Aluminium World Journal 2014

2014 Edition
Global Media Communication Ltd.
Charles Martin Hall

ABB’s history of powering primary aluminium plants started 45 years ago. Ever since,
we have been supplying complete electrification solutions and substations to more than
60 aluminium smelters worldwide. Demands for improved environmental performance
and increased energy efficiency, price fluctuations and intense competition are the
major challenges aluminium producers face today. ABB meets these challenges by
providing state-of-the-art electrification, automation and process optimization solutions –
always with the objective to increase your productivity and maximize your return on
investment. For more information, visit us at www.abb.com/aluminium
Maximize your return on investment?
Absolutely.
Global Competence Center Aluminium
5405 Baden 5 Dättwil, Switzerland
aluminium@ch.abb.com

Aluminium World Journal 2014
Global Media Communication Ltd.
Foreword By Christopher Fitcher-Harris
Aluminium World Journal 2014 features editorials, case studies, company
profiles, and product reviews.
The publication is divided by industry sector sections to ensure ease of
navigation.
This edition contains special feature articles produced by TMEIC entitled
“TMEIC Serving the Aluminium Industry”, and Rio Tinto Alcan on the “Start-up
of the Arvida Smelter, AP60 Technology Center”. We are pleased to present
new independent authors for this edition: Dr. Ing. Joachim Heil from MetCons
with the paper “Aluminium Reduction Cell Technology Providers – a 2014
Review” and Louis Dekker, Process Engineering Specialist from LeProCon,
with the concept article on “An Intermediate Step in Cost Reduction for Inert
Anodes” and would like to thank them for their contributions.
I take this opportunity to thank all the participating companies for providing
Aluminium World Journal 2014 with editorial, company profiles, advertisements
and corporate sponsorship.
Aluminium World Journal 2014 is available for you to read online, download,
and in print format. Visit us online at:
www.globalmediacommunication.com
If you should wish to discuss with me anything concerning the content of
this edition, do not hesitate to contact me.
Hope you enjoy the read!
Christopher Fitcher-Harris
Managing Director
Managing Director
Christopher Fitcher-Harris,
Production Manager
Sofia Henriksson
Sales Manager
Peter Jones
Production Design:
row1graphics
Published by: Global Media
Communication Limited
Telephone: +44 208 579 0594
E-mail: gmcproduction@gmx.com
Website:
globalmediacommunication.com
The opinions and views expressed in
the editorial of content in this book are
those of the authors alone and do not
necessarily represent the views of any
organisation with which they may be
associated. Material in advertisements
and promotional features may be
considered to represent the views of
the advertisers and promoters. The
views and opinions expressed in this
book do not necessarily express the
views of the publisher. While every
care has been taken in the preparation
of the book, the publishers are not
responsible for such opinions and views
or for any inaccuracies in the articles
or advertisements.
©2014 The entire contents of this
publication are protected by copyright.
Full details are available from the
publishers. All rights reserved. No
part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise
without the prior knowledge of the
copyright owner.
Cover illustration:
Alcoa

Charles Martin Hall had a purpose to his life.
And it wasn’t a small one, either.
“Mr. Hall revealed that probably his
chief ambition in life was to make some
discovery which would be revolutionary
with regard to the present concep-
tion of the constitution of matter and
which would be of immense benefit
to mankind,” wrote Arthur Vining Da-
vis, former president and chairman of
the Aluminum Company of America
(Alcoa), which Hall helped found in
1888.
For Hall (1863-1914), the ticket to mak-
ing his dream into a reality was his
love for science and interest in alu-
minum.
From the time he was a teenager, Hall
noted that although aluminum was
the Earth’s most abundant metal, the
process for extracting it from its ore
in a laboratory was so difficult it was
only made in small quantities. Supply
and demand made aluminum as ex-
pensive as silver. Hall vowed to find a
better way. During his years at Oberlin
College in Ohio, he tried and failed
repeatedly. Still, he stayed positive and
worked to discover an easier method
of extraction.
Day and night, “consciously and sub-
consciously, he was still working on
the problem of producing cheap alu-
minum,” wrote Julius Edwards in “The
Immortal Woodshed: The Story of the
Inventor Who Brought Aluminum to
America.” “Hall was at heart . . . a tire-
less experimenter.”
He approached science deliberately
and logically. He formed theories based
on his experiments, then asked others
to confirm his findings.
After graduating in 1885, Hall returned
to his family’s home to continue his
experiments. He went over his records
to re-evaluate the problem, and then
embarked on a new strategy. He real-
ized he’d need more work space and
new equipment, so he moved his lab
out of the house and into the wood-
shed.
While his fellow graduates jumped
into the business world, Hall focused
on making his discovery so he could
make his mark in that world. He locked
himself in the woodshed, combining
countless substances in his quest. He
carefully logged each attempt and its
outcome. When he found a promis-
ing combination, he tried numerous
variations until he was sure it wouldn’t
work.
Then, in February 1886, Hall made
his breakthrough: electrolyzing alu-
mina dissolved in molten cryolite. He’d
discovered an inexpensive method
for isolating pure aluminum from its
compounds.
He wasn’t alone, however: The potential
rewards for a cheaper aluminum isola-
The first small, shining globules of aluminum reduced through the Hall Process. They
are referred to as Alcoa’s “”crown jewels””. Shown here on a page of handwritten minutes
from a company meeting, circa 1890.

tion process had scientists the world
over racing to find a workable method.
French chemist Paul L.T. Héroult was
one of them, and he developed the
same method at about the same time
as Hall. The process became known
as the Hall-Héroult process.
Quick Action
Aware of the other efforts, Hall moved
immediately to protect his method. He
wrote immediately to the U.S. Patent
Office, submitting his process.
Patent number 400,655, granted to
Hall in 1889, changed the aluminum
industry forever.
To make his efforts profitable, Hall
knew he had to make the process avail-
able for widespread use. So he worked
as relentlessly in finding backers and
raising capital as he did in the lab.
He made a list of industries that might
use aluminum. He prepared drawings
and charts to show how the process
could be applied. Then he made ap-
pointments with various wealthy indi-
viduals to show how they’d benefit if
they invested in his idea.
His presentation persuaded some in-
vestors to join him, and the Pittsburgh
Reduction Company was born. The firm
was re-named the Aluminum Company
of America (Alcoa) in 1907.
Alcoa’s lightweight aluminum helped
revolutionize the automotive and avia-
tion industries; aluminum foil eased
the lives of housewives everywhere.
Demand for Hall’s aluminum led to
production soaring from 10,000 pounds
in the company’s first year to 15 million
by 1907. One plant grew to three.
In 1911, Hall was internationally rec-
ognized with the Perkin Medal for his
contributions to chemistry.
“Hall’s process is a new discovery. It
is a decided step forward in the art of
making aluminum. Since it has been
put into practical use, the price of alu-
minum has been reduced from six
or eight dollars a pound to 65 cents.
This is a revolution in the art and has
had the effect of extending the uses
of aluminum in many directions not
possible when its price was high . . .
Hall was a pioneer and is entitled to the
advantages which that fact gives him
in the patent law,” said Judge William
Howard Taft, later U.S. president, in a
1893 ruling in Hall’s favor regarding
a patent case.
By 1914, the cost of aluminum was
down to 18 cents a pound.
Hall’s parents gave him a solid educa-
tional foundation. His mother taught
him to read before he was 5. Books
were plentiful in the Hall household,
and young Charles pored through ev-
ery one he could get his hands on. He
even delved into his father’s college
chemistry books: the heavy tomes
introduced him to, and sparked his
love of, science.
“I have often seen him, after he had
read for a while, lying asleep with his
face on the book. . . . Someone would
pick him up, still sleeping, and put
him and his beloved book in a safe
place,” Hall’s sister Julia recalled years
later.
Hall’s love of reading and education
stayed with him his entire life.
1886-1920. The Hall family home in Oberlin, Ohio. Hall discovered the aluminum process
in a summer kitchen attached to the back of the home.
Drawing of the interior of the Smallman Street works of the Pittsburgh Reduction Company
depicting the reducing pots used in the company’s process. (1888)

“He used to read the Encyclopedia
Britannica night after night, year after
year, literally . . . He used to . . . open it
wherever it happened to open; then he
would spend the evening reading, and
he accumulated a big fund of informa-
tion in that manner,” Davis said.
Learning From The Best
Figuring he could learn from those
who’d gone before him, Hall stud-
ied the lives of successful people,
especially inventors such as George
Westinghouse. From the “Scientific
American,” he learned about patent
law and practices, and keeping ideas
secret until they’re ready.
Even as his success and net worth in-
creased, Hall’s work ethic remained
solid. “He was not just satisfied with
having someone else promote his
process, Edwards wrote.” Although a
director and vice president of his com-
pany, he worked long hours at the plant,
determined that the success of his pro-
cess and (of the) company should far
exceed any of his original prophecies.”
Science wasn’t Hall’s only interest,
however. He had a lifelong love and
appreciation of nature, and music had
been a passion for him since child-
hood. Playing the piano was a source
of relaxation his entire life, and helped
him clarify scientific problems, Ed-
wards wrote.
He also fed his soul. He attended
church regularly, and drew strength
from the stories of great men who
sacrificed for their convictions. “The
creed which found most significant
expression in his works and deeds em-
phasized the importance and value
of good character,” said his brother,
George Hall.
While Hall helped to change industry
and make many goods available to the
masses that would otherwise have
been unaffordable, he never forgot
what helped make him a success. Upon
his death, Hall bequeathed Oberlin
College more than $5 million.
Authors: Investor’s Business Daily
Photo Credit: Alcoa
The New Kensington office building of Pittsburgh Reduction Company. (1891)
First ingot being charged into remelting furnace at Alcoa Tennessee Plant. (1920)

INDEX
Special Feature p. 9-12
Global Issues p. 13-17
Primary Smelting and Processes p. 19-59
Anode Plant Technology p. 61-87
Materials Handling And Transportation p. 89-95
Company Profiles p. 97-103
Advertiser and Web Index p. 104

8 SPECIAL FEATURE
TMEIC Serving the Aluminum Industry
15 ALUMINUM MILLS AUTOMATED
IN THE PAST 10 YEARS.
TMEIC delivers. In fact, we’ve been a leading force in the metals
industry for more than 50 years, and have been the preferred
partner for most of the recent aluminum mills in the world.
TMEIC’s Advanced Process Automation Control System features
fast and effective level 1 controls and integrated level 2 models
for aluminum mills.
Gage Control
Compensation
tmeic.com/cranes 1-540-283-2250 | Email: cranes@tmeic.com
TMEIC Corporation
1325 Electric Road
1-540-283-2000
TMEIC Japan
+81-(0)3-3277-5511 tmeic.com | info@tmeic.com

