THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA.

THE COLLEGE OF EARTH SCIENCES (CoES)

SCHOOL OF MINES AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING
ENGINEERING.
BSc. MINING ENGINEERING.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT PROPOSAL

ON
ANALYSIS OF DRILLING AND BLASTING PARAMETERS TO
ACHIEVE OPTIMUM ROCK FRAGMENTATION AT SONGWE II
LIMESTONE QUARRY AT MCC.

STUDENT NAME: MKUMBWA, ANDREW GWANTWA.

REGISTRATION NUMBER: T/UDOM/ 2013/04499.
COURSE CODE: MN 416
COURSE NAME: MINING PROJECT 1
SUPERVISOR’S NAME: DR. MESERECORDIAS W. LEMA.
 ANALYSIS OF DRILLING AND BLASTING PARAMETERS TO
ACHIEVE OPTIMUM ROCK FRAGMENTATION AT SONGWE II
LIMESTONE QUARRY AT MCC.

BSc. (Mining Engineering) Final Year Project

University of Dodoma

Student Name: Mkumbwa, Andrew Gwantwa.

Registration Number: T/UDOM/ 2013/04499.
Department: Mining and Mineral Processing Engineering.
Supervisor’s Name: Dr. Meserecordias W. Lema.

March, 2017
 ANALYSIS OF DRILLING AND BLASTING PARAMETERS TO
ACHIEVE OPTIMUM ROCK FRAGMENTATION AT SONGWE II
LIMESTONE QUARRY AT MCC.

A Final Year Project Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science (Mining Engineering)

of the University of Dodoma

University of Dodoma

March, 2017
i
 CERTIFICATION

The Undersigned certify that they have read and hereby recommend for examination by
the University of Dodoma a final year project entitled: Analysis of Drilling and Blasting
Parameters to Achieve Optimum Rock Fragmentation at Songwe II Limestone
Quarry, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Mining Engineering of the University of Dodoma.

………………………………………………….

Dr. Meserecordias W. Lema

(Supervisor)

Date…………………………………………….

1
 DECLARATION

I, Mkumbwa, Andrew Gwantwa, declare that this final year project is my own original
work and that it has not been presented to any other University for a similar or any other
degree award.

Signature……………………………………………………………...

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to deliver my sincere thanks to the Almighty and Ever
Living GOD for the gift of life, strength and power which enable me to undertake and
finalize this project.

I also want to thank my supervisor, Dr. Lema and other staff members for their help and
guidance throughout the time I have been doing this study. I also thank them for their
inspiring attitude towards me which has always given me more belief in my capabilities
and potentials.

I would also like to thank Mbeya Cement Company (MCC) for providing me with the site
and facilities to conduct my study at their Company.

I would like to acknowledge the debt I owe to University of Dodoma, college of Earth
Sciences, School of mines and Petroleum Engineering in the Department of Mining and
Metallurgy& Mineral Processing Engineering, staffs and all others who shared their
thoughts with me on this project. I want specially to thank each individual who provided
countless insightful ideas throughout the development of this project.

I won’t forget to thank my fellow colleagues, B Sc. Mining Engineering (4th year) for
their significant help and support in this study. Their comments and suggestions have
helped me a lot in accomplishing this work.

3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

COES- College of Earth Sciences

UDOM- University of Dodoma

ANFO- Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil

MCC -Mbeya Cement Company

MRL- Mean Reduced Level

PF- Powder Factor

RQD -Rock Quality Designation

SME- Society of Mining Engineering

VOD -Velocity of Detonation

RMD- Rock Mass Description

m- Metre

g/cc- Gram per cubic centimeters

cal/gm- Calories per Grams

RDI- Rock Density Index.

4
 ABSTRACT

This project conducted in order to analyses the optimization of drilling and blasting
parameters to influence achievement of good fragmentation at Songwe II Limestone
quarry. The main objective of this project is to improve drilling and blasting efficiency so
as to achieve optimum rock fragmentation at Songwe II Limestone quarry. From literature
review, the parameters of drilling and blasting that determine the degree of fragmentation
in surface blasting were established and the mining and geological conditions influencing
on their optimization characterized.

To accomplish this project, data will be collected from MCC during the 2nd and 3rd week
of march. The data collected included geotechnical data, drilling and blasting data and
their associated fragmentation and historical data concerning drilling cost, blasting costs
and total operation costs for the year 2016.

Methodologies employed in this project includes mathematical calculation, literature

survey and direct field observations for obtaining specific parameters necessary for
analyzing and estimation of size distribution of rock fragments based on Kuz-Ram
fragmentation model. Direct measurement of spacing, burden, hole depth and stemming
length of blastholes will be done in the field by using tape measure and recording the
results in a field note book. Type of explosives used per shot, charging techniques,
stemming materials and fragmentations were observed directly from the field and photos
were taken for illustrations.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ 1

DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................... 4

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 9

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................9

1.2 LOCATON OF SONGWE II LIMESTONE QUARRY .............................................. 10

1.3 LOCAL GEOLOGY OF SONGWE II LIMESTONE QUARRY............................... 10

1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT. ............................................................................................ 11

1.5 MAIN OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................ 11

1.6 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................. 11

1.7 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 12

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................... 12

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 12

2.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 The Bench Blasting Parameters ............................................................................... 16

2.3 POWDER FACTOR ........................................................................................................ 21

2.4 PARAMETERS AFFECTING EXPLOSIVE PERFORMANCE ............................... 22

2.4.1 Selection of proper Explosives. ................................................................................ 22

6
 2.4.2 Parameters Related to Initiation Pattern ................................................................ 24

2.5 SELECTION OF PARAMETERS FOR BLAST OPTIMIZATION .......................... 24

2.6 ROCK PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................... 25

2.6.1 Rock structure ........................................................................................................... 25

2.6.2 Porosity ...................................................................................................................... 26

2.6.3 Density ........................................................................................................................ 27

2.6.4 Water content ............................................................................................................ 27

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 29

3.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 29

3.3 Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 29

CHAPTER FIVE......................................................................................................................... 38

4.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 38

7
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Rule of Thumb for the first approximation blast design ......................................... 21

Table 2: Drilling and blast design parameters analysis .......................................................... 30

Table 3: Drilling and blast design data collected at Songwe II limestone quarry ................ 41

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Mbeya Cement Company. .................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Design parameters for bench blasting ..................................................................... 17

8
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Rock breakage includes a variety of mechanisms but is usually accomplished by drilling

and blasting, which is the first phase of the production cycle in most of the mining
operations (Thote and Singh, 1997). Blasting normally follows after drilling whereby the
drilled holes are loaded/charged with explosives and tied up then fired electrically or non-
electrically. Proper designed and organized blast design provides good fragmentation of
the blasted material (Pal and Gosh, 2002). Efficient blast designs produce the desired
particle size distributions and placement of muck-piles for ease of rock removal and
handling (Hartman, 1996).

Material fragmentation is one of the most important aspects to be considered by any

mining engineer. Degree of fragmentation to the large extent affects the productivity of
mining operations especially in surface mines (Ramulu, 2012). Optimization of this
operation is very important as the fragmentation obtained thereby affects the cost of the
entire gamut of interrelated mining activities, such as drilling, blasting, loading, hauling,
crushing and to some extent grinding. Optimization of rock breaking by drilling and
blasting is sometimes understood to mean minimum cost in the implementation of these
two individual operations. However, a minimum cost for breaking rock may not be in the
best interest of the overall mining system. A little more money spent in the rock-breaking
operation can be recovered later from the system and the aim of the coordinator of the
mining work should be to achieve a minimum combined cost of drilling, blasting, loading,
hauling, crushing and grinding (Adhikari and Venkatesh, 1995). Only a “balance sheet”
of total cost of the full gamut of mining operations vis-à-vis production achieved can
establish whether the very first phase- rock breaking- was “optimum” financially; leaving
aside factors of human safety (Singh, A and Dhillon, 1996).

9
1.2 LOCATON OF SONGWE II LIMESTONE QUARRY

Mbeya Cement plant is located 30 km away North West Mbeya town and 860 Km south
west Dar Salam to Lusaka. Songwe II limestone Quarry is located at 4 km North West
Mbeya Cement plant.

Figure 1: Location of Mbeya Cement Company.

1.3 LOCAL GEOLOGY OF SONGWE II LIMESTONE QUARRY

Songwe II Quarry is located in the Songwe basin with limestone found outcropping in the
central, North-West and southern part of the area. The south west and north eastern are
covered by volcanic ash or soil that sandwitching basalt and trachytes between it and
Songwe River.

Within the limestone there are two lithological units recognized i.e. the upper unit T1 in
which the rocks consists of horizontal banded travertine with thickness varies between 16
to 20meters whereby its lime content has very high quality ranging from 51% to 55% of

10
calcium oxide percentage and The lower unit T2 that comprises of porous and brecciated
limestone with agillaceous sandstone partings which is highly fissured with a lot of
cavities thickness ranging from 10.0m to 30.0m and lime content ranging from 48% to
52.

1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT.

Songwe II limestone quarry is currently experiencing frequent oversize generation that is

likely to be caused by improper practicing of drilling and blasting parameters. Currently
the designed target of the company(MCC) is to produce number of boulders less than 10%
of the fragmented material in which the boulders should be less than one meter in size, but
due to incorrect practice of the designed drilling and blasting parameters more than 10%
boulders are actually produced. This generation of boulders results into adverse negative
effects like unnecessary and unplanned expenditures to support further size reduction
through secondary blasting. Likewise, significant reduction of excavation productivity,
frequent breakdowns and reduction of the lifespan of transport equipment are associated
with such scenarios.

1.5 MAIN OBJECTIVE

❖ To improve drilling and blasting efficiency to control boulders formation.

1.6 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
❖ To assess drilling and blast design parameters at Songwe II Limestone Quarry.

❖ To establish optimal drilling and blast design parameters to improve rock

fragmentation.

1.7 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

This project is expected to investigate the drilling and blasting parameters so as to improve
and optimize the required size of limestone fragments produced during rock breakage at
MCC

11
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Rock breaking by drilling and blasting is the first phase of the production cycle in most of
the mining operations (Thote and Singh, 1997). Optimization of this operation is very
important as the fragmentation obtained thereby affects the cost of the entire gamut of
interrelated mining activities, such as drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, crushing and to
some extent grinding. Optimization of rock breaking by drilling and blasting is sometimes
understood to mean minimum cost in the implementation of these two individual
operations (Singh, A and Dhillon, 1996). However, a minimum cost for breaking rock
may not be in the best interest of the overall mining system. A little more money spent in
the rock-breaking operation can be recovered later from the system and the aim of the
coordinator of the mining work should be to achieve a minimum combined cost of drilling,
blasting, loading, hauling, crushing and grinding. An optimum blast is also associated
with the most efficient utilization of blasting energy in the rock-breaking process, reducing
blasting cost through less explosive consumption and less wastage of explosive energy in
blasting, less throw of materials, and reduction of blast vibration resulting in greater
degrees of safety and stability to the nearby structures (Sethi and Dey, 2004).

The ideally fragmented rock is the rock that needs no further treatment after the blast.
Therefore, the parameters for the subsequent operations are the guide lines for deciding
on the desired fragmentation of the rock. If the rock is just to be transported to a dumping
area, it should be easy to load and transport. If the rock is intended for crushing, the size
of the largest boulders should not exceed 75 percent of the length of the shortest side of
the opening of the primary crusher, thus allowing a free flow through the plant (Hartman,
1996).

12
Fragmentation optimization involves breaking of rocks to ensure quality control, safe,
consistent and efficient blasting. Big boulder or the opposite, excess fines can result from
poorly selected drilling and blasting pattern (Pal and Gosh, 2002). A well-selected pattern
would produce fragmentation that can be accommodated by available loading and hauling
equipment and crushing plant with little or no need for secondary blasting. It is well
accepted that performance of basic mining operations such as excavation and crushing
relies on a fragmentation which has been pre-conditioned by the blast, whereby pre-
condition means well fragment, sufficiently loose with adequate muck pole profile.
Effectiveness of hard rock blasting are measured with two basic indices that are oversize
generation and blast hole productivity, cost per ton of rock blasted is also another index
that measures the effectiveness of blasting and are dependent on rock mass and blast
design parameters such as hole diameter, burden, spacing among others (Akande and
Lawal, 2013).

Also it has been observed that the blasting results of fragmentation are influenced by
various factors. For example, rock strength decreases the fragmentation, it is also affected
by the blast ability index, porosity and the geological disturbances. In case of
discontinuities, the shock wave gets reflected causing higher attenuation at a smaller area.
This leads to boulder formation. All these factors need a detailed study and in-field
experiments to judge the blasting parameters and decide the quantity of explosives to be
used to avoid boulder formation or enable good fragmentation (Thote and Singh, 1997).

2.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS

The effective cost of poor blasting can be several times the cost of the blast itself as can
be demonstrated in terms of fragmentation alone. Analysis of many operations suggests
that although mine blasts generally fragment rock so that it can be handled by the mining
process, there is potential optimal fragmentation to improve the productivity and cost of
all downstream processes (Bozic, 1998). Optimizing blast design parameters could reduce
the drill and blast costs of a mine (Anon., 2014). The properties of fragmentation, such as

13
size and shape, are very important information for the optimization of production drilling
and blasting operations. Size distribution is a critical component of managing any mining
operation; from the drilling and blasting to the final product, the material size dictates all
downstream operating costs (Palangio and Palangio, 2005).

There are no specific design principles or procedures in drilling and blasting that can work
perfectly in each site/occasion. An empirical approach is therefore taken in blast design.
This approach is necessary due to the many factors that cannot be controlled, such as
geology and explosive loading conditions. Empirical prediction of expected fragmentation
is most often done using the KuzRam model (Cunningham, 1983, 2005). The basic
strength of the model lies in its simplicity in terms of the ease of garnering input data, and
in its direct linkage between blast design parameters and rock fragmentation. Using this
mixture of references, a rock factor that describes the nature and geology of the rock is
calculated. A uniformity index is also obtained that characterizes the explosive loading
and the blast pattern type and dimensions. This allows a characteristic size and size
distribution to be determined according to the Rosin-Rammler procedure (Cunningham,
1983, 2005). There are three key equations of the KuzRam model. These are presented as
follows:

(i) The adopted Kuznetsov equation is:

19⁄
1 RWS
of Explosive 20
Xm = AK (−0.8) Q( ⁄6) ( ) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (𝑖)
RWS of ANFO

Where Xm = mean particle size, cm; A = rock factor [varying between 0.8 and 22,
depending on hardness and structure]; K = powder factor, kg explosive per cubic meter of
rock; Q = mass of explosive in the hole, kg; and RWS = relative weight strength.

The blastability index (rock factor) is calculated from an equation originally developed by
Lilly 1986. It is used to modify the average fragmentation based on the rock type and blast
direction.

14
 A = 0.06(RMD + JF + RDI + HF) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (ii)

Where;

A- Blastability Index

RMD- Rock Mass Description

JF – Joint Factor

RDI- Rock Density Index

HF- Hardness Factor

These factors can be calculated from geological data such as: Insitu block size, Joint
Spacing, Joint Orientation, Rock Specific Gravity, Youngs Modulus, and Unconfined
Compressive Strength.

Powder factor/ Specific Charge (K) - refers to the mass of explosive being used (Kg) to
break a cubic meter Volume of rock.

Qe
ie. K= … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (iv)
Vo

Where; Qe= Mass of Explosive being used (Kg)

Vo= The volume (M3) broken per blast hole= Burden (B) X Spacing (S) X Bench Height
(H)

(ii) The adopted Rosin-Rammler equation is:

n
R x = exp (−0.693 (X⁄X ) ) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (v)
m

Where;
Rx = mass fraction retained on screen opening x; and
n = uniformity index, usually between 0.7 and 2.

15
 (iii)The uniformity equation is:

14B √1 + S⁄B W BCL − CCL 0.1

n = (2.2 − ). . (1 − ) . abs ( + 0.1) … … … … … … . (vi)
d 2 B L

Where B= burden, (m); S = spacing, (m); d= hole diameter, (mm); W= standard deviation
of drilling precision, (m); L = charge length, (m); BCL = bottom charge length, (m); CCL
= column charge length, (m); and H= bench height, (m).

To assess the blast performance from the mine’s drill and blast data, and further generate
appropriate sets of geometric parameters for the mine; the Kuz-Ram fragmentation model
is known as the best estimator (Cunningham, 1983, 2005) and a tool for examining how
different parameters could influence blast fragmentation. The major factors for selecting
the optimum and appropriate set of geometric drill and blast parameters of a mine include
the total cost/BCM blasted, and the desired mean fragmentation size.

According to (Ash, 1963), (Hagen, 1981) and (Dick et al, 1983), rock fragmentation and
size distribution are the function of burden and Hole diameter which discovered to be the
most important initial factors used in design. The empirical formulas developed by Ash
1963 are as follows;

2.2.1 The Bench Blasting Parameters

Bench blasting can be defined as drilling of vertical or angled holes in one or several rows
from a free surface, which then are blasted again in a second free surface. The bench
blasting operations may be classified according to their purpose and also it can be
classified by the diameter of the Blast Hole (Jimeno et al, 1995), whereby;

• Small diameter Blasting ranges from (65 – 165) mm

• Large diameter Blasting ranges from (180 – 450) mm

Since the subject of this research is conventionally based on small diameter blasting,
because it is performed in a quarry to obtain a desired fragmentation with minimum costs.

16
In small Diameter blasting Swedish method developed by (Langefors, U. and Khilstom,
B.K, 1963, 1976) is used. Then, the design Parameters for bench blasting are given in
figure below as follows:

Figure 2: Design parameters for bench blasting

Where by:

D- Blast Hole diameter (m), K is the Bench Height (m), B is the Burden (m), E is the
Blasthole Spacing (m), U is the Blast Hole Sub-drilling (m), S(ho) is the Blast hole
stemming length (m), hP is the length of column charge (m), hb is the length of Bottom
charge (m).

Other parameters considered in Bench Blasting design calculations are; IP is the

concentration of column charge (Kg/m), Ib is the concentration of Bottom Charge (Kg/m),
QP is the Weight of Column charge (Kg), Qb is the Weight of Bottom Charge (Kg), Qe is
the total weight of Explosive being used in a hole (Kg), q is the Powder Factor/Specific
charge (Kg of Explosive/m3 of rock), g is the specific drilling (drilled meters/m3 of rock).

17
Blast hole pattern, delay timing and initiation sequence are also very important parameters
in Bench blasting operations.

(i) Burden

The most critical and important dimension in blasting is that of the Burden B as it
represents the rock mass to be fragmented by the explosive column (Hagen, 1981) and
(Dick et al, 1983).It can be calculated as follows;

1 1 1
D45 0.4 2 P 2 1 2
Bmax = ( ) ( ) ( ) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (vii)
1000 c S f

Where; Bmax = Maximum Burden, D- Blast hole diameter, P- Degree of Packing of the
Explosive, S- Relative Weight Strength of the explosive and f- Fixation of the Hole.

The practical Burden distance (B) can be calculated as follows;

D
B = Bmax − ( + 0.03H) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (viii)
1000

(ii) Sub-drilling

It can be calculated by the formula given below;

𝑈 = 0.3𝐵𝑚𝑎𝑥

(iii) Total Length of the blast hole

𝐻 = (𝐾 + 𝑈)

18
 (iv) Spacing (E)

This refers to the distance in meters between adjacent blast holes and is measured
perpendicular to the Burden. The relation between Burden and Spacing is given as follows;

E = KSB

But according to (Olofsson, 1990) states that practical hole spacing is calculated from
relation shown in equation below;

E = 1.25B

And if the ratio S/B is changed without specific drilling (the drilling needed to blast 1m3
of rock) or the specific charge being changed, it will result in the following kinds of
fragmentation;

❖ S/B >1.25 will give finer fragmentation

❖ S/B <1.25 will give courser fragmentation.
(v) Stemming (S)

This is the inert material filled between the explosive charge and the collar of the blasthole
to confine the explosion gases. The stemming material can be water, drill cuttings, sand,
and mud or crushed rock. Stemming distance is taken as equal to the burden.

ho = B

(vi) Bottom Charge Height

To obtain a satisfactory Breakage in the bottom part, the required height of the bottom
charge should be equal to;

ℎ𝑏 = 1.3𝐵

19
 (vii) Quantity of the Bottom charge.

The total quantity of the bottom charge is given as;

Qb = hb Ib

(viii) Bottom Charge Concentration

It is given as;

D2 P
Ib = ( )( )
1000 1.25

(ix) Column Charge Height

The required height of the column charge should be equal to;

hp = H − hb − ho

(x) Column charge Quantity.

The total quantity of column charge is given as;

𝑄𝑝 = ℎ𝑝 𝐼𝑏

The column charge concentration could be: 𝐼𝑝 = %40 𝑢𝑝 𝑡𝑜 %50 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑏 and the total
weight of explosive being used in a hole (Kg) is given as;

𝑄𝑒 = 𝑄𝑝 + 𝑄𝑏

20
The summary of the selected factors for the first- approximation of blast design has been
done by (Ash, 1963) as shown on the table below;

Table 1: Rule of Thumb for the first approximation blast design

Parameter Information
Burden B = KBD Using ANFO:

Where,

D is hole diameter KB = 22 for rock density < 2.7 g/cm3

= 30 for rock density > 2.7 g/cm3

Using slurry, Dynamite or other high

explosives:

KB = 27 for rock density < 2.7

g/cm3

= 35 for rock density > 2.7 g/cm3

Spacing S = KSB KS = 1to 2,depending on initiation

Sub- grade J= KJB KJ = 0.2 to 0.5 (average 0.3)

Stemming T = KTB KT = 0.5 to 1.3 (average 0.7)

2.3 POWDER FACTOR

Powder factor is the weight of explosive consumption per unit volume of the blasted rock
in situ (kg/m3). Insufficient powder factor will cause the generation of excessive oversize
because it will result into excessive hole burdens, spacing and stemming lengths (Kumar,
Ranjan and Murthy, 2004).

21
Powder factor depends on the following factor for its effectiveness: rock harness, rock
joints, strength of explosive, required size of fragmentation.

➢ For the hard rocks, powder factor consumed in the rock breakage should be higher.
➢ Rock that contains many joints, the powder factor required is much lower because
the rock breakage already starts by natural agent for the present of those joints.
➢ For the strong explosive the powder factor required is much lower than that of
weak explosive.
➢ If the required size of the fragmentation is large, then the powder factor
consumption is less and vice versa

With the right powder factor, excessive oversize could still be generated if charge is not
distributed uniformly in the rock in situ.

2.4 PARAMETERS AFFECTING EXPLOSIVE PERFORMANCE

The selection of proper explosive in any blasting round is an important aspect of optimum
blast design (Kumar, Ranjan and Murthy, 2004). Basic parameters include the following;

❖ VOD of explosive (m/s)

❖ Density (g/cc)
❖ Characteristics impedance
❖ Energy output (cal/gm)
❖ Explosive type such as (NG, ANFO, Slurry, Emulsions etc.)

2.4.1 Selection of proper Explosives.

A number of different types of explosives are presently available in the market today and
hence it is rather difficult to select the right type for a specific purpose (Kumar, Ranjan
and Murthy, 2004). Some of the explosives extensively used in mining are;

(i) Special Gelatine

(ii) NG- based

22
 (iii)Gun Powder
(iv) Slurry Explosive (both cartridge and site-mixed)
(v) ANFO (Ammonium nitrate prills mixed with fuel oil)
(vi) Emulsion (both cartridge and site-mixed)

Although all of them have relative merits and demerits in utilization, the major factor
influencing the mine operator’s ultimate choice of the correct explosive is blasting cost.
Since this cost includes the cost of drilling plus other fixed expenditures, a more expensive
explosive could well mean money saved in the total cost of a blasting operation. The
following example can illustrate how certain basic considerations could influence the
selection of explosives (Pal Roy, 2005).

Consider;

N= Number of bore holes

W= weight of Explosive loaded in each hole

C= Cost of Explosive per kg

D= Cost of drilling and loading of each hole.

Then, Total cost (T) becomes;

T = N(D + W. C)

When comparing total cost for different explosives, A and B, the formula is;

TA − TB = NA (D + WA . CA ) − NB (D + WB . CB )

The criterion for determining the quality of explosive for a given job is simply whether
the left hand side of the equation is positive or negative. If it is positive, explosive B is
better than explosive A and if it is negative, then the vice-versa is true.

23
2.4.2 Parameters Related to Initiation Pattern

Initiation pattern is important for proper fragmentation, proper throw of blasted materials
and fewer blasting hazards. The two most commonly used parameters related to initiation
pattern are;

(i) Delay Interval (ms)

(ii) Delay Pattern or Connection.

Although it is unlikely that all of the above-listed parameters can be accounted for in detail
by means of simple closed-form expressions, it is probable that better predictability can
be achieved by explicitly incorporating those parameters, which predominantly govern the
blasting operation (Pal and Gosh, 2002).

2.5 SELECTION OF PARAMETERS FOR BLAST OPTIMIZATION

As discussed above, there are many parameters available for optimum blasting. All these
parameters cannot be taken for optimizing the blasting method successfully. Some of the
parameters are taken for minimizing the blasting cost (Morin and Ficarazzo,2005). These
cost reduction and optimum blast design parameter will give an economical result. The
parameters are;

• Drill hole diameter

• Powder factor (Desired)
• Cost of Explosive
• Numbers of Holes Required to blast.

Drill Hole diameter: The drill hole diameter is taken as fixed parameter because the bit
size available in the market is limited. The hole diameter is also varying as the geology
condition of the strata. From the drill hole diameter other information required to design
a blast geometry.

24
Powder Factor: This is fixed for a particular mine so as to give a continuous product size
and also avoiding the oversize and under sized product.

Cost of Explosive: This is a parameter where the value depends on the explosive strength
and type of the explosive used.

Numbers of hole required to blast: It depends on the production of the mine whereby
more the hole required to be blasted when the demand is more. These parameters are
generally decided from the other parameters also. These are density of explosive and
energy output from explosives. More holes for blasting at a time means the strength of
explosive should be more so, the density will be high and the energy released from
explosive should be more.

2.6 ROCK PROPERTIES

The total geology and rock characteristics have greater influence upon proper
fragmentation, control of fragmentation, control of vibration, fly rock and other safety
aspects. The properties of rock such as strength, porosity, density, sonic velocity,
blastability index, effect of rock disturbances and rock structure may have a significant
influence on blasting results (Hartman, 1996).

2.6.1 Rock structure

The rock structure may be defined using the frequency and orientation of bedding planes,
joints and other naturally occurring fractures. The bedding planes and joints in a rock mass
tend to dominate the nature of the blast induced fracture patterns. Maximum fragmentation
is generally achieved where the principle joint planes are parallel to the free face
(Dessureault, 2006).

Close and tight rock structure are preferable as the explosive energy is not lost and vented.
The problems arise when the energy is not confined or when the transmission of stress
waves within the rock mass are interrupted. Open or widely separated structures can result
in poor fragmentation due to;

25
 • Interruption of the explosive generated stress waves.

It causes an inconsistent formation of cracks.

• Disruption of confinement resulting in oversize.

Venting and air-blast can also occur in weak seams or open layers of rock. This can be
corrected through stemming and decking. These areas can be identified in the drilling
process when the drill experiences slower penetration rates related to poor hole flushing.

Some solutions to addressing these problem includes;

➢ Closer initiation intervals (achieves desired rock breakage before allowing existing
cracks to open further)
➢ Altering design (burden, spacing, and hole diameter)
➢ Selecting denser explosives or blasting agents (detonate at higher velocity)
➢ Use of multiple decks or cartridge explosives smaller in diameter into the
stemming zone.

2.6.2 Porosity

The porosity (n) is defined as the ratio of void or pore volume, to the total volume (V) of
the rock as it has been described below;

VV V − VS
n= =
V V

Where, Vs is the volume of grains or solid matrix substances.

Porosity tends to reduce the efficiency of blasting operations, whereby the highly porous
rocks are fragmented mainly by heavy energy explosives. This is because the lengths of
strain wave-induced cracks in a highly porous rock are calculated to be only about 25% of
those in a non-porous rock of identical mineralogy. This implies that highly porous rocks
are fragmented mainly by heave energy. Hence, post detonated gases have to be kept
trapped at high pressure until they have performed their task. This can be achieved by
26
bottom priming and by having adequate stemming to prevent premature venting of gases
(Dessureault, 2006).

According to (Hartman, 1996), Porosity is the result of various geological, physical and
chemical processes and varies significantly for different rock type. It changes significantly
for the same rock type due to different factors such as grain size distribution, grain shape,
depth and pressure.

2.6.3 Density

The density of rock is closely related with its strength, whereby an increase in rock density
is often results in a decrease in the displacement of a rock-mass fragmented by blasting.
According to (Dessureault, 2006), an adequate displacement of higher-density rock can
be achieved by following one of the three causes below;

• Increasing the blast-hole diameter,

• Reducing the blast-hole pattern,
• Changing to an explosive which has stronger heave energy.

2.6.4 Water content

The presence of water in the rock has a major influence on the type of explosive used and
overall costs. The static water levels remain the same year-round blast-holes can be
dewatered and the water will not rush back in-water is not moving in the rock. For the
water moving in rock can cut through bulk explosives with high water resistance, so
packed explosives may be required and multiple level priming is advised in wet blast-
holes.

(Sharp et al, 1972) have stated that, groundwater pressures usually have a significant effect
on stability, consequently, stability conditions can often be improved by reducing water
pressures, if they exist, by installing drainage systems. Furthermore, drainage is often an
inexpensive method of stabilization.

27
The velocity of propagation of strain waves is considerably increased by water saturation,
resulting to the filling of pores with water, which is a good medium for elastic wave
transmission. The compressive and tensile strengths of the rock mass are reduced by the
fluids in a porous rock, resulting to the lower friction characteristic between grain surfaces
(Dessureault, 2006).

In case water is present in discontinuities adjoining a block of rock which is being blasted,
strain waves may have a greater ability to weaken that rock mass by means of water being
jetted considerable distances through interconnected fissures. This has a wedging action
which will have a considerable influence on over break; and hence slope instability
(Dessureault, 2006).

28
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

Activities and materials required during data collections

Activities and materials to be used in data collection are well described in accordance to
their corresponding specific objective. Consider brief descriptions of activities and tools
to be used in the following specific objectives of the project;

3.3 Procedures
In order to achieve the goal of this project/study the following procedures was carried out;

❖ Reviewing and studying previous company’s documents of drilling and blasting

and how the parameters was practiced. Tools used was past blasting sheets,
notebook and pen (for noting particular secondary data).

❖ Obtaining current data of drilling and blasting design parameters and how it is
done. Tools used was tape measure for measuring drilling parameters like spacing,
burden, hole diameter, hole depth, stemming height, sub-drill as well as Pen and
notebook for recording data.

❖ Evaluating planned design parameters (at the office) and actual practiced
parameters (at site), making comparison between planned and actual designed data
so as to identify any deviation using tables and Microsoft office 2016

❖ logical presentation of data and comparison between planned parameters with

actual design parameters by using statistical tools like tables, charts, Microsoft
office 2016 so as to indicate any deviations and report it as an error.

❖ Using kuz-ram and adopted Rosin-Rammler models and Microsoft office 2016 to
correct identified deviations, optimizing the design drilling and blasting
parameters and finally giving out the best(optimal) design parameters.

29
DATA COLLECTION

Table 2: Drilling and blast design parameters analysis

PARAMETER PLANNED VALUE ACTUAL VALUE

Burden 2.8m 2.762
Spacing 3.2m 3.209
Hole diameter 105mm 105mm
Bench height 10m 9.832m
Stemming height 2m 2.084
Length bottom charge (BCL) 1m 0.5m
Length column charge (CCL) 7.5m 7.248
Powder factor “K” (Kg/m3) 0.282 0.232
Mass of explosive per hole (Kg/hole) 55 50
Standard deviation of drilling error (W) 0.1m 0.3m
Blast pattern factor 8.1 8.1
Uniformity index 1.8 1.6

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis accomplished based on the available collected data using Microsoft Office
Excel 2013. Both drilling and blasting operations as well their designs have been analyzed
as shown in sections below.

Drilling and Blasting analysis.

At Songwe II limestone quarry there was an ineffective drilling practice which leads to
poor rock fragmentation as per expectations, this is shown by variation between actual
drilling data and the designed ones as shown on the table 2 above as well as on the graph
1 below;

30
 A GRAPH SHOWING HOLE DEPTH VARIATION
12

10
DEPTH(m)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
HOLE NUMBER

Design depth Actual depth (m)

Figure 3: Graph 1

From the graph 1 above it is observed that the drilled holes depths were deviating from
design drill depth and thus resulted to poor fragmentation of rock. The holes which are
drilled shorter than the designed depth resulted to shorter stemming length which in turns
may causes uneven fragmentations of the materials while those drilled to a depth more
than the designed, resulted to the oversize/boulders rock materials as a result of collar
length be larger than the designed.

31
 DRILLING PARAMETER VARIATIONS
3.5
3
2.5
METERS

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Designed Spacing ActualSpacing (m)
Designed Burden Burden (m)

Figure 4: Graph 2

Also from the graph 2 above it is observed that the spacing and burden parameters where
not applied as planned. According to Cunningham (1983) the spacing to burden ratio (S/B)
should not exceed 2. The fragment size distribution is commonly determined by changing
the spacing between blastholes and between rows of the blastholes. In sound rock the
dimensions in the blasthole geometry offer the best possibility for the control of the
fragment size distribution. Based on the literature review the in order for the spacing and
burden to provide proper fragmentations the range should be as follows;

❖ S/B >1.25 will give finer fragmentation

❖ S/B <1.25 will give courser fragmentation.

The graph below shows that as the spacing to burden ratio increases, also the percent in
range fragmentation increases and vice versa is true.

32
 S/B VS. % FRAGMENTATION IN RANGE
1.4 90.00%

1.2 89.00%

% FRAGMENTAION
1 88.00%
S/B RATIO

0.8 87.00%

0.6 86.00%

0.4 85.00%

0.2 84.00%

0 83.00%

S/B %In range

Figure 5: Graph 3
COST IMPLICATION

Shot S (m) B(m) S/B Blast Drilling Cost Fragmentation

no. cost cost ($)/ton %
1 3.2 2.8 1.14 0.3 0.17 0.47 87.5
2 3.2 2.6 1.23 0.31 0.23 0.54 89.3
3 3.3 2.7 1.22 0.47 0.3 0.77 88.3
4 3.2 2.8 1.14 1.4 1.5 2.90 87.5
5 3 3 1.00 2.5 1.5 4.00 85.5
6 3 2.8 1.07 1.5 0.82 2.32 87.5
7 3.3 3 1.07 0.9 1.3 2.20 87.5
8 3 3 1.00 1.3 1.3 2.66 87.1

33
 A graph of % Fragmentation in range vs Cost($)/ton
90

89
% Fragmentation

88

87

86

85

84

83
0.47 0.54 0.77 2.9 4 2.32 2.2 2.66
Cost($)/ton

PROPOSED OPTIMAL DRILLING AND BLAST DESIGN PARAMETERS.

Optimization of drilling and blasting parameters of the site are done with the aid of
empirical models for the estimation of size distribution of rock fragments based on Kuz-
Ram fragmentation model together with the rule of thumb. The pattern layout proposed is
Staggered rectangular patterns because this pattern provides the best explosive energy
distribution (equilateral triangle) through which it can help to reduce boulders production.

Burden.

𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛 = 26 × 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛 = 25 × 0.105 = 2.625 ≈ 2.6𝑚

Spacing

𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 1.23 × 𝐵

𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 1.23 × 2.6 = 3.198 ≈ 3.2𝑚

Powder factor ‘k’ (kg/BCM)

34
 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑘=
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒

55𝑘𝑔 0.637𝑘𝑔
𝑘= =
2.6 × 3.2 × 10 × 2.5 𝑚3

Powder factor (kg/ton) =charge weight/ mass shot per hole.

0.637𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑘= = 0.255𝑘𝑔/𝑡𝑜𝑛
2.5𝑡𝑜𝑛/𝑚3

The data in the Table below are extracted from the Kuz-Ram fragmentation model through
which better fragmentation (more than 93% mean fragment size) can be produced.

PARAMETER PLANNED VALUE

Burden 2.6m
Spacing 3.2m
Hole diameter 105mm
Bench height 10m
Stemming height 2m
Length bottom charge (BCL) 0.5m
Length column charge (CCL) 7.5m
Powder factor “K” (Kg/m3) 0.637
Mass of explosive per hole (Kg/hole) 55
Standard deviation of drilling error (W) 0.3m
Blast pattern factor 8.1
Uniformity index 2.1

35
 CHAPTER FOUR

Discussion of results.

Based on the results obtained the boulders formation at Songwe II limestone quarry is still
the problem as it is shown on the graph 3 above in which the percent fragment size drops
up to 85.5% from the designed 90%. This means that more than 14.5% of material
produced were boulders. Also, the results show that actual explosive charge per hole is
50kg/hole instead of 55kg/hole which reduces powder factor from 0.61kg/m3 to
0.57kg/m3 respectively.

Also, it is observed that there is ineffective practice of drilling and blasting parameters
which results into larger deviation between the planned and actual parameters as it is
shown on the graph 1 and graph 2 above. From these graphs, the actual hole depth varies
from 7m to high depth of 11m. due to these hole depth variations there was uneven
distribution of explosive charge per hole, whereby holes with low depth consumes low
explosive compared to the hole with high depth which consumes large amount of
explosive.

Based on the proposed drilling and blast design parameters fragmentation performance
will increase because the proposed parameters will result to produce 94.8% (from figure
8 below) fragment mean size which is 3.9% more than the planned parameters and it is
6.4% better than the fragmentation produced due to actual parameters.

36
 CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATIONS

CONCLUSION

Based on the result obtained, formation of boulders at songwe II limestone quarry is

caused by inaccurate and ineffective practicing of drilling and blasting parameters. So due
to this problem the secondary rock breakage is required to reduce boulder size up to 0.5m
which increases operations costs as well as ineffective productivity.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

The quarry mining operators should pay particular attention to both oversized and
undersized fragmentations. The undersized fragmentation is not desirable in quarry
mining because fines are a problem in terms of lost saleable stone and storage, while
oversized fragmentation requires secondary breakage which leads to higher total operating
costs.

37
 CHAPTER FIVE

4.0 REFERENCES
Hartman, H. (1996). SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition Vol. 1. Littleton,
Colorado.: Society for Mining, Metullurgy and Exploration, Inc., Franklin, A.
Adhikari, G.R. and Venkatesh, H.S. (1995,). ''An approach for optimizing a blast desgn
for surface mines''. The Indian Mining & Engineering, Journal, PP. 25-28.
Ash, L.R. . (1963). The Mechanics of Rock Breakage,. In E. e. Pfleider, Pit and Quarry
(pp. PP. 98-100; 112; 118-123; 126-131; 109-111;). New York: AIME.
Cunningham, c. (1983, 2005). The Kuz-Ram Model for prediction of fragmentation from
blasting. Netherland, Munich:: A.A. Balkema.
Dessureault. (2006). MNE 415- Rock excavation book course notes. Controlled blasting,
124-136, University of Arizona department of mining and geological engineering.
Dick et al. (1983). Explosives and Blasting Manual Information Cirular 8925.
Washington, DC.: US Bureau of Mines.
Gustafsson, R. (1973). Swedish Blasting Technique, SPI,. Gothenburg, sweden, PP 61-2.
Hagen, N. (1981). Explosives and Blasting-. In The Next Decade, Part II- Rock properties
and Blastholes, Australian Mining, Vol.73, No.8 (pp. Aug, PP.33-40).
Jimeno, C.L. et al. (1995). Drilling and Blasting of Rock. A.A. Balkema. Rotterdam, De
Ramiro,: Yvonne Visser Translated to English. PP 30, 56-61, 179-183, 190.
Kumar, Ranjan, R. and Murthy. (2004). '' Performance Analysis of bulk explosives in
different geo-mining conditions''.,. The Indian Mining & Engineering Journal,
December,, PP. 24-31.
Langefors, U. and Khilstom, B.K. (1963, 1976). '' The Modern Technