Light Metals 2004 Edited by Alton T.
Tabereaux TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society), 2004
ASPECTS OF ALUMINA CONTROL IN ALUMINIUM REDUCTION CELLS
Daniel Whitfield1, Maria Skyllas-Kazacos1, Barry Welch1, Fiona Stevens McFadden2
1
Center for Electrochemistry and Mineral Processing, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
2
Comalco Research and Technical Support, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
For all modern point fed aluminium-smelting cells, the alumina
concentration is controlled within a band. This is achieved
through inference indirectly by the general relationship between
alumina concentration, inter-electrode distance and cell resistance.
The standard strategy is to cycle the alumina feed rates, varying
cell resistance and allowing inferential control of the alumina
concentration.
In this investigation, a magnetically compensated point fed cell,
was subjected to a typical feed cycle to test the response and
quality of control. The variables measured in the response
included the alumina concentration and its rate of change,
temperature and pseudo-resistance.
As a result of this investigation, several phenomena were
observed that concur with the hypothesis of an alumina layer at
the bath-metal interface.
The net rate of alumina depletion was observed to correlate with
temperature, possibly due to secondary feeding from a
hypothesised alumina layer. Significant differences between the
theoretical and measured pseudo-resistance were observed during
the underfeed period, resulting in a ‘flattening’ of the resistance
curve. It is also hypothesised that the pseudo-resistance may have
an added temperature dependence due to the alumina layer.
Introduction
One of the challenges for maintaining a steady aluminium
reduction process is an appropriate degree of control over the
alumina concentration in the cell electrolyte. Modern alumina
control tends towards low concentration for maximum
performance
Deficient alumina concentration increases the risk of anode
effects, producing harmful gases (CF4, C2F6 etc). Excess alumina
added to the electrolyte will promote of formation of sludge on
the cathode. This sludge can electrically insulate the cathode,
promoting horizontal current flow, which can agitate the metal
pad and cause instability of the bath – metal pad interface.
These concerns have become increasingly important, with the
push for higher AlF3 content and lower temperature cell operation,
where the decrease in alumina solubility and low bath temperature
result in a very narrow alumina concentration range (~1.5–3.5%).
Modern alumina control strategies are based on the indirect
evaluation of the alumina concentration by monitoring the cell
pseudo-resistance. The pseudo resistance is primarily dependent
on the ACD (anode-cathode distance) and the electrolyte alumina
concentration. Being a function of both these variables, the
resistance can not be used to directly infer the alumina
concentration.
249
The first derivative of the pseudo–resistance, which is
independent of the ACD, is typically used to estimate the
approximate alumina concentration. The basis for this approach is
that the slope of the resistance-alumina curve is largely a function
of the alumina concentration:
dR
= f (C Al 2 O3 )
dC Al 2 O3
Where: R = Resistance
C Al2O3 = Alumina concentration
As dR dt , the first differential of the resistance with respect to
time, can be measured directly, it is used to infer dR dC Al2O3 , and
hence C Al2 O3 , assuming a known, constant net alumina depletion
rate ( dC Al2O3 dt ).
dR dR dC Al2O3
=
dt dC Al2O3 dt
Also, a critical value of ∆R is often used in conjunction with (or
sometimes instead of) dR dt to improve endpoint repeatibility1
(∆R is independent of dC Al2O3 dt , but is dependent on the starting
point on the resistance curve).
The net alumina concentration depletion rate ( dC Al2O3 dt ), is the
net of the consumption and addition rates of alumina. It is a
function of the following variables:
dC Al 2 O3 § secondary feeding rate ( sludge & crust ), bath mass , ·
∝ ¨¨ ¸¸
dt © line amperage , current efficiency , alumina feedrate ¹
As line amperage is typically the only continuously measured
variable, unquantified variation in the remaining variables results
in the actual value of dC Al2O3 dt being unknown.
The inferential measurement of the alumina concentration also
assumes a consistent, repeatable relationship between
dR dC Al2O3 and the alumina concentration. Variation in this
relationship will distort the inferential measure of alumina and
inhibit its accurate control.
Although pseudo-resistance curves can be calculated theoretically,
very few pseudo-resistance curves from the operation of industrial
cells have been published. Of the two pseudo-resistance curves
found in the literature2,3, both were obtained through experimental
manipulation of the alumina feeding, not through measurement
during operation under a typical alumina control strategy.
In this investigation, several point fed reduction cells were 3.0 Measured A lumina Conc entr ation
subjected to a feed cycle of differing alumina feed rates to test the

Alumina Concentration (wt%)

Inter polated / Extr apolated A lumina Conc entr ation
response and quality of control, and the overall behaviour of the 2.5
cell dynamics. As a result of this investigation, a number of 2.0
observations pertinent to the behaviour of the pseudo-resistance
and the control of alumina concentration were made. 1.5 Linear regression Extrapolated Under feed End and
Start Alumina Concentration
Experimental 1.0
Six cells were selected for the experimental measurements. All
0.5
cells were of the same lining design and all were approximately Over feed Nominal
Base Under feed Over feed
Nominal
Base Under feed Overfe ed
Fee d Feed
the same age. 0.0

For experimental purposes, the measurements were performed for

four different feeding regimes; the cell was fed at less than the
theoretical net rate of consumption (underfeed period), followed
by two levels of overfeed; an initial aggressive, short interval, fast
feed of alumina, followed by a overfeed at greater than
theoretical. After the overfeed period, a base feed period (at the
theoretical rate of consumption) occurred. The feeding cycle used
in the study was adjusted for the purpose of the investigation,
rather than mimicking actual operating practice.
The feeder alumina dump weight for each cell was physically
measured, with insignificant variance observed (~1%).
Overall cell performance at the time of the experimentation was
good, with the current efficiency above 94%.
The electrolyte temperature, cell pseudo-resistance and electrolyte
chemistry were measured for the duration of four consecutive feed
cycles for each cell:
• The electrolyte temperature was measured continuously
(sampling rate of 4 seconds) throughout the measurement
period.
• The pseudo-resistance was recorded throughout the feed
cycle, using the cell computer interface system.
• Bath samples were taken during the underfeed and at the start
Figure 1: Measured and interpolated / extrapolated alumina
concentration
For the underfeed period, the end and start alumina concentration
were extrapolated from the line of linear regression, and together
with the measured alumina concentration during the base feed, the
approximate alumina concentration over the feed cycle was
plotted.
The bath mass was estimated by using the addition of
approximately 3-4 kilograms of strontium carbonate to the
electrolyte, and analysing the strontium concentration before and
2 hours after the addition.
Results and Discussion
Apart from the variation due to the feed cycle, the alumina
concentration did not vary significantly over the measurement
period for each cell, staying within a 1.0 – 1.5 wt% band. All
alumina concentration measurements during the underfeed period
were below the theoretical (or practical) minimum of the pseudo-
resistance curve, as confirmed with the highest alumina
concentration of 3.3 wt% measured.
-0.85
Alumina Depletion Rate for Underfeed

of the base feed period, with bath sampling tongs in the tap -0.90
hole of the cell. Samples were analysed through LECO and dM
/dt
dMAl 2O 3 /dt kg/minute

XRF for alumina, AlF3 and CaF2 content. (kg

/mi -0.95
•
nut
As the addition of alumina into the electrolyte from the point e)

feeders takes a finite time to disperse and dissolve, bath -1.00

sampling was performed 3 minutes after the addition of
alumina. -1.05
Due to sampling constraints the number of bath samples taken
ranged from 3 to 5 during underfeed. -1.10
945 950 955 960 965 970 975 980
Figure 1 shows the gradual reduction in the alumina concentration Average Nominal
Average Nominal Feed Temperature
Electrolyte (C)
Temperature (°C)
in the electrolyte as it is depleted during the underfeed period. A Figure 2: Cell average absolute alumina depletion rate versus
linear rate of alumina depletion was assumed, with linear average base feed temperature
regression used to calculate the net alumina depletion rate
( dC Al2O3 dt ). Comparison between the average absolute alumina depletion rate
( dM Al O dt ) and the average temperature during the base feed
2 3

period, as averaged for each cell, indicate a possible relationship

between the two (see Figure 2).

Despite variation in the bath mass between the cells, some

correlation was still apparent between the electrolyte temperature
and dC Al2O3 dt .

250
As well as alumina feed rate and amperage the dM Al O dt is Sludge can backfeed via a film of electrolyte at the sidewalls. As
2 3
the metal pad is wetted by electrolyte, a film will flow from the
dependent on the % of alumina dissolving, secondary feeding rate
bulk bath though the metal pad at the sidefreeze by a combination
(or back feeding) and current efficiency. Temperature
of circulation and density gradients (Figure 4). According to
dependence of any or all of these variables is possibly responsible
Grjotherm and Welch8, the contact area between sludge and non-
for this behaviour.
saturated electrolyte at the sidewall is small, and hence the
The volume of electolyte to which the alumina is added to, will dissolution of alumina from sludge into the electrolyte via this
positively influence its dissolution and mixing in a cell, and hence pathway is likely controlled by the access of fresh electrolyte.
the % of the alumina feed dissolving. However, comparison
between the total bath mass or the bath dip height (as an indicator Sludge can also be present in a significant amount in the center of
of bath mass in the feed zone) with dM Al O dt during the the cell, under the alumina feeders, dependent on feeding
2 3 technology. This may be either continuously exposed to the
underfeed period showed there was no apparent correlation, electrolyte (as in Figure 4), or intermittently from oscillation of
suggesting that this influence is eclipsed by other phenomena. the metal-bath interface. In this situation mass transfer would
control the sludge dissolution. In the cell technology in this
Analysis of the superheat level of the electrolyte showed no investigation this is unlikely to be a significant source of
correlation with dM Al2O3 dt , indicating the influence of superheat backfeeding as the alumina dissolution behaviour observed in the
on the % of alumina dissolving was inconsequential on the cells is relatively good.
relationship observed in Figure 2.
If an undissolved alumina layer were to exist at the bath-metal
Current efficiency follows a proportional relationship with the interface, then as well as affecting the cell pseudo-resistance2 and
electrolyte temperature / AlF3 concentration. High current cell current efficiency9, the layer would also contribute to
efficiency at low electrolyte temperature / high AlF3 concentration secondary feeding of alumina into electrolyte10. In comparison
will result in a greater rate of electrolysis and hence a greater net with sludge at the bottom of the cell, alumina floating on top of
rate of alumina depletion. the metal pad will be in a more favorable position for dissolution
100%
into the electrolyte. If such a layer was present, the mass transfer
area would be far greater than for dissolution of sludge at the
95%
sidewall, and hence is more likely to be controlled by the
Current Efficiency (%)

Gradient = 0.63 %/°C

90% concentration gradient between the alumina in the electrolyte and
85%
the alumina (at saturation) from the sludge in the alumina layer.
80%
The saturation solubility of alumina in electrolyte decreases with
75% decreasing temperature and increased AlF3 concentration, hence
945 950 955 960 965 970 975 980
Average
Average Base Feed
Nominal FeedTemperature (C) (° C)
Temperature
the concentration gradient and the rate of back feeding from
( alumina sludge may follow a proportional relationship with
Figure 3: Calculated current efficiency versus average base feed temperature, i.e. low back feeding of alumina at low temperatures,
temperature resulting in a greater net depletion of alumina from the electrolyte.
Figure 3 shows the required current efficiency calculated for each Table 1: Calculation of Alumina Concentration difference
cell, assuming that the variation in current efficiency is solely between electrolyte and saturation
responsible for the variation observed in dM Al2O3 dt. From Figure Calculated Average
Average
3, the apparent dependence of current efficiency on temperature is Cell Average AlF3
Electrolyte
Saturation Underfeed Concentration
0.63 %/°C, compared to ~0.11-0.29 % / °C typical variation in Concentration
Temperature
Alumina Alumina
Concentration Concentration
Gradient

current efficiency that others have found to be due to wt% °C wt% wt% ∆wt%
temperature4,5,6,7. This suggests the variation in the current
A 12.81 957.8 8.11 2.51 5.61
efficiency is not solely responsible for the behaviour observed in
Figure 2. B 12.88 961.0 8.22 1.94 6.28

