A Mathematical Model for Heap Leaching of One

or More Solid Reactants from Porous Ore Pellets

DAVID G. DIXON and JAMES L. HENDRIX

A mathematical model is derived in dimensionless form for heap leaching of one or more solid
reactants from nonreactive, porous, spherical ore particles. The model is for the interpretation
of column and heap leaching data and for use in the design and scaleup of heap leaching pro-
cesses. Data from experimental column leaching tests are presented which validate the model.
The scope of the present study is limited to the case where the rate-controlling reagent is a
component of the lixiviant solution only and not of the gas phase. The effects of particle-scale
kinetic factors, heap scale and operating variables, competition between multiple solid reactants,
and particle size distribution are examined using the concept of the heap effectiveness factor.
It is shown that heaps operate either "homogeneously," with distribution of reagent throughout
the heap at all times, or in a "zone-wise" manner, depending mostly on a single parameter.
The observed value of this parameter deviates from the predicted value in inverse proportion
to the degree of contact effectiveness between the lixiviant solution and the ore particles. A
rough correlation between the contact effectiveness and Reynolds number is generated from the
simulation of column test results.

I. INTRODUCTION Wadsworth L21 have developed models for large scale

H E A P and dump leaching have become the dominant
modes of treatment for low-grade ores in recent years,
most notably of gold, silver, and copper. The method is
simple, economical, and adaptable to any sized
operation.
Though heap leaching has been a boon to the mining
industry, the process still suffers from its share of prob-
lems and uncertainties. In many cases, extraction of
metal values does not fulfill expectations. Also, many
operators are unable to make sound design decisions or
solve problems which may arise due to insufficient in-
formation about the physical processes occurring within
heaps. In addition, rinsing reagents out of spent ore to
comply with environmental regulations can be costly and
time-consuming, often necessitating long-term remedial
action.
If heap leaching is to have continued success in the
future, not only as a method for leaching low-grade ores
but for other purposes as well, a more sophisticated ap-
proach to design must be developed. The successful de-
velopment of innovative heap leaching technologies,
such as the rapid biological pretreatment of refrac-
tory gold ores, and of better ways to operate and de-
commission existing heaps and dumps will require a
basis in sound engineering principles.
Several mathematical models have been developed for
large-scale coarse ore leaching processes, including heap
and dump leaching, as well as in situ solution mining.
Roman et al.lq and more recently Chae and
DAVID G. DIXON, formerly Doctoral Candidate with the
Department of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Mackay
School of Mines, is now Assistant Professor of Metallurgical
Engineering, Department of Metals and Materials Engineering, The
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4. JAMES
L. HENDRIX, Dean of Mackay School of Mines and Professor of
Chemical Engineering, is with the University of Nevada, Reno, NV
89557.
Manuscript submitted January 11, 1993.
leaching of copper oxides. Both of these models are for
the one-dimensional (l-D) isothermal case and assume
pseudo-steady-state, "shrinking-core" type kinetics at
the particle level.
Notable models of copper sulfide dump leaching pro-
cesses include the work of Harris I3l and Cathles and
co-workers, t4.51The in situ solution mining of copper sul-
fides has recently been modeled by Gao et al. [6'71 With
the exception of Harris, these models all include oxygen
and heat balances in one or two dimensions and assume
particle-level kinetics of the modified shrinking-core or
"reaction-zone" type, as derived by Braun and co-
workers. 18J Bartlett m has derived a particle leaching
model for copper sulfides which does not assume steady
state, but to our knowledge it has not been incorporated
into a model of a large-scale leaching operation.
Much less attention has been focused on the modeling
of precious metals heap leaching. To the authors' knowl-
edge, only one previous attempt has been published to
date, that of Prosser. l~~ His model assumes cyanide ion
as the rate-controlling reagent and shrinking-core type
kinetics as outlined by Box and Prosser. I~zJ
In this study, a general model is derived for applica-
tion to the heap leaching of any porous, low-grade ore
when the rate-controlling reagent is strictly in the
aqueous phase. Incorporated is a general model, fully
developed in a previous article, L~21for solid reactant dis-
solution and diffusion in porous, spherical ore particles
which does not assume steady state. This particular
model then provides the rate term for a global heap-scale
model based on the l-D, plug-flow reactor at unsteady
state. Reduction of the model to dimensionless terms fa-
cilitates the testing of model sensitivity to important
scaleup parameters and the analysis of various leaching
rate regimes. Data from experimental column leaching
of an artificial silver ore with cyanide solution, main-
tained under cyanide ion concentrations low enough to
be rate controlling, are compared to the model, and their
relationship is discussed.

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993-- 1087

 II. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION lixiviant of the heap. Assuming a one-to-one correspon-
dence between moles of solid reactant i and its dissolved
The heap leaching operation is a heterogeneous, non-
species, a mass balance for the dissolved species within
catalytic, fixed-bed reactor operating under unsaturated
the porous sphere is written
flow conditions. Lixiviant solution enters at the top of
the heap and trickles through the interstices of the ore r ozci 20Ci] OCi
particles. Reagents diffuse into the pores and fissures of O i e lL ~ F 2 + -~ ~ F | ~- " ~ - E~ kpif~pfifA = IsO - -
J Ot
the ore particles and are gradually consumed by reaction
with one or more solid reactants. These solids, in turn, where Ci is the concentration of dissolved species i, Die
are gradually dissolved throughout the heap. Based on is the effective diffusivity of the solute within the par-
this physical picture, shown schematically in Figure 1, ticle pores, and all other terms are as previously de-
a global heap model is derived with the following fined, u2j This equation has initial and boundary
assumptions. conditions
(a) The heap leach reactor is essentially an unsteady- Ci(r, O) = 0
state plug flow reactor, i.e., flow of reagents and dis-
solved products occurs only by axial convection with no Ci(R, t) = Ci~
short-circuiting.
(b) All physical parameters within the heap remain uni- OC'(o, t) = 0
form and constant throughout the leach cycle. Or
(c) No inhibition of diffusion into or out of the particles where Cib is the concentration of dissolved species i in
occurs due to dense packing or a stagnant boundary the bulk lixiviant solution external to the ore particle.
layer. Consider a packed bed of porous ore particles of ra-
(d) The heap operates isothermally. dius R through which is passed a lixiviant solution at a
At the particular level, the following assumptions are constant flow rate. Assuming ideal plug flow through the
made bed and ideal mass transfer from the bulk solution into
the pellet pores, the following mass balance may be writ-
(a) The particles are spherical and of uniform size, den- ten for dissolved species i in the bulk lixiviant which
sity, and porosity. accounts for both the intraparticular and panicle surface
(b) All effective diffusivities are constant and uniform. reactions:
(c) Reactive solids are evenly distributed throughout the
pore surfaces of the particle, and their total relative vol-
OC,b 3(1 -- eh) [ e~. /OC,~ ] OC,b
--tl s - - "Jr-- - ksiCsi CAb -- D i e [ - - I I = e~-
ume is insignificant. Oz R L \ Or/r=~J Ot
(d) Dissolution reactions are irreversible, first order in where us is the superficial velocity of lixiviant flow
the concentration of one rate-controlling reagent and through the bed, e h is the void fraction of the bed (not
variable order in the solid concentration of the reactant. including particle pores), and eb is the relative volume
(e) Intraparticular processes are not at steady state. of the bed occupied by bulk lixiviant (generally a small
These assumptions at the particle scale result in the for- number). This equation has initial and boundary
mulation of the general model which is the subject of a conditions
previous article, u21 In addition to the equations derived Cib(z, O) = 0
in that article, it is useful to account for the diffusion of
dissolved products from ore particles and into the bulk Cib(O, t) = 0

