Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Crushed ore agglomeration and its control for heap leach operations
Nikhil Dhawan, M. Sadegh Safarzadeh, Jan D. Miller ⇑, Michael S. Moats, Raj K. Rajamani
Department of Metallurgical Engineering, College of Mines and Earth Sciences, University of Utah, 135 South 1460 East, Room 412, William C. Browning Building, Salt Lake City,
UT 84112-0114, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Based on the extensive experience of heap leaching operations, crushed ore agglomeration can be suc-
Received 31 May 2012 cessfully considered and utilized as a pretreatment step for the heap leaching of ores containing signif-
Accepted 15 August 2012 icant amounts of fines and clay minerals. The drum agglomeration is considered as a pretreatment step
Available online 7 December 2012
for the heap leaching of copper and gold ores whereas the agglomeration of uranium and nickel ores has
received less attention over the past years. The acceptance of binder application for acidic leaching sys-
Keywords: tems is limited primarily due to the lack of acid-tolerant binders. The use of binder depends mainly upon
Heap leach
the cost considerations, impact on recovery and safe practice. Of equal importance are the quality control
Agglomeration
Binder
and characterization tools for the agglomerates to ensure better heap performance. This paper attempts
Quality control tools to provide a concise overview of available quality control and characterization tools for crushed ore
Characterization agglomeration with industrial examples from the gold, copper, nickel and uranium operations. Conse-
quently, different agglomeration-heap leaching systems and their differences are summarized. The
requirements for effective agglomeration, characteristics for an ideal agglomerate and integrated flow-
sheet of crushed ore agglomeration-heap leaching system are discussed.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2. Crushed ore agglomeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3. Agglomeration mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4. Inadequate agglomeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5. Curing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6. Binders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7. De-sliming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
8. The role of comminution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
9. Quality control (QC) and characterization tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
9.1. Particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9.2. Permeability (hydraulic conductivity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9.3. Electrical conductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.4. Visual inspection (glove test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.5. Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.6. Barney’s Canyon test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.7. Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.8. Leaching strength of agglomerates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.9. Attrition test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.10. Shatter drop test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.11. Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.12. Percolation flood column test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.13. Hydrodynamic column test (HCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.14. Geotechnical test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.15. Kappes percolation test (slump test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 801 5815160; fax: +1 801 5814937.

E-mail address: jan.miller@utah.edu (J.D. Miller).

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2012.08.013
54 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70

9.16. Long-term leach pilot scale test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

9.17. Heap test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.18. Summary of quality control tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10. Commercial agglomeration for heap leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11. Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
12. Ideal agglomerate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
13. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

1. Introduction stacking and drop off from conveyors before being actually placed
on heaps (Herkenhoff and Dean, 1987).
Heap leaching is one of the hydrometallurgical processes that The present paper aims to deliver the recent trends in the
can and has served as an economical process option for the treat- crushed ore agglomeration of copper, nickel, gold and uranium
ment of complex ores such as copper, uranium, nickel, silver and ores. The industrial agglomeration practice for copper and precious
gold ores. Several heap leach operations have experienced prob- metal ores, type and size of agglomeration equipment (Bouffard,
lems associated with poor recovery due to percolation issues 2005; Moats and Janwong, 2008), drums (design, selection and
caused by low-grade complex ores, tailings and clayey deposits. power requirements) for crushed ore agglomeration process
Poor percolation can lead to low metal extraction due to solution (Miller, 2010) and binder (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008,
channeling or the development of impermeable (dead) zones with- 2009b) have already been discussed in detail. Hence, these topics
in the heap (Kappes, 2005; Schlitt, 1992). will not be given much consideration in this paper.
Improper heap building practice was one of the main reasons
for percolation issues. During the transport of ore material, severe 2. Crushed ore agglomeration
segregation of material can occur. Generally, the coarse ore tends
to stay on the outside of the piles and fine materials tend to remain Crushed ore agglomeration has two major aims. First, it is the
as an inner core as shown in Fig. 1. The segregation causes poor best opportunity for the thorough application of the leaching solu-
bulk percolation and poor ore permeability (Chamberlin, 1986). tion prior to building the heap and ‘‘kick starting’’ the leaching pro-
The clay content must be low enough so that permeability in a cess itself (Bouffard, 2005; Dhawan et al., 2012a; Kodali et al.,
heap can be maintained (Potter, 1981). 2011a; Purkiss and Anthony, 2004). For example, sulfuric acid
To overcome percolation problems, a major improvement was (for copper, nickel and uranium) or cyanide solution (for gold
made with the introduction of agglomeration prior to ore place- and silver) are added to the agglomeration solution to improve
ment. If the ore particles and/or agglomerates are of similar size, the leaching rate from low grade ores (Bouffard, 2005; Kodali
segregation can be avoided to a great extent (Heinen, 1980; Her- et al., 2011a; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009a,b; Lu et al.,
kenhoff and Dean, 1987; Kinard and Schweizer, 1987; McClelland 2007). Second, the addition of a leaching solution facilitates
et al., 1985). Agglomeration improves the uniform percolation of
solution through the heaps of ore and is applicable to many ores,
wastes and milled tailings (Bouffard, 2005; Dhawan et al., 2012a;
Mining
Dorey et al., 1988; Heinen, 1980; Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandow- 6%
ski and Kawatra, 2009a; McClelland, 1986; Moats and Janwong, 7% Crushing
2008; Southwood, 1985). 4% 26% Agglomeration/Stacking
The term agglomeration is a deceptive term in particle technol- Leach operations
ogy. In the case of fine powders (less than 10 lm), particle adhe- 4%
Recovery plant
sion/agglomeration may occur due to attractive surface forces;
whereas, in the case of larger particles, adhesion forces must be Site maintenance
produced by the addition of liquids/binders to obtain stable and Reagents
strong agglomerates as is the case in heap leaching operations 17%
18% Closure
(Kodali et al., 2011a). In contrast, during many bulk solids process-
ing and handling operations, such as size reduction (e.g. roller Support
pressing and HPGR), mixing, separation by screening, conveying 4%
and storage, unwanted agglomeration can occur and cause prob- 14%
lems (Pietsch, 2005). A wide feed size distribution is not ideal for
consistent high quality agglomerates, when it is known that Fig. 2. Heap leach operating cost distribution plotted based on the information
agglomerates must be undergoing mechanical handling such as published by Manning and Kappes (2005).

Fig. 1. Segregation of coarse and fine particles from improper heap building (adapted from Heinen, 1980).
 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70 55

Crushed ore agglomeration

WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE WHY

• Heap leach • Fines adherence on larger • Excess of fines (-75 µm) • Agglomerators • Improved percolation
operations particles or fines self • Presence of clays • Tumbling drums • More porous heap
Base metals: adherence due to tumbling
Cu, Ni, U action • Mineralogical issues • Uniform solution distribution
Precious metal:
Au, Ag

Fig. 3. 5Ws (who, what, when, where, and why) for crushed ore agglomeration processes.

Fig. 4. Comparison of solution percolation in agglomerated vs. non-agglomerated ore (adapted from Chamberlin, 1980).