9AWJ 2014
SPECIAL FEATURE
TMEIC
Serving the Aluminium Industry p. 10-12

10 SPECIAL FEATURE
Introduction
The Aluminum industry has been facing
continuing market challenges for the
last 50 years and the future looks to
be just as demanding and challenging
as the past. Currently the aluminum
market depends on the transportation
industry, the construction industry,
industrial applications and the UBC
market for utilization of aluminum flat
rolled products. With the UBC market
declining in traditional uses as well as
the construction industry rebounding
very slowly after the 2008 market
collapse in the developed portion of
the world, there is hope for continued
growth in the transportation sector and
in the emerging markets.
Traditionally, the commercial aircraft
segment of the transportation market
has grown with the ever increasing
number of wide-bodied aircraft being
bought worldwide. While the use of
composite material has replaced many
kilograms of aluminum utilized in the
two newest planes from Boeing and
Airbus, the rise in the total number
of single-aisle planes expected to be
ordered through to 2020, will keep
the total amount of aluminum being
delivered into this market segment
growing at a single digit rate.
The real opportunity for aluminum
growth is in the automotive segment
of the transportation market. As
automotive manufacturers are being
pressed to deliver higher fuel mileage
many strategies are being evaluated,
with weight reduction being primary.
Replacing low carbon sheet steel with
an alternative material that is lighter and
competitively priced, but still retains
the high strength required for structural
integrity, is in high demand.
Aluminum mills serving these markets
are challenging the traditional material
suppliers for market share. Buyers
are seeking tighter gauge tolerances,
tighter temperature control, more
productclassifications,bettershapeand
flatness performance, better surface
quality and most of all, complete coil
documentation to be delivered to the
customer along with the coil. While
raw material costs or scrap prices are
controlled by upstream operations
or outside forces, the mill must
understand and control operational
costs such as energy usage, labor,
maintenance and upgrade costs, and
scrap losses. In these areas, mills in
Europe and North America may be at
a disadvantage against those more
recently built in the Pacific Rim. Most
flat mills in Europe and North America
have been in operation for at least 30
years while those in the Pacific Rim,
outside of Japan, have been built
within the last 10 years, with several
in the planning or construction phases.
This gives the operational advantage
to the newer mills with the latest in
technological improvements in mill
design, level 1 control and higher levels
of automation, while older mills have
the advantage of better operational
practices and an established customer
base. The latter is open for invasion
by new suppliers providing better
pricing, better customer service or
better quality, if available.
An existing mill must develop and
depend on its suppliers as a partner to
enable new ideas to be incorporated,
to help develop a strategy to upgrade
performance and to keep the mill from
becoming obsolete. These suppliers
can be a source of ideas on how to
reduce downtime, reduce scrap, reduce
energy consumption, or at least recover
lost energy, and possibly to increase
throughput beyond design capacity.
TMEIC the Company
TMEIC was formed in 2003 through
a powerful alignment of global lead-
ers, Toshiba, Mitsubishi-Electric and
GE. TMEIC has earned a reputation by
supporting the legacy control systems
of its parents and providing reliable,
state-of-the-art industrial products
and system solutions for new mills.
Advanced technology, excellence in
engineering and years of accumulated
experience are brought to each system
to provide the customer with a solution
to match the project needs. TMEIC
serves a variety of industrial markets
including Metals, Material Handling,
Oil and Gas, Mining, and Cement, as
well as utility scale Solar Power.
In Metals, TMEIC applies its capabilities
built on 60 years of rolling mill
experience supplying comprehensive,
high-performance control solutions.
TMEIC is recognized as the leading
global supplier of level 2 and process
model automation. Our range of control
and automation includes the ability to
supply complete systems using Motors,
Drives, level 1 control consisting of
Programmable controllers, I/O, and
HMI’s, Level 2 and networks, process
models and instrumentation. Projects
range from small upgrades to resolve
obsolescenceissues,tocompletemajor
upgrades of mill capabilities to meet
the current market needs. One recent
development, TMEIC’s uTool®, provides
the ability to upload mill performance
data, such as production, coil data,
energy usage, or mill delays, through
the user company’s intranet to any
mobile device or computer. This allows
maintenance, support personnel or
mill management to react and analyze
issues from anywhere accessible by
internet. Improved response that
shortens delays or minimizes scrap
losses translates directly to increased
productivity and to the customer’s
bottom line.
Recent Aluminum Projects
Of the 10 hot aluminum mills built in
China in the last 10 years, six chose
TMEIC as the system control and
automation supplier. These mills
include 1+1, 1+3, 1+4 and 1+5 mill
configurations. Including all of the
Pacific Rim, there are 2 additional
new mills that chose TMEIC. The
pictures below show the first coil put

11AWJ 2014
through the mill. Success is measured
in meeting and exceeding customer
expectations.
TMEIC has also focused on revamp
projects. Control system revamps
require very close cooperation
between the customer, TMEIC, and
the mechanical supplier, if mechanical
modifications are necessary. TMEIC has
worked with more than 15 aluminum
mills worldwide in delivering upgrade
Aluminum Strip
First Coil from Mill
solutions. Detailed discussions are
required to clearly define the work
scope, the customer’s goals during
multiple shutdown periods, the list
of pre-shutdown tasks, and a detailed
schedule for the entire shutdown
period. This schedule must be reviewed
and agreed to by all stakeholders
involved, including management,
production, maintenance, major
vendors and engineering personnel.
Active participation from all parties
is required to allow for joint success
after the start-up.
Mill Control System
TMEIC’s AC main drive motors are
designed and built to meet or exceed
industry standards, and are known
for exceptional quality. Driven by
our customers’ continuous need for
sustained reliability and reduced life-
cycle costs, TMEIC employs cutting-
edge technology in design supported
by state-of-the-art manufacturing
capability to offer the world’s most
advanced motors. With more than
100 years of motor experience, TMEIC
consistently tackles tough applications
around the globe with designs
delivering quality, performance, and
efficient operation. TMEIC is among
the few large motor suppliers with the
capability to provide both Induction and
Synchronous motors for rolling mills, in
the range of 1,500 kW through 30,000
kW depending on the application.
With over 30 years of variable speed
drives experience, TMEIC has the
broadest offering of high performance
coordinated system drives, ranging
from low voltage drives to powerful
3,300 volt drives for large mill stands.
The TMdrive-70 medium voltage drive
has become the industry leading
drive with a reliability MTBF of over
30 years, utilizing the IEGT (Injection
Enhanced insulated Gate bipolar
Transistor). This drive can provide up
to 36,000 kVA power in its four-bank
configuration. Over 1,200 of these

12 SPECIAL FEATURE
TMEIC Main Rolling Mill Motor TMdrive-70e2 Variable Frequency Drive
water cooled 3,300 volt drives have
been supplied worldwide to rolling
mill applications.
Process models are critical in the
aluminum industry to provide the
demanding product specifications.
TMEIC has worked with aluminum
companies to provide complete
control automation including level 2
and models or systems that allow for
the customer’s proprietary models.
Our modern control systems include:
• Pass schedule calculation • Inner-stand tension control
• Roughing mill setup • Inner-stand cooling
• Finishing mill setup • Work roll coolant control
• Finish temperature control • 1 Gbps Ethernet communications
• Coiler temperature control • Hot backup level 2 strategy
• Roll thermal wear • On-line and Off-line model operation modes
• Strip crown and flatness control • Remote diagnostics
• Automatic gauge control • Graphical interface that allows operators to
visualize operation and performance
Customer Service
TMEIC has a global network of offices
and engineers to support customers
around the world. This support includes
spare parts for drives and control
systems with immediate delivery
in Europe, India, the Americas and
Asia. Training classes are available for
projects as well as on-going training for
mill personnel. In addition to normal
maintenance support, the focus of our
training is to allow the customer to
analyze and determine any production
issue or adjust control systems for
new products. TMEIC’s technical
advisory service provides a backup
for the customer’s personnel through
our 24-hour phone support, or on-
site support as requested by the mill.
Long term partnering with TMEIC allows
aluminum companies to access our
engineering expertise to plan for future
capital modernizations as well as make
comparisons of existing operations
against design capabilities. This service
has been used by some customers
to plan upgrades that extend market
reach with new products.
Authors:
Paul Weary, Metals Sales
Manager, TMEIC
Phone: (+1) 540-283-2110
Jim Trexel, US Metals Sales
Manager, TMEIC
Phone: (+1) 540-283-2193

13AWJ 2014
GLOBAL ISSUES
UC Rusal
New Horizons p. 14-17

14 GLOBAL ISSUES
China, the world’s largest aluminium
market, is showing a serious com-
mitment to improve efficiency in
the country’s aluminium industry.
These changes could play a pivotal
role in the global aluminium market
development, and unlock potential
for a tighter cooperation between
China and Russia in the ‘winged
metal’ production.
The big and the growing
China is the world’s fastest growing
economy. According to analysts’ es-
timates, China is on track to surpass
the US and become the largest world
economy by late 2020s. Over 46%
of China’s soaring GDP comes from
the country’s rapid industrial growth
driven by the massive urbanization
which is increasing demand for alu-
minium and the raw materials used
in its production.
The ‘winged’ metal’s consumption in
the country is supported by increas-
ing car production and infrastructure
investments. During 2013, the Chinese
automotive industry was the top gainer,
surging 14.9% after record sales of
21.98 million vehicles according to
the China Association of Automobile
Manufacturing. The National Bureau
of Statistics data also showed that new
construction projects rose by 13.5% in
2013. China is forecast to post robust
growth in its auto market in the com-
ing years, whereas the construction
sector is strongly expected to expand
further following the government’s
latest urbanization initiatives.
According to the recently published
blueprint, authorities intend to raise
the proportion of urban residents to
60-65% of the total population by
2020, from the current 53.7%. By
2030, China’s cities will have added
350 million more people and five mil-
lion buildings will be built. The new
growth agenda will need the expan-
sion of railways, roads, highways, and
airlines to facilitate labour flows.
Urbanization along with the urban in-
come growth will drive China’s transport
and construction sectors which jointly
account for over 50% of the country’s
total aluminium consumption, thus
propelling demand for aluminium. As
of today, the country accounts for 45%
of global aluminium consumption, but
is forecast to boost this share to 56% by
2025, extending its lead as the world’s
biggest aluminium consumer.
Focus on efficiency
In 2013, China produced over 25 million
tonnes of primary aluminium, almost
half of the global output. However,
further development of the Chinese
aluminium industry is subject to cer-
tain limitations in terms of power con-
sumption and emissions by operating
smelters.
Efficient resources utilization is one of
the urgent issues now in China where
over 90% of primary aluminium smelt-
ers source energy from coal-fired power
plants that account for 75% of all CO2
emissions in aluminium production.
The government is also encouraging
reduction in consumption of power,
which accounts for about 40% of a
smelter’s operating costs.
New Horizons
Boguchansk HPP, 50% owned by RUSAL

