THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

Bachelor of Engineering Thesis

The Continuous Improvement of Development Blasting at Ernest

Henry Mine

Student Name: Alonso GONZALES

Course Code: MINE 4123
Supervisor: Italo Onederra
Submission date: 01 November 2016

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the

Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mining Engineering

UQ Engineering

Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology

2
 i

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

“I hereby declare that this thesis to be my own work and that it contains, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, no material previously published or written by another person nor
material which to a substantial extent has been submitted for another course, except where due
acknowledges have been made within the thesis”.

________________________

Alonso Gonzales

01/11/2016

i
 ii

ABSTRACT
Development blasting operations in Sub-level and block caving mines play a significant role in
the mine development cost and efficiency. Development at Ernest Henry mine accounts for a
significant portion of the mine budget with the possibility of potential savings by the
optimisation of the blasting and implementation practices.

Literature does not provide engineers with a systematic approach for the continuous
improvement of development blasting. Ernest Henry mine development operations are
achieving 30% of the cuts below best practices with significant over-break and under-break
leading to potential geotechnical hazards such as rock falls, which increases the mining risk.
The project aims at developing a thorough and systematic approach for the continuous
improvement of development blasting in mining operations focusing on EHM as a case study
with the purpose of;

 Developing an optimal blast design pattern, timing sequence detonation performance

and perimeter control that suits EHM requirements (design boundaries) and ground
conditions;
 Minimise the Geotechnical issues induced by rockmass fracturing or damage;
 Minimise the over-break and under-break levels in the ore drives;
 Maximising the advance rate per cut;
 Reduction in the blasting and ground support cost.

The approach taken includes the research and evaluation of the development blasting design
theory, case studies where development blasting designs were optimised and performance
monitoring tools for the development of an effective and efficient systematic approach. The
blast design theory and rules of thumbs only focus in the geometrical aspects of the blast design
excluding the rockmass and in some cases the explosive properties.

The blast design components, breakage magnitudes, PPV levels and advance rates were
monitored in development blast at EHM from July 2015 – January 2016 for analysing the
mining accuracy, blast diagnostics or detonation performance and modelling.

The mining accuracy analysis highlighted that the blast design presented multiple flaws and
that the main variables evaluated; mining practices, design implementation and blast location
and geological conditions were determined as not the main factor for the blast

ii
 iii

underperformance. The design flaws included; full 4m charge length, fully couple perimeter
holes, inefficient geometrical distribution of blastholes, inadequate perimeter holes spacing
(0.5m) and burden (0.5m).

The blast diagnostics analysis highlighted that the variation of the detonation timing sequence
between the different crews was not justified. The main issues identified included; inappropriate
sequencing of the burn cut, skipping LP detonators; not utilising the full LP detonator range
and blasting method (stripping over box and diamond).

Design issues were identified in the mining accuracy analysis that were back analysed into the
3D & 4D energy distribution and Holmberg- Persson rock damage criterion models. The 3D &
4D energy distribution identified inefficient energy distribution due to linear distribution of
blastholes, high energy concentration outside the tunnel periphery, high energy concentration
linking zones between blastholes. The Holmberg- Persson rock damage criterion models
identified possible blasthole dislocations in the perimeter, determined the minimum perimeter
spacing and burden (0.65m) and quantify the surrounding rockmass damage to 1m minimum.
An optimisation criteria was developed using the models for the continuous improvement of
development blasting.

The systematic approach was developed for the continuous improvement of developing
blasting, including the following main stages Data collection/Monitoring, Mining Practice
Analysis, Blast Diagnostics Analysis, Software Modelling Analysis and Continuous
Improvement of development blasting in the process and requirements within each stage.

In the optimised blast design; a single timing sequence, staggering pattern within the drilling
pattern for effective energy distribution, perimeter holes spacing of 0.65m, Econotrim
Buttbuster used in the entire perimeter and, perimeter and easer holes’ burden of 0.65m were
introduced and back analysed into the models using the optimisation criteria. The modifications
resulted in efficient energy distribution, no high energy concentration linking zones between
blastholes, 50% reduction in the surrounding rockmass damage extent based on modelling,
effective perimeter control and 4m design cut length. Based on the optimised blast design,
$2,745,400 potential savings were estimated.

Further research work includes the testing and validation of the optimised blast design at Ernest
Henry mine. The investigation and validation of the applicability of the proposed systematic
approach in other mining site operations.

iii
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Italo
Onederra for his assistance, support and constant guidance during the entire research project.
Dr. Italo Onederra knowledge, encouragement and input was invaluable to the results achieved
from this research. I am glad and honoured to do my research under his supervision.

I would also like to thank Andy McGrath, Jordan Calverd, Alex Campbell and Ernest Henry
mine team for kindly helping me in the data collection stage and offering their constant
guidance and support during the vacation program. Without the data collected from Ernest
Henry mine, this research project would not have been possible.

iv
 v

CONTENTS
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Project Background .................................................................................................... 11
1.2 Aim & Objectives ...................................................................................................... 12
1.3 Project Definition ....................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Scope .......................................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Significance and Relevance to Industry..................................................................... 15
1.6 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 16
2 A General Review of Development Blasting Design Practices ...................................... 18
2.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 18
2.1.1 Development Blasting Design Factors ............................................................... 19
2.1.2 Drillhole Number in the face pattern .................................................................. 20
2.1.3 Burn Cut Design ................................................................................................. 21
2.1.4 Advance Rate ...................................................................................................... 24
2.1.5 Stripping Drillholes Design ................................................................................ 24
2.1.6 Perimeter Design ................................................................................................ 25
2.1.7 Detonation Sequence .......................................................................................... 25
2.2 Development Blasting Effects in Geotechnical Stability .......................................... 25
2.2.1 Over-break Extent Estimation and Causes in Development Blasting ................ 25
2.2.2 Prediction of Blast-Induced Over-break ............................................................. 27
2.3 Performance Monitoring Tools and Techniques Used in the Industry for the
Development Blasting Optimisation .................................................................................... 28
2.3.1 Continuous Improvement of Development Blasting .......................................... 28
2.3.2 Blast-Induced Vibration Monitoring .................................................................. 30
2.3.3 Computer Aided Design Optimisation Software ................................................ 32
2.3.4 George Fisher Development Blasting Optimisation Case Study ....................... 33
2.3.5 Improving Drive Stability through Efficient Development Blasting Design and
Practices ............................................................................................................................ 35
2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 37
3 Mining Accuracy Analysis at Ernest Henry Mine........................................................... 39
3.1 Mining Practices ........................................................................................................ 39
3.2 Breakage Analysis ..................................................................................................... 45
3.3 Reconciliation ............................................................................................................ 47

v
 vi

3.4 Design Implementation .............................................................................................. 51

3.5 Blasting Location and Geological Environment ........................................................ 54
3.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 60
3.7 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 61
4 Blast Diagnostics Monitoring Based on Vibration Records ............................................ 63
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 63
4.2 Detonation Performance Analysis ............................................................................. 64
4.3 Advance Rate Monitoring .......................................................................................... 73
4.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 75
5 JKSimblast 2D Face Modelling....................................................................................... 77
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 77
5.2 3D Energy Distribution .............................................................................................. 77
5.3 4D Energy Distribution .............................................................................................. 82
5.4 Blast Damage Analysis .............................................................................................. 88
5.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 93
6 The Continuous Improvement of Development Blasting ................................................ 94
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 94
6.2 Continuous Improvement of Development Blasting – Proposed Approach .............. 94
6.3 Evaluation of approach to optimise development blast designs at EHM .................. 99
6.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 106
7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 107
8 Recommendations and Future Work ............................................................................. 111
9 References ..................................................................................................................... 112
10 Appendices .................................................................................................................... 115
10.1 Appendix A – Risk Assessment ........................................................................... 115
10.1.1 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................... 116
10.1.2 Contingency Plan .............................................................................................. 118

vi
 vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Development Blasting Components (MEA, 2015) ................................................... 18
Figure 2. Number of Blastholes and Face Area Relationships (Dyno Nobel, 2015) ............... 21
Figure 3. Relief Hole and Burden Correlation (Dyno Nobel, 2015) ........................................ 23
Figure 4. Dyno Nobel Burn Cut Design Approach (Dyno Nobel, 2015) ................................. 24
Figure 5. Over-break in Tunnel Development (Rocktech Centre, 2016) ................................. 26
Figure 6. Development Cycle (Klaric, 2015) ........................................................................... 29
Figure 7. Blast Diagnostic (Andrieux et al, 1996) .................................................................... 31
Figure 8. Drill and Blast Design in 2D Face (Onederra, Riihoja and Chitombo, 2001) .......... 33
Figure 9. Optimising 2D Face tools (Onederra, Riihoja and Chitombo, 2001) ....................... 33
Figure 10. George Fisher Mine Face 4 Photogrammetry Pick-up (Kovacs, 2014) .................. 34
Figure 11. Heat map showing design versus actual (Klaric, 2015) .......................................... 36
Figure 12. Explosive Energy Distribution Analysis (Klaric, 2015) ......................................... 37
Figure 13. EHM Drilling Pattern Design ................................................................................. 39
Figure 14. LP Detonator Delay Time ....................................................................................... 40
Figure 15. Crew A Detonation Timing Sequence .................................................................... 41
Figure 16. Crew B Detonation Timing Sequence .................................................................... 42
Figure 17. Crew C Detonation Timing Sequence .................................................................... 43
Figure 18. Crew C Detonation Timing Sequence .................................................................... 44
Figure 19. 1500 OD05 August ................................................................................................. 45
Figure 20. Over-break and Under-break EHM July 2015 - January 2016 ............................... 46
Figure 21. Cross section of development tunnelling (Saw-tooth Pattern) ................................ 47
Figure 22. 1500 OD 21 at 10th January ................................................................................... 48
Figure 23. 1500 OD 07 ............................................................................................................. 49
Figure 24. 1500 OD 05 ............................................................................................................. 49
Figure 25. Over-break and Under-break 1475 OD30 ............................................................... 50
Figure 26. 1500 OD 05 December ........................................................................................... 51
Figure 27. Jumbo operator’s performance ................................................................................ 52
Figure 28. Crew performance ................................................................................................... 53
Figure 29. Shift Performance.................................................................................................... 54
Figure 30. Over-break October 2015 ........................................................................................ 55
Figure 31. Under-break October 2015 ...................................................................................... 56
Figure 32. Over-break November 2015 .................................................................................... 57

vii
 viii

Figure 33. 1500 Level Plan....................................................................................................... 57

Figure 34. Under-break November 2015 .................................................................................. 58
Figure 35. Over-break December 2015 .................................................................................... 59
Figure 36. Under-break December 2015 .................................................................................. 59
Figure 37. Blast Signature 1475 OD30 .................................................................................... 65
Figure 38. Blast Signature 1475 OD04 .................................................................................... 66
Figure 39. Crew B Detonation Time Contour Model ............................................................... 68
Figure 40. Crew D Detonation Timing Contour Model ........................................................... 69
Figure 41. Blast Signature 1475 OD30 .................................................................................... 70
Figure 42. Blast Signature 1500 OD13 .................................................................................... 71
Figure 43. Over-break and Under-break 1500 OD13 Analysis ................................................ 71
Figure 44. Blast Signature 1500 OD07 .................................................................................... 72
Figure 45. 1500 OD15 Post Blast Performance ....................................................................... 73
Figure 46. Advance Rate Monitoring ....................................................................................... 74
Figure 47. Modelling Parameters ............................................................................................. 78
Figure 48. 3D Energy Distribution Scale ................................................................................. 78
Figure 49a. Drilling Pattern #1 3D Energy Distribution Model ............................................... 81
Figure 49b. Drilling Pattern #2 3D Energy Distribution Model .............................................. 81
Figure 50. 4D Energy Distribution Scale ................................................................................. 82
Figure 51a. Timing Sequence #1 4D Energy Distribution Model ............................................ 86
Figure 51b. Timing Sequence #2 4D Energy Distribution Model ........................................... 86
Figure 51c. Timing Sequence #3 4D Energy Distribution Model............................................ 87
Figure 51d. Timing Sequence #4 4D Energy Distribution Model ........................................... 87
Figure 52. Rock Damage Criterion Scale ................................................................................. 89
Figure 53a. Drilling Pattern #1 Rockmass Damage Criterion .................................................. 92
Figure 53b. Drilling Pattern #2 Rockmass Damage Criterion................................................. 92
Figure 54. Proposed Systematic Approach for the Continuos Improvement of Development
blasting ..................................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 55. Optimised Blast Design & Detonation Timing Sequence .................................... 101
Figure 56. Optimised Blast Design 4D Energy Distribution Model compared to Drilling Pattern
# 1 4D Energy Distribution Model ......................................................................................... 103
Figure 57. Optimised Blast Design Rockmass Damage Criterion Model compared to Drilling
Pattern # 1 Rockmass Damage Criterion Model .................................................................... 105

viii
 ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number and diameter of drillholes as a function of face area (Dyno Nobel) ............ 20
Table 2. ICI Max. Burden & Spacing for stripping holes ........................................................ 25
Table 3. Drillhole Pattern Summary ......................................................................................... 40
Table 4. Charge Plan ................................................................................................................ 40
Table 5. Average Over-break & Under-break .......................................................................... 46
Table 6. Advance Rate Monitoring & Sample Length ............................................................. 74
Table 7. Rockmass Parameters ................................................................................................. 89
Table 8. PPV Levels ................................................................................................................. 89
Table 9. Surrounding Rockmass Damage Extent Drilling Pattern #1 ...................................... 92
Table 10. Surrounding Rockmass Damage Extent Drilling Pattern #2 .......………………......92
Table 11. Optimised Blast Design Components ..................................................................... 104
Table 12. Ranking Risk & Description .................................................................................. 115
Table 13. Mining Risk Matrix ................................................................................................ 115
Table 14. Colour Scheme associated with Risk ..................................................................... 116
Table 15. Research Project Hazard......................................................................................... 116

ix
 x

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS

PPV Peak particle velocity

PPVCRITICAL Peak particle velocity at which rock damage occurs
PPVFRACTURING Peak particle velocity at which rock breakage occurs
VPPV Vector peak particle velocity at point of interest (mm/s)
X Velocity recorded in the x direction (mm/s)
Y Velocity recorded in the y direction (mm/s)
Z Velocity recorded in the z direction (mm/s)
t Time at which the vibration was recorded
n Scaled distance empirical site constant
b Scaled distance empirical site constant
W Weight of explosive charge per delay
D Distance from the source midpoint to the point of interest
T Intact rock tensile strength
E Intact rock elastic Young’s Modulus
VP P-wave velocity of the intact rock
K Holmberg-Persson rock mass and explosive attenuation model constant
α Holmberg-Persson rock mass and explosive attenuation model constant
β Holmberg-Persson rock mass and explosive attenuation model constant
x Position of the elemental charge from bottom of the blasthole
y Position of the elemental charge from bottom of the blasthole
l Linear charge density
q Linear charge density
RWS Weight of the explosive, relative ANFO (ANFO=1)
REE Relative Effective Energy (ANFO taken as 100)
dx Length of elemental charge
dy Length of elemental charge
P Point location near blasthole
a Holmberg-Persson term
r0 Horizontal distance between blasthole axis and point of interest
R Radial distance between blasthole axis and point of interest
H Total charge length in blasthole

x
 11

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Sub-level caving underground mining method is becoming more prevalent for the access and
exploitation of low-grade massive ore deposits, with competent ore strength and weak host
rock. In sub-level mines as discussed by Darling (2011), development blasting is one of the
most significant unit of operations and costs in the process of accessing and extracting the ore.
Drives are developed through the orebody and used as production drives, where the ore is caved
from sub levels above by production ring blasting. The method employs low cost rates, high
production rates, highly mechanized operations and no backfill requirements.

Development blasting in the underground mining entails the procedure of analysing multiple
variables, which includes; stress fields, rock strength and blasting requirements in conjunction
with modern blasting engineer tools for the development of quantitative blast designs. In
development blasting the main objectives are the maximization of advance rate, reduction of
the reinforcement requirements or geotechnical support, and the minimisation of tunnel
breakage and instabilities (Onederra, 2015). Poor development blast practices due to the lack
of engineering design leads to geotechnical instability in the ore drives and increased in costs.

The research project has been developed for creating a systematic and quantitative approach
for the continuous improvement of development blasting using Ernest Henry Mine as the case
study. Onederra (2015) stated that optimisation of development blasting incorporates the
following areas:

 Advance rate maximisation;

 Quality control or drive profile (over-break and under-break);
 Drive stability;
 Rock fragmentation;
 Drilling and blasting practices;
 Perimeter control;
 Cycle time; and
 Overall Costs.

11
 12

Blast performance optimisation is achieved by selecting the optimal blast design components
for underground tunnelling development such as an adequate timing sequence, explosive used,
drillholes pattern, advance rate and charge length (Onederra, 2001). In industry, the
enumerative approaches for optimising development blasting consist of direct measurements
using geophones, blast monitors, photogrammetry, laser scans and survey pick-ups for the
quantification of blast performance parameters, including PPV level, breakage rate, tunnel
profile and effectiveness of the detonation timing sequence (Klaric, 2015; Kovacs, 2014; Roy
et al, 2015).

Commonly, in industry trials are employed to determine the effects of different blasting
components for instance perimeter control explosives, blasthole decoupling, timing sequence
and electronic detonators. Using blasting optimising software’s, for example 2D face, analysis
could be conducted employing techniques such as 3D & 4D energy model distributions and
peak particle velocity for the trials (Adamson, Scherpenisse and Diaz, 1999).

Patrick Andrieux (1996) discussed in his thesis “Methods and Practices of Blast-induced
Vibration Monitoring” the purpose of using vibration monitoring in underground mines and
the principles behind the method. Geophones (far-field) and blast monitors (near-field) are
sensors installed in the mine to record the vibrations induced by blasting. The direct
measurement purpose is to determine whether the detonators are working properly and to
observe the detonation performance through the amplitude generated by each detonation
vibrations. This tool helps optimizing the number and location of the blastholes in a face
pattern.

Klaric (2015) stated that drive stability is critical in sub-level cave mining to maintain
sustainable mine productivity as the ore is extracted from production drives. Thus, it is
important to limit the over-break and under-break level in ore drives. Controlling over-break
could be achieved by utilising either decoupling, perimeter control explosives or electronic
detonators, which increases the integrity of the drives but at the same decreases the bogging,
hauling and ground support costs.

1.2 AIM & OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of the research project is to develop a thorough and systematic approach for
continuous improvement process of development blasting in mining operations using Ernest
Henry mine (EHM) as the case study for the purpose of;

12
 13

 Developing an optimal blast design pattern, timing sequence detonation performance

and perimeter control that suits EHM requirements (design boundaries) and ground
conditions;
 Minimise the Geotechnical issues induced by rockmass fracturing or damage;
 Minimise the over-break and under-break levels in the ore drives;
 Maximising the advance rate per cut;
 Reduction in the blasting and ground support cost.

The project objectives included the research and evaluation of the development blasting design
theory, case studies where development blasting designs were optimised and performance
monitoring tools for the development of an effective and efficient systematic approach.

1.3 PROJECT DEFINITION

Development blasting in sub-level caving mines plays a significant role in the mine
development cost and efficiency (advance rate). The face advance rate in ore drives has a direct
influence in the commencement of production operations, drilling conditions and profit return.
Thus, it is crucial to implement a proper and effective blast design pattern that achieves the
design boundaries and prevents drive damage to enable an efficient ore drive development
advance rate.

As mentioned previously, the research project is focused in the continuous improvement in

development blasting at Ernest Henry mine. Ernest Henry Mine is a large gold and copper sub-
level caving underground mine located at the North West of Queensland. The ore resource
contains 64.3Mt with an average grade of 1.03% CU and 0.53g/t AU based on December 2014
data. The deposit is hosted in Proterozoic rocks of the Mt Isa Inlier. The mine is part of
Glencore copper assets in Australia and self-owned operated. The mine employs a hoisting
shaft with a 6 Mt per annum production capacity with a current mine life until 2026. The
concentrator produces 50,000 tonnes of copper and 70,000 ounces of gold per annum. The cave
is inclined at 45 degrees with 19 mining levels and 4 production levels.

Currently, the development operations team at Ernest Henry mine is implementing two blasting
patterns and four different timing sequence, which are crew dependent, for development
blasting in different ore drives and levels. The rate of advance has the potential to increase by
5% based on the equipment, steel rods length and explosives used. The drilled development

13
 14

cuts do not exhibit consistency in the advance rate, approximately 30% of the cuts are below
best practices. The post blast outcomes display up to 1 m face dishing and high over-break and
under-break levels. The results highlighted a potential room for improving efficiency and
reducing cost in development operations (ground support, blasting and advance rate). The high
over-break and under-break levels in the ore drives could become a potential geotechnical
hazard, such as increase number of rock falls, reducing support effectiveness and low brow
quality during production blasting, as the mine goes deeper.

1.4 SCOPE

The research has been conducted under the supervision of Dr. Italo Onederra for the continuous
improvement of development blasting at Ernest Henry mine. Aspects that are believed to have
the greatest influence and relevance in the project has been sub-divided in the following
structure:
1. Literature research to understand the principles involved in continuous improvement in
development blasting and the available resources in the industry.
 Underground blasting principles;
 Development blasting optimisation; and
 Geotechnical issues associated with development blasting.
2. Evaluation of data from EHM to categorize the blast performance and identify areas
where improvement could be achieved by linking the blast detonation performance with
the actual ore drive profile.
 Evaluation of blasting practices at Ernest Henry mine;
 Over-break and under-break level back-analysis to blasting performance;
 Timing sequence analysis;
 Detonation performance evaluation using geophone’s data;
 4D energy distribution evaluation in JKSimblast;
 Geotechnical damage evaluation; and
 Advance rate quantification and blasting requirements.
3. Elaboration of the optimal blasting design pattern using the data evaluation conclusions
from the EHM blasting practices.
 Development of a systematic and quantitative approach for the continuous
improvement of development blasting;
 Optimal blast design pattern and timing sequence generation using JKSimblast; and

14
 15

 Evaluation of the optimal blast design using the optimal blast criterion (models).

Furthermore, there are project constraints imposed by the mining and blasting practices at

Ernest Henry mine including; 


 Econotrim Buttbuster needs to be used as the perimeter explosive;

 Decoupling of the perimeter were trial and it was concluded that it was not optimal;
 Emulsion is supply by Dyno Nobel;
 Dyno Nobel NonEL LP detonators are used;
 45mm diameter drill bits are used for drillholes;
 102mm diameter drill bits are used for relief holes; and
 Face pattern drilling is done by Jumbos with 4.8m steel rods length.

The project assumptions are the following;

 The study focus on a specific geological setting defined by the data limitations and
blast location;
 The site constants (alpha and k) for modelling are assumed or obtained from previous
analysis; and
 Stress variations within the level were consider constant.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE TO INDUSTRY

The benefits of this research to the industry is the development of a thorough method for
continuous improvement of development blasting, including the optimisation of the face
pattern design, timing sequence, detonation performance and perimeter control. The project
comprises the direct reduction in costs and time associated with blasting, development and
ground support operations at Ernest Henry mine. An estimation was conducted and there is the
potential of saving approximately $4 million dollars per year in development operations by the
improvement of the development blasting practices.

The benefits associated with this will be the minimization of over-break and under-break rate
in the ore drives. High over-break rates could impose geotechnical stability issues such as
extensive roof rockmass damage, rock falls and reduction in the effectiveness of ground
support. Geotechnical stability issues inflict major hazards and risks in the mining operations,
thus it is crucial to control induced blast rock damage by developing optimal blast designs.

15
 16

A guide for the continuous improvement of development blasting will be elaborated with the
recommended blasting design pattern and optimal timing sequence for Ernest Henry mine. The
relevance to the industry is that the project displays a step-by-step analysis for continuous
improvement of development blasting practices in ore drives, which could be then used by
other mining operations.

1.6 METHODOLOGY

Initially, the research project will require an extensive literature research of the continuous
improvement in development blasting. This encompasses the theory involve in designing face
patterns and the selection procedure of the blast design parameters. The techniques employed
in the industry for the optimisation of development blasting will be evaluated.

In order to optimise development blasting the following steps will be conducted:

1. A comprehensive literature reviews to evaluate continuous improvement strategies that

may be applicable to EHM.
2. Collect/monitor data associated with implementation practices for a number of rounds
in the selected development areas;
 Drilling accuracy;
 Explosive used;
 Charging scheme; and
 Timing sequence.
3. Evaluation of the blasting pattern based on the post blast performance in a number of
selected rounds;
 Measure advance rate per cut;
 Fragmentation achieved; and
 Excavation profiles to quantify the over-break or under-break.
4. Blasting diagnostic;
 Determining whether each blasthole of the selected rounds is detonating and
contributing to the breakage accordingly using the geophone data from the
seismic system at EHM.
5. 3D & 4D energy distribution analysis and definition of the criteria for improvements in
pattern layout.

16
 17

6. Development of a site specific approach for continuous improvement of development

blasting practices.

The over-break and under-break levels are estimated by laser scan survey pick-ups of the drives
against the actual ore drive profile. Using the data obtained from Ernest Henry mine a baseline
face pattern design with its blasting parameters will be model using the available blasting
software’s (JKSimblast) to evaluate 3D & 4D energy model distribution and Holmberg-
Persson damage criterion to possibly link issues identified with post blast performance. The
models will highlight the potential areas for improvement in the blasting design pattern,
enabling the development of new blast designs which will be then model for validation.

The optimal blast design pattern generated will be trial at the Ernest Henry mine ore drives and
the blasting components evaluated to quantify the improvement from previous designs. A blast
monitor could be used for better accuracy and interpretation instead of the geophones.

For the development of the project a risk assessment in terms of mining risk was conducted, as
seen in Appendix A.

17
 18

2 A GENERAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT

BLASTING DESIGN PRACTICES

2.1 BACKGROUND

Development blasting is constituted of two main constituents; the drilling and blasting
practices. Each constituent places a significant role in the quality and delivery of the final
product.

As discussed in the rock excavation handbook developed by Sandvik (1999) the drilling
accuracy in development blasting affects the blasting performance significantly, including the
advance rate per cut and breakage rate achieved in the tunnel perimeter. Depending on the
spacing and drilling length, hole deviation in the burn cut could lead to blastholes dislocation
due to holes running into each other. Blasthole deviation in the perimeter leads to instability
and damage around the drive periphery.

In development blasting the critical drilling and blasting conditions are the following key
components displayed in Figure 1;

 Burn Cut;
 Easer Holes; and
 Perimeter Charges.

Figure 1. Development Blasting Components (MEA, 2015)

18
 19

The burn cut performance is directly correlated to the advance rate, well designed burn cuts
accounting for the rock mass conditions with correct explosive characteristics have higher
probabilities of achieved longer advance rates.

Brown and Brady (2006) discussed that the perimeter and easer holes are linked into the drive
stability and rock mass damage. Close spacing between the easer and perimeter holes higher
over-break and rock damage will be experience in the tunnel periphery. Correct selection of
perimeter charges leads to minimization of over-break in the drives and smoother profile.

Onederra (2015) stated that during the designing of development blasting, the main objective
is the maximization of the advance rate based on the drillhole drilled capability and using
optimal charge and explosive materials. The maximisation of advance rate should not neglect
other objectives in development blasts including;

 Maintain integrity of the perimeter profile;

 Minimise breakage rate (over-break and under-break);
 Mining rockmass damage in the tunnel periphery;
 Adequate muckpile fragmentation;
 Vibration levels limitation (if required);
 Preservation of mining services; and
 Cost effectiveness.

2.1.1 Development Blasting Design Factors

Dyno Nobel (2015) discussed that is crucial prior the development of the blast design pattern
to define a number of parameters. The parameters are determined based on the mining site
conditions and product availability;

 Rockmass condition;
o Strength
o Geological discontinuities
 Drive grade;
 Blasthole diameter;
o Steel rod dimensions
o Drillbit type and diameter
 Detonation system;
o LP or MS

19
 20

o Electric or Non-electric
 Explosive used;
o Emulsion
o ANFO
o Perimeter explosives
 Charging equipment; and
o Decoupling system
 Groundwater conditions.

2.1.2 Drillhole Number in the face pattern

In industry, the number of blastholes is determined through empirical relationships, which

accounts for the geometrical distribution of blastholes, uniform distribution of explosive energy
in the face and adequate fragmentation dependent on the parameters stated before. Dyno Nobel
stated in the optimal drilling and blasting course that if the primary objective is perimeter
control ideally 40% of the number of blastholes are allocated around the perimeter.

Similarly, the blasthole placement was discussed to be dependent on the required explosive
energy concentration. The confinement conditions in the burn cut requires higher powder factor
to compensate, alternatively, the explosive concentrations are reduced in the perimeter and
easer holes to minimise the blasting damage.

The main correlation used in the empirical methods is the number and diameter of the drillholes
as a function of face area of the drive. Figure 2 in comparison to Table 1 displays the effect of
rock strength on the number of blastholes selection. Table 1 in other hand account for more
variables such as relief holes and drilling length.

TABLE 1
Number and diameter of drillholes as a function of face area (Dyno Nobel)
Drift Area (m3) Charged Total Number Depth of Diameter of Diameter of
Holes of Holes Blastholes Blastholes Uncharged Holes
<9 31 – 36 34 – 40 2.1 – 2.4 32 – 35 45 – 64
9 – 15 38 – 40 43 – 45 2.7 – 3.0 38 – 57 76 – 102
15 – 25 40 – 48 43 – 55 3.0 – 3.6 32 – 64 38 – 102

20
 21

Figure 2. Number of Blastholes and Face Area Relationships (Dyno Nobel, 2015)

2.1.3 Burn Cut Design

Holmberg, Persson and Lee (1994) discussed the significance of the burn cut design in the blast
performance and advance rate achieved. The burn cut constitutes of a group arranged blastholes
in a regular pattern around a relief hole or uncharged drillhole. The purpose of the relief hole
is to act as a free face area, ensuring a degree of looseness of the broken muck, where the first
fired blasthole could be break into the void. The succession of blasthole will then detonate and
displace their burden, with the depth of the cut progressing into full depth. If the relief holes
do not provide sufficient void space the reconsolidation of cut material leads to the term known
as “face freezing”. Dyno Nobel (2015) stated in their blasting course that Canadian
underground operations have conducted multiple experiments and the conclusion reached was
that providing approximately 15% void ratio enable the detonation of the blastholes without
possible reconsolidation of the material.

As discussed previously, Sandvik (1999) reviewed the interaction of the blastholes in the burn
cut due to the close proximity of drillholes. Inaccurate drilling or geological discontinuities
leads to the following potential;

 Sympathetic detonation or desensitization of the explosive; and

 Cut material rock reconsolidation due to insufficient timing.
 Reduction in the advance rate.

In the burn cut design the blastholes positioning against local geological structures should be
accounted. High pressure gases from the explosives percolate through the structures leading to
blastholes interactions.

21
 22

Similarly, the burn cut design commonly is developed through empirical relationships in
industry (rules of thumb) or explosive supplier companies’ recommendations like Orica or
Dyno Nobel.

Holmberg (1979) and Langefors and Kihlstrom (1973) have developed and proposed
mathematical equations describing the linear charge concentration with the advance for a
specific relief hole diameter. The main assumption is that the mechanism of advance assumes
that drillholes are drilled in closed proximity to a single or multiple large uncharged diameter
relief holes. The relief holes served as free faces, and the opening increases as the detonation
sequence progresses. The main factors associated with the equations are;

 Relief hole/s diameter;

 Distance between the relief hole/s and the blastholes;
 Charge concentration;
 Blasthole sequencing; and
 Burn cut delay sequence.

For the burn cut design the Holmberg equation, which is the continuation of Langefors and
Kihlstrom (1973), work could be used. The linear charge concentration for blasting into a relief
hole, knowing the distance between the blastholes and relief hole can be estimated using the
following function;

𝑑′ 𝑉 1.5 Φ
𝑄 = 1.5 𝑥 ( ) (𝑉 − 2 ) (1)
0.032 Φ

where 𝑄 is the linear charge concentration per metre of blasthole (kg/metre);

𝑉 is the distance between the uncharged relief hole and the blasthole;
Φ is the diameter of the uncharged relief hole (metres); and
𝑑′ is the diameter of the blasthole.

Holmberg equation can be then generalized to suit the rockmass conditions and explosive type
used to calculated the required blasthole diameter based on the burden and relief hole diameter.
The following function should only be considered when the burden on the first blasthole is
twice the diameter of the relief hole.

220 𝑉 1.5 Φ 𝑐 1
𝑑′ = (Φ) (𝑉 − 2 ) (0.4) (𝑅𝑊𝑆) (2)
𝑝𝜋

Where 𝑐 is defined as the rock constant;

𝑝 is the density of the explosive; and

22
 23

𝑅𝑊𝑆 is the weight of the explosive, relative ANFO (ANFO=1).

The correlation defines that the maximum separation between the relief hole and first blasthole
is dependent on the rockmass properties. High modulus rock types tend to absorb less explosive
energy; thus more separation distance is required in comparison with low modulus rock types.

The empirical method developed by Langefors and Kihlstrom shows the correlation between
burden and uncharged relief hole diameter for the burn cut design. The correlation indicates
that the distance between the relief hole and first blasthole should exceed 1.5 times the diameter
of the relief hole to enable a clean blast and satisfactory breakage. Blastholes located more than
twice the relief hole diameter are probably experiencing plastic deformation with insufficient
breakage, as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Relief Hole and Burden Correlation (Dyno Nobel, 2015)

Holmberg (1979) developed a relationship between the critical separation of the relief hole and
the first blasthole, accounting for the relative weight strength factor of the explosive, number
of relief holes, relief hole diameter and rock type.

𝐸 1
𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 2 𝑥 Φ𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓 𝑥 (𝐸 ) 𝑥 (𝑅𝐸𝐸) (3)
0

where 𝐸 is the Young’s Modulus expressed in Gpa;

𝐸0 is the reference Young’s Modulus and taken to be equal to 50Gpa; and
𝑅𝐸𝐸 is the Relative Effective Energy (ANFO taken as 100).

23
 24

Dyno Nobel instead recommends a geometrical square cut design rule for the development of
the burn cut using the relief hole diameter. Figure 4 shows the Dyno Nobel approach;

Figure 4. Dyno Nobel Burn Cut Design Approach (Dyno Nobel, 2015)

2.1.4 Advance Rate

Using the relief hole diameter determined previously by the empirical equations, the advance
rate could be estimated using the function proposed by Holmberg (1979) or the graphical form
presented by MEA. The equation displays the correlation between the advance rate with the
effective relief hole diameter. The equation based on the empirical data states that the
maximum advance rate can only be 95% of the drilling length. The effective relief hole
diameter is inclusive of multiple relief holes present in the burn cut.

Φ = 𝑑 √𝑛 (4)

𝐻 = 0.95 𝑥 (0.15 + 34.1Φ − 39.4Φ2 ) (5)

2.1.5 Stripping Drillholes Design

The stripping drillholes are the holes located between the burn cut and the perimeter, which
primarily purpose is the breakage and displacement of the rocks towards the voids (free face)
created by the burn cut. The spacing and burden determination is a fairly straight forward
method; empirical methods are employed in industry such as the equation provided by Dyno
Nobel or ICI table;

16Φ < 𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛/𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 < 22Φ (6)

24
 25

TABLE 2
ICI Max. Burden & Spacing for stripping holes
Blasthole diameter (mm) Max. Burden (m) Max. Spacing (m)

32 0.6 – 0.8 0.7 – 0.9

38 0.7 – 0.9 0.8 – 1.0

45 0.8 – 1.0 0.9 – 1.1

51 0.9 – 1.1 1.0 – 1.2

57 1.0 – 1.2 1.1 – 1.4

2.1.6 Perimeter Design

The perimeter holes are holes located in the boundary of the excavation or tunnel. Brown and
Brady (2006) stated that the perimeter holes primarily purpose is to maintain the degree of
breakage low and stability of the walls and back. Commonly, perimeter holes are loaded with
lower energy explosives, perimeter control explosives, or decouple holes. Dyno Nobel
proposed the following equation for the determination of the perimeter hole spacing;

13Φ < 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 < 17Φ (7)

There are further available methods for the determination of the perimeter holes spacing
proposed by Holmberg and Persson in previous studies.

2.1.7 Detonation Sequence

The detonation timing sequence is a major component in determining the post blasting
performance. The timing in the detonation sequence in a way affects the void area available for
the holes to break into. The main objective ii the detonation sequence is to avoid creating
confined firing conditions. The timing intervals should enhance optimal free face geometry and
tunnel boundary stability.

2.2 DEVELOPMENT BLASTING EFFECTS IN GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY

2.2.1 Over-break Extent Estimation and Causes in Development Blasting

Singh and Mandal (2009) discussed the causes related to over-break in underground tunneling
and evaluated its extent. Rockmass damage in the periphery of the tunnel or over-break leads
to the reduction in the stability of the structure, resulting in the higher mining risk, cost and

25
 26

completion time. The additional cost due to over-break is associated to extra mucking material,
shotcreting, additional support system (mesh and/or bolts) and time schedule for the
stabilization of the cut. In addition to the geotechnical properties of the rockmass, the in-situ
stress conditions surrounding the excavation plays a significant role in the over-break extent.
Figure 5 displays a schematic of over-break in tunneling development.

Figure 5. Over-break in Tunnel Development (Rocktech Centre, 2016)

Singh and Mandal (2009) presented the following equations for the calculations of over-break
in the tunnel. The following could be applied for independent section of the tunnel such backs
or crown, right and left walls;

(𝐴′ −𝐴)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘 (%) = 𝑥 100% (8)
𝐴

Lewandowski et al (1999) stated that the geotechnical parameters, UCS, joint plane spacing,
joint plane orientation, joint plane aperture, rockmass description and filling material within
the joints, contribute towards limiting the extent of over-break in the tunnel perimeter
rockmass. Undamaged or non-over-break rockmass in the tunnel periphery could be
accomplished by restricting the shock and gas energy to prevent further opening of joints.
Shock wave energy exhibits only up to a distance where non-reversible energy dissipation is
observed, in other words the rockmass plastic zone. Worsey et al discussed that gas energy is
capable to extend cracks 10 – 100 times more than shock energy. The angle of incidence of the
joint plane and orientation of initiation should be aligned to limit the effect of gas stress waves
on jointed or weak planes (Wu and Jianping, 2001). At the same time, the filling material in
the joint sets is responsible in minimizing the intensity and magnitude of gas stress waves.

The restriction and minimization of damage has been discussed by multiple researchers,
including Holmberg and Persson (1980), Forsyth (1990), etc. Blast-induced vibrations have

26
 27

been correlated back to rockmass damage, however, vibrations in the near-field tend be really
high and do not superimpose, thus the PPV magnitude cannot be the only factor for rockmass
damage estimation.

Over-break is experience in the tunnel periphery immediately after blasting or with time, either
dynamic or quasi-static type. In dynamic over-break the propagation of cracks is sudden and
faster, and is usually produced by the impact of energy produced during the detonation of the
explosives. If the stress magnitude generated by the voids created exceeds the rockmass
strength property dynamic damage could be exhibit. The quasi-static over-break is attributed
to the elapse of time of the excavation, loosening or weakening of the filling material and the
redistribution of the stress field around the excavation. This rockmass damage is mainly due to
the improper sequencing, inadequate excavation profile and support in respect to in-situ
stresses and poor rockmass strength. ideally, during the mine planning stage engineers should
try to align the underground drives in respect to weak planes and in-situ stress.

Prior to the implementation of any drilling blasting design pattern, the effect of stress
distribution on the joint and weak planes should be analysed. The reduction of powder factor
in the perimeter and easer holes, and smaller blast geometry leads to the reduction in over-
break in the pre-stressed zone. The geology factors, discontinuities, foliation planes of rock
and direction, play also a significant role in the magnitude of over-break.

2.2.2 Prediction of Blast-Induced Over-break

Kaushik (2013) discussed that intolerable over-break levels within the drives is due to
unacceptable ground vibration generated by the lack of free face apart from the rock structure
itself. Over-break is directly related to PPV, and that the threshold levels of PPV for over-break
are dependent on rockmass properties, rockmass strength, P-wave velocity, specific gravity,
confinement, advance factor and poisson ratio.

The vibration levels for over-break could be estimated using near-field monitoring. Multiple
researchers including Holmberg and Persson, Langefors and Kihlstrom, etc., have proposed
damage threshold levels based on vibration monitoring and the extrapolation of the PPV
predictors. Holmberg- Persson (1980) concluded that damage occurs between 700 mm/s to
1000 mm/s PPV. While Langefors and Kihlstrom (1973) highlighted that the formation of new
cracks and rock falls occurred at PPV ranges of 305 mm/s to 610 mm/s. The drift condition

27
 28

rating (DCR) developed by Forsyth and Moss (1990) enables the quantification of blast induced
damage based on the rockmass integrity, percentage of half barrels visible and over-break.

Kaushik (2013) highlights that the determination of PPV can be employed for controlling over-
break levels. Near-field vibration monitoring is suggested as the most appropriate method. The
composite blast-induced rock damage (BIRD) predicted model employs the drill and blast
design parameters, and rockmass properties for the estimation of over-break (Dey, 2004). The
model is the most suitable for over-break prediction and it has been conceptually and
statistically validated using the t- and F-test by Kaushik. The burn cut in the blasting design
pattern was identify as the main area for optimisation and PPV reduction in the analysis. BIRD
investigates the over-break using the burn cut blasting in the parametric analysis. The main
observations highlighted was that the advance rate was insufficient when there were
insufficient number of reamer holes, inaccuracy in the delay sequence and undercharging.

2.3 PERFORMANCE MONITORING TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES USED IN THE

INDUSTRY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT BLASTING OPTIMISATION

2.3.1 Continuous Improvement of Development Blasting

Brown and Brady (2006) discussed in their Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining Book
that McKenzie stated the measurement techniques used in the industry for the evaluation of the
blasting performance, which included the following;

 Near-field vibration monitoring;

 Far-field vibration monitoring;
 Velocity of detonation;
 Photogrammetry; and
 Gas penetration measurement.

Klaric (2015) discussed in his conference paper that improving the drive stability through
efficient development blasting design and practices leads at the same time with optimisation of
the development operations or cycle. Figure 6 details the development cycle in underground
caving mines where the continuous improvement of development blasting plays a significant
role. There are multiple areas within the development operations where blast performance
could be quantified and optimised.

28
 29

Figure 6. Development Cycle (Klaric, 2015)

Andrieux (1996) also discussed multiple way of assessing blasting performance and practices
through observing and quantifying outcomes. This included fragmentation, muckpile shape
and blast induced damage, which each provides information about the blast behaviour.

If there was poor fragmentation either too fine or too coarse, usually it could be associated with
poor priming, excessive hole deviation, inadequate drilling patterns, timing sequence and
explosive selection. The quantification of fragmentation usually is done by sieving samples or
using photogranulometric techniques.

Muck profile is indicative whether the blast was properly implemented or designed. The
muckpile profile can be measure using available laser-based range-finder technology. Low or
flat muckpile profiles are representative of flyrock conditions, excessive explosive energy or
insufficient charge confinement. While steep muckpile profiles or not extensive are
representative of excessive confinement, poor priming, insufficient explosive energy and/or
inadequate timing.

The blast induced damage or over-break is a major factor in providing feedback about the blast
performance. The profile in mine development tunnels such as the walls, backs and floor
quantifies the blast outcome. The usage of powerful explosive, inadequate hole spacing
between the perimeter and easer holes, excessive powder factors can lead to shock-induced
damage. Inadequate delay, weak explosives and excessive confinement could lead to gas-
induced damage. The blast induced damage could be used for assessing blast performance,
however, as it is a systematic observation it cannot back analyse to particular blast design
parameters.

Quality control Quality assurance, known as QA/QC test in industry, implementation is highly
important for the optimisation of blasting patterns. The testing methodology employed for
trialling drilling and blasting design parameters variation, is structured in different stages. The
QA/QC enables the quantification and identification of the benefits achieved in the results after
changing a specific parameter. The literature discussed briefly the usage of QA/QC testing at
mine sites for blasting optimisation, however, not a clear explanation of how to developed
QA/QC trials, interpretation and quantification of data and its degree of significance.

29
 30

2.3.2 Blast-Induced Vibration Monitoring

Andrieux (1996) in his thesis discussed, the methodology and practice of blast-induced
vibration monitoring, especially in underground operations. The author outlines how to
monitor blast-induced vibrations through the evaluation of the data acquisition performance,
instrumentation, limitations and how to analyze the data obtained from vibration monitoring.

The measurement of the blasted face velocity and trajectory can lead to quantitative
information regarding the blast field behavior, and can be back analyzed to the explosive
energy distribution, charge confinement, sequencing and explosive loading. The velocity of
detonation noted as V.O.D, monitoring is used to assess the explosive performance under mine
site realistic conditions.

The most practical and efficient method for blast performance or field behavior monitoring is
the collection and analysis of the seismic waves generated from the confined detonation of
explosive charges into the rockmass. The seismic waves produced can be back analysed to the
blast field behavior, and its effects on the rockmass and structures. The best method of
recording the seismic waves is using adapted ground motion sensors attached to the rockmass
located in the vicinity of the explosives charges. There are two main sensors used in the
underground mining industry for blasting vibration monitoring, accelerometers and geophones.
The sensors difference mainly lies in the three main elements that characterized them;
frequency range, electrical sensitivity and dynamic range. The geophones unlike
accelerometers are sensitive to particle velocity, while accelerometers are sensitive to particle
acceleration.

Andrieux stated that there are two types of blast-induced vibration monitoring; near-field and
far-field. In far-field monitoring, the seismic energy dissipates due to time, and the frequency,
amplitude and energy content are low in comparison with near-field monitoring. Figure 7
shows a clear example of a vibration blast diagnostic. Vibration monitoring enables the
diagnostic of blasts based on their performance but also indicates the occurrence of issues
associated with the blast or timing sequence as the following;

30
 31

Figure 7. Blast Diagnostic (Andrieux et al, 1996)

1. The deduced absence of pulses or vibrations, misfires, expected at specific times in the
seismograms. The possible reasons associated with misfires are the following;
 The detonators are not initiated in some charges due to the cut-off of the ignition
lines.
 Excessive breakage from detonated charges resulting in the caving of the confining
rock around some charges.
2. Weak or abnormal firing;
 The desensitization or dead-pressing of the explosives due to the close proximity of
the blastholes, in which blastholes charged with explosives are damage by shock
waves created by previous detonations.
 Deflagration of the explosives due to presence of water when using ANFO or
improper priming.
3. High vibration amplitude due to simultaneous detonation of a number of blastholes that
were sequence to fire independently;
 Improper timing sequence due to insufficient time between consecutive detonations
causing the vibrations of each charge add to the amplitude.
 Sympathetic detonations due to close proximity of blastholes, causing the
premature initiation of close-by blastholes. Also related to geological
discontinuities present in the rockmass allowing for the percolation of explosive
gases into the neighbouring blastholes.
4. Commonly, LP detonators exhibit delay inaccuracies, which are the detonation at different
times from what was expected.

The main challenges involving continuous improvement of development blasting using blast-
induced vibration monitoring is that it is site specific and geotechnical domain corresponding

31
 32

to a unique combination of objectives, ground conditions, blast design and explosives types,
requiring monitoring accordingly. It is also hard to assess whether all charges actually fired
and if they contributed to the blast and breakage. The optimising of development blasting
timing sequence by far-field monitoring using geophones is also discussed thoroughly.

2.3.3 Computer Aided Design Optimisation Software

Onederra, Riihioja and Chitombo (2001) investigated the benefits of implementing computer
aided design and information management for tunnel development using drilling and blasting
techniques. The paper outlines that unpredictable variability in ground conditions often leads
to inefficient drilling and blasting practices, resulting in poor blast performance and higher
development operational costs. The geotechnical conditions at the mine site are crucial for the
development of baseline blast design by the engineers, with the continuous improvement of the
designs to suit specific geotechnical domains.

The usage of JKSimblast 2D face enables the development of databases through a common
storage for the representation of drilling and blasting practices. In industry there are multiple
software’s for the engineering of drilling and blasting in underground mining such as,
SHOTPlusTM5 (Orica), Aegis (DATAMINE), I-Blast (DNA-Blast Technology), etc. At the
same time, 2D Face incorporates analysis, modelling and blast simulation techniques for the
continuous improvement of the drill and blast design process through the design to the
implementation stage. 2D Face enables the creation of the design following this systematic
approach;

 Drive outline;
 Blasthole drilling;
 Explosive selection;
 Loading conditions; and
 Detonation timing sequence (detonators selection and loading).

The inputting of all the parameters enable the development of the drill and blast design as seen
in Figure 8.

32
 ions.
orcing the user to keep track
ts geotechnical environment 33
). InThe BMS uses a tree like
summary, the detonation simulation tool, allows
bjects andto view
the user hierarchies
(in differentand
modes), the detonation
sequence of the blast and visually assess the design
quired
prior todesign and analysis
actual blasting (Figure 7). Timing contours
e also
are has a number of other display the design
also available to graphically
outcome. A number of parameters can be defined to
wer,simulate
detonation simulation
the blast in
including: detonator scatter, num-
ber of simulations and frame speed.
ery functions and reporting

editor - 2DFace. Figure 8. Drill and Blast Design in 2D Face (Onederra, Riihoja and Chitombo, 2001)
Figure 9. Peak particle velocity contours determined at a pr
The software incorporates the following engineeringdefined plane
analysing of charged
tools perimeter holes.
for development blasting;
heGraphical
development blast of
user interface design
the BMS (left of screen)
The image digitiser is a unique tool designed to en
ace (right of screen). 
engineers to create a drilling distribution;
Explosive energy
able engineers to digitise a photograph to obtain th
onal plane as if Image it wasdigitizer;
being "as drilled" collar positions of patterns (see Figure
10 and 11). system's
It also includes
 PPV contour simulation;Figure 2. Blast management 3D viewfeatures
showing foradigitisin
deto-
erFigure
all of7. Detonation
the information has rock mass structural features.
simulation of burn cut. nation simulation.quality control and assessment including gener
This tool is useful i
 Detonation simulation; and
rties such as the drive head- blast audits.
The explosive energyDamagedistribution (Kleine,by1988)
model developed can
Holmberg-Persson.
andhelpoffsets.
assess the distribution of the explosive charge
in a pre-defined
Figureplane alongexamples
the heading
of theofpossible
the drive,
as shown in Figure 8.
9 displays
2.1.1 Defining tunnel or drive outlines
outcomes of the engineering tools incorporated in
n follows the a software.
systematic ap-
gview
y, steps:
the detonation simulation tool, allows
(in different modes), the detonation 2DFace incorporates a number of predefined tunnel
f the blast and visually assess the design
ual blasting (Figure 7). Timing contours
shapes for which properties such as width, height
on to be blasted, in this case
ailable to graphically display the design and orientation can be set. The program also allows
utline.
A number of parameters can be defined to
e blast including: detonator scatter, num- for the creation of irregular shapes through the poly-
lations and frame speed.
gon creation tool. Actual profiles from laser surveys
g of explosives. for example, can also be imported into the system to
g of delay detonators (down- define drilling and blasting regions. In addition, the
uence)
Blast management system's 3D view showing BMS-2DFacea deto- Figure system can also
10. 2DFace be used
image digitizer ascollection
for the a docu- of "
mulation. drilled" condition of pattern as well as rock mass structur
mentation toolfeatures. for tracking over break profiles, thus
eflected by a graphical Figureuser allowing
9. Optimising engineers
2D Face tools (Onederra, Riihojato
and develop site specific damage
Chitombo, 2001)
orporatestunnel
Figure
Defining
8. 3Da series
Explosive of design
energy
or drive
concentration
outlines and
of Figure 9.burn
designed
over
defined
Peak particle velocity contours determined at a pre-
planebreak
of chargedminimisation
perimeter holes. strategies (see Figure
cut. 2.3.4 George Fisher Development Blasting Optimisation Case Study
n icons (Figure 1). To each 3).The image digitiser is a unique tool designed to en-
parameters
incorporates dialog
a number
Kovacs box discussed
(2014) isofat-predefined
The Holmberg-Persson model (Holmberg & Pers-
able tunnel
the methodology employed
engineers and the
to digitise advantages toofobtain
a photograph optimising
the
forson,which properties
1980) development
allows the usersuch
blasting as width,
practices
to estimate in heightcollar
"as drilled"
his conference
peak particle
positions of patterns (see Figures
paper, using George Fisher mine as the case
10 and 11). It also includes features for digitising
entation caninbetheset.
velocities nearThefieldprogram also
rock allows
and for example, mass asstructural features. This tool is useful in
shown
creation
onation in Figure
of irregular
simulation 9, assess the likely extent
of burn cut. shapes throughquality of pre-
the poly-
control and assessment including general
conditioning or damage to the surrounding blast rock
audits. 33
ation
ve mass.
tool. Actual profiles from
energy distribution (Kleine, 1988) can
laser surveys
mple, can alsoofbe
the distribution theimported into the system to
explosive charge
 34

study. The George Fisher management aim was to reduce the cost associated with development
operations and improve the work standards. The objectives of optimising development blasting
were the following;

 Measure and establish a benchmark for current practice;

 Improve the quality of the perimeter;
 Develop standardised drill patterns to reduce holes;
 Improve blast fragmentation and muckpile positioning; and
 Reduce cost and cycles times.

The investigation included the optimisation of the detonation system, perimeter control, drill
design standardization and quality control processes by introducing new elements in the blast
designs progressively and highlighting immediate benefits.

The jumbo operators at the George Fisher mine development team differ in the drill pattern,
including the burn cut design, and number of holes drilled. The main difference in the burn cut
design was that one used exposed four reamers with a shot hole and the others a 3 reamers
triangular pattern without shot hole. The charge-up crews were employing multiple LP
detonation timing sequences. The perimeter holes were decoupled with two different delays
time.

Kovacs (2014) also discussed and gave a clear example of how to use a specific
instrumentation, in this case photogrammetry, as a validation tool for the comparative analysis
between baseline development drilling and blasting practices with the optimised design
parameters. Photogrammetry is the science of employing 2D images sets and creating accurate
3D models as seen in Figure 10, showing George Fisher post blast performance (Birch, 2008).

Figure 10. George Fisher Mine Face 4 Photogrammetry Pick-up (Kovacs, 2014)

34
 35

The main issues identified were unsatisfactory advance rate and cycle times, and high level of
over-break experience in the drives. The quality control and quality assurance test was
structured in 5 stages with the objective of accessing the ore in the shortest amount of time and
being as much cost-effective as possible. There is thorough detail in the development
optimisation process and drill pattern optimisation using delay accuracy as the main variable
for perimeter control and blasting performance. Decoupling of the perimeter holes, single delay
detonation and electronics detonators enabled the optimisation of the development blast design
due to less energy concentration in the perimeter holes, elimination of further blast damage
because of the shock energy of the two delays and elimination of the pyrotechnics delay time
scatter.

The results achieved by the investigation were the significant improvement of the perimeter
through the usage of electronic detonators, which enable the detonator be timed in one single
delay and the reduction in overall development operational costs at the mine site. The over-
break levels were reduced from 25% to 7.5% and 13.5% improvement in the cycle times. There
was a 20% reduction in bulk emulsion per cut and reduction in the ground support cycle times.
Precision timing achieved by the electronic detonators eliminated face dishing and improved
fragmentation and muckpile positioning. Also reduction in the blast induced damaged in the
rockmass with visible half barrels in the perimeter, as the measure of the reduction.

2.3.5 Improving Drive Stability through Efficient Development Blasting Design and
Practices

Klaric (2015) discussed that the drive stability in caving mining methods is critical to maintain
sustainable mine productivity as the ore is extracted from the production drives. The primarily
aim of the investigation was the reduction of the over-break levels in the drives by optimising
development blasting. The objectives included the improvement of the drives and pillar quality
and stability, decrease in load and haul cycle times and reduction in ground support cost. The
project was divided in the following stages;

 Quality control/training process;

 Perimeter control; and
 Drill and charge designs.

The quality control stage highlighted the key areas of improvements and if there was
consistency across the shifts. The perimeter controls stage quantified the benefits of NONEL

35
 36

LP timing with string loading in the perimeter holes, string loading with electronic detonators
and full face electronic detonators.

Klaric also discussed and gave a clear example of how to use a specific instrumentation, in this
case ADAM 3D photogrammetry software, as a validation tool for the comparative analysis
between baseline development drilling and blasting practices, with the optimised design
parameters in terms of over-break levels as seen in Figure 11. The software enabled the
estimation of over-break volume and percentage in the headings post blasting. Also the ‘as
drilled” function installed in the Atlas Copco L6 Jumbos enabled to do a comparative analysis
of drilled and blasting over-break percentage. This tool enabled the determination of over-break
strictly associated with blasting.

Figure 11. Heat map showing design versus actual (Klaric, 2015)

The effect of over-scaling and shotcrete spraying in the methodology was included, thus
photogrammetry pick-ups were conducted pre- and post-scaling, and pre- and post-shotcreting.
The estimation of volumes was not accurate, however, the results highlighted that the backs
and shoulders were where scaling occurred the most. Some areas were identified with excessive
shotcreting, more than 400m, which reduces the ground support effectiveness as the bolts were
not embedded into the surrounding rockmass.

Klaric emphasized that pyrotechnics initiation could lead to timing scatter and out-of-sequence
firing. Klaric approach was employing Smart Shots electronic detonators to provide more
predictable outcomes and consistency in the blasting performance. The electronic detonators
enabled the reduction in over-break levels and smoother perimeter profile with the presence of
half barrels. Even though, half barrels do not indicate the extent of blasting damage into the
rockmass, it is clear indication of less blast induced damage and the potential for scaling, cycle
time and quantity of material haul reduction.

36
 37

The full face electronic detonators enabled significant improvement in development blasting,
thus the next stage in Klaric approach was the reduction in redundancies in the drill and charge
design. This included the removal of blastholes, maintaining low over-break level, advance
rate maximisation and adequate fragmentation. Using explosive energy distribution models as
seen in Figure 12, 13 holes of the face pattern were removed. No scale was provided by the
author.

Figure 12. Explosive Energy Distribution Analysis (Klaric, 2015)

Klaric concluded that the removal of perimeter holes does have a positive effect in the time
reduction during boring, however, any unfavorable results outweigh those positives outcomes.
Adequate perimeter control is required for the long-life pillars and drives, resulting in better
safety levels and longevity.

2.4 CONCLUSION

As discussed through the literature review, the blasting design tools and empirical relationships
provided and available in industry could be used for designing development blasting. The rules
of thumb and empirical methods limitation is that non-optimal drilling and blasting pattern are
designed, as the geometrical distribution of blastholes is the only factor accounted, excluding
the rockmass properties and in some cases the explosive properties. Thus, the continuous
improvement methods and techniques should be employed for the optimisation of the
development blasting design.

The main parameters that should be recorded prior the design stage of the blasting patterns are
in-situ stress fields, geotechnical parameters and geological conditions present at the drives.

37
 38

The drilling and blasting design developed using the empirical methods should be employed
as the baseline or benchmark design for implementation of the continuous improvement
techniques. The main objectives in QA/QC trials is the improvement of advance rate, over-
break minimization, and cost reduction through the implementation of perimeter control
(explosives type, decoupling or electronic detonators), optimal burn cut design (number of
relief holes and spacing), delay accuracy (LP vs. electronic detonators) and adequate detonation
timing sequence (one delay vs. two delay in the perimeter holes). It is important to highlight
that the usage of blasting software’s such as JKSimblast 2D Face for modeling detonation
timing sequence, damage and PPV level is beneficial for the development of optimised blast
designs and for evaluating the continuous improvement stages.

The methods used for blast performance diagnostic are the prediction of blast induced damage,
vibration monitoring near-field and far-field, quantifying over-break and under-break levels,
profile smoothness, muckpile profile and fragmentation. Common tools used in industry for
the quantification of blast performance are laser scanning or photogrammetry for advance rate
and, over-break and under-break quantification, photogranulometric tool for fragmentation,
vibration monitoring (PPV levels) to evaluate the detonation performance and timing sequence.

The evaluation of the multiple case studies where development blasting was optimised
highlighted that single performance monitoring tools and blasting components (i.e. energy
distribution) were used for developing an optimisation criterion. Ideally, all the blasting
components discussed should be accounted in the blast design optimisation. As seen from the
literature different optimisation methodologies are being employed in the industry leading to
non-optimal blast designs, multiple optimisation procedures and higher expenditure costs.

38
 39

3 MINING ACCURACY ANALYSIS AT ERNEST

HENRY MINE

3.1 MINING PRACTICES

During the Glencore vacation work program at Ernest Henry Mine, the development operations
including the drilling, blasting and charging practices were monitored and data was collected
for the continuous improvement of development blasting. The data collected included drilling,
charging and timing sequence plans, breakage magnitudes in the ore drives, blast vibrations,
post-blasting performance, face pattern “as drilling” survey pick-ups and advance rate.

Currently, EHM is employing two drilling patterns for a 6.0mW by 4.8mH ore drive profile,
which the major difference is the burn cut located one row higher in the face pattern. Figure 13
displays drilling pattern #1, which is the pattern utilised by three crews out of four in the mine
site. The dimensions of the 4m drilled blastholes are 45mm diameter for the drillholes and
102mm diameter for the cut relief holes. The drilling pattern schematic includes the appropriate
blastholes burden and spacing parameters.

Figure 13. EHM Drilling Pattern Design

Table 3 summarizes the drillholes distribution along the pattern used at Ernest Henry Mine;

39
 40

TABLE 3
Drillhole Pattern Summary
Burn Cut Relief Holes Perimeter Lifters Knee Holes Easer Holes Blastholes Total
9 4 23 8 6 12 11 76

The charge plans are identical between the four different crews onsite. The explosives used
have been determined based on previous trials tested on the mine site, available supply, cost
and post-blast performance, which determine the following charge plan as seen in Table 4.

TABLE 4
Charge Plan
Component Description
Perimeter - Econotrim Buttbuster (Johnex); Perimeter control
explosive (cartridge) used up to the ore drive grade line
- Perimeter holes below grade line charged to full drillhole
length with emulsion (Dyno Nobel)
Lifters - Primex with emulsion (Dyno Nobel)
- Charged to full drillhole length
Easer Holes - Emulsion (Dyno Nobel)
- Charged to full drillhole length
Blastholes - Emulsion (Dyno Nobel)
- Charged to full drillhole length
Relief Holes - Four Relief holes
- Diamond Pattern

As mentioned previously at EHM, there are four different detonation timing sequences, as seen
from Figure 15 -18. Dyno Nobel NONEL LP detonators are used for timing the blastholes on
the face pattern. Figure 14 states the delay time in milliseconds and J-Hook colour for each LP
detonator.

Figure 14. LP Detonator Delay Time

40
 41

Figure 15. Crew A Detonation Timing Sequence

41
 42

Figure 16. Crew B Detonation Timing Sequence

42
 43

Figure 17. Crew C Detonation Timing Sequence

43
 44

Figure 18. Crew C Detonation Timing Sequence

44
 45

3.2 BREAKAGE ANALYSIS

The Geovia Surpac software package and Ring King over-break tool were used for estimating
the breakage magnitude in the ore drives (Geovia, 2016). Basically, the tool estimates the
breakage rate in an ore drive based on the volume difference between the ore drive string centre
line that incorporates the ore drive profile (6.0mW by 4.8mH) and then superimposing the
actual ore drive outline to the laser scan survey pick-ups, as seen Figure 19. The red colour in
Figure 19 displays the over-break and the green colour the under-break experienced in the ore
drive at a specific location.

Section No 10 Section No 11 Section No 12

Des 27.8 Des 27.8 Des 27.8
Dev 27.8 Dev 28.1 Dev 28.8
Ovr 1.1 ( 4.0%) Ovr 1.4 ( 5.0%) Ovr 2.0 ( 7.2%)
Und 1.1 ( 4.0%) Und 1.1 ( 4.0%) Und 1.0 ( 3.6%)
Variance ( 0.0%) Variance ( 1.0%) Variance ( 3.6%)
Figure 19. 1500 OD05 August

The breakage estimation was done based on a set interval distance, for this analysis the set
interval was one metre and per cut (4 m) for better accuracy and understanding of the current
breakage pattern. The analysis was conducted for over 3200 m of development and 30 different
ore drives at Ernest Henry mine. The mining accuracy analysis outlines the over-break and
under-break rates in level 1475 and 1500 ore and slot drives between July 2015 to January
Section No 7 Section No 8 Section No 9
2016, in terms of
Desthree
27.8 key measurements: Over-break
Des Rate
27.8 (%), Under-break Rate (%) Des
and27.8
Dev 27.4 Dev 27.9 Dev 28.0
Ovr cut
Break Tonnage per 0.8 ((t).
2.9%) Ovr 0.9 ( 3.2%) Ovr 0.9 ( 3.2%)
Und 1.2 ( 4.3%) Und 0.9 ( 3.2%) Und 0.7 ( 2.5%)
Variance ( -1.4%) Variance ( 0.0%) Variance ( 0.7%)

The main assumptions accounted for the estimation of over-break and under-break rates are the
following;

 The ore drive profile used to measure over-break and under-break is 6.0mW by 4.8mH;
 This profile has 100mm extra in the floor compared with last year (6.0mW by 4.7mH);
 A uniform rock density of 3.05t/m3 has been used;
 The charge-up crews
Section No 4 are employing the chargeSection
planNostated
5 in Section 3.1; Section No 6
Des 27.8 Des 27.8 Des 27.8
 There areDev
four
Ovr
27.2different
0.5 ( 1.8%) timing sequences Dev 27.2 on the
dependent
Ovr 0.6 ( 2.2%) crew on shift; Dev 26.8
Ovr 0.5 ( 1.8%)
Und 0.9 ( 3.2%) Und 1.0 ( 3.6%) Und 1.6 ( 5.8%)
Variance ( -1.4%) Variance ( -1.4%) Variance ( -4.0%)

45
 46

 An ore drive mined to the design profile has 339.16t for a 4m cut length; and
 The bogger capacity assumed for the over-break analysis is 12t per bucket.

The over-break rates in the ore-drives have been fluctuating from 7.4% up to 10% between
July 2015 to January 2016 with an increasing overall trend. Similarly, the under-break levels
have been fluctuating between 3.7% and 9.5% with a significant increase in the last months, as
seen in Figure 20.

12.0% 40

35
10.0%
30
8.0%
Percentage (%)

25

Tonnage (t)
6.0% 20

15
4.0%
10
2.0%
5

0.0% 0
Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16
Overbreak Per Cut (t) Underbreak Per Cut (t) Overbreak % Underbreak %

Figure 20. Over-break and Under-break EHM July 2015 - January 2016

Table 5 highlights the average over-break and under-break levels observed in the ore drives
during the months when the study was conducted. The 5.8% under-break rate is a clear
indication of ineffective drilling and blasting practices because under-break signifies that the
designed ore drive profile is not being achieved. While the 8.7% over-break magnitude
signifies poor perimeter control or inadequate blasting design, this includes drilling, charging
and detonation performance. There is an average over-break of 30t per cut, which is equivalent
to approximately 3-4 extra bogger buckets and an additional 20 minutes on the bogging cycle
time per cut.

TABLE 5
Average Over-break & Under-break
Over-break (%) Under-break (%) Over-break per cut (t) Under-break per cut (t)
8.7% 5.8% 29.8 19.8

46
 47

The breakage levels being experienced at the ore and slot drives at EHM are not adequate and
could lead geotechnical stability issues, additional ground support cost and production delays.
Based on EHM unit costs provided for ground support, the over-break additional cost estimated
was $447,856 and under-break $1,294,517 for the remaining metres of level 1475. Thus, the
mining practice, design implementation and blasting location variables will be analysed for
determining the possible root causes of the high breakage levels.

3.3 RECONCILIATION

In development blasting to maintain the designed profile at Ernest Henry mine based on the
boom dimensions, the toes of the last cut need to over-break by 150mm. The jumbo operator
needs to collar the holes at 3 degrees’ angle. This over-break allows the operator to collar the
next cut perimeter holes correctly creating a small saw-tooth pattern as seen in Figure 21.

Figure 21. Cross section of development tunnelling (Saw-tooth Pattern)

If this over-break is not achieved the ore and slot drives will start experiencing under-break,
causing issues in future development blasting and production operations. The over-break
analysis is accounting for the additional 150mm at the toes, which is equivalent to 3.4% over-
break and one additional bogging bucket per cut.

Pattern mark-up on the face prior boring and correct boom alignment by effectively using the
survey laser offset is crucial for accurate drilling. Figure 22 displays the current practice
employed by the Jumbo operators to outline the drilling pattern and the survey laser offset
technique to align their booms.

The booms are aligned by locating the drive centreline, and then locating the previous cut
centreline by offsetting the laser-line. This will show them the mining direction. The boom

47
 48

alignment technique is highlighted with red lines that represents the boom alignment as seen
in Figure 22.

Figure 22. 1500 OD 21 at 10th January

Inaccurate mark-up technique or laser-line offsetting could lead to continuous over-break or

under-break of the ore drives, as the operators tend to assume that the top of the drive achieved
from the previous cut is within the design height. Thus, a weekly over-break and under-break
analysis is recommended to provide feedback to the operators on their performance and avoid
significant over-break, under-break and horizontal offset due to these factors.

As seen from the charge plan in Section 3.1, the blast holes below the grade line in each side
wall are being fully coupled with emulsion. As seen in Figure 23, the result of full charge
drillhole length and fully coupling conditions are causing significant over-break in multiple
drives and within different crews.

Moreover, charging the easer holes to full drillhole length are causing significant over-break
on the backs of the ore drive as seen in Figure 23. Over mining the backs of the drives results
in the increase in ground support cost per cut, this includes additional split sets, resin bolts and
shotcrete material, especially in level 1475 where the geotechnical ground support plan
includes full ore drive shotcreting.

48
 49

Figure 23. 1500 OD 07

Charging the lifter and knee holes to full drillhole length are probably causing the over mining
of ore drive floor, as seen in Figure 24. Other possible factors of floor over mining are incorrect
boom alignment, hole deviation and excessive boom tilting. During development drilling
monitoring, Jumbo operators were observed boring with high amount of water present on the
ore drives with the Jumbo water pump not being utilised. This could possibly be attributed to
the inaccurate collaring of the lifter holes.

Figure 24. 1500 OD 05

During the development inspection done in December 2015 and January 2016, it was noted the
lack of boring accuracy in some face patterns, as the relief holes were not sufficiently spaced
from the burn cut holes, less than 250mm.

The perimeter holes were bored in the incorrect position or the easer holes not spaced
sufficiently to the perimeter resulting in the Econotrim being pulled out (Econotrim cartridges
observed in the muckpiles during re-entries).

49
 50

The outcome of the detonation and drilling performance of 1475 OD30 is shown in Figure 25.
The over-break (red) in the side wall is associated with fully charging the perimeter holes below
the “grade line” with emulsion. The under-break can be attributed to the combination of the
drilling and charging practices. Post blasting stripping of the left hand shoulder was done,
approximately 1 m short from the ore drive profile.

Figure 25. Over-break and Under-break 1475 OD30

The under-break level increased significantly from 4.3% achieved in November 2015 to 7.8%
in January 2016. Figure 20 also displays a continuous increase of under-break during the last
four months of 2015. Usually, under-break is associated with inaccurate drilling due to
incorrect outlining of the face profile. Once under-break has occurred in the ore drive, it tends
to repeat through the progression of the drive if not corrected, as seen Figure 26 that displays
two successive blast cuts.

Under-break in the perimeter shoulders is possibly associated with Econotrim being pulled out
of the blasthole due to the close proximity between the top corner easer and perimeter holes.
During post blasting re-entries residual packages of Econotrim have been found in the muckpile
or hanging from the ore drive sides.

50
 51

Figure 26. 1500 OD 05 December

In some development drilling inspections was observed that the drilling of the perimeter and
easer holes had excessive spacing, resulting in the undermining of the ore drive. Econotrim is
a perimeter control explosive, thus it does not release sufficient amount energy to propagate
large radial distances, which limits the blasthole breakage volume. Drillhole deviation develops
similar results, as the toe deviates increasing the rock volume per blasthole charged resulting
in poor blast performance.

Excessive under-break in the ore drives increases the Jumbo bolting time and reduce support
effectiveness, as the bolts are not drilled in the correct angle. Production drilling could be
potentially affected, as the Simba drilling rig is limited to a smaller back height when collaring
the ring pattern.

3.4 DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION

The breakage levels experienced in the ore drives in Level 1475 and 1500 between November
to December 2015 was back analysed to the Jumbo operators’ and Crews’ for the evaluation
of the drilling and charging design implementation. At the same time, the back analysis enables
to quantify the operator and crew performance based on breakage magnitudes.

51
 52

As mentioned previously, the over-break tolerance limit in an ore drive is 3.4% and 0% under-
break, in which the additional 150 mm drillhole toe collaring is accounted to maintain the ore
profile. During the development drilling inspections, the number of bored holes per operator
was recorded and then compared to the breakage levels, as seen in Figure 27. For the purpose
of this analysis, the identity of the operators has been kept anonymous.

12.0% 78

77
10.0%
76
BREAKAGE RATE (%)

8.0% 75

74
6.0%
73

4.0% 72

71
2.0%
70

0.0% 69
Operator Operator Operator Operator Operator Operator Operator Operator Operator IOperator J
A B C D E F G H
Over-break Under-break Holes Number

Figure 27. Jumbo operator’s performance

As shown in Figure 26, operator J achieved the lowest over-break rate 6.4%, while operator D
achieved the least under-break rate at 2%. Both of these breakage rates are not within the
threshold limits or acceptable level performance. Thus, the design implementation is not the
main factor leading to high breakage rates but the design itself, which potentially includes
design flaws in either the drilling, charging and/or delay timing design. It was also noted the
fluctuation in the operator breakage performance based on the Jumbo experienced, however,
the average breakage performance exceeds the threshold breakage magnitude.

Ideally, in development ore drive progression under-break should not be exhibit in the ore drive
periphery due to drilling and blasting activities. The operators achieving significantly low
under-break levels tend to have high over-break rates. Operators C and H had significant over-
break rates more than 10%. The majority of operators had under-break rates greater than 5%.

The jumbo offsiders’ over-break and under-break results were higher than the main jumbo
operator. This is associated with their experience time operating the jumbo drilling rigs. The
breakage rate trend of the offsider’s is similar to the one of the main operator on crew, but with

52
 53

higher rates. This clearly highlights that the new operators (offsiders) breakage rates are
dependent on the operator teaching them. This could be associated to the jumbo controlling
techniques employed and experience.

The design implementation not being the main factor for breakage magnitudes has been
reinforced by analysing the breakage rates in terms of crew performance. As seen in Figure 28,
the breakage levels at EHM does not fluctuated significantly along the different crews, thus a
geological conditions or design analysis must be done for clearly identifying the major cause
of blasting underperformance.

10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
A B C D
Over-break Under-break

Figure 28. Crew performance

Figure 28 displays that crew A achieved the lowest under-break rate in comparison to the other
crews but with a high over-break rate. This is a clear indication that the jumbo operators in
crews A and D are generally boring “big”. Crew B and C results are fairly similar, under-break
greater than 6% and over-break less than 7.9%.

A briefly Shift breakage rate study was conducted to determine whether there was a significant
difference in the performance between the shifts at EHM. As seen in Figure 29, the two shifts
are performing fairly similar. Shift A/C are achieving slightly better results in regards to over-
break and under-break rates than shift B/D crews, however there is not a substantial difference
between them to draw any further conclusions.

53
 54

9.0%

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0%
A/C B/D
Over-break Under-break

Figure 29. Shift Performance

3.5 BLASTING LOCATION AND GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

The blasting location is an essential variable for determining; if there is an existing trend in the
blasting performance based on geological boundaries and stress variations and/or the
evaluation of the design consistency, effectiveness and implementation.

The post blasting performance or quality analysis, based on breakage magnitudes achieved in
the ore drives using blasting location as the key variable was conducted in ore drives of level
1500 between October and December 2015.

The post blasting ore drive performance regarding over-break was subdivided into three
categories; reasonable (<7%), medium (7–10%) and bad (>10%). Similarly, the under-break
rate was subdivided into three categories; reasonable (<2%), medium (2-5%) and bad (>5%).

The main assumption behind sub categorizing ore drive performance is that stress
concentration variation and geological discontinuities presence should increase significantly
the over-break and under-break rates. High number of cuts performing badly in a specific ore
drive in comparison to others highlights the geological boundaries and stress variation effect.
Consistency on the ore drive post blast performance results would emphasize that there are
design flaws within the drilling, charging and detonation timing design.

The EHM “PDD” 469 and 470 stated that 1500 level development does not intersect any major
geological structures. Based on the geological and geotechnical evaluation at EHM, there are

54
 55

good ground conditions associated with competent felsic volcanics’ with minor structures. The
minor structures have been identified, as small scale faults, wedges and slabs in the backs and
sidewalls due to localised jointing. These discontinuities will be controlled with an effective
ground support design. The hydrogeological study conducted at EHM highlighted low risk of
water inflow.

During October 2015 as seen in Figure 30, ore drives 5, 15, 19, 21 and 23 are performing badly
in terms of over-break, as the over-break rate exceeds 10% in all of their cuts. These ore drives
had small development length scheduled for October 2015, thus there was not heading
prioritization pressure in those drives. The geology string files provided by EHM did not map
minor jointing structures that could affect over-break rates, however, the geotechnical structure
string files display structures mapped that could affect ground support stability. The assumption
was made that any mapped geotechnical structures represent localised jointing in the ore drives.
Slot drives 09 WW, SW and CE were the priority headings for October 2015 and at least 50%
cuts in each ore drive achieved a reasonable performance with low over-break rates. The overall
month performance was 40% of the cuts were categorized as bad performance and 44%
reasonable.

0
OD03 OD05 OD07 OD11 OD13 OD15 OD19 OD21 OD23 OD25 OD27 SLT DRVSLT DRVSLT DRVSLT DRV
09 EE 09 CE 09 WW 09 SW
Reasonable Performance Medium Peformance Bad Performance

Figure 30. Over-break October 2015

In terms of under-break rates per cut, there was a more consistent distribution along the sub
categories with 30% of the cuts performing reasonably, as shown in Figure 31. This highlights
that the operators are experiencing more difficulty dealing with under-break than over-break.

55
 56

The energy distribution and rock damage analysis will determine if the energy concentration
in the blast is insufficient resulting in under-break or if the design implementation is the main
issue. The priority drives experienced high under-break rates, which highlights that time
constraints due to heading prioritization could affect the operators’ performance.

0
OD03 OD05 OD07 OD11 OD13 OD15 OD19 OD21 OD23 OD25 OD27 SLT DRVSLT DRVSLT DRVSLT DRV
09 EE 09 CE 09 WW 09 SW
Reasonable Performance Medium Peformance Bad Performance

Figure 31. Under-break October 2015

In November 2015, the percentage of cuts rated as reasonable performance, dropped from 44%
to 33% and the bad performance sub category increased to 47%. As seen in Figure 32, all the
cuts in ore drives 5, 19 and slot drive 00 WS were over-breaking by more than 10%. As
discussed previously, those drives had minor geological discontinuities present that decreased
the design effectiveness. On the other hand, in ore drive 07 and 13 multiple structures were
identified, though 50% of the cuts were categorized as reasonable performance. Unfavourable
geological conditions reduce the blast performance, however, the results demonstrate that
geological discontinuities are not the major factor for development blasting underperforming
at EHM. The time constraint effect is again emphasized based on the results obtained in the
priority headings, ore drive 03, 15 and slot drive 00 SE, which at least 35% of the cuts were
rated as bad performance.

56
 57

12

10

0
OD03 OD05 OD07 OD11 OD13 OD15 OD19 SLT DRV SLT DRV SLT DRV SLT DRV
00 WS 00 SE 09 CE 09 SW
Reasonable Performance Medium Peformance Bad Performance

Figure 32. Over-break November 2015

The slot drives seem to be underperforming more than the ore drives. Based on the geological
and geotechnical structure string files there are more structures present on the slot drives that
could potentially affect the over-break rate. Stress state variation due to the change in the slot
drives orientation relative to the horizontal stress, as seen in Figure 33, could be another root
cause of underperformance. Moreover, the ore drives further within the level, 13 and higher
(east zone), show a similar trend to the slot drives, where a maximum 50% of the cuts are rated
as reasonable performance.

Figure 33. 1500 Level Plan

57
 58

The under-break magnitudes per cut reduced compare to October 2015 as seen in Figure 34.
The cuts rated as reasonable performance increased from 29% to 36%, and the cuts rated as
bad performance decreased from 36% to 23%. This is associated to the increased of the over-
break rate per cut. In priority drives 05 and 15, 85% of the cuts were rated as reasonable
performance, while ore drive 03 and slot drive 00 SE at least 60% of the cuts were rated as
medium performance.

12

10

0
OD03 OD05 OD07 OD11 OD13 OD15 OD19 SLT DRV SLT DRV SLT DRV SLT DRV
00 WS 00 SE 09 CE 09 SW
Reasonable Performance Medium Peformance Bad Performance

Figure 34. Under-break November 2015

The majority of the cuts of the west section drives 03 – 13 are rated as reasonable performance,
as seen in Figure 35. As mentioned previously, ore drives 13 and onwards are experiencing
high over-break rates.

Ore drive 19 is a clear example of continuous over-break in each cut since October 2015
without the identification of geological discontinuities in the string files. Also the ore drives
are either rated, as reasonable or bad performance but not within the medium performance sub
category. This emphasizes that the blasting design is not optimal due to the underperformance
inferring that minimal error during boring could lead to underperformance. The priority ore
drives 29 NS and 13 are having at least 30% of the cuts rated as bad performance supporting
the assumption that time pressure affects performance.

58
 59

12

10

0
OD03 OD05 OD07 OD11 OD13 OD15 OD19 OD29 NS SLT DRV 00
SE
Reasonable Performance Medium Performance Bad Performance

Figure 35. Over-break December 2015

The under-break per cut increased significantly compared to November 2015 as seen in Figure
36. The cuts rated as reasonable performance reduced from 36% to 11%, while the cuts
performing badly increased from 23% to 55%. There is an inverse correlation between the
over-break and under-break. The priority ore drives 07, 11, 13 and 29NS are experiencing the
highest under-break levels.

10

0
OD03 OD05 OD07 OD11 OD13 OD15 OD19 OD29 NS SLT DRV 00
SE
Reasonable Performance Medium Performance Bad Performance

Figure 36. Under-break December 2015

59
 60

Based on the geotechnical design plans the first two and last ore drives in each level required
shotcreting due to stress concentration. After shotcreting the ore drive shrinks by approximately
70 mm along the profile. The EHM ground support standard requirements state that 50 mm
thickness is the minimum shotcrete thickness. During shotcrete thickness testing, it was
estimated that the average shotcrete depth was 70mm. The 70 mm ore drive profile reduction
is equivalent to 1.7% of the volume. This signifies that the over-break rates per cut could be
underestimated and the under-break per cut overestimated in those drives.

For those drives survey pickups should be done prior shotcreting to have an accurate
representation of the ore drive profile and, over-break and under-break rates. In this case, the
jumbo operator should bore the face pattern ensuring that the ore drive design after shotcreting
is 6.0mW by 4.8mH.

3.6 CONCLUSIONS

Ernest Henry Mine mining practices demonstrate the lack of continuous improvement of
development blasting based on the breakage levels achieved in the ore drive; over-break
fluctuating from 7.4% to 10% and under-break 3.7% to 9.5% during the months when the study
was conducted.

After the evaluation of the mining practices, design implementation and geological blasting
location, it was concluded that the blasting design (drilling, charging and timing sequence)
presented flaws leading to the underperformance of the development blasts.

Multiple flaws were identified within the different blasting components. The drilling
component incorporated a non-optimal drilling pattern, close spacing of 0.5 m between the
perimeter holes, and insufficient burden of 0.5m between the easer and perimeter holes, and
the blastholes were not properly distributed along the face. The outcomes were excessive over-
break and under-break due to hole dislocation and ineffective energy distribution. The overall
over-break average during the months were the study was conducted was 8.7% and under-
break 5.8%. The blasting component included full drillhole length as the charge length and four
fully couple perimeter holes leading to similar results.

From an operational point of view, inaccurate collaring and drilling of blastholes because of
inappropriate face marking and laser line offsetting technique, and steel rods not being marked
up to the drillhole length were identified as the main issues.

60
 61

The variability of the breakage magnitudes based on the design implementation analysis
emphasizes that the blast design is not optimal or effective. The time length operating the
jumbos was identified as a possible variable for blasting performance.

Continuous mining accuracy underperformance through multiple levels was identified in the
east region at EHM, however, it was determined that geological discontinuities or geotechnical
structures were not the main factors of blasting underperformance. Further investigation and
mapping of the geological and geotechnical structure is recommended.

The drive orientation in regards to the stress state, geological and geotechnical conditions
should be incorporated into the drilling pattern design and charging practice to reduce over-
break and under-break rates. There are drilling designs that could improve the mining outcome
by changing the shape pattern based on the stress state and burn cut orientation to suit the
geological structures (foliation) present in the drives.

Priority headings have been experiencing significant levels of over-break and under-break per
cut due to time pressure. Shift bosses should schedule there “Next 24 plan” ensuring there is
sufficient time for boring. This could reduce rushing in the priority drives.

Multiple operators boring a face pattern could lead to inaccuracy in boring the drilling pattern,
resulting in high over-break, under-break or damage to the surrounding rockmass. A single
operator should bore a face pattern for consistency in design implementation during quality
control and quality assurance procedures.

3.7 RECOMMENDATIONS

As mentioned previously, the implementation of a QA/QC practice for development blasting

should be utilised for the continuous improvement and monitoring of the ore drives
progression. The following recommendations could be used in conjunction with the QA/QC;

 Near and far field vibration monitoring to evaluate blast and detonation performance;
 Continuous over-break and under-break monitoring and provide feedback to the Jumbo
operators to avoid horizontal and vertical offset;
 Accurate drilling and collaring of holes by ensuring that the Jumbo operators outline
the face properly and correctly use the laser line offsetting technique;
 Mark up steel rods (i.e. advance rate monitoring);

61
 62

 Develop design parameters to suit prevailing conditions and evaluate charging

practices;
 Decoupling perimeter holes charged with emulsion;
 Two thirds of the blasthole length is the optimal charging practice;
 Use the Jumbo water pump when water present in the ore drive;
 reference point in the face for additional help aligning and tilting the boom (i.e.
direction parallel);
 Investigate retrofitting manual or computer clinometers on existing Jumbo fleet;
 Continuous monitoring of the jumbo operators’ performance;
 Provide feedback to the jumbo operators’ in their performance;
 Inform the shift bosses about the crew performance; and
 Continuous monitoring of priority headings should be done to avoid high levels of over-
break and under-break per cut.

62
 63

4 BLAST DIAGNOSTICS MONITORING BASED ON

VIBRATION RECORDS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Blast monitoring of development blasting is a common practice in the underground mining

industry for the optimisation of blast designs. Andrieux (1996) discussed the method of blast
monitoring by using geophones and how the induced blast vibrations recorded can be
manipulated for evaluating the detonation and blast performance effectiveness. The main
limitations of blast vibrations monitoring are the misinterpretation of near and far field
vibration data, and the distortion of data generated from noise and interference related to the
rockmass structure.

The geophones installed for the seismic system network in multiple levels at EHM were used
for recording blast vibrations of development blasts. The data recorded for this analysis exceeds
the threshold distance limit to be consider as near-field data. Holmberg-Persson developed the
scaled distance law for the interpretation of blast vibration assuming the same reference
distance point. Holmberg-Persson scaled distance law was developed due to the varying
distance in geophones monitoring location and blasts positioning relative to the geophones.
The scaled distance law is defined in the following equation;

𝑑
𝑃𝑃𝑉 = 𝐾( 2 )−𝛽 (9)
√𝑊

Where, PPV, the peak particle velocity at point of interest (mm/s);

d, the distance between the point of interest and the blast (m);

W, the maximum charge weight fired instantaneously (kg);

K and β, site specific constants. (Andrieux, 1996)

The geophones recorded the three components of the peak particle velocity in development
blasts from October 2015 to January 2016. Spathis (2001) discussed that each particle vibration
commponent is associated with an specific point in time, thus for properly assesing the PPV
the vector amplitude of the three components needs to calculated. An excel spreadsheet was
developed that imported the geophone data and calculated the vector sum of the three vibration

63
 64

components and its corresponding time. The following equation was used for calculating the
vector sum of the components;

𝑉𝑃𝑃𝑉 = √𝑋 2 (𝑡) + 𝑌 2 (𝑡) + 𝑍 2 (𝑡) (10)

Where, VPPV, the vector peak particle velocity at point of interest (mm/s):

X, the velocity recorded in the x direction (mm/s);

Y, the velocity recorded in the y direction (mm/s);

Z, the velocity recorded in the z direction (mm/s);

t, the time at which the vibration was recorded.

At the same time, the spreadsheet automatically graphed the representative theoretical blast
vibrations signature based on the scaled distance law and superimposed the recorded blast
particle vibrations recorded by the geophones. The spreadsheet developed accounted for the
blast start and finish time, charge plan and the detonation timing sequence based on the crew
that charged the face. The charge plan is representative of the amount of explosive, in terms of
kg of emulsion, assigned to each delay. As mentioned in Section 3.1, there are four different
timing sequences, thus there were four different charging plans for this analysis. The perimeter
holes are charge with Econotrim, so the explosives mass proportional to the number of
perimeter holes is converted into kg of emulsion for the analysis.

4.2 DETONATION PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

For the blast diagnostic more than 30 blasts per crew have been analysed to evaluate accurately
the detonation performance within each timing sequence.

During December 2015, The overall results obtained from the blast diagnostic graphs
highlighted that at least in 30% of the blasts, LP detonator “7” did not display any vibration
pulse. Initially, the assumption was that holes containing delay “7” were being cut-off. This
was mainly because delay “7” was primarily used in the burn cut sequencing, however, delay
“7” was used in multiple blastholes within the face pattern. Crew B, C and D employed it for
bringing the two corner holes (two holes) of the burn cut or Crew A used it in four blastholes
diamond blasting method, outside the burn cut. The assumption was made that a portion of the

64
 65

product received, LP detonator “7” during the month of December, was defective, as the
vibration pulses were missing in 30% of the blast analysed.

D crew detonation performance of 1475 OD30 blasted on the 24th December of 2015 is display
in Figure 37. D crew employs a 14 LP detonators and skips LP detonator “1”, as seen in Section
3.1. The theoretical blast signature is represented by the orange lines in Figure 37, which the
amplitude is based on the explosive mass charged per delay. The error bars display within graph
represent the scatter error or possible detonation range of the NONEL LP detonators (±150ms).
The first pulse trace is representative of the vibration pulse generated by LP detonator “0” in
each blast. The amplitude fluctuation of the first vibration pulse is representative of the
confinement conditions at the initiation point of the blast.

Figure 37. Blast Signature 1475 OD30

The burn cut design seems to be performing effectively, as the explosive energy released is
efficiently being transmitted into the rockmass and fragmenting the rockmass. The initial PPV
levels for LP detonator “2” and “3” are equivalent to the blast signature but highlighting the
confinement conditions. The PPV burn cut results detail that there is low probability of face
freezing experience with this detonation sequence. LP detonator “4” should be performing
equally to the previous detonators, as there is equivalent explosive charge mass, however, in
Figure 37 the PPV pulse is below the detonation signature. This underperformance could be
associated with the overcharging of blastholes causing partial dislocation of the blastholes,
explosive leaking out of the blasthole through cracks, excessive interval timing between delays,

65
 66

LP detonator “1” not being used, or the desensitization of the emulsion in the blasthole. The
underperformance of the blasthole results in delay “5” over performing due to extra
confinement conditions. Figure is a clear example of LP detonator “7” missing pulse.

C crew denotation performance of 1475 OD04 blasted on the 2nd January of 2016 is shown in
Figure 38. Figure 38 displays a similar scenario to crew D detonation performance in the LP
detonator “3”. The extra confinement conditions due to excessive interval time within the burn
cut leads to successive blastholes not performing effectively. Not utilising LP detonator “1” in
the burn cut is not optimal based on the blasting signature. In the successive blastholes of the
detonation sequence the PPV recorded displays high PPV pulses exceeding the theoretical
blasting signature that represents the confinement conditions of the blast. The optimal burn cut
detonation performance is the even released of explosive energy for creating a smooth free face
area with the possible display of high PPV level in LP detonator “0” due to confinement. As
discussed previously, the burn cut design places a significant role in the advance rate
performance. If there is not sufficient free face area available for rock to move in, adequate
breakage of the rockmass will not occurred leading to the cut not being pulled to the design
length.

Figure 38. Blast Signature 1475 OD04

The detonation timing sequence between the different crews display some variation in the
location of the LP detonator in the blastholes along the face. The primarily difference affecting
significantly the detonation and blast performance is the blasting method used; either box and

66
 67

diamond or stripping. The charge-up operators in the crews’ C/D tend to predominately use the
stripping method except for the burn cut area, while crews A and B charge-up operators employ
the box and diamond method. Figures 39 & 40 clearly highlight the difference in the detonation
behaviour of the two blasting methods, delineated by the detonation timing contour model.

67
 68

Figure 39. Crew B Detonation Time Contour Model

68
 69

Figure 40. Crew D Detonation Timing Contour Model

69
 70

The stripping of multiple blastholes using LP detonator is not ideal, as NONEL LP detonators
have a 150ms scatter time. Thus, the stripping method does not work properly, as the blastholes
are detonating at different time resulting with an ineffective detonation or blast performance.
Figure 41 displays the blast diagnostic of 1475 OD30 on the 26th December 2015, where the
stripping method was primarily used in the blast. The LP detonators 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were
assigned for a stripping blasting method, as seen in Figure 41. There is a high scatter range
within each delay time that the stripping method was used. The PPV monitoring recorded
insufficient energy transmitted into the rockmass.

Figure 41. Blast Signature 1475 OD30

Based on the blast diagnostic graph, employing the box and diamond blasting method for the
inside section of the face pattern, excluding perimeter and lifters holes, with the combination
of stripping in the top easer hole row is more effective in terms of distributing explosive energy
into the rockmass and detonation performance. A clear example is presented in Figure 42 that
displays the blast signature of 1500 OD13 blast on the 20th December of 2015. Crew A employs
a 15 delay timing sequence as seen in Section 3.1. The overall outcome based on the PPV
monitoring is better detonation performance and consistency in the results. The main reasons
attributed for a better detonation performance is the usage of LP detonator “1”, crew A is the
only crew using this detonator. Also the detonation timing sequence combines the box and
diamond blasting method with stripping. Using LP detonator ‘1”, shortens the delay interval
time within the burn cut enabling the positive interaction between the blastholes. The interaction
between the blastholes prevents the partial dislocation of blastholes, as the breaking or

70
 71

fragmenting radial extension of the rockmass is limited by a shorter delay time interval (i.e. LP
detonator 2 blasthole affected by detonator “1” detonation).

Figure 42. Blast Signature 1500 OD13

The sequencing of a box and diamond blasting method in higher LP detonators within the
timing sequence exhibit better perimeter outcomes in terms of breakage rates as seen from the
detonation performance results of crew A & B compared to crew D. As seen in Figure 43, over-
break and under-break magnitudes are within acceptable levels because of the perimeter being
pulled properly in 1500 OD13. Under-break (green zone) within the ore drive is associated to
the dislocation of the perimeter hole due to inappropriate blastholes spacing between the
perimeter and easer holes or inaccurate drilling.

Figure 43. Over-break and Under-break 1500 OD13 Analysis

71
 72

B crew similarly to crew A employs the box and diamond blasting method through the entire
face pattern without stripping. Based on the PPV monitoring data collected and blast signature
graphs, the timing sequence displays some inefficiencies and lack of consistency in the results
leading to a non-optimal detonation performance. The blasting method, box and diamond, used
is not associated with the underperformance but the timing sequence. In the timing sequence
some flaws have been identified such as not using LP detonator “1” in the burn cut and detonator
“15”. Figure 44 displays 1500 OD 07 blast signature and detonation performance on the 13th
December 2015. Up to LP detonator “12” the detonation performance is acceptable with some
underperformance in the burn cut. From LP detonator “13” onwards significant scatter is
observed in each delay detonation pulse. Crew B does not utilise LP detonator “15”, which
creates excessive interval delay time for the lifters. The main advantage of the delay timing
sequence is the timing of the corners lifter blastholes in a higher delay compared to the rest of
the lifter holes. This delay sequencing of the lifter holes prevents lumps in the bottom corner
of the ore drives, making it easier for bogging operations (timing cycle and technique).

Figure 44. Blast Signature 1500 OD07

During face inspections conducted in December 2015 and January 2016, half barrels
highlighted by the red arrows were observed, as seen in Figure 45. The half barrels were only
observed in the backs and occasionally up to the ore drive shoulders. The upper side walls were
not exhibiting half barrels, which highlights that the perimeter holes are not performing
adequately. Based on the detonation performance, the perimeter Econotrim blastholes were
showing less PPV levels compared to the blast signature. This issues are associated to the

72
 73

possible dislocation of blasthole due to insufficient spacing between the easer and perimeter
holes. From the blast diagnostics all the round seems to be detonating but with significant
scatter. This indicates the possibility that not all the blastholes are contributing with rockmass
breakage.

Figure 45. 1500 OD15 Post Blast Performance

4.3 ADVANCE RATE MONITORING

Advance rate monitoring was conducted during January 2016 to determine the actual advance
rate achieved per cut during development blasting. The detonation performance or blast
diagnostics needs to be evaluated in conjunction with the advance rate, as the burn cut design
plays a significant role. If the detonation performance exhibits positive results in terms of
energy released and distribution but the design cut length is not achieved, the possible root
causes are; lack of free face area (burn cut) and insufficient drilling length. The lack of free face
area relates back to the number of relief holes and the effective relief diameter. Insufficient free
face prevents optimal rock breakage and movement during development blasting.

For properly quantifying the advance rate multiple sources available at Ernest Henry mine were
used. The “eHarmony” source is an excel file containing the number of cuts scheduled during
the month inputted by the scheduling engineer. This data was then compared with the actual
advance metres obtained from the End of Month (EOM) survey data to determine the advance
per cut. The EOM is the development metres achieved at the end of the month based on the ore
drive progression laser scan survey pick-ups.

73
 74

The Pit Ram is the operating recording system available at EHM, which records the location
and time of the different machinery on the mine site. The number of faces blasted data was
extracted from the operating system and similarly compared to the EOM to determine the
advance rate.

The jumbo plods are files filled by the jumbo operators in which the laser line offsetting distance
from the face is recorded. The jumbo plods can be used by following up the progression of a
specific ore drive of interest. The distance data can be used for determining the advance rate
per cut as the distance from the laser point is recorded for every bored cut.

The disto laser technique advance monitoring was conducted during the vacation program by
myself to determine the advance rate per cut. This technique involves using a disto laser
equipment and measuring the advance rate post-blasting. Initially, the face position is marked
along the ore drive and then the post blasting distance to the new heading is recorded. This was
done by shooting the disto laser along the initial marked face positon, previous face position,
to the new face and multiple laser distance measurements are recorded along the position line.

Table 6 displays the recorded development lengths or number of cuts from each data source;

TABLE 6
Advance Rate Monitoring & Sample Length
eHarmony & EOM Pit Ram & EOM Jumbo Plods Disto Laser
Length/ Samples 309 m 309 m 355.9 m - 88 18

Figure 46 displays the advance rate calculated from each source. There is variability in the
advance rate calculated from the different sources, however, based on the average value of the
sources the design advance cut length is being achieved in development blasting.

4.1

4.05
AVERAGE ADVANCE RATE

3.95

3.9

3.85
eHarmony & EOM Pit Ram & EOM Jumbo Plods Disto
Figure 46. Advance Rate Monitoring

74
 75

4.4 CONCLUSIONS

The variation in the detonation timing sequence between the different crews is not justified,
based on the data analysed. A single timing sequence would be elaborated based on the design
flaws observed in the four different timing sequences analysed with the possible alterations to
suit changes in the drilling pattern. The standardisation of a single detonation timing sequence
enables better accountability of the stocks and supply requirements. The box and diamond
blasting sequencing displayed significantly better results compared to stripping. Stripping of
blastholes using one single LP detonator is not optimal as the scatter ±150ms of NONEL LP
detonators prevents the effectiveness of simultaneous detonation. An investigation of the cost
effectiveness and trial of electronic detonators for development blasting is recommended for
better detonation performance.

Not utilising or jumping LP detonators in the timing sequence, especially in the burn cut results
in the underperformance of the blastholes detonation. Commonly, excessive confinement and
inefficient detonation of successive blastholes are observed due to high interval delay times. LP
detonator “1” has been identify as critical for an optimal performance of the burn cut and
achieving 4m advance cut length. The timing of the corners lifters holes in a higher delay time
than the rest of the lifter holes results in better floor mining outcomes, improving the efficiency
in bogging operations.

The optimal timing sequence will be detailed in further chapters based on the modifications of
the blastholes pattern. The best burn cut detonation performance is achieved by locating LP
detonator “1” at the top, “2” at the bottom and “3” & “4” on the sides. Based on the detonation
performance analysis, sequencing the burn cut in this way has been proven to be more consistent
and effective blast performance results.

The design advance cut length at EHM has been achieved in development blasting, however,
this concluded based on average results calculated. More consistency in the advance rate
performance is required, as 30% of the cuts were below best practice. If the increasing of the
advance rate cut length is aimed additional cut relief holes in the burn cut design are required.
A brief trial was conducted by increasing the number of relief holes bored per face to six instead
of four as detailed in the drilling pattern designs. Based on the results and face inspections,
longer advance rates were achieved. Further testing and validation of the trial is required for
the proper evaluation, and the incorporation of other parameters as seen in previous sections.

75
 76

Butts, 200-400 mm, exhibit on the face post blasting do not represent a burn cut design flaw
but that the charge-up operators were not charging the blastholes to the end of the drillhole
length.

An accelerometer blast monitor equipment can be used for monitoring more accurately the
vibrations in the near-field instead of the geophones. The accelerometer blast monitor will need
to be manually installed in the ore drive adjacent to the development blast to avoid flyrock
damaging the equipment.

The accelerometer blast monitor displays vibration pulses more clearly; this includes the PPV
levels and detonation scattering due to the close proximity of the monitor to the blast. The
system records the peak particle velocity (PPV) in mm/s, instead of m/s by the geophones in
the seismic system. Using the accelerometer blast monitor still has a degree of error, as it is
mounted in the rockmass surface.

76
 77

5 JKSIMBLAST 2D FACE MODELLING

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Ernest Henry mine technical service team developed a single development face pattern for a
6.0Hm x 4.7Wm ore drives. This pattern was keep constant through the multiple levels,
however, there was a modification in the ore drives dimensions into a 6.0Hm x 4.8Wm. The
Jumbo operators part of the Development operations team adjusted the pattern for the new
dimensions and included some adjustments based on their experience and actual ground
conditions. The detonation timing sequences have been determined and designed similarly to
the drilling patterns by the charging operators crew based on their experience and ground
conditions. These new adjustments have not gone through a rigorous engineering analysis and
continuous improvement process.

As mentioned in Section 3.1, there are two standard drilling patterns that are dependent on the
Jumbo Operators (crew), with some slightly modifications based on ground conditions and face
dishing, and four detonation timing sequence that are dependent on the charging crew on shift.
JKSimblast 2D Face software incorporates multiple tools for the evaluation of the design
drilling pattern and charge plan, including the assessment of the theoretical blast performance
based on the energy distribution and rock damage modelling.

5.2 3D ENERGY DISTRIBUTION

The 3D energy distribution tool models the concentration and distribution of “energy” based
on an extension of a conventional powder factor distribution (Soft Blast, 2006). In other words,
the tool enables the representation of the geometrical distribution of energy in a schematic
based on the blasthole diameter, explosive used, charge length and coupling condition. Thus,
an analysis can be conducted for the energy distribution assuming that the ideal scenario is a
uniform distribution of energy within the drive, avoiding the dislocation of blastholes and
energy not exceeding the tunnel periphery.

For the energy distribution modelling certain parameters were input into 2D Face as seen in
Figure 47. This included the rock specific gravity, which in this case the average density of the
ore and waste is 3 m3/kg and the distance along heading. For the distance along the heading

77
 78

parameter the maximum release of energy location needs to be input for analysis. The
maximum release of energy is located at half the charge length, which in this case is 2m.

Figure 47. Modelling Parameters

The energy distribution model tool displays contour layers based on a fix scale for representing
the energy levels. Figure 48 shows the scale employed for the modelling of the energy
distribution with kg/t as the unit. For the purpose of this analysis, the defined criterion describes
high energy zones for energy values greater than 9 kg/t or red layer, between 6 – 9 kg/t or
yellow layer is medium-high energy zones, 3.07 – 6 kg/t or green layer medium energy
concentration and finally from 0.1 to 3.07 or blue layer represents low energy concentration.

Figure 48. 3D Energy Distribution Scale

Crew A, B and D employ an identical drilling pattern, while Crew C employs a different face
pattern. The drilling patterns exhibit different energy distribution due to the variation in the
blastholes location along the heading. The smaller the burden and spacing between the
blastholes and the more drillholes present increases the energy concentration at a specific point.
Drilling Pattern #1 and #2 as seen in Figure 49 a & b exhibits high energy concentration in the
burn cut area. High energy concentration in the burn cut is required for a positive blast

78
 79

performance, as the burn cut is the crucial component of the face pattern for determining the
advance rate. Allen (2014) discussed that insufficient energy or improper burn cut design leads
to high probability of “face freezing” or insufficient effective pull.

The main difference between the drilling #2 and #1 energy distribution model is that the burn
cut centre is located at a higher position of the face pattern, thus there is more energy
concentration in the top easer and perimeter holes of the ore drive. Higher energy concentration
near the perimeter could lead to over-break in the ore drive roof causing geotechnical stability
issues and additional ground support requirements.

In the breakage analysis conducted for the Ernest Henry mine highlighted that over-break was
usually observed on the ore drives roof and side walls, and there was not a common trend of
over-mining the ore drives floor. Thus, lifting the burn cut centre by one row of blastholes in
drilling pattern #2 is not effective.

Kaushik (2012) highlighted in his research that over-break could be blast induced due to
uncontrolled burn cut blasting. Currently, the mine is charging the blastholes to full drillhole
length. Previous research and industry knowledge by mining companies and explosive
suppliers determined that the optimal empirical charging length is two-thirds of the drillhole
length. High energy concentration in the burn cut could also be a major factor responsible of
the over-break levels experienced on the ore drives, as seen in the months that the breakage
analysis was conducted. The analysis of the rock damage extent due to charge length variation
using Holmberg-Persson PPV tool will be done in further chapters for the optimisation of the
development blast.

Drilling pattern #2 correspondingly displays the same issues as pattern #1 with high energy
concentration zones between blastholes. For optimising the design, the energy released per
blasthole in the burn cut should be limited to the sufficient amount of energy to effectively pull
the cut to design advance rate without excessive blastholes energy interrelation; to avoid
sympathetic detonation and dislocation of blastholes, as observed in the blast detonation
performance analysis.

As seen in Figure 49 a & b, especially the rectangular shape pattern of drilling #2 the energy
released by the knee and lifter holes creates a medium-high energy concentration connection
area, yellow layer, between these two components. In development blasting, ideally the
multiple face pattern components, such as the burn cut, lifter and easer holes need to work in

79
 80

conjunction to pull the cut to the adequate or design cut length, however, excessive energy
concentration between different blastholes, especially those set to a higher detonation number
in the timing sequence could result in sympathetic detonation or blasthole dislocation. Also
medium-high energy concentration zones linking multiple blastholes highlights inadequate
energy distribution around the drive, as the energy released by those blasthole is not
propagating further rock breakage or in other words energy is being wasted into broken ground.
A possible solution for inefficient distribution of energy is staggering the blasthole pattern
especially in the areas highlighted with rectangular shapes.

Both drilling patterns display high energy concentration linking zones between the right and
left bottom side easer and perimeter holes highlighted in an oval shape pattern. Fully charging
the perimeter holes in the bottom side causes that the energy distribution exceeds the tunnel
periphery. This is a clear indication of a possible reason of why over-break is experienced in
development blasts.

Similarly, the top corner easer and perimeter holes emphasised by circles display a medium-
high energy concentration layer, which again is associated to excessively charging the
blastholes with emulsion and insufficient spacing and burden. There is a high probability of
the dislocation of one or two perimeter holes due to the energy interaction and depending on
the extent of the energy released possible breakage; either under-break or over-break. In this
scenario, it is uncommon to cause the desensitisation of the Econotrim as it is a perimeter
control explosive.

The perimeter explosive, Econotrim Buttbuster, energy distribution of the blastholes is uniform
and with a small radial area that lies within the tunnel periphery to avoid excessive breakage.
There is sufficient burden between the easer and perimeter holes, as there are not high energy
concentration zones connecting the two components.

Drilling pattern #1 demonstrates more uniform energy distribution and better perimeter control
based on explosive energy released in close proximity to the ore drive periphery. The main
recommendations that could be given based on the 3D energy distribution model analysis is
the reduction on the charge length, the use of decoupling or perimeter control explosive in the
fully couple bottom side perimeter holes, face blastholes’ number reduction, staggering pattern
and relocation of the easer holes.

80
 81

Figure 49a. Drilling Pattern #1 3D Energy Distribution Model Figure 49b. Drilling Pattern #2 3D Energy Distribution Model

81
 82

5.3 4D ENERGY DISTRIBUTION

The 4D energy distribution tool models the energy released by the explosives in each blasthole
within the ore drive periphery based on the detonation timing sequence (Soft Blast, 2006). In
other words, the tool enables the representation of the geometrical distribution of energy based
on the number of blastholes assigned to a specific delay time and all the other parameters
accounted on the 3D energy distribution model analysis.

Similarly, an analysis can be conducted for the energy distribution assuming that the ideal
scenario is a uniform distribution of energy within the drive, avoiding the dislocation of
blastholes and high energy concentration not exceeding the tunnel periphery. For the energy
distribution analysis in 4D a correspondence time of 30 mm/s was utilised.

The energy distribution model tool displays contour layers based on a fix scale for representing
the energy levels. Figure 50 shows the scale employed for the modelling of the energy
distribution with kg/t as the unit. For the purpose of this analysis, the defined criterion describes
high energy zones for energy values greater than 5 kg/t or red layer, between 3.4 – 5kg/t or
yellow layer is medium-high energy zones, 1.73 – 3.4 kg/t or green layer medium energy
concentration and finally from 0.1 to 1.73 or blue layer represents low energy concentration.

Figure 50. 4D Energy Distribution Scale

The 4D energy distribution model enables a further detail analysis of the effects of each delay
blasted in terms of the energy concentration for the four detonation timing sequences

82
 83

implemented at EHM. It displays in more detail the energy distribution interrelationship

between blastholes by incorporating the delay time.

Crew A uses drilling pattern #1 and detonation timing sequence #1. The energy distribution
model of the development blast displays a significant improvement in the uniformity of the
energy released per blasthole from the blast compared to the 3D energy distribution model of
drilling pattern #1. This is mainly associated with the delay timing that accounts for the
dissipation of energy over time.

The burn cut high energy concentration has been limited to a smaller radial area per blasthole
but still displays an efficient burn cut design. There has been a reduction in the medium-high
concentration and blastholes linking zones based on the blast performance. There are still the
same issues present described in the 3D energy distribution analysis but with lesser energy
concentration. In Figure 51 a highlighted with a circular shape, the top right and left side
corners of the ore drive are showing a high energy concentration linking zones that could lead
to drillhole dislocation due to insufficient spacing between the easer and perimeter holes.

Similar to the 3D energy distribution model there are some areas in all the 4D energy
distribution models where there are high energy concentration linking zones such as the lifter
and easer holes, highlighted in a rectangular shape, and the fully charge perimeter and easer
holes, highlighted in a circular shape. The possible mitigation strategy for this issues are the
reduction of the charge length and employing a staggering pattern between blasthole rows to
effectively distribute the energy released.

The box and diamond sequencing in the face pattern centre enables uniform distribution of
energy. Then, the stripping of the top rows distributes the energy efficiently to avoid perimeter
holes’ dislocation, however, a staggering pattern should be employed between the top blasthole
rows for better energy distribution performance. Timing the corner lifter holes in a different
delay to the lifter holes breaks the high energy concentration linking zone, and displays
sufficient amount of energy to deal with the blastholes confined conditions.

Crew B uses drilling pattern #1 and detonation timing sequence #2. The burn cut timing
sequence do not utilised LP detonator #1, however, the energy distribution is similar to Crew
A performance. Timing the corner lifters holes in a higher delay shows the same effect observed
in detonation timing sequence #1, as seen in Figure 51 b.

83
 84

Timing the fully charged perimeter holes in a lower delay than the Econotrim perimeter holes
breaks the medium-high energy linking zone, which is a positive result. On the other hand,
timing these two fully charged perimeter holes in the same delay exhibits a slightly larger radial
energy concentration area outside the tunnel periphery, highlighted in a circular shape.

Detonation timing sequence #2 employs a box and diamond blasting sequence through the
entire heading except for the Econotrim perimeter and lifter holes. There is more energy
interaction, larger green layer, of the blastholes in the heading centre and sides easer holes. The
upper easer holes’ zone exhibits less energy concentration. On the other hand, Econotrim is a
perimeter control low energy explosive that requires energy interaction zones within the easer
holes, for the reduction of volume required to be blasted per perimeter blasthole and pulling
smoothly the roof. Lack of energy interaction could lead to misfires or under-break full length
perimeter holes present post-blasting. As seen in Figure 51 b highlighted with a circular shape,
the box and diamond sequencing did not prevent the high energy interaction zones between the
upper corner easer and perimeter holes.

Crew C utilises drilling pattern #2 and detonation timing sequence #3. As discussed previously
drilling pattern #1 has been selected as the ideal scenario based on the 3D energy distribution
model analysis.

As seen from Figure 51 c, there is significant higher energy concentration zones through the
ore drive compared to other crews. As seen in the highlighted rectangular shape, there is less
uniform energy distribution due to more blastholes energy interrelationship or “linking zones”.
This could lead to the possible dislocation of blastholes or desensitisation of the emulsion
explosive.

Timing all the lifters holes in the same delay, especially the corner lifters lead to high energy
concentration linking zones and larger radial energy area from those blastholes. As seen in the
circular shape, medium-high energy is concentrated outside the tunnel periphery, which could
lead to over-break. Also timing all the perimeter holes in the same delay causes the interaction
between the fully charged and Econotrim perimeter holes. As a result, over-break and irregular
perimeter outline could be experience in the ore drives.

Crew D uses drilling pattern #1 and detonation timing sequence #4. The 4D energy distribution
model displays higher energy concentration and more linking zones between the blastholes
compared to the other crews employing drilling pattern #1, as seen in Figure 51 d. This linkage

84
 85

zones increase could be associated to the blasting sequence method utilised. Crew D primarily
uses Stripping over Box and Diamond through the entire face. The burn cut is the only section
where the Box and Diamond method is utilised. Similarly, setting all the perimeter holes to one
delay and all lifter holes to another displays same results as detonation timing sequence #3.

85
 86

Figure 51a. Timing Sequence #1 4D Energy Distribution Model Figure 521b. Timing Sequence #2 4D Energy Distribution Model

86
 87

Figure 541c. Timing Sequence #3 4D Energy Distribution Model Figure 531d. Timing Sequence #4 4D Energy Distribution Model

87
 88

5.4 BLAST DAMAGE ANALYSIS

The Holmberg and Persson PPV contouring tool models the theoretical PPV levels in the ore
drives during development or tunnelling blasting. The tool accounts for the drilling and blasting
parameters of each blasthole, specifically the charge concentration per unit length for
developing the theoretical PPV model.

The Holmberg and Persson approach is based on rock damage being related to peak particle
velocity (PPV). The approach enables the evaluation of the damage produced to surrounding
rock when employing cylindrical charges. This method provides a practical methodology for
evaluating blasting performance based on damage prediction and damage control. The main
theory behind this method is that the seismic wave energy generated by blast induced vibrations
decrease with distance due to the decay of frequency and amplitude of the vibration. In this
approach, JKSimblast employs a basic equation for developing the design curves or model;

𝐾𝑄 𝛼
𝑃𝑃𝑉 = (11)
𝑅𝛽

Where Q = charge weight;

R = Distance; and
K, ,  = constants

K,  and  are site specific and can be determined from seismic signals or multiple regressions
analysis. K represents the source of energy and the coupling efficiency of the explosive to the
blasthole wall. While  reflects the loss of vibrational energy with distance. The assumptions
of Holmberg and Persson approach are the following;

1. The entire charge detonates simultaneously;

2. The amplitudes are simply summed without considering arrival direction; and
3. PPV is proportional to the dynamic strain experienced by the rock mass.

For properly assessing the PPV attenuation model provided by the Holmberg and Persson tool
to estimate the extent of rock damage, attenuation constants together with a PPV damage and
breakage threshold must be specified. The theoretical incipient damage and fracturing can be
calculated from the following equations;

𝑇𝑉𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝑉𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = (12)
𝐸

88
 89

𝑃𝑃𝑉𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 4𝑥𝑃𝑃𝑉𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 (13)

Where T = tensile strength of the rock (Pa);

VP = compressional wave velocity (m/s); and
E = static Young’s Modulus (Pa).

The Ernest Henry mine rockmass parameters recorded for the purpose of this analysis are the
following;

Table 7
Rockmass Parameters
Uniaxial Compressive Strength Tensile Strength P Wave Velocity Young’s Modulus

110 MPa 8 -11 MPa 6071 m/s 60 GPa

The rockmass tensile strength varies over the underground mine, thus a PPV critical and
fracturing range is calculated for assessing the minimum and maximum rock damage extent
and over-break surrounding the ore drive periphery. The EHM PPV critical and fracturing were
calculated based on the recorded rockmass parameters.

Table 8
PPV Levels
PPVCritical (mm/s) PPVFracturing (mm/s)
810 - 1113 3237 - 4452

The incipient damage and fracturing values were used for developing the contour layers’ scale
as seen in Figure 52.

Figure 552. Rock Damage Criterion Scale

89
 90

The blue layer displays the maximum incipient damage extent in the surrounding rockmass
with a tensile strength of 8 MPa. The green layer displays the minimum incipient damage extent
outside the tunnel periphery with a rockmass tensile strength of 11 MPa. The yellow layer
represents the fracturing zone for low tensile strength rockmass (8 MPa), while the red layer is
for high tensile strength rockmass (11 MPa).

As seen from the PPV models’ both drilling patterns are performing similar in terms of the
rockmass damage and fracturing pattern but with a difference in the surrounding rockmass
damage magnitude. The blastholes full length charge conditions is clearly exemplified in the
PPV model by displaying almost 95% of the tunnel area exceeding the fracturing threshold of
a low tensile strength rockmass.

The main issues associated with the drilling patterns are the high probability of the two
perimeter corner holes’ dislocation, highlighted by circles in Figure 53 a & b, and the excessive
over-break rate in the ore drive sides (bottom), highlighted by rectangles. Moreover, the yellow
layer zone between the side easer and perimeter holes highlighted within the oval shape in
Figure 53 a & b, shows the interaction between the blastholes. This means the possible
dislocation of those perimeter holes.

The dislocation of the perimeter corner holes occurs due to the close spacing between the easer
and perimeter holes. The fully couple and charge length condition of the easer holes releases
excessive energy as seen in the 3D and 4D energy distribution model analysis section causing
the interaction between the blastholes. Similarly, the side perimeter holes interacting with the
easer is due to excessive energy concentration and possible inadequate spacing. The over-break
of tunnel periphery in the sides’ bottom part is associated with the fully charge length condition
of those two perimeter holes in each side.

As seen in Table 9 & 10, the surrounding rockmass damage fluctuates around the tunnel
perimeter. The tunnel sides and floor are the sections experiencing the most incipient rockmass
damaged outside the tunnel periphery post blasting, 1.74m and 1.75m respectively following
by the roof corners with 1.52m and then the roof with 1.1m. The main consequences of over-
break and excessive rockmass damage are geotechnical instability, over-mining of the floor
which increase the development cost, inadequate tunnel dimensions which affects ring designs
and production drilling, and increase in the ground support cost. The 2.4m bolt length used at
EHM is larger than the maximum rock damage extent, thus blasting does not have

90
 91

repercussions in the bolt effectiveness, as the bolt anchor point is located in undamaged
rockmass. On the other hand, there is the possible detachment of rock (rock falls) or shotcrete
breakage in the rockmass weak planes (joints, intersections and faults) due to blast induced
vibrations.

91
 92

Figure 563a. Drilling Pattern #1 Rockmass Damage Criterion Figure 573b. Drilling Pattern #2 Rockmass Damage Criterion
Table 9 Table 10
Surrounding Rockmass Damage Extent Drilling Pattern #1 Surrounding Rockmass Damage Extent Drilling Pattern #2

Drilling Pattern #1 Incipient Damage Max. (m) Incipient Damage Min. (m) Drilling Pattern #2 Incipient Damage Max. (m) Incipient Damage Min. (m)
Side (Bottom) 1.7374 1.3915 Side (Bottom) 1.7394 1.4176
Side (Top) 1.2871 0.9497 Side (Top) 1.3292 1.0159
Floor 1.7454 1.3915 Floor 1.7494 1.4277
Floor (Corners) 1.72 1.34 Floor (Corners) 1.7640 1.3799
Roof 1.0787 0.7245 Roof 1.0762 0.7038
Roof (Corners) 1.5150 1.1305 Roof (Corners) 1.5486 1.1673

92
 93

5.5 CONCLUSIONS

Drilling Pattern #1 performs better than drilling pattern #2 based on the maximum and
minimum incipient rockmass damage and the over-break magnitude experienced through the
tunnel periphery.

The face patterns presented excessive energy concentration within the pattern and in the
surrounding rockmass, and also linking zones between blastholes due to inappropriate
blastholes burden, spacing, and charge length. The blast diagnostics observations were back
correlated to the models for determining an ideal timing sequence. The main design flaws
included the perimeter holes fully charged, the close proximity between the perimeter corner
and easer holes, and the inefficient energy distribution within the pattern.

The most effective detonation timing sequence in terms of energy distribution is detonation
timing sequence #1. There are some small limitations on the design as seen from the analysis,
which will be altered for the optimisation of the detonation sequence and elaborating a base
line design prior trial testing.

The perimeter holes are performing efficiently in the four delay timing sequences in terms of
energy distribution, as all the Econotrim perimeter holes are set to one specific delay. The
breakage analysis highlighted medium-high breakage rate levels, then the perimeter design
needs to be optimised based on the main supplier recommendations for drillhole burden and
spacing. Currently, the perimeter holes spacing is 0.5m, 0.65m is the recommended spacing.
Also the blasthole burden between the perimeter and easer holes should be minimum distance
of 0.65m, which in some cases is less than 0.5m.

93
 94

6 THE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF

DEVELOPMENT BLASTING

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The literature review and analysis conducted enable the development of a systematic approach
for the optmisation of development blasting. This chapter details the development of the
approach and the components within it. The implementation of the systematic approach for the
continuous improvement of Ernest Henry mine development blast design including the drilling
pattern, charging plan and detonation timing sequence. In terms of the optimise blast, the
identification of the designs major design flaws, mitigating strategies, the evaluation of the
optimise design based on energy distribution and rock damage criterion, and potential savings
for the operations are discussed.

6.2 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BLASTING – PROPOSED

APPROACH

In the literature review stage, the main gap identified was that there is not a systematic approach
available for the continuous improvement of development blastings practices for site engineers.
There are guidelines and performance monitoring tools available but not a methodology that
provides engineers with the flow of data and analysis to confidently propose design and
implementation improvements.

The main issue identified was that development blasting optimisation procedures often
employs one performing monitoring tool and one optimisation criteria. The continuous
improvement of development blasting requires the development of an optimisation criteria that
accounts for all the blasting components such as the blast design parameters, diagnostics using
peak particle velocity levels, energy distribution analysis, over-break and under-break levels,
rock damage criterion and advance rates. As seen from the multiple case studies, inefective
procedures for the continuous improvement of development blasting were being conducted
leading to non optimal blast designs and the requirement for repetitve optimisation procedures.
The proposed systematic approach is summarised in Figure 54. It considres all of the key blast
design components for the optimisation of development blasting practices based on site specific
criteria. As seen in Figure 54, the method follows a fairly similar procedure as the analysis

94
 95

conducted for the continuous improvement of EHM development blasting design project. The
process involves 5 stages: data collection/monitoring, mining practice analysis, blast
diagnostics, foftware modelling analysis, continuous improvement of development blasting
and reiteration.

1. The first stage includes the monitoring and collecting of the main blast design
components data discussed previously for multiple cuts or large samples of
development metres using performance monitoring tools available in Industry.
2. The second stage involves the mining accuracy analysis based on three main variables;
mining practices, design implementation and geological blasthole location using the
over-break and under-break levels experienced in the ore drives for the evaluation.

The analysis aim is to determine whether the blast underperformance is due to design flaws or
are the three variables the main factors. The major findings could be the identification of
possible correlations between these variables with the blast underperformance due to the
variability in the over-break and under-break levels displayed in the breakage analysis. If the
average blast performance is under best practice, the main factor to consider would be the blast
design.

The mining practice sub section involves the evaluation of the pre drilling and blasting
practices such as face mark-ups, boom alignment and laser line offsetting technique for the
development of possible mitigation strategies.

In the design implementation section the operator and crews performance needs to be evaluated
for potentially highlighting and quantifying issues with the design implementation (inaccurate
face boring) or the human factor effect (operator experience).

The blast location analysis assesses the effects of geological discontinuties in terms of over-
break and under-break levels based on blast performance. Geological discontinuites impose a
detrimental effect on blast performance depending on the weakness plane orientation. Also the
blast location variables evaluates the effects of stress redistribution in blasting performance.

3. The third stage involves the blast diagnostics analysis based on the PPV levels recorded
from the seismic system network geophones or accelerometers recordings. The
recorded PPV levels are compared against the blast signature. The blast signature
represents the PPV levels based on the weight charge of explosive mass assigned per
detonator. The comparison enables the identification of excessive confinement

95
 96

conditions in the blast, sympathetic detonation, inefficient energy distribution of energy

to the rockmass and misfires. Based on the detonation performance evaluation the ideal
detonation timing sequence that suits the design requirements can be develop. Another
key element of this stage is the back analysis of the detonation performnace, primarily
focusing in the burn cut to the post blast outcomes such as over-break and under-break
levels and the achieved advance rate to ensure that design cut length is being achieved.
4. The fourth stage involves the modelling of the design parameters based on energy
distribution and rock damage criterion models. There are two energy distribution
models either 3D or 4D. The main difference is that 4D accounts for delay timing for
modelling the geometrical distribtuion of energy. The energy distribution models
enables the interpretation of the efficiency of energy distribution within the blast but
more importantly the optimisation of the charge length. Possible findings include high
energy concentration linking zones between blastholes, medium or high energy
concentration levels outside the ore drive periphery and ineffective geometrical
distribution of energy. The possible reasons associated with these findings are excessive
charge length, inappropiate blastholes burden and spacing, fully coupling perimeter
holes and linear geometrical distribution of blastholes within the pattern.

In terms of the rock damage models, the Holmberg-Persson damage criterion could be
employed. For this the calculation of the PPV critical and fracturing needs to be calculated
based on the rockmass properties (UCS, p wave velocity, etc.) or direct measurements of
damage. Similarly to the energy distribution models design flaws within the face pattern can
be identified based on rock damage and fracturing extent. The theoretical over-break or under-
break levels can be predicted, enabling the variation of the perimeter control and easer holes
charging plan strategy if required. Moreover, the modelling of the surrounding rockmass
damage extent to determine effectiveness of the ground support plan based on the blast induced
damage extent in the rockmass. The determination of possible blasthole interaction or
blastholes being cut-off based on the rockmass frcaturing extent within the ore drive face
pattern to evaluate adequate blasthole burden and spacing dimmensions. It is important to note
that rock damage models do not account for the delay timing and the development of the free
face area during blasting.

5. The last and fifth stage involves the development of the optimise blast design based on
the findings of the analysis sections. The aim of this section is the mitigation of the
design flaws determined through the analysis taking into account the major variables

96
 97

(operator performance, geological discontinuities, stress variations, etc.) effect on the

blast performance. Then, the optimise blast design needs to be evaluated based on the
optimal blast design criterias using the modelling stage. If no clear or further design
flaws are identify in the optimise design models. The design would then be tested and
validated possibily using a QA/QC procedure based on the main blast design
components monitored.

97
 98

Figure 584. Proposed Systematic Approach for the Continuos Improvement of Development blasting

98
 99

6.3 EVALUATION OF APPROACH TO OPTIMISE DEVELOPMENT BLAST DESIGNS

AT EHM

The Ernest Henry Mine development blasting design was optimised using the systematic
methodology detailed in Section 6.2. The current blast design had been determined as not
optimal based on the blast performance outcomes achieved. This included geotechnical hazards
(roof falls), excessive surrounding rockmass damage, high over-break and under-break levels
exhibit in the ore drives, ineffective detonation performance, blasthole dislocation and
explosive desensitisation. The systematic approach enabled the identification and
quantification of the major design flaws and mining practice issues at EHM blast based on the
post blast performance data collected. The main design flaws identified were the following;

 Ineffective geometrical distribution of blastholes in the face pattern;

 Ineffective energy distribution;
 Full drillhole length charge with emulsion;
 Lower Perimeter holes charged to full drillhole length and fully couple conditions;
 Ineffective perimeter control;
 Inappropiate blasthole burden and spacing (close spacing between easer and perimeter
holes); and
 Ineffective delay timing sequence (LP Detonators not being used and blasting method).

For the optimise development blast design the drillhole pattern, charge plan and detonation
timing sequence have been modify for mitigating the identified design flaws for an optimal
blast performance. Figure 55 displays the optimal blast design.

In the drillhole pattern, the perimeter holes spacing was modify to 0.65m based on the perimeter
control explosive properties and supplier recommendations. Similarly, the easer and perimeter
holes burden was increased to 0.65m for mitigating excessive over-break and blastholes
dislocation. The key modifications were the cornner easer holes burden constraint to 0.65m
and 0.9m spacing based on the PPV fracturing radial distance.

The easer holes pattern was modify to suit the ore drive profile outline for an effective
geometrical distribution of blastholes. Also a staggering pattern was introduced into the face
pattern design for better geometrical and energy distirbution within the ore drive. The
staggering pattern was utilised for the knee and lifter holes, and the easer and perimeter holes.

99
 100

The staggering pattern enabled 1m spacing of the lifter holes with sufficient energy
concentration for rockmass fracturing.

In the charge plan, the charge length of the blastholes was modify to 2/3 of the drillhole length.
The optimal charge length was determined to be 2.67m of 4m drillhole length. Econotrim
Buttbuster is being employed in all the perimeter holes of the face pattern to avoid excessive
over-break and maintain the design profile boundaries.

The detonation timing sequence had signifcant modifications due to the reduction of blastholes
in the face pattern. The optimal detonation timing sequence is detailed in Figure 55. Box and
Diamond was consider as the most optimal blasting method for the face pattern, with the
stripping of the top easer blastholes. The entire LP denotator range was utilised for an effective
interval delay time leading to an optimal detonation performance.

100
 101

Figure 595. Optimised Blast Design & Detonation Timing Sequence

101
 102

The optimal blast design was then evaluated based on the optimal blast design criterion stated
in Section 5 in terms of energy distribution within the ore drive and Holmberg-Persson
rockmass damage criterion.

JKSimblast 2D Face software was used for modelling the 4D energy distribution of the optimal
blast design. As seen in Figure 56, the optimal blast design does not present high energy
concentration linking zones between blastholes, as drilling pattern #1 & #2. The staggering
pattern introduce into the face design enables the appropioate geometrical distribution of
energy and avoid excessive energy concentration zones. Econotrim Buttbuster being use in the
entire perimeter prevents high energy concentration outside the ore drive periphery. The energy
distribution levels displayed in Figure 56 highlight that the charge length reduction to 2.67m is
the optimal explosive mass required per blastholes for the development blasting design. The
optimal design timing sequence enables sufficient relief time between the LP detonators for an
optimal detonation performance without delay interaction.

The toe section of the optimised blast design was model in terms of 4D energy distribution.
The model was also evaluated to determine whether sufficient energy is distributed along the
4m design cut length and whether the dipping of blasthole generated any effects in the blast
performance. The modelling results were similar to Figure 56, which highlighted that there
was sufficient energy present in the ore drive for achieving a 4m cut length.

102
 103

Figure 60. Optimised Blast Design 4D Energy Distribution Model compared to Drilling Pattern # 1 4D Energy Distribution Model

103
 104

The Holmberg-Persson rockmass damaged modelling tool was used for evaluating the
optimised blast design based on the optimal blast design criterion and, the critical and fracturing
PPV level calculated for the waste and orebody rockmass. As seen in Figure 57, the rockmass
damage extent for low and high rockmass tensile strength has reduce significantly
(approximately 50%) compare to drilling pattern #1 & #2. Over-break of the ore drive
perimeter is not being display in the model. The confinement conditions during the lifters
detonation requires higher PPV levels, as display in the radial zone outside the tunnel
periphery.

The optimise development blasting design mitigates the high over-break and under-break
levels, reduces the surrounding rockmass damage by more than 50%, 1/3 reduction in explosive
utilisation, reduction in the number of drillholes bored in the face and better accountability of
detonation explosives (delays and boosters). The potential savings have been estimated to be
$2,745,400, based on the unit cost per m of EHM, ground support cost and the time saved
boring a face due to the new design. The details of the savings calculation cannot be disclosed
due to a confidentiality agreement. Table 11 summarizes the optimise blast design components
and potential savings.

Table 101
Optimised Blast Design Components
Drillholes Relief Holes Blastholes LP Detonators Seq. Drillholes Reduction Savings ($)
69 4 65 18 7 $ 2,745,400

104
 105

Figure 61. Optimised Blast Design Rockmass Damage Criterion Model compared to Drilling Pattern # 1 Rockmass Damage Criterion Model

105
 106

6.4 CONCLUSION

The systematic approach developed follows a similar flow to the analysis conducted for this
project, including an optimised criterion section that incorporates all the blasting components
and data collected from the multiple performance monitoring tools. The systematic approach
was developed for the continuous improvement of developing blasting, including the following
main stages Data collection/Monitoring, Mining Practice Analysis, Blast Diagnostics Analysis,
Software Modelling Analysis and Continuous Improvement of development blasting in the
process and requirements within each stage. The method describes the successive tasks
required after the optimisation stage for the continuous improvement of the blast design. The
systematic approach enabled the development of an optimised development blasting design for
EHM. The approach details that testing and validation of the optimal development blast design
is required.

In the optimised blast design; a single timing sequence, staggering pattern within the drilling
pattern for effective energy distribution, perimeter holes spacing of 0.65m, Econotrim
Buttbuster used in the entire perimeter and, perimeter and easer holes’ burden of 0.65m were
introduced. The modifications resulted in efficient energy distribution, no high energy
concentration linking zones between blastholes, 50% reduction in the surrounding rockmass
damage extent, effective perimeter control and 4m design cut length. Based on the optimised
blast design, $2,745,400 potential savings were estimated.

106
 107

7 CONCLUSIONS
Development blasting operations in Sub-level and block caving mines play a significant role
in the mine development cost and efficiency. The access of ore drives has a direct influence in
the commencement of production operations, production drilling conditions and profit return.
The annual development operations at Ernest Henry mine (EHM) scheduled 5400m per year
that accounts for approximately $26.5M of the mine budget, with the possibility of effective
perimeter control and potential savings by the optimisation of the blasting design.

Literature does not provide engineers with a systematic approach for the continuous
improvement of development blasting. The development operations are often conducted by
contracting companies which aim is the maximisation of the advance rate without taking into
consideration adequate procedures for quality control and quality assurance leading to non-
optimal blast designs. The blasting pattern tends to be repeated within multiple mines and
geotechnical environments due to the lack of a continuous improvement methodology. It is
important to highlight that blast design should be mine site specific taking into account the
possibility of multiple geotechnical domains due to the variance in ore drive dimensions,
geological and stress conditions. Currently at EHM, approximately 30% of the cuts are below
best practices experiencing significant over-break and under-break levels in the ore drives with
the potential for geotechnical hazards such rock falls that could increase the mining risk.

The project aim was the development of a thorough and systematic method for the continuous
improvement of development blasting in mining operations focusing on EHM as a case study
with the purpose of;

 Developing an optimal blast design pattern, timing sequence detonation performance

and perimeter control that suits EHM requirements (design boundaries) and ground
conditions;
 Minimise the Geotechnical issues induced by rockmass fracturing or damage;
 Minimise the over-break and under-break levels in the ore drives;
 Maximising the advance rate per cut;
 Reduction in the blasting and Ground support cost.

107
 108

The objectives included the research and evaluation of the development blasting design theory,
case studies where development blasting designs were optimised and performance monitoring
tools for the development of an effective and efficient systematic approach.

The literature research highlighted that the main issue associated with the design components
theory such as blastholes spacing and burden estimation or the rules of thumb available in
Industry is that geometrical distribution of blastholes is only accounted, excluding the rockmass
properties and in some cases the explosives properties leading to non-optimal blast designs.
The main blast design parameters for the continuous improvement are in-situ stress fields,
geotechnical parameters and geological conditions present at the drives. The drilling and
blasting design developed using the empirical methods should be only considered as the
baseline design and then the implementation of the continuous improvement techniques. The
blast design components monitoring required for the continuous improvement are the blast
design dimensions, over-break and under-break magnitudes, PPV levels for detonation
performance and advance rate per cut. The monitoring of these components is conducted by
utilising performance monitoring tools such as vibration monitoring (accelerometers or
geophones) for PPV levels, laser-scanning or photogrammetry for advance rate, over-break and
under-break levels, and Optimisation software’s for the blast design parameters based on
energy distribution models and rockmass damage criterion. Multiple case studies were
evaluated to determine the effectiveness of their methodology and performance monitoring
tool. In industry single performance monitoring tool and blasting components are used for
developing the optimisation criterion leading to non-optimal designs and repetitive
optimisation procedures.

The project methodology consisted in monitoring all the discussed blasting components for
approximately 3700 development meters at EHM. The data collected was then analysed based
on three main subdivisions; mining accuracy, PPV levels monitoring & blast diagnostics and
development blast software modelling for the continuous improvement of the development
blast design and the development of the thorough systematic approach.

Analysis of mining practices at EHM

In the mining accuracy analysis, the mining practices, design implementation and geological
blasting location variables were evaluated based on the over-break and under-break levels
experienced in the ore drives. The mining practices analysis included the evaluation of prior

108
 109

drilling, drilling and charging practices. The design implementation analysis involved the
quantification of over-break and under-break levels based on operator performance. The
geological blasthole location involved the analysis of over-break and under-break levels based
on the ore drives to observed the effect of geological discontinuities and stress boundaries. The
major findings from this analysis were that the blasting design including the drilling, charging
and timing sequence presented design flaws leading to the blast underperformance. The
variables evaluated presented correlation with the underperformance of the blasts, however,
the main factor was determined to be the design flaws. The drilling pattern required the
adjustment of the blastholes spacing and burden, as blasthole dislocations and ineffective
energy distribution were observed. The charge plan required a modification in the charge length
to two thirds and the perimeter control design.

Blast diagnostics through vibration monitoring

The blast diagnostics analysis using the PPV levels recorded from the Geophones within the
seismic network highlighted that the four timing sequences used at EHM presented design
flaws. This included jumping LP detonators in the timing sequences (burn cut or blastholes)
resulting in excessive confinement and inefficient detonation of successive blastholes due to
high interval delay times. The timing of the corners lifters holes in a higher delay time than the
rest of the lifter holes results in better floor mining outcomes, improving the efficiency in
bogging operations. The standardisation of a single detonation timing sequence enables better
accountability of the stocks and supply requirements. The box and diamond blasting
sequencing displayed significantly better results compared to stripping. Stripping of blastholes
using one single LP detonator is not optimal as the NONEL LP detonators scatter ±150ms
prevents the effectiveness of simultaneous detonation. An investigation of the cost
effectiveness and trial of electronic detonators in development blasting at EHM is
recommended for better detonation performance. The design advance cut length at EHM has
been achieved based on the average results calculated from four different data sources. More
consistency in the advance rate performance is required, as 30% of the cuts were below best
practice.

Back analysis using 3D, 4D energy distribution and PPV near field modelling

JKSimblast 2D Face Software’s was used for modelling the 3D & 4D energy distribution and
the Holmberg-Persson rock damage criterion. The energy distribution models highlighted that

109
 110

Drilling Pattern #1 performs better than drilling pattern #2 based on the maximum and
minimum incipient rockmass damage and the over-break magnitude experienced through the
tunnel periphery. The face patterns presented excessive energy concentration within the pattern
and in the surrounding rockmass, and also linking zones between blastholes due to
inappropriate blastholes burden and spacing, and charge length. The blast diagnostics
observations were back correlated to the models for determining an ideal timing sequence. The
main design flaws included the perimeter holes fully charged, the close proximity between the
perimeter corner and easer holes, and the inefficient energy distribution within the pattern. The
most effective detonation timing sequence in terms of energy distribution is detonation timing
sequence #1.

Proposed systematic approach

A systematic approach was developed using a similar flow to the analysis including an
optimised criterion section that incorporates all the blasting components and data collected
from multiple performance monitoring tools. The method describes the successive tasks
required after the optimisation stage for the continuous improvement of the blast design. The
systematic approach enabled the development of an optimised development blasting design for
EHM. The approach details that testing and validation of the optimal development blast design
is required.

In the optimised blast design; a single timing sequence, staggering pattern within the drilling
pattern for effective energy distribution, perimeter holes spacing of 0.65m, Econotrim
Buttbuster used in the entire perimeter and, perimeter and easer holes’ burden of 0.65m were
introduced. The modifications resulted in efficient energy distribution, no high energy
concentration linking zones between blastholes, 50% reduction in the surrounding rockmass
damage extent, effective perimeter control and 4m design cut length. Based on the optimised
blast design, $2,745,400 potential savings were estimated.

110
 111

8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Further work of the project involves the testing and validation of the optimised blast design at
Ernest Henry mine. This includes the implementation of the blast design and evaluating it
against the defined optimised blast design criterion based on over-break and under-break levels,
detonation performance, energy concentration and rockmass damage criterion. The systematic
approach details each stage.

The applicability of electronic detonators in EHM development blasting could be evaluated

using the defined criterion and develop a cost analysis. The evaluation of changing the burden
cut design from 4 to 6 relief holes for increasing the advance rate.

Further research work on the project could be in the following areas;

 Investigate the effect of stress conditions in the development blast performance and
possible mitigation strategies;

 Investigate the effect of the geological discontinuities in the development blast

performance and possible mitigation strategies;

 Investigate and validate the applicability of the systematic approach in other mining
site operations;

 The development and implementation of Quality Control and Quality Assurance

practice for development blasting;

 Research and validation of the applicability of the 4D energy distribution modelling

energy levels; and

 Back analysis of the blasting performance to the Holmberg-Persson rockmass damage

criterion model for calibrating the EHM blasting constant.

111
 112

9 REFERENCES
Adamson, W.R, Scherpenisse, C.R, and Diaz, J.C, 1999. The Use of Blast
Monitoring/Modelling Technology for the Optimization of Development Blasting, in
proceedings of the Explo 99, pp 242-254, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia.

Andrieux, P, 1996. Methods and Practice of Blast-induced Vibration Modelling, Chapter 2, 4-

6, Department of Mining and Metallurgy, McGill University.

Brady, B.H., and Brown, E.T., 2006. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. Chapter 17 –
18, Australia.

Collins, A.H, Lovittand, M.B, 2013. Improved tunneling performance through smarter drilling
and design, Orica Mining Services, Chapter 2, Tunneling in Rock by Drilling and
Blasting, Subiaco, Western Australia.

Cunningham, C.V., and Goetzsche, A.F., 2003. The Specification of blast damage limitations
in tunneling contracts, pp. 193 – 198, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology,
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.

Darling, P, 2011. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, pp 3249-3263 (SME).

Dey, K. 2004. Investigation of blast-induced rock damage and development of predictive model
in horizontal drivages. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis in Indian School of Mines, pp. 45–

103, Dhanbad.


Dyno Nobel, 2015. Optimal Drill and Blast Techniques for Underground Mining Course.
Development Mining, Chapter 11.

Forsyth, W.W., and Moss, A.E., 1990. Observations of blasting and damage around
development openings. In proceedings of the 92nd Canadian Institute Mining and
Metallurgy Annual General Meeting, pp. 245–251, Ottawa, Canada.

Hagan, T.N, 1998. Minimizing the total cost of horizontal development with Burn Cut Blast
Rounds, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne.

112
 113

Holmberg, R., Persson, P.A., and Lee, J., 1994. Rock blasting and explosives engineering. CRC
Press, Inc., pp. 213-230, London, UK.

Holmberg, R., and Persson, P.A., 1979. Design of tunnel perimeter blast hole patterns to
prevent rock damage, in proceedings of the IMM Tunneling, pp. 280-283, London, UK.

Holmberg, R., and Persson, P.A., 1980. Design of tunnel perimeter blast hole patterns to
prevent rock damage. Trans. Inst. Min. and Metall., vol. A, pp. 37-70, London, UK.

Kaushik, D, 2013. Prediction of blast-induced over-break from uncontrolled burn-cut blasting

in tunnels driven through medium rock class, pp. 49-56, Tunneling and Underground
Space Technology, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, India.

Klaric, P, 2015. Improving Drive Stability through Efficient Development Blasting Design and
Practices, in proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, pp 327-332, Sydney, New South Wales.

Kovacs, J, 2014. Mine Development Optimization – An Evolutionary Process, in proceedings

of the 12th AusIMM Underground Operations Conference, pp 51–56 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)

Langefors, U, and Kihlstrom, B, 2014. The Modern Techniques of Rock Blasting, pp. 473, New
York.

Miller, D.K, Bottomley, L, and Tucker, A.J, 2005. Perimeter Control in Development Mining,
in proceedings of the Ninth Underground Operators’ Conference, pp 57-64 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Onederra, I, 2001. Computer aided design and information management for tunnel
development using drilling & blasting techniques, pp. 1-7, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia.

Onederra, I, 2015. Rock Breakage Underground Development Blasting. The University of

Queensland, Retrieved from www.uq.edu.au on March 20th.

113
 114

Roy et al, 2015. Blast Design and Vibration Control at Kayad Lead-Zinc Underground Mine,
in proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, pp 327-332, Sydney, New South Wales.

Sarma, P.V, Kazmi, A.M, Singh, G, 2013. Precision delay timing – a tool for improving mining
efficiency case study, Chapter 17, Blasting in Mining, India.

Segarra et al, 2015. Effect of vibration sensor mounting method on the quality of vibration
measurements, in Proceedings 11th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, pp 545–552 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).

Singh, M.M., and Mandala, S.K., 2009. Evaluating extent and causes of over-break in tunnels,
pp. 22 – 36, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Blasting Department,
Central Institute and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India.

Softblast, 2006. FJKSimblast blast simulation evaluation and management; 2D Face,

Available from: < www.soft-blast.com/JKSimBlast/2DView.htm > [Accessed: 23 June
2016].

Spathis, A.T, 2011. Fallacies in blast vibration analysis, Orica Australia, New South Wales,
Australia.

Yilmaz, O and Unlu, T, 2014. An application of the modified Holmberg-Persson approach fo

tunnel blasting design, pp. 113 – 122, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology,
Department of Mining Engineering, Turkey.

114
 115

10 APPENDICES

10.1 APPENDIX A – RISK ASSESSMENT

The risk assessment is a basic management tool for identifying, mitigating and controlling risks
associated with any activity involved in a procedure inside or outside a mine site. As the
research project is directly linked to the continuous improvement of developing blasting at
Ernest Henry Mine, the Queensland Resources Council risk ranking for determining and
ranking risk in mining has been used for the research project.

Table 1 details the risk level, consequence and the description associated if it is injury or
damage loss related.
Table 112
Ranking Risk & Description
Level Consequence Injury Classification Damage Loss

1 Very Low Minor Injury < $5,000

2 Low Medically Treated Injury $5,000 - $50,000

Lost Time Injury or Illness (< 2
3 Moderate $50,000 - $500,000
weeks)
Lost Time Injury or Illness (< 2
4 High $500,000 - $1,000,000
weeks)
5 Extreme/Severe Fatality/Permanent Disability > $1,000,000

Table 2 details the risk rating matrix that incorporates the likelihood and consequence of an
event.

Table 123
Mining Risk Matrix
Consequences
Likelihood Very Low (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) Extreme (5)
Almost Significant Significant High High High
Certain (A)
Likely (B) Moderate Significant Significant High High

Moderate (C) Low Moderate Significant High High

Unlikely (D) Low Low Moderate Significant High

Rare (E) Low Low Moderate Significant Significant

115
 116

The colour scheme employed by the risk matrix for representing risk is show in Table 3;

Table 134
Colour Scheme associated with Risk
Colour Risk

Red High
Orange Significant
Yellow Moderate
Green Low

Any tasks involving the continuous improvement of development blasting at a mine site during
a QA/QC trial should employed the mining risk rating specified before or similar, and
determine appropriate control or preventive measures.

10.1.1 Risk Assessment

The research project has risks or hazards of its own associated with the methodology, death
lines and recommendations provided. Table 3 displays the following hazards associated in the
development of the research project and delivery of results;

Table 145
Research Project Hazards
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk Rating Control/preventive measure
 Request more data from the
mine site
Insufficient data Unlikely High High
 Ensure contacts on site are
maintained
 Create Backups
Loss of data Likely Extreme High  Compile data into multiple
sources
 Create multiple backups
Loss or damage
Moderate Moderate Significant  Save the data to hard drive,
of backups
computer and cloud storage
 Continuous backup of
Loss of analysis Moderate Extreme High
research project progress
 Appropriate scheduling plan
Lost time due to
Moderate Low Moderate with contingencies on the time
sickness
frames

116
 117

 Included travelling or time

Lost time due to periods were progress will not
Likely Low Significant
travelling be done in the research
project on the schedule plan
 Awareness is maintained in
Not completing
Rare Extreme High regards to death lines and
analysis on time
prioritizing tasks accordingly
 Data validation
 Constant meetings with my
supervisor
Misinterpreting
Unlikely Extreme High  Request feedback on data
data collected
analysis
 Statistical analysis
 Avoid major assumptions
 Thorough data analysis
 Modelling multiple blast design
Not Optimal patterns
blast design  Account for worst case
Unlikely High Significant
pattern scenarios (rock strength
recommended variability and operator
experience)
 Develop mitigation strategies
 Face pattern design accounts
for EHM blasting practices,
Unpractical face equipment and materials
Unlikely High Significant
pattern design  Face design selection should
account for marking, drilling
and charging practicality
 Maximising the number of
Face freezing Rare Extreme High relief holes for larger burn cut
area
 PPV levels analysis
 4D energy distribution analysis
Excessive
Unlikely Extreme High  Perimeter control explosives
Breakage rates
 Sufficient spacing of the easer
holes to the perimeter holes

Ideal Advance  Account for suitable drilling

Rate not Unlikely High Significant and charge length
achieved

117
 118

 Drillholes are fully drilled

during Jumbo drilling
 Holes are charge to the correct
length

10.1.2 Contingency Plan

During the author’s employment period over the summer with Glencore’s Ernest Henry Mine,
preliminary work on the research project was conducted as part of the vacation program. This
included data collection of PPV levels and detonation performance from Geophones, over-
break and under-break rates estimation, operator and drives performance analysis and possible
issues associated with blasting practices at Ernest Henry mine. This preliminary work of the
research project forms basis of the contingency plan as all the data required has been collected
and is available.

Constant communication is keep with contacts at Ernest Henry if any extra support or data is
required for the success and development of the research project. The JKSimblast 2D face
software and licenses are available at the university computers and with the possibility of a
dongle provided by Dr. Italo Onederra for the analysis and modelling of the data collected.

The research project involves the validation of the recommended optimal drill and blast design
pattern in the development blasting operations at Ernest Henry mine. Ideally, this procedure
will enable to assess whether the new pattern is optimal or others factors should be accounted
in the design stage. If this stage of the research project is not possible, a structure guide for the
implementation of the design will be send to the technical team at Ernest Henry mine with a
detailed quality control quality assurance test trial methodology and further conclusions will
be developed in future papers after the completion of the trial tests.

118