C 10.13 958.4 8.39 2.97 5.41

A possible cause for the relationship in Figure 2 is the temperature
D 10.49 967.9 8.72 2.11 6.61
dependence of alumina back feeding from alumina sludge.
Turbulence
E 8.05 975.8 9.26 2.34 6.93
generated from
anode gas F 13.87 951.2 7.78 2.76 5.02
escaping
Anode
Table 1 shows the calculated alumina concentration at saturation
Electrolyte circulation C Al 2 O 3 = alumina concentration in
bulk electrolyte
and the calculated concentration gradient (the concentration
Frozen
ledge difference between the alumina sludge, taken as the alumina
Possible Alumina Layer
Sidewall Metal Pad
concentration at saturation, and the average underfeed alumina
Sludge Sludge
concentration). The saturation alumina concentration was
C sat
Al 2 O 3
= alumina concentration at saturation at calculated as a function of the AlF3 concentration and electrolyte
electrolyte / sludge interface
temperature from the empirical equation presented by
Cathode
Skybakmoen et al11.
Concentration Gradient = ∆C Al 2O3 = C Al2O3 - C Al 2O3
sat

Figure 4: Possible dissolution paths for sludge to electrolyte

251
 7.5
Note that although it is more appropriate for comparison between
technologies in terms of voltage, the comparisons made are based
7.0
on similar amperages, and therefore compatible in terms of
Concentration Gradient

6.5 pseudo-resistance change.

(∆wt% Al 2O 3)

6.0
5.5 A key difference between this work and that of Jie et al3 and
Kvande et al2 is that these were generated with zero feeding
5.0
occurring, whereas in this study the underfeed was at > 0%. With
4.5 very little pseudo-resistance curve data being published, it is not
4.0 known whether ideal pseudo-resistance curves can be attained or
-1.10 -1.05 -1.00 -0.95 -0.90 -0.85 even approached with conventional feed cycling.
Underfeed Alumina
Average Mass Electrolyte
Nominal Depletion Rate
Temperature (kg/minute)
dM Al O dt (C)
2 3

Haupin and others12 have shown that the cathode overvoltage can
Figure 5: Concentration difference between electrolyte and
be affected by interfacial composition and transfer processes.
saturation and versus underfeed dM Al2O3 dt (from Table 1)

Figure 5 shows the calculated concentration gradient versus Kvande et al2 observed significant differences in the pseudo-
resistance between the under and overfeed periods. Through
dM Al O dt and the observed relationship suggests that the 2 3 simultaneous measurement of both the alumina and pseudo-
variation in the net secondary feeding rate may be a significant resistance over an overfeed period (135% feed rate), and a
cause of the relationship observed between dM Al O dt and bath subsequent underfeed (of zero feed rate), a higher resistance
2 3

temperature, with current efficiency also likely to be responsible curve, with less change in resistance, was observed from the
for some of temperature dependence. overfeed when compared to the underfeed period (Figure 7).

Difference Between Theoretical and Measured Resistance

Both the ∆R and dR dt observed in this work were significantly
less than expected from theoretical pseudo-resistance curves.

1
Change in Pseudo-Resistance (micro-ohms)

0.8

0.6
Theoretical Resistance

0.4

0.2

0
Measured Resistance

-0.2 Figure 7: Pseudo resistance curves for a 175 kA prebake cell

1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9
(reproduced from Kvande et al2)
Alumina Concentration (wt%)

Figure 6: Measured and theoretical change in pseudo-resistance An alumina layer at the bath-metal interface was suggested as the
for measured alumina concentration cause of the difference in resistance between the two feed periods,
that introduced an additional electrical resistance term in the bath,
Figure 6 above shows that the calculated theoretical resistance due to presence of the alumina sludge, and in certain cases, a thin
change is of a magnitude greater than that measured (calculated layer of cryolite may freeze out also.
assuming constant alumina depletion rate throughout underfeed).
This was consistently observed over all the pseudo-resistance Although Kvande et al2 considered the possible effect of a thin
traces. frozen electrolyte layer above the metal pad to be small compared
to the influence of undissolved alumina present on the metal
There have been very few published experimental curves from surface, Haupin has hypothesised that such phenomena may be
industrial reduction cells. Published pseudo-resistance curves by significant13.
Kvande et al2 show that for the alumina concentration change in
Figure 6, a pseudo-resistance change of up to ~0.7 µΩ was With the particularly aggressive overfeeding used for the
measured (from 1.9% to 2.9%). Similar results were reported by experimental measurements in this present study (20kg added
Jie et al3, with a measured and calculated pseudo-resistance during initial 2 minutes of overfeed, followed by the normal
change of ~0.6 µΩ for the same alumina concentration range. overfeed), it is possible that a postulated alumina layer at the bath-
These compare well with the calculated theoretical, whereas in metal interface may exist long enough to also influence the
this study however, a change in pseudo-resistance of only ~0.19 pseudo-resistance during the subsequent underfeed period.
µΩ was observed (see Figure 6).
Given that the time between the termination of the overfeed and
initiation of the underfeed period is relatively short (< 30