ORE PARTICLES
V = (1 - ~).Vb

ENTRAINED AIR
V = (~h - E0.V~

BULK LIXIVIANT
V = ~-V k
C,.(Z,t)
C,,(Z,t)

METAL DEPOSITS:

#o PORE / / ORE MATRIX

v = (1 - ~0-(1 - ~.).vh

PORE S T R U C T U R E
V = (1 - ~b)-~~ b

Fig. 1 --Schematic diagram of a heap.

1088--VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993 METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B

 An analogous mass balance equation for reagent A in In the bulk lixiviant of the heap, the mass balance for
the bulk lixiviant may be written when reagent A is dissolved species i is written
strictly a component of the aqueous phase
O'~ib
OC (1)I ~i t ~ t Ksi Osi l = OXib
30SiOtbJ O0
OCAb 3(1 -- eh) ksiCsi CAb Av Dae
lls
Oz R bi r=R
with initial and boundary conditions
aCAb
-- 6 b - - X,b(L O) = 0
Ot
Xib(O, O) = 0
with initial and boundary conditions The analogous balance equation for a strictly aqueous-
phase reagent A in the bulk lixiviant is written
Cab(Z, O) = 0
Cab(0, t) = CAO ,o + Z =
off k \ a~5/e=, i~, o0

A. T h e M o d e l in D i m e n s i o n l e s s F o r m with initial and boundary conditions

The preceding equations are recast in dimensionless ab(~', O) = 0
form in order to determine the important design param-
eters. In addition to the dimensionless variables defined ,~b(O, O) = I

in a previous article u21 for the particle-scale leaching

model, the following are defined for the global heap B. I m p o r t a n t M o d e l Functionals
model: While the dimensionless model equations involve the
fewest number of parameters, the solutions to these
Ci Cib z Ust equations, in concentration vs heap depth and time, are
Xi -- - - Xib -- ( = - 0 -
b i f Ao biCAo Z ebZ of little use for designing heaps. The functionals which
will prove the most useful include fractional conversion
New dimensionless parameters for the global heap (integrated here over the entire depth of the heap), ex-
model include traction, and heap effectiveness factor.
Once again, fractional conversion represents the frac-
Die eb 3(1 -- 8h)DAeZ tion of e x t r a c t a b l e solid reactant which has been dis-
~i -- V= 03=
D Ae eo(1 -- eh) u,R 2 solved at a given time and is simply the particle
conversion equation u21 integrated over the total depth of
where 6i is a diffusivity ratio of dissolved species i to the heap. For solid reactant i, this is expressed
reagent A, v is the volume ratio of bulk lixiviant to so-
lution held up in particle pores, and w is the ratio of the , ]
porous diffusion rate of reagent A to the axial convection
rate of lixiviant in the heap and corresponds to the in-
verse of the Peclet dimensionless group for mass As in the particle model, X,. takes values from zero to
transfer. one.
In addition to the equations which describe the partic- Extraction of reactant i from the heap represents the
ular leaching model in dimensionless t e r m s , [121 the mass total fraction of extractable reactant i which has issued
balance for dissolved species i within the pores of a par- from the heap at any given time. Except for very short
ticle is written leaching times or in heaps with an unusually high
holdup, extraction takes approximately the same value
- |_-70--~2rxi + 2 ox, ] 31- KpiO.~piPiol~_ 0/~, _ 3 0/~, as conversion as a function of time but may be written
~iL Or r oe J a.c v ~ ao simply as a function of the bulk concentration of dis-
solved species i at the bottom of the heap; thus,
with initial and boundary conditions F 0

x,(~, 0) = 0 Ei = ~iP Jo Xib(l' O) dO

X/(1, r) = Xib Unlike conversion, extraction may be evaluated directly

from chemical analysis of heap effluent and is therefore
OXi a far more convenient measure of heap performance. It
---7(0, "0 = 0
o~ must be emphasized that these functionals are based on
only that amount of reactant which can be obtained from
In all of the particular model equations, the dimension- the heap and not the total grade of the ore.
less diffusion time r must be replaced with the The heap effectiveness factor is defined after Ishida
dimensionless bulk flow time 0 so that the particular and and Wen, u3J analogous to the particle effectiveness fac-
global heap models may be solved with a common time tor, t~2~ as the reaction rate of the entire heap taken as a
variable. fraction of the rate which would be obtained if there

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B V O L U M E 2 4 B , D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 3 - - 1089

were (1) no diffusion limitation into the ore particles and
(2) no convection limitation through the heap; i.e., if the
heap were a stirred tank reactor with reagent concentra-
tion maintained at Ca0. As such, the heap effectiveness
factor may be written by integrating separately both the
numerator and the denominator of the particle effective-
ness factor equation, t~2/For solid reactant i, the resulting
expression takes the form
3Kpi o'~Sa~2d~ 3i- KsiOrsiS*OIb d~
71' : I 1
3Kei '~2dsr + K,~cr,i dff
and, like the particle effectiveness factor, assumes val-
ues between zero and one.
III. NUMERICAL METHODS
Details of the solution of all particle-scale model equa-
tions may be found in a previous article. 1121 All global
heap model equations, including concentration gradients
of reagent and dissolved complexes in the heap bulk so-
lution, are transformed into ordinary differential equa-
tions through the definition of the substantial rate
derivative, t~4J expressed in dimensionless coordinates
D 0
- +
DO 30
This transformation facilitates the mathematical treat-
ment of the global heap model from the Laplacian view-
point, i.e., via the tracking of fluid elements through the
heap. For this, simple backward finite difference ap-
proximations are used: ~lSJ
Du 1 tom to collect and distribute lixiviant. Approximately
(btk,J - - Rk 14)
DO 6~
KU : Kldk_l, j
where k is the heap depth index and j is the time index.
All integrals are evaluated by compound quadrature
formulasJ 161 Integrals over space variables, including
fractional conversion and heap effectiveness, are eval-
uated by Simpson's rule:
f ( x ) dx ~ s~ = ~ [f(xo) + 4f(x~) + 2f(x2) + 4f(x~)
+ . . . + 2f(xM-2) + 4f(x~_,) + f(XM)l
where
b- a
h- , x~=a+jh,
M daily from the bottom of all column sections and ana-
and M is any even integer. Extraction, a time integral,
is solved by the Trapezoid rule:
1 0 9 0 - - V O L U M E 24B, DECEMBER 1993
b h
f ( x ) dx ~- tu = ~ If(x0) + 2f(x0 + 2f(x2)
+ . . . + ef(xN_,) + f(xN)]
where
b-a
h- , xj=a+jh, (O~j<~N)
N
and N is any integer.
The order of solution of the model equations is as fol-
lows: (1) all initial conditions are defined; (2) starting at
time 0 = 0 and heap depth ff = 0, the particle surface
reactant concentrations o-si are determined; (3) the intra-
particular concentration profile of reagent A, a vs ~, is
determined given a value of the time step 60, and these
values are used to solve for the concentration profile of
the dissolved complexes, xi vs so; and (4) the intra-
particular reactant concentrations r are updated. After
the particular model equations have been solved, the par-
ticle surface concentration gradients are calculated, and
these and the surface reactant concentrations are used to
solve the global heap model equations, given a depth
increment 6~, for the bulk solution concentrations of re-
agent A, ab, and the dissolved complexes, Xib, at ~" +
This procedure is repeated until ( = 1; then the model
functionals are calculated, and the process is repeated for
the new time, 0 + ~50.
0
Off IV. EXPERIMENTAL
Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the experi-
mental leaching columns. The tall column was in six
61-cm (2-ft) sections made of transparent acrylic pipe of
9.53-cm (3.75-in.) ID, and the short column comprised
only one section 30-cm (12-in.) long with 6.35-cm
(2.5-in.) ID. All column sections were fitted with plex-
iglas perforated plates and funnels with hoses at the bot-
2 cm of glass wool were packed into the bottom of each
column section to prevent the movement of any fine sol-
ids from one section to another. All column sections
were open at the top.
Initially, the column sections were flushed with water
to wash out any fine material which may have resulted
from packing the ore pellets and to fill the pellet pores
with water. Then, water was pumped into the column,
and the flow rate was adjusted to 3.8 m L / m i n in the tall
column and 4.1 m L / m i n in the short column corre-
sponding to superficial velocities of 8.9 • 10 -4 and
2.2 • 10 -3 c m / s , respectively. Once the flow was
steady, lixiviant was introduced. The lixiviant was a so-
lution of 10 -3 M sodium cyanide, made basic with 10 -3
M sodium hydroxide to prevent the formation of hydro-
gen cyanide gas. Concentration of cyanide was low
enough to ensure kinetic rate control by cyanide ion con-
(O<-j<-M) centration at all times. 117~ Solution samples were taken
lyzed for dissolved silver concentration using atomic ab-
sorption spectrometry.
The ore consisted of artificial pellets containing 95 wt
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B
 i
= Peristaltic pump
I
r

Cyanide
,)
i -

_ _
- ore

glass
wool

solution

E--L___
I - - funnel

waste waste

Short column Tall column

Fig. 2--Schernatic diagram of the experimental apparatus.

pct assay sand, 2 / 3 of which was left coarse and 1/3 calculated from the ore porosity and the column void
which was pulverized fine (to decrease the porosity and fraction, and this was subtracted from the weight of
increase the adhesion of the agglomerates); 5 wt pct water in the column. The volume of the remaining bulk
Type I1 Portland cement, plus pure silver metal powder, water was divided by the volume of the column to obtain
ranging from 4 to 7 /xm in diameter. This mixture was the bulk solution volume fraction. From these tests,
agglomerated with tap water on a disk pelletizer, pro- eh = 0.39 and G = 0.03.
ducing spherical pellets ranging from about 0.5 to 2 cm
in diameter. These were then cured under cover at room V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
temperature for several weeks and became quite hard.
Porosity and density of the ore pellets were deter- A. Computer Simulation: One Solid Reactant
mined as follows. Several pellets were dried, smoothed In order to examine the general behavior of the model,
by rubbing, measured with calipers, and weighed. They the following restrictions were temporarily applied:
were then set in beads of water which was readily ab- (1) only one solid reactant (n = 1), (2) first-order rate
sorbed by capillary action. After a few minutes, they dependence in the solid reactant concentration (~bp = 1),
were dabbed to remove any excess water and weighed and (3) no surface deposits (3. = 0). The diffusion equa-
again. The porosity of each pellet was then determined tion for reagent A now becomes
by calculating the volume of water which was absorbed
and dividing by the calculated volume of the pellet. Ore OPa 2 Oa 3 Oa
-- + ---- Kppa =----
density was determined by dividing the dry weight of O~2 ~ a~ I'~W aO
the pellets by their calculated volume and by one minus
the calculated porosity. From these tests, G = 0.20 + and the rate expression for the disappearance of solid
0.02 and Po = 2.1 --- 0.1 g / c m 3. reactant
Column void fraction and bulk solution volume frac- d%_ Kd3,,o~
tion were determined as follows. An empty column sec- - - o',,c~
dO 3
tion was tared, filled with dried ore pellets, and
weighed. The bulk density was calculated, and the col- The convection equation for reagent A through the heap
umn void fraction was determined by subtracting the is simplified to
ratio of bulk to pellet density from one. The column was
then wetted, left under a steady drip for 1 hour, and Oab w(Oa~ _= Oa___2
weighed again. The amount of water in the pores was o~ \asU~=~ o0

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993--1091

and these three equations have initial and boundary the heap, regardless of the value of Kp. This is as ex-
conditions pected since a low value of xpw suggests a fast convec-
tion rate relative to reaction and, thus, negligible
convection resistance. Hence, at low values of Kpw, the
o~(s~, 0) = 0
global model of the heap is largely unnecessary, and
a(1, 0) = c~ only the particle model is needed to simulate the leach-
ing process.
c~a As to is increased at any value of Kp, the convection
-- ( 0 , 0) = 0
0~ limitation becomes more significant. At Kpto = 10, the
reagent concentration profiles are monotonic, and con-
%(~:, 0 ) = 1 vection through the heap may or may not be the rate-
limiting factor, depending on the actual value of to. At
a~(~', 0) = 0 t%to = 100, the reagent profiles are sigmoidal, with only
a narrow region of the heap under active leach at any
O~b(0, 0) = 1 given time, and the degree of reactant conversion at any
depth parallels the propagation of reagent to that depth.
and require four parameters for their unique solution, Kp, At these parameter values, heap leaching is completely
/3, z,, and to. convection controlled, and one is left with what might
Heap concentration profiles of reagent A (solid curves) be called "shrinking-heap" kinetics.
and fractional conversion profiles of one solid reactant Figure 4 shows plots of the effluent complex concen-
(dotted curves) are presented for all combinations of tration with 6 = 1 (solid curves), overall fractional con-
Kp = 1, 10, and 100 and the product Kpto = l, 10, and version (large dashes), and extraction (small dashes) as
100 at /3 and u = 1 in Figure 3. At Kpto = 1, which functions of flow time for Kp = 1. At /3 = 0.01, the
represents a short heap operating at a high lixiviant flow number of residence times required for complete reac-
rate, reaction occurs at a fairly uniform rate throughout tion is large, and with so much fluid being passed

Xp = 1 Kp = 10 ~:p = 100

1.o &8 = 1 1.0 &O = 1 ~.o &8 = 5

0. . . . . . . . . .

XpW = 1 o,
~ . 0.4
-__ o,
0.4 ......... . . . . - i!
o, .... o, o,

o . o o . o ~ ~ oo o.oo.o.7..r,.r,,,7.,=.r..,7,,=,r,,,_,7..r.,.7...-.
o.2 o.* o.~ o.'8 1.o
lo &8 = 0.1 '~o &O = 0.5

o., ~ o.s

I 0.6 0.6

0.2 0.2

' 0.~1 ' 11' 161~1 ' ' ' ' I ~ . ~ r ' ' ' 'a}~'' ' ' I la' g ' 'I I I ' i ' g 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 " 0.0 0.a 0.~ 016 " 110

A8 = 0.1 AO = 0.1 A0 = 0.1

1.o 1.0

ll~lt II I

i!i
I.

'i!i
0.6
Kp6.) = lOOg
0.4

I 0.2

- i ......... i ......... i ......... ~ ......... f ......... i 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0,6 0.8 1.0
o.o o.z o., o.e o.8 1.o 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Dimensionless depth, ~" Dimensionless depth, r Dimensionless depth, r

Fig. 3 - - S o l u t i o n s to the simplified continuity equations for reagent A in the bulk solution (~b) and the fractional conversion (X) as functions of
heap depth.

1092--VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993 METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B

 1.0 1.0 4
laJ
0.8 b I O, 8 ///'"
/ J
/ /
/
0.6 // / /
/
/ / I ,' ,r = 1
~P=
Xo.4 // ;P =- 0.01 / / 1
/ o~ = I / ,, ~ = 1
I 1 v = 1 /,' u = 1
I / ,'
1 0,2
/
0.0 /,r . . . . . . . f ......... i ....... L,i ......... i ......... o.o ............................
201 401 601 801 1001 1 5 9 13
Dimensionless flow t i m e , 8 Dimensionless flow time, 0

L 1.0 t , - . - 5 : - r----"
/cp = 1 ~ / / ,'"
fl = 1 ,,"
%! ] \/ , 0.8 1 w = 10 / .-/X.'"
~: 4 /'~ xp= 1
%. o.6zl ,/ \ p = O.Ol ~ ! 0.6

,, ~
/ .
o.o ~ 1 ~ ; . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . ~( 0.0 flHrrHi I ,
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3,0 3.5
Dimensionless flow time, 8 Dimensionless flow time, 0

1.0

tJJ / s'
, 0.8 /,//// t-"
, o.a
i
P -- 11 /"/i I

, 0.6 /// ~._J! 0.6

X

///// top = 1
;~110.4 1 0.01 [ / / /t
/
I 0.2 I 0.2
// /2 =
=
// / / /
0.0 0.0 / / /'
1 41 81 121 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Dimensionless flow t i m e , 0 Dimensionless flow time, 0

Fig. 4 - - E f f l u e n t concentration (Xb(1, 0)), fractional conversion (X), and extraction (E) vs dimensionless flow time (0) given various values of
fl and w.

through the heap over the course of the leach cycle, the characteristic delay in attaining peak concentration in all
total holdup of dissolved products is negligible. Hence, heap leaching operations is only significant when the ore
the conversion and extraction curves largely coincide at grade is very low, as in precious metal leaching opera-
all values of Kp and oJ. At KpCO = 1, the effluent con- tions. At KpW = 100 and Kp = 1, both the conversion
centration curve consists of a short peak followed by a and extraction curves are linear, yet nearly half of the
long tail, and the conversion curves are roughly the solid reactant has been converted before any dissolved
shape of exponential response curves, signifying the complex is seen in the heap effluent.
dominant role of particle kinetics. As KpW is increased, The relative magnitudes of convection, diffusion, and
the Xb peak grows taller until, at Kpto = 100, it reaches reaction resistance are most conveniently illustrated in
its maximum value of one and flattens out. Above a cer- semilog plots of heap effectiveness factor v s fractional
tain value of to, the dimensionless flow time for com- conversion, as shown in Figure 5. At low values of to,
plete reaction decreases to its limit, 0 = 1//3v, which is the heap effectiveness factor approaches a limiting value
simply the time required in order to feed a stoichiometric dependent on the particle kinetics, u2] As to is increased,
amount of reagent to the heap. The conversion curve is the effectiveness drops until, at approximately Kpto =
a straight line, since the rate of propagation of the re- 100, the ineffective character of the bulk flow process
action zone through the heap is constant at d ~ x / d O ~- ~3to dominates, obscuring any effects at the particle level.
( e . g . , the bottom left comer of Figure 3). This happens irrespective of the reagent concentration of
At /3 = 1, the overall flow times are much shorter, the incoming fluid.
and a "chromatographic effect" due to the high diffusion Relaxing the restriction of no surface deposits and also
driving force at the beginning of the leach cycle results assuming first-order rate dependence at the surface, the
in significant holdup. This effect which causes the surface rate expression becomes

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993-- 1093

 X 1.0 1.0

2-
~ 0.8
0"~. 4
~--0.1
0.2 0
0.1 :? 0.1 0.1 ,=-='s'7-"~Z >~0.6
S-

4-
0 0.4
2-

=
a-

h--p = 1 O0
//// u-1
0.01
0.0 0.5 1.0
0.01
0.0
Fractional
0.5 1.0
conversion, X
0.01
0.0
.... i , , , ,
0.5 1.0
--~0.2
o.1
L_ 0.0 i i i i 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i J i i i i
Fig. 5 - Heap effectiveness factor (-q) v s fractional conversion (X) for b_ 2 3 4 5
the continuity equation solutions shown in Figure 3.
Dimensionless flow time, O
1.0
do"s K~Bvto X
- - O'sa b
dO 3h ~0.8
~
0
and the intraparticular rate expression becomes CO
L.-
X = I

00.6
do'p __ KpflVW
>
c- X= 0
- - O'pO~
dO 3(1 - A) o
o 0.4
These equations have the following initial conditions: 1D
t---
'-11oo
~({:, 0 ) = l ,--
0 0.2
-11
o~,(~r,o) = 1 0

0.0 i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I 0 i i i

Since it has already been determined that surface de- I, 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 39
posits have little or no effect on the kinetics of particles Dimensionless flow time, 0
with low Kp,t]2j this study only examines the case when
Fig. 6--Fractional conversion (X) vs dimensionless flow time (0)
this parameter is high and particle kinetics are diffusion given various surface fractions (h).
controlled. Figure 6 shows the effect o f various surface
fractions h on the rate o f reactant conversion from the
same particles in two different heap simulations. Higher of a valuable mineral component, l~2] Computer simula-
surface fractions result in much faster conversion rates tion of the particle model showed how the presence o f
at to = 0.1 but have little impact at to = 1. At low to, a reactive gangue material may push the otherwise
kinetics at the particle level control the entire process, highly effective reaction o f a valuable component into a
so the leaching rate is strongly enhanced by higher sur- much less effective regime and how the overall process
face fractions. At the higher to, however, the character- may approach a near-steady state. Figure 8 shows the
istic contours o f the particle kinetics all but disappear as concentration gradients o f reagent A and one solid reac-
the rate of bulk flow through the heap becomes rate tant with Kp~ = 1,/31 = 1, and ~bp~ = 2 / 3 with no surface
controlling. deposits in a heap at w = 1 and v = 1. A value of
Similar results are obtained by varying the reaction ~bpt = 2 / 3 implies that solid reactant 1 is present as dis-
order ~bp, as shown in Figure 7. For these plots, a low creet spherical blebs. In one simulation, reactant 1 is
value o f Kp for the particles is assumed since reaction alone, and in the other, it is accompanied by a reactive
order is only a factor in systems under chemical reaction gangue material with Kp2 = 10, f12 = 0.01, and thp2 =
control, t~21 Again, the effect is greater at low values of 0, also with no surface deposits. At these parameter val-
to, especially at the beginning o f the leach cycle. How- ues, identical to those chosen in the previous article, it
ever, the suppression of particle kinetics at the higher is assumed that there is 100 times more solid reactant 2
value o f to is less pronounced, since a higher reaction than 1 but that its intrinsic dissolution rate is 10 times
order tends to widen the active reaction zone in the heap, slower. Also, a value o f thp2 = 0 implies that the gangue
A~"x, resulting in a net increase o f heap effectiveness with material forms an even coating over the internal surfaces
reaction order. of the particle, or perhaps it is the ore matrix material 9
Alone, reactant 1 dissolves effectively throughout the
B. Computer Simulation: Competing Solid Reactants heap, and the reagent gradients are insignificant. In the
presence of solid reactant 2, however, the reaction shifts
In a previous article, it was shown that the presence more toward the top o f the heap, and the reagent gra-
of one or more competing reactants within porous ore dients are steep, with ab < 0.12 at the bottom 9 In ad-
particles can significantly alter the kinetics o f conversion dition, the reagent gradients within the heap approach a

1094--VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993 METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B

 t.0 A as a function of particle radius and heap depth is now
X
easily obtained and takes the form
~ 0.8 sinh (~f~Kp2~) .,-ir
e sc~0
~: sinh (~p~p2)
~ 0.6

e ~=0
tO 0.4 sinh ('V~p2)
where
-~00.2 X~p2 - tanh (V~.2)
y=
tanh (X~p2)
L 0.0
14_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The concentration of solid reactant 1 is expressed
Dimensionless flow time, e
1.0
X c,ff, (, 0) = 3

~ 0 . 8
exp ( - KP~C33'v~~(~, ~0 ) ~, =

.~0.6

g / ~p = 2.0
For our test situation, these equations become

--O~(ff, ~ 5~ 0) =
sinh ( X / ~ )
e -217~

//
0 0.4
11.8~:
a(~', ~ = O) = 0.268e -217~
0 0.2
Orb(( = 1) = 0.114
(]
L 0.0
tJ_ 2 3 4 o-p,(~, ~, 0) = 1 -
Dimensionless flow time, (3
Fig. 7 - - F r a c t i o n a l conversion (X) v s dimensionless flow time (0)
given various orders of reaction (~bp). The conversion curves for reactant 1 both within and
without the presence of reactant 2 are shown in Figure 9.
As expected, the conversion when n = 2 is significantly
delayed relative to when n = 1. The effect of the second
steady state, just as they do within the pores of the in- reactant on the heap effectiveness factor of the first reac-
dividual particles. Hence, the conversion kinetics of tant rh is illustrated in Figure 10. When n = 2, the
reactant 1 could be approximately described in this case r h - X1 curve does not approach unity near complete
by a steady-state solution for reagent A, using only the conversion, identical to the particle model alone, uzl
parameters for reactant 2. As outlined in the previous However, in a very ineffective (high to) heap, this would
article, the diffusion equation for reagent A becomes the not necessarily be the case, since the second reactant
spherical Bessel equation would have to be depleted at every depth before the re-
action zone could move downward into fresh ore. Under
O2ct 2 d a these extreme circumstances, the time for total dissolu-
d~ 2 + ~ dE Kp20g 0 tion of reactant 1 (or any other minor constituent) would
be 0 ~ 1//32v.
coupled with the mass-action rate expression for
reactant 1 C. Computer Simulation: an Approach for Particle
Size Distributions
dOrpl Kpl/~ 1b'to
- - r
~pl
~ In a previous article, uzj the particular leaching model
dO 3 was solved for a distribution of particle sizes based on
the Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann distribution function. In
Additionally, the heap convection equation for reagent this study, these results are applied to the global heap
A becomes model, albeit limiting our discussion to ore with no sig-
nificant surface deposits.
OOfb /O( 00~ If a dimensionless particle radius is defined as
--+ =0
R
_,~=--
An analytical expression for the concentration of reagent

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993--1095

 1.0 x 1.o

X go.8 n = 1

I 0.8 "~ n = 2

I ~0.6
I
i 0.6 o
0.4
~// ~; = 1 ~2 = o . o l
o, o = =o

0.2 L~_ o.o

1 21 41 61

Dimensionless flow time, 0

O.O Fig. 9 - - F r a c t i o n a l conversion of solid reactant 1 (XO v s dimension-
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 less flow time (0) for the sytems s h o w n in Figure 11.

Dimensionless depth, {"

1.0
7 \~ "- "- - -, "-> "-'~ ~- ~--~
X "1" .k\\" "- ~ - -, " , " " - ~ " ".q'-~"~-
1 ~,kk x \ x \\\'-\\,~k.~.
I 0.8-t, \~ \ ", \ \ \ " . \ \ ,',,,\~.,
-I".XXX" " ,,\ ,, ,,', \ \ - .,,,,,,x ~..
I 7 ".'k~ \ \ \ \ \ \ " 2. \ " .'- \\'~ ~. 8-
l "\~ " " ", " ,, ",." "-'-" ",.,.,.":
I, 0.6
3"
j \
~.~\ \
\ - , ~ ,,
\
\
\ ", . , . \ \ \ ' , \ ~ \ .
\ \ \\\ \\ ,,
7-
-I \ \%.~ \ \ \ \ \\\.x\ \ n = 1
4 " N'%. \. \ ",\ \\'\
4 "" \ ' ~ \ \ \\ -.\\ 8-
g 0.4 J \ \ ~. \ \ \ \ \x
J'~ \\ ~ \ \ .,\ \
J ~ -.\ ~. -, ~ ~
5-

0.2 ~ ~ C
o
4-
0
0
0.0 --I ' | I | | i I i' , I i , i i I i i i i I i , i ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 tO
01
Dimensionless depth, (D
C

Fig. 8 - - S o l u t i o n s to th, continuity equations for reagent A (~b) and >

fractional conversion of reactant 1 (X0, alone (n = 1) and in the pres- 0

ence of a second reactant (n = 2). Kpl = 1, ~1 = l , ~pl = 2 / 3 , (D
Kp2 = 10, /32 = 0.01, ~p2 = 0, ~o = 1, V = 1, and A0 = 1. 4.-
(D

2-It \n =2
13
where/~ is some reference radius, then for any normal- (D

ized weight fraction distribution of particles w(.~)

-1-
; pll = 11
~opl = 2/3
~mi[ X W ( ~ ) dE = 1

= 101
where E.,~, and ~=m~• are the minimum and maximum
dimensionless particle radii, respectively. Assuming the 99p2 = 0
simplest case of no mineral liberation upon comminu-
0.1
tion, as in the previous article, and also ignoring surface I'}w = 1 ~= 1
deposits, the rate constant Kei, the diffusion time r, and
the global heap parameter ~o will vary as functions of " ,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,
particle size; thus,
0.0 0.5 1.0
Fractional conversion, Xl
Kp~-- ~2gpi r =2_ oJ =2 Fig. 1 0 - - H e a p effectiveness factor (Th) v s fractional conversion of
solid reactant 1 (Xt) for the systems s h o w n in Figure 11.

1096--VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993 METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B

where Kpi, Z, and o3 apply to the reference particles. Sub- ~1.0 ;f -%
stitution of these altered parameters into the particular - m = oo
leaching equations allows one to solve the particle model ~-- ""., m = 1
for a range of particle sizes E based on the parameters
from the reference size E = 1. In order to gage the effect
"-s163 ~ 1 / ' - - - ~ ' , ,
?
- = 10

X I ~__1 ~ ~ ~ = lo v = 0.1
1
that a distribution of particle sizes will have on the heap {jO.6
leaching process as a whole, the convection equations
must be altered. Employing the GGS distribution, uS/ o
these take the form 0 0.4

OXib OXib lZmax (

__
a0
+ _ _

O~
r
_ o3 ax, w(E)
J-=m,, \0~:/~=, - -E- T d E
02 ;1 o, ",

= -o3 \ a~:]r m E m-3 dE

"~o.o i i i i i i i i

6
i i i i i i i i i i

11
i i :,%, I l i

16
i i i i ""7"~
i i i

21
-~'-- 26
i I I I I I I l I TI

Dimensionless flow time, 0

r~,1.0
-30
-+ 3( - ~ J-zm~. t-0-~) ~=t E2 dE t /f'---~ -\. m = oo
~1! \,, m=1
f(0o)
= - w Jo \ a U e = , mE~-3 dE
"~0.8
~]-,
,~ \ '? = ~
\l
~0 = 1oo
fl = 0.1

where m is a parameter of the GGS distribution and the

initial and boundary conditions are the same as before.
Likewise, the fractional conversion becomes

X,---- 3
L Lfo m~, m l(1 - ~e,)~2dMEd~ ~0.2
~.

"oo
~ = 0.01

;_ii 55-;;
"~._ -~_

and the heap effectiveness factor, in the absence of sur-

1 11 21 31
face deposits, is written as
Dimensionless flow time, 0
Fig. l 1--Effluent concentration (Xb(l, 0)) vs dimensionless flow
m_ o'pf'a~ d~d-dff time (0) given various values of o3, for a single particel size (m = ~)
JO dO dO
and a GGS distribution (m = 1).
~i ~
LLfom~m+'o'~/"2d'd~d'
1 1 1

GGS distribution parameter m is based on a random

Figure 11 shows plots of effluent dissolved species con-
centration vs dimensionless flow time calculated for both
a particle size distribution (m = 1, dashed curves) and
the reference size alone (m = ~, solid curves). As would
be expected, the difference between the two situations
is larger at Kp = 100 than at Kp = 10, since particle size
has more bearing on the reaction rate at larger Kp values.
The effect is obscured at high ca values, since the ef-
fluent concentration is already at or near its upper limit.
At low ca values, the xb(l, 0) curves are simply a little
higher in the size distributed system than in the isometric
one. The most drastic difference is at moderate ca values,
where the entire shape of the effluent response may be
dramatically altered.
D. Experimental Column Leaching Tests
Table I summarizes all of the parameters for five col-
umn leaching tests, the results of which are shown in
Figures 12 through 16. All of these parameters were
either measured directly or calculated from known val-
ues, unless otherwise noted. Values of Da~, kp, and &p
were determined in separate batch kinetics tests. The
surface fraction h was taken as zero. The value of the
sample of 100 pellets from column test 2 and assumed
valid for the other tests. In all of the tests, o3 is treated
as an empirical parameter chosen on the basis of the best
fit of the experimental data. This value is denoted o3app,
and the value predicted from theory for comparison is
denoted o3p,.
The "expected" values of CAO and C~ resulted from
adding known amounts of sodium cyanide and silver
powder to the lixiviant solution and the ore pellets, re-
spectively, while the "observed" values were derived
from the effluent responses of the individual column
tests. Hence, for the model fits, 100 pct extraction was
based on the observed values of Ceo in order that the
extraction integrals of the data and the simulations be
equal. "Actual" extractions ranged from 80.9 pct in the
tall column (test 1) to 98.3 pct in the low-grade pellet
test (test 5) and were a function of pellet grade and par-
ticle size. The parameter/3 was calculated based on the
observed values, while gp was based on the expected
values.
Effluent profiles from the tall column test (test 1) are
shown in Figure 12. This column simulates an in-
effective heap (Figure 17), since the effluent response is
at the maximum value of Xb(1, 0) = 1 over most of the

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993-- 1097

 Table I. P a r a m e t e r V a l u e s for the C o l u m n L e a c h i n g Tests (All Units in the cgs S y s t e m )
b = 0.5 eh = 0 . 3 9
DA, = 2.35" 10 -6 eo = 0 . 2 0
ko = 3 . 7 6 - 1 0 7 v = 0.246
m=6 po=2.1
= 1 (assumed) ~bp = 2
~:b = 0 . 0 3

Column Column Column Column Column

Parameters Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
Ca0 " 106 (exp) 1 1 1 1 1
Cao" 106 (obs) 0.91 1 1 1 1
Cp0" I0 6 (exp) 6.34 6.34 6.34 6.34 0.634
Cp0" l06 (obs) 5.13 5.60 5.26 6.05 0.623
NRe 0.117 0.288 0.358 0.218 0.288
/q 0.655 0.655 0.814 0.496 0.655
u~.- 103 0.89 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
Z 366 30 30 30 30
flt*i 0.0106 0.0106 0.0113 0.0098 0.0955
/~p{**l 930 930 1430 530 9.3
a3~pp 1.1 O. 10 0.071 O. 13 O. 10
a3p, 4.12 O. 137 0.089 0.238 O. 137
*Based on observed values.
**Based on expected values.

"' 9 ( = 1/6 ILlo0 1.0

ooooo 1/,3
,mii. 1/.2
uuuuu 2/3 Column test 1 0 0.8
i..** 5/6 0
AAAAA 1 0 . . . . . . . . .

M o d e l fit: 06 \ / = 93o
#p = 9 5 0 , /3 = 0 . 0 1 0 6 ~" ~/ ~o=2
rpp = 2, v = 0 . 2 4 6 V F= o.olo6
~= 1.1, m = 6 o.4 _/k, ~ = o.1oo
1.o 9 ~ . . . . . Izi" ""ig~--A"
9 0.2

0.8 i [] 9 f
9 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;.0. .1. . . . . . I'061 1501i. . . . . . . =~;'~
0.6 i Dimensionless flow time, e
Fig. 1 3 - - E f f l u e n t and extraction data from column leaching test 2.
d~
o.4 , X~ _\'-
IJl 1.0
o
O
o
0,0 I I I I I I

1O0
I I i I I I I I I

200
I I 1 1 1

,300
I

400
o 0.8 \
0
j . . . . . . . . .

Dimensionless flow time, 0 0.6 \ / E~ = 14~o

Fig. 1 2 - - E f f l u e n t concentration and extraction data from column % / # = o.o115
leaching test 1.
~, 0.4 V ~ -- 0.071
><
leach cycle. The apparent value o f o3 is 1.1, while the
9 0.2
predicted value is 4.12. This large disparity is most
likely due to a combination o f nonideal flow patterns
(i.e., rivulet flow and stagnant zones) within the column 9 0.0 ...... , ,501
i ......... i .... ,,,,,1510 .1. . . . . . .
and to the blinding o f pellet surfaces due to close pack- 1001 2001
ing. The former would have the effect of increasing the Dimensionless flow time, e
local bulk fluid velocity in some regions, leaving others Fig. ] 4 - - E f f l u e n t concentration and extraction data from column
accessible only by dispersion along pellet interstices. leaching test 3.

1098-- VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993 METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B

ILl 1.0
I o- f
0
0
0 0.8
6
0
0 5

0.6 ~, p z, = 53o 4
(E) I -\./ #p = 2
, 8 = 00_o98 3-
,,~. 0.4 / \ ~ = o.15o
2-

~0,2
I,,,-
o
9 0.0 0 0.1
501 1001 1501 2061 0 B- (Test 4)
Dimensionless flow time, 0 7-
CO 6-
Fig. 15--Effluent and extraction data from column leaching test 4. 0
C
5- (Test 2)
0 4-
>

0.20 1.0
O 0 3-
O 4-- (Test 3)
.0.8 0
2-
(1) 0.15 'o 0
0-
0
0
"~ \ o/ - ~0 = 9.3 .0.0 o r"
;~<0.10 \ / ~p = 2 ___ 0
9 ~k/_ /9"= 0 0 9 5 5 o 0.01
9 .~X" ~ = 0.100 0.4
9 rT]
7-
9 0.05
-0.2 6-
sJ
0,00 ........ t . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . 0.0
, 1)
201 401 601 801 1001
Dimensionless flow time, 0 3-

Fig. 16--Effluent concentration and extraction data from column

leaching test 5. 2 J I i ! I ; I I"] I I I i I ! ! I I I

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fractionol conversion, X
The latter would cause a decrease in the effective par- Fig. 1 7 - - H e a p effectiveness factor (rl) vs fractional conversion (X)
ticle size. Both would account for the observed defi- for the model simulations of the experimental column leaching tests.
ciency in o3, resulting in apparently higher column
effectiveness while obscuring the effects of kinetics at
the particle level. heap leaching operations from column tests, some sort
Figures 13 through 15 show effluent response and ex- of correlation between the theoretical p l u g - f l o w mode/
and the actual flow patterns within the heap is necessary.
traction curves for three short column tests (tests 2
through 4). Each involve the same grade of ore pellets Assuming this correlation to be a function of such factors
at test 1 but at three different particle sizes. As shown as bulk flow rate, particle size, reagent diffusivity, sur-
in Figure 17, these columns simulate fairly effective face tension, e t c . , it may take the general form
heaps based on the shape of the effluent response curves. o3app = f(o3pr, NRe, Nsc, Nwe, m .... )
Again, however, the apparent values of o3 fall short of where NRe, Nsc, and Nwe are Reynolds, Schmidt, and
the predicted values but not by as large a margin as in Weber numbers, respectively, m is a parameter of the
the tall column test. Finally, the results of a short col- size distribution, e t c . There is the opportunity, in
umn test with low-grade pellets (test 5) are shown in the present study, of analyzing only the effect of the
Figure 16. At the same 03 value as for test 2, the model Reynolds number, since the same ore type and reagent
fits the data quite well, even though the kinetics within species were used in all of the tests. Satterfield, Hgl in a
the pellets of test 5 are mostly reaction rate controlled review of the literature on the performance of catalytic
while those of test 2 are diffusion controlled. The sim- trickle-bed reactors, defines the "contact effectiveness"
ulated extraction curve ends up significantly lower than as the ratio of the apparent to the predicted mass transfer
the data, but this is probably as much the result of ex- coefficient and suggests a relationship, derived by
perimental error as of any physical phenomenon. Bondi, t2~ of the form
Overall, the results of these column leaching tests at-
test to the validity of the plug-flow modeling approach. k~P----ZP= 1 - a L -b
However, in order to predict the performance of actual kpr

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993-- 1099

 1.0
particles. It is shown that the heap undergoes homo-
geneous, high effectiveness kinetics for w ~ 1, zone-
wise "shrinking-heap" kinetics for 6o >> 1, and one or
0.8 the other when o~ ~ 1, depending on the value of Kp.
Factors which affect kinetics at the particle level, such
as deposits of solid reactants on the external ore surfaces
and the variable order of reaction, are shown to have a
I# 0.6 significant effect on the rate of heap leaching only in
heaps with low 6o values. All kinetic resistances at the
g_ particle level are overshadowed by the bulk convection
o4 resistance in high 6o heaps.
It is also shown that a second solid reactant competing
for reagent can decrease the reaction rate of the first
reactant, and if a zero-order reaction may be assumed
0.2 for a major reactant (i.e., a gangue material), then an
analytical, steady-state solution to the model equations
for any minor reactant is straightforward.
0.0 The model is also capable of simulating the heap
0.1 leaching of particles with a distribution of sizes. Particle
NRe size distribution has the greatest effect in heaps with low
to moderate 6o values and only when particle-level ki-
Fig. 1 8 - - C o n t a c t effectiveness (aT,pp/aT~) vs Reynolds number (NRc) netics are diffusion controlled.
from the experimental column leaching tests. Results of experimental column leaching tests at a
range of parameter values confirm the appropriateness
of the plug-flow approach to the global heap model,
where the k's are mass transfer coefficients, L is the even though the underlying assumptions might not be
mass flow rate, and a and b are constants. Modifying completely valid. The model provides an excellent fit to
this general form to accommodate our parameters and the experimental data if ~o is treated as an empirical pa-
defining the Reynolds number as
rameter. It is shown that the apparent and predicted val-
ues of 6o may be correlated with Reynolds number,
2Rusp indicating that the deviations from ideality are largely a
N Re ~" - -

tx matter of fluid mechanics.