BEFORE AGGLOMERATION AFTER AGGLOMERATION

agglomeration by coalescing fine particles onto larger rock parti-
cles via liquid bridges. The agglomerates lead to more uniformly
permeable heaps (Bouffard, 2005; Dhawan et al., 2012a; Kappes,
2005; Kodali et al., 2011a; McClelland, 1988; Tibbals, 1987).
Kappes (2005) reported the typical agglomeration/stacking cost
to be in the order of $0.10/t for a mining operation with a capacity
(a) Coarse material with large (a) Fines are agglomerated onto
of 15,000 t/d, which is significantly less than that of binder or ce- percentage of fines coarse particles (with binder)
ment (10 kg/t at $1/t) (Bouffard, 2005; Kodali et al., 2011a). Also,
according to Cassiday et al. (1991), the major cost corresponding
to cement consumption of 2% of ore weight amounts to $2.00
per ton of ore. The heap leach operating cost distribution is shown
in Fig. 2. The cost of binder is included in the agglomeration/stack-
ing stage since cement binder is frequently used for gold heap
leach operations. It can be seen that agglomeration/stacking corre- (b) Fine material (tailings) with no (b) Agglomerates are formed by
sponds to 14% of total heap leaching operating cost distribution. or little clay binding fines together with binder
Agglomeration is an innovative solution for heap leaching oper-
ations with ores having high fines or clay content (Bouffard, 2005;
Dhawan et al., 2012b). In the past, metal recovery up to 80–90%
from ores was considered as heap-unleachable. Some of the most
asked questions and answers for crushed ore agglomeration are
presented in Fig. 3.
Agglomeration with binder has been recommended for
the ores, which contain more than 10–15% less than 74 lm
fines (Chamberlin, 1986; Garcia and Jorgenson, 1997; Kodali (c) Clay material with metal locked (c) Agglomerates are formed by
in low permeability medium binding fines together after
et al., 2011a). A graphical demonstration of solution percolation
modifying clay properties
in the heap through agglomerated and non-agglomerated ore is
shown in Fig. 4. As compared to non-agglomerated ore, the Fig. 5. Agglomeration effects (adapted from Mclelland and van Zyl, 1988).
agglomerated ore aids percolation by preventing the segregation
and migration of fines by creating void spaces accessible to
leach solution flow and subsequently better leaching The solution flow is affected by both ore properties (particle size
response. distribution and geological composition of the rock) as well as heap
56 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
construction practices (agglomeration, stacking, and ore density)
(Guzman et al., 2008). The flow in a heap is not one-dimensional
and the solution distribution is non-uniform in short depth areas
even after long irrigation periods. Hence, the standard heap con-
struction and operational practices can lead to heterogeneous
and stratified recovery profiles. During heap leaching operations,
a considerable fraction of ore is dissolved which leads to the deg-
radation of agglomerates, decrease in permeability and shear
strength of the heap (Steemson and Smith, 2009).
Generally, drum agglomeration is practiced for ores containing
high clay contents such as nickel laterite/saprolite ores (Kappes,
2005). Crushed ore is agglomerated much like fine tailings, but pre-
ferred operating conditions and equipment are different such as
more binder (5–7.5 kg/t), considerably more water (16–22%), and
longer curing times (typically 72 h).
3. Agglomeration mechanisms
The binding mechanisms of agglomeration can be classified into
five categories: (1) solid bridges, (2) adhesion and cohesion forces,
(3) surface tension and capillary pressure, (4) attraction forces be-
tween solids and (5) interlocking bonds (Lewandowski and Kawa-
tra, 2009a; Moats and Janwong, 2008; Pietsch, 2002). Whereas, in
crushed ore agglomeration, adhesion and cohesion forces are dom-
inant for binder-assisted agglomeration, surface tension and capil-
lary forces dominate the system for non-binder/wet agglomeration
(Kodali et al., 2011a).
Crushed ore agglomerates can take two forms: fine particles
adhering to coarse particles and fine particles adhering to each
other. Based on microscopic investigations, Tibbals (1987) reported
two types of agglomerates: first, in which, particles of 1 mm or lar-
ger in size formed the core and were surrounded by a shell of finely
divided material (rim agglomerates); second, in which, particles
were composed of granular members having no clearly defined
core (nucleated/conglomerate). The rim agglomerates were
mechanically more stable and were preferred for leaching (Tibbals,
1987).
For tailings, the solution should be sprayed in coarse droplets
that serve as nuclei around which agglomerates form: for crushed
ores the method of solution addition becomes less critical since the
large ore particles become the nuclei around which the agglomer-
ates build. The addition of water for green agglomerate strength
and addition of a binder for cured agglomerate strength are the
most important factors. For proper agglomeration it is necessary
to ensure that the binder is completely mixed with the contained
fines.
The agglomeration equipment mixes the ore and solution and
packs the agglomerates in a similar manner to the building of a
snowball (Dhawan et al., 2012a; Tibbals, 1987). Surface tension
forces and capillary action between the solution and the particles
is sometimes enough for the fine material to hold the coarser par-
ticles together (Fernández, 2003; von Michaelis, 1992). In the
agglomeration drum the contact between particles with solution
causes the particles to adhere/coalesce through liquid bridges.
The liquid acts as a binder through capillary action and surface ten-
sion, predominantly because of the attachment of fine particles on
Table 1
Consequences of non-optimal agglomeration (Afewu and Dixon, 2008; Guzman et al., 2008; Kodali et al., 2011a; Robertson and Van Staden, 2009; Velarde, 2005).
Parameter Loose fines Segregation during stacking
Voidage Decreased Variable
Hydraulic conductivity Decreased Variable (low/high)
Density – Variable (pockets)
Saturation Increased Issue/poor percolation
the coarse particles and also the self nucleation of fines to form
agglomerates. The presence of adequate liquid film thickness leads
to form liquid bridges and results in mechanical strength to the
agglomerates (Velarde, 2005).
The different types of particle interactions leading to successful
agglomerate formation are schematically shown in Fig. 5. The new-
ly nucleated agglomerates (Fig. 5b and c) are expected to be more
prevalent in ores having high clay content (e.g. nickel-laterite
ores). Whereas, for hard crushed ores, the dominant mechanism
of agglomeration growth is layering of fines on larger particles
i.e. rim agglomerates (Fig. 5a) (Bouffard, 2005). The residence time
in agglomeration drum and the binding agents dominantly control
the growth and mechanism of agglomeration.
4. Inadequate agglomeration
The lack of quality agglomerates has probably resulted in the
largest number of heap leach failures (Kappes et al., 2000). Proper
agglomeration is critical for high clay ores especially in high rain-
fall environments. The operations staff should have previous expe-
rience with correct design or operation of agglomeration systems
otherwise operation failure may result as happened in Santa Rosa
in Panama (Kappes et al., 2000).
Inadequate agglomeration may cause hydrology problems, seg-
regation and channeling but there is no assurance that agglomera-
tion will solve these issues solely because besides agglomeration,
the mechanical handling of agglomerates during transport and
stacking affects the heap characteristics significantly. Inadequate
dosage of the agglomerating liquid will result in size segregation
during stacking and poor quality of agglomerates, which may lead
to several issues such as ponding, percolation, uneven permeabil-
ity, limited irrigation flow rates, limited lift height and, ultimately,
deteriorated permeability (Fernández, 2003). Generally, inade-
quate addition of liquid content (moisture) could result in loose
fines, coarse particles and weak agglomerates. This weak agglom-
erated charge may add burden to the transportation due to insuf-
ficient mechanical strength. Hence, inadequate moisture disables
the primary purpose of agglomeration, i.e. minimal segregation
during heap stacking (Velarde, 2005).
Inadequate agglomeration practice often results in stratification
of coarse and fine particles in heaps which causes poor permeabil-
ity of the leaching solution (and gas in heap bio-leaching), the for-
mation of preferential flow channels and perched water tables
(Afewu and Dixon, 2008). The moisture content for each ore type
varies significantly and depends upon many factors such as the
mineralogy of the ore (presence of clays), particle size distribution,
wetting characteristics and degree of compaction during agglom-
eration. Hence, it is recommended to have mineralogical analysis
before starting agglomeration practice so as to evaluate the
moisture limits (McClelland and van Zyl, 1988). If excess moisture
is present in the agglomerates, the capillary pressure in the
agglomerate goes to zero due to the concave menisci on the
agglomerates surface and hence further growth is limited (Pietsch,
2002). If this occurs, the mud-like material will not agglomerate
and allow for percolation. However, recently, an experimental
procedure has been developed to determine optimum moisture
Compaction Deteriorated permeability
Decreased Uneven lixiviant flow
Decreased Severe ponding
Increased Dead zones
– –
 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
for agglomeration (Vethosodsakda, 2012). Drier agglomerates have
been reported to withstand acidic conditions less than wet
agglomerates (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008). The summarized
effect of non-optimal agglomeration on heap leach properties is
shown in Table 1.
Other issues from inadequate agglomeration include hydrolog-
ical problems (limited irrigation flow rates, channeling/imperme-
abilities, and lower moisture), ineffective curing, hydraulic delay,
and longer liquid retention. The most important factors for effec-
tive agglomeration (formation of quality agglomerates) include
pH modifier addition, binder addition, water addition, moisture
content of feed, degree of mixing of ore-binder-solution and curing
time (Tibbals, 1987).
5. Curing
Agglomerated ore is typically stacked and left to cure for a per-
iod of hours to several weeks. For agglomeration with cement, cur-
ing times of 8–96 h have been reported (Bouffard, 2005). During
cement curing, hydrolysis of the cement occurs leading to the for-
mation of solid bridges between particles. Curing times with sulfu-
ric acid have been reported from 14 to 336 h (Lu et al., 2007).
During acid curing, certain components of the ore which have been
dissolved, re-precipitate and act to bind the ore together (Purkiss
and Anthony, 2004).
Agglomeration limits the size variation and increases the per-
meability of an ore heap whereas acid curing inhibits the dissolu-
tion of silicates (impurities) and accelerates copper extraction. Acid
curing causes dehydration of the aluminum silicate minerals
through a change in the structure of hydroxides, rendering the sur-
face hydrophobic and insoluble in aqueous solutions, inhibiting the
silicate dissolution, homogenizing the distribution of acid in the
ore bed along with higher porosity in the bed, and improving the
filterability of the pulp (Cruz et al., 1980; Jansen and Taylor,
2003). The curing period allows strong bonds to form between
the coarse particles and the fines clays (Worstell, 1987). Curing
can be done directly on the conveyor for materials that do not re-
quire agglomeration (Galea et al., 2010). However, depending on
the ore type, curing time can vary from times as short as 8–24 h
(Bouffard, 2005) or as long as 1–5 days (Lu et al., 2007). Irrigation
flow rate and acid curing have a greater impact on the initial kinet-
ics of copper extraction than they do on the ultimate level of recov-
ery (Baum, 1999; Lu et al., 2007).
6. Binders
Fines can migrate and clog the spaces between the large ore
particles within the heap resulting in an uneven distribution of
the leaching solution. This leads to poor interaction between the
ore and leach solution, resulting in inadequate metal recoveries,
and thereby extending the leach time or sometimes causing heap
closure (Bouffard, 2005; Chamberlin, 1986; Dorey et al., 1988;
Lastra and Chase, 1984; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009b;
McClelland, 1986). Any increase in bulk density due to agglomerate
bed compaction (during stacking) reduces the total voidage within
the heap and leads to poor permeability (DeMull and Womack,
1983; Miller, 2003; Schlitt, 1983; Ulrich et al., 2003). To overcome
these issues, binders may be used.
Rodriguez (2007) reported that ores with particularly high clay
and fines content did not necessarily respond as well to water
agglomeration. This might be because in these ore types the parti-
cle interactions during agglomeration need to be strong for pro-
ducing porous, durable and stable agglomerates which, in turn,
requires an effective binding agent.
57
Fig. 6. Important features in stucco agglomeration of fine ore particles at the
surface of a coarse ore particle, (A) initial state of ore particles and reagents, (B)
mixing of ore particles, acid solution and stucco with formation of liquid bridge, and
(C) Meta stable agglomerate, (D) final stable agglomerate structure formed by
hydration of the stucco binder particles (Kodali et al., 2011a).
Irrespective of the environment (i.e. acidic or alkaline), a binder
or additive should help the fine particles adhere to the coarser
particles. This minimizes percolation problems and increases
metal recovery by increasing the contact between the ore and
leaching solution (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008, 2009a,b;
Tibbals, 1987).
Binders are generally added to increase the strength of agglom-
erates since they act as an adhesive to chemically bond in some
cases or entrap fine particles into larger ore particles. Schlitt
(1992) outlined the dual role of cement binders to include im-
proved clay permeability by the exchange of sodium ions in the
clay with calcium ions in the binder, and the cementing or pozzo-
lanic effect that strengthens the agglomerates.
A binding agent may be needed if 10% of the material is less
than 75 lm (Chamberlin, 1986; Kodali et al., 2011a). Also, the bin-
der is chosen based on the material being used and the product
qualities desired (Pietsch, 2002). Binders can be classified into or-
ganic, inorganic or polymeric in nature. For precious metal heap
leaching (alkaline conditions), Portland cement is often used as a
binder, whereas for heap leaching under acidic conditions, dilute/
concentrated sulfuric acid is widely used.
Most of the work reported in the past has been primarily for
gold systems, which are alkaline. Nevertheless, the primary role
of binder is the same but the dosage, reaction time and down-
stream processing (e.g., solvent extraction (SX), ion exchange
(IX), electrowinning (EW), precipitation, carbon adsorption, zinc
cementation, etc.) may be significantly different.
Every ore behaves differently from the agglomeration stand-
point depending on the ore mineralogy. Binder dosages should
be chosen based on the agglomeration medium. Binder interaction
with ore particles can be physical as well as chemical. The binder
can also participate actively in the leaching process, hence its dos-
age should be estimated by taking into account size distribution of
the ore, mineralogy (acidity, the amount of clays present, soluble
impurities content), ore grade, and the acid consumption of the
ore itself. Dosages are best determined by laboratory test work,
especially column testing (Lastra and Chase, 1984). A complete
mix and dispersion of all dry reagents must be achieved before
adding the moisture in all agglomeration systems such as addition
during crushing to ensure proper mixing as the binder adsorbs the
water from the ore (Worstell, 1987).
A binder in copper heap leaching should withstand the acidic
environment (pH  2) and should not interfere with the mainte-
nance of a high bacterial population (Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewan-
dowski and Kawatra, 2008, 2009b; Lewandowski et al., 2010). It
is desired that the reagent used as a binder not affect the leach
chemistry during irrigation or the subsequent processes for metal
recovery (Kodali et al., 2011a). The binder assisted agglomeration
58 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
should be cost effective, provide stable, durable agglomerates and
should not jeopardize heap performance and metal recovery
through release of unwanted ions into SX or IX (Dhawan et al.,
2012a; Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008;
McClelland, 1986).
The reactions of the binder and the agglomeration solution may
occur during agglomeration, transport, and stacking prior to irriga-
tion for heap leaching (Kodali et al., 2011a). The binder can also act
as a flocculant in a system which requires selective dissolution of
impurities.
The application of binders in agglomeration of precious metals,
copper and nickel ores has been extensively reviewed (Bouffard,
2005; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009b; Moats and Janwong,
2008). There has been two recent developments since the publica-
tion of the mentioned papers which include the use of stucco (Kodali
et al., 2011a) and polyacrylamide based binders (Lewandowski and
Kawatra, 2009b) for copper heap leaching.
It is known that adding cement or lime to sulfide ores results in
