Advertisement

JOM

, Volume 70, Issue 9, pp 1883–1886 | Cite as

Managing the Electrolysis Process by Integrating In Situ Measurements of the Bath’s Properties

  • Haris Salihagić Hrenko
  • Jožef Medved
Reducing Al Production Impact: GHG Emissions, Energy Reduction & Recovery
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Control of the bath’s composition and temperature is crucial to the stability, energy consumption and material efficiency of the aluminium electrolysis process. The traditional approach involves periodic measurement of the bath’s composition with x-ray diffraction, as well as the bath’s temperature. The sampling and corrective measures applied to the cell can take 8–12 h. Since the relationship between the excess AlF3 in the bath and the temperature is difficult to manage, the electrolysis process involves a time lapse. With the integration of in situ measurements of the bath’s properties in the electrolysis cell, optimization of the primary aluminium reduction process was achieved. Increased measurement frequencies and the integration of in situ measurements into the electrolysis process reduced the instability of the process, resulting in energy savings and increased current efficiency of 96.4%.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Verdenik, Sinteza vodenja procesa elektrolize primarnega aluminija (Maribor: A. Verdenik, 2004), p. 57.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    S. Kolås and T. Støre, Control Eng. Pract. 17, 1035 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Zeng, W. Sasha, and Y. Qu, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/181905.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Tormod, K. Stainar, and S. Trond, MIC (2003).  https://doi.org/10.4173/mic.2003.4.2.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.W. Dewing, Metall. Mater. Trans. B (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02652482.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Agnihotri, S.U. Pathak, and J. Mukhopadyay, IIM (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-013-0348-5.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Agnihotri, S.U. Pathak, and J. Mukhopadyay, IIM (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-013-0349-4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    X. Wang, B. Hosler, and G. Tarcy, Light Met. (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118061992.ch86.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    X. Wang, G. Tarcy, and E. Batista, Light Met. (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118061992.ch87.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Dupuis, Light Met. Age 2, 20 (2013).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.P. Taylor, Challenges in optimising and controlling the electrolyte in aluminium smelters, Paper presented at the Molten Slags, Fluxes and Salts 1997 Conference, pp. 659–673.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Thonstad, P. Fellner, G.M. Haarberg, J. Híveš, H. Kvande, and Å. Sterten, Aluminium Electrolysis—Fundamentals of the Hall—Héroult Process, 3rd ed. (Düsseldorf, DE: Aluminium-Verlag Marketing & Kommunikation GmbH, 2001), pp. 254–255.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Lavoie, M.P. Taylor, and J.B. Metson, Metall. Mater. Trans. B (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-016-0680-3.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.M. Stam, M.P. Taylor, J.J.J. Chen, A. Mulder, and R. Rodrigo, TMS Light Met. 2, 309 (2008).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Talum, Tovarna aluminija, d. d., KidričevoKidričevoSlovenia
  2. 2.Department of Materials and Metallurgy, Faculty of Natural Sciences and EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations