Accepted Manuscript

A study in cost analysis of aggregate production as depending on drilling and blasting

design

Niyazi Bilim, Arif Çelik, Bilgehan Kekeç

PII: S1464-343X(17)30304-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.07.024
Reference: AES 2976

To appear in: Journal of African Earth Sciences

Received Date: 22 February 2017

Revised Date: 4 July 2017
Accepted Date: 17 July 2017

Please cite this article as: Bilim, N., Çelik, A., Kekeç, B., A study in cost analysis of aggregate production
as depending on drilling and blasting design, Journal of African Earth Sciences (2017), doi: 10.1016/
j.jafrearsci.2017.07.024.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A Study in Cost Analysis of Aggregate Production as Depending on Drilling and Blasting

Design

Niyazi Bilim
Selcuk University, Mining Engineering Department, Konya
Arif Çelik
Turkey Coal Enterprises, Çorum

PT
Bilgehan Kekeç
Selcuk University, Mining Engineering Department, Konya

RI
Abstract

Since aggregate production has vital importance for many engineering projects—such as

SC
construction, highway and plant-mixed concrete production—this study was undertaken to
determine how the costs for such production are affected by the design of drilling and blasting
processes used. Aggregates are used in the production of concrete and asphalt, which are critical
resources for the construction sector. The ongoing population increase and the growth of living

U
standards around the world drive the increasing demand for these products. As demand grows,
competition has naturally arisen among producers in the industry. Competition in the market has
AN
directly affected prices, which leads to the need for new measures and cost analysis on production
costs. The cost calculation is one of the most important parameters in mining activities.
Aggregate production operations include drilling, blasting, secondary crushing (if necessary),
loading, hauling and crushing-screening, and each of these factors affects cost.
M

In this study, drilling and blasting design parameters (such as hole diameter, hole depth, hole
distance and burden) were investigated and evaluated for their effect on the total cost of quarrying
D

these products, based on a particular quarry selected for this research. As the result of evaluation,
the parameters actually driving costs have been identified, and their effects on the cost have been
TE

determined. In addition, some suggestions are presented regarding production design which may
lead to avoiding increased production costs.

Keywords: Aggregate, drilling-blasting, unit cost, quarry

EP

1 INTRODUCTION
C

Aggregates are used as raw materials in engineering applications such as roads, bridges, ports,
airports, and water structures. Also, they are the most important raw material for the manufacture
AC

of concrete and asphalt, which is a significant part of the construction sector. About 87 percent of
Portland cement concrete and about 95 percent of asphalt are composed of aggregates (Herrick,
1994). Total aggregate production in 28 EU countries reached 2.7 billion tons. That output is
provided by 25 000 stone quarries that are operated by 15,000 companies employing 230 000
workers. The yearly revenue of the aggregate industry in Europe is €15 billion (Web, 2016).
Producing quality products with low costs increases competitive power. Aggregate production
throughout the world has a 58% share of all mining operations—the largest of all worldwide
(Öztürk et al, 2007).
It is very important to conduct correct and appropriate cost analysis in a high-production and
high-use field. Various engineering measures have to be taken in order to enable decreasing costs
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

in aggregate quarries. The main goals of those measurements are to improve the operational
effectiveness and reduce the unit cost of production (Taherkhani and Doostmohammadi, 2016).
The cost calculation is one of the most important parameters in managing mining activities.
Cost management includes planning, analyzing, recording and controlling stages (Jonek and
Kowalska, 2013).
Researchers have studied cost analysis in mining activities (Houdet et al, 2014; Phillip et al,
2010; Çelebi and Paşamehmetoğlu, 1986). There are many parameters that affect the ability to

PT
decrease unit costs per ton of production in mines. Getting a good definition of the effects of
these parameters on unit costs is very important in terms of the organization's ability to generate
revenues in an increasingly competitive environment. Aggregate production operations in mining

RI
activities include drilling, blasting, loading and hauling, crushing and screening, secondary
crushing (if necessary), and each of these factors affects costs (Kojovic et al, 1995; Nielsen,
1995; Lejuge and Cox, 1995).

SC
One parameter that has a large effect on unit costs in aggregate mines is the cost of drilling-
blasting (Tek, 1999; Aksoy and Yalçın, 1999; Bilim et al, 2015). Blasting is one of the most
important operations, and has substantial technical and economic effect on the mining projects. In
such projects the prime aim of blasting operations is rock fragmentation that is necessary for

U
subsequent processes (such as transportation, crushing, etc.) to achieve a higher efficiency
(Monjezi et al, 2013). In addition, minimal environmental effect is desired from an optimal
AN
blasting design (Kahriman et al, 2006; Uysal et al, 2013; Karadoğan et al. 2014; Uysal et al,
2015).
Tosun and Konak (2015) determined the hole drilling capacity and fuel consumption values
per average unit hour of the drilling machine from the measurements carried out for blasting-
M

drilling cost calculations.

Conditions of the drilling and blasting process directly affect the loading and hauling
processes, which are considered among the major steps of mining. Kojovic compared loading,
D

hauling, and crushing costs of the material formed as a result of blasting with specific charge
values in unit tone (Kojovic et al, 1995).
TE

Selecting the wrong blasting pattern may cause inadequate loose volume at the end of the
explosion and⁄or unwanted material sizes in the size distribution of the loose material. The pieces
that do not comply with the feed opening of the crushing-screening facility have to undergo a
second crushing process. The secondary crushing is undesirable because it causes both loss of
EP

time and cost increase. Thus, increased secondary crushing adversely affects production costs.
In this study, the cost analysis is the main component providing information with regard to
changes in production costs. The information for this study was gathered from the Öztaşoğlu
C

quarry company in Konya, Turkey. The values were obtained from drilling, blasting, crushing,
loading and hauling processes carried out during the aggregate production operations in the
AC

quarry. Drilling-blasting factors that affect unit costs in aggregate production were analyzed and
their levels of influence on unit costs were determined. Drilling-blasting expenses can be
optimized through engineering design. This study aims to determine the most suitable parameters
to reduce the cost of drilling-blasting, and analyzes the hole size, hole length, burden, distance
between holes, specific charge parameters and their effects on costs through intensive field
studies.
In these field tests, a total of 40 shots were done, having different parameters:
• 89 mm hole diameter, total 1 178 units (20 111 m), 20 shots with blast holes;
• 102 mm hole diameter, 930 units (15 831 m), 20 shots with blast holes.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

These experiments resulted in identifying which shot among the 40 had the best drilling and
blasting step design parameters. In addition, we studied which business or rock feature reached
the optimum drilling and blasting step design parameters for businesses that are similar to the one
studied. Furthermore, the efficiency of consecutive operations affecting the aggregate production
unit costs was determined, and some suggestions have been presented for reducing production
costs.

PT
2 DEFINITION OF THE FIELD OF STUDY

RI
In this section, we present general information about the quarry and the geology operation zones
that were selected as the study area in order to determine the drilling and blasting design effect on
unit costs in aggregate production. Moreover, the site location map for the studied organization is

SC
provided.

2.1 Geology of the Region and the Site Location Map

U
The aggregate quarry selected as the study area is still active. Selçuklu district is located north of
Konya; it has a surface area of 2 056 km2 and the district's average altitude is 1 020 m. The
AN
quarry area is located to the northwest of Selçuklu, on the 32nd kilometer of the Konya-Ankara
express way, near Eğribayat Village. The site location map of the quarry is presented in Figure 1.
The Eğribayat Village in Selçuklu District within Konya Province is situated on top of quaternary
plain sediments and Paleozoic and Mesozoic base rocks. The quarry company is engaged in the
M

production of aggregates by crushing natural geological resources (calcite, limestone, etc.) with a
crusher system.
D

3 METHODOLOGY AND FIELD STUDIES

TE

In today's aggregate production operations, there is severe competition based on quality and
cost. Primitive and unplanned work, not using technology in a rational way, and ignoring research
and development findings all can negatively affect producers in this competitive environment.
This study conducted comprehensive research into the long-run and effective parameters
EP

driving aggregate production costs. There are many parameters affecting the unit cost of
aggregate production, but this study focused on drilling and blasting operations costs in these
parameters. In other words, the main goal of the study was to determine the effects of the drilling
C

and blasting operations carried out by the organization on costs. Additionally, it aims to optimize
the drilling and blasting design for minimizing operations costs.
AC

For this purpose, the unit drilling and blasting cost changes after each blasting shot were
meticulously examined along different drilling-blasting design parameters and those design
parameters determined by the studies were compared with the literature.
The parameters affecting all kinds of blasting operations can be examined in two categories:
parameters relating to the rock, and parameters relating to the blast design. Since rock mass and
materials parameters are uncontrolled, blasting engineers have based their designs on controllable
parameters, such as blasthole lengths, hole diameters, burden and hole distance, explosive
material types and firing parameters. For this study, first, the analyses of drilling and blasting
operations was carried out according to the parameters (first period drilling-blasting design)
determined and used by the organization itself for the past year. The cost data obtained by the end
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of the first period drilling-blasting design shots were used to determine the aggregate production
unit cost per cubic meter for the blasting design parameters used by the company.
Forty shots with different design parameters were carried out in the second period using
various drilling and blasting design parameters (second period design parameters), and the
evaluations were made again. Design parameters and unit costs obtained from these evaluations
were compared with the first period design data. From this analysis, the resulting changes and
effective parameters are presented in detail.

PT
3.1. First period drilling-blasting design and production unit cost analysis.

RI
In this study, investigations were conducted on the effects of drilling-blasting design
parameters (initial design parameters) used by the company on the aggregate production unit cost.
The data from initial design parameters are presented in Table 1. These data show variance

SC
depending on both topographic conditions and drilling and blasting design principles (such as
blast hole length, distance between blast holes, and stemming length. Also, one of the aims of the
study was to determine the effect of these drilling design principles on unit cost. In this case, blast
hole length showed changes between 12 and 25 meters and hole distance was increased

U
depending on the hole diameters, in accordance with the literature.
Monthly drilling expenses, and explosive and firing equipment expenses for the product
AN
amounts obtained from shots made with parameters specified in Table 1 are presented in Table 2.
Examination of Table 2 reveals that unit costs fluctuate over the months, even though the
same designs were used. Considering that rocks are heterogeneous and the disturbances the shots
cause in the next areas of production, such unit cost fluctuations may be explained.
M

3.2. Second period drilling-blasting design and production unit cost analysis.
D

The first stage of the second period drilling-blasting design studies consists of the
determination of blasting design parameters. The blasting design for the 40 shots was established
TE

in that scope, and each shot was designed differently from each of the others. Thus, the effects of
design on the production cost can be determined in order to specify the optimum blasting
conditions. The hole diameter for the first 20 shots was designed to be 89 mm, and 102 mm for
the next 20 shots. Hole lengths vary according to bench height.
EP

3.2.1. Drilling data

C

Holes were drilled with a single arm drilling machine (Jumbo) at a 90° angle. The drilling
machine operates with 4 m rod additions. With the 40 shots that were carried out, the Jumbo
AC

worked for 6.9 hours per day on average and drilled 1 178 holes of 89 mm diameter (20 111 m),
and 930 holes of 102 mm diameter (15 831 m) in 190 days.
The data for the drilling machine is kept separately for every shot, and Table 3 presents the
data obtained from all shots.

3.2.2. Explosive material data

The blasting operation was organized into 2, 3 or (rarely) 4 lines depending on blast hole
sizes and land structure. Depending on burden, distance between holes and hole diameter,
between 45 and 65 holes are blasted in one shot, and around 7 500 – 10 000 m3 of material is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

produced in one shot. 500 g of gelatin dynamite was used as the feeder in the blasting operation.
Additionally, the stemming varies according to the hole size. Pieces from the hole were used as
stemming material. 500 ms delayed Nonel capsules were used in the bottoms of holes. Surface
connections were made with Nonel surface delay, and the system was ignited using an ordinary
electric capsule. An electrically-charged magneto is used to carry out the blasting operation.

PT
4 AGGREGATE PRODUCTION UNIT COST ANALYSES

The present study analyses the effects of drilling-blasting parameters on unit costs. The

RI
unit cost for drilling is calculated by dividing the liquid fuel amount spent by the drilling machine
in a single shot during the drilling of holes to the total production amount in that shot. Workers'
wages and equipment maintenance/repair operations were excluded from the total costs.

SC
Forty shots that were carried out in the study were completed over a period of 11 months, and
the price of diesel fuel was fixed at 1.89 $/L in order to prevent fluctuations in its price from
affecting the calculations. The prices for explosives were calculated based on the invoices from
the suppliers of delivered explosives and auxiliary materials.

4.1. Drilling unit cost analysis

U
AN
The operation of drilling holes was carried out using a single-arm Jumbo drilling machine
and 2 108 holes (35 942 m) for 40 shots were drilled in 1 313.2 hours. 1 178 of the holes (20 111
m) had a diameter of 89 mm, and the remaining 930 (15 831 m) had a diameter of 102 mm.
M

Since the amount of explosives that is used is fixed by law, the hole lengths are directly
affected by changes in diameter. Thus, a total of 20 111 m of 89 mm diameter holes were drilled
for 20 shots, and a total of 15 831 m of 102 mm diameter holes were drilled for 20 shots, for a
D

total of 40 shots. A total of 29 191 L ($55 170.99) of liquid fuel was consumed for the drilling
machine in this period. The cost of drilling a 1 meter hole for each shot was analysed and
TE

presented in Table 4.

Analyses revealed that the lowest drilling unit costs were observed in shots 23-24 and 27,
while the lowest drilling costs for 1 meter holes were observed in shots 1-2 and 21. While the
EP

costs of drilling 1 meter long, 89 mm diameter holes with 12-25 m intervals varied between $1.36
and $1.69, the costs of 1 meter long 102 mm diameter holes that were drilled with 12-25 m
intervals varied between $1.39 and $1.80. The reason that the lowest costs were obtained in shots
C

23-24 and 27 was because the burden and distances between holes were larger than in shots 1-2
and 21. The larger burden and distances between holes allowed the amounts produced in shots
AC

23-24 and 27 to be higher than the amounts produced in shots 1-2 and 21.
While the average drilling unit cost was $0.160/m3 in 40 shots, the average cost of drilling
1 meter-long holes was $1.53.
While the lowest drilling cost in 40 shots was $0.117/m3, the lowest cost of drilling a 1
meter-long hole was $1.37.

4.2. Blasting unit cost analysis

4 430 kg of dynamite, 176 000 kg of ANFO and 4 060 capsules were used in the 40 blasts
in the study. Moreover, small amounts of detonating cords were used and included in the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

explosive costs. The amounts of explosive materials that were used in 40 shots and the amount of
explosives required to produce 1 m3 of material is presented in Table 5.
Calculations show that the lowest blasting costs per production operation were observed in
shots 24-28 and 32 in the 40 shots carried out in this study. All of the parameters used in the 24-
28 and 32 shots are presented in detail in the Table 5. The main factor that determines the
blasting unit cost is the amount of material that is produced. Similar explosive amounts/costs for
each shot causes the amount of materials that is produced to be the main factor in determining

PT
unit costs.

4.3. Specific Charge

RI
Specific charge is the total amount of explosives used to obtain a cubic meter of aggregate.
The specific charge amounts for the 40 shots in the study are presented in Table 6.

SC
Analyses show that the specific charge amount is inversely proportional to the increase in
production. Since the amounts of explosives that are used in these shots are very similar, the main
factor that determined the specific charge amount was the amount of production. Additionally,
increasing hole diameters decreases the amount of specific charge, while increasing hole lengths

U
increases the amount of specific charge. It may be assumed that the amount of specific charge
should increase with increasing hole diameter for a 1 meter-long hole. However, studies show
AN
that increasing hole diameter also caused increased burden and increased distance between holes,
and the amount of production also increased. Increase in the amount that is produced caused a
direct decrease in specific charge.
It is observed that the specific charge was the lowest (0.441 kg/m3) in the shot that yielded the
M

most production (shot 24). Moreover, the average specific charge for 40 shots was determined to
be 0.523 kg/m3.
D

5 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND UNIT COST RELATIONSHIPS

TE

The relationships between hole length, burden, distance between holes and specific charge,
and with the drilling-blasting unit cost parameters were statistically determined and are presented
under this section. The correlation coefficient method, which is a statistical method that is used to
determine the relationships between two variables, was employed in our analysis in order to
EP

determine these key relationships.

5.1. Relationship between hole length and drilling unit cost

C

The relationship between 89 mm diameter hole and drilling unit cost is presented in Figure 2,
AC

and the relationship between 102 mm diameter hole and drilling unit cost is presented in Figure 3.
The graph for the relationships between 89 mm and 102 mm diameter holes and drilling unit
costs shows that the drilling unit cost increases when the hole length increases in both diameters.
The reason is that the drilling machine is strained as the hole length increases and liquid fuel
consumption increases. For each blast hole length (12m, 15m, 18m, 21.5m and 25m), 4 shots in
89 mm hole diameter and 4 shots in 102 mm hole diameter were carried out. When we examine
the Figures 2-3 from this perspective, it is seen that the graphs formed both in 89 mm diameter
and in 102 mm diameter are divided in two in themselves. Also, burden and distance between
holes were increased for half of the shots carried out for both 89 mm and 102 mm hole diameters.
These changes in burden and distance between blast holes have caused the graph to separate into
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

two distinct sections by itself. Since the amount of rise in these parameters directly increased the
production amount, the drilling unit costs decreased.
Moreover, the effects of changes in hole dimensions on the drilling unit costs can be
predicted using the relationship equations on the graphs.

5.2.Relationship between burden and distance between holes, and blasting unit costs

PT
Relationship graphs were prepared for holes with different diameters in order to examine the
effects of burden and distance between holes on the drilling and blasting unit costs, and these are
presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

RI
As observed in Figure 4 and Figure 5, increases in burden and distance between holes are
inversely related to the drilling-blasting unit costs. The reason for the decreased unit cost is that
the production increase due to increased burden and distance between holes directly lowers

SC
drilling-blasting unit costs.

5.3.Approaches concerning the relationship between specific charge and drilling-

blasting unit costs

U
The specific charge amount for each shot was calculated in the study and its relationship to
AN
the drilling-blasting unit cost was investigated. The relationship between the two variables,
specific charge and drilling-blasting unit costs are presented in Figure 6. A high correlation
coefficient was found upon examination of the relationship equation between the two variables.
Analyses reveal that the drilling-blasting unit costs increase in direct proportion to the amount
M

of specific charge. The increase in specific charge amounts are due to variations in hole diameter
and column charge size. Thus, since large column charge size and/or large hole diameter in
sections where specific charge is large will require more explosives to fill a hole with the same
D

total amount of explosives, and reduce the total number of blast holes, this phenomenon causes
blasts to occur in a narrower area, reducing the amount of production. Drilling-blasting costs are
TE

inversely related to the amount of production. Additionally, it is possible to calculate the drilling-
blasting unit costs for the specific charge amount that will be used in future studies using the
formula described above.
EP

5.4.Consistency of the ideal design parameters with the literature

The consistency of the common characteristics of the 3 ideal shots (24, 28 and 32) that were
C

determined for aggregate operations as a result of the 40 shots in the study are presented in Table
7, in comparison to the formula established by the researchers.
AC

Examination shows the following:

In the formula used by Tamrock (1984) and Hagan (1983) to determine the hole diameter
based on step height, Tamrock (1984) argues that the ideal hole diameter should be between
68.75 mm and 137.5 mm for a step height of 13.75 m, while Hagan (1983) argues that the ideal
hole diameter should be between 171.83 mm and 343.75 mm for the same step size. Additionally,
in the formula used by Naapuri (1990) and Bhandari (1997) to determine the hole diameter based
on burden, Naapuri (1990) argues that the ideal hole diameter should be between 81.25 mm and
130 mm for a burden of 3.25 m, while Bhandari (1997) argues that the ideal hole diameter should
be between 171.83 mm and 162.5 mm for the same burden. Although 102 mm as the ideal hole
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

diameter in this study is consistent with the formula of Tamrock (1984), Naapuri (1990) and
Bhandari (1997), it is not consistent with Hagan's (1983) formula.
In Tamrock's (1984) and Hagan's (1983) burden calculation formula based on hole
diameter, Tamrock (1984) argues that the ideal burden for a 102 mm hole should be between 2.55
m and 4.08 m, while Hagan (1983) argues that it should be between 2.04 m and 3.57 m.
Moreover, Morhard, et al, noted that, for the ideal section size for a 3.5 m stemming height, the
formula Bhandari (1997), Ash (1963), and Persson et al (1994) based on stemming dimensions;

PT
Morhard et al (1987), argue that it should be between 2.692 m and 5 m, Bhandari (1997) argues
that it should be between 2.333 m and 5 m, while Ash (1993) argues that it should be 5 m.
Persson et al (1994), argue that it should be ≤ 3.5 m. The 3.25 m ideal section size in this study is

RI
inconsistent with Ash's (1993) formula, while it is consistent with the other authors' formulas.
Langefors (1979), Olofsson (1988), Hustrlid (1999), Jimeno et al (1995), Ash (1963), and
Morhard et al (1987) established formulas to calculate the distance between holes based on

SC
burden, and for a 3.25 m burden; Langefors (1979) argues that it should be between 3.74 m and
4.06 m, Oloffson (1988) argues that it should be 4.06 m, Hustrild (1999) argues for 3.74 m,
Jimeno et al (1995) argue for a distance between 3.74 and 4.225 m, Ash (1963) argues for a
distance between 3.9 m and 5.85 m, and Morhard et al (1987) argue for a distance between 3.25

U
m and 5.85 m. The 3.75 m ideal distance between holes in this study is inconsistent with Ash's
(1963) and Oloffson's formulas, while it is consistent with the other authors' formulas.
AN
Tamrock (1984), Hoek (1981), Langefors and Gustafsson (1987) calculated the stemming
height based on burden, while Hagan (1983) used the hole diameter for their calculations. In their
studies, Tamrock (1984) argues for an ideal stemming height between 2.28 m and 3.25 m, Hoek
(1981) between 2.18 m and 6.5 m, while Langefors and Gustafsson (1997) give a height of 3.25
M

m for a burden of 3.25 m. Additionally, Hagan (1983) states that the stemming height for a 102
mm hole diameter should be between 2.04 m and 6.12 m, in his study based on hole diameter.
The 3.5 m stemming height is consistent with Hoek's (1981) and Hagan's (1983) formulas, while
D

it is not consistent with Tamrock's (1984) and Langefors and Gustafsson's (1997) formula.
Tamrock (1984), Hoek (1981), and Dick (1983) calculated the base depths on burden, while
TE

Bilgin (1986) used the hole diameter for their calculations based on Hagan's (1983) suggestion. In
their studies, Tamrock (1984) argues for an ideal base depth between 0.975 m and 3.25 m, Hoek
(1981) between 0.65 m and 0.975 m, while Dick (1983) argues for a height of 3.25 for a burden
of 3.25 m. Additionally, Bilgin (1983) states that the stemming height for a 102 mm hole
EP

diameter should be between 0.816 m, on Hagan's (1983) suggestion. The 1.25 m stemming height
is consistent with Tamrock's (1984) and Dick's (1983) formulas, while it is not consistent with
Hoek's (1981) and Bilgin's (1986) formulas.
C

As a result of this study, it was determined that proposed parameters were compatible with
the most of formulas (16 of 24 formulas) in literature. Thus, it was considered that proposed
AC

parameters were compatible for limestone quarries.

5.5.Aggregate Production Unit Costs Before and After the Design

The comparison of the data obtained in the observation first period for design, and in the
second period with designed parameters is presented in Table 8.
While the unit cost for the first period for the drilling unit cost analysis was 0.243 $/m3, this
value is 0.160 $/m3 for the average of all 40 shots in the study, and 0.128 $/m3 for the average of
the shots with ideal design parameters. These differences are due to the amount of production that
varies because the hole diameter and variations in hole diameter used by the company affect the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

other parameters. Forty-four shots were conducted in the first period of aggregate operations; in
42 of these shots, the holes had a diameter of 89 mm, and a production of 8 594.27 m3 was
obtained at each shot. Half of the 40 shots that were conducted in the second period had a hole
diameter of 89 mm, while the other half were drilled for 102 mm, and the average production of
each shot was 8 621.79 m3. Additionally, shots with ideal design parameters had a hole diameter
of 102 mm, and produced 9 407.83 m3 of material in a shot on average. This clearly indicates that
an increase in hole diameter reduces drilling unit costs. However, it has to be noted that one of

PT
the main reasons for the reduced costs is the increase in the amount of production that the hole
size provides. Otherwise, if the design parameters are held constant and only the hole diameter is
increased, the production amounts will not increase and the increased hole diameter will increase

RI
the drilling costs, and thus the drilling unit costs will increase accordingly.
In the blasting unit cost analysis, the fact that the amounts/costs of the explosive materials
that are used are approximately the same in each shot causes the blasting unit costs to be affected

SC
only by the production amount. The comparison clearly shows that while in the first design
period a unit cost of 0.478 $/m3 was obtained for a production of 8 594.47 m3, in the second
design period, the average of 40 shots yielded a unit cost of 0.462 $/m3 for a production of 8
621.79 m3. Additionally, for the average of shots with ideal design parameters, the blasting unit

U
cost was 0.427 $/m3 for a production of 9 407.83 m3. It must be noted that the variations in
production amounts are due to step design parameters. Moreover, examination of explosive
AN
material amounts that were used in the first design period and in shots with ideal design
parameters reveals that the amount of dynamite increased by 4.96%, ANFO decreased by 7.55%,
and the number of capsules decreased by 37.5%.
M

6 CONCLUSION
D

There is fierce competition based on quality and cost in aggregate quarry operations in
today’s market. While the market share of firms operating with primitive methods is falling
TE

rapidly, the sector's rational use of new technologies is getting stronger. The cost analysis is one
of the most important parameters in mining activities. It is critical to conduct correct and
appropriate cost analysis in a high-production and high-use field. The main goals of cost analysis
are to improve the operational effectiveness and to reduce the unit cost of production.
EP

Therefore, in this study, unit costs derived from the 40 shots were considered to find the
lowest unit cost of aggregate production. In this assessment, analyses revealed that the lowest
drilling unit costs were observed in 23.-24. and 27. shots and the lowest blasting unit cost were
C

observed in 24., 28. and 32. shots

The cost of drilling 1 meter-long hole: 1.36-1.69 $ for holes with 89 mm diameter, drilled at
AC

intervals of 12-25 m; 1.39-1.80 $ for holes with 102 mm diameter, drilled at intervals of 12-25 m.
It is evident that the cost of drilling a 1 meter-long hole increases proportionally with the
increased hole diameter and hole length. While the drilling unit cost in 40 shots was 0.160 $/m3,
and the cost of drilling was 1.53$/m, the drilling unit cost increases with hole length and hole
diameter. However, increased hole diameter also causes the burden and distance between holes to
increase, thus increasing the amount of production and decreasing the unit cost. While the drilling
cost was 0.243 $/m3 in the first design period, it was 0.160 $/m3 as an average of 40 shots in the
second design period, and 0.119 $/m3 as the average of shots with ideal design parameters.
The lowest blasting unit cost was observed in 24. shot, where the production was the highest.
The blasting unit cost was calculated to be 0.462 $/m3 as a result of 40 shots. Additionally, 11.72
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

g of dynamite, 0.013 capsules and 429.77 g of ANFO are required to produce 1 cubic meter of
materials.
The blasting cost was 0.478 $/m3 in the first design period; it was 0.462 $/m3 as an average of
40 shots in the second design period, and 0.400 $/m3 as the average of shots with ideal design
parameters.
Also, it is observed that the specific charge was the lowest (0.441 kg/m3) in the shot that
yielded the most production (shot 24). The 24. shot design parameters presented in Table 5 were

PT
determined as the lowest unit cost both drilling and blasting designs. Therefore, the design
parameters of this shot are suggested.
It was observed that the unit costs increased linearly with variations in hole size, and that

RI
there is a difference of 0.033 $/m3 between the highest and lowest drilling unit costs in the study.
Moreover, no clear relationships could be established between the variations in hole size and
blasting unit costs.

SC
It is observed that the drilling and blasting unit costs are significantly affected by the
variations in burden, distance between holes and stemming height.
As a result of 40 blasting shots done in this study, the 3 ideal shots (24, 28 and 32)
determined for the aggregate operation were compared with the formulas formed by the

U
researchers in the literature.
The ideal hole length was determined as 15 m, hole diameter as 102 mm, burden as 3.25 m,
AN
distance between holes as 3.75 m, stemming height as 3.5 m and hole base size as 1.25 m in the
study.
Although 102 mm as the ideal hole diameter in this study is consistent with the formulas of
Tamrock (1984), Naapuri (1990) and Bhandari (1997).
M

3.25 m as the ideal burden in this study is consistent with the formulas of Tamrock (1984),
Hagan (1983), Morhard et al (1987), Bhandari (1987) and Persson et al (1984).
While the 3.75 m ideal distance between holes in the study is consistent with the formulas of
D

Langefors (1979), Hustrild (1999), Jimeno et al (1995) and Morhard et al (1987).

The 3.5 m ideal stemming height in this study is consistent with Hoek's (1981) and Hagan's
TE

(1983) formulas.
The 1.25 m ideal hole base dimension is consistent with Tamrock's (1984) and Dick's (1983)
formulas.
EP

REFERENCES
C

Aksoy, C.O. ve Yalçın, E., 1992, Economical analysis of aggregates production methods, 3.
Industial Raw Materials Symposium, İzmir. (in Turkish)
AC

Ash, R. L., 1963, The mechanics of the rock breakage (Part 1), Pit and Quarry, Vol.56 (2), pp.
98–100.
Bhandari, S., 1997, Engineering Rock Blasting Operations, A.A Balkema, Rotterdam.
Bilgin, H. A., 1986, Açık işletmelerde patlatma sorunlar ve tasarımı, METU, Mining Engineering
Department, p.102, Ankara. (in Turkish)
Bilim, N.. Çelik, A., Kekeç, B., 2015, Determination of the Effect of Drilling-Blasting Operation
on Total Cost in Quarry, 8th Drilling-Blasting Symposium, p.259-266, İstanbul. (in
Turkish)
Çelebi, N., Paşamehmetoğlu, A.G., 1986, A Unit Cost Analysis Model for Stripping of Lignite
Open Pit Mines, Turkey 5. Coal Congress, Zonguldak. (in Turkish)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Çelik, A., 2016, Determining the Effect Degrees of Activities Affecting Unit Cost in a Quarry
Plant, MsC Thesis, The Graduate School Of Natural And Applied Science, Selçuk
Unıversity, Konya, p.125
Dick, R.A., Fletcher, L.R., D’Andrea, D.V., 1983, Explosives and blasting procedures manual.
Bureau of Mines, USA, IC/8925.
Gorgulu, K., Arpaz, E., Uysal, O., Durutürk, Y.S., Yuksek, A.G., Kocaslan, A., Dilmaç, M.K.,
2015, Investigation of the effects of blasting design parameters and rock properties on

PT
blast-induced ground vibrations, Arabian Journal Of Geosciences, Vol. 8(6) pp.4269-
4278.
Gustafsson, R., 1973, Swedish blasting technique, Published by SPI, Gothenburg, Sweden.

RI
Hagan, T. N., 1983, The influence of controllable blast parameters on fragmentation and mining
cost, First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, Sweden,
pp. 31–41.

SC
Herrick, D.H., 1994, Crushed stone in Carr. D.D.. ed., Industrial minerals and rocks, Sixth
Edition: Littleton, Colo., Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc.. p. 975-986
Hoek, E., Bray, J., 1981, Rock Slope Engineering, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 3rd
Edition, London.

U
Houdet, J., Muloopa H., Ochieng C., Kutegeka, S., and Nakangu, B., 2014, Cost Benefit Analysis
of the Mining Sector in Karamoja, Uganda, Kampala, Uganda: IUCN Uganda Country
AN
Office,82p
Hustrulid, W., 1999, Blasting principles for open pit mining-general design concepts, Theoretical
Foundations, A.A. Balkema, Roterdam.
Kahriman, A., Ozer, U., Aksoy, M., Karadogan, A., Tuncer, G., 2006, Environmental impacts of
M

bench blasting at Hisarcik Boron open pit mine in Turkey, Environmental Geology,
Vol.50 (7) pp.1015-1023
Karadogan, A., Kahriman, A., Ozer, U., 2014, A new damage criteria norm for blast-induced
D

ground vibrations in Turkey, Arabian Journal Of Geosciences Vol. 7(4) pp.1617-1627

TE

Kojovic, T., Michaux, S., McKenzie, C., 1995, Impact of blast fragmentation on crushing and
screening operations in quarrying, EXPLO95 Conference, AusIMM. Brisbane,
September, pp. 427–436
Jimeno, C. L., Jimeno, E. L., Carcedo, F. J. A., 1995, Drilling and Blasting of Rocks, A. A.
EP

Balkema, Brookfield Publication, Rotterdam.

Jonek Kowalska, I., 2013, Introduction to a Methodology of Cost Management in a colliery from
a perspective of longwall life cycle, European Scientific Journal, edition vol. 9, No: 25,
C

380-402.
Langefors, V., Kihlström, B., 1979, The Modern technique of rock blasting, Almquist- Wiksell,
AC

Uppsala, Sweden.
LeJuge, G. E., Cox, N., 1995, The Impact of Explosive Performance on Quarry Fragmentation,
Proceedings of Explo95 Conference, Brisbane, Qld. Australia, Sept. 4 - 7. 1995 pp 445-
452.
Monjezi, M., Farzaneh F., Asadi A., 2013, Evaluation of Blasting patterns using operational
research models, Arch. Min. Sci., Vol. 58, No 3, p. 881-892.
Morhard, R. C., Chiappetta, R. F., Borg, D. G., 1987, Explosives and Rock Blasting, Atlas
Powder Co., Dallas, Texas.
Naapuri, J., 1990, Surface Drilling and Blasting, Tamrock, Sweden.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nielsen, K., Kristiansen, J., 1995, Blasting and Grinding - An Integrated Comminution System.
Proceedings of Explo95 Conference, pp 113-117, Brisbane, Qld. Australia,
Olofsson, S. O., 1988, Applied explosives technology for construction and mining, Second
edition, p. 301.
Öztürk, Ö., Çelikkol, M., Erkan, M., 2007, AGÜB, Türkiye agrega sektör raporu. (in Turkish)
Persson, P. A., Holmberg, R., Jaimin, L., 1994, Rock Blasting and Explosive Engineering, CRC
Press LLC, Florida, USA.

PT
Phillip, R., Moyle, LG., Dustin G., Wasley, PE., 2010, Cost Analysis Monte Cristo mining Area,
Cascade Earth Sciences, Spokane, WA, p. 92
Taherkhani, H., Doostmohammadi, R., 2016, Investigation of Geotechnical Parameters Effect On

RI
Open Pit Mining Operation Cost (Case Study: Angouran Mıne), Arch. Min. Sci., Vol. 61
(2016), No 1, p. 169–182.
Tamrock, 1984, Handbook on surface drilling and blasting, Painofaktorit, Finland.

SC
Tek, A., 1999, Improvements in Quarry Blasting Cost Effectiveness, 2. National Aggregates
Symposium, İstanbul. (in Turkish)
Tosun A., Konak G., 2015, Determination of specific charge minimizing total unit cost of open
pit quarry blasting operations, Arab J Geosci 8:6409–6423 DOI 10.1007/s12517-014-

U
1657-7
http://www.thbb.org/media/85969/haberler129.pdf. AGÜB to Represent Turkey’s Aggregate
AN
Mining in the EU, 2012
Uysal, O., Cavus, M., 2013, Effect of a pre-split plane on the frequencies of blast induced ground
vibrations, Acta Montanistica Slovaca, Vol. 18 (2) pp: 101-109
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Design parameters determined for the first stage drilling blasting design of the
organization.

Blasthole diameter Blasthole diameter

Design parameters
(89 mm) (102 mm)
Blasthole slope Vertical Vertical
Blasthole design Staggered arrangement Staggered arrangement
Blasthole length 12-25 m 12-25 m
Distance between blastholes 3m 3.5 m
Slice thickness (burden) 3m 3.5 m

PT
Stemming length % 20 x Blasthole length (m) % 20 x Blasthole length (m)
Subdrilling % 10 x Blasthole length (m) % 10 x Blasthole length (m)

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2. Material produced through the initial period drilling blasting design of the
organization and unit cost analysis (Çelik 2016).
Drilling cost Blasting costs Total cost Production The unit cost
Months
($) ($) ($) (m3) ($/m3)
January 6 591.35 11 543.66 18 135.01 13 476.30 1.345697
February 4 404.32 10 737.45 15 141.77 14 321.48 1.057277
March 1 935.41 3 975.22 5 910.62 23 569.26 0.250777
April 5 068.38 11 334.48 16 402.86 23 875.56 0.687014
May 483.69 11 786.94 18 576.94 31 431.11 0.591036
June 3 424.32 11 996.58 15 420.91 30 106.30 0.512215

PT
July 6 750.27 19 849.73 26 600.00 41 620.37 0.639110
August 7 308.38 15 879.78 23 188.16 49 020.74 0.473027
September 9 525.68 23 124.70 32 650.37 52 618.89 0.620507
October 6 941.35 11 242.53 18 183.88 36 002.96 0.505066

RI
November 15 199.46 30 895.37 46 094.83 46 195.93 0.997812
December 7 647.03 7 927.58 15 574.61 15 917.78 0.978441
Total 81 585.95 170 294.02 251 879.96 378 156.68 0.666073

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3. Drilling machine data results obtained from all pulses
Production Blasthole Total Total Blasthole Average Consumed
Shot
time of diameter number of length blasthole length liquid fuel
number
jumbo (mm) blasthole (m) (m) (Lt)
1 34.67 89 83 996 12 722
2 36.10 89 87 1 044 12 754
3 34.95 89 83 996 12 735
4 36.44 89 87 1 044 12 770
5 34.99 89 66 990 15 741
6 36.69 89 69 1 035 15 789

PT
7 35.33 89 66 990 15 762
8 36.89 89 69 1 035 15 788
9 35.95 89 55 990 18 785
10 37.19 89 57 1 026 18 813

RI
11 35.95 89 55 990 18 783
12 37.19 89 57 1 026 18 804
13 36.28 89 46 989 21.5 802

SC
14 37.00 89 47 1 010.5 21.5 834
15 36.47 89 46 989 21.5 823
16 37.04 89 47 1 010.5 21.5 837
17 37.24 89 39 975 25 854
18 37.8 89 40 1 000 25 867

U
19 37.48 89 39 975 25 871
20 37.8 89 40 1 000 25 895
AN
21 27.59 102 66 792 12 583
22 29.47 102 70 840 12 629
23 27.70 102 66 792 12 599
24 29.52 102 70 840 12 638
M

25 27.57 102 52 780 15 616

26 29.57 102 55 825 15 640
27 27.97 102 52 780 15 610
28 30.75 102 55 825 15 657
D

29 28.78 102 43 774 18 657

30 30.03 102 45 810 18 672
TE

31 28.06 102 43 774 18 615

32 29.2 102 45 810 18 667
33 29.11 102 36 774 21.5 676
34 29.96 102 37 795.5 21.5 698
35 28.79 102 36 774 21.5 669
EP

36 29.56 102 37 795.5 21.5 680

37 29.65 102 30 750 25 714
38 30.57 102 31 775 25 726
39 29.23 102 30 750 25 685
C

40 30.62 102 31 775 25 731

AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 4. Unit cost analysis for drilling boreholes
Cost of
Consumed liquid Total blasthole Drilling unit
Shot Working time Production blasthole
fuel size cost
number (h) drilling
Lt $ m m3 $/m $/m3
1 34.7 722 1 364.58 996 7 470 1.37 0.183
2 36.1 754 1 425.06 1 044 7 830 1.36 0.182
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
21 27.6 583 1 101.87 792. 8 316 1.39 0.133
. . . . . . . .

PT
23 27.7 599 1 132.11 792 9.652 1.43 0.117
24 29.5 638 1 205.82 840 10 238 1.44 0.118
. . . . . . . .
27 28.0 610 1 152.90 780 9 506 1.48 0.121

RI
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
40 30.6 731.0 1 381.59 775 9 445 1.78 0.146

SC
Total 1 313.2 29 191.0 55 170.99 35.942 344 871 - -
Average 32.8 729.8 1 379.32 898.6 8 622 1.53 0.160

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 5. Unit cost analysis for blasting
Shot Dynamite Capsule ANFO Costs Production
number kg gr/m3 piece piece/m3 kg gr/m3 $ $/m3 m3
1 90 12.05 120 0.016 4.400 589.02 3 988.47 0.534 7 470.00
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
24 120 11.72 128 0.013 4.400 429.77 4 032.59 0.394 10 238.00
. . . . . . . . . .
28 120 11.93 112 0.011 4.400 437.59 4 147.58 0.413 10 055.00
. . . . . . . . . .
32 90 9.12 122 0.012 4.400 445.71 3 891.49 0.394 9 871.90

PT
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
40 110 11.65 78 0.008 4.400 465.84 3 992.67 0.423 9 445.30

RI
Total 4.33 - 4.06 - 176.00 - 159 212.74 - 344 871.75
Average 108.25 12.68 101.5 0.012 4.400 515.01 3 980.32 0.462 8 621.79

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 6. Specific charge analysis (Çelik, 2016).
Specific Charge
Atım no Production
Dynamite ANFO Total
kg/m3 (m3)
kg kg kg
1 90 4,400 4,490 0.601 7,470
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
24 120 4,400 4,520 0.441 10,238
. . . . . .
28 120 4,400 4,520 0.450 10,055
. . . . . .

PT
32 90 4,400 4,490 0.455 9,872
. . . . . .
. . . . . .

RI
40 110 4,400 4,510 0.477 9,445.30
Total 4,330 176,000 180,330 0.528 344,872

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7. Consistency of the ideal aggregate operation design parameters with the literature
Proposed
Parameters Researchers Formulas Suitability
parameters
Tamrock (1984) d(mm) = K(m) / (100 - 200) 68.75 mm - 137.5 mm

PT
Blasthole diameter (d) 102 mm Hagan (1983) d(mm) = K(m) / (40 - 80) 171.87 mm - 343.75 mm
Hole depth (K) 13.75 m Naapuri (1990) d(mm) = B(m) / (25 - 40) 81.25 mm - 130 mm
Bhandari (1997) d(mm) = B(m) / (20 - 35) 92.85 mm - 162.5 mm

RI
Tamrock (1984) B(m) = (25 - 40) x d(m) 2.55 m - 4.08 m
Hagan (1983) B(m) = (20 - 35) x d(m) 2.04 m - 3.57 m

SC
Burden (Slice thickness) Morhard and etc. (1987) B(m) = H0 / (0.7 - 1.3) 2.692 m - 5 m
3.25 m
(B) Bhandari (1997) B(m) = H0 / (0.7 - 1.5) 2.333 m - 5 m
Persson ve diğ. (1994) B(m) ≤ 1 x H0 ≤ 3.5 m

U
Ash (1963) B(m) = H0 / 0.7 5m
Hustrild (1999) S(m) = 1.15 x B(m) 3.74 m

AN
Langefors (1979)
Distance between Jimeno ve etc. (1995)
3.75 m
blastholes (S) Olofsson (1988)
S(m) = (1.15 - 1.25) x B(m) 3.74 m - 4.06 m
S(m) = (1.15 - 1.30) x B(m) 3.74 m - 4.225
S(m) = 1.25 x B(m) 4.06 m

M
Ash (1963) S(m) = (1.2 - 1.8) x B(m) 3.9 m - 5.85 m
Morhard and etc. (1987) S(m) = (1 - 1.8) x B(m) 3.25 m - 5.85 m

D
Tamrock (1984) H0(m) = (0.7 – 1) x B(m) 2.28 m - 3.25 m
Hoek (1981) H0(m) = (0.67 – 2) x B(m) 2.18 m - 6.5 m

TE
Stemming (H0) 3.5 m
Hagan (1983) H0(m) = (20 – 60) x d(m) 2.04 m - 6.12 m
Langefors, Gustaffson (1997) H0(m) = B(m) 3.25 m
Hoek (1981) U(m) = (0.2 - 0.3) x B(m) 0.65 m - 0.975
EP
Tamrock (1984) U(m) = (0.3 - 0.4) x B(m) 0.975 m - 1.3 m
Subdrilling (U) 1.25 m
Dick (1983) U(m) = (0.1 - 0.5) x B(m) 0.325 m - 1.625 m
C

Hagan’s proposal, Bilgin (1986) U(m) = 8 x d(m) 0.816 m

AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 8. Data from the study area
Average of Average of
First period Second period optimum optimum
Decrease in cost
Date design date design date drilling blasting
(%)
(44 shot) (40 shot) (23., 24., 27. (24., 28., 32.
shots) shots)
Drilling

The unit
0.243 0.160 0,119 - 51.03
cost ($/m3)

PT
Blasting

The unit
0.478 0.462 - 0,400 16.32
cost ($/m3)

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights

This study is an orginal research on production of raw material (aggregates) and their cost
analysis.

The cost calculation is one of the most important parameter in mining activities.

The cost management includes planning, analyzing, recording and controlling stages.

PT
This reserach cover lots of datas about production parameters specially drilling and blasting
parameters

RI
Using datas in this study obtained from field study for long period (2 years) and we think that
this study will guide about cost analysis for the other researchers.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC