1761 Figure 3 – Illustration of stope geometry and boundary setup. In Figure 4, we demonstrate the model’s ability to capture the main physical processes for IPR leaching operations within spatially varying stope properties. The stope porosity distribution of the base case is shown in Figure 4(a), with the stope porosity ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 to account for post-blast pore volume heterogeneity within the stope. Figures 4(b) and 4(c) show the simulated steady-state fluid flow. The effective saturation distribution matches the porosity distribution, with lower-porosity regions having higher effective saturation from stronger capillary suction. The stope bottom also has higher saturation from liquid accumulation at the impermeable floorand the narrow outlet. From Figure 4(c), low-flow regions can also be found at low-porosity regions, and the bulk flow tends to go around them, leading to tortuous flow streamlines. For lixiviant transport, Figure 4(d) shows the normalised Fe3+ concentration after six month of operation. Although the concentration front roughly follows the shape of the stope top boundary, lixiviant transport is nonuniform due to the channelling effect. Figures 4(e) and 4(f) show the minerals recovery distributions, following a very similar pattern to that of the Fe3+ concentration distribution.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2