with a diameter D = T/3 stirring at 840 rpm (Hui and
Ahmed, 1999). The tank includes four baffles of width T/
10. An average bubble diameter of 1 mm, and monosized
particles of density 2600 kg/m3 in a pulp of 32% by weight
have been applied in the model. This is equivalent to a par-
ticle volume fraction of 0.153.
For comparison, a laboratory flotation cell designed by
CSIRO Minerals has also been modelled. The CSIRO flo- Fig. 1. Attachment rate (Z1PcPaPsNbT) for a bubble of diameter 1.0 mm
tation cell, with a volume of 3.78 l, has an eight-bladed 72- plotted as a function of particle diameter at four turbulent energy
mm diameter impeller driven from below and enclosed in a dissipation rates and two contact angles.
 P.T.L. Koh, M.P. Schwarz / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 619–626 623

To obtain flotation rates, the mass transfer of particles

between the pulp and the bubbles in the flotation cell has
been simulated for a contact angle 38. The total number
of particles remaining in the batch cell is determined by
summing particles in all the finite volumes. The results
for the case of 60 lm particles are shown in Fig. 2 where
the predicted fractions of free, attached and floated parti-
cles are plotted as a function of time. These results may
be interpreted as produced by a ‘‘reaction in series’’ mech-
anism. The sum of free and attached particles remaining in
the cell is plotted against time in Fig. 3 (semi-log) for var-
ious particle sizes. This plot is similar to results usually ob-
tained from flotation tests. A more interesting plot is the
ratio of free particles to the total number of particles
remaining in the cell (free and attached) shown in Fig. 4.
A global ‘‘equilibrium’’ between free and attached particles
is observed in some of the cases in Fig. 4 due to attachment Fig. 4. CFD prediction of the ratio of free particles to the sum of free and
attached particles remaining in the cell plotted as a function of time for
various particle diameters.

and detachment processes occurring in different parts of

the cell. Assuming a first-order rate process, flotation rate
constants can be obtained from the half times t0.5 using
the following equation:
ln 2:0
k¼ ð23Þ
t0:5
The predicted rate constants are plotted as a function of
particle diameters in Fig. 5 showing that fine and large par-
ticles do not float as well as intermediate sized particles of
120–240 lm. This trend is generally observed with flotation
recovery (Trahar, 1981). Experimental data reported by
Pyke et al. (2003), Duan et al. (2003) and Ahmed and
Jameson (1985) are also consistent with this observation.
An initial comparison against experimental rate constant
Fig. 2. CFD prediction of the fractions of free, attached and floated
for quartz at 600 rpm by Ahmed and Jameson in Fig. 5
particles plotted as a function of time for particles of 60 lm diameter.

Fig. 3. CFD prediction of the sum of free and attached particles Fig. 5. CFD predicted flotation rate constant plotted as a function of
remaining in the cell plotted as a function of time for various particle particle diameter and comparison against experimental rate constant for
diameters. quartz by Ahmed and Jameson.
624 P.T.L. Koh, M.P. Schwarz / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 619–626

