Good, bad & ugly lessons learned in the

design and construction of heap leach pads

Heap Leach Conference
September 2013
Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Presented by: Allan Breitenbach, PE

Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Ausenco Denver Office
1

Admiral Perry in
1907: find a way or
make a way

Source: National
Geographic Magazine
2

1972 potash evaporation ponds, Utah

PVC and CSPE (Hypalon) liners in 1970s

1976 uranium tailings dam in Wyoming

Leach pads: highest lined fills in world

1979 gold heap leach pad in Montana

1986 copper heap leach pad in Arizona

Truck & dozer stack (15 m ore lift)

Rock size matters in ore recovery

10

Grasshopper conveyors to radial stack

11

Radial conveyor stack (7 m high ore lift)

12

Leach pad expansion (delay CapEx cost)

13

1995 dynamic (on/off) leach pads

14

Dynamic pad conveyors & excavators

15

Dynamic versus permanent leach pads

16

Interlift liners on copper & nickel heaps

17

Barren solution leach application

18

External double lined process ponds

19

Rain coat liners in high rainfall climates

20

Divert rainfall runoff from leach pad

21

Leach pad geomembrane liner issues

Overly wet underliner composite clay soils
Rock damage to exposed liner
Blast fly rock
Underliner/overliner fill placement rock sizes

Wind damage to exposed liner

Liner folds from temperature changes
Stress cracking (less with PE spec change 1997)
Low interface liner strength
Flexible liners since 1970s
Texture for less flexible PE liners since 1988
22

Increasing liner semi-crystallinity:

Good
Higher stiffness or hardness (less flexible)
Higher modulus of elasticity (higher sheet tensile strength)
Higher chemical & heat resistance Note: 1976 RCRA/EPA driven landfill
liner design criteria items above red
Longer liner life (closure concern)
line versus items below red line
(Breitenbach cookie jar theory: you
Higher UV (sunlight) resistance
cant have it all)
Lower liner sheet permeability (primary purpose of liner)

Lower impact strength or puncture resistance (holes in liner)

Lower stress crack resistance (especially folds/surface scratches)
Lower 3D elongation (less settlement or ground adaptability)
Higher expansion/contraction (less intimate clay contact/folds)
Lower interface friction strength (more risk of slides)
Bad to Ugly
23

Compacted low permeability soil fill

24

Composite liner intimate contact

25

Moisture / Density / Strength Interaction

Good

(maybe in lab but

not in real world)

Bad

26

Wet of optimum clays tend to dry & crack

27

Liner strength (moisture vs load time)

Ugly

Reference: Breitenbach & Swan 1999

Note: majority of heap leach pad slope failures occur in the

first ore lift load (maximum change in stress) and not at
ultimate heap height load (lowest stress change)
28

Underliner fill with no rain protection

29

Overly wet composite soil liner

More Ugly

30

Geosynthetic clay liners (GCL)

Better on dry
subgrade surface

Back to Good with textured liner

contact with stitch-bond GCL sheet

31

GCL versus clay on steep slopes

Best on steep
valley walls

32

Temporary sand bags before fill cover

Good: wind protection with sand bags

33

High winds #1 liner installation concern

Bad: CQA impression

of Clark Kent
34

Wind liner damage on less flexible liners

Ugly: liner wind damage

35

Wind damage weakens PE liner at folds

36

Drain fill cover and liner fold concerns

Good: wind protection

Bad: liner folds

37

High load liner stability in background

20 m near vertical cut on downhill
side of existing 2% pad liner grade

(could have been ugly)

38

Hail impact versus blast fly rock damage

Good: no known
hail damage to date

39

Mega-scale liner puncture testing

Bad: liner stockpile near blast area

40

Worried CQA engineer after blast

41

Liner puncture thru HDPE 5 layers deep

Ugly: deep holes

in liner rolls

42

Drain fill cover: highest liner abuse

Good: drain fill and
drain pipe cover

43

1994 to 2005 drain pipe high load tests

12 to 24 diameter CPE drain pipe

Photo Source: Vector Engineering
44

Soil arching pipe load transfer to liner

Bad to Ugly: load transfer

to liner & less drainage area

Photo Source: Vector Engineering

45

Lab mini-scale puncture testing

Good: micro-dimple
increase in strength
Bad: pipe load transfer
to liner up to 20% more
Ugly: high load rock
puncture thru liner

46

Size does matter (underliner/overliner)

Note: So does the rock shape & gradation curve for
liner interface strength and puncture resistance

47

1989 large scale pad liner tests

Good: Smooth dry underliner & fine drain rock

overliner fill to protect the geomembrane liner
48

Loaded haul truck passes on liner

Note: flattened to 0.3 m thick fill after 10, 20 & 40 truck passes
49

D-8N dozer with 90 degree sharp turn

50

Hand excavation in bottom half of fill

Bad: Engineer not
realizing the amount of
shovel work involved

51

Examining dozer liner tear damage

Ugly: dozer sharp

turns not acceptable
52

1985 to 1995 heap leach slope failures

Ugly: too many liner failures
in first ore lift placement

20
18
16
14

Bad: overly wet

underliner fills

12
Foundation
Low Fill
High Fill

10
8

Good: not many high

fill failures

6
4
2
0
HEAP SLOPE FAILURES

53

Macro-Dimpling Non-Planar Surfaces

Downhill & sidehill
lined pad toe areas

Non-Planar Berm

Non-Planar Trench

Steep Valley Walls

Non-Planar Bench
54

Berm or trench stabilization

Photo Source:
Comanco

Good: non-planar
surface in pad toe area

55

Improve stability with non-planar berm or trench

(placing from downhill toe inward)

Source: Breitenbach and Athanassapoulos (Geosynthetics

Conference 2013, Long Beach, California)

56

Steep & planar liner slope with bench

Better: liner anchor

bench on steep slopes

57

Non-planar benches on 3H:1V pad back slope

Photo Source:
Confidential

Best: multiple non-planar

benches on lower slopes

24

58

Non-planar stabilization stair-step benches

Source: Breitenbach and Athanassapoulos (Geosynthetics

Conference 2013, Long Beach, California)

59

High seismicity & liquefaction issues

60

2001 8.4M earthquake in Southern Peru

61

Cerro Verde heap toe slide above liner

62

Cajone heap at 10 m high near saturation

63

Cajone heap 2 m top interlift liquefied at

recorded site PGA = 0.22g (no liner slide)

64

Failure is not an Option

Source: National
Geographic Magazine
65

Six Good leach pad liner references:

Breitenbach (1997), Overview of liner slope failures under high
fill loads, Geosynthetics conference, Long Beach, California
Breitenbach & Swan (1999), Influence of high load deformations
on geomembrane liner interface strengths, Geosynthetics
conference, Boston, Massachusetts
Breitenbach (2004), Improvement in slope stability performance
of lined heap leach pads from operation to closure, Geosynthetics
Magazine
Breitenbach & Thiel (2005), A tale of two conditions: landfill
versus heap leach pad liner strengths, GRI-19 Las Vegas
conference
Breitenbach (2011), Old timer recalls history of geomembrane
liner interface strength, Part 1 to 3, Geosynthetics Magazine
Breitenbach & Athanassapoulos (2013), Improving the stability of
high fill load structures built on low strength interfaces, Long
Beach Conference
66

Any Heap Leach Liner Questions?

67