15AWJ 2014
In particular, the National Develop-
ment and Reform Commission (NDRC)
announced at the end of 2013 that
efficient aluminium producers will
continue to pay the same rates, but
less-efficient producers will have to pay
more. According to NDRC, producers
that require 13,700-13,800 kilowatts
to produce a tonne of aluminium will
be charged an additional 0.02 yuan
per kilowatt, while those who exceed
13,800 kilowatt per tonne must pay an
additional 0.08 yuan per kilowatt. The
surcharges would be effective increases
of 1.8% - 7.4% to produce the metal in
Henan province. The government is
hoping that the move will push pro-
ducers who have kept older facilities
running in the hope of higher prices
to finally cut their losses.
The situation in the industry is nev-
ertheless still characterized by a net
capacity increase. In 2013, despite de-
pressed prices for aluminium, record
high capacities were commissioned
in China in 2013 (4.3 million tonnes)
resulting in a 2.2 million tonnes net
capacity increase.
In the first two months of 2014, the
trend continued as Chinese aluminium
industry experienced a net capacity rise
of 1.6 million tonnes. Shutdowns in the
central and southern parts of China
amounted to 700 thousand tonnes
in Jan-Feb 2014. Some aluminium
smelters in the Central parts of China
continue cutting output to reduce loss
due to the falling domestic aluminium
price.
Over 60% of Chinese aluminum pro-
duction is underwater at the current
domestic SHFE aluminium price. As
expected, around 3 million tonnes of
Chinese aluminium production will
be cut in 2014 as a result of a low alu-
minium price. However, some amount
of new low-cost aluminium capacity
will still go into production in Xinjiang
and other North Western regions in
2014.
It should be noted here, that although
China still appears to be a self-sufficient
aluminium market, the country’s 12th
five-year national development plan
presumes transfer of some aluminium
production to the western parts of China
with abundant coal resources and lower
power costs as well as abroad.
Siberia next door
With that said, closer cooperation with
Russia which shares a border with China
could open up new opportunities for
the Chinese aluminium industry that
is taking important steps to improve its
environmental footprint by spearhead-
ing innovation and developing renew-
able energy and reducing its addiction
to coal – the source of 70% of China’s
electricity and a major contributor of
CO2 emissions.
Indeed, with a shared boundary of more
than 4,000 km in length, it is logical
that Russia and China are bound to
develop mutually beneficial coopera-
tion. Russia is home to the world’s
second-largest hydro-energy resources
with 75% of hydro-energy capacities
located in Siberia. The greatest unreal-
ized resources are in Eastern Siberia
and the Russian Far East, perfectly
located to meet growing demand from
China.
VAP production at RUSAL’s Bratsk smelter

16 GLOBAL ISSUES
Cost-effective, renewable and envi-
ronmentally friendly hydro-energy
constitutes as a major competitive
advantage of the region, home to six
HPPs and eight power plants with pos-
sible capacity expansions, Siberia’s
hydro potential utilization rate is only
20%.
China’s proximity to Siberia, where
most of the country’s production ca-
pacities are based, is yet another fac-
tor that would enable China to reap
considerable benefits from expanding
cooperation with Russia. The coun-
try’s clear logistical advantage allows
delivering physical metal to Chinese
consumers at lower shipping costs
within 2 weeks, versus 3-4 weeks of-
fered by other global suppliers. This
is particularly important, as Chinese
aluminium smelters are increasingly
being shifted to the Western provinces
which will result in additional transport
implications for downstream enter-
prises in the East of the country.
Another promising avenue of coopera-
tion with Chinese companies could
be the development of downstream
clusters in Russia which have consid-
erable growth potential on the home
market in the coming years. In the light
of expectations for the strong increase
in Russia’s per capita aluminium con-
sumption and the downstream seg-
ment’s profitability, it is clear that any
capital injections into this area will
generate a healthy return. In terms
of returns potential, aluminium can
production, automotive components
and extrusion production are seen as
particularly promising.
RUSAL is currently working on conver-
sion of its production facilities in the
Western part of the country to produce
aluminium- and aluminium alloys-
based automotive components, rolled
and cable products. The potential is
huge. For instance in the automotive
industry, despite a slight drop in car
sales in 2013 due to the negative mac-
roeconomic environment, the Rus-
sian automobile market remains the
second-largest in Europe and is poised
to overtake Germany to become Eu-
rope’s largest by 2016, and the world’s
fifth biggest, by 2020, according to
the latest forecasts. Presently there
are only 290 cars per 1,000 Russians,
versus the already saturated market in
Europe, where 560 of every 1,000 is a
car-owner. The first step in this direction
has been made recently, with RUSAL
teaming up with an Israeli company
Omen High Pressure Die Casting to
create a joint venture to produce auto-
motive components at the site of the
Volkhov aluminium smelter.
The world’s biggest aluminium com-
panies RUSAL, Chalco and Shandong
Xinfa Group are already discussing the
prospects for partnership including a
joint smelting project in Siberia, bauxite
exploration and technology exchange
in red mud processing. Moreover, RUS-
AL has prepared several road maps that
set up plans for investment projects
aimed at transforming its loss-making
aluminium smelters and the develop-
ment of new hi-tech production, which
are open to foreign capital.
In view of the above, it is clear that the
potential for deepening Russia-China
Pot Room at Rusal’s Khakas smelter

17AWJ 2014
aluminium cooperation is as enormous
as the benefits that both countries
could reap through strengthening their
ties. Therefore, the aluminium sec-
tor could become yet another area of
intense bilateral cooperation, on top
of successful projects in oil and gas,
energy industries as well as various
high-tech sectors.
Company profile
UC RUSAL is the world’s largest alu-
minium producer, accounting in 2013
for approximately 8% and 7% of global
aluminium and alumina production
respectively. The Company’s current
capacity allows it to produce 4.5 million
tonnes of aluminium and 11.9 million
tonnes of alumina per annum.
UC RUSAL is vertically integrated to a
high degree, having secured substan-
tial supplies of bauxite and alumina
production capacity. RUSAL’s assets
include over 40 smelters and produc-
tion facilities in 13 countries, across 5
continents. RUSAL employs 67,000
people.
The Company’s core smelters, locat-
ed in Siberia, benefit from access to
stranded hydro generated electricity,
with its principal Siberian facilities in
close proximity to important European
and Asian markets.
The Company’s key sales markets are
Europe, Russia and the CIS countries,
North America, South-East Asia, Japan
and Korea. The major end users consist
of over 700 companies representing
transport, construction and packaging
industries.
Value added products account for over
40% of total metal produced.
RUSAL’s ordinary shares are listed on
The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
Limited (Stock code: 486). Global
depositary shares representing UC
RUSAL’s ordinary shares are listed
on the professional board of NYSE
Euronext Paris (RUSAL/RUAL). Rus-
sian depositary receipts representing
RUSAL’s ordinary shares are listed
on the Moscow Exchange (RUALR/
RUALRS).
RUSAL owns a 27.8% stake in MMC
Norilsk Nickel, the world’s largest pro-
ducer of nickel and palladium and one
of the world’s largest producers of
platinum and copper.
Together with the Kazakhstan’s Na-
tional Welfare fund “Samruk-Kazyna”
RUSAL is developing the Ekibastuz
coalfield in Central Asia. The 50/50
LLP Bogatyr Komir coal joint venture
in Kazakhstan provides RUSAL with a
natural energy hedge.
RUSAL is currently focusing on
strengthening its competitive advan-
tages, including its considerable raw
material base, access to renewable
energy sources, proprietary R&D capa-
bilities and proximity to key markets.
UC RUSAL
Phone: +7 (495) 720-51-70
Email: Press-center@rusal.ru
Web: www.rusal.ru/en/
UC RUSAL is a leading global aluminium producer

18 PRIMARY SMELTING AND PROCESSESPRIMARY SMELTING AND PROCESSES
AP TechnologyTM
Rio Tinto Alcan’s AP Technology solutions:
The world’s most productive smelter technology
Technology sales department
725, rue Aristide Bergès - BP 7
38341 Voreppe Cedex
France
T +33 (0)4 76 57 85 00
For more information about Rio Tinto Alcan
and its AP Technology solutions, visit
www.riotintoalcan.com
ap-technology.com
2013: Start-up of AP60 pots at
the historical center of aluminium
development in Canada
A new milestone for reduction technology has been recently
reached with the successful startup of the Arvida AP60
Technological Center in Jonquière, Quebec, Canada.
With the demonstration of AP60 at Arvida Technology Center
and APXe at Laboratoire de Recherche des Fabrications (LRF)
in France, Rio Tinto Alcan makes available high productivity
and low energy consumption technologies to its partners
and customers, and thereby offering the most productive,
cost effective and cleanest smelting technology in the world.
AP60/APXe: the reduction technology of choice for your project!

ecl.fr
Streamline.
ECL™ makes your
operations easier.
19AWJ 2014
PRIMARY SMELTING AND PROCESSES
ECL
ECL™ makes your operations easier. p. 20-23
Aluminium Reduction Cell Technology Providers
A 2014 Review: Dr.-Ing. Joachim Heil p. 24-45
Rio Tinto Alcan
Start-Up Of Arvida Smelter, AP60 Technological Center p. 46-48
FLSmidth
MÖLLER Alumina Handling Systems p. 49-51
Sensotech
Inline concentration monitoring p. 52-55
Power Jacks
Precise Anode Beam Positioning from Power Jacks p. 56-59

20 PRIMARY SMELTING AND PROCESSESPRIMARY SMELTING AND PROCESSES
ecl.fr
Streamline.
ECL™ makes your
operations easier.

21AWJ 2014
ECL™ makes your operations easier.
Regulation system to improve quality of the metal sucked during tapping operation
One of the objectives you can target
from the whole process of primary
aluminium production is to deliver a
metal free from impurities. The tapping
operation consisting of sucking liquid
aluminium from the pot in a crucible
through a tapping tube remains an
operation requiring precautionary
measures. On one hand, the operator
has to correctly insert the tapping
tube into the electrolytic cell at the
lower part of the metal pad. And on
the other hand, the volumetric flow
during tapping is difficult to regulate.
If the flow is excessive, it can result
in the bath being sucked in with the
metal. Bath adjunctions have many
negative effects, both on electrolytic
cell operation and equipment soiling
but above all on metal casting.
To avoid such concerns, ECL works in
close collaboration with Rio Tinto Alcan
in order to develop and adapt a system
based on components of the shelves.
This system allows controlling and
regulating the flow rate of aluminium
sucked from the pot by means of loops
control and signal processing in the
PLC, which controls a valve on the
compressed air supply. 200 tapping
operations have been performed in
the Alma plant resulting in proving the
efficiency and reliability of the solution
and providing significant benefits, such
as less equipment cleaning cycles and
better metal casting.
Here is the reality whatever is the
production:producemorebycombining
quality, rapidity, cost-savings and
safety. The Engineering Department
of equipment suppliers such as ECL
works hard to meet these expectations.
The aim is to provide the smelters
with solutions allowing them to both
save money, in particular by supplying
energy-saving equipment or solutions,
reducingequipmentmaintenancecosts;
and produce high quality aluminium
in a safe environment.
The solution of the ECL regulation
system meets all these criteria. It took
as its starting point that a significant
amount of electrolytic bath (typically
15 kg of electrolytic bath per ton of
molten aluminium in most cases)
was sucked during tapping operation
due to a lack of flow rate control. This
undesirable bath intake has negative
effects notably for metal casting and
especially when it comes to producing
certain aluminium alloys requiring a low
sodium concentration. Consequently,
the bath removal from the electrolytic
cell impacts its operation negatively.
Tapping equipment is soiled faster
and metal treatments before casting
are more demanding with regard to
efforts and costs. It should also be
noted that the more the electrolytic
bath is sucked in with the metal, the
more the tapping tube and the cru-
cible will be soiled, eroded and even
blocked. The required frequency of
the cleaning of the crucible therefore
becomes substantially elevated.
The regulation system is also
in correlation with the technical
developments of the electrolytic
process, particularly with the new
standard of low Anode-Cathode-
Distance (ACD) pots. Decreasing the
amount of ACDs lowers the voltage and
energy requirements of the cell (cost-
savings) but weakens the stability of
the process, especially during tapping
operation. That is why the ability to

22 PRIMARY SMELTING AND PROCESSES
regulate and control the metal flow
rate to avoid bath fluctuations will
impact positively the stability of the
process.
The objective of the regulation system
is clear: limiting the siphoning of
electrolytic bath during the tapping
operation to minimize those negative
effects and help smelters in their daily
efforts to produce more, cheaper and
faster.
As a brief reminder of the aluminium
production process: many different
operations on the electrolysis cells
are essential in producing metal in the
pots. These operations can be grouped
into two categories: operations related
with anode changing and operations
related with tapping operation. A
tapping operation consists of drawing
liquid metal from an electrolytic cell
and filling a crucible with a predefined
mass of metal. The mass of metal to be
siphoned is predefined, in accordance
with standard operating procedures,
and will depend on the production
levels of the electrolytic cell and the
minimum metal levels required to
maintain a cell in operation. When
it comes to proceeding to tapping
operation, several aspects have to be
taken into account in order to limit
bath siphoning and reaching a good
quality level of molten aluminium. The
tapping operation from an operating
electrolytic cell is usually done with a
crucible embarked on the Pot Tending
Machine.
The first important step is to insert
the tapping tube into the electrolytic
cell at the right depth in the metal.
The insertion should be neither too
deep nor too high above the metal
where the bath is. In the first case, we
can observe:
• An excessive speed due to the re-
duced liquid flow cross section and
consequently an erosion of the cath-
ode. This excessive speed could also
lead to a powerful vortex resulting in
more bath entrainment
• A risk of ‘sludge’ aspiration
In the second case, the bath will be
sucked by a vortex effect.
Once well positioned, a vacuum is
induced into the crucible, usually
using an air injector whereby the metal
is aspired through the tube. The air
flow through the air ejector can be
controlled manually using a valve on
the compressed air supply. To resume,
a good tapping operation depends on
the right immersion depth of the tube
(operations conducted carefully and
diligently) and the flow rate control
(good and stable target flow rate).
In practice, very light touch is required
so as not to overshoot the target metal
flow rate. Consequently a stable metal
flow is rarely, if ever, obtained and very
large fluctuations can be observed
during tapping of a bunch of cells.
Some of the numerous factors, which
can explain some of the variations in
flow rate are for example: the position
of the crucible relative to the metal/
bath interface, any obstructions limiting
free flow of metal into the tube; such
as surface variations on the cathode
surface of the electrolytic cell or
lumps of solidified bath, variations
in air temperature during tapping,
variations in how well the crucible is
sealed during tapping, variations in air
pressure supply, crusting of tube from
bath entrainment, movements of the
metal in the pot etc.
General principle of the tapping
regulation system
Given the difficulty to provide
manually the fine adjustment in
vacuum to maintain an ideal metal
flow rate which maximizes productivity
without compromising quality (bath
entrainment), ECL designed, set up
and tested in the Alma plant a system
based on the automatic control of the
flow rate to reach the target metal flow
rate. Basically the system comprises
among others a control unit and by
means of loops control and signal
processing in the PLC adjusts the
supply of compressed air in the air

ejector
PTA
compressed
air line
PLC
Load
cell
I/P
P/I
Master loop
Short loop
vacuum pipe
Crucible
23AWJ 2014
Schema of the principle of the aluminium tapping operation
ejector through a valve and therefore
the vacuum pressure depending on
the headspace in the crucible and
the weight of the crucible during
tapping.
This system, allowing for siphoning
the metal and for it to be transferred
at a pre-determined target flow rate
into the crucible, consists of:
• An air ejector coupled to a source
of compressed air and in close com-
munication with the headspace in the
crucible.
• A vacuum transducer between the
source of compressed air and the air
ejector, connected to the control unit
delivering actual vacuum pressure
changes in the headspace.
•A valve assembly operated by a valve
actuator responsive to an electric cur-
rent-to-pressure converter which is
coupled to the control unit. The valve
actuator receives information from
the control unit to determine the flow
through the outlet of the valve assem-
bly. It will open or close the compressed
air supply as needed.
• A dedicated algorithm which filters
the weight signal and the vacuum level
to reach a stable target.
•Control units connected with weigh-
ing means in order to receive weight
measurements and calculate on due
time the liquid flow rate of liquid being
drawn in the crucible. The control unit
then simultaneously adjusts the flow
rate of the compressed air flowing
through the regulating valve in order to
reach the target flow rate. The control
unit includes a programmable logic
controller (PLC). The PLC is directly
connected with a main compressed
air directional valve to open the valve
when a tapping operation begins and to
close it when the target mass of metal
has been siphoned into the crucible.
Advantages of the solution
More than 200 tapping operations have
been performed with the regulation
system at the Alma plant. The results
are clear. The maintenance of an ideal
metal flow rate maximizes productivity
without compromising quality. The
less the bath is siphoned, the less the
tapping tube is soiled or blocked or
requires changing. The less the bath
is siphoned; the easier the metal is
processed in the cast house. The
less the bath is siphoned, the less
the crucible is soiled and needs to be
cleaned. Consequently we can expect
a decreased frequency of the crucible
bricklaying. All those quantifiable
advantages will help smelters to save
money on maintenance costs and spare
parts costs while decreasing the cost of
the aluminium alloy treatment. Casting
operation will be made easier and the
quality of metal sucked will generate
less waste.
The solution, whether we are talking
about a Greenfield project or a
Brownfield one, is adaptable to any
smelter configurations using the AP
Technology™. The system can be
integrated directly in the automatic
system of the Pot Tending Machine
or installed in the tapping beam of
the crucible.
Conclusion
The regulation system is a self-
adaptive system. It requires no action
or adjustment from the operator. The
system provides transparency and
combines good process quality with
fast potline operation.
Author:
Anne-Gaëlle Hequet
ECL™ Communication and Public
Relations Manager

Aluminium Reduction Cell Technology Providers – a 2014 Review
Introduction
This article is the second, updated
edition of a paper published in the
context of the European Metallurgical
Conference 2011 (EMC2011), organized
by GDMB of Germany. Special thanks
go to my former colleagues, Dr. R.
Minto and T. Heitling, who helped
establishing the first edition which
has been published in the EMC2011
conference proceedings [1].
Consultation of an article on the topic
published in 2000 gave rise to the
question who would be providing
aluminium reduction cell technology
today.
The referenced article elaborates on
cell technologies developed by well-
known companies which mostly have
been in business for a long time, some
since inception of the Hall-Héroult
process. Potline current values cited in
the article are in a range of 250 – 320
kA for the then latest technologies;
further tiers of reduction current are the
150 – 200 kA range and anything below
that down to 50 kA, the latter mostly for
an illustration of the historical evolution
of the electric current as a qualifier for
the advancement of reduction cell
technology.
Since 2000, the global primary
aluminium industry has grown at a
remarkable rate of 5,5 % year-on-
year: production capacity rose from
23,7 million tpy (Mtpy) in 2000 to 39,8
Mtpy in 2008, with a recess to some
37,5 Mtpy in 2009 in the aftermath of
the financial crisis, just to rebound to
47,3 Mtpy in 2013. China has grown its
share in the primary aluminium market
from about 10 % in 2000 to some 21,5
Mtpy or 45 % of global supply in 2013,
which is equivalent to almost all of the
above increase in global production
tonnage.
The same period has seen an equally
unprecedented change amongst
the players in the primary business:
mergers and acquisition have led to
a concentration of the industry into
fewer but bigger players. This trend
along with management buy-outs,
bankruptcies and changes of business
strategy has led to the disappearance
of quite a few of the traditional primary
producers´ names including some of
the long-established cell technology
providers.
128 years after Hall and Héroult
independently applied for their patents
for the still unrivalled aluminium
electrowinning process, this paper
gives an updated review of who today
would be developing and providing
aluminium reduction cell technology to
primary smelters, be it new greenfield
or brownfield expansion projects.
1 Summary of Reduction Cell
Technology as at Year 2000
In early 2000, Tabereaux published a
global review on prebake cell technol-
ogy [2] in which he elaborated the then
prevailing situation with regard to cell
technology developers and operators.
The article also included an overview
Company Cell Type UPBN I / kA Pots installed Year Remarks
Alcan A-275 AC-28 280 5 1981/92
Test cells in Jonquière, shut down
A-310 AC-31 310 n. inv. n. inv.
Alcoa P-225 AA-23 225 n. inv. n. inv. Massena, Tennessee
A-817 AA-30 300 n. inv. n. inv. Portland
Alusuisse EPT-18 AS-18 180 n. inv. n. inv. Rheinfelden, closed 1991
Comalco-Dubal CD-200 CD-20 200 5 1990 Test cells at Dubal
Hydro HAL-230 HAL-23 230 n. inv. n. inv. Hoyanger, Venalum PL5 (1988), Slovalco (1995)
HAL-250 HAL-25 250 4 n. inv. Test cells in Ardal
Kaiser P-80 KA-18 190 6 1981 Test cells in Tacoma, shut down
Pechiney AP-30 AP-30 300 - 325 2040 + 720* n. inv. Various smelters, global spread
Reynolds P-20S RY-17 170 n. inv. n. inv. Alcasa, Alscon
P-23S RY-18 180 n. inv. n. inv. Test cells at Alcasa
VAW CA-180 VAW-18 180 115 1980 Upgraded Töging version now in Nordural, 120 pots
CA-240 VAW-24 240 5 1980/93 Test cells in Töging, shut down for CA-300 prototype
CA-300 VAW-30 300 3 1992/93 Test cells in Sayanogorsk, shut down**
Venalum V-350 VN-35 320 5 n. inv. Test cells
Russia/VAMI
C-255 RU-26 255 n. inv. n. inv. Tajik, Sayansk, Volgograd
C-300 RU-30 300 3 1992/93 Test cells in Sayanogorsk, shut down**
China P-280 CH-28 280 n. inv. n. inv. Qingyang
P-320 CH-32 320 30 n. inv. Test cells, Pingguo
*: 720 cells under construction at that time
**: VAW and Sayanogorsk jointly built and operated a test facility in Russia, each partner contributing 3 pots
n. inv.: not investigated
Table 1: Most Advanced Reduction Cell Technologies as at the Year 2000, excerpts from [2]
UPBN: Universal Prebake Cell Nomenclature, proposed by Tabereaux

25AWJ 2014
of the developmental steps taken by
individual companies. This historic
part of Tabereaux´s review will not be
repeated here and interested readers
are referred to the original source. For
this update, only the 2000 spearhead
cell technologies, in terms of highest
amperage will be quoted as reference
points. A condensed summary of those
reduction cell technologies is pre-
sented in Table 1.
Table 1 shows more than one entry for
some companies and countries. The
intention is to highlight the develop-
ment potential that can be seen in
operational test cells.
The original table further included
companies Montecatini, Elkem, Sumi-
tomo and Egyptalum as cell technology
holders. These have been omitted here
as their cell technologies are consid-
ered outdated at publication in 2000,
no progress is recognized since, or due
to their solely local significance, all in
the context of this article.
The 10 companies in possession of
aluminium cell technology mentioned
in Table 1 comprise the big traditional
industrial names, four of which can
even be traced back to the inventors
of the Hall- Héroult (HH) process: Al-
coa and Alcan are the direct result
of Charles Hall´s entrepreneurial ac-
tivities in North America while Alusu-
isse and Pechiney are the European
offspring of Paul Héroult. VAW can
be considered a late arrival, founded
1917 to support German armament
during WW I but without direct ties to
the founding fathers of the industry.
Kaiser and Reynolds can be regarded
as the generation of heirs as they came
into the primary aluminium business
in close timely connection to WW II,
e. g. by snapping up from Alcoa, in
an US government initiated auction,
what was considered overcapacity
after the war. Norsk Hydro, founded
1905 as a hydro-power company with
associated power-consuming assets
(fertilizers, explosives), entered the
aluminium business even later, after
VAW-led initiatives to build a German
production basis in Norway during WW
II had not been finished before the
end of the war. Although Hydro itself
had contemplated aluminium produc-
tion repeatedly since 1907 (including
failed own process inventions outside
Hall-Héroult) only in 1963 did Hydro
diversify into the aluminium business
by building its first smelter in Karmøy;
later in the last century Hydro started
buying history through acquisition of
older Norwegian smelters [3]. That
leaves Comalco-Dubal and Venalum
as representatives of an upcoming
new generation of more recent birth
and, due to the still prevailing lack of
detail insight (in 2000), the Russian
and Chinese aluminium industries
pooled by Tabereaux just under the
country names.
Concluding from the above summary,
it can be seen that by the year 2000,
know-how that had been deployed
internationally appears to be almost
exclusively held by big western enter-
prises with a long history in the industry
to the extent that the original inventors
can still be traced. The Russian and
Chinese industries had been contained
within their respective borders and, due
to their lack of involvement outside of
their territories, had remained opaque
until way into the 1990s. However, in-
ternal cell development had reached a
similar amperage level as the western
technologies.
The reduction cell development had
obviously reached peak line amperages
of 300 – 325 kA while a lot of cell tech-
nologies still hovered at between 180
and 280 kA. Tabereaux in his outlook
mentions, without being specific, that
further testing into the 400 kA region
was underway and that this amperage
was expected to establish the next
reduction cell generation.
While in principle aluminium can be
produced in cells with either Söderberg
(S) or prebaked (PB) anodes, all of
the modern high-amperage cells are
based on prebaked anodes. Another
distinguishing element of reduction
cell construction and operation is the
concept of supplying the alumina feed
to the electrolyte. Historically, PB cell
feeding has been developed from side
work (SW) to center work (CW), and
finally to point feeding (PF) systems.
While SW pots were fed (several) hun-
dred kilograms of alumina at a time
in intervals of 1 – several hours, CW
pot feeding occurred in doses of tens
of kilograms several times per hour
and PF feeding involves quantities of
1 – 1.5 kg/shot some 2 – 3 times per
minute. All modern high-amperage
cells exclusively utilize point feeders
and can thus be characterized as point-
fed pre-bake or PFPB cell types.
Finally,atthebottomlineofTabereaux´s
article, his minibio significantly refers to
Dr. Tabereaux as working for Reynolds
Metals. However, the article was printed
just a few weeks before Alcoa finally
finished its takeover of Reynolds Metals
in May 2000. This leads to the indicated
sub-topic of dramatic changes in the
primary aluminium industry since pub-
lication of Tabereaux´s article which
will also be highlighted below.
2 State of the Primary Aluminium
Industry at the Turn of the
Millennium
The 1990s had started off with one
of the worst economic periods in the
primary aluminium industry: as a con-
sequence of the fall of the iron curtain,
aluminium that would have otherwise
been used by the former Soviet Union
and its allies was sent into the west-
ern markets and particularly into LME
warehouses. At that time, the traditional
correlation between metal inventory/
consumption and price was still intact,
so the influx of excess metal sent the
LME prices, coming from above 2.000
USD/t (incl. a peak of above 3.500
USD/t) into steep decline down to the
1.100 USD/t range at which level almost
all smelters would face losses. It took
the industry huge joint efforts in terms
of mutually agreed curtailments for
the price to escape the 1.100 – 1.300
Dr.-Ing. Joachim Heil MetCons – Metallurgical Project Consultancy

1.666
1.552
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
MonthlyAveragePrimaryAluminiumPrice(LMEspot)inUSD/t
Al Price LME spot
Mean
Median
Mode
1.552
1.164
0
500
1.000
1.500
MonthlyAveragePrimaryAluminiumPrice(LMEspot)inUSD/t
USD/t range which only succeeded in
about mid 1994. Players and individual
smelters with less solid balance sheets
were forced into shutdowns or became
prey for takeovers.
In addition to considerable pressure
from marginal product proceeds at
low LME prices, cost pressures were
also on the rise, particularly from the
energy cost end. Smelters faced expiry
of their long-term power contracts and
more often than not the new contracts
included hefty increases of electric
power prices. In this context, the Bonn-
eville Power Administration (BPA),
a US governmental (not-for-profit)
power agency, achieved some doubt-
ful fame as a result of pressurizing
their US aluminium clients for many
years, in some instances to the brink
of bankruptcy.
Only during the second half of the
1990s did the primary aluminium in-
dustry regain enough stability to be
able to entertain new developments.
In reflection of the tough times, the
aluminium industry started forging
stronger entities through mergers and
by acquiring weaker players.
Figure 1: Monthly Average Primary Aluminium Price, 01/1981 – 04/2014 [4]
3 Aluminium Industry Consolidation
at Corporate Level from
2000 – 2014
3.1 Western Primary Aluminium
Industry
The new millennium started off with
two major reorganizations among the
big western players. In May 2000, Alcoa
finalized the acquisition of Reynolds
Metals in a 4,5 blnUSD deal, almost
one year after the offer had been sub-
mitted [5]. The merger combined the
two biggest aluminium producers of
the US, or numbers one and three on
a worldwide scale, making Alcoa by
far the biggest aluminium producer
globally.
Soon after, in October 2000, Alcan
(of Canada) finalized its merger with
Alusuisse (of Switzerland) [6]. This
merger was what remained of an ini-
tially contemplated three-way merger
that would have included Pechiney
(of France) as well. However, the idea
of including Pechiney was mutually
abandoned as the project faced stiff
opposition from regulatory authorities
over market dominance in the flat-
rolled products business resulting from
Alcan´s 50 % ownership in the giant
Alunorf rolling mill in Germany. Alcan
now was number two on the global list
of primary aluminium producers.
In February 2002, Kaiser Aluminium,
then the third largest aluminium pro-
ducer in the US, filed for bankruptcy
protection under Chapter 11 following
a failed debt repayment of some 25
MUSD and facing another upcoming
debt repayment of 174 MUSD. The
Kaiser bankruptcy was mainly attrib-
uted to a failed diversification into
the chemical business [7]. However,
the weak aluminium business during
the 1990s will have contributed its
share. Additionally, Kaiser had been
hampered by an explosion, in July
1999, at its Gramercy alumina refinery,
which took its 1 Mtpy production off
the market for 1,5 years [8]. Kaiser was
also one of the victims of BPA´s new
increased power tariffs which, among
others, forced them in late 2000 to
contemplate shutting down its Mead
smelter and selling the freed power
back to BPA at the higher price. Ironi-
cally, this idea was opposed by BPA

27AWJ 2014
(and thus the US government) as they
did not entertain a private company
making a windfall profit to the tune of
300 MUSD out of a public utility [8]. It
actually took Kaiser until 2006 to re-
emerge from Chapter 11 protection.
Still an aluminium company today, Kai-
ser has, however, divested all alumina
and primary aluminium assets. Under
the new business model, Kaiser is now
a producer of engineered aluminium
components with an emphasis on the
aerospace market [9].
In March 2002, Hydro Aluminium (of
Norway) took over VAW aluminium AG
(of Germany) from E.ON AG, a Ger-
man holding company formed in 2000
through the amalgamation of VIAG AG
and VEBA AG, in a 3,1 bln € deal [10].
VIAG had been the holding owner of
VAW since its inception. VIAG´s port-
folio included basically power produc-
ing and power consuming industries
whereas VEBA held a portfolio of power
producers and chemical plants. The
new E.ON strategy was to concentrate
on power generation so all industrial
holdings, including VAW, were divested
as a consequence.
The takeover of VAW promoted Hydro
Aluminium to position four, behind
Alcoa, Alcan and RusAl, in the global
primary aluminium producer ranking.
Meanwhile, the new Alcan had obvi-
ously not entirely given up the idea of
integrating Pechiney since in Septem-
ber 2003 they gained clearance from
the European Commission, though
there was an obligation to divest major
parts of the downstream business in-
cluding the flat-rolled production [11].
The latter was finally spun-off in 2005
as Novelis which now, since 2007, is
wholly owned by Hindalco. The incor-
poration of Pechiney boosted Alcan´s
primary aluminium output close to that
of Alcoa, however Alcan remained in
second place.
After almost 2 years of a long unsuc-
cessful courting period, Alcoa then
made an unsolicited takeover bid to
Alcan early May 2007 [12] which was
immediately rejected as it supposedly
did not properly reflect the true value
of the new Alcan [13]. Alcoa bid 33
blnUSD for Alcan, however, after Al-
can management´s rejection of Alcoa,
Rio Tinto offered 38 blnUSD. When
Vale (CVRD at the time) also entered
the takeover-war, Rio Tinto and Alcan
settled the deal at 38,7 blnUSD, one of
the biggest takeovers ever. In October
2007, the aluminium activities of Rio
Tinto, i.e. the Comalco business, were
combined with Alcan and are known
today as Rio Tinto Alcan or RTA. The
combined primary production has put
RTA in second place, closely behind
the new RusAl.
In May 2010, Hydro Aluminium signed
an agreement with Vale to take over
Vale´s aluminium business (primary
smelters, alumina and bauxite activi-
ties) for 4,9 blnUSD [14]. After approval
from regulatory authorities, the deal
was finalized early 2011 [15], giving
Hydro upstream access to bauxite and
making Hydro a long alumina pro-
ducer.
To summarize, the last decade has
shrunk the number of potential western
reduction cell technology providers
from 10 (or rather 8 + 2, the 2 being
Comalco-Dubal and Venalum) to 3 +
2: Alcoa, Hydro Aluminium and Rio
TintoAlcan + Dubal and Venalum, see
graphic representation in Figure 2.
Dubal appears to have discontinued the
joint technology development agree-
ment it had with Comalco before 2005
and now has developed its own DX
series of high amperage cells. While
Dubal is continuing with reduction cell
development no similar information
is available from Comalco since 2006
- when Comalco reported about five
modified CD26 test cells operating at
the Boyne smelter, which were being
considered for the intended potline 1
and 2 modernization. The so-called
B32 (RTC-28) cell was operating at
270 and 280 kA between 2002 and
2005 [16]. Interestingly enough, for
Boyne´s potline 3 construction between
1995 and 1997, Rio Tinto Comalco had
already opted for AP-30 technology
over the in-house CD technology. De-
velopments of Comalco cell technol-
ogy have probably been discouraged
after the Rio Tinto – Alcan merger in
2007 since this has given Rio Tinto/
Comalco direct access to the more
advanced Pechiney technology.
3.2 Eastern Primary Aluminium
Industry
Russia started primary aluminium pro-
duction on an industrial scale in 1929.
All Soviet smelter technology R&D
was concentrated in the All-Union Alu-
minium Magnesium Institute (“VAMI”)
founded in 1931 (and re-named All-
Russian Aluminium Magnesium In-
stitute VAMI in 1993) [17]. Historically,
Söderberg technology had long been
dominant, and still continues to be
largely present, in Russian smelters.
The dissolution of the communist bloc
after the fall of the iron curtain brought
about unprecedented upheavals in
the formerly planned and centralized
economies, specifically in the Former
Soviet Union (FSU). Both, aviation and
armament industries, the biggest con-
sumers of aluminium in the FSU, had
broken away almost entirely, and do-
mestic consumption dropped from
17 kg/capita in 1990 to a mere 2 kg/
capita in 1994. Before production out-
puts could be adjusted, an overhang of
aluminium had been produced which
was subsequently shipped westward
deluging the global markets. FSU
smelters found themselves discon-
nected from their alumina supplies
which were now situated in foreign
countries (i.e. in the now independent
previous Soviet republics) and started
operating on a tolling basis. In an al-
most lawless, mafia-like environment,
proverbial aluminium and alumina
wars took place with huge profits to
be made but also leaving casualties
at the wayside. Since the state-owned
smelters were effectively ownerless,
a major privatisation took place from
1993 onwards.

In this environment, a few individuals
started building ownership in individual
smelters, then progressing into group-
ing individual plants together to form
strong groups almost mimicking the
earlier communist structures, but now
under private ownership. So-called
“oligarchs” concentrated aluminium as-
sets under the names Sibirsky Alumini
(1997, Oleg Deripaska), Sibneft (1999,
Roman Abramovich) and Sibirsko-
Uralskaya Aluminievaya Kompania
(SUAL, 1996, Viktor Vekselberg).
Also in the eastern hemisphere, the
new Millennium started with yet an-
other major concentration of market
share. In 2000, Sibirsky Alumini and
Sibneft merged to form Russian Al-
uminium (RusAl) with a production
capacity of more than 2 million tpy of
aluminium representing almost 10 %
of global output [18].
During the following years RusAl and
SUAL grew independently through
further acquisitions of international
scope and in 2003, RusAl acquired the
All-Russian Aluminium Magnesium
Institute VAMI [19].
In 2007, with the merger of RusAl,
SUAL and the alumina business of
Swiss trading house Glencore, a new
industrial giant was born. The new
United Company (UC) RusAl was then
worth some 30 blnUSD and controlled
4,4 million tpy of primary aluminium
output - placing the new RusAl on top
of the producer´s ranking and overtak-
ing Alcoa [20].
In summary, the Russian primary alu-
minium industry is now controlled by
UC RusAl. RusAl, after a total disin-
tegration, in the 1990s, of the state-
owned assets, has almost rebuilt the
Soviet-era industry including control
of the VAMI R&D facilities, though now
under private shareholding owner-
ship and with a global reach, through
acquisitions.
The early days of the Chinese primary
aluminium industry remain obscure
due to a combination of long-lasting
shielding of the country and the exis-
tence of a multitude of small smelters
(down to the 5 ktpy level) which went
unrecognized globally or remained
unknown due to non-reporting. Accord-
ing to Zhongxiu, in 2002 there were
still 128 operating Chinese smelters
with only 17 smelters having more than
50 ktpy capacity [21]. Taking the IAI-
published Chinese production figure
of 4,321 Mtpy for 2002 into consider-
ation [22], the average output from a
Chinese smelter was a mere 33,7 ktpy.
By 2013, China had increased primary
output to 21,936 Mtpy [23] equivalent
to an average of 175 ktpy from each of
its 125 operating smelters.
The ownership of Chinese smelters
appears to be scattered between the
government, semi-public entities and
partially or wholly private ownership.
The largest single Chinese entity in
this context is the Aluminium Corpora-
tion of China Ltd. (Chalco), which was
formed in September 2001 to oversee
the aluminium and alumina business
of state-owned Aluminium Corporation
of China (Chinalco). Chalco was partly
floated on the New York and Hong
Kong stock exchanges in December
2001 which reduced Chinalco´s ma-
jority ownership to some 44 % while
Alcoa picked up an 8 % share of Chalco
[21]. Chalco has continued to expand
by acquisitions (of other Chinese
smelters) and by building new smelt-
ing capacity at rapid pace. Despite a
production increase from 690 ktpy in
2000 to >4,2 Mtpy in 2012, Chalco´s
share of the total Chinese primary alu-
minium output has, however, fallen
from 25 % to some 21 % [23], [24].
Concluding from company informa-
tion collated by Pawlek [26], Chinese
aluminium production appears to have
started in the 1930s, based on VAMI
Söderberg pots, but later Elkem and
Japanese technology providers have
also been sporadically mentioned. In
the 1980s, obsolete Japanese smelter
equipment was imported into China
(as a consequence of Japan exiting the
primary business after the oil crisis)
and the VAW CA 115 from Töging (as a
consequence of the smelter shutdown
in 1994 after Russian metal flooded
the market) had been bought second-
hand.
However, the overwhelming majority of
Chinese smelters apply home-grown
which has historically been developed
by two institutes: Shenyang Aluminium
& Magnesium Engineering & Research
Institute (SAMI, founded in 1951) and
Guiyang Aluminium Magnesium Design
& Research Institute (GAMI). Both are
now managed by the China Aluminium
International Engineering Corporation
(Chalieco), which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Chinalco. These two in-
stitutes, SAMI and GAMI, have recently
been developing high-amperage cell
technologies separately and they are
competitors, even though both have
the same parent company. SAMI and
GAMI designed potlines constitute
the bulk of China´s current primary
aluminium industry.
Established in 1981 and restructured
in 2003, the Northeastern University
Engineering & Research Institute
(NEUI) has followed a similar tech-
nology development path as SAMI,
and within a few recent years, NEUI
has developed and put into operation
a series of high-amperage reduction
cell technologies in China.
The historic development of western
and eastern reduction cell technology
providing companies is graphically
summarized in Figure 2.
4 Aluminium Reduction Cell
Technology Providers at the
Turn of 2013/2014
4.1 Alcoa
Alcoa has not reported any progress
on their 300 kA cell technology since
more than a decade as far as the TMS´s
annual Light Metals proceedings are
concerned. Actually, it appears that the
only industrial application of Alcoa´s

Primary Aluminium – Ancestry










     













 


















 









  
             
       
   
  
29AWJ 2014
Figure 2: Historic Timeline of Reduction Cell Technology Providers
own most advanced reduction cell is
at Portland Aluminium in Australia.
The acquisition of Reynolds by Alcoa
in 2000, including their cell technology
R&D department, did not bring about
any obvious revival of cell technology
development activities at Alcoa.
Alcoa´s North American operations,
which utilize Alcoa’s own cell tech-
nology, are applying line currents of
between 120 kA and 245 kA, according
to information available from Pawlek´s
PASaPoW [26]. Among these there are
3 smelters that exceed 210 kA, namely
Mt. Holly (215 kA), Tennessee (245 kA)
and Massena (230 kA) while the latter
also houses an unspecified number of
A-716 type test pots operating at 280
kA and 450 kA (?).
Much of Alcoa´s global assets today
have been acquired, i.e. these have
an inherent lower probability of using
Alcoa cell technology, and actually Al-
coa inherited a wide variety of different
technologies from the original owners.
However, there are again 3 smelters
outside of the USA using Alcoa cell
technology beyond 210 kA: Point Henry
(215 kA, P-155 cells), Alumar (228 kA,
A-697 cells) and Portland (320 kA,
A-817 cells). Concluding from PASa-
PoW [26], Portland appears to be the
only smelter in the Alcoa organization
that has been built using Alcoa´s most
advanced technology. Portland was
commissioned in 1986 with an initial
line current of 275 kA, which has obvi-
ously been crept to 320 kA.
Since Portland was started up in 1986,
Alcoa appears to have reduced activi-
ties in terms of building its own new
smelter capacity. Only in the second
half of the first decade of the new mil-
lennium, did Alcoa resort to expand
through building new smelters: Alumar
underwent 2-step brownfield expan-
sions which were commissioned by
September 2005 and from November
2005, respectively. Alcoa A-697 cell
technology (developed as AA-18, after
boosting now operating as AA-23) has
been used for the new potline 3 at
Alumar. In April 2007, Alcoa started
commissioning its new Fjarðaál smelter
in Iceland - which presently operates
at 380 kA. Interestingly, Alcoa did not
implement its own cell technology but
built a one-potline smelter based on
Alcan (i.e. Pechiney) AP38 cell tech-
nology. Also in Alcoa´s most recent
participation in the Ma´aden smelter
project in Saudi Arabia Rio Tinto Alcan
AP37/39 technology has been imple-
mented [27].
The European Economic Commis-
sion (EEC) in 2003, on the occasion
of the Alcan/Pechiney merger, issued
a merger procedure that assessed the
concentration of market shares for the
new entity. Amongst other items, the
market shares of a combined Alcan/
Pechiney in the aluminium reduction
cell development and licensing busi-
ness were investigated in relation to
their competitors. One of the competi-
tors mentioned by Alcan/Pechiney was
Alcoa. However, the EEC assessment
found that Alcoa in fact had ceased li-
censing cell technology to third parties
in the 1980s. Consequentially, Alcoa
was regarded by the EEC as a hypo-
thetical competitor only [11].
As a conclusion of the above, it seems
that Alcoa not only has largely dis-
continued implementation of its own

reduction cell technology in smelters
they own but has also discontinued
licensing to third parties. The latest Al-
coa greenfield projects are based upon
reduction cell technology licensed
from RioTintoAlcan. This together
with the total absence of publication
of cell technology advances could
be interpreted that Alcoa has aban-
doned primary aluminium reduction
cell development altogether in favour
of external licensing.
4.2 Hydro Aluminium (incl. VAW)
When Hydro Aluminium acquired VAW
in 2002, the VAW cell technology R&D
department was also included in the
deal. VAW had operated five CA 240
(VAW-24, in Töging) and three 300 kA
test cells in Sayanogorsk, the latter
project having been hampered by the
Russian conditions in the years just
after 1990. This experience lead to a
VAW decision to replace the VAW-24
cells in Töging with CA 300 (VAW-
30) test cells. However, this project
was stopped in 1994, shortly after or-
ders had been placed and construc-
tion work had begun. The so-called
Töging potline 2, which was to receive
the test cells, was decommissioned
(as a result of Russian metal flooding
the market depressing the LME ingot
price), dismantled and finally rebuilt in
Iceland (Century´s Norðurál smelter).
The former VAW´s cell technology R&D
group (aka VAW-ATG) continued to work
on cells, mostly on smelter upgrades,
retrofits and the like but the VAW-30
remained shelved. However, Hydro
acquired the residual know-how and
also the manpower and modeling and
engineering tools developed by VAW.
Today, the ex-VAW R&D know-how is
a vital part of the Hydro Aluminium
cell technology development as can
be concluded from ongoing Hydro
publications including former VAW
staff.
Hydro Aluminium had licensed its
HAL-23 cell technology to Venalum
(potline 5, commissioned 1988) and
also to the Slovalco smelter where
the HAL technology replaced three
1950s Söderberg potlines. Slovalco
commissioned the HAL pots from June
1995 and achieved operational results
as presented in Table 2.
Slovalco was expanded by adding 54
pots of HAL250 technology which was
commissioned from July 2003. At the
same time the line amperage for the
existing potline had been increased
to match the HAL250 technology of
the new pots. Today, Slovalco operates
at 258 kA.
In December 2002, Hydro started com-
missioning 11
/2 potlines comprising
340 pots in its Sunndalsøra smelter
(the so-called Sunndal 4 or SU4 proj-
ect), also replacing older Söderberg
potlines, implementing their HAL250
cell technology. Even during com-
missioning the amperage was raised
to 275 kA - the reported value when
the last pot was energized in August
2004. This cell technology is dubbed
the HAL275 (HAL-28) and the Sunndal
smelter is the biggest European single
site smelter [28], [29]. It has been re-
ported that the HAL275 pots at SU4
have been crept to 290 kA (HAL-29)
as of April 2007 [26].
It appears that both the Slovalco and
the Sunndal SU4 potlines might go
down in history as the last newly-built
smelters in (Central) Europe, or at least
the last for quite some time to come,
unless the European energy prices al-
low for new smelter projects to proceed
again in the future.
The HAL275 cell technology was also
licensed to the new greenfield smelter
Qatalum, in Qatar, which was started
up in December 2009. According to
Cell Technology (UPBN)
Parameter
HAL230
(HAL-23)
HAL250
(HAL-25)
Unit
Amperage (design) 230 250 kA
Amperage (operation) 230,3 258 kA
Number of Pots / Potlines 172 / 1 54 / extension -
Current Efficiency (CE) 96 94 %
Anode Effect Frequency (AEF) 0,044 n.a. AE/(day · pot)
Specific Energy Consumption 13,5 13,2 kWh/kg aluminium
Table 2: Hydro Aluminium Cell Performance Data at Slovalco as per [26]
information available on the Qatalum
website, the operation was supposed
to start at 300 kA which would allow
a production of 585 ktpy of potroom
metal from their 704 pots [30]. This
would require a current efficiency of
94,5 %. Output in 2012 reached 628
ktpy [31] which would have required
an amperage creep to some 320 kA at
95 % CE, so the Qatalum pots should
now be categorized HAL-32. The rectifi-
er-transformers (RTs) installed at Qata-
lum(5x85kA)wouldevenhaveenough
rated capacity for future line amperage
creep to 340 kA without compromis-
ing on the N+1 RT configuration [32].
In its latest development, in June 2008,
Hydro Aluminium has commissioned
six HAL420 or HAL4e (HAL-42) cells in
its Årdal research facility, operating at
420 kA and designed to operate at up
to 450 kA. The first commercial imple-
mentation of the HAL4e technology
was foreseen to begin after 2014 [33].
In 2013, a 70 ktpy pilot smelter applying
HAL “next generation technology” to
be sited at Karmoy was under study
[34]. The pilot HAL-42 cells achieved
specific energy consumption of 12,5
kWh/kg in 2012, with a 2014 target of
12,3 kWh/kg and a mid-term target
of <11,8 kWh/kg for an extra energy-
saving variant called HAL4e ultra [35].
A full set of performance data from
the first months of operation of the
HAL-42 test cells had been published
in 2009, and the results achieved are
shown in Table 3.
One distinguishing unique HAL tech-
nology feature common to all of the
above mentioned variants (except per-
haps at Venalum) is that a HAL potline
is housed under one common roof.

31AWJ 2014
Figure 3: Typical HAL-32 Potline, Photo: copyright Qatalum
This is called by Hydro Aluminium
the double potroom concept, or al-
ternatively the half-potroom concept.
Usually, modern PFPB side-by-side
potlines consist of two rows of pots.
These are traditionally housed in two
distinct buildings (potrooms) which are
spaced apart by an open courtyard of
typically some 60 m open width to keep
the reciprocal magnetic disturbance of
the two rows at a minimum.
Due to the courtyard, the center-to-
center spacing of pots between the
Parameter Value Unit
Amperage 420 kA
Number of Pots 6 Test cells
Current Efficiency (CE) 95 % (assumed)
Pot Voltage 4,1 V
Anode Effect Frequency (AEF) < 0,03 AE/(day · pot)
Specific Energy Consumption 12,83 – 12,93 kWh/kg aluminium
two rows would be of the order-of-
magnitude of 80 – 90 m and maybe
more for the very high amperage cell
technologies. Hydro Aluminium places
the two rows of a potline in two half-
potrooms which share a common yet
unclad central building wall instead
of an open courtyard. The center-to-
center spacing of HAL pots between
the two rows is then only about 30
m [37]. This configuration somewhat
resembles the traditional end-to-end
potline arrangement where there are
2 potrooms but each of them housing
Table 3: Hydro HAL420/HAL4e (HAL-42) Cell Performance Data as per [36]
2 rows of pots.
This HAL specific potline configuration
is very advantageous in terms of land
usage, i.e. the annual output per m2
of built-up area is comparatively high.
The HAL potline concept also achieves
lower potroom construction investment
and operating costs.
A satellite image comparison of a tra-
ditional vs. a HAL potline arrangement
is shown in Figure 4, whereas the yel-
low lines are 1000 m and 250 m long,
respectively.
Hydro Aluminium also reports that
its development will consider pot-
shells with forced cooling (with an
undisclosed cooling medium) on the
sidewalls and usage of the resulting
off-heat for power generation. Heat
extraction from the pot off-gas in the
GTC area for district heating purposes
is already a feature of some Norwe-
gian smelters. Another topic of Hydro
technology development is dealing
with concentrating the CO2 content
in the pot off-gas (from <1 % to > 4
%) which would reduce the size of
gas handling and treatment equip-
ment and eventually facilitate future
uses, e.g. in CCS (carbon capture and
sequestration) [37].
The HAL-32 technology based Qata-
lum smelter cost was 9.000 USD/ktpy
installed capacity [38].
4.3 RioTintoAlcan (including
Comalco, Alusuisse & Pechiney)
As already discussed, RTA is now
pooling the previous R&D activities
of Comalco, Alcan, Alusuisse and
Pechiney. The current RTA reduction
cell technology is equivalent to the
former Pechiney technology (RTA
technology is still marketed under the
APXX denomination). In the context
of this review, it is assumed that RTA
reduction cell technology today is
equivalent to Pechiney AP technology
and the other technology develop-
ments have been discontinued or, if
not, at least their contribution remains
1 potline, 360 pots (AP36). 360 ktpy - Aluminium
2 potlines, 2 x 352 pots (HAL275), 585 ktpy - Qatalum © 2010 Google
© 2011 LeaDog Consulting
© 2011 GeoEye
Figure 4: Land Usage of 1 AP Potline vs. 2 HAL Potlines (yellow lines: 1000 / 250 m long)

invisible to the public (this contrasts
with RTA alumina handling and stor-
age technology which is still marketed
by RTA under the previous Alusuisse
brand “Alesa”). Pechiney has a long-
standing and well documented track
record of reduction cell technology
development. Their AP18 (180 kA)
technology was commercialized in
1979 and almost 10 years later, the
AP30 was first commissioned on an
industrial scale in 1986. The first higher
amperage applications were both built
inside the Pechiney smelter facilities
at Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, France.
Extrapolating from this historical path,
it was justifiable for Tabereaux to expect
the launch of the next generation AP
reduction cell about the time he wrote
his review in 1999. The next generation
was expected to be of 400 kA while
he also expected that this required
the solution of some technical prob-
lems, e.g. wear of cathode lining, heat
balance, emissions, cell instabilities,
higher magnetic fields and metal loss
due to increased cell turn-around time
for relining [2].
Tabereaux was not mistaken, since in
July 2000, Pechiney indeed present-
ed its new cell generation. Pechiney,
however, had skipped the 400 kA and
immediately went to the AP50 technol-
ogy - to be operated at 500 kA [39].
Within about a year, a first project site
was identified at Coega/RSA to host
a 460 ktpy greenfield smelter, which
was to be the first commercial imple-
mentation of the AP50 technology on
a large industrial scale. Agreements
for power supply with Eskom were
made and environmental clearance
was achieved by early 2003, however
Pechiney looked for investment part-
ners as they only wanted to retain about
40 % ownership in the project. After
Alcan had gained control over Pechiney
in late 2003, including the Coega proj-
ect, the project was delayed trigger-
ing investigation of several alternative
scenarios. The whole process was fur-
ther protracted due to Rio Tinto then
taking over Alcan which, in mid 2007,
resulted in a downscaling of the project
to 360 ktpy combined with a decision to
implement the project with AP36 cell
technology. In the winter of 2007/08,
Eskom´s severe shortfall of maintain-
ing power generation and distribution
systems came to the surface - leading
to country-wide blackouts in RSA. This
was probably only the last in a string of
events that caused RioTintoAlcan to
abort the Coega AP50 project finally
in October 2009 [40].
Obviously frustrated by the inability to
launch the AP50 at Coega, Alcan had
started building a semi-industrial short
potline of 44 AP50 pots within its own
organization, at the Jonquière smelter
in Canada. Commissioning of this 60
ktpy potline was envisioned for mid
2008. However, the financial stress
caused by Rio Tinto´s 38 blnUSD outlay
for Alcan still persisted when the global
financial crisis started to hit in 2008.
This did not favour the Canadian AP50
project which was then slowed down.
During the slowdown, the project was
re-engineered and RTA announced
that the Jonquière short potline will
now receive the latest development,
AP60, instead of the AP50 previously
announced [41]. In keeping with the
60 ktpy production capacity target,
the pilot potline now consists of 38
pots of first generation AP60 cells
operating at 570 kA after full capacity
was achieved in December 2013 [42].
Jonquière could later be expanded to
460 ktpy using the second generation
AP60 cells which would be operated
at 600 kA [43].
RTA still markets its AP30 technol-
ogy successfully which has been fur-
ther developed stepwise. Due to the
creeping amperage this technology is
now called AP3X and can be operated
at up to 390 kA. RTA´s AP3X range of
reduction cells has so far dominated
the reduction cell technology licensing
business outside of Russia and China.
The AP technology market share of
the world’s modern smelters outside
of Russia and China is estimated to be
at least 80 %. The global application
basis of AP3X is summarized in Table
4. Besides that, there is one 405 kA
potline under construction at Kitimat.
The latest AP performance data can
be characterized as follows (see Table
5), summarizing from various publi-
cations in TMS Light Metals and RTA
company brochures. This appears to
be supported by the RTA confirmations
that the AP3X and the AP50 test pots
have maintained their performance
data level throughout the entire am-
perage range.
Parameter
AP3X
(AP-30/39)
Unit
Total Potlines (PLs) 19 + 3 * PLs
Total Pots 5274 + 810 * Pots
Average Pots 280 (excl. u/c pots) Pots/PL
Total Installed Capacity 5,25 (excl. u/c pots) Mtpy
Average Output 290 (excl. u/c pots) ktpy/PL
Avg. Potline Voltage ** 1170 (excl. u/c pots) V/PL
*: 3 PLs with 810 pots under construction in Iceland and India; pots not included in below
calculations
**: assuming 4,2 V/pot
Table 4: Overview of Smelters based on RTA AP Cell Technology as per [44], [45]
Parameter Value Unit
Amperage 300 – 500 kA
Current Efficiency (CE) 94,1 – 96 ,0 %
Pot Voltage 4,2 V
Anode Effect Frequency (AEF) 0,23 – < 0,03 AE/(day · pot)
Specific Energy Consumption 13,01 – 13,41 kWh/kg aluminium
Table 5: RTA AP3X and AP50 Cell Performance Data as per [45], [46], [47]

33AWJ 2014
The higher amperage range of the
AP3X reduction cells is understood
to be applied to pots with unchanged
outer dimensions with moderate ad-
justments to anode size and potlining.
This means that at the high amperage
end, current density and energy input
to the AP3X cells is higher compared
to the basic AP30 cell. It is also un-
derstood that this will require forced
sidewall cooling, which consists of
low pressure air blown through chan-
nels attached to the sidewalls of the
potshells. The resulting heated air is
released to atmosphere.
The AP-36 technology based Sohar
smelter was built at 6.670 USD/ktpy
installed capacity [48], while the AP-
60 pilot potline has cost a staggering
18.330 USD/ktpy [42], and it remains
to be seen how much this cost can be
lowered for a full commercial smelter
project.
4.4 United Company RusAl
(including VAMI)
Most of UC RusAl’s aluminium smelt-
ers were built between 40 and 60
years ago, and the majority of these
smelters are still based on Söderberg
technology [49]. According to RusAl,
more than 80 % of Russian primary
aluminium originates from Söderberg
cells [50] while the international share
of Söderberg smelters was only 18 %
in 2005 [51]. Modernizing their Söder-
berg aluminium production sites has
an ongoing high priority for RusAl (dry
anode technology, hooding, gas treat-
ment, anode gas incineration, alumina
feeding etc.). Prebake smelters have
been built in the FSU from around
1975 [26]. An overview of RusAl high
amperage reduction cell performance
is presented in Table 6.
A year into its existence RusAl started
development of a high amperage PFPB
reduction cell (in 2001) and five pi-
lot cells were commissioned at their
Sayanogorsk smelter (SAZ) at the end
of 2003. The so-called RA-300 (RA-
30) reduction cells have been used for
the construction of the Khakas smelter
(KhAZ) which was started-up in 2006
and operates 341 (336 + 5?) pots at 320
kA. In 2005, a newly developed RA-400
(RA-40) prototype was commissioned
at SAZ, and by 2010, sixteen RA-400
cells were in operation at 435 kA.
As example for a typical Rusal PFPB
potroom see a photo from the Khakas
smelter in Figure 5.
The RA-400 is to be installed at RusAl´s
new Taishet smelter; construction com-
menced in 2007 but was suspended by
the end of 2008. The Taishet smelter
will comprise 672 pots with production
capacity of 750 ktpy [57].
BEMO (Boguchanskoye Energy and
Metals Complex) is a combined hy-
dropower plant (HPP) and aluminium
smelter project under construction.
The 3 GW HPP project originally
started 1979 but was stopped from
1994–2005.
Meanwhile 6 out of 9 generators are
Parameter
OA-300M1
(SU/RA-30)
RA-300
(RA-30)
RA-400
(RA-40)
RA-500
(RA-50)
Unit
Smelter Site IrkAZ KhAZ/ * SAZ/ ** SAZ
Amperage (design) 300 300 400 500 kA
Amperage (operation) 330 320 415 – 435 520 kA
Number of Pots 200 336 + 672* 16 + 672** ?
Current Efficiency (CE) 94 95 > 93,5*** > 93,5*** %
Pot Voltage 4,33 n.a. 4,3 - 4,4*** 4,3 - 4,4*** V
Anode Effect Freq. (AEF) 0,13 0,15 < 0,05*** < 0,05*** AE/(d · pot)
Specific Energy Cons. 13,73 n.a. < 13,8*** < 13,8*** kWh/kg Al
*: under construction (BEMO project, 588 ktpy)
**: under construction (Taishet project, 750 ktpy)
***: target values
Table 6: RusAl Cell Performance Data as per [52], [53], [54]
Figure 5: Typical RA-30 Potline, Photo: copyright Rusal

operating, and smelter construction
would see first hot metal later in 2014.
The smelter comprises 672 pots of
RA-300 technology for a total output
of 588 ktpy [58].
Before their merger with RusAl, SUAL
reported that they were operating six
OA300M1 type 300 kA test cells (SU-
30) at its Ural smelter (UAZ), designed
by SibVAMI. Commissioned in 2005,
the amperage of the test cells was later
increased to 330 kA. In early 2010, a
full 170 ktpy potline (potline 5) at Ir-
kutsk (IrkAZ) was commissioned with
plans to increase the amperage to 330
kA. The IrkAZ potline 5 comprises
200 OA300M1-based pots which are
now (after the merger with RusAl) also
dubbed RA-300 [55].
During 2007/2008, RusAl further
advanced development of a 500 kA
reduction cell. However, it remains
unclear if a prototype has already been
built or if this is yet to happen. There
are plans to build an experimental
RA-500 potline between 2011 and
2014 [54].
RusAl further reports that it is experi-
menting with inert anode technologies
in two ways: firstly, as a replacement
for prebake carbon anodes in standard
Hall-Héroult cells and secondly, in trial
cells that implement multiple verti-
cal inert anodes and cathodes. The
latter trial cells would have a much
higher time-volume-related output
as compared to standard Hall-Héroult
cells. Specific energy consumption
is expected to be < 12 kWh/kg. In the
absence of information to the contrary,
it is assumed that a cryolite-based
electrolyte would be used as opposed
to the chloride-based trials that Alcoa
conducted in the late 1970s using a
similar cell but with multiple horizontal
bipolar electrodes [50], [53].
RusAl claims that they can build a
smelter in Russia at a cost of 2.300 –
2.800 USD/tpy installed capacity [56].
The Khakas smelter is said to have been
built in less than 24 months.
4.5 Dubal
Dubal started operations in 1979 with
3 potlines implementing National
Southwire technology (an improved
version of Kaiser P69 (KA-15)) [59].
The reduction cells were modified and
retrofitted over the first decade of op-
eration by Kaiser and Norsk Hydro [26].
When potline 4 was commissioned in
1990, the first five CD-type test pots,
jointly developed with Comalco, were
also started at 190 – 200 kA. Potlines
5 (commissioned from 1996) and 6
(1999) both implemented the so-called
CD20 cells on an industrial scale. In
the Comalco-Dubal nomenclature
the number actually represents the
number of anodes and only roughly
coincides with the amperage level.
So, in UPBN terminology, this was
a CD-21 (210 kA) cell. In 1997, again
five test cells of further advanced am-
perage were commissioned, called
Figure 6: Dubal DX Pilot Potline, Photo: copyright Dubal
Parameter
DX
(DU-35)
DX
(DU-38)
DX+
(DU-44)
Unit
Smelter Site Emal 1 * Dubal Dubal, Emal 2
Amperage (design) 340 340 440 kA
Amperage (operation) 380 380 440 kA
Number of Pots 756 40 5 + 444
444 DX+ under commissioning
at Emal 2
Current Efficiency (CE) 95,8 95,5 95 %
Pot Voltage 4,2 – 4,22 n.a. 4,24 V
Anode Effect Frequency (AEF) 0,1 < 0,02 < 0,05 AE/(day · pot)
Specific Energy Consumption 13,12 13,04 < 13,4 kWh/kg aluminium
*: Emal 1 values during commissioning phase
Table 7: Dubal Cell Performance Data as per [67], [69], [70]

Aluminium World Journal 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Aluminium World Journal 2014

Similar to Aluminium World Journal 2014 (20)

More from Global Media Communication Ltd.

More from Global Media Communication Ltd. (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Aluminium World Journal 2014