shows that the CFD predicted values are of the same order
of magnitude. Detailed comparison against experiment is
planned in further work.
In practice, the rate constants are usually correlated
with the bubble surface area flux Sb which can be obtained
from
6J g
Sb ¼ ð24Þ
db
where Jg is the superficial gas velocity. Plant data indicate
that Sb is dependent on the impeller speed and air flow rate.
Gorain et al. (1999) found that the flotation rate constant k
has a strong correlation with Sb as follows:
k ¼ P k  S b  Rf ð25Þ
where Pk is the flotation probability representing the float-
ability of the ore, and Rf is the froth recovery factor. The
flotation probability for various particle sizes have been
calculated from CFD predicted k values, with Rf = 1.0
and Jg = 0.0106 m/s (or Sb of 63.4 s1) in the cell. The cal-
culated values of Pk of the order of 104 are shown in Ta-
ble 1. Pk is calculated using Eq. (25) based on the rate
constant k predicted by CFD simulation. The relationship
between Pk and PcPaPs is not obvious since they are de-
fined differently. The probabilities PcPaPs are involved dur-
ing a single particle–bubble encounter, while Pk is obtained
from the rate of decrease of the total number of particles in
the flotation cell as a result of multiple encounters over
time.
The attachment rates from previous simulations in a
laboratory flotation cell designed by CSIRO Minerals
(Koh and Schwarz, 2003) are for bubble–particle attach-
ments only, without the recovery of particles through the
froth interface. In the previous work, the attached particles
were removed from the pulp phase as soon as a bubble–
particle aggregate was formed. The attachment rate con-
stant of the order of 300 s1 for 60 lm particles was ob-
tained and is much larger in comparison to the flotation
rate of 0.02 s1 (or 1.13 min1) in Table 1 as obtained in
the present work which includes transport to the froth
interface.
In Fig. 2, the fraction of free particles to the total num-
ber of particles remaining in the cell decreases quite rapidly
initially with the rate of decrease abating at longer times.
The reason for slower decrease in free particles at longer
times is because the removal of attached particles from
the pulp is limiting the process. The distribution of bubble
loading in the cell is plotted in Fig. 6 showing that the bub-
bles are almost fully loaded in the top part of the cell with b
values closer to 1.0. The initial attachment rate is found to
be very fast in comparison to the recovery rates of attached
particles from the froth interface. Since the bubbles are
loaded with particles quite quickly, the bubble surface area
flux is the limiting factor in the recovery rate from the froth
interface. This explains why the relationship in Eq. (25) be-
tween flotation rate and bubble surface area flux is gener-
ally observed in batch or plant-scale cells and why this
relationship has been used as a criterion for designing flo-
tation cells.
The recovery rate is slower than the net attachment rate
because of transport times for bubble–particle aggregates
to move through the pulp to the froth interface. The pre-
dicted recovery rates are still quite large in comparison
with the observed rates in the plant because the overall
rates include transport within the froth layer. For example,
measured flotation rates of 0.1–0.25 min1 have been re-
ported by Gorain et al. (1998) in 3 m3 commercial cells.
The transport times are quite significant in plant-scale flo-
tation cells as the bubble–particle aggregates have to move
over large distances. This is one reason why flotation rates
are much faster in laboratory batch cells where the bubble–
particle aggregates have shorter distances to reach the froth
layer.
The distribution of attachment rates in the stirred cell is
plotted in Fig. 7 where negative values represent detach-
ment. The plot shows that detachment rates are large near
the impeller tip. The maximum attachment rates are not far
from the impeller. The two zones are quite close. The net

Table 1
CFD predicted flotation rate constant and flotation probability for
various particle diameters
dp (lm) t0.5 (s) k (s1) k (min1) Pk
7.5 205.9 0.0034 0.202 5.3 · 105
15 113.0 0.0061 0.368 9.7 · 105
30 61.3 0.0113 0.678 1.8 · 104
60 36.8 0.0188 1.130 3.0 · 104
120 19.9 0.0348 2.090 5.5 · 104
240 11.7 0.0592 3.555 9.3 · 104
Fig. 6. CFD prediction of the bubble loading parameter b after flotation
480 16.7 0.0416 2.496 6.6 · 104
time of 320 s for particles of 60 lm diameter in the stirred cell.
 P.T.L. Koh, M.P. Schwarz / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 619–626
Fig. 7. CFD predicted net attachment rates (108 m3 s1) after flotation
time of 320 s for particles of 60 lm diameter in the stirred cell. Negative
values indicate net detachment.
effects of the attachment rates are shown in the predicted
distribution of free particles remaining in the cell plotted
in Fig. 8, and in the distribution of attached particles plot-
ted in Fig. 9.
For comparison, the distribution of net attachment rates
in the CSIRO Denver cell is shown in Fig. 10. The plot
shows that detachment rates (with negative values) are also
large near the impeller tip, but the maximum attachment
rates are outside the impeller zone. The two zones are sep-
arated by the stator shroud. The negative regions are inev-
Fig. 8. CFD predicted volume fraction of free particles after flotation time
of 320 s for particles of 60 lm diameter.
625
Fig. 9. CFD predicted volume fraction of attached particles after flotation
time of 320 s for particles of 60 lm diameter in the stirred cell.
Fig. 10. CFD predicted net attachment rates (108 m3 s1) after flotation
time of 228 s for particles of 60 lm diameter in the CSIRO Denver cell.
itable because of the need to use a high impeller speed to
generate fine bubbles for the necessary bubble surface area
flux to operate. Flotation cell design should ideally mini-
mize the negative regions while maximizing the attachment
rates available in the cell.
5. Conclusions
CFD modelling of a batch flotation cell has been per-
formed. Bubble–particle collision rates, detachment rates
and the probabilities of collision, adhesion and stabiliza-
tion have been calculated in different parts of the cell. Com-
parison of the predicted fraction of particles remaining in
the cell and the fraction of free particles to the total number
626 P.T.L. Koh, M.P. Schwarz / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 619–626
of particles remaining in the cell indicates that the particle
recovery rate to the pulp–froth interface is much slower
than the net attachment rates after accounting for detach-
ments. For the case studied, it was found that the bubbles
are loaded with particles quite quickly, and that the bubble
surface area flux is the limiting factor in the recovery rate at
the froth interface. This explains why the relationship be-
tween flotation rate and bubble surface area flux is gener-
ally used as a criterion for designing flotation cells. The
predicted flotation rate constants also showed that fine
and large particles do not float as well as intermediate sized
particles of 120–240 lm range. This is consistent with the
flotation recovery generally observed in flotation practice.
The magnitudes of the flotation rate constants obtained
by CFD modelling indicate that transport rates of the bub-
ble–particle aggregates to the froth layer contribute quite
significantly to the overall flotation rate and this is likely
to be the case especially in plant-scale equipment.
References
Abrahamson, J., 1975. Collision rates of small particles in a vigorously
turbulent fluid. Chemical Engineering Science 30, 1371–1379.
Ahmed, N., Jameson, G.J., 1985. The effect of bubble size on the rate of
flotation of fine particles. International Journal of Mineral Processing
14, 195–215.
Bloom, F., Heindel, T.J., 1997. Mathematical modeling of the flotation
deinking process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 25, 13–58.
Bloom, F., Heindel, T.J., 2003. Modeling flotation separation in a semi-
batch process. Chemical Engineering Science 58, 353–365.
CFX USER GUIDE, Release 4.4, 2001. Computational Fluid Dynamics
Services, AEA Industrial Technology, Harwell Laboratory, Oxford-
shire, UK.
Dai, Z., Fornasiero, D., Ralston, J., 1999. Particle–bubble attachment in
mineral flotation. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 217, 70–76.
Duan, J., Fornasiero, D., Ralston, J., 2003. Calculation of the flotation
rate constant of chalcopyrite particles in an ore. International Journal
of Mineral Processing 72, 227–237.
Gorain, B.K., Napier-Munn, T.J., Franzidis, J.P., Manlapig, E.V., 1998.
Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and air flow rate in an
industrial scale flotation cell—Part 5: validation of k-Sb relationship
and effect of froth depth. Minerals Engineering 11 (7), 615–626.
Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.P., Manlapig, E.V., 1999. The empirical
prediction of bubble surface area flux in mechanical flotation cells
from cell design and operating data. Minerals Engineering 12, 309–
322.
Hui, S., Ahmed, N., 1999. Hydrodynamics of coarse particle flotation. In:
Proceedings of the 27th Australian Chemical Engineering Conference,
CHEMECA 99, Newcastle, NSW.
Koh, P.T.L., Schwarz, M.P., 2003. CFD modeling of bubble–particle
collision rates and efficiencies in mineral flotation cells. Minerals
Engineering 16, 1055–1059.
Koh, P.T.L., Manickam, M., Schwarz, M.P., 2000. CFD simulation of
bubble–particle collisions in a flotation cell. Minerals Engineering 13
(14–15), 1455–1463.
Leipe, F., Möckel, O.H., 1976. Untersuchungen zum stoffvereinigen in
flüssiger phase. Chemical Technology 30, 205–209.
Pyke, B., Fornasiero, D., Ralston, J., 2003. Bubble particle heterocoag-
ulation under turbulent conditions. Journal Colloid and Interface
Science 265, 141–151.
Saffman, P.G., Turner, T.S., 1956. On the collision of drops in turbulent
clouds. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1, 16–30.
Schubert, H., Bischofberger, C., 1979. On the optimization of hydrody-
namics in flotation processes. In: Proceedings of the 13th International
Mineral Processing Congress, vol. 2, Warsaw, pp. 1261–1285.
Schulze, H.J., 1993. Flotation as a heterocoagulation process: possibilities
of calculating the probability of flotation. In: Dobias, B. (Ed.),
Coagulation and Flocculation. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 321–
353.
Trahar, W.J., 1981. A rational interpretation of the role of particle size in
flotation. International Journal of Mineral Processing 8, 289–327.
Yoon, R.H., Luttrell, G.H., 1989. The effect of bubble size on fine particle
flotation. Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review 5,
101–122.