precipitation of gypsum and jarosite (Bouffard, 2005). Lastra and
Chase (1984) mentioned gypsum and jarosite binders may involve
precipitation reactions and corresponding alteration of the system
pH. Amaratunga (1995) used gypsum b-hemihydrate as a binder
for pyrrhotite tailings and reported agglomerates of poor strength.
Kodali et al. (2011a) reported non-ideal (too wet) agglomerates
using gypsum for copper ore. In contrast, stucco (calcium sulfate
hemihydrate) was reported as an effective binder because the stuc-
co hydration reaction, which occurs during agglomeration of the
ore, immobilizes the fines, binding them together with coarser
ore particles via the gypsum hydration product, which forms
in situ and serves to stabilize the agglomerates thus formed.
The action of solid stucco as a binder during the agglomeration
process is schematically shown in Fig. 6. It was stated that the stuc-
co based agglomerates have more stability, increased size with less
release of fines, and better permeability of the packed agglomerate
bed (Kodali et al., 2011a). Stucco reacts with water to give gypsum
as shown in Eq. (1):
1 3
CaSO4  H2 O þ H2 O ! CaSO4  2H2 O ð1Þ
2 2
The idea of polymer-based binders came from the flocculation
field, where large macromolecules of polymers aid flocculation
due to the aggregation of colloids and other suspended particles
in liquids through the formation of a floc. Polymeric flocculants
such as Percol 351 work well as agglomeration binders, and keep
costs lower compared to more expensive specialized products
(von Michaelis, 1992).
Few researchers reported increased percolation rate of cyanide
leach solution for a gold ore containing clay either by flocculating
clay particles or by reducing the surface tension of the leach
solution. However, column leach tests demonstrated that calcium
sulfate (clay modifying agent), sodium dodecyl sulfate and gypsum
increased the percolation rate of solution through an ore bed. On
the other hand, both reagents decreased the rate of dissolution of
gold. It was presumed that the wetting agent forms a hydrophobic
layer at the air/solid/solution interface and creates a diffusion
barrier for the reactants to reach the gold leaching reaction front.
It was reported that a trade off exists between increased flow rate
and decreased gold dissolution rate when a wetting agent is used
in heap leach operations (Browner et al., 1991; Browner and
Strickland, 1992).
Because most of the polymeric binders contain acrylamide and
its derivative as the common base, they possess very high molecu-
lar weight. Acrylamide copolymers and polyacrylamide binders
used for gold and copper were reported to decrease the detoxifica-
tion wash time, improve agglomerate stability (mechanical and
chemical resistance) and solution flow (increased bed porosity
and decreased bed compaction), and increase metal recovery
(Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009b; Moats and Janwong, 2008;
Serrano, 2003).
Lewandowski and Kawatra (2009a) reported polyacrylamide as
the most effective binder for low-grade chalcocite ore (Cu2S) be-
cause of the presence of electrostatic attraction, hydrogen bonding
and physical bonding. According to the authors, the surface charge
of the ore particles (at pH  2) may have lead to electrostatic
attraction with cationic binders. The better performance of poly-
acrylamide binders was attributed to the high molecular weight
as in flocculation studies. However, hydrogen bonding was consid-
ered as the primary mode of attachment between the binder and
ore particles due to the strong nature of hydrogen bonds as com-
pared to van der Waals forces. But, the authors raised some doubt
over the toxic nature of some polyacrylamides. Also, it was sug-
gested that surface charge analysis and soak tests should be em-
ployed to find a suitable binder.
According to one case study polymer agglomeration resulted in
no improvement in the agglomerate quality or the saturated
hydraulic conductivity, and induced an increase in the moisture
retention capacity of the ore (Guzman et al., 2008). It is important
to understand the economic issues in conjunction with the poten-
tial chemical kinetic issues. Often, the cost of binder is very high
compared to the processing costs when a binder is not employed
(Bouffard, 2005; Dhawan et al., 2012a; Kappes, 2005; Kodali
et al., 2011a). The addition of binder increases the space require-
ments on pad for a given volume and reduces the ore grade due
to dilution which may pose additional capital cost. If overall recov-
ery is improved or if it can be proven that the same level of recov-
ery can be achieved in less time, these are advantageous, but often
times, the costs associated with extended leach time are quite
small, depending on the leaching method used (Scheffel, 2011).
Industrial operations should be careful in selecting binders as
they may cause unintended consequences. Many mining compa-
nies have trialed surfactants and polymer binders, but very few,
if any, have been sustained over time primarily because of expense
(Kennecott Barney Canyon (Lehoux, 1997) and Nifty copper,
Australia (Efthymiou et al., 1998)). Cement is one of the binding
reagents which had been used consistently in gold leaching. But
even cement has disadvantages such as pH maintenance during
heap de-commissioning. The addition of binder to conveyor belt
or agglomeration drum is always an area of concern considering
the low dosages involved (5–10 wt.%).
Even though the probability of the binder to be washed out of
the heap by external means such as PLS (pregnant leach solution)
is considered negligible, such a failure may interfere with the
downstream processing (SX, IX, precipitation, cementation, carbon
adsorption and EW). For example, polyvinyl acetate emulsion and
tall oil pitch as binders were reported to cause slight increase in
phase disengagement time during SX (Lewandowski and Kawatra,
2009c). Hence, it is worthwhile to see the effect of binders in
downstream processing before using it in agglomeration, to make
sure that it does not inhibit metal production.
7. De-sliming
Herkenhoff and Dean (1987) considered de-sliming as an
alternative for agglomeration and used the term ‘‘de-slimed heap’’.
Also, Chirinos (1997) reported a leaching treatment scheme for
Tintaya operations in Peru that included a wet screening operation
to separate the coarse fraction from the slimes. The coarse fraction
was heap-leached and the fines were treated by agitation leaching.
The split size for washing the ore was reported as 65 mesh
(210 lm) and the dissolved copper was recovered through
SX–EW. This method resulted in a reduced acid consumption and
 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
Fig. 7. Proposed combination of HPGR and heap leaching operations. GHG: Green House Gas; Downstream processing (SX, IX, cementation, precipitation, etc.).
good copper recoveries. However, from the liberation point of view,
some valuable metal may be contained in these de-slimed fractions.
The channeling of solutions through heaps and the high reagent
consumption sometimes ascribed to heap leaching are decreased
by de-sliming of the sand prior to heap leaching and after agglom-
eration with lime and cement, which improves the mixing and
neutralization of the material and decreases the probability of
channeling (Van Staden and Laxen, 1988). von Michaelis (1983)
concluded that the agglomeration and the application of concen-
trated cyanide reagents have major advantages in heap leaching
of uranium and copper. Besides de-sliming, the fines problem can
be overcome by simply blending with competent ore as reported
in Nifty copper operation, Australia (Alta, 2011; Burns and Wright,
1994; West and Connor, 1996).
Burns and Wright (1994) reported the new technique ‘‘electro-
kinetic leaching’’ which utilized electro-osmotic flow to enhance
percolation through the heap. The application of electro-osmosis
did not interfere with gold dissolution for a low grade gold ore
and a tailings deposit tested. Electrical measurements made in
the laboratory can be successfully used for full scale design of an
electrokinetic leaching system. The authors concluded that the
technique is a low cost alternative to agglomeration and also as a
potential candidate for enabling the application of low cost heap/
vat leach techniques to a significantly wider range of ores.
8. The role of comminution
Over the last decade, High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR) have
gained significant importance and popularity since they offer
numerous metallurgical benefits (Baum and Ausburn, 2011; Dha-
wan et al., 2012b; Kodali et al., 2011b). HPGR comminution within
a crushing circuit, in specific instances, can result in more than 2–
10% increase in copper extraction (Baum and Ausburn, 2011).
HPGR comminuted copper ore (andesite rock matrix high in silica,
more than 1% copper and high acid consuming species) followed
by agglomeration and small column leaching showed 8–10% higher
copper extractions as compared to jaw crusher product. It was also
reported that there was no increase in the production of ultrafines,
minor slumping of the agglomerated HPGR-crushed ore in the col-
umns was observed, channeling or fines migration. HPGR can also
59
increase the ore permeability for leaching, provided that the pres-
sure is properly controlled (Baum and Ausburn, 2011). For gold ore,
it was reported that HPGR shortens the drainage cycle for the leach
solutions and hence minimizes the solution inventory time (Baum
and Ausburn, 2011; Klingmann, 2005). Also, McNab (2006) re-
ported 10–11% increase in gold leaching due to the HPGR micro-
fracturing effect.
HPGR or roller presses may also reduce the need for binder in
agglomeration because the press forms flakes of aggregated ore
that are fairly stable when exposed to a trickling cyanide solution
(Chamberlin, 1989). Products from new HPGR machines (hard-
studded rolls) are generally flakes, which possess some strength
and often need external de-agglomeration through ball mills or
ultrasonic treatment (Battersby et al., 1993; Schonert, 1988). If
HPGR product could ever be directly used as a feed for heap leach-
ing, a scenario similar to Fig. 7 can be proposed. It may be noted
that if ores are blended and have significant differences in hard-
ness, the harder ore could build up in a closed loop (CL) with
screens.
Sometimes, even the crushing of some ores, especially clayey
ores, becomes difficult due to tendency of the ore to ball up or pan-
cake along the sides of the crusher. In this regard, blending of the
ore with hard rock has been recommended (Heitt, 1997). While
HPGR may lead to improved heap leaching for hard ores, it is
worthwhile to mention that it may face problems with soft and
sticky ores. Choudhury (2007) reported the soft characteristics
(Bond abrasion index of 0.17, Ultimate Crushing Strength of 30.6)
of Çaldağ nickel laterite ore (a nickel heap leach project in
Turkey). The ore does not require much force to break up and
becomes sticky due to the presence of high clay content. Hence,
some of the laterite ores may not be likely candidates for HPGR
processing.
9. Quality control (QC) and characterization tools
Agglomeration has been ignored as a research topic, mainly due
to the difficulty of measuring results separated from the effect of
downstream processing which tend to hide the effect of agglomer-
ation in the overall recovery. However, there are some QC tools
mentioned in the literature that are outlined next.
60 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
The issues in crushed ore agglomeration arise mainly due to the
wide variety of agglomerate sizes which behave differently in
terms of permeability, porosity and leaching response. An accurate
statistical comparison of agglomerates from different production
batches is highly impractical. To overcome this problem, the
production of small quantities of identical agglomerates for
comparative physical testing usually occurs. In laboratory tests,
the procedure to agglomerate material uses a revolving concrete
mixer, which was first practiced by Sullivan and Towne (1936). A
revolving cement mixer is still used in laboratory testing today.
Mintek (Southwood, 1985) developed a detailed procedure for
the evaluation of agglomerates for bacterial heap leaching. The
procedure mainly includes quality control tests such as dry com-
pressive strength, sulfuric acid immersion, acid-wetted compres-
sive strength, porosity determination, impact testing and
leaching studies. It is important to mention that Mintek’s test work
was done on nickel ore, pyrrhotite, and sulfide ores having feed
size distribution less than 1 mm. The test work is obviously more
like a pelletization study rather than crushed ore agglomeration
for heap leaching, but it certainly directs the research to some
invaluable procedures for quality control tools for agglomeration.
9.1. Particle size
The role of size in crushed ore agglomeration-heap leaching sys-
tems is discussed in detail elsewhere (Dhawan et al., 2012a,b). The
bonding mechanism of agglomerates, feed size distribution and
particles making up the agglomerate (particle interaction) play
important roles in the leaching response. Generally, the agglomer-
ated ore has a separate particle size distribution (PSD) with a slight
increase in the top size but a very large increase in the bottom size.
Typically, sizes are 60–2 mm with all of the minus 2 mm adhering
to the coarser fractions and themselves to form the agglomerates
(Miller, 2003).
Special care is needed while handling the wet agglomerates.
The sampling and sieving may involve interference such as coales-
cence and breakage of agglomerates which alters the size distribu-
tion. One of the possible ways to overcome the handling issue
involves the snap freezing of the agglomerates with liquid nitrogen
(Bouffard, 2005). As an example of size measurement, the samples
were first dried, and then sieved and particle size curve was con-
structed. The same dried samples were then wet sieved with the
action of water and light mechanical forces to determine the
amount of fines released (Kinard and Schweizer, 1987).
In another procedure, the agglomerates were evaluated with re-
spect to the amount of free fines or small agglomerates. Segrega-
tion of sizes during stacking was directly related to moisture. The
physical and grain size distribution characteristics of the agglomer-
ates depends on the quantity of fine particles and clays. It was re-
ported that the size distribution of the agglomerated ore was
determined before the ore was stacked in a heap. The different
zones (low, intermediate and upper) within the heap were ana-
lyzed after leaching to determine the final size distribution. It
was found that, if there is not enough solution used in agglomera-
tion, the agglomerates will not be stable and will eventually re-
lease small particles that will migrate downwards through the
heap, decreasing the heap permeability (Fernández, 2003).
Velarde (2005) studied truncated size distribution (4750 lm)
rather than the complete size distribution for optimal values of
moisture. Kodali et al. (2011a) reported air drying of newly formed
agglomerates below 30 °C for 24 h to obtain dried agglomerated
samples, which were further screened on a ro-tap shaker for
3 min at a very low shaking speed to avoid breakage. Bouffard
(2008) reported wet screening to identify the particles which make
up the original agglomerates. Although longer mixing times in-
volve both growth and breakage of agglomerates, the overall effect
of extended agglomeration times has been reported to be detri-
mental (Bouffard, 2008). Also, it was stated that higher moisture
content results in narrower size distribution of agglomerates and
vice versa. However, the procedure for the determination of PSD
was not reported.
Bouffard (2005) highlighted the applicability of population bal-
ance models for describing the size enlargement processes such as
pelletization or crushed ore agglomeration process. Less has been
published regarding the control and modeling studies of crushed
ore agglomeration. The reasons may be lack of understanding of
the process, experimental difficulties, and also the ambiguous role
of size. In addition, it seems that the determination of the PSD of
the non-binder agglomerates is a tedious job considering the moist
state of agglomerates, representative sample, wide size spectrum
(microns to inches) and stability issues.
On the other hand, for other similar size agglomeration pro-
cesses, such as pelletization and granulation, significant work has
been done regarding modeling aspects. Many researchers (Kapur
and Runkana, 2003; Thella and Venugopal, 2011) reported popula-
tion balance models for the predictions of size distribution for
batch and continuous operations of pelletization, and granulation
processes which include fine size distribution (minus 100 lm for
pelletization and up to 8–10 mm for granulation).
Even though the PSD of the ores may be identical, the geology of
the ores makes the difference towards agglomeration behavior.
Very large agglomerates may not be able to hold fines, mono-size
agglomerates may cause packing problems, and very small
agglomerates may not possess sufficient porosity due to higher
particle interactions (make up of agglomerates). Besides, the
above-mentioned procedure for sizing involves dry agglomerate
which is not exactly the case in real heap operations. Hence, the
authors feel that it might be worthwhile to have video capture im-
age analysis system for online size distribution as a method of con-
trolling the agglomeration process. Even without crushing, some
ores have a strong tendency to disintegrate into clay through nat-
ural weathering agents or under the action of leaching solutions.
Tests should be run on the ore to determine the percolation rate
and metal recovery for various size distributions (Chamberlin,
1989; Schlitt, 1992).
9.2. Permeability (hydraulic conductivity)
The permeability of the agglomerated ore possess dual charac-
ter, i.e. macro (inter) and micro (intra) porosity. The former exists
between agglomerates whereas the latter exists within the
agglomerate (Dhawan et al., 2012b; Guzman et al., 2008).
In one case, permeability/hydraulic conductivity was measured
on saturated samples of ore in a falling head permeability appara-
tus. The samples were saturated and then consolidated at two dif-
ferent confining pressures and permeability values were reported
for both pressures. Density and percent fines (75 lm) were re-
ported to have the largest effect on the permeability of the material
(Kinard and Schweizer, 1987).
In another case (Garcia and Jorgenson, 1997), the sample was
placed in a sealed cylinder with a normal stress load being applied
to the top of the sample. Leach solution was injected into the
bottom of the cylinder at a constant pressure. The saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the sample was then evaluated at
increasing normal stress intervals of approximately 20 psi to
determine how high the ore may be stacked until it loses
permeability. A value of permeability (at least 103 cm/s) under
ultimate load will typically be reached using a dedicated pad and
permeability value (less than 104 cm/s) will be reached using an
interliner pad or on/off pad.
Researchers also determined the coefficient of permeability by a
constant head method (ASTM D2434) for laminar flow through a
 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
packed bed of agglomerates using Darcy’s Law as shown in Eq. (2)
(Kodali et al., 2011a):
Q K DP
¼ ð2Þ
A lL
where Q is flow rate (cm3/s), A is area of column (cm2), K is perme-
ability (cm2), DP is pressure difference (qgh), q is density of water
(kg/cm3), g is acceleration due to gravity (cm/s2), h is head
difference between solution inlet and outlet (cm), l is viscosity of
water (kg/(cm s)), and L is the length of the column occupied by
the agglomerates (cm).
A geotechnical testing program should also include saturated
hydraulic conductivity (permeability), which is measured as a func-
tion of lithostatic load to represent a heap height. It was reported
that a good saturated hydraulic conductivity (more than 102 cm/
s) is necessary; however, it was not sufficient to guarantee an ade-
quate leaching performance. Hydraulic properties of the ore include
porosity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, capillary pressure and
solution retention capacity (Guzman et al., 2008). The ore density
is a master variable, which impacts both the hydrodynamic and met-
allurgical response of an ore to leach (Guzman et al., 2008; Robertson
et al., 2010). Guzman et al. (2008) developed two independent mea-
suring techniques to determine these constitutive relationships.
Robertson et al. (2010) used a stacking test to determine the ore
density and saturated hydraulic conductivity of the ore as well as
the macro and micro-porosity as a function of overburden pressure
(heap height). The stacking test involves placing ore samples into
test cells and mechanically increasing the confining load to simu-
late the effect of a heap weight on the bulk density of ore. The load
is increased in a stepwise fashion, allowing for height stabilization
during the loading steps. The density and conductivity of the ore
are measured at each step and then the load is increased to simu-
late additional lithostatic loading. Generally, the stacking test is
conducted under partially saturated conditions, containing only
the moisture of agglomeration, as opposed to fully saturated
conditions.
Another method that facilitates concurrent determination of the
hydraulic and air pressure within a column along with moisture
content and electrical resistivity has been indicated (Guzman
et al., 2008). However, the technical details of the method have
not been reported. From this method, the shape of the hydraulic
conductivity curves was reported to be a function of the particle
size distribution, the degree of agglomeration, the moisture con-
tent during agglomeration, the density of the ore, the type of solu-
tion used and the composition of feed material (Guzman et al.,
2008). The hydraulic conductivity was reported to be a strong
function of degree of saturation (solution content). It has been sug-
gested by Guzman et al. (2008) that a good agglomerated ore pos-
sesses an equal partition between macro and micro-porosity and
produces optimal conditions for percolation leaching. The solution
flow through micro-porosity is dominated by capillary forces and
macro-porosity is controlled by gravity forces. Micro-porosity,
which is favorable for the leaching process and owes mainly to
the large surface of the containing particles require a careful design
of the irrigation scheme. It was reported that relationship between
density and saturated hydraulic conductivity can be accurately
represented by a power law.
The direct measurements of physical and hydraulic properties
on ores for a percolation process have been less reported. The dual
porosity (macro/micro) of agglomerates makes it difficult to
extrapolate physical and hydraulic measurements from soils to
ore for leaching. Hence, standard methods developed for soil char-
acterization are not necessarily adequate to test ore leaching given
the very coarse nature of the material (ROM) or the dual-porosity
of agglomerated ore.
61
There is limited knowledge of the impact of agglomeration
practices on the flow properties of the actual heap leach solution
(Guzman et al., 2008).
As the ore density increases, the void volume (porosity) in the
ore sample decreases, moisture retention capacity increases line-
arly while the percolation capacity decreases in a strongly non-lin-
ear fashion. Minimal settlement indicates a competent (resilient
and durable) agglomeration product, whereas maximum value of
bulk density is indicative of unstable agglomerates (Guzman
et al., 2008).
The hydraulic characteristics of the ore should be tested under
fully saturated conditions. The saturated hydraulic conductivity
of the ore represents the maximum solution application rate of
the ore. If the solution application rate exceeds the saturated ore
hydraulic conductivity, the heap becomes saturated and may be-
come unstable due to the high phreatic surface within the heap.
Also, the saturated conductivity of the ore under load allows the
heap leach pad designer to assess whether the heap is likely to be-
come saturated under future conditions as more ore is stacked
higher onto the leach pad (Lupo and Dolezal, 2010).
9.3. Electrical conductivity
Electrical conductivity testing was developed considering the
fact that conductivity changes drastically when the added mois-
ture reaches the absorption limit. At that instant, a film is devel-
oped around the particles that leads to the formation of
agglomerates through liquid bridges and hence leads to electrical
connections. The test duration is about 45 s and onsite monitoring
is possible (Fernández, 2003; Velarde, 2005). The technique was
firstly introduced to evaluate proper amount of moisture for
agglomerating a copper ore. Since, the adequate dosage of mois-
ture will vary with the ore type, electrical conductivity test cannot
be used to control fixed moisture levels. However, it can be used to
monitor unpredictable changes in moisture requirements caused
by fines/clay changes and ensure the hydrometallurgical quality
of the product (Fernández, 2003; Velarde, 2005). Minera Cerro
Verde Peru Company has reported the eradication of inadequate
agglomeration through the capital-inexpensive electrical conduc-
tivity technique (Fernández, 2003).
Kodali et al. (2011a) placed agglomerates in a resistance mea-
surement device, which essentially consists of two equal stainless
steel rectangular electrodes and the resistance was measured using
a multimeter clipped to the electrodes. The electrical conductivity
of the packed agglomerate bed was calculated using Eq. (3):
L
K cond ¼ ð3Þ
RA
where Kcond is the conductivity (X1 cm1), L is the distance be-
tween the two electrodes (cm), R is the measured resistance (X)
and A is the longitudinal cross sectional area of the electrode (cm2).
The electrical conductivity increased with an increase in the
amount of sulfuric acid solution and eventually a constant value
is reached for no stucco addition. Kodali et al. (2011) also included
electrical conductivity test technique in determining the best
quality agglomerates. Recently, the use of electrical resistivity
techniques was also reported to define dry areas of poor percola-
tion in heaps and to locate leaks in liners (Alta, 2011).
9.4. Visual inspection (glove test)
The optimum agglomeration moisture is just below the mois-
ture holding capacity of the ore (Guzman et al., 2008). It is appar-
ent that this can be visually determined from the surface sheen on
the agglomerates. Some researchers (Kodali et al., 2011a; Velarde,
2005) reported surface sheen as a control measure for moisture
62 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
addition to the agglomeration drum, which is also a controlling
parameter for agglomerate size.
From an operator point of view, an ideal agglomerate is the one
which appears to be visually good, i.e. neither too wet nor too dry
(Kodali et al., 2011a; Velarde, 2005). The glove test is quite subjec-
tive and manual and hence provides limited information about
quality (Velarde, 2005). Good visual appearance is necessary,
although not sufficient; to guarantee good physical or hydraulic
performance i.e. stable and durable agglomerates (Guzman et al.,
2008).
9.5. Stability
It is difficult to define the stability of agglomerates for heap
leaching operations. The reason is, after the agglomeration process
in a drum, the agglomerates may break or even combine as they
are transported to the heap. During transport the agglomerates
experience mechanical handling (conveyors and stackers), com-
paction and atmospheric conditions (sun/rain/snow). Hence, the
agglomerates are expected to face mechanical testing, fluidic con-
ditions and curing conditions.
Submerging or soaking agglomerates gives a measure of degra-
dation, when the agglomerates being subjected to moisture (water
or leach solution). Agglomerates were placed into a burette, which
was plugged with steel wool and solution was fed through the steel
wool into the burette. The solution which came out of the bottom
of burette was analyzed for the solids (Chamberlin, 1986). Along
similar lines, the degradation of agglomerates was classified into
complete, partial and no degradation during the 24 h soak period
(von Michaelis, 1992).
Milligan (1984) reported similar stability analysis, using dried
agglomerates at 90 °C for 6 h and then, after cooling, dipped 10
times into water. The amount of fines collected in water was re-
ported as a measure of strength of agglomerates. Agglomerates
were submerged in sulfuric acid (pH  1) for an extended period
during which their breakdown was noted. Some agglomerates
were found to disintegrate in very short periods (less than 1 min)
and others remained intact for several days. Agglomerates are clas-
sified as good, promising, weak and poor based on the collapse
time. The technique has also been used for selecting binders
(Southwood, 1985).
Other similar tests reported binder assisted agglomerates were
placed on Tyler 10-mesh screen and allowed to cure. Then, the
screen containing agglomerates was jigged in and out of container
of water for a set amount of time (McClelland, 1988; Tibbals, 1987;
von Michaelis, 1992). The agglomerates were jigged over a Tyler
9-mesh screen and amount of minus 9-mesh fines produced were
measured. The increase in weight retained on a screen was plotted
against binder feed and the break in the curve indicates a target
binder addition for feed (Thompson, 1997).
Lewandowski and Kawatra (2008) modified the existing soak
tests by incorporating air drying as the cure method and stated it
as more representative of what the agglomerates would experience
when being placed in a heap during stacking operation. They also
found that many agglomeration binders lose their strength on dry-
ing, which is in agreement with the findings of Bouffard (2008).
The test was developed to verify whether binders can withstand
acidic conditions. The air dried-cured agglomerates were sub-
merged into 6 g/L sulfuric acid solution (pH  1.8) for 30 min. After
soaking, the material which was passed through Tyler 10-mesh
screen was measured to determine fines migration. The percent
fines migration gives a quantitative measurement regarding
agglomerates breakdown.
The jigging and submersion of the agglomerates do not repre-
sent realistic environments as it would be in real heap leaching
operations. Also, these tests impart substantially more shear stress
than does normal percolation leaching. The optimum agglomerat-
ing conditions determined from the strength and stability tests
should, therefore, be confirmed by conducting a column percola-
tion test on agglomerates (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008).
9.6. Barney’s Canyon test
The Barney’s Canyon mine operation developed a standard
evaluation test of agglomerate quality. The test was developed to
simulate actual preparation practice, rather than to measure
permeability under identical, controlled conditions (such as ASTM
soil tests). Agglomerates were prepared by gently tumbling the ore
and cement mixture, while adding small amounts of water until
the product was visually ‘‘perfect’’ in terms of adherence of fines
to coarse particles, and then poured into a pan producing a cone
with a natural angle of repose. The pan was then tightly covered
for the cure period (3 days for cement agglomerates). At the end
of the cure, 400 mL of water was added to the apex of the cone.
The amount of fines washed out the bottom of the slightly tilted
pan was evaluated on a scale of 1–10. Perfectly stable agglomerates
consistently scored 10, with the water exiting the cone completely
clear. The test was first used to evaluate various chemicals, as well
as cement and water ratios and was later used routinely to
evaluate the agglomerate quality of production-heaped ore. The
difference in agglomeration effectiveness, as determined from
this test, was reproducible and readily apparent. Water addition
was reported as the major factor in agglomerate quality determi-
nation (Braun and Lehoux, 1993). It is important to mention that
with the available information the test seems to be subjective.
9.7. Strength
Agglomerates at the base of a heap are subjected to stack
heights of 6–10 m, thereby causing considerable continuous
mechanical loading in terms of compaction and shear action of
agglomerate bed. Based on the underlying heap conditions, the
agglomerate strength becomes crucial to heap stability and
permeability.
In one of the studies, prepared agglomerates were allowed to
cure at ambient temperature. The mechanical strength of agglom-
erates was measured with the use of load cell and was termed
as compressive strength. On average, standard agglomerates
(9.5 mm) were reported to tolerate loads up to 8 kg (yield point)
(Southwood, 1985). Agglomerate strength can be subjectively
measured by hand squeezing and looking for clumping (Moats
and Janwong, 2008). Most recently, a compressive strength of
20–30 kPa for 10–20 mm size wet nickel laterite agglomerates
has been reported (Nosrati et al., 2012).
Kinard and Schweizer (1987) used the standard proctor (ASTM
D 698) compaction test. The test was performed on the composite
bulk sample to provide shear strength parameters to be used
in stability analysis. Typical moisture (21%), permeability
(104–106 cm/s) and strength (13–100 kPa) values on different
heap regions were reported. The authors mentioned that
laboratory testing does not model what actually happens in the
heap because in the heap, the ore is held in a metastable condition
by the pozzolonic or cementatious effects of the lime and cement
whereas during the saturation and consolidation phase of the
strength tests, some of these bonds may be destroyed. On the other
hand, the changes in moisture content of the heap occur over
relatively long periods of time, and the ore does not become
completely saturated, whereas in laboratory testing, once the
bonds are disturbed and consolidation begins, the sample will con-
solidate more than equivalent material in the heap.
The shear strength governs stability in the ore slope of the heap.
Triaxial compression tests can be used to evaluate static liquefac-
 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
tion or potential for ore slope collapse and generation of excess
pore pressures (Lupo and Dolezal, 2010). However, test details
are not reported in the available literature.
9.8. Leaching strength of agglomerates
Yijun et al. (2002) inserted a measured number of agglomerates
into a transparent column, and leaching was done in stages
of increasing sulfuric acid concentration, fresh water, then 20–
30 g/L solution, and finally 50–100 g/L solution. The numbers of
unbroken agglomerates were measured after each leaching stage.
The percentage of unbroken pellets to the original number was re-
ported as the leaching strength of pellets. The size, water adsorbing
capacity, compression strength, wet strength, and permeability
were also mentioned but no procedures were reported.
9.9. Attrition test
The abrasion of agglomerate surface was tested using 200 mm
diameter pan with a soft rubber lining. Attrition was limited lar-
gely to inter-agglomerate contact. A Pascal sieve shaker was used
to provide a standardized agitation over a 20 min period. After
the material was shaken for a set time, the proportion of material
abraded to less than 9.5 mm was recorded. The percentage differ-
ence was used to evaluate agglomerates and different binding sys-
tems (Southwood, 1985).
Herkenhoff and Dean (1987) suggested a tumble test for cured
and dried agglomerates for certain specified time in a small abra-
sion drum and then screening and weighing of the abraded fines.
However, few authors (Bouffard, 2008; Lewandowski and Kawatra,
2008) reported dried agglomerates become weak in strength. This
test is of limited use since in actual heap leach operation, the
agglomerates will only be completely dried at surfaces with the
bulk of the heap retaining moisture.
9.10. Shatter drop test
Drop tests have been used in the iron ore industry for pellet
evaluation since the early 1950s. ASTM standard drop height of
6 ft (1.83 m) is used in the test. Loaded agglomerates were allowed
to roll off from a fixed height and fall to hit a steel plate. Then, the
number of drops taken to break agglomerates was assigned as the
drop number of the specimen. Also, the drop number was found to
have an inverse relationship to the size of agglomerate (South-
wood, 1985).
9.11. Porosity
Velarde (2005) reported ores having high amount of fines/clays
have tendency to produce low apparent density agglomerates.
Generally, lower apparent density material ends up with a higher
level of compaction. The bulk density increases linearly with in-
crease in heap height (Bouffard, 2008; Miller, 2003). Controlling
the moisture is the key to achieve the lowest possible dry bulk den-
sity of the mixture (Scheffel, 2011).
Southwood (1985) examined porosity by immersing dried pre-
weighed agglomerates in water for measured time intervals. An
approximation of the potential penetration rate of lixiviant is ob-
tained from the mass of water absorbed and the period of immer-
sion. The porosity is calculated as ratio of volume of water
absorbed at saturation to the total volume of saturated agglomer-
ate. The use of surface-active agents has been reported to be
adequate for comparison of binding systems, although they con-
tribute to a small amount of error.
63
9.12. Percolation flood column test
The flood column test is mainly used to determine agglomerate
strength over time. The ore is agglomerated with binder and suffi-
cient solution to obtain wet agglomerates, which are then placed
into a small column (75 mm diameter) to cure. Water/solution is
added to the top of the column at a rate to flood or cause an over-
flow situation within the ore bed. According to von Michaelis
(1992), the higher flow rates subject the ore material to harsher
conditions as prevalent in actual heap leaching. The flow rate of
the solution through the column is measured, to determine the
permeability of ore bed, which is related to the amount of void
space. When the agglomerates break down, fine material will mi-
grate through the heap and solution build up/pooling will occur,
causing the solution flow to decrease. Also, agglomerate break-
down leads to slumping as determined by increase in bulk density.
Lewandowski and Kawatra (2008) concluded that the bulk den-
sity is an incomplete tool for the determination of the agglomerate
breakdown. The authors used different columns to study the fines
migration. The agglomerated sample was placed in a graduated
cylinder, which was slowly flooded with water. The amount of set-
tling observed was considered as a measure of the binder dosage.
The same procedure provides an indication of the effluent (preg-
nant solution) pH, which may be expected during column leaching
(copper: pH  1.8–2; gold: pH  9.5–11) (Thompson, 1997).
The stability of agglomerates can be determined by measuring
the hydraulic conductivity, bulk density and fines migration in per-
colation-flooded columns (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008). They
termed the best agglomerates those which will have the highest
hydraulic conductivity, smallest slump (lowest bulk density) and
least amount of fine material migration from the ore bed. Change
in bulk density and hydraulic conductivity can be measured, both
values indicating permeability within the column and also agglom-
erate strength. Good agglomerates can be submerged in water for
many hours without disintegrating. The change in bulk density or
slump would indicate a breakdown of agglomerates during the
leaching process and thus should be small in ideal cases.
Lupo and Dolezal (2010) outlined the aspects of load percola-
tion tests as pass/fail. The test was reported to be sensitive to
ore, incremental increase to applied load, and potential bypass
along sides of vessel. The failed tests exhibit ponding at the surface.
The authors recommended test should be done with actual leach
solution, and settlement and percolation should be monitored.
While slump of a column is often used as an indicator of
agglomerate strength, it has been reported that slump is not a good
gauge for agglomerate quality and does not correspond to final
pore space (Moats and Janwong, 2008).
9.13. Hydrodynamic column test (HCT)
Guzman et al. (2008) outlined the hydrodynamic properties of
agglomerates as a metric to identify the optimal agglomeration ap-
proach. Density and permeability profiles that develop from a par-
ticular agglomeration practice are the key parameters which
determine the metallurgical performance of an ore. The agglomer-
ate quality tests, stacking test, air and hydraulic conductivity tests
seem to be ideal from complete and interactive property relation-
ships point of view. However, the tests are expected to be expen-
sive and take a lot of time and effort. Generally, for commercial
testing to identify good agglomeration conditions, short column
percolation tests as well as the Guzman stacking test are practiced
frequently.
The hydrodynamic column test procedure is claimed to provide
the most complete characterization of the physical and hydrody-
namic properties of an ore-for-leach at the bulk density imposed
on the sample. The test provides a complete characterization of
64 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
the potential hydrodynamic response of an ore sample under per-
colation leaching such as saturated hydraulic conductivity, mois-
ture retention curve, air permeability as a function of solution
content, drain down curve and total porosity (micro and macro)
(Robertson et al., 2010).
9.14. Geotechnical test
Geotechnical testing includes hydraulic and mechanical charac-
teristics (compressibility and shear strength). There are few tests
regarded as geotechnical tests such as one-dimensional compres-
sion (ore durability, ore compressibility, permeability and settle-
ment), saturated hydraulic conductivity (load permeability and
load percolation), shear strength (direct shear and triaxial com-
pression), and soil water characteristic curve (SWCC). SWCC is
used to understand unsaturated hydraulic properties of fine
grained ore, and can be used to relate moisture content (satura-
tion) to hydraulic conductivity. SWCC is not a constant curve and
changes with ore compression and size fractions in ore heap (Lupo
and Dolezal, 2010; Robertson et al., 2010).
Kinard and Schweizer (1987) performed classification tests
including determination of moisture-density, Atterberg limits,
and particle size. The Atterberg liquid limit quantitatively indicates
the moisture content when there is a shift in material state from a
liquid to a plastic stage; however, Atterberg plastic limit denotes
the moisture level when the material transforms from plastic to
a semisolid stage (Bouffard, 2005). These limits provide a quantita-
tive understanding of the materials load carrying capacity and the
maximum recommended moisture content that can occur in the
material without affecting heap stability. It was reported that an
ore with liquid limit greater than 20 and plasticity index of 10
has clay content and may exhibit low permeability under load
(Garcia and Jorgenson, 1997).
9.15. Kappes percolation test (slump test)
Kappes percolation test involves filling a leaching column
(0.1 m diameter and 0.6 m height) with agglomerates at a certain
known ore height. The loaded column is tapped with a rubber mal-
let over its length which causes settling of the agglomerates and
the change in height is measured to determine the slump of the
ore. After that, the column is bottom filled with leaching solution
such that the solution covers all of the ore. The column is allowed
to stand for 48 h and then the height of the agglomerates is mea-
sured again. Finally, percolation rate/flow rate is calculated in L/
h/m2 (Pyke, 1994; Rodriguez, 2007). It is important to mention that
Kappes percolation testing was originally developed for gold ores
and is of an empirical nature.
9.16. Long-term leach pilot scale test
Generally, column tests are used to simulate the heap leaching
process in vertical tubes (pipes) to determine recovery, leaching
rate, and reagent requirements. These tests are often performed
to determine the agglomerate performance over a period of time.
Lewandowski and Kawatra (2008, 2009c) studied whether the
use of binders in agglomeration would have any negative effects
on copper recovery rates or the bacteria populations in the column
leaching. Column tests, even large ones, generally give better re-
sults than large scale tests or commercial operation, due to nearly
perfect solution-rock contact obtained in the columns. Whereas in
actual heap, as discussed in next section, the coarse rock size
distribution contributes significantly to slow leach kinetics (Her-
nandez et al., 2003). Also, in similar agglomeration conditions,
the heap leach results were different from the column tests due
to more compactness of heap and also the absence of structural
support because of wall effects in columns (Bouffard, 2008). Also,
the comparison of column tests to actual heap leach operations re-
quires a more accurate prediction of the solution characteristics
such as solution velocity within the heap (Wadsworth, 1977). Re-
cently, Martens et al. (2012) reported that the lixiviant has less
contact with reductants in comparison to the column experiment
for gold in situ leaching.
9.17. Heap test
The heap test is almost a real heap in analyzing the performance
of agglomerates (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009b; McClelland,
1988; Milligan, 1984). The heap is of industrial scale size and gen-
erally metal recoveries are also reported. Of course, this is one of
the most representative techniques for performance; however,
time, cost and labor factors limit the scope of test for only commer-
cial operations.
9.18. Summary of quality control tests
It is worthwhile to note that for comparative purposes and reli-
ability on quality control tests, the agglomerates must be of equiv-
alent sizes. The laboratory tests appear to be good for binder and
agglomeration process screening, but they do not appear capable
of providing feedback in a time frame needed to control an agglom-
eration operation. Therefore, these tests seem to be satisfactory as
part of scoping test work, whereas hydrodynamic tests may be
more practical for commercial operations.
Some of the quality control tests practiced in crushed ore
agglomeration and binder screening are mechanical tests devel-
oped for pelletization such as drop tests, attrition tests and com-
pression tests. However, few/none of the tests obtain a direct
measure of the strength, size of agglomerates and particle interac-
tions in individual agglomerates (Bouffard, 2005; Scheffel, 2011).
There is no standardized quantitative method for evaluating
agglomerate stability when using binders except the hand squeez-
ing of agglomerates practiced in the industry. However, soak test
and percolation column test for qualitative screening of potential
binders has been reported (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008,
2009b).
Having reviewed the QC and characterization tools for crushed
ore agglomeration, it is understood that fundamental understand-
ing of the crushed ore agglomeration process is still lacking. This is
primarily due to unique behavior of each ore body, lack of process
insight, limited practical quality control tools for the guidance of
operators, and lack of advanced characterization tools.
Certainly, it is necessary to find optimal conditions of operation
and to measure the variation of the agglomerate properties on time
in a real confined situation as in a heap leaching system. But to find
optimal conditions, complete characterization of agglomeration
and leaching process is required. The real challenge is the in situ
study of the effect of agglomeration variables, agglomeration qual-
ity and optimal processing conditions. The application of non-inva-
sive characterization technologies such as X-ray computed
tomography has been recently reported (Dhawan et al., 2012b).
Information such as agglomerates size characterization, fluid flow
and porous network structure, and the change of agglomeration
quality during the leaching process can be obtained.
Other important areas which have not received much attention
in the past are modeling studies for crushed ore agglomeration.
Agglomerate size as a fundamental and critical property has still
not been given the required attention (Dhawan et al., 2012b).
Besides, there is necessity for a continuous model of the agglomer-
ation process especially to avoid segregation during heap building,
which of course is one of the primary reasons for agglomeration
itself.
 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
Fig. 8. Steps involved in effective mineral dissolution rate during heap leach operation.
Also, there is a need for cost-effective binders for different heap
leaching systems (especially nickel laterites and uranium). In par-
ticular, some surface studies regarding the forces driving bonding
in the agglomeration process are required. Not much has been pub-
lished regarding the determination of optimal moisture content for
agglomeration, agglomerate strength/stability and mineral phase
transformation during the course of leaching. The importance of
quality control and characterization tools in crushed ore agglomer-
ation is presented in Fig. 8. The related research work is presently
underway at the University of Utah, as part of an important project
to improve understanding of crushed ore agglomeration.
10. Commercial agglomeration for heap leaching
Generally, ores with a high clay content require drying before
agglomeration. Weathered ores contain enough fines that cause se-
vere issues for percolation. For example, oxidized massive sulfide
gold ores are so soft and permeable that even crushing below
75 mm does not increase gold recovery (e.g. Filon Sur ore body,
Tharsis, Spain and Hassai Mine, Sudan). There can be serious issues
in multiple lift and higher height heaps due to difference in ore
properties. As subsequent lifts are stacked, the underneath ore
body gets compressed, which reduces the heap permeability. This
effect is expected to be more prevalent in softer ores, whereas
hard-crushed ores can withstand the resulting pressure (Kappes,
2002). In such circumstances, adequate agglomeration serves as
an important step to overcome the issues of concern.
Due to the variable nature of ores and modes of leaching, differ-
ent heap leach operations practice different operating parameters.
From the review of the literature (Alta, 2011; Bouffard, 2005;
Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009a,b; Moats
and Janwong, 2008), it is evident that most operations use lixiviant
as part of the physical/chemical binder, depending on the leach
environment. For example, the copper ore agglomeration is
typically conducted in a drum agglomerator with low additions
65
(15–25 kg) of sulfuric acid per ton of ore and about 60–100 kg of
water. Gold heap leaching operations practice the USBM’s proce-
dure, which includes alkaline leaching following cement and dilute
cyanide solution addition during the agglomeration pretreatment
step. However, the well established data from gold heap leach
operations is of limited use in copper, nickel and uranium due to
different mode of leaching (i.e., basic vs. acidic) and different ore
types. A comparison of typical gold, copper, nickel and uranium
heap leaching systems is summarized in Table 2.
11. Future trends
High gold and silver prices relative to general cost indices usu-
ally favor relatively fine crushing to improve ultimate recovery and
shorten the leaching cycle. Most ores not containing excessive clay
will percolate well when crushed as fine as 10 mm. It is possible to
heap leach gold locked in some sulfide ores by adopting a bio-
oxidation pretreatment followed by heap leaching. When gold is
locked in other minerals exposure and leaching is possible by fine
crushing using HPGR (Alta, 2011). Leaching size requirements and
economic considerations dictate the complexity of the crushing
plant. HPGR may be used if finer crushing is needed. Dust slurries
from the crushing circuits may be pumped onto the leaching heaps
during the agglomeration step.
The future trends for copper operations will likely include the
extension of heap bio-leaching to chalcopyrite and enargite copper
ores, and increased development of ROM heap leaching and use of
forced aeration for sulfides and mixed ores. Based on the numerous
benefits of agglomeration in the copper industry, it appears that
crushed ore agglomeration will hold its place as a pretreatment
step in heap-leach technology for many years to come.
While heap leaching was introduced in the uranium industry in
the 1950s (Scheffel, 2002), its use waned as environmental
concerns and low metal prices made heap leaching unattractive.
In the past few years, several new green field uranium projects
66 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70

Table 2
Comparison of the different agglomeration-heap leaching systems.

Parameter Ore type

Copper Copper sulfides Uranium Nickel laterites Gold/silver
oxides
Ore grade (%) 0.45–1.45 0.8–1.0 150–1000 ppm; less than 0.1% 0.3–2.5 0.55–1.5 ppm
U3O8
Tonnage (Mtpa) 3–56 3–21 1.4–36 0.7–3 –
Crush size (mm) 10–38 10–18 – 25–70 10–25
Heap height (m) 3–10 4–11 6 4–6 7–10
Permeability OK OK OK Low OK
Leach agent H2SO4, Fe2(SO4)3/H2SO4 H2SO4 or Na2CO3 NaHCO3 H2SO4 (conc. mostly) Cyanide solution (NaCN) with lime
NH3
Leach agent (kg/t) 8–75 6–18 15–40 >300 0.1–0.5
Leach time (days) 40–180 200–600 40–100 120–250 70–150
Metal extraction (%) 70–86 70–80 60–80% 65–85 50–87
Irrigation rate (L/h m2) 4–15 4–8 5–15 5–10 5–10
Issues Complex Bacterial activity Fine crushing; oxidant could be Low permeability; high acid Locked/encapsulated gold;
nature of and temperature required consumption, variable complex cyanide destruction
minerals; required to mineralogy, high impurity leach
depleted enhance leaching solutions (Fe, Mg)
resources
Agglomeration Rare Accepted for Acid agglomeration/tailing Must to improve ore Required for tailings/fines
(ROM better aeration characteristics (permeability,
mostly; strength)
dump)
recovery
30–60%
Binder – Nalco-Extract ore Cement (carbonate leaching) Polymeric binder (Hi-Tex Portland cement; Burnt Lime;
9560, Nalco 82200™); Polyacrylamide Extract ore 9760/9960, Vinyl
anionic flocculant OPTIMER AA 182H™ addition polymer
optimer 9960,
Stucco,
Polyacrylamide
Moisture (%) – 7–11 Up to 12 Up to 25 8–20
Dosage (kg/t of ore) 2.5–40 1–40 15–60 5–150 2.5–10
Curing time (hours) – 24–240 14–336 24–168 8–96
Feed size distribution ROM ROM, up to Minus 19 mm; tailings (minus 63 Up to 50 mm and minus 44 lm Up to 25 mm tailings (600 lm)
25 mm; Tailings lm) (up to 10%)
(250 + 44 lm)
Solution chemistry Changes Changes with ore Depends upon ore body Complex due to no-selective Depends upon ore body
with ore depth leaching
depth
Climate/area – – – Tropical –
Operating cost (US$/lb) 1.05 0.90 – 2.5–3.5 –
Capital cost (US$/t of 30–40 35 26–75 160–350 –
ore to heap)
References Bernard (1995), Canello and Derupt (2009), Dudley et al. Alta (2011), Dhawan et al. Bouffard (2005), Braun and Lehoux
Schnell (1995), Cisneros et al. (2000), Galea et al. (2010), (2012a), Duyvesteyn et al. (2001), (1993), Butwell (1990), Cassiday
(1995), Dudley et al. (2000), Georgescu and Graur (2002), Galea et al. (2010), Kyle (2010), et al. (1991), DeMull and Womack
Efthymiou et al. (1998), Galea Mashbir (1964), Scheffel (1981, Leonardou et al. (1997), (1983), Galea et al. (2010), Groesz
et al. (2010), Holle (1995), Lu 2002, 2010), Sinclair (2010), Thiry Longworth et al. (2007), Readett et al., (1994), Heinen (1980), Heitt
et al. (2007), Natunen et al. and Derupt (2010), Yanru et al. and Fox (2010), Rodriguez (2007), (1997) Kinard and Schweizer
(1995), Sylwestrzak et al. (2002), Yijun et al. (2002), West Robertson and Van Staden (2009), (1987), Lehoux (1997), McClelland
(2002), Scheffel (2002) and and Connor (1996) Steemson and Smith (2009) and and van Zyl (1988), Nivens and
Zárate et al. (2003) http://www.enk.co.uk/ Given (1993), Pautler et al. (1990),
Phifer (1988), Pyper and
Pangbourne (1988), Scheffel
(2002), Zárate and Guzmán (1987)

are considering heap leaching. Bacterial heap leaching is being
investigated for more complex, low-grade ores (Herkenhoff and
Dean, 1987; Robertson and Van Staden, 2009; Van Staden et al.,
2008). Most of the ores are likely to need comminution to achieve
adequate recoveries and hence the probability of excessive fines
generation is likely along with percolation issues and slow leaching
rates. Thus, with the implementation of agglomeration and curing,
percolation behavior and leach kinetics can be improved signifi-
cantly (Alta, 2011).
Carbonate leaching of uranium ores offers the possibility of
using binders such as cement when agglomeration of fines is
needed (Taylor, 2007). With uranium ores, the additional key
benefit of agglomeration or wetting the ores as soon as possible
is reduction in the dust emissions from conventional dry crushing
circuits, which will provide cleaner and safer environment.
Agglomeration is an integral part of new and future heap leaching
uranium operations. Some of the new projects under development
employing acidic agglomeration and heap leaching are; (1) Ranger,
Northern Territory, Australia, (2) ERA, Rossing, Namibia, Rio Tinto
Group and, (3) Somair, Niger, Areva Group. Also, some of the oper-
ations using alkaline heap leaching include; (1) Trekkopje,
Namibia, Areva Group, (2) Napperby Project, Australia, (3) Langer
Heinrich, Namibia, Paladin Energy, and (4) Marenica Project, Mare-
nica Energy, Namibia (Alta, 2011).
 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70 67

Requirements for effective crushed ore agglomeration

Feed size Ore Determination of Development of Chemistry/bonding Prediction of

distribution characterization optimal quality control of agglomerates agglomerate size
conditions tools distribution

• Fines • Mineralogy • Moisture retention • Size (PSD) • X-Ray Micro-CT • Permeability

(-200 mesh)
• Liberation/ capacity
• Permeability • SEM, QEMSCAN • Scale up
• Top size exposure • Reagents (acid)
• Blending • Conductivity • Dissolution/Dip • Heap performance
• Clays • Binder screening
• Hydrodynamic
• Acid consuming • Column or crib
species (smectite) • Mechanical
• Soak/Percolation

Fig. 9. Requirements of effective agglomeration for heap leach operations.

Chemical Optimum Moisture High Mechanical


High Porosity Low Cost Quality Control Tools
Compatibility Strength
Mineralogy/Ore Agglomeraon Bonding Parcle Soluon/ IDEAL IMPROVED HEAP
Characteriscs Condions Mechanism Interacon Agglomerate LEACH
Interacon PERFORMANCE
AGGLOMERATE
Acid Soluble Gangue Uniform Size Minimum Release of Optimal Bed Low Curing Leaching Response
Components and Shape Fines on Handling Packing Temperature

Fig. 10. Ideal agglomerate characteristics for heap leach operations.

Fig. 11. Information and preparation of an integrated process stream for a crushed ore agglomeration-heap leaching system.
68 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
12. Ideal agglomerate
Based on the review of all different types of agglomeration-heap
leach operations, it becomes important to define an ideal agglom-
erate. Kodali et al. (2011a) differentiated the ideal agglomerates
with the help of quality control tools such as agglomerate size dis-
tribution, permeability, electrical conductivity, visual inspection
and column leaching response. However, the authors believe that
there are other properties, which need to be included in the char-
acteristics of ideal agglomerates (Bouffard, 2005; Chamberlin,
1986; Dhawan et al., 2012a,b; Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandowski
and Kawatra, 2009a,b; McClelland and van Zyl, 1988; McClelland
et al., 1985; Moats and Janwong, 2008; Southwood, 1985; Sullivan
and Towne, 1936). In this regard, agglomerates:
 must have physical characteristics such as high mechanical
strength to resist breakage during handling and when stacked
under other agglomerates, drop from stacker, and/or are hit
by falling rain drops;
 must have chemical compatibility particularly for acid leaching
systems with low pH (1.8–2) conditions and/or with bacterial
activity in case of secondary sulfide leaching;
 should have the least acid soluble non-sulfide components par-
ticularly for acid leaching systems;
 should have low curing temperature as the presence of external
high temperature can affect bacterial activity and solution
chemistry for sulfides;
 must have high porosity to provide maximum access of the lix-
iviant, air and bacteria to the mineral surface;
 should be cost effective, especially for binder assisted agglomer-
ation, to ensure ‘‘agglomeration as a cheap insurance for heap
leaching operations’’;
 should be perfectly sized to avoid the ill effects of being too
large or too small i.e. long leaching time, surface irregularities
and permeability issues.
 should have a specific shape to facilitate the leaching response,
permeable beds and porous surface;
 should have adequate micro/macro-porosity to facilitate
acceptable leaching kinetics and solution drainage; and
 should remain moist all the time to avoid disintegration and
negative effects on leaching (Connelly and West, 2009; Sullivan
and Towne, 1936).
Robertson et al. (2010) reported the characteristics of good ore
for leaching based on flow hydrodynamics, including:
 narrow particle size distribution
 initial moisture content (promotes a stable mixing of various
size particles during stacking as well);
 total porosity of stacked sample about 50% (equally distributed
between macro and micro-porosity); and
 stable pore structure under mechanical forces/handling/stack-
ing, ability of pore structure to endure the negative impact of
full saturation and ore bulk density less than 2 g/mL.
Based on the literature and authors0 experience, the require-
ments for effective agglomeration for heap leach operations are
summarized in Fig. 9. The characteristics of ideal agglomerate
and factors affecting them are summarized in Fig. 10.
13. Conclusions
The advances in crushed ore agglomeration in heap leaching
operations have been discussed. Because each ore type possesses
unique characteristics, different approaches of treatment are
expected. Based on the numerous benefits cited in the literature,
the application of agglomeration as a pretreatment step for differ-
ent heap leach systems looks highly promising. However, special
care is required in heap building to ensure ideal agglomerates
maintain their integrity during the leaching. There are many fac-
tors which control the crushed ore agglomeration for heap leaching
as discussed in the aforementioned sections. Nevertheless, it is
worthwhile to mention that proper mineralogical evaluation of
ore, efficient comminution, effective agglomeration practice and
the precise use of quality control tools must be undertaken to en-
sure successful heap leaching.
Most of the operations make use of raffinate as a binder,
whereas a few use external binders due to cost considerations, is-
sues in de-commissioning and enhancing recovery. The perfor-
mance of polymeric binders (Michigan Tech University, Murrin-
Murrin lab) and inorganic binder (stucco) looks promising at small
scale for acid leaching. However, these need to satisfy large scale
testing and cost considerations before being considered for com-
mercialization purposes.
The effect of comminution on energy savings, green process
environment, extra liberation and substantial downstream benefits
are making the ingress of HPGR easier into hydrometallurgical pro-
cessing. The precise use of quality control tools such as hydrody-
namic testing and electrical resistivity techniques to define dry
areas of poor percolation in heaps, saturated conditions and to lo-
cate leaks in liners will contribute towards more control of heap
leach operations. Test work and quality control tools for crushed
ore agglomeration deserve special attention. With the develop-
ment of heap leach projects for different ore types, extreme cli-
mates, complex and different mineralogies, the development of
models for process simulation, test-work interpretation and
scale-up, and process monitoring and control will also be crucial.
The complete agglomeration scenario as related to heap leach
operations is summarized in Fig. 11.
Acknowledgements
Recognition is given to Mr. Randolph Scheffel for useful discus-
sions regarding industrial agglomeration operations. We would
also like to acknowledge Prof. Courtney Young and Ms. Dorrie
Spurlock for proofreading of the manuscript and providing valu-
able suggestions. Finally, we would like to thank Professor Michael
Free for helpful discussions.
References
Afewu, K.I., Dixon, D.G., 2008. Calibrating a 3D axisymmetric water and solute
transport model for heap leaching. In: Young, C.A., Taylor, P.R., Anderson, C.G.,
Choi, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium:
Hydrometallurgy, pp. 1098–1109.
Alta, 2011. Heap Leaching and Its Application to Copper, Gold, Uranium and Nickel
Ores. Short Course, Perth, Australia, May 28 (Instructor: Alan Taylor).
Amaratunga, L.M., 1995. Cold-bond agglomeration of reactive pyrrohotite tailings
for back fills using low cost binders: gypsum b-hemihydrate and cement.
Minerals Engineering 8, 1455–1465.
Battersby, M.J., Kellerwessel, H., Oberhauser, G., 1993. High-pressure particle bed
comminution of ores and minerals – a challenge. In: Proceedings XVIII
International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC 1993), May 23–28, Sydney,
Australia, pp. 1403–1407.
Baum, W., 1999. The use of a mineralogical data base for production forecasting and
troubleshooting in copper leach operations. In: Proceedings of the Copper 99,
International Conference. Hydrometallurgy of Copper, vol. IV, October 10–13,
Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pp. 393–408.
Baum, W., Ausburn, K., 2011. HPGR comminution for optimization of copper
leaching. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 28 (2), 77–81.
Bernard, G.M., 1995. Rio Algom’s Cerro Colorado begins copper heap leach operation
in Chile. Mining Engineering (April), 323–326.
Bouffard, S.C., 2005. Review of agglomeration practice and fundamentals in heap
leaching. Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review 26, 233–294.
Bouffard, S.C., 2008. Agglomeration for heap leaching: equipment design,
agglomerate quality control, and impact on the heap leaching process.
Minerals Engineering 21, 1115–1125.
 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
Braun, T.B., Lehoux, P.L., 1993. Gold leaching and recovery operations at Barney’s
canyon mine. In: Hiskey, B., Warren, E. (Eds.), Hydrometallurgy Fundamentals,
Technology and Innovation. SME, pp. 521–529.
Browner, R.E., Kyle, J.H., Misra, V., 1991. Studies on the Heap Leaching
Characteristics of Western Australian Gold Ores. World Gold 91, Cairns,
Australia, April 21–25, pp. 219–222.
Browner, R.E., Strickland, R.J., 1992. Modification of Heap Leach Characteristics with
a Wetting Agent or a Flocculation Agent. Extractive Metallurgy of Gold and Base
Metals, Kalgoorlie, Australia, October 26–28, pp. 143–146.
Burns, C.J., Wright, D.J., 1994. Electrokinetic Leaching – A New Approach to Ensuring
Percolation. Recent Trends in Heap Leaching, Bendigo, Australia, September 27–
29, pp. 17–26.
Butwell, J.W., 1990. Heap leaching of fine agglomerated tailings at Asamera’s
Gooseberry Mine. Mining Engineering, 1–8.
Canello, R., Schnell, H., 1995. Piloting of the bacterial leach process at Quebrada
Blanca. In: Proceedings of the Copper 95, International Conference.
Electrorefining and Hydrometallurgy of Copper, vol. III, November 26–29,
Santiago, pp. 773–780.
Cassiday, M.W., Cox, T.J., Domfeh, I.A., Stalker, I., Jaczkowski, B.M., 1991. The Ashanti
(Ghana) Heap Leach – Treatment of a Decomposed Schist in a Tropical
Environment. World Gold, Cairns, Queensland, Australia.
Chirinos, L.R., 1997. Treatment of the Tintaya skarn copper oxide. In: SME Annual
Meeting, Denver, Colorado, February 24–27, Preprint No. 97-90.
Cisneros, M., Garcia, G., Montejo, E., 1995. Treatment of copper-bearing ore from
Hierro mantua deposit by acid curing leaching. In: Proceedings of Copper 95,
International Conference. Electrorefining and Hydrometallurgy of Copper, vol.
III, November 26–29, Santiago, pp. 821–830.
Chamberlin, P.D., 1980, Heap leaching and pilot testing of gold and silver ore. In:
Precious Metals Symposium, Sparks, Nevada, November 17–19, pp. 77–83.
Chamberlin, P.D., 1986. Agglomeration: cheap insurance for good recovery when
heap leaching gold and silver ores. Mining Engineering 38 (12), 1105–1109.
Chamberlin, P.D., 1989. Status of heap, dump, and in-situ leaching of gold and silver.
In: Gold Forum on Technology and Practices – World Gold. Processing I: Heap,
Dump, and In-situ Leaching, pp. 225–232 (Chapter 26).
Choudhury, R., 2007. Caldag nickel project – comminution and transportation of
ore. In: ALTA Nickel/Cobalt Conference, Perth, Western Australia, May 19–26.
Connelly, D., West, J., 2009. Trips and traps for copper heap leaching. In: Alta 2009,
Perth, Australia, May 25–30.
Cruz, A., Lastra, M., Menacho, J., 1980. Sulfuric acid leaching of copper silicate ore.
Leaching and recovering copper from as mined materials. In: Proceedings of the
Las Vegas, Symposium, February 26, pp. 61–70 (Chapter 5).
DeMull, T.J., Womack, R.A., 1983. Heap leaching practice at Alligator Ridge. Au and
Ag heap and dump leaching practice with panel discussion. In: Proceedings
from the SME Fall Meeting, October 19–21, Salt Lake City, pp. 9–21 (Chapter 2).
Derupt, N., 2009. Heap leaching of low-grade uranium ores at Somaïr. In: ALTA
Uranium Conference, Perth, Australia, May 28–29.
Dhawan, N., Safarzadeh, M.S., Miller, J.D., Rajamani, R.K., Moats, M., 2012a. Insights
into heap leaching. In: SME-2012, Seattle, Washington, Preprint No. 12-119.
Dhawan, N., Safarzadeh, M.S., Miller, J.D., Rajamani, R.K., Moats, M., Lin, C.L., 2012b.
Recent advances in the application of X-ray computed tomography in the
analysis of heap leaching systems. Minerals Engineering 35, 75–86.
Dorey, R, Van Zyl, D., Kiel, J., 1988. Overview; Predevelopment Aspects of Heap
Leaching. Introduction to Evaluation, Design and Operation of Precious Metal
Heap Leaching Projects, pp. 3–22 (Chapter 1).
Dudley, K.A., Readett, D.J., Bos, J.L., 2000. Hydrometallurgical Processing of Copper
Ores—Heap Leach, Solvent Extraction and Electrowinning at Girilambone
Copper Company, MINPREX, Melbourne, Australia, September 11–13, pp.
263–269.
Duyvesteyn, W.P.C., Liu, H., Davis, J., 2001. Heap Leaching of Nickel Containing Ore.
United States Patent, US 6312500 B1.
Efthymiou, M., Henderson, L., Pyper, R., 1998. Practical aspects of the application of
Extract-Ore 9560 for heap leach agglomeration at Nifty copper operation. In:
ALTA Copper Hydrometallurgy Forum, October 20–21, Queensland, Australia,
pp. 1–15.
Fernández, G.V., 2003. The use of electrical conductivity in agglomeration and
leaching. In: Proceedings of Copper 2003, 5th International Conference.
Leaching and Process Development, vol. VI, November 30–December 03,
Santiago, pp. 161–175.
Galea, W., Lupo, J.F., Gutierrez, A., 2010. Technical Breakfast-Heap Leaching.
Considerations in Heap Leaching Design and Recent Industry Trends, July 20.
<http://www.minproc.com/news-and-publications/presentations> (accessed
15.06.11).
Garcia, A.J., Jorgenson, M.K., 1997. Agglomeration and heap leaching testing
requirements for high clay ores. In: Randol Gold Forum, Colorado, pp. 143–146.
Georgescu, P.D., Graur, G., 2002. Influence of pelletisation on uranium ores heap
leaching. Recent developments in uranium resources and production with
emphasis on in-situ leach mining, In: Proceedings of Technical Meeting
Organized by the IAEA in Co-Operation with the OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency, The Bureau of Geology, and China National Nuclear Corporation,
Beijing, China, September 18–23, pp. 230–235.
Groesz, M.J., Gross, A.E., Neville, P.C., 1994. Use of Polymeric Agglomeration Aids to
Improve Heap Leach Recovery and Profitability. Recent Trends in Heap
Leaching, Bendigo, Australia, September 27–29, pp. 45–52.
Guzman, A., Scheffel, R., Flaherty, S.M., 2008. The fundamentals of physical
characterization of ore for leach. In: Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy 2008 –
6th International Symposium, August 17–21, Phoenix, Arizona, pp. 937–954.
69
Heinen, H.J., 1980. Percolation leaching of clayey gold–silver ores, Nevada bureau of
mines and geology. In: Report 36, Papers Given at the Precious-Metals
Symposium, Sparks, Nevada, November 17–19, pp. 87–91.
Heitt, D.G., 1997. Geology and mineralization related to heap leaching. In:
Proceedings of the Symposium on Global Exploitation of Heap Leachable Gold
Deposits, February 9–13, Orlando, Florida, pp. 53–64.
Herkenhoff, E.C., Dean, J.G., 1987. Heap leaching: agglomerate or deslime?.
Engineering and Mining Journal 188 (6), 32–39.
Hernandez, R., Schlitt, W.J., Lopez, M.E., 2003. The El Abra run of mine leach
testwork program. In: Proceedings of Copper 2003, 5th International
Conference. Leaching and Process Development, vol. VI, November 30–
December 03, Santiago, pp. 13–29.
Holle, H., 1995. Process innovations at Girilambone copper company heap leach/SX/
EW operation. In: Randol 5th Global Mining Opportunities and 2nd Annual
Copper Hydromet Roundtable International Conference and Exhibition,
Vancouver, Canada, November 17–20, pp. 289–294.
Jansen, M., Taylor, A., 2003. Overview of gangue mineralogy issues in oxide copper
heap leaching. In: ALTA Conference, May 19–24, Perth, Australia.
Kappes, D.W., Pyper, R.A., Collins, D.J., 2000. Observations on recent successes and
problems in heap leaching. In: Fourth International Gold Symposium, Lima,
Peru.
Kappes, D.W., 2002. Precious metal heap leach design and practice. In: Mular, A.L.,
Halbe, D.N., Barratt, D.J. (Eds.), Proceedings Mineral Processing Plant Design,
Practice, and Control, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 1606–1630.
Kappes, D.W., 2005. Heap Leaching of Gold and Silver Ores. Advances in Gold Ore
Processing. Developments in Mineral Processing, vol. 15, pp. 456–478 (Chapter
19).
Kapur, P.C., Runkana, V., 2003. Balling and granulation kinetics revisited.
International Journal of Mineral Processing 72 (1–4), 417–427.
Kinard, D.T., Schweizer, A.A., 1987. Engineering properties of agglomerated ore in a
heap leach pile. In: Dirk, V.Z. (Ed.), Geotechnical Aspects of Heap Leach Design,
pp. 55–64 (Chapter 10).
Klingmann, L., 2005. Soledad Mountain Project – flowsheet development and
benefits of the HPGR. In: Proceedings of the Randol Innovative Metallurgy
Forum, Perth, Australia.
Kodali, P., Depci, T., Dhawan, N., Wang, X., Lin, C.L., Miller, J.D., 2011a. Evaluation of
stucco binder for agglomeration in the heap leaching of copper ore. Minerals
Engineering 24 (11), 886–893.
Kodali, P., Dhawan, N., Depci, T., Lin, C.L., Miller, J.D., 2011b. Particle damage and
exposure analysis in HPGR crushing of selected copper ores for column
leaching. Minerals Engineering 24 (12), 1478–1487.
Kyle, J., 2010. Nickel laterite processing technologies – where to next?. In: ALTA,
Nickel/Cobalt/Copper Conference, May 24–27, Perth, Australia.
Lastra, M.R., Chase, C.K., 1984. Permeability, solution delivery, and solution
recovery: critical factors in dump and heap leaching of gold. Mining
Engineering (November), 1537–1539.
Lehoux, P.L., 1997. Agglomeration practice at Kennecott Barney’s Canyon mining
company. In: Hausen, D.M. (Ed.), Global Exploitation of Heap Leachable Gold
Deposits.
Leonardou S.A., Dimaki D., Mposkos, E., 1997. Extraction of nickel and cobalt from
Greek low-grade nickel oxide ores by heap leaching. In: Proceedings of the
Nickel–Cobalt 97 International Symposium, August 17–20, Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada, pp. 489–503.
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2008. Development of experimental procedures
to analyze copper agglomerate stability. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing
25 (2), 110–116.
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2009a. Polyacrylamide as an agglomeration
additive for copper heap leaching. International Journal of Mineral Processing
91, 88–93.
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2009b. Binders for heap leaching agglomeration.
Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 26 (1), 1–24.
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2009c. Effect of agglomeration binders on the
copper solvent extraction process. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 26 (3),
121–126.
Lewandowski, K.A., Eisele, T.C., Kawatra, S.K., 2010. Agglomeration for copper heap
leaching. In: Proceedings XXV International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC
2010), September 6–10, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 183–192.
Longworth, M., Von Perger, D., Bartsch, P., 2007. Jump-up dam nickel laterite
heap leach project. In: ALTA Nickel/Cobalt Conference, Perth, Australia,
May 19–26.
Lu, J., Dreisinger, D., West-Sells, P., 2007. Acid curing and agglomeration. In: Riveros,
P.A., Dixon, D.G., Dresinger, D.B., Collins, M.J. (Eds.), Cu 2007, John E. Dutrizac
International Symposium on Copper Hydrometallurgy, Toronto, pp. 453–464.
Lupo, J.F., Dolezal, A., 2010. Ore geotechnical testing for heap leach pad design. In:
Hydroprocess, 3rd International Workshop on Process Hydrometallurgy, August
11–13, Santiago, Chile.
Manning, T.J., Kappes, D.W., 2005. Heap leaching. SME Mining Engineering
Handbook, pp. 1073–1086 (Chapter 11.3).
Martens, E., Zhang, H., Prommer, H., Greskowiak, J., Jefrey, M., Roberts, P., 2012. In
situ recovery of gold: column leaching experiments and reactive transport
modeling. Hydrometallurgy 125–126, 16–23.
Mashbir, D.S., 1964. Heap leaching of low-grade uranium ore. Mining Congress
Journal 50 (2), 50–54.
McClelland, G.E., Pool, D.L., Hunt, A.H., Eisele, J.A., 1985. Agglomeration and Heap
Leaching of Finely Ground Precious Metal Bearing Tailings. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular.
70 N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 53–70
McClelland, G.E., 1986. Agglomerated and unagglomerated heap leaching behavior
is compared in production heaps. Mining Engineering (July), 500–503.
McClelland, G.E., 1988. Testing of Ore. Introduction to Evaluation, Design and
Operation of Precious Metal Heap Leaching Projects, pp. 61–67 (Chapter 4).
McClelland, G.E., van Zyl, D., 1988. Ore Preparation: Crushing and Agglomeration.
Introduction to Evaluation, Design and Operation of Precious Metal Heap
Leaching Projects, pp. 68–91 (Chapter 5).
McNab, 2006. Exploring HPGR technology for heap leaching of fresh rock gold ores.
In: Proceedings of HR Crushing and Grinding Conference, March, Townsville,
Australia.
Miller, G., 2003. Analysis of commercial heap leaching data. In: Proceedings of the
Copper 2003, 5th International Conference. Modeling, Impurity Control and
Solvent Extraction, vol. VI, November 30–December 03, Santiago, pp. 531–545.
Miller, G., 2010. Agglomeration drum selection and design. In: Proceedings XXV
International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC 2010), September 6–10,
Brisbane, Australia, pp. 193–202.
Milligan, D.A., 1984, Agglomerated heap leaching at Anaconda’s Darwin silver
recovery project. Au and Ag heap and dump leaching practice with panel
discussion. In: Proceedings from the SME Fall Meeting, October 19–21, Salt Lake
City, pp. 29–39. ISBN 0-89520-425-8 (Chapter 4).
Moats, M. S., Janwong, A., 2008. The art and science of crushed ore agglomeration
for heap leaching. In: Young, C., Taylor, P., Anderson, C., Choi, Y. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Hydrometallurgy 2008 – 6th International Symposium,
August 17–21, Phoenix, Arizona, pp. 912–917.
Natunen, H., Arias, H., Guasch, D., Mallory, J., Saarenpaa, T., 1995. Copper heap
leaching–solvent extraction–electrowinning process at the Zaldivar mine. In:
Proceedings of Copper 95, International Conference. Electrorefining and
Hydrometallurgy of Copper, vol. III, November 26–29, Santiago, pp. 757–772.
Nivens, R.E., Given, K.M., 1993. Benefits of polymer agglomeration at Newmont gold
company. In: SME Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, February 15–18.
Nosrati, A., Addai-Mensah, J., Robinson, D.J., 2012. Drum agglomeration behavior of
nickel laterite ore: effect of process variables. Hydrometallurgy 125–126, 90–
99.
Pautler, J.B., Gross, A.E., Strominger, M.G., 1990. New Polymeric Agglomeration Aid
Improves Heap Leach Efficiency at Brewer Gold. Advances in Gold and Silver
Processing. Heap Leaching, pp. 15–21 (Chapter 2).
Phifer, S.E., 1988. Agglomerating gold ores at the Haile gold mine. Mining
Engineering (June), 447–450.
Pietsch, W., 2002. Agglomeration Processes. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim,
pp. 614.
Pietsch, W., 2005. Unwanted agglomeration: how it happens and how to prevent it.
Powder and Bulk Engineering (May), 67–73.
Potter, G.M., 1981. Design factors for heap leaching operations. Mining Engineering
33 (3), 277–281.
Purkiss, S., Anthony, R., 2004. Heap Leaching Base Metals from Oxide Ores. Pub. No.
WO/2004/031422.
Pyke, P.O., 1994. Operations of a Small Heap Leach. Recent Trends in Heap Leaching,
Bendigo, Australia, 27–29 September, pp. 103–109.
Pyper, R., Pangbourne, A., 1988. Marvel Loch gold mines exhibition heap leach
project. In: Workshop Conference on Economics and Practice of Heap Leaching
in Gold Mining. Cairns, Queensland, Australia, August 3–6.
Readett, D.J., Fox, A., 2010. Commercialization of nickel heap leaching at Murrin
Murrin operations. In: Proceedings of XXV International Mineral Processing
Congress (IMPC 2010), September 6–10, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 3611–3616.
Robertson, S., Van Staden, P.J., 2009. The progression of metallurgical test work
during heap leach design. In: Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy Conference. The
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, April 6–7, Cape Town,
South, Africa, pp. 31–42.
Robertson, S., Sayedbagheri, A., Van Staden, P., Guzman, A., 2010. Advances in heap
leach research and development. In: ALTA 2010 Nickel/Cobalt/Copper
Conference, May 24–26, Perth, Australia.
Rodriguez, M., 2007. Murrin Murrin Operations. The Method for Agglomeration.
International Publication Number WO 2007/143779 A1.
Scheffel, R.E., 1981. Retreatment and stabilization of the Naturita tailing pile using
heap leaching techniques. In: SME–AIME Fall Meeting and Exhibit, Denver,
Colorado, November 18–20, Preprint No. 81-314.
Scheffel, R., 2002. In: Mular, A.L., Halbe, D.N., Barratt, D.J. (Eds.), Copper Heap Leach
Design and Practice. Mineral Processing Plant Design, Practice, and Control
Proceedings, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 1571–1605.
Scheffel, R., 2010. Heap leaching design for success – a case study. In: Low-Grade
Uranium Dump and Heap Leach Technical Meeting, March 29–31. International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section, Vienna,
Austria.
Scheffel, R.E., 2011. Personal Communication, June.
Schlitt, W.J., 1983. The role of solution management in heap and dump leaching.
Heap and dump leaching practice. In: Proceedings SME Fall Meeting, October
19–21, Salt Lake, City, pp. 69–83 (Chapter 8).
Schlitt, W.J., 1992. Solution mining: surface techniques. In: Hartman, H.L. (Ed.), SME
Mining Engineering Handbook, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1478–1492.
Schonert, K., 1988. A first survey of grinding with high-pressure compression roller
mills. International Journal of Mineral Processing 22 (1–4), 401–419.
Serrano, E.M., 2003. New agglomeration techniques for the acid percolation
leaching of clay-bearing copper ores. In: Proceedings of Copper 2003 – 5th
International Conference. Leaching and Process Development, vol. VI, November
30–December 03, Santiago, pp. 189–201.
Sinclair, G., 2010. Applying Heap Leach Technology to the Treatment of Ranger Ores.
IAEA Consultancy on Low-Grade Uranium Ore, March 24–26. <http://
www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/TM_LGUO/
4f%20Sinclair%20Ranger%20Heap%20Leach.pdf> (accessed 12.06.11).
Southwood, A.J., 1985. The Agglomeration of Fine Material for Bacterial Heap
Leaching. Mintek Report No. M191. Council for Mineral Technology, Randburg,
South Africa.
Steemson, M.L., Smith, M.E., 2009. The development of nickel laterite heap leach
projects. In: ALTA 2009 Nickel/Cobalt Conference, May 25–30, Perth, Australia.
Sullivan, J.D., Towne, A.P., 1936. Agglomeration and Leaching of Slimes and Other
Finely Divided Ores. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 329.
Sylwestrzak, L., Cudby, M., Readett, D., Dudley, K, 2002. Initiation of bioleaching at
Nifty copper operation. In: ALTA Copper Conference, Perth, Australia.
Taylor, A., 2007. Innovations and trends in uranium ore treatment. In: ALTA Nickel/
Cobalt, Copper and Uranium Conference, Perth, Australia, May 19–26.
Thella, J.S., Venugopal, R., 2011. Modeling of iron ore pelletisation using 3⁄⁄(k-p)
factorial design of experiments and polynomial surface regression
methodology. Powder Technology 211, 54–59.
Thiry, J., Derupt, N., 2010. Heap Leaching of Low-Grade Uranium Ores at Somaïr.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Technical Meeting on Low-Grade
Uranium Ore, March 29–31.
Thompson, P., 1997. The effect of column height on simulated heap leach test
results. In: Proceedings of the Symposium – Global Exploitation of Heap
Leachable Gold Deposits, February 9–13, Orlando, Florida, pp. 231–241.
Tibbals, R.L., 1987. Agglomeration practice in the treatment of precious metal ores.
In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Gold Metallurgy, vol. 1,
Winnipeg, Canada, August 23–26. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 77–86.
Ulrich, B., Andrade, H., Gardner, T., 2003. Lessons learnt from heap leaching
operations in South America – AN update. The Journal of the South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (January/February), 23–28.
Van Staden, P.J., Laxen, P.A., 1988. Process options for the retirement of gold-bearing
material from sand dumps. Journal of South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy 88 (8), 257–264.
Van Staden, P.J., Gericke, M., Craven, P.M., 2008. Minerals Biotechnology: trends,
opportunities and challenges. In: Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy 2008 – 6th
International Symposium, August 17–21, Phoenix, Arizona, pp. 6–13.
Velarde, G., 2005. Agglomeration control for heap leaching processes. Mineral
Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review 26 (3–4), 219–231.
Vethosodsakda, T., 2012. Evaluation of crushed ore agglomeration, liquid retention
capacity, and column leaching. Master’s thesis, Department of Metallurgical
Engineering, University of Utah.
von Michaelis, H., 1983. Innovations in gold and silver recovery. In: SME Annual
Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, March 6–10, Preprint No. 83-119.
von Michaelis, H., 1992. Innovations in Gold and Silver Recovery. Phase IV, 10,
Golden, Colorado. Randol International Ltd., pp. 5750–5816.
Wadsworth, M.E., 1977. Interfacing technologies in solution mining. Mining
Engineering 29 (12), 30–33.
West, J.N., Connor, J.W., 1996. Nifty-hydrometallurgy in the sand dunes. In: AuslMM
Annual Conference, Perth, Australia, 24–28 March, pp. 181–183.
Worstell, J.H., 1987. Guide to successful precious metal heap leaching. In: African
Mining Conference. Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 425–436.
Yanru, S., Wancheng, G., Runshen, X., 2002. The new progress on heap leaching of
hard rock uranium ore in China. In: Recent Developments in Uranium Resources
and Production with Emphasis on In-Situ Leach Mining. Proceedings of a
Technical Meeting, IAEA-OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the Bureau of Geology,
and China National Nuclear Corporation, Beijing, China, September 18–23, pp.
250–255.
Yijun, Z., Jianhua, L., Tieqiu, Li., Pingru, Z., 2002. Application of agglomerated acid
heap leaching of clay-bearing uranium ore in China. In: Recent Developments in
Uranium Resources and Production with Emphasis on In-Situ Leach Mining.
Proceedings of a Technical Meeting, IAEA-OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, The
Bureau of Geology, and China National Nuclear Corporation, Beijing, China, 18–
23 September, pp. 243–249.
Zárate, G.E., Guzmán, J.C., 1987. Low Cost Processing for Precious Metals Recovery.
Small Mines Development in Precious Metals, pp. 151-155 (Chapter 24).
Zárate, G.E., Trincado, L., Troncoso, U., Vargas, C., 2003. Process improvements at
Mantoverde heap leach-SX-EW plant. In: Proceedings of Copper 2003–5th
International Conference. Modeling, Impurity Control and Solvent Extraction,
vol. VI, November 30–December 03, Santiago, pp. 811–819.