where p and /x are the solution density and viscosity,

respectively, our experimental results are found to ap- NOMENCLATURE
proximate the correlation
bi stoichiometry number, mol i / m o l A
CA concentration of reagent A, mol A/cm}
O~app
= 1 - 0.066 NRe115 C~b bulk concentration of reagent A, mol A/cm~
O~pr initial extractable grade of solid reactant i,
CEiO
mol i/g ore
This result is shown graphically in Figure 18. Ob-
viously, a value of one on the ordinate represents a sit- Ci concentration of dissolved species i, mol
uation in which all of the assumptions which went into
i/cm}
the derivation of the global heap model are valid. Cor- Cib bulk concentration of dissolved species i,
respondingly, a heap with a serious short-circuiting mol i/cm}
problem would approach an ordinate value of zero in grade of solid reactant i within particle, tool
Figure 18. Thus, it makes sense for the curve to ap- i/g ore
proach an ordinate value of one asymptotically with in- c~,0 initial grade of solid reactant i within
creasing Reynolds number, since faster flow rates (us) particle, mol i/g ore
coupled with smaller specific particle area (3//~) would Csi grade of solid reactant i on particle surface,
facilitate a more even distribution of lixiviant over par- mol i/g ore
ticle surfaces. While certainly not enough data have been Csio initial grade of solid reactant i on particle
analyzed here to develop an empirical correlation with a surface, mol i/g ore
wide range of applicability, at least the method of ap- OAe effective pore diffusivity of reagent A,
proach suggests an excellent avenue for future study. cm}/cm~ s
Die effective pore diffusivity of dissolved species
i, cm~/cm~ s
VI. CONCLUSIONS Ei extraction of dissolved species i,
dimensionless
The proposed model is capable of simulating the heap rate constant of solid reactant i within
leaching of one or more solid reactants from porous ore particle, mol i/g ore s [Cp]e~[CA]

1100--VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993 METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B

ks, rate constant of solid reactant i on particle ~- dimensionless diffusion
surface, mol i/cm2p s [Cs] 6 [CA] time
m Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann size distribution thei reaction order for solid
parameter, dimensionless reactant i within particle,
n number of solid reactants dimensionless
N~e pellet flow Reynolds number, dimensionless thsi reaction order for solid
F radius, cm reactant i on particle
R particle radius, cm surface, dimensionless
t time, s Xi dimensionless
Us superficial bulk flow velocity, cm}/cm 2 s concentration of dissolved
w Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann size distribution species i
function, dimensionless X~ dimensionless bulk
Xi fractional conversion of solid reactant i, concentration of dissolved
dimensionless species i
z depth, cm o~ inverse modified Peclet
Z heap depth, cm number, dimensionless

Greek letters Subscripts

a dimensionless A reagent A
concentration of reagent b bulk solution external to
A particles
ab dimensionless i reactant species i
concentration of reagent h heap
A external to particle o ore matrix
fli reagent strength p within particle
parameter relative to solid s on particle surface
reactant i, dimensionless X at constant X
"y modulus in steady-state
model
6,- ratio of diffusivity of
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
dissolved species i to
reagent A, dimensionless The authors acknowledge the financial support of the
eb bulk solution volume United States Bureau of Mines under the Mining and
fraction Mineral Resources Institute Program (G 1114132).
eh heap void fraction
eo ore porosity
~" dimensionless depth REFERENCES
~7i effectiveness factor for
solid reactant i, 1. R.J. Roman, B.R. Benner, and G.W. Becker: Trans. AIME,
1974, vol. 256, pp. 247-52.
dimensionless 2. D.G. Chae and M.E. Wadsworth: In Situ Recovery of Minerals,
0 dimensionless flow time K.R. Coyne and J.B. Hiskey, eds., Engineering Foundation,
Kp~ Damk6hler II number for New York, NY, 1989, pp. 1-21.
solid reactant i within 3. J.A. Harris: Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., 1969, No. 230,
particle, dimensionless pp. 81-92.
4. L.M. Cathles and J.A. Apps: Metall. Trans. B, 1975, vol. 6B,
Ks~ Darnk6hter II number for pp. 617-24.
solid reactant i on particle 5. L.M. Cathles and W.J. Schlitt: Leaching and Recovering Copper
surface, dimensionless from As-Mined Materials, SME-AIME, New York, NY, 1980,
A~ surface fraction of solid pp. 9-27.
reactant i, dimensionless 6. H.W. Gao, H.Y. Sohn, and M.E. Wadsworth: Metall. Trans. B,
1983, vol. 14B, pp. 541-51.
v ratio of volume of bulk 7. H.W. Gao, H.Y. Sohn, and M.E. Wadsworth: Metall. Trans. B,
fluid to fluid in particle 1983, vol. 14B, pp. 553-58.
pores, dimensionless 8. R.L. Braun, A.E. Lewis, and M.E. Wadsworth: Metall. Trans.,
dimensionless radius 1974, vol. 5, pp. 1717-26.
dimensionless particle 9. R.W. Bartlett: Int. Syrup. on Hydrornetallurgy, D.J.I. Evans
and R. Shoemaker, eds., A1ME, New York, NY, 1973,
radius
pp. 331-74.
Po ore density, g / c m 3 10. A.P. Prosser: Precious Metals "89, M.C. Jha and S.D. Hill, eds.,
~pi dimensionless grade of TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1988, pp. 121~35.
solid reactant i within 11. J.C. Box and A.P. Prosser: Hydrometallurgy, 1986, vol. 16,
particle pp. 77-92.
12. D.G. Dixon and J.L. Hendrix: Metall. Trans. B, 1993, vol. 24B,
o-si dimensionless grade of
pp. 157-69.
solid reactant i on particle 13. M. Ishida and C.Y. Wen: AIChE J., 1968, vol. 14 (2),
surface pp. 311-17.

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993-- 1101

14. R.B. Bird, W.E. Stewart, and E.N. Lightfoot: Transport
Phenomena, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1960,
pp. 73-74.
15. G.D. Smith: Numerical Solution of Partial Differential
Equations, Oxford University Press, London, 1965, pp. 17-23.
16. S. Yakowitz and F. Szidarovszky: An Introduction to Numeri-
cal Computations, Macmillan, New York, NY, 1989,
pp. 197-214.
1102--VOLUME 24B, DECEMBER 1993
17. F. Habashi: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 59,
Butte, MT, 1967.
18. R. Schuhmann: Trans. SME-AIME, 1960, vol. 241, pp. 22-25.
19. C.N. Satterfield: AIChE J., 1975, vol. 21 (2), pp. 209-28.
20. A. Bondi: Chem. Tech., 1971, Mar., p. 185.
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS B