Untitled

BOTSWANA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCINCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, PALAPYE
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
MINING AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
A THESIS REPORT ENTITLED
MAXIMIZING THE DEVELOPMENT ADVANCES IN OREDRIVES AND
DECLINES AT KHOEMACAU COPPER MINING
BY
MODISA MELUSI SIBUNGA
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING IN MINING
ENGINEERING
THESIS SUPERVISOR
………………………………
DR MUNYINDEI MASIALETI
PALAPYE, BOTSWANA
JULY 2022
DECLARATION
I declare that this project thesis is my own work. It is being submitted for the degree of
Bachelor of Engineering in mining in the Botswana International University of Science and
Technology (BIUST), Palapye. It has not been submitted for any degree or examination in
any other University.
………………..
MODISA MELUSI SIBUNGA
Student ID: 18000498
……………day of ………………………………………... (Year)………………...
ii
ABSTRACT
Due to its advantages in terms of cost and flexibility to react to shifting rock mass conditions,
the drilling and blasting (D&B) method has gained widespread acceptance as a typical
approach in comparison to others, such as tunnel boring machines (TBM). In Khoemacau,
Zone 5, drilling and blasting is being employed as the main method for subterranean
development and access to the orebody Unfortunately, employing this method occasionally
results in advance meters that are not sufficient, as evidenced by Khoemacau's experience
with a similar problem. Such under-broken oredrives are expensive since they call for
repeated blasting, are occasionally difficult to access, have higher production costs due to
repeated blasting, longer cycle durations, and even more issues are likely to arise when
blasting following advances. These outcomes are undesirable, have negative financial effects
on the mine's operation, and waste precious production time. Although Underbreak trends are
almost impossible to avoid with drilling and blasting, the main goal of this report is to
identify the causal factors that contribute to the underbreak trend experienced primarily
during the oredrives and declines of the Khoemacau Copper Mine during development of the
underground mine, under which there were three main objectives. These objectives are (1)
to determine the factors that cause or lead to poor advance in oredrive and decline
development, (2) to find out how production and operation costs are affected by poor
development advance and (3) to select a variable that can be controlled from the potential
causes in order to improve and ultimately reverse the trend of poor advance; more precisely,
to optimize blast design, particularly perimeter control. The Khoemacau rock mass
characteristics, the AEL explosives utilized by the mine, and the blast design using all their
attributes were found to be the key contributing elements. This report looked at how the
aforementioned elements affected poor advance in order to properly comprehend the harm
done by the blast to the rock mass in Zone 5. This project was undertaken in an effort to
improve the oredrive and decline excavations, which are only becoming worse. The Zone 5
rock mass characteristics was recognized as one of the main contributors to poor advance
mainly due the rock being fairly hard to fracture. While less emulsion is utilized per face
when taking advancements, explosive distribution was also recognized as the primary factor.
Recommendations on how the poor advance trend can be overcome are also discussed in this
report.
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to God Almighty my creator, my strong pillar, my source of
inspiration, wisdom, knowledge and understanding. He has been the source of my strength
throughout this project and on His wings only have I soared. I also dedicate this work to my
parents; Collen Sibunga and Musa Sibunga who had encouraged me all the way and whose
encouragement has made sure that I give it all it takes to finish that which I have started. To
my project supervisor, Dr Munyindei Masialeti, who has guided me through the whole
project and advised me where necessary. Thank you, my love for you all can never be
quantified. God bless you.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deep gratitude to Dr Munyindei Masialeti, my research supervisor,
for their patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement, useful critiques of this research work,
advice, and assistance in keeping my progress on schedule. I would also like to extend my
thanks to the production mining engineers at Khoemacau Copper Mine for their help in
offering me the resources and necessary information in running the project.
Finally, I want to thank my parents for their support and encouragement throughout my
studies.
v
Table of Contents
DECLARATION..................................................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................iii
DEDICATION.....................................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................v
List of figures........................................................................................................................................c
List of tables..........................................................................................................................................c
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................4
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................................................................................4
1.2 MINE BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................5
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT..........................................................................................................5
1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................5
1.4.1 AIM......................................................................................................................................5
1.4.2 OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................6
1.5 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT........................................................................................................6
1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION.......................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................8
2.1 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................8
2.2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIALITY............................................................................................8
2.2.1 Records and Document Analysis..........................................................................................8
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION.............................................................................9
2.3.1 Graphs and charts.................................................................................................................9
2.3.2 Descriptive summaries & tables.........................................................................................10
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................11
3.1 ROCK MASS FEATURES.......................................................................................................11
3.1.1 Joints and discontinuities....................................................................................................11
3.1.2 Rock quality designation....................................................................................................12
3.1.3 Water conditions.................................................................................................................12
3.1.4 Rock breakage mechanism.................................................................................................13
3.1.5 The practical damage radius...............................................................................................14
3.2 EXPLOSIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION..................................................15
3.2.1 Velocity of Detonation (VOD)...........................................................................................16
3.2.2 Borehole pressure...............................................................................................................16
a
3.2.3 Powder factor.....................................................................................................................17
3.2.4 Explosive strength and density...........................................................................................17
3.3 BLAST DESIGN AND EXECUTION......................................................................................17
3.3.1 Burden and spacing............................................................................................................18
3.3.2 Perimeter holes...................................................................................................................18
3.3.3 Delay time and sequencing of holes...................................................................................18
3.3.4 Accurate drilling, charging & blasting practices.................................................................18
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS......................................................................................19
4.1 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS....................................................................................................19
4.1.1 POOR ADVANCE REPORTING AND ANALYSIS........................................................19
4.1.2 INFLUENCE OF ORE HOST-ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ON POOR ADVANCE....27
4.1.3 EXPLOSIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION............................................31
4.1.4 BLAST DESIGN AND EXECUTION...............................................................................33
4.1.5 MORE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................36
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................51
5.1 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................51
5.2 CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................52
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................53
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................55
APPENDIX.........................................................................................................................................57
b
List of figures
Figure 1 Schematic illustration of processes occurring in the rock around a blast hole,
showing formation of crushing zones, fracture zones and fragment formation zone
(Montshiwa, 2020)...................................................................................................................14
Figure 2 Stages of rock breakage (Montshiwa, 2020)..............................................................15
Figure 3show a graph comparing declines, oredrives and the totals all in one graph..............21
Figure 4 a graph comparing the planned and actual advance meters for declines on each
month........................................................................................................................................21
Figure 5: a graph comparing the planned and actual advance meters for oredrives on each
month........................................................................................................................................22
Figure 6 is a graph showing the total meters obtained.............................................................22
c
List of tables
Table 1: showing the planned and actual advance meters from January 2021 to March 2022
………………………………..................................................................................................20
Table 2: shows survey meters of each and every blast taken in June …..………………...…22
Table 3: shows survey meters of each and every blast taken in July ………………………..24
Table 4: Geotechnical characteristics of rock units ................................................................ 23
Table 5: Zone 5 sub-units' geotechnical values ...................................................................... 24
Table 6: Rock material classification compressive strength (MPa) (WORLD OF MINING
ENGINEERS, 2015) ...............................................................................................................24
Table 7: Explosives properties ............................................................................................... 25
Table 8: showing a development record of Tshukudu 115 ODS ………………………...….37
Table 9: showing a development record of Nare decline ………………………………..….38
Table 10: showing a production record of TAU165RMC ………………………….………41
Table 10: showing a production record of Tshukudu 165PUS ……………………….…….47
d
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Mining is the process of extracting valuable resources from the earth’s surface. (“The history
of mining: From the stone age to the digital era”) There are two ways of mining, it can either
be surface mining or underground mining. Surface mining is a mining form in which the
material (soil and rock) covering the mineral deposit is re moved to gain access. There are
several types of surface mining, open-pit mining, open-cast mining, and quarrying. Surface
mining involves blasting the ground to remove ores near the Earth's surface and transporting
them to refineries to extract the minerals. Surface mining can be harmful to the environment,
leaving large open pits behind.
Another way of mining is underground mining. Ores are extracted from deep within the earth
using underground mining. To reach the ore deposits, miners blast tunnels into the rock. This
process has the potential to result in accidents that trap miners underground.
A mining career can be hazardous not only because of accidents, but also because of health
issues. Breathing in mining dust particles can cause lung disease. One of the most common
types is black lung disease, which is caused by coal dust inhalation. Many other types of
mining generate silica dust, which causes black lung disease. These are incurable diseases
that impair breathing and can be fatal. (cdc, 2022)
In addition, the mining process can harm the environment in other ways. Acid mine drainage
is a type of water pollution caused by mining. To begin with, mining exposes sulfides in the
soil. Acids are formed when sulfides dissolve in rainwater or streams. Aquatic plants and
animals are harmed by this acidic water. Along with acid mine drainage, mine waste disposal
can result in severe water pollution from toxic metals. Toxic metals commonly found in mine
waste, such as arsenic and mercury, are hazardous to human and wildlife health if they are
released into nearby streams. (ngs, 2022)
There are different underground mining methods. Underground mining methods are required
when the stripping ratio becomes uneconomical, or when the land's surface use prohibits
surface mining. Underground methods are traditionally classified as unsupported, supported,
or caving methods. More than anything else, these classes reflect the competency of the
orebody and host rock. Is an underground opening excavated in ore or rock stable? will it
remain open for an extended period of time, or will it begin to collapse? How much support
would be required to keep the opening from caving in if it is unstable, i.e., the surrounding
ore or rock breaks up and falls into the opening? The answers to these questions guide us in
selecting mining methods from one of the three classes. To secure a stable opening,
unsupported methods require the inclusion of minimal artificial supports, whereas supported
methods require the addition of considerable support to keep the apertures from caving in.
Finally, the third class appears to be counter-intuitive: while our overall goal is to create
stable openings underground for obvious reasons, the methods in this class will only work if
the host rock or orebody caves easily under its own weight – in fact, the caving methods rely
on this caving action to function safely and productively. (cummins, 2022)
5
1.2 MINE BACKGROUND
To return to the case study, Khoemacau Copper Mine (KCM) is a newly established project
that employs an underground mining method. KCM extracts copper using the Long Hole
Open Stopping (LHOS) method. Making underground openings to access the orebody and
eventually extracting it is part of the open stopping method. Drilling and blasting the hard
rock are the traditional method for making these developments, as used by KCM. Khoemacau
accesses the orebody via footwall declines or ramps. Horizontal drifts (level accesses) are
developed from the declines to intersect the orebody, and then ore drives are developed along
the strike length and at the orebody's center. As conditions permit, these developments are
carried out using the traditional drilling and blasting method. (kcm, 2022)
Mine development is the excavation done to gain access to the orebody and as preparations
prior to production. The developments are normally measured in advanced meters.
Development advance is the number of meters gained by a drive during blasting. It is really
important to maximize the advance, this is because it affects production and cost. Poor
advance will lead to blasting again in order to achieve the planned meters. And this is going
to add extra costs and waste production time. (kcm, 2022)
During these developments or excavations, the mine has set design specifications or design
profiles that it wants to achieve, which are influenced by a variety of factors. These factors
include machine specifications used in a highly mechanized mine, minimizing mining costs,
and maximizing ore extraction. These design profiles, however, are difficult to achieve
during drilling and blasting. This is due to the mine experiencing some poor advances during
the development process, particularly in the oredrives and declines. There are several factors
that affect development advance, these include geological structure, charging practices,
explosive used and others.
It is also worth noting that Khoemacau does contractual mining. To put it another way, KCM
has hired a contractor (BARMINCO) to do its mining. After signing a legally binding
contract, mining must follow the terms of the contract, or one party may take legal action
against the other. (kcm, 2022)
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Barminco is a mining company contracted to Khoemacau Copper Mining to carry out the
drill and blast operations. And lately Barminco has been experiencing misfires in at least 1/10
of the faces and getting advances as small as 1 meter in both ore drives and declines instead
of the planned 4.7 meters. This is a big concern as it causes unnecessary extra costs a delays
production.
1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 AIM
To propose ways of improving the blast advances.at Khoemacau mine
1.4.2 OBJECTIVES
 To determine the causes of poor advance.
 To find out how this affects production.
6
 To find out how this affects the operational costs.
 To propose a way of improving advance.
1.5 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The project's scope is restricted to the mine's oredrives and declines. This is mostly due to the
developmental excavations being the ones that have been seen to be most affected by this
trend. This focus is also influenced by the similar rock characteristics in the oredrives and
declines, which are distinct from the rock that makes up the footwall where capital
developments are being excavated. When the features of the rock mass are considered, this
greatly simplifies the project.
1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The methodology, literature review, results and analysis, discussion and conclusion,
and suggestions are the various primary sections of this report. All of the techniques
utilized to collect data for the research were detailed in the methodology chapter. It
also discussed the methods used to gather and analyze data in order to get the pertinent
knowledge required to address the issue at hand. The final topic discussed in this
chapter was how to present data in a structured and understandable way. Information
from various documents and sources that have previously addressed similar issues is
included in the literature review chapter. This chapter was crucial because it provided
ideas for potential approaches to the study challenge by examining how other
researchers have approached difficulties of a similar nature. The results and analysis
chapter concentrated on going in-depth with the necessary information gleaned from
this investigation. The presentation of the original data used and the research
conclusions using the techniques provided in the methodology chapter were also
covered in this chapter. The information is organized and clearly presented for simple
interpretation. The discussion, conclusion, and suggestions chapter's primary focus
were on in-depth discussion of the preceding chapter's results. It also entails deriving
the key finding from the study of the outcomes. The suggested solutions or mitigating
actions for future improvements to tackling the problem being addressed in this
research are covered in what is effectively the last section of this report.
7
CHAPTER 2
METHOLODOGY
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
2.1 METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted as an informed blast analysis with a strong focus on the post
blast analysis in respect to design profiles. For this study, both qualitative and
quantitative data were utilized.
The monthly development advance reports acquired from the survey department make
up most of the quantitative data. This is required in order to measure both the monthly
advancements and the overall advancement over time. Geotechnical information on
ore rocks, such as Uniaxial Compressive Strength, is also included in quantitative data
(UCS). The development face drilling pattern was taken into account, together with its
variables including burden and spacing, hole diameter, and average hole length.
Among the qualitative information used in this study was the geological description of
the rock mass in Khoemacau's oredrives and declines. Qualitative data also contained
information about the explosives utilized and their characteristics, such as detonation
velocity (VOD).
2.2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIALITY
KCM is a company that has confidentiality and non-disclosure policies, but it was
crucial to take the company's private and confidential information into account when
gathering the data required for this investigation. So, in order to conduct this research
and obtain the relevant data, permission from the company management was required.
The usage of company records and documents has been the primary data collection
approach in this study.
2.2.1 Records and Document Analysis
This approach of gathering data is recommended for the study since it is most
appropriate given the amount of information required. Although the data collected
with this method is secondary, it is most beneficial to this study. Direct data collecting
or assessing development progress by the researcher (myself) would be a disadvantage
in that there might be too many inaccuracies and errors in the data collected due to the
inexperience of utilizing the survey equipment. This technique saves time and money
because it largely involves choosing from the information that is already readily
available rather than conducting a direct data collection.
The following parameters, were considered to be important:
 Drill pattern
 Hole diameter
 Hole length
 Burden & Spacing
 Hole type (wet or dry)
 Charge length
9
 Perimeter holes spacing & timing.
 Explosive type
 Rock characteristics
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

To obtain relevant and useful information for this research, the data gathered
throughout this study have been analyzed and interpreted. The research in this study
included a variety of data analysis and presenting techniques. Tables, graphs, and
charts for quantitative data as well as summaries of descriptions and graphs for
qualitative data.
2.3.1 Graphs and charts

In order to accurately assess the advance experienced by Khoemacau Copper Mine, data
from the Survey Department was analyzed and presented using graphs and charts. This
approach was chosen because it made the distinction between design profile cuts and
advance meters quite clear. The average poor advance rate for the mine was examined both
on a monthly and long-term basis using these data analysis techniques. The methods
included bar charts, histograms, and cumulative graphs. These analysis techniques could
manage huge and diverse data sets, making them suitable for our investigation. With this
technique, the objective of quantifying poor advance trends was achieved.
2.3.2 Descriptive summaries & tables
The information was presented using descriptive summaries that were based on an analysis of
the company documents. Geological rock features, explosive properties, and drilling and
charging techniques were included in the summary data as some of the contributing elements
to rock breakage and ultimately poor advance trends. The key points were successfully
gathered and compressed to a manageable and understandable size using this technique.
Data was presented and examined in tabular form in addition to summaries. The
organization and compression of large amounts of information were made possible by
tables. Tables save space when presenting data and made it simple to compare data sets
during analysis.
10
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW
Rock breakage, which leads to poor advance, is often caused by three main reasons,
namely. (cummins, 2022)
1. Rock mass characteristics
2. Explosive characteristics and distribution
3. Blast design and execution.
3.1 ROCK MASS FEATURES

Although rock mass attributes can't be modified, understanding them makes it easier to
choose the right explosive properties and blast design parameters to get the best
outcomes. A rock is a heterogeneous material, a trait rarely considered during blast
design. A blast's outcome is controlled by the characteristics of the rock mass.
Geological and geotechnical properties are both part of the characteristics of the rock
mass. Understanding the part played by the rock mass features in creating the damage
to the perimeter of a developmental excavation is crucial for minimizing blast damage.
3.1.1 Joints and discontinuities
The perimeter of an excavation is impacted by the existence of joints and
discontinuities. The orientation, frequency, and frictional characteristics of the
junction are the three key factors that affect how jointing affects the excavation's
perimeter. This is accomplished by weakening or reducing the intensity of the stress
waves that were created. The wave's angle of incidence on the joint surface determines
how much of the wave is attenuated as it passes through the joint. It is minimal when
it is parallel or perpendicular and maximum at the angle between 15 degrees and 45
degrees. (Danell, Lewandowski, and Luan Mai, 1997). According to this, blastholes
that are perpendicular to the joints are less likely to be impacted by jointing, and the
impact will shift as the angle of incidence changes. The efficiency of perimeter holes
will also depend on the jointing's frictional characteristics, with lower friction joints
incurring more damage. Moreover, a heavily fragmented rock mass is indicated by the
tight spacing of joints. The frequency of joints also impacts the number of joints each
perimeter must cross, and the deterioration of the stress wave is expected to be
cumulative for each joint.
A frequency of joints in the range of 3–4 joint planes per spacing will have a negative
impact on the conditions of the perimeter holes.
Due to increased joint cratering, increasing joint surface separation degrades the
quality of the final excavation profile. Open joints can allow cracks to spread, whereas
tight, sealed joints have no discernible impact on overbreak. When the filler material
alters the wave transmission characteristics, it also affects how easily rocks break.
Poor rock mass quality contributes to a poor blast due to the thickness, swelling
potential, and presence of materials like clay in joints. (Singh and Xavier, 2005)
11
3.1.2 Rock quality designation
When represented as a percentage of the total length cored, the total length of cores
longer than 100 mm is known as the "rock quality designation" (RQD). RQD is a
crucial measure for assessing the quality of rock masses, and a value of less than 70%
indicates that the rock is very vulnerable to blast breakage. For the RQD values less
than 50% to yield results that are acceptable, close spacing, mild loading, and relief
holes would be needed.
3.1.3 Water conditions
A rock mass's water content can affect a variety of its properties. The presence of
water in a rock mass reduces the rock's compressive and tensile strengths because it
reduces particle friction. Moreover, it reduces the cohesiveness and frictional qualities
of joints and reduces shock wave attenuation, which increases the impacts of fracture.
Shock waves can flow through joints filled with water without internal spalling. Yet,
the water is mobilized when the rock mass is under tension, generating a wedge that
could result in overbreak. Moreover, water in drill holes replaces the air as a
decoupling agent. Due to the increased coupling, there are more ground vibrations as a
result. (Singh and Xavier, 2005)
3.1.4 Rock breakage mechanism
Understanding how a rock mass breaks in response to explosives is crucial in order to
properly comprehend the impact of these explosives on rock breaking. Figure (1)
below shows the different radial fragmentation zones.
Figure 1 Schematic illustration of processes occurring in the rock around a blast hole, showing formation of crushing
zones, fracture zones and fragment formation zone (Montshiwa, 2020)
As shown in figure (2) below, there are typically three sources for fragment creation in mines
during blasting:
a) Fragments formed by new cracks created by detonating explosive charge.

12
b) In-situ blocks that have been freed from the rock mass simply by fracturing them,
and
c) Fragments produced by the rapid expansion of gasses
Figure 2 Stages of rock breakage (Montshiwa, 2020)
After the detonation of the explosive, gaseous detonation products are forced into the
whole blast hole at extremely high pressures and temperatures. A thin zone is formed
around the blast hole where the rock has yielded and has been extensively broken or
crushed by granular cracking, microcracking, differential compression of the particles,
and other types of plastic deformation. This pressure is applied immediately to the
blast hole wall, creating radial compressive stress that is so much higher than the
strength of the rock that it causes the rock to yield.
The structure of the rock is destroyed when the pressure in front of the strain wave,
which expands in a cylinder shape, reaches levels that are significantly higher than the
dynamic compressive strength of the rock. The rock surrounding the blasthole
experiences strong radial compression during the strain wave's propagation, which
causes tensile components to appear in the wave front's tangential planes. The crushed
zone that surrounds the blasthole begins to create a thick area of radial cracks when
the tangential strains are greater than the rock's dynamic tensile strength. (Montshiwa,
2020)
3.1.5 The practical damage radius

As stated above, an explosion charge causes a stress wave, which in turn causes a
shock wave. This causes damage zones, such as crushed and cracked zones, to form
close to the blasthole. The perimeter holes to manage the overbreak and underbreak in
these two damage zones are crucial for a successful blast design. To determine the best
blast design parameters to reduce overbreak damage, an estimate of these zones’
damage can be made as a function of the input parameters such as rock qualities and
explosive properties. In general, the size of the damaged zones can be presented as a
function of input parameters in the form;
𝑟 = 𝑓 (𝜃1, 𝜃2, 𝜃3 … 𝜃𝑛)

Equation 1
13
Where, r is the damage zone radius and 𝜃1 to 𝜃𝑛 represent the input parameters. The
main input characteristics can be categorized into; Rock characteristics, which
includes:
i. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS)

ii. Tensile strength
iii. Poisson’s ratio iv. Young’s modulus
The explosive characteristics, which include:
i. Velocity of detonation (VOD)

ii. Explosive density
iii. Effective energy of explosive
This method of estimate is applicable to uncomplicated scenarios, however because

various cases involve various uncertainties, it is not always simple to derive a specific
function f(x). In general, three techniques can be used to estimate rock damage. These
three approaches are analytical, numerical, and experimental. (Shadabfar et al., 2021)
In analytical techniques, a parameter such as peak particle velocity (PPV), blasthole
pressure is generally presented as a critical factor to estimate the size of a damage
zone. For numerical and experimental approaches, either the link between the
parameter and the damage zone is estimated and the rest of the problem is left
unsolved, or an analytical computation is used to directly find both the crucial
parameter and the damage zone. (Iverson, Hustrulid and Johnson, 2013)
3.2 EXPLOSIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION

Since those explosives are usually used in mining to break rock, explosive qualities
have a significant influence in the breaking of the rock mass. Due to the differences in
their chemical makeup and reactivity properties, explosives destroy rocks by releasing
energy and interacting with them in several ways. While selecting and loading
explosives, the following factors need to be taken into account:
 Velocity of detonation (VOD)
 Powder factor
 Borehole pressure
The energy released due to varying VODs (Velocity of Detonation), energy transfers
to the rock, strain rates, and magnitudes of borehole pressure are some of the
parameters that can explain variances in the rock damage caused by various
explosives. (Singh, 2018)
3.2.1 Velocity of Detonation (VOD)

The explosion moves through the explosive column at a pace known as the detonation
velocity. An explosive's qualities for dividing energy depend on its VOD. Essentially,
14
shock and gas energies produced by an explosive's Explosion are the two main energy
sources for blasting. The production of the two aforementioned energy increases with
VOD, and vice versa. When the contact area between the explosive and the rock is at
its greatest, the shock energy imparted to the rock is at its greatest, causing more rock
damage.
3.2.2 Borehole pressure

The amount of stress and fracture that the rock mass experiences depend on the
borehole pressure. An explosive's density and detonation velocity are correlated with
the borehole pressure of the explosion. These two factors are proportionally correlated,
meaning that the higher an explosive's VOD, the higher its bore hole pressure will be.
This shows that greater damage is caused by increased borehole pressure. However,
when disconnected explosives are employed, this is not always the case. Explosives
with a high VOD are typically dissociated and provide more shock energy than gas
energy. Explosives with a high VOD have shorter pulse durations, which give cracks
less time to grow. When an explosive's diameter is smaller than the blast hole's
diameter, it is said to be decoupled. This is done in order to reduce the charge
concentration in the blast hole and minimize stresses exerted on the borehole walls.
(Singh, 2018)
Decoupling essentially has the following effects: it prevents the direct transmission of
the detonation shock wave to the rock mass; it reduces the shock wave's peak; and it
lessens the loading strain rate. These effects can be employed to manage the rock
damage around an excavation. This crushed zone causes the length and strength of
cracks surrounding the blast hole to decrease.
3.2.3 Powder factor

The ratio of explosive weight to rock-blasting volume is known as the powder factor.
Overbreak will often result from higher powder factors, while underbreak or
overbreak could result from lesser powder factors. Yet, from the perspective of blast
damage, the perimeter powder factor is more important than the total powder factor.
3.2.4 Explosive strength and density

An explosive's strength is defined as its energy content, which is a gauge of the force it
can produce and its productivity. The energy produced by an explosive in comparison
to an equal weight of ANFO is known as weight strength. Basically, it is the
explosive's power. Strength ratings, which are used to identify the outcomes and
connect them to a particular product, do not accurately relate to the effectiveness of
fragmentation with explosive type.
Specific gravity, or the ratio of explosive density to water density, is a common way to
express density. This explosive characteristic is significant because it affects the
amount of explosive weight that can be placed into a given borehole diameter or the
charge density. Additionally, it relates the energy transfer from explosives to rock
directly. Additionally, it specifies the kind of explosive to use in wet and dry holes
since explosives with a specific gravity of less than 1.0 g/cm3 are prohibited from
being used in wet holes. (Walter, 1991)
15
3.3 BLAST DESIGN AND EXECUTION
The selection or creation of a blast design for use in development blasting is another
crucial step in reversing the overbreak, underbreak, and poor advance tendencies.
Many aspects and characteristics in the planning and execution of the blast pattern
might be responsible for the fact that blast damage frequently doesn't turn out as
planned. These factors are mentioned below.
3.3.1 Burden and spacing

An excavation's shape and accuracy are greatly impacted by the number and spacing
of perimeter holes. In general, too tight of a spacing generates overbreak between the
holes whereas too high of a separation produces underbreak.
3.3.2 Perimeter holes

The outermost holes in a blast design or excavation are called perimeter holes. These
are the most crucial factors to take into account when planning a blast since they have
the most impact on the excavation's final profile. Consideration should be made with
regard to the weight, size, and charge distributions of these holes. Smooth and stable
excavations can be obtained by reducing the spacing between the holes with the
burden slightly above the spacing values, as well as taking the rock conditions into
mind. Also, the perimeter holes are frequently disconnected and lightly filled with
explosives. Sometimes relief holes are made to encourage the growth of cracks. These
are the blasting-related holes that weren't charged. (Singh and Xavier, 2005)
3.3.3 Delay time and sequencing of holes

For the desired creation of cracks along the row of perimeter holes, the simultaneous
opening of the back holes is crucial. As a result, setting aside sufficient or ideal delay
times is crucial to getting the intended profile results. In order to disperse the intensity
and amplitude of the shock waves created, perimeter holes are typically assigned the
close to last delay times.
3.3.4 Accurate drilling, charging & blasting practices

The most crucial aspect of perimeter control to master before even beginning to charge
and blast developing faces. Design makes up around 10% of the drilling and blasting
process, whereas design and practice implementation make up about 90%. In order to
minimize damage, care and attention should be given to proper surveying, marking,
collaring, and hole drilling (Singh, 2018). The drillholes created directly and greatly
aggravate small survey mistakes. The weight, spacing, and plane of the holes are all
altered by blasthole deviation, which is especially important for the perimeter holes
since it causes poor blast performance at the edge of the excavation. (Singh and
Xavier, 2005)
16
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
This chapter covers the presentation of data collected during the course of this
research. It also includes the analysis of the data collected as well as the presentation
of the findings of the research.
4.1.1 POOR ADVANCE REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

Microsoft Excel was used to create the monthly advance reports. The advance meters
data was obtained from the Khoemacau Survey Department. The data was collected
over a 1-year period, from April to June 2021. The overbreak reports are organized
into those months as well as different corridors declines of zone 5. They are further
classified into various levels of oredrives in the respective declines. (kcm, 2022)
Planned Actual Planned Actual Total Total Blast
Month
Decline(M) Decline(M) Oredrive(M) Oredrive(M) Planned Actuals Performance
January 179.75 176.18 433.77 603.66 613.53 779.84 127.11
February 226.96 201.64 415.21 788.15 642.17 989.79 154.13
March 430.45 223.89 418.56 803.60 849.01 1027.49 121.02
April 484.63 362.70 548.59 759.53 1033.22 1122.23 108.62
May 360.06 445.84 597.10 872.57 957.16 1318.41 137.74
June 379.51 329.59 861.25 675.22 1240.76 1004.81 80.98
July 307.10 209.38 1009.86 793.36 1316.95 1002.74 76.14
August 191.49 409.54 673.64 975.50 865.13 1385.04 160.10
September 256.37 376.05 616.84 966.70 873.21 1342.75 153.77
October 327.92 521.83 716.83 1059.49 1044.75 1581.32 151.36
November 421.67 186.81 611.31 723.24 1032.98 910.05 88.10
December 442.76 621.02 326.58 804.36 769.34 1425.38 185.27
January 507.97 410.88 479.75 711.73 987.71 1122.61 113.66
February 281.47 488.45 570.54 752.86 852.01 1241.31 145.69
March 293.08 499.44 914.78 915.13 1207.86 1414.57 117.11
Table 1: showing the planned and actual advance meters from January 2021 to March 2022
17
Survey Advance meters
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
ry ry rch pril ay ne ly st er er er er ry ry rch
ua rua a A m Ju Ju gu mb tob mb mb nua rua a
n m u m
J a F eb a
pt
e Oc
ove
e ce J a
F e b
S e N D
planned decline(m) actual decline(m) planned oredrive(m)

actual oredrive(m) total planned total actuals
Figure 3show a graph comparing declines, oredrives and the totals all in one graph
The table and the chart above show the obtained advance meters. It includes both the decline
and oredrive advance meter. The table only focusses on the January 2021 to March 2022
timeline. The blast performance target at the mine is 90%, and those that were less than 90%
were considered low advance. The reason the blast performance target is this high is because
the mine is highly mechanized meaning machine cost are high. This is shown in figure 3
below.
Decline
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
ry ry rch ril ay ne ju
ly st er er er er ry ry rch
nua rua a ap m ju ugu mb tob mb mb nua rua a
ja b m a e oc ove ece ja b m
fe e pt n d fe
s
plan od actual2
Figure 4 a graph comparing the planned and actual advance meters for declines on each month
The graph above highlights the advance meters obtained when blasting in the decline. The
reason for the graph was to clearly compare the planned meters against the actual obtained
18
meters. The graph managed to point out the months which experienced poor advance being
June and July.
Oredrive
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
ar
y
ar
y
rc
h ril ay ne ju
nu bru ma ap m ju ugu mb tob mb mb nua rua a
j a a e c e e a b m
fe e pt o
nov dec j fe
s
planned oredrive(m) actual oredrive(m)
Figure 5: a graph comparing the planned and actual advance meters for oredrives on each month
The graph above shows the advance meters acquired when blasting the oredrives. The graph
was created to clearly contrast the planned meters with the actual meters that were acquired.
The graph was able to identify June and July as the months that experienced the lowest
advance.
Totals
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
ry ry rch ril ay ne ju
nua rua a ap m ju ugu mb tob mb mb nua rua a
ja b m a t e c e e ja b m
fe p o o v e c f e
se n d
total planned total actuals
Figure 6 is a graph showing the total meters obtained
19
JUNE ADVANCE METERS
Below is a table indicating survey meters obtained from KCM. On the information, there are
some offset values that are due to the mistakes made by the survey department.
Table 2: shows survey meters of each and every blast taken in June.
CH EOM
Heading Planned
Month Corridor from: CH to: (m) Advance
Name Advance(m)
(m) (m)
Jun-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 828.01 852.88 24.87 62.10
Jun-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 852.88 857.77 4.90
Jun-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 857.77 865.66 7.88
Jan-00 NORTH NKW 90 ODL S 144.46 180.09 35.63 51.40
Jan-00 NORTH NKW 90 ODL S 180.09 184.43 4.35
Jan-00 NORTH NKW 115 ODL S 195.65 199.52 3.87 34.30
Jun-21 NORTH NKW 140 ODL N 181.19 237.03 55.85
Jan-00 CENTRAL TAU 225 DEC 909.40 931.09 21.68 39.90
Jan-00 CENTRAL TAU 225 DEC 931.09 935.43 4.35
Jan-00 CENTRAL TAU 225 DEC 935.43 938.99 3.55
Jan-00 CENTRAL TAU 90 ODL N 125.72 170.34 44.62
Jan-00 CENTRAL TAU 90 ODL N 174.53 191.74 17.21 68.60
Jan-00 CENTRAL TLO 140 ODL N 192.63 209.47 16.84 59.10
Jan-00 CENTRAL TLO 140 ODL N 209.47 218.37 8.90
Jan-00 CENTRAL TAU 140 ODL S 125.92 144.65 18.73 120.00
Jan-00 CENTRAL TAU 140 ODL S 144.65 158.49 13.84
41.70
20
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 165 DEC 727.12 735.77 8.64 33.60
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 165 DEC 735.77 744.50 8.74
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 165 DEC 744.50 748.04 3.54
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 165 DEC 748.04 752.40 4.36
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 165 DEC 752.40 758.40 6.00
Jan-00 SOUTH NAR 165 DEC 705.93 720.84 14.91
Jan-00 SOUTH NAR 165 DEC 720.84 725.99 5.14
Jan-00 SOUTH NAR 165 DEC 725.99 730.07 4.09
Jan-00 SOUTH NAR 165 DEC 730.07 734.16 4.09
Jan-00 SOUTH NAR 165 DEC 734.16 747.53 13.37
Jun-21 SOUTH NAR 90 ODL S 138.23 158.11 19.88
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 90 ODL N 64.93 74.23 9.29 34.30
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 90 ODL N 74.23 78.87 4.65
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 115 ODL S 56.98 66.24 9.26 101.60
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 115 ODL S 66.24 70.57 4.33
Jan-00 SOUTH TSH 115 ODL N 35.80 40.15 4.35 12.00
Jan-00 SOUTH NAR 115 ODL N 98.40 102.99 4.58 89.60
Jan-00 SOUTH NAR 115 ODL N 102.99 116.93 13.94
Jan-00 SOUTH NAR 115 ODL S 67.61 87.89 20.28 39.10
1004.81 787.30
21
From the data above there were some errors made by the survey department when recording
the advance meters. These include numbers as big as 55.53 meters in the table above.
JULY ADVANCE METERS
Table 3: shows survey meters of each and every blast taken in July.
CH CH EOM Planned
Mont Heading
Corridor from: to: Advanc Advance(m
h Name
(m) (m) e (m) )
871.9
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 868.42 2 3.50 5
875.7
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 871.92 3 3.81 5
880.3
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 875.73 6 4.62 5
884.2
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 880.36 2 3.86 5
889.3
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 884.22 7 5.15 5
893.3
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 889.37 2 3.96 5
897.0
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 893.32 4 3.71 5
912.7
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 190 DEC 897.04 9 15.76 20
202.03 206.4
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 90 ODL S 1 6 4.43 5
209.9
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 90 ODL S 206.46 7 3.52 5
214.8
227.6
248.1
252.3
283.1
NKW 140 ODL 277.0
Jul-21 NORTH N 272.24 0 4.76 5
NKW 140 ODL 281.7
Jul-21 NORTH N 277.00 6 4.76 5
NKW 140 ODL 286.5
Jul-21 NORTH N 281.76 2 4.76 5
NKW 140 ODL 295.2
Jul-21 NORTH N 286.52 7 8.75 10
NKW 140 ODL 299.4
Jul-21 NORTH N 295.27 0 4.13 5
NKW 140 ODL 307.7
Jul-21 NORTH N 299.40 9 8.38 10
Jul-21 NORTH NKW 140 ODL 307.79 312.0 4.25 5
22
N 4
NKW 140 ODL 321.8
Jul-21 NORTH N 312.04 8 9.84 10
NKW 115 ODL 272.7
Jul-21 NORTH S 268.31 2 4.41 5
NKW 115 ODL 277.1
Jul-21 NORTH S 272.72 4 4.41 5
NKW 115 ODL 288.9
Jul-21 NORTH S 268.31 0 20.59 20
NKW 115 ODL 277.4
Jul-21 NORTH S 268.31 0 9.09 10
NKW 115 ODL 303.4
Jul-21 NORTH S 268.31 8 35.17 40
NKW 140 ODL 141.2
Jul-21 NORTH S 105.79 1 35.42 40
CENTRA 950.1
Jul-21 L TAU 225 DEC 938.99 0 11.12 15
CENTRA 953.0
Jul-21 L TAU 225 DEC 950.10 9 2.99 5
CENTRA 957.4
Jul-21 L TAU 225 DEC 953.09 2 4.33 5
CENTRA 970.0
Jul-21 L TAU 225 DEC 957.42 0 12.58 15
CENTRA 195.7
Jul-21 L TAU 90 ODL N 191.74 3 3.99 5
CENTRA 204.0
Jul-21 L TAU 90 ODL N 195.73 3 8.30 10
CENTRA 242.9
Jul-21 L TAU 90 ODL N 204.03 9 38.96 40
CENTRA 958.9
Jul-21 L TLO 225 DEC 954.20 7 4.77 5
CENTRA 963.1
Jul-21 L TLO 225 DEC 958.97 8 4.21 5
CENTRA 967.9
Jul-21 L TLO 225 DEC 963.18 3 4.75 5
CENTRA 972.7
Jul-21 L TLO 225 DEC 967.93 7 4.84 5
CENTRA 976.8
Jul-21 L TLO 225 DEC 972.77 7 4.10 5
CENTRA 272.9
Jul-21 L TLO 140 ODL N 268.70 4 4.25 5
CENTRA 274.8
Jul-21 L TLO 140 ODL N 272.94 7 1.93 5
CENTRA TLO 115 RAA
Jul-21 L W 0.00 0.00 0.00
CENTRA 109.3
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL N 105.30 2 4.01 5
CENTRA 113.3
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL N 109.32 3 4.01 5
CENTRA 116.4
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL N 113.33 3 3.10 5
CENTRA 120.3
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL N 116.43 5 3.92 5
CENTRA 133.2
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL N 120.35 5 12.91 15
Jul-21 CENTRA TAU 140 ODL N 133.25 137.7 4.53 5
23
L 8
CENTRA 151.2
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL N 137.78 3 13.45 15
CENTRA 156.1
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL N 151.23 1 4.88 5
CENTRA 164.4
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL N 156.11 0 8.29 10
CENTRA 204.9
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL S 197.32 0 7.57 10
CENTRA 215.4
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL S 204.90 2 10.53 10
CENTRA 225.9
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL S 215.42 2 10.50 10
CENTRA 229.9
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL S 225.92 9 4.07 5
CENTRA 246.4
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL S 229.99 4 16.45 15
CENTRA 250.3
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL S 246.44 6 3.92 5
CENTRA 269.4
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL S 250.36 4 19.08 20
CENTRA 275.5
Jul-21 L TAU 140 ODL S 269.44 4 6.10 5
CENTRA 220.3
Jul-21 L TAU 115 ODL N 216.10 1 4.21 5
CENTRA 228.1
Jul-21 L TAU 115 ODL N 220.31 9 7.88 10
CENTRA 267.6
Jul-21 L TAU 115 ODL N 228.19 4 39.45 40
766.1
Jul-21 SOUTH TSH 165 DEC 758.40 8 7.79 10
791.1
Jul-21 SOUTH TSH 165 DEC 766.18 5 24.97 25
779.4
Jul-21 SOUTH NAR 165 DEC 747.53 3 31.91 30
200.4
Jul-21 SOUTH NAR 90 ODL S 197.27 2 3.15 5
203.5
205.8
233.9
138.8
Jul-21 SOUTH TSH 90 ODL N 125.93 1 12.89 15
143.4
162.5
167.3
175.1
Jul-21 SOUTH TSH 140 ODL N 0.00 7.10 7.10 5
Jul-21 SOUTH TSH 140 ODL S 0.00 7.22 7.22 5
Jul-21 SOUTH NAR 140 ODL N 0.00 2.89 2.89 5
24
Jul-21 SOUTH NAR 140 ODL S 0.00 2.30 2.30 5
126.3
Jul-21 SOUTH TSH 115 ODL S 122.36 6 4.01 5
134.3
155.9
159.7
163.5
167.3
183.5
104.7
107.2
108.2
111.6
119.5
124.1
133.5
189.2
Jul-21 SOUTH NAR 115 ODL N 151.45 3 37.78 40
1002.74
From the data above there were some errors made by the survey department when recording
the advance meters. These include numbers as big as 39.45 meters in the table above.
4.1.2 INFLUENCE OF ORE HOST-ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ON POOR ADVANCE

The Ore zone host rocks consist of several sub-units as listed in rough stratigraphic order
below:
 Lower Marl (MRL),
 Lower Marl Limestone (MRL_LST),
25
 Limestone (LST),
 Alteration Zone (ALT),
 Brecciated Marl and Limestone (Breccia),
 Carbon Rich Silt Stone (CAR), and  Maker Sandstone (MSST).
These sub-units run across the three corridors (from South through to North).
4.1.2.1 Rock Characteristics Analysis

A strata-bound sediment hosted copper deposit under structural control is how the zone 5
deposit is characterized. The Zone 5 ore veins often contain significant Bornite and
Chalcocite, as well as smaller amounts of Chalcopyrite and silver. The orebody's upper part
has endured significant weathering and oxidation. Flexural slip and modest parasitic folding
have been the dominant mechanisms of significant deformation. The creation of the ore zone
has likewise been controlled by parasitic folding and shearing. Another of the prevalent
secondary structural mechanisms is brittle fracture. As a result of their propensity to weather
at oblique angles unrelated to bedding, orebody dominating units like CAR are a significant
factor in the overbreak trend under study in this paper. These ore zone units in zone 5 are also
very fractured. These geological characteristics suggest that the zone 5 orebody is susceptible
to overbreak and underbreak upon breakage by explosives.
It was crucial to initially examine the rock mass attributes of Zone 5 in order to
comprehend the connection between geology and blast damage. The geotechnical part
supplied crucial information on the mine's site features. The table that follows summarizes
the geotechnical properties of the rock units in the zone 5 orebody and was taken from
Khoemacau's Geotechnical Department. All rock types, including footwall and hanging
wall kinds, are listed in the table, but the ore zone's individual subunits are what are being
highlighted.
Table 4: Geotechnical characteristics of rock units
Tangent
Elastic
Indirect Modulus Poisson's
Uniaxial
Tensile Ratio Friction
Density Compressive @ Cohesion Hoek-Brown Criterion (Based
Strength (- Tangent Angle
(t/m3) Strength 50% UCS (MPa) - C i on GSI Value)
MPa) - (GPa) @ (°) - øi
(MPa) - UCS
UTB 50% UCS
mb s
a
Sample #
Mean 1.68 3.10E-04 - 9.75E-04 0.2 6.80E-02 36.9 0.286 1.21E- 0.611
Kalahari Sand (KAS)
06
S. D - - - - - - - -
Sample # 242 7
Calcrete (KAS) Mean 2.26 4.19 16.8 13.50 0.25 4.38 32.06 4.000 1 0.5
S. D 0.29 18.7 11.1 0.06 1.91 0.0042
Weathered Sandstone Sample # 5 4 4 4
26
Mean 2.67 24.58 213.8 57.03 0.24 44.78 41.46 8.75 1 0.5
S. D 28.49 7.54 0.02
Sample # 55 58 13 13 13
Fresh Sandstone Mean 2.66 20.3 320.1 74.0 0.27 57.98 47.45 15.405 1.0000 0.500
S. D 0.04 57.1 3.1 0.043
Sample # 44 17 7 7 7
Marl Mean 2.70 12.6 143.0 67.3 0.33 27.87 44.59 11.647 1.0000 0.500
S. D 0.04 42.0 5.6 0.01
Sample # 43 18 12 12 12
Siltstone Mean 2.70 13.3 153.6 64 0.3 29.98 44.53 11.581 1.0000 0.500
S. D 0.04 38 7.33 0.046
Sample # 67 11 15 15 15
Limestone Mean 2.71 12.2 154.2 73.0 0.32 29.57 45.45 12.643 1.0000 0.500
S. D 0.04 43 9.36 0.027
Sample # 29 9 5 5 5
Carbonaceous Shale Mean 2.76 10.8 138.0 65.14 0.32 26.38 45.53 12.751 1.0000 0.500
(CAR)
S. D 0.12 40 4.92 0.020
Sample # 17 5 3 3 3
Calcite Quartz Veins

Mean 2.83 11.4 123.1 75.53 0.28 24.38 43.82 10.841 1.0000 0.500
(CQV)
S. D 0.11 34.0 3.13 0.066
From the table, a more compressed table that simply shows the values for the USC,
Young's modulus, and density of the ore zone subunits has been created. The three
factors were chosen because they are the most crucial parameters for rock properties in
blasting situations.
Table 5: Zone 5 sub-units’ geotechnical values
Rock unit UCS (MPa) Description Young's Density

modulus (t/m3)
(GPa)
Weathered 213 Very very strong 57.07 2.67

Sandstone
Fresh 320 Extremely strong 74 2.66
Sandstone
Marl 143 Very very strong 67.3 2.70
27
Limestone 154 Very very strong 73 2.71
Siltstone 153 Very very strong 64 2.70
zCarbonaceous 138 Very very 65.14 2.76
strong
According to their geotechnical characteristics, the rock units making up the orebody of
the Khoemacau oredrives are fairly strong and durable. They have Uniaxial Compressive
Strengths (UCS) that are greater than 100MPa (between 100 and 250 MPa). The total
orebody can be characterized as being extremely powerful when compared to the UCS
chart below.
Table 6: Rock material classification compressive strength (MPa) (WORLD OF MINING ENGINEERS, 2015)
A competent rock mass is one that has a Young's modulus higher than 20GPa and a Uniaxial
Compressive Strength greater than 50 MPa. These rock masses are generally less likely to
overbreak. The dominant rock mass in our reference, Carbon Rich Shale (CAR), has a
Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 138MPa and a Young's modulus of 65.14GPa, so rock
strength and elasticity won't be a significant contributing factor to blast damage, but geology
will, according to the geotechnical report and table 3 above.
4.1.3 EXPLOSIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION

Khoemacau has contracted AEL Mining Services for supply of explosives and other
blasting accessories for developmental blasting. The explosives and accessories supplied
and used for developmental blasting in Khoemacau are listed as follows with the
properties of emulsion summarized in table (7) below.
1. Emulsion
2. LPD (Long Period Delays) Shock tubes
3. Detonating cord
Table 7: Explosives properties
Explosive type UG101S Series base

emulsion
Velocity of Detonation (VOD) (m/s) 4000 - 5500
Density (g/cm3) 1.00 – 1.10 (sensitized)

Ideal delivered energy (MJ/kg) @ 100MPa 2.2 – 2.4
Relative effective energy (% 79

28
ANFO @ 100MPa)
Relative bulk strength (% 112
ANFO @ 100MPa)
Water resistance excellent
Multi LPDs (Long Period Delays)
A non-electric initiating method called a Multi LPD (Long Period Delay) is made for both
underground and surface operations. An in-hole prolonged period delay detonator is part of
the device. The multi LPDs have 23 different prolonged period delays ranging from 0 to 22,
each with a unique color code.
Detonating cord
To extend the blast to a secure initiating point, a reel of shock tube with a detonator
enclosed in a cluster connector block is used. It typically has a color code of orange and
a nominal delay of 25 milliseconds.
4.1.3.1 Timing and Sequencing
Figure 6: A typical charge sheet after charging a face in zone 5.
A drilled face in Khoemacau is timed and sequenced essentially as the figure (8) above
depicts. The multi- LPDs having delays from 0 to 22 are sequenced starting from the
burn cut area, with zero (0) delay inserted at the center. The subsequent ones are inserted
29
in holes in such way that they create repetitive patterns of kite or diamond and squares
hence the drill pattern named, diamond – box. The contour holes and the lifter holes are
given the longest delays with the contour holes given between 19 and 21 milliseconds
while the lifter holes are given 22milliseconds delays.
4.1.3.2 Influence of Explosives & Distribution on the Rock Breakage

The explosives used in zone 5, Khoemacau, namely emulsion, have high Velocities of
Detonation (VoDs (Velocity of Detonation)) especially for a highly fractured orebody.
This poses a threat for overbreak on the rock during blasting as it tends to experience
high shock waves or vibrations. Emulsion has high VoDs of 4000 – 5500m/s.
4.1.4 BLAST DESIGN AND EXECUTION

Blast design: diamond – box pattern.
Figure 7: Blasting pattern and sequencing.
Khoemacau uses diamond-box drill pattern in developmental blasting of the faces. This
is a type of blasting pattern in which, firing of the hole advances in inter-changing
patterns of diamond and box shapes from the center of the face going outwards to the
periphery of the face. Figure (9) above shows the diamond – box blast pattern being used
in Zone 5, Khoemacau for developmental blasting.
Table 8: Blast design parameters
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit Average

Hole length (m) 4.9 5.5 5.2
Hole dimeter (mm) 45 53 49
Reamer holes 102 102 102
diameter (mm)
30
Burden (mm) 900 900 900
Spacing (mm) 600 600 600
Charge column 2/3 of 5.2 (average hole length)
4.1.4.1 Explosive Distribution and Powder Factor Analysis
Face area: 5mW * 4.6mH
In a typical oredrive in zone 5, the face area is 5mW * 4.6mH, which is the profile
determined by the planning engineers considering several factors. The average number
of holes in a face range from 50 – 55 holes/face and an average advance is 5m. These
parameters and more were used to compute explosives distribution and powder factor as
follows:
Hole length (m) = 5.2
Hole dimeter (mm) = 49
Charge column (m) = 2/3 of hole length
Average advance per blast (m) = 5
Volume of rock per advance: 5mW*4.6mH*5mL
=115m3
𝜋𝑑2 2
𝑣= (𝑙)
4 3
Equation 2
Where V = volume of explosives (m3) d = average
diameter of the drillholes (m) and
𝑙 = average length of drillholes
𝜋0.0492 2
𝑣= ( 5.2)
4 3
= 0.0065m3 of explosives/hole
31
Average holes per face ≈53
= 0.0065𝑚3 × 53
V = 0.3445m3/face/advance
Average density of emulsion (sensitized)
= 1.05g/cm3
= 1050kg/m3
Mass of emulsion in a face
𝑚=𝜌×𝑣
Equation 3
Where m = the mass of explosives in kilograms (kg)
𝜌 = density of explosives and
V = volume of explosives (m3)
⸫ m = 1050kg/m3 × 0.3445m3/face/advance
=361.725kg/face/advance
4.1.4.2 Perimeter Explosives Distribution

In a typical Khoemacau oredrive the average number of contour holes is 18, with 4 holes
on each side, 4 holes on the roof or back and 3 on each shoulder or arch. With the
volume of emulsion per hole already computed, the distribution on the contour holes is
determined to be:
0.0065𝑚3 × 18
V = 0.117m3
⸫ m = 1050kg/m3 × 0.17m3
= 122.85kg
This means an average of 122.85kg of emulsion is allocated to the perimeter or

contour holes.
32
4.1.4.3 Powder Factor
The number of explosives required to break a unit mass of in situ rock mass is defined as
the powder factor. It is determined by factors such as rock strength, explosive strength,
and associated explosive characteristics, as well as the extent to which the rock mass to
be blasted has been preconditioned by geological processes such as erosion (jointing,
bedding, faulting etc.) The technical powder factor is calculated using the following
formula:
𝑚
𝑃. 𝐹 =
𝑣
Equation 4
Where: m = mass of explosives
V = volume of rock mass to be blasted
361.725𝑘𝑔
𝑃. 𝐹 = 115𝑚3
=3.15kg/m3
This suggests that a powder factor of 3.15kg/m3 is applied per advance, a value which
is too high.
4.1.5 MORE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS

During the face audit, various poor blast results causal factors were observed. The
observations made from the field were supplemented by information collected from the
charge records. Such records and pictures taken on the field are attached to this report for
reference.
TSHUKUDU 115ODS
Table 8: showing a development record of Tshukudu 115 ODS
DATE HEADING EQUIPMENT SHIFT COMMENTS

19.07.2021 TSHUK115ODS DD421 N/S Drilling  Initiation hole
pitched into
the reamer
20.07.2021 CT6016/RU483 D/S Charging  Grid primed
with MB.
 Lifters primed
with stingers.
 2 holes
blocked, one
33
on the grid
(#4) and the
other on the
perimeter
(#22)
20.07.2021 D/S Timing
21.07.2021 D/S Post  Butts visible
blast on the face,
approximately
3.5m advance
 The perimeter
pulled further
than the
centre.
 No collars
 No toes
34
Figure 8: showing a development charge record.
NARE DECLINE
Table 9: showing a development record of Nare decline.

20.07.2021 NARE DD422i N/S Drilling
21.07.2021 DECLINE CT6014/RU484 D/S Charging  All blast holes
primed with
stingers.
 Inconsistent
gassed emulsion
observed from a
35
charged hole *see
attached images
21.07.2021 D/S Timing  Roof and lifters
timed together
22.07.2021 D/S Post  Poor advance,
blast visible butts
 No collars
 No toes
F
igure 9: showing a development charge record of Nare decline.
36
Figure 10: showing the drill hole navigation plane.
In the navigation plane indicated above, most of the drill holes are not drilled where they are
supposed to be drilled. And this may significantly affect the blast. These deviations are
caused by not properly setting up the drilling jumbo.
37
Figure 11: showing an all-round support summary of the drill holes.
According to the summary, 84 holes were drilled on a 34.3m2 face.
38
Gassing from one of the holes pale
in color
Expected gassed emulsion color.
Gassing strainer dirty with emulsion
39
TAU 165RMC
Table 10: showing a production record of TAU165RMC.

TAU165RMC DD422i Drilling  Drill directions
not consistent
22.07.2021 CT6016/RU482 D/S Charging  Scale not
working,
batteries dry.
 No cup
densities done
22.07.2021 D/S Timing
23.07.2021 D/S Post  Good advance
blast  No collars
 No toes
Figure 12: showing a balance scale that is not working.
40
Figure 13: Tau 165 RMC Ext Navigation plane view of planned vs realized holes drilling.
41
Figure 14: Tau 165 RMC Ext round report summary
Figure 15: showing the Tau 165 RMC Ext 3D side view (navigation plane-green plane, Blast plane- red plane)
42
INCONSISTANT GASSING OBSERVED
The final field test should be done with all gassed emulsions and is a common test done by
the blaster, this is called the cup-density test. When an emulsion is sensitized by chemical
gassing, it will slowly rise achieving a certain density after 20 minutes (or other set amount
of time).
The most important part of this test is to take the weight and volume both before and after the
set time and write down the density of the explosive in the blast report. Commonly, if the
emulsion rises at all it will be considered an excellent product when in many cases it has not
reached its proper density. This is due to improper gassing and can result in large formation
of NOx and poor explosive energy.
Cup Test at Tau 115 Stope
The emulsion did not rise due to inconsistent emulsion, and this could cause a poor blast.
TSHUKUDU 165PUS
Table 10: showing a production record of Tshukudu 165PUS.

20.07.2021 TSHUKUDU165PUS DD422i N/S Drilling
21.07.2021 CT6014/ N/S Charging
RU484
21.07.2021 N/S Timing
43
Figure 16: showing the Tshukudu 165 PUS S Navigation plane view of planned vs realized holes drilling.
44
Figure 17: showing the Tshukudu 165 PUS S 3D side view (Navigation plane-green, Blast plane- red)
45
Figure 18: showing a dislodged rock with misfired perimeter charge.
Summary observations from the above figures

 Charging of 1 or 2 short lengths due to hole blockages (1 heading from 4 headings)
 Pitching of blast holes
 Inconsistent burden and spacing
 Inconsistent emulsion gassing
 Cup densities not done during charging.
 Balance scales not working, run out of batteries.
 Poor priming practices
 Gassing strainer dirty, has emulsion in it.
 Mixer blocked due to pump wearing/tiring.
46
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 DISCUSSION
This section interprets and discusses how the observed potential contributory factors
independently and interactively result in poor blast advance. This is critical in establishing
the impact of each factor so that appropriate measures and recommendations are drawn to
minimize or eliminate the factors and recurrence.
Drilling Operations
Drilling is one of the key areas contributing to the success of the drilling & blasting process.
Drilling blast holes with inconsistent burden and spacing will result in inefficient explosives
distribution and performance. The charge energies become unevenly distributed and poorly
interact to break the required rock which could result in socket formations, back breaks, poor
blast throw, poor fragmentation and muck pile freezing. Erratic drill directions will also
result in pitching of holes and overburdened holes at the toe leading to poor face advance and
uneven face profiles.
Blocked holes have been observed to be among the top causes of poor blast advance. When
one or more of the cut holes are shorter, the entire face advance is expected to be length of
the short, charged hole/s depth since the cut is expected to create the breaking/free face for
the rest of the holes. It becomes even worse when other blast holes are shorter than the cut
holes as this will result in poor face profile which will require popping the face to re-shape it
prior to drilling the next round. Blocking of holes has been observed to be common in ore-
drives due to the fractured nature of the rock mass. Therefore, it is critical that thorough face
preparation is enforced to ensure that all blast holes are identified, exposed, and cleaned prior
to charging.
Charging Operations
Poor performance of the Mobile Charging Units (MCU’s) has also been identified as having
a negative impact on the success of the blast. For example, having emulsion and other
contaminants finding their way into the gassing tank as observed previously, results in
clogging of the gassing strainers. This affects the consistency of the gassing flow, the final
density and eventually the quality of emulsion pumped into the holes. Having little gassing in
the emulsion will result in either having higher density emulsion than required, or in dire
cases the gassing content becoming too low. In the case of too low gassing, the emulsion’s
performance becomes erratic and negatively affected which can lead to misfires, poor
advance, poor fragmentation, and poor face profile.
In order to identify and address the above-mentioned factor, it is important that cup densities
are performed prior to charging and during charging to determine and confirm the quality of
emulsion used.
Priming Practices
47
Care should be taken when priming with magnum busters. An approved pricker should be
used to pierce the cartridge and gently push the detonator into the cartridge. Forcing the
detonator into the cartridge could result in the detonator kinking at the crimp damaging it
which will cause fuse failure. The detonator should be inserted into the cartridge to about one
third of the cartridge length and placed in the middle of the cartridge. Because the detonator
fires directionally, placing it at the edge of the cartridge could result in misfires.
Explosives Products
There was no evidence pointing to poor product quality as the potential cause picked during
the investigations. For the emulsion in particular, in addition to the quality certificate
received upon delivery, some quality checks are done on site to ascertain the quality prior to
issuing the product for charging.
5.2 CONCLUSION
The root causes for the recent misfires and poor advance have been identified to be related to
operational practices as mentioned in section 1 to 3 above. In order to improve the blast
results and tunnel advance, all the drilling and blasting basics in the process must be done
right. For example, care must be taken to ensure marking and drilling is done as accurately as
possible to enhance effectiveness of the explosives. Also, charging best practices must be
followed which includes face preparations before charging, application of correct priming
methods/products, charging the right bulk product mix as well measuring cup densities as per
the standard. Maintenance of the MCUs should also be adhered to in order for them to deliver
the right quality product into the holes. This includes, among others, performance of pre-start
checks to ensure the blast holes are charged with the right product density and quality.
Constant, active, and stringent monitoring/supervision of drilling, priming, charging, timing,
and maintenance of the MCUs need to take place.
Once the above-mentioned basics have been put in place and/or enforced, it will be easier to
evaluate the effectiveness of the timing currently being used for the blasts.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Below are the recommended actions for each party to implement so as to improve the blast
results going forward:
AECI Botswana
 Replace density gassing blocks, set, and lock them to avoid inadvertent adjustments.
 Continue with on-the-job training of the Operators on the operation, troubleshooting
of the MCU and product application.
 Provide Barminco with pre-start checklists.
 Perform daily minor maintenance of the MCUs which should include cup density
tests.
 Continue monitoring emulsion and gassing quality upon receiving and during storage.
 Adhere to the MCU planned preventative maintenance.
48
Barminco
 Increase supervision on drilling to ensure holes are marked and drilled according to
plan.
 Increase supervision on charging to enforce best priming and adherence to charging
and timing plans.
 Perform pre-start checks at the beginning of every shift to ensure the MCU is in good
working condition.
 The Operator to monitor all gauges and flow meters during charging.
 Keep the MCU clean at all times to avoid dirt and other foreign objects getting into
the product during re-filling.
 Perform cup densities prior and during charging of every end to ensure the desired
density and quality of emulsion is used.
 Return weighing scales to AECI Botswana for calibration annually or as and when
required.
 Ensure face preparation is done prior to charging (this includes exposing and
identifying holes especially lifters and knee holes, cleaning of blast holes, confirming
of hole depths, number of holes to be charged and required detonator delays)
 Continue with the trial of priming with stinger boosters which is the highly
recommended method as opposed to using magnum busters. Due to the length of the
multi-LPD detonator shell, priming with a cartridge could easily lead to poor priming
practices when inserted into the explosive cartridge resulting in either failure to
detonate part of the product or the whole product inside the hole.

49
REFERENCES
Danell, R. E., Lewandowski, T. and Luan Mai, V. K. (1997) ‘Influence of discontinuities on
presplitting effectiveness’, Frag blast, 1(1), pp. 27–39. doi:
10.1080/13855149709408388.
Hencher, S. (2020) ‘Underground excavations’, Practical Rock Mechanics, (Rare), pp. 308–
349. doi: 10.1201/b18923-14.
Iverson, S. R., Hustrulid, W. A. and Johnson, J. C. (2013) ‘A new perimeter control blast
design concept for underground metal/nonmetal drifting applications’, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Office of Mine Safety and Health
Research.
Miner, A. U. (no date) Quick Guide to Hard Rock Mining | An Underground Miner.
Available at: https://anundergroundminer.com/blog/quick-guide-to-hard-rock-mining
(Accessed: 9 November 2021).
Montshiwa, G. (2020) ‘MINE 413 Explosives and Rock Fragmentation BLASTING’, pp. 20–
27.
Services, A. M. (no date) Drill and Blast | Mining Methods | American Mine Services.
Available at: https://americanmineservices.com/drill-and-blast/ (Accessed: 11 November
2021).
Shadabfar, M. et al. (2021) ‘Estimation of Damage Induced by Single-Hole Rock Blasting’:
Energies, 14(1), pp. 1–24.
Singh, S. P. (2018) ‘Over break control in underground mines’, MOJ Civil Engineering, 4(5),
pp. 429–435. doi: 10.15406/mojce.2018.04.00140.
Singh, S. P. and Xavier, P. (2005) ‘Causes, impact, and control of overbreak in underground
excavations’, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 20(1), pp. 63–71. doi:
10.1016/j.tust.2004.05.004.
Walter, C. J. K., and E. J. (1991) ‘Rock Blasting and Control Overbreak National Highway
Institute’, (132).
William Andrew Hustrulid, George B. Clark, J. L. M. (no date) mining - Underground
mining | Britannica. Available at:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/mining/Underground-mining (Accessed: 11
November 2021).
WORLD OF MINING ENGINEERS (2015). Available at:
miningworldgenises.blogspot.com/2015/05/fundamentals-of-rock-mechanics-1.html?m=1
(Accessed: 9 June 2022).
50
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Contour holes explosives distribution with relief holes introduced.
0.0065𝑚3 × 12
V = 0.078m3
⸫ m = 1050kg/m3 × 0.078m3
= 81.9kg
Appendix 2: Charge sheet
Appendix 3: inconsistent cup density test
51
52

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOTSWANA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCINCE AND

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

MINING AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

A THESIS REPORT ENTITLED

MAXIMIZING THE DEVELOPMENT ADVANCES IN OREDRIVES AND

DECLINES AT KHOEMACAU COPPER MINING

MODISA MELUSI SIBUNGA

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

MODISA MELUSI SIBUNGA

Student ID: 18000498

……………day of ………………………………………... (Year)………………...

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.5 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

 Burden & Spacing

 Hole type (wet or dry)

2.3 DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

2.3.1 Graphs and charts

2. Explosive characteristics and distribution

3. Blast design and execution.

3.1 ROCK MASS FEATURES

a) Fragments formed by new cracks created by detonating explosive charge.

c) Fragments produced by the rapid expansion of gasses

Figure 2 Stages of rock breakage (Montshiwa, 2020)

3.1.5 The practical damage radius

𝑟 = 𝑓 (𝜃1, 𝜃2, 𝜃3 … 𝜃𝑛)

main input characteristics can be categorized into; Rock characteristics, which

i. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS)

i. Velocity of detonation (VOD)

This method of estimate is applicable to uncomplicated scenarios, however because

3.2 EXPLOSIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION

3.2.1 Velocity of Detonation (VOD)

3.2.2 Borehole pressure

3.2.3 Powder factor

3.2.4 Explosive strength and density

3.3.1 Burden and spacing

3.3.2 Perimeter holes

3.3.3 Delay time and sequencing of holes

3.3.4 Accurate drilling, charging & blasting practices

4.1.1 POOR ADVANCE REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

planned decline(m) actual decline(m) planned oredrive(m)

planned oredrive(m) actual oredrive(m)

total planned total actuals

Figure 6 is a graph showing the total meters obtained

JULY ADVANCE METERS

4.1.2 INFLUENCE OF ORE HOST-ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ON POOR ADVANCE

4.1.2.1 Rock Characteristics Analysis

Table 4: Geotechnical characteristics of rock units

Weathered Sandstone Sample # 5 4 4 4

Calcite Quartz Veins

Rock unit UCS (MPa) Description Young's Density

Weathered 213 Very very strong 57.07 2.67

4.1.3 EXPLOSIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION

Explosive type UG101S Series base

Density (g/cm3) 1.00 – 1.10 (sensitized)

Relative effective energy (% 79

Figure 6: A typical charge sheet after charging a face in zone 5.

4.1.3.2 Influence of Explosives & Distribution on the Rock Breakage

4.1.4 BLAST DESIGN AND EXECUTION

Figure 7: Blasting pattern and sequencing.

Parameter Lower limit Upper limit Average

4.1.4.1 Explosive Distribution and Powder Factor Analysis

Face area: 5mW * 4.6mH

Volume of rock per advance: 5mW4.6mH5mL