252
minutes), and that the difference in the pseudo-resistance between
the under and overfeed reported by Kvande et al2 (Figure 7) took
up to 30 minutes to develop after commencement of the underfeed
period (feed periods were in the order of 3-4 hours), it is possible
that the aggressive overfeeding used in the experimental cells may
create a persisting alumina layer at the bath-metal interface, and
hence permanent reduction in the pseudo-resistance change.
resistance minimum), it would be expected that the average
change in alumina concentration during the underfeed would
increase with the end of underfeed alumina concentration as
shown in Figure 8. The experimental data however, shows a
significant deviation from the expected relationship
1.60

oncentration during Underfeed (∆wt%)

Expected Change during Underfeed From Reference
1.40 Pseudo-Resistance Curve

ell Average Change in Alumina

A similar 'flatness' of the pseudo-resistance curve seems to be Measured Change in Alumina Concentration
1.20
prevalent in other cell technologies14,15. Published pseudo-
resistance curves2,3 that had near ideal pseudo-resistance curves, 1.00
used a zero feeding rate for an extended period. It is possible that 0.80
ideal pseudo-resistance curves cannot be attained with a Deviation from Reference
Alumina Curve
conventional feed cycle 0.60

Influence of Temperature on Resistance-Alumina Curve
As seen in Figure 7, there is a significant difference between the
observed ∆R and dR dt versus that expected. This has been
hypothesised by others and also here to be due the presence of an
alumina layer, acting as an additional resistance at the bath –
metal interface. Also as discussed above, a significant part of the
influence of temperature on dM Al O dt could be explained by the
2 3
the back feeding of alumina sludge, possibly from an alumina
layer at the bath-metal interface.
With an alumina layer acting as an additional resistance at the
bath-metal interface, influencing the overall cell pseudo-
resistance, it would be expected that if its dissolution back into the
electrolyte was controlled by the electrolyte temperature (through
temperature dependence of concentration gradient for mass
transfer), then mass/size of any alumina layer and hence the cell
pseudo-resistance would also be dependent on the electrolyte
temperature.
The pseudo-resistance is slightly dependent on temperature via its
effect on the bath conductivity. A possible temperature effect due
to an alumina layer on the pseudo-resistance would however be
significantly greater.
With the mass of any alumina layer decreasing during the
underfeed, due to the net dissolution into the bulk electrolyte, the
resulting decrease in resistance (of the alumina layer) would
partially offset the increase in resistance due to polarisation during
the underfeed period (in the alumina concentration range left of
the minimum pseudo-resistance). At higher temperatures, the
concentration gradient for mass transfer is greater, resulting in the
greater depletion of any alumina layer. This would cause a
0.40
0.20
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7
Cell Average Underfeed End Alumina Concentration (wt%)
Figure 8: Average Change in Underfeed Concentration versus
Average Underfeed End Concentration
If the resistance-alumina curve was varying with temperature (due
to the alumina concentration gradient between an alumina layer
and the electrolyte), then it would be expected that the magnitude
of the deviation between the expected relationship and that
observed in Figure 8 would correlate with the calculated alumina
concentration gradient.
To assess the magnitude of the deviation, a reference resistance-
alumina curve was used to compare the expected change in
alumina concentration over the underfeed, with that measured. To
account for the reduced change, or ‘flattening’ of the pseudo-
resistance (Figure 7), the theoretical resistance alumina was scaled
down by a factor of 4.4, so that for the coldest cell (where the
deviation was expected to be the least), the change in alumina
concentration equaled that measured for the underfeed end
alumina concentration. The calculated change expected for the
measured end underfeed alumina concentration is shown in Figure
8.
From Figure 9, with the exception of one data point, there is a
clear, positive relationship between the deviation from the
reference resistance-alumina curve (Figure 8) and the alumina
concentration gradient (Table 1).
0.60
Resistance-Alumina Curve (wt%)

