Drill and Blast Trial Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project

Nathan Rouse, Respec, Inc, PE, PhD,

Tristan Worsey, Respec, Inc, PE, MS,
Yannick Lauras, Eqiom Groupe CRH
&
John Henchion, CRH Aggregates Europe

Abstract

This paper presents an approach used to plan and evaluate drill and blast trials for a mine that currently
mechanically excavates in-situ rock. The document presents the approach used to plan the trials, the key
performance indicators (KPIs) that were necessary to evaluate the mining methods, the test matrix used
during the trials, and the results of the trials. The trials, which occurred as part of an overall drill to mill
optimization project at this site, helped to evaluate various blast designs using fragmentation results,
drilling and blasting costs, and downstream costs. This project was unique in that (1) drill and blast
methods were trialed on multiple rock types and various bench heights using a range of blasthole
diameters and powder factors and (2) the load and haul costs were evaluated using a range of loading
equipment, from 66 tonne (73 ton) excavators up to 250 tonne (276 ton) excavators. A ten year net cost
financial evaluation of the material extraction alternatives was also prepared for the site management.
Ultimately, the process of evaluating the drill and blast trials helped the management decide whether to
continue extracting using mechanical methods or to introduce drill and blast methods to extract the rock.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 1 of 10
 

Introduction
Drill and blast trials should be used to determine an optimum drill and blast design. A well-planned
approach to drill and blast trials can be used on any site to improve overall cost efficiency; however, this
paper focuses specifically on a project at a mine site with no recent history of drilling and blasting.

The site in question is located in France. It is a quarry that primarily produces limestone and marl to be
used as raw feed in cement manufacturing. Raw feed material is mined from three beds which are
mined in three pits. Currently, the quarry uses two 230-plus tonne (254 ton) trackhoe excavators and a
230 tonne (254 ton) face shovel to free-dig in-situ material to meet production requirements. Two of the
machines must be replaced in the next two years.

The quarry management wished to evaluate alternatives to free-digging to identify the lowest cost
mining method for their quarry. Drill and blast methods were chosen as a viable alternative that
required full-scale on-site testing. The potential benefit of drilling and blasting is that a smaller
excavator or loader could be used to match production of the large machines. In contrast, the
management were concerned drilling and blasting would affect the quality of the raw feed for various
reasons, including potential contamination due to high magnesium dolomite seams that underlie the
limestone seams.

The potential for contamination of the raw feed from the underlying seams presented a unique problem
that had to be addressed during the trials and through proper planning. Another hurdle for the project
was the language barriers between the native French and English speakers on the team. Additionally,
short benches, varying geology, lack of on-site drilling and blasting experience, and other elements of
the project presented more obstacles that required proper planning.

The project planning stage, drill and blast trials, results, and lessons learned are discussed in this paper.
Other task items of the project are not detailed in this paper, including the quality control practices used
to prove the underlying high magnesium seams did not contaminate the raw feed and the financial model
used to compare the current mining method to the drilling and blasting alternative.

Planning Stage
The drill and blast trials project required sufficient planning to ensure success. The Planning Stage
section details the planning process.

Planning meeting
The first step in the planning process is an on-site planning meeting to serve as a starting point for the
project. It enables all parties involved to meet each other and discuss the goals and required task items
of the project.

Four groups were involved in the trials: the site management and operations personnel, the parent
company’s performance improvement technical representative, the blasting contractor, and the third
party blasting engineers. One obvious constraint to the success of the project was the language barrier.
The site management and blasting contractor management spoke French and English. The on-site
operations personnel and blasting contractor personnel only spoke French, while the parent company

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 2 of 10
 

representative and blasting engineers only spoke English. Immediate efforts were taken to ensure all
groups were involved in planning meetings. Some minor issues did arise during the project due to
miscommunication, however, while exhausting, the extra attention paid to ensuring proper
communication also ensured successful collaboration for the overall project.

Understanding the Background

Understanding the background of the mining operation is another important step of the project. The
cement plant had unique constraints and requirements not typically associated with a limestone quarry.
Detailed discussions with plant personnel provided a full understanding of these requirements. For
example, two of the three mined benches are underlain by high magnesium dolomite. It was imperative
that this dolomite not contaminate the raw feed; therefore, special care was paid to drill depth control in
the planning phase.

Background information used to help design the trial blasts also included the qualitative evaluation of a
single trial blast that had been performed one-half year prior to the planning meeting. The original trial
blast was not evaluated using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and only the blast report and a video
of the blast were provided. After the original trial blast, the site personnel were under the impression
that blasting would not be a viable option at the site.

The blast report showed the original trial blast had a powder factor of 0.34 kg/m3 (0.57 lb/yd3) in the
limestone bench. The powder factor of 0.34 kg/m3 (0.57 lb/yd3) is beyond the lower range of typical
quarry blasts according to Figure 1. In many operations with higher benches, powder factors similar to
that used in the earlier trial could produce suitable breakage and throw while decreasing drill and blast
costs. For this project, the small bench heights (approximately 6 to 11 m (20 to 36 ft)) require a higher
powder factor to produce suitable breakage.

Figure 1. Typical ranges of powder factor for various blasting applications (Worsey, 2015)

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 3 of 10
Additionally, the original trial used a 150 mm (6 inches) drillhole diameter on a 6 meter (20 ft) bench.
An ideal and practical drillhole diameter for that bench height would be closer to 89 mm (3.5 inches)
(Worsey, 2015).

The blast video showed that the blast had little movement, indicating high confinement (Figure 2). The
low powder factor, and larger than ideal blasthole diameter, caused the poor movement identified in the
video.

The quarry management also identified significant oversize produced by the original trial blast. The
oversize, while partly caused by the low powder factor, was due to the length of stemming required by
the larger diameter blasthole. The stemming for the earlier trial was 2.8 m (9 ft) on the 6 m (20 ft)
bench.

Figure 2. First trial blast, no KPIs recorded.

Drill and Blast Trials
The knowledge gained from the planning meeting and background discussions provided a foundation
from which to proceed with the drill and blast trials. The drill and blast trials were designed to address
two key variables: the powder factor and the blasthole diameter. These were chosen as the two key
variables because the first test had a lower than ideal powder factor and larger than ideal blasthole
diameter to highwall height ratio.

Design and Initial Results

Table 1 provides the design powder factor, blasthole diameter, burden, spacing, and stemming length for
Trial #1 thru #5; the original trial blast is not included. The logic to each trial blast design follows.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 4 of 10
 

Table 1. Design and realized powder factors and blast design data for drill and blast trials
Rock Design Powder Blasthole Design Design Design
Percent
Trial # Bench Weight Powder Factor Factor Diameter Burden Spacing Stemming
3 3 3 Oversize
(kg/m ) (kg/m ) (kg/m ) (mm) (m) (m) Length (m)
1 Limestone 2400 0.35 0.32 115 2.9 4.0 2.25 15%
2 Marl 2200 0.35 0.24 115 3.1 4.4 3.00 3%
3 Limestone 2400 0.60 0.58 115 2.3 3.3 1.80 3%
4 Limestone 2400 0.56 0.41 152 4.0 4.4 2.00 29%
5 Limestone 2400 0.54 0.62 115 2.5 3.7 1.50 3%

Trial #1: This trial, tested on the limestone bench, uses a similar powder factor to the original
trial blast, but the design blasthole diameter was decreased to 115 mm (4.5 inches).
This was the smallest diameter blasthole the contractor could drill. The primary issue
with the earliest trial blast was oversize; therefore, the decreased blasthole diameter in
this trial was expected to improve oversize by having better distribution of explosives
in the blasthole.

Trial #1 resulted in significant oversize due to high confinement, similar to the original
trial blast (Figure 3). The low powder factor caused little throw and significant
oversize in the stemmed region. The loading equipment [a 78 tonne (86 ton) front end
loader and 66 tonne (73 ton) excavator] did not perform well due to the oversize.

Figure 3. Oversize resulting from Trial #1.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 5 of 10
 

Trial #2: The second trial was tested on the marl bench. The marl is highly interbedded, leading
the blast team to estimate that the same design used in Trial #1 would have much better
fragmentation results on the marl bench.

The results of this trial did improve significantly over the first trial (Figure 4). Trial #2
produced minimal to no oversize, although the throw did not improve significantly over
the first blast. The smaller loading equipment performance also improved significantly
over the first trial. This trial was considered successful and proof of a useable design in
the marl bench.

Figure 4. Fragmentation resulting from Trial #2.

Trial #3: This trial was designed to eliminate oversize when blasting the limestone bench. The
design called for a powder factor of 0.6 kg/m3 (1 lb/ft3), the midpoint of the rule-of-
thumb range provided in Figure 1. The blast design also called for a reduction in
stemming length to ensure oversize from the stemmed region was reduced.

The Trial #3 blast resulted in significant reduction of oversize (Figure 5). Some of the
stemmed region still produced minor oversize. The throw of the blast also improved
significantly. The loading equipment performed as expected with this blast. This trial
was considered successful and proof of a useable design in the limestone bench.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 6 of 10
 

Figure 5. Fragmentation resulting from Trial #3.

Trial #4: This test focused on improving the design from Trial #1. At this point, small diameter
blasthole designs were proven successful on both benches; however, the relatively
higher powder factor and smaller blasthole diameter of the third trial would have
relatively high blasting costs. This trial was an attempt to decrease costs by using a
larger 152 mm diameter.

Trial #4 was loaded with a 27% lower powder factor than designed. Due to the
confinement caused by the lower powder factor, Trial #4 produced poor fragmentation
and stemming ejection (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Trial #4 in action.

Trial #5: As with Trial #4, Trial #5 was designed to improve the design of Trial #3 by reducing
costs. Trial #4 showed that the smaller diameter must be used if oversize was to be

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 7 of 10
 

reduced. The design for Trial #5 was intended to improve over Trial #3 by slightly
reducing the powder factor and staggering the pattern.

Trial #5 was designed with ANFO, but was loaded with emulsion due to the amount of
water in the blastholes. The blast performed relatively well with respect to
fragmentation, but the powder factor was higher than design (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Trial #5 in action.

Key Performance Indicators
Before the trials, KPIs were identified to allow for a detailed evaluation of the blasting trial results
(Table 2). KPIs focused on drilling and blasting, as well as loading and hauling, and crushing.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 8 of 10
 

Table 2. Key Performance Indicators

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Equipment Used to Record KPI Data

Drilling / Blasting KPIs
Drilling records
Drilling cycle times Chronometer
Planned versus actual drill depths Loading tape
Blasting records
Planned versus actual loading – explosive Measuring tape, surveying equipment, borehole
length, stemming length, explosive type, tracking equipment
burden, spacing, etc.
Working face profile Face profiling tool
Explosive Performance
Velocity of Detonation (VOD) VOD instrumentation
Nominal versus actual detonation time of VOD instrumentation
detonators
Vibration and airblast control Seismographs, signature hole analysis software
Blast movement Video cameras
Muck pile fragmentation Fragmentation software
Oversize percentage in muck pile Fragmentation software
Load / Haul KPIs
Loading cycle times Chronometer
Operating Differences Operating costs / operator interviews
Crusher KPIs
Crusher throughput Belt scales
Power consumption Processing plant operating systems

The majority of the identified KPIs and equipment used to record data for the KPIs is essential to this
type of study. Following the KPI guidelines is the only suitable method for proving a specific drill and
blast method is worthwhile. If the above approach, or a similar method, is not followed for this type of
project, incorrect conclusions could be made, making the resulting cost estimates and conclusions
incorrect.
Results
The results of the blasting trials showed that a 78 tonne (86 ton) wheel loader or 66 tonne (73 ton)
excavator could load drilled and blasted rock at the same production rate as one of the large free-digging
excavators. The KPIs produced the following key pieces of information:
1. The variability of the geologic beds requires bench-specific blast designs.
2. The blast designs must be followed closely or the blasts will produce oversize, the volume of
which can be significant due to the short bench heights. Any lack of quality control will result in
lower cycle times.

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 9 of 10
 

3. Load times using a 78 tonne (86 ton) wheel loader or 66 tonne (73 ton) excavator in blasted
material will match or exceed the load times of the large 230-plus tonne (254-plus ton)
equipment when free-digging.
4. Crusher throughput and power consumption was measured, but a longer-term study will be
required to identify cost differences between drill and blasted rock and free-dug rock in the
crushing and screening facility.
5. At the current blast locations, ground vibrations and air overpressures are not a concern at nearby
residences unless the weather is overcast. Only one blast was detonated with overcast
conditions, and the microphones recorded high levels of air overpressure.
6. A valuable step taken during the project process was operator interviews. If the operation
proceeds with using drill and blast methods, operators will require training to operate the smaller
loading equipment efficiently. Operators will also require training on drill and blast operation
practices and safety.
Lessons Learned
The biggest lesson learned with this project is the importance of communication and ensuring all parties
understand the full scope of work of a project of this scale. Without a full knowledge and understanding
of the entire mining process and the drill and blast process, the operation would never have opted for
drilling and blasting. After the initial trial, the site personnel believed that blasting methods would
introduce significant oversize material, affect the chemistry of the cement raw feed, and be more
expensive than free-digging. An understanding of the effects of drilling and blasting on the downstream
processes at the quarry and cement plant allowed for us to introduce proper quality control guidelines
and prove that drilling and blasting can be used successfully at the site.

Future Work
This operation has a number of projects to ensure that the potential introduction of drilling and blasting
operations is a success. First, a full financial evaluation of both alternatives must be completed to
understand which mining method will be most economical and the most sensitive factors that affect the
mining costs. If drilling and blasting is shown to be the cheapest mining method once the financial
evaluation is complete, the operation will gradually transition from large excavating equipment. This is
the most important time for us to work with the operation to ensure the transition is successful.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank all those involved in this project, including both the operations personnel and the
contractors. This project was only a success due to their openness to trialing a new mining method at
their operation. Finally, we thank Buck Hawkins for being such an excellent report formatter and friend.

References
Worsey, P (2015). “Lecture 4.2 Powder Factor. Mining Engineering 307: Introduction to Blasting.”
Missouri S&T

Copyright © 2017 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2017G - Drill and Blast Planning During Drill-Mill Optimization Project 10 of 10