1264 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO.

4, JULY/AUGUST 2010

Improving Productivity and Energy Efficiency in

Copper Electrowinning Plants
Eduardo P. Wiechmann, Senior Member, IEEE, Anibal S. Morales, and Pablo Aqueveque, Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper presents strategies to improve energy

efficiency and productivity in copper electrowinning (EW) plants.
Plant modeling is based on updated technical data and specific
measurements obtained in a tankhouse during a complete pro-
duction cycle (four to five continuous days). The industrial EW
plant site examined produces 180 000 ton/year with an operating
current density of 300 A/m2 and a current dispersion of 8.5%.
Proposals are based on the use of Optibar intercell bars and the
reduction of distance between electrodes. Due to these changes,
an improvement of +4.3% in energy efficiency combined with
an increase of +3.4% in production can be accomplished. The
productivity improvement projected for the plant is U.S.$ 10
million/year.
Index Terms—Current efficiency, electrode distance, elec-
trowinning (EW), energy efficiency, operating current density,
productivity, short circuits.

I. I NTRODUCTION

G RADE-A COPPER cathode production from oxide ore
requires electrowining (EW). In this process, copper
ions that have been dissolved in an electrolyte by sulfuric
acid (incoming from previous stages of leaching and solvent
extraction) are reduced on cathode surfaces as pure metallic
copper using high dc currents. In this way, copper ore impu-
rities are not deposited on cathodes, ensuring high-grade metal
(> 99.9999% Cu) [1], [2].
EW is carried out in large tankhouses with several hundreds
of electrolytic cells (see Fig. 1). A medium-size tankhouse
contains four circuits conformed by 90 cells connected in series,
with each one containing 60 anode–cathode pairs (see Fig. 2).
Every EW circuit is fed by means of 12-pulse transformer-
rectifiers rated at 40 kA. The copper EW operating voltage
reaches ∼2.0 V/cell. It is usual to operate with cathode current
densities up to 320 A/m2 . The cathode cycle is four to five days
in copper EW plants for typical operating conditions [3]–[5].
For an EW plant with a production level of 180 000 ton/year,
the energy consumption achieves 75 MWh with a production
Manuscript received June 1, 2009; revised October 18, 2009; accepted
January 7, 2010. Date of publication May 17, 2010; date of current version
July 21, 2010. Paper 2009-MIC-097.R1, presented at the 2009 Industry Appli-
cations Society Annual Meeting, Houston, TX, October 4–8, and approved for
publication in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS by
the Mining Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty
of Engineering, University of Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile (e-mail:
wiechmann@ieee.org; eduardo.wiechmann@udec.cl; edu.pieter@gmail.
com; animorales@udec.cl; pablo.aqueveque@ieee.org; pablo.aqueveque@
gmail.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2010.2049818
0093-9994/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
Fig. 1. Typical EW plant tankhouse.
cost of ∼2000 kWh/ton [1], [2]. Thus, electrical energy is an
important cost factor in copper EW plants.
The production level and energy efficiency in copper EW
processes are determined by the following: 1) the current ef-
ficiency of electrolytic cells and 2) the energy losses produced
in electrical resistances of process components.
The current efficiency in copper EW cells is defined by the
electrolysis reaction efficiency. This is calculated by dividing
the actual copper production by the expected theoretical copper
deposit. The current efficiency in copper EW typically ranges
from 82% to 92%. The unused current is wasted through short
circuits, stray currents, reoxidation of cathodes, and forming
by-products in parasitic reactions [1]–[6].
Energy losses in process components depend on the operat-
ing cell voltage and the current density through the electrodes.
Typical process components include power transformers,
passive filters, high-current rectifiers, interphase reactors, dc
busbars, and electrolytic cells. In the electrolytic cells, energy
losses are produced by metallurgical short circuits and the
current flowing through electrolyte and contact resistances.
Resistance losses account for up to 30% of losses. The key
factor to decrease these losses is to reduce current dispersion
among anode–cathode pairs and/or the process resistances
[4], [7], [8].
Metallurgical short circuits are metal deposits that grow
abnormally between electrodes reducing electrolyte resistance.
Normally, this phenomenon increases the current in the cath-
odes involved by up to 1500 A. This reduces the current of
the neighboring cathodes affecting the overall cell dynamics. In
WIECHMANN et al.: IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN COPPER ELECTROWINNING (EW) PLANTS
Fig. 2. (a) EW cell structure. (b) Walker intercell bar configuration used on
the industrial site.
the worst cases, the overcurrent is concentrated in a small area
(∼ 1 cm2 out of 1 m2 carries the 1200-A overcurrent), pro-
ducing heavy energy losses during long periods [9], [10]. The
presence of three or more short circuits per cell in each cathode
cycle is considered normal for the process. This represents
∼5% of the tankhouse cathodes.
The cell voltage in copper EW processes depends on the
thermodynamic equilibrium potential of the anode and cathode
reactions (known as cell reaction voltage), kinetic overvoltages,
and ohmic resistance of electrolyte and contacts. To produce
electrolysis, these potentials must be overcome by applying a
higher potential between every cathode–anode pair [1], [2], [6].
In practice, the electrolyte produces the largest resistance for
the current to flow. Electrolyte resistance depends on electrolyte
resistivity and electrode distance. Electrolyte resistivity is a
complex function of electrolyte composition and temperature.
Therefore, lowering the electrolyte resistance by varying its
composition does not offer many possibilities to work with.
On the other hand, reduction of electrode distance in EW cells
represents an effective way to reduce energy losses [6]–[9].
However, the distance between electrodes must be increased to
1265
reduce the occurrence and the intensity of short circuits and
current dispersion. As usual, an optimal design distance must
be used to satisfy border conditions.
In summary, energy losses and production level are deter-
mined by the current dispersion, frequency, and overcurrent of
short circuits and electrolyte resistance.
This paper presents a complete energy efficiency and pro-
ductivity improvement proposal for a copper EW plant. The
proposal uses updated technical data and specific measurements
obtained in a tankhouse during a complete production cycle
(four to five continuous days). The industrial EW plant site
examined produces 180 000 ton/year with an operating current
density of 300 A/m2 and a current dispersion of 8.5%. Plant
modeling and process parameters use data acquired on-site.
Three strategies are proposed. These are based on the use of an
improved intercell bar combined with the reduction of distance
between electrodes. With these strategies, a +3.4% copper
production and a +4.3% energy efficiency improvement are ac-
complished. Both factors result in a productivity improvement
of at least U.S.$10 million/year.
II. C OPPER EW P LANT E NERGY E FFICIENCY E VALUATION
Many physical, chemical, and electrical factors influence the
energy efficiency of EW processes. Among the factors affect-
ing this parameter are as follows: 1) positioning and distance
between electrodes; 2) operating cell temperature; 3) elec-
trolyte conductivity; 4) electrolyte impurity levels; 5) additive
agents; 6) contact resistances between electrodes and intercell
bars; 7) intercell bar configuration; 8) current density disper-
sion; 9) short-circuit occurrence frequency; and 10) dc high-
current system efficiency.
In copper EW, the optimal energy efficiency of 100% is de-
fined for an electrolysis reaction with a 100% current efficiency
and no ohmic losses. In this case, only the cell reaction voltage
(∼1.45 V) is required to force the process current to flow.
In practice, an ∼0.55-V overpotential is applied to produce
electrolysis. This diverts energy efficiency from its theoretical
optimal, as expressed in

Vcell = Vreaction + (Vpol ) + Idc · Rcell (1)
where Vcell is the operating cell voltage, V reaction is the
anode–cathode voltage required for reaction, (Vpol ) is the
sum of all the polarization effects on the electrodes, and Idc ·
Rcell denotes the ohmic losses of the EW cells.
The total energy losses in electrical resistances of process
components for an operating cell voltage of ∼2.0 V and a
cathode current density of 300 A/m2 are estimated to be
194.3 GWh/year. This value represents 29% of the plant power
demand (∼2% in power transformers, passive filters, and power
lines; ∼0.5% in high-current rectifiers, interphase reactors,
and dc busbars; and 26.5% in electrical resistances of elec-
trolytic cells). These losses reduce the process energy efficiency
to 71.8%.
The current efficiency reduces the energy efficiency from its
optimal, as detailed in (2). On the industrial site, the operating
current efficiency of EW cells was calculated to be 85.1%.
1266 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2010
TABLE I
COPPER EW PROCESS ENERGY EFFICIENCY SUMMARY
Fig. 3. Walker intercell busbar configuration used in EW.
This reduces the global process energy efficiency to 61.1%
(see Table I). The extra energy losses are estimated to be
66.93 GWh/year
 
Vreaction
ηEW = ηT · ηR · ηcells = ηT · ηR · ·η (2)
Vcell
where ηEW is the copper EW plant energy efficiency; ηT is
the energy efficiency of power transformers, passive filters, and
power lines; ηR is the energy efficiency of 12-pulse double-
bridge high-current rectifiers and dc busbars; and η is the
operating current efficiency of EW cells.
III. C OPPER EW P LANT E NERGY
E FFICIENCY I MPROVEMENT
The quantity and quality of copper deposited on the cathodes,
as well as the process efficiency, depend on the current density
through the electrodes. This operational parameter is calculated
by dividing the average cathode current by the area of both
cathode faces [3].
Ideally, all cathode current densities must be maintained as
close as possible to the target current density. This must be
done to ensure optimal process dynamics in order to reduce
harvesting times and increase the yearly copper output. EW
plants use a variety of Walker configurations based intercell
bars (see Fig. 3). Walker intercell bars are designed to ensure
a common voltage for every cathode–anode pair in a cell (see
Fig. 4) [11]–[13]. Since resistances between electrode pairs
Fig. 4. Equivalent electrical circuit for a Walker EW cell.
Fig. 5. Cathode current densities for EW cells operating with conventional
Walker intercell busbars.
differ due to geometric, chemical, and electrical mismatches,
the use of these intercell bars results in high current dispersion
among cathodes (see Fig. 5).
Current imbalance is responsible for an important number
of process anomalies. It produces significant weight difference
between harvested cathodes, it limits the maximum allowable
operational current, it increases resistance losses, and it com-
promises the process operation because it favors the creation
of multiple metallurgical short circuits between cathode–anode
pairs.
Walker class intercell bars are characterized for short-circuit
capability levels up to 300% of the cathode operational current
(see Fig. 6). In this way, currents in excess of 1500 A flow
through short-circuited electrodes. These short circuits produce
damage in “permanent cathodes,” result to energy losses, and
lower the physical quality of the cathodes.
Segmented Optibar technology [3], [4] (see Fig. 7) forces
current balance. The technology helps to compensate for geo-
metrical asymmetries, misalignments, contact resistances, and
electrolyte dispersion. An Optibar intercell bar connects the
anode–cathode pairs of contiguous cells in series, generating
preferred electrical paths or current channels (see Fig. 8). These
WIECHMANN et al.: IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN COPPER ELECTROWINNING (EW) PLANTS 1267

Fig. 6. Current density increment during a short circuit between electrodes in

Fig. 9. Cathode current densities for EW cells operating with segmented
EW cells employing Walker intercell bars.
Optibar intercell busbars.

Fig. 7. Optibar intercell busbar configuration for EW plants.

Fig. 10. Current density increment during a short circuit between electrodes
in EW cells employing Optibar intercell bars.

alignment. In addition, Optibar connection is characterized

by high short-circuit resistances (Thévenin resistance), avoid-
ing high overcurrents (see Fig. 10). This feature enhances
the process current efficiency and the product quality. En-
ergy savings are accomplished by as follows: 1) reduction of
short-circuit frequencies to one-third; 2) contained behavior of
the remaining short circuits with overcurrents not exceeding
1.25 p.u.; and 3) reduction of current dispersion diminishes cell
voltage by 4%; this also means 4% reduction of EW cell energy
losses.
A summary of energy savings by replacing conventional
intercell bars with Optibar in the industrial EW plant is shown
in Table II. Energy savings of 30.23 GWh/year are achieved.
The process current efficiency is increased by +1.5%. The cell
electrical energy efficiency is increased by +3.0%, and the
Fig. 8. Equivalent electrical circuit for an Optibar EW cell. process energy efficiency is improved by +3.5%.

current channels share similar circuit equivalent resistances,

IV. C OPPER EW P LANT P RODUCTIVITY I MPROVEMENT
producing balanced currents throughout the cell cathodes (see
Fig. 9). Slight voltage differences among electrodes are allowed The analysis of the technical data and measurements
to compensate dispersion in contact resistances and electrode allows the proposal of three complementary strategies to
1268 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2010

TABLE II TABLE III

SUMMARY OF ENERGY SAVINGS ATTAINED WITH OPTIBAR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT BY REPLACING CONVENTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY IN THE EVALUATED COPPER EW PLANT INTERCELL BARS WITH OPTIBAR AND REDUCING DISTANCE BETWEEN
ELECTRODES IN THE EVALUATED COPPER EW PLANT

Fig. 12. Cathode current density distribution on the industrial EW plant under
study using Optibar intercell bars and reducing the distance between electrodes
by 5% in EW cells (strategy B for productivity improvement).
Fig. 11. Cathode current density distribution on the industrial EW plant under
study using Optibar intercell bars and increasing the operating current density
by 6.2% (strategy A for productivity improvement).

improve the process productivity (copper production level

and process energy efficiency) using segmented Optibar inter-
cell bars.

A. Strategy A: Improvement of Copper Production by

Increasing the Operating Current Density of Cathodes
In the case studied, the Optibar technology reduced cur-
rent dispersion from 8.5% to ∼5%. On the one hand, the
use of conventional intercell bars results in 1% of tankhouse
cathodes with current densities over 365 A/m2 . On the other
hand, the use of segmented Optibar technology improves this
to 1% of cathodes with current densities over 342 A/m2
Fig. 13. Cathode current density distribution on the industrial EW plant under
(see Fig. 11). study using Optibar intercell bars, reducing the distance between electrodes by
When using Optibar intercell bars, it is possible to increase 5% in EW cells and increasing the operating current density by 6.2% (strategy
the operating current density and production level by +6.2% C for productivity improvement).
without affecting the copper quality. In this case, only 1%
B. Strategy B: Improvement of Copper Production by
of tankhouse cathodes will accomplish the present maximum
Reducing the Distance Between Electrodes
current density. However, in this scenario, the use of Optibar
intercell bars ensures more homogeneous copper cathodes in The evaluated copper EW plant uses conventional intercell
weight and quality. bars with a distance of 5 cm between electrodes. For current
WIECHMANN et al.: IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN COPPER ELECTROWINNING (EW) PLANTS
TABLE IV
ECONOMICAL EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EVALUATED COPPER EW PLANT
operating conditions, the use of Optibar intercell bars creates
current channels that reduce cathode current density dispersion
by 43.8% and short-circuit frequency by 67%. This feature
allows the reduction of distance between electrodes, decreasing
the electrical resistance of electrolyte and the associated energy
losses. This enables the ability to operate with a higher number
of cathodes per cell. In this way, it is possible to increase the
copper production level of the plant without changing the cell
structure.
By including an extra cathode per cell, there will be a
reduction of distance between electrodes by 5%. This will allow
the improvement of present copper production by +1.7% with
a process energy efficiency increase of +4.3% (see Table III
and Fig. 12).
C. Strategy C: Improvement of Copper Production by
Increasing the Operating Current Density of Cathodes and
Reducing the Distance Between Electrodes
The aforementioned strategy is a combination of strategies A
and B (see Fig. 13).
Table IV shows the evaluation of the proposed strategies to
improve productivity.
V. C ONCLUSION
The use of Optibar intercell bars proved to reduce current
density dispersion in EW cells by 43.8%, short-circuit fre-
quency by 67%, and overcurrent levels during short circuits
from 120% to 25%. Also, the cell voltage and energy losses
were reduced by 4%. In this paper, three strategies have been
examined to improve the copper production and the process
efficiency. They are intended to be carried out using seg-
mented Optibar technology and electrode distance reduction.
This should result in a copper production increase of +3.4%
1269
and an improvement in process energy efficiency of +4.3%.
At least U.S.$10 million/year of plant productivity should be
expected.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. G. L. Davenport, M. King, M. Schlesinger, and A. K. Biswas,
Extractive Metallurgy of Copper, 4th ed. New York: Pergamon, 2002,
pp. 327–340.
[2] T. Robinson, J. Jenkins, S. Rasmussen, M. King, and W. Davenport,
“Copper electrowinning—2003 world tankhouse operating data,” in Proc.
Copper—Cobre, J. E. Dutrizac and C. G. Clement, Eds., Santiago, Chile,
Dec. 2003, vol. V, pp. 421–472.
[3] R. R. Brown, “Rectifier and DC bus system design for the copper elec-
trowinning industry,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1225–
1231, Nov./Dec. 1990.
[4] E. P. Wiechmann, G. A. Vidal, and J. A. Pagliero, “Current-source con-
nection of electrolytic cell electrodes: An improvement for electrowinning
and electrorefinery,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 851–855,
May/Jun. 2006.
[5] E. P. Wiechmann, G. A. Vidal, J. A. Pagliero, and J. A. Gonzalez,
“Copper electrowinning using segmented intercell bars for improved
current distribution,” Can. Metall. Quart., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 425–432,
2001.
[6] A. J. Bard, M. Stratmann, D. McDonald, and P. Schmuki, Encyclopedia
of Electrochemistry, vol. 5, Electrochemical Engineering. Weinheim,
Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag, 2007, pp. 161–223.
[7] J. A. Gonzalez, “Zinc electrowinning: Anode conditioning and current
distribution studies,” in Proc. Electrometallurgy, Toronto, ON, Canada,
2001, pp. 147–162.
[8] P. Gopala Krishna and S. C. Das, “Enhancement of operating current
density in a copper electrowinning cell,” Hydrometallurgy, vol. 31, no. 3,
pp. 243–255, Nov. 1992.
[9] P. E. Aqueveque, E. P. Wiechmann, and R. P. Burgos, “Short-circuit de-
tection for electrolytic processes employing Optibar intercell bars,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1225–1231, Jul./Aug. 2009.
[10] S. B. Borg, “Infrared detection of invisible shorts in electrolytic
copper refining tanks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. Control Instrum.,
vol. IECI-18, no. 2, pp. 36–37, May 1971.
[11] A. Walker, “Plant for the electrodepositación of metals,” U.S. Patent
687 800, Dec. 3, 1901.
[12] H. Virtanen, I. Virtanen, T. Kivistö, and T. Marttila, “Busbar construction
for electrolytic cell,” U.S. Patent 6 342 136, Jan. 29, 2002.
[13] R. L. Whitehead, “Electrolytic apparatus,” U.S. Patent 1 206 965, Dec. 5,
1916.
1270 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2010

Eduardo P. Wiechmann (S’81–M’86–SM’96) re- Pablo Aqueveque (S’05–M’08) was born in

ceived the Electronics Engineering degree from
Santa Maria University, Valparaiso, Chile, in 1975,
and the Ph.D. degree from Concordia University,
Montreal, QC, Canada, in 1985.
Since 1976, he has been with the University of
Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile, where he is cur-
rently a Professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering. His research
interests are power converters, high-current recti-
fiers, and copper electrorefining and electrowinning.
His industrial experience includes more than 8000 hours in engineering projects
and consulting. He has published numerous technical papers and coauthored
technical books.
Dr. Wiechmann was the recipient of the 2000 Concepcion City Award for
Outstanding Achievements in Applied Research.
Santiago, Chile, in 1976. He received the B.S., Elec-
tronics Engineering, and Ph.D. degrees from the Uni-
versity of Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile, in 2000,
2002, and 2008, respectively.
He is currently an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Concepcion. His re-
search interests include modern digital devices, high-
current rectifiers, electrochemical processes, and
power converters.

Anibal S. Morales was born in Concepcion, Chile,

in 1983. He received the B.S. and Electronics En-
gineering degrees (with honors) from the Univer-
sity of Concepcion, Concepcion, in 2004 and 2007,
respectively, where he is currently working toward
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering in the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering.
His current research interests include high-current
rectifiers, monitoring systems for electrochemical
processes, and mining applications.