greater ‘flattening’ of the pseudo resistance curve, and hence

Deviation from Reference

0.40
greater deviation from the theoretical pseudo-resistance.
0.20
Unfortunately, due to variation in the alumina concentration 0.00
control range for each cell, pseudo- resistance curves from
-0.20
individual cells could not be directly compared to ascertain the
possible influence of temperature on the pseudo-resistance curve. -0.40
-0.60
Some evidence for a dependency of the resistance versus Al2O3
-0.80
curve on temperature via the effect of an undissolved alumina
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
layer is seen in an analysis of Al2O3 concentration data. With the
Calculated Alumina Concentration Gradient (wt%)
particular control parameters and operating conditions used during
these experimental measurements, the end of underfeed period
was determined by a set change in the pseudo-resistance (∆R). If Figure 9: Deviation from Reference Resistance-Alumina Curve
the resistance-alumina curve was consistent for all of the versus Calculated Alumina Concentration Gradient
experimental cells (all cells were operating left of the pseudo-

253
Inspection of the resistance data of the errant data point in Figure
9 indicated that it was expecially noisy, suggesting this may be the
reason for its exception from the other data points.
With a greater alumina concentration gradient, the dissolution or
depletion of an alumina layer may be faster, as evidenced by
Figure 7. This would give a faster decrease in the resistance of
the layer, opposing the resistance increase due to polarisation
during the underfeed period, and causing the resistance-alumina
curve to ‘flatten’ more. Therefore for higher alumina
concentration gradients (observed at higher temperatures), the
resistance curve will be ‘flatter’ and therefore the alumina
concentration change for a given ∆R will be greater. This positive
relationship is observed in Figure 9.
Further experimentation is required to properly ascertain this
possible temperature dependence of the resistance versus Al2O3
curve via the effect of temperature on depletion rates of any
undissolved alumina layer.
Summary
An alumina layer at the bath-metal interface was hypothesised by
Kvande et al2 to cause a hysteresis in the pseudo-resistance
between over and underfeed periods. The presence of an alumina
layer could also explain the significant difference between the
theoretical and measured pseudo-resistance during the underfeed
period observed in this present study.
The fast rate of overfeeding of alumina, coupled with the
relatively short time between the termination of the overfeed and
initiation of the underfeed may mean that an alumina layer at the
bath-metal interface formed in the overfeed period may persist
into the underfeed.
Manipulation of the feed cycle, either through a reduced rate of
overfeeding, and / or an extended base feed period may allow an
alumina layer to fully dissolve prior to the underfeed
commencing. This would result in the pseudo-resistance in the
subsequent underfeed following the theoretical pseudo-resistance
more closely. A steeper resistance curve would allow more
accurate measurement of ∆R, and (in particular) the resistance
slope ( dR dt ) and hence lower variation in the end of underfeed
alumina concentration.
The possible presence of an alumina layer at the bath-metal
interface, where it is in a favorable position for dissolution into
the electrolyte and with adequate area for mass transfer, appears
to be a significant cause of the correlation observed between
dM Al O dt and temperature, as well as some contribution from
2 3
the temperature dependency of the current efficiency.
With this relationship between temperature and the dissolution of
the alumina layer into the electrolyte, may alter the effect of the
alumina layer on the cell pseudo-resistance, resulting in variation
in the resistance-alumina curve with temperature.
Similar 'flatness' of the pseudo-resistance curve seems however to
be prevalent in other cell technologies14,15. With the constant
addition of alumina that occurs, it is possible that pseudo-
resistance curves close to the theoretical cannot be attained in a
point fed cell with a conventional feed cycle. Further investigation
into this is envisaged.
254
With the temperature dependence of dM Al2O3 dt (and
consequently dC Al O dt ) and the possible temperature
2 3
dependence of the pseudo-resistance curve through the existence
of an alumina layer, significant variation in the electrolyte
temperature may reduce the accuracy of the inferential
measurement of the alumina concentration. Consequently, if the
presence of an alumina layer is an inherent part of a reduction
cell’s alumina feeding dynamics, then this combined temperature
dependence emphasizes the need for a minimum of electrolyte
temperature variation for optimal alumina control.
These observations between temperature and alumina
concentration and its control, highlight the multi-variable nature
of the dynamics of the Hall-Héroult process, and the need to
consider process variables and their interaction as a whole, not in
isolation.
Conclusion
• Significant differences between the theoretical and measured
pseudo-resistance were observed during the underfeed
period. It is hypothesised that this is due to the presence of
an alumina layer at the bath-metal interface which depletes
during the underfeed, causing a ‘flattening’ of the pseudo-
resistance curve.
• The average alumina depletion rate, during the underfeed
period, dM Al2O3 dt , was observed to correlate with the
average electrolyte temperature. This is likely to be due to
the temperature dependence of the back feeding of
undissolved alumina sludge, possibly from an alumina layer
at the bath-metal interface, as well as some contribution from
the temperature dependence of current efficiency.
• It is also hypothesised that with the presence of an alumina
layer at the bath-metal interface, the degree of flattening of
the theoretical resistance-alumina curve may be temperature
dependent. Some evidence for this is apparent from these
experimental measurements. Further experimental
measurements are required to properly ascertain these
phenomena.
Acknowledgement
Assistance and financial support from Comalco Aluminium Ltd.
is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Bearne, G. “Reduction Line Process Control Development”,
Sixth Australasian Aluminium Smelting Workshop, 1998,
91-130.
2. H. Kvande, B.P. Moxnes, J. Skaar and P.A. Solli, “Pseudo
resistance Curves for Aluminium Cell Control – Alumina
Dissolution and Cell Dynamics” , Light Metals 1997, 403-
409.
3. L. Jie, H. Yongzhong, W. Huazhang and L. Yexiang, “An
Estimation Model of Alumina Concentration for Point-
Feeding Aluminium Reduction Cells”, Light Metals 1994,
441-447.
4. T.R. Alcorn, C.J. McMinn and A.T. Tabereaux, “Current
Efficiency in Aluminum Electrolysis by Anode Gas
Analysis”, Light Metals 1988, 683-695.

5. E.W. Dewing, “Loss of Current Efficiency in Aluminum

Electrolysis Cells”, Metallurgical Transactions B, Vol.22B,
1991, 177-182.

6. F.J Stevens, W. Zhang, M.P. Taylor and J.J.J. Chen, “The

Interaction Between Current Efficiency and Energy Balance
in Aluminium Reduction Cells”, Light Metals 1992, 541-
547.

7. K.A. Paulsen, J. Thonstad, S. Rolseth and T. Ringstad,

“Current Efficiency as a Function of the Contents of
Alumina and CaF2 in Industrial Aluminium Electrolysis
Cells”, Light Metals 1993, 233-238.

8. K. Grjotherm, B.J. Welch “Aluminium Smelter

Technology”, 2nd Edition, Aluminium-Verlag, Dusseldorf,
1988.

9. J.H. Kent, “The Attainment of High Current Efficiency on

Aluminium Reduction Furnace by a Cold Running
Technique”, JOM – Journal of Minerals, Metals and
Materials Society, vol.22, 1970, 30-36.

10. J. Thonstad, Y. Liu, “The Effect of An Alumina Layer At

The Electrolyte/Aluminium Interface” Light Metals 1981,
303-312.

11. E. Skybakmoen, A. Solheim, Å. Sterten, “Alumina

Solubility in Molten Salt Systems of Interest for Aluminum
Electrolysis and Related Phase Diagram Data”,
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, vol 28b, 1,
1997, 81-86.

12. J.N. Bruggeman, “Pot Heat Balance Fundamentals”, Sixth

Australasian Aluminium Smelting Workshop, 1998, p91-
130

13. W. Haupin, “Understanding Boundary Layers”, Light

Metals 1997, p319-323.

14. Communication with Mark Illingworth

15. O. Bonnardel, P. Marcellin, “Process for Controlling the

Alumina Content of the Bath in Electrolysis Cells for
Aluminium Production” US Patent 6033550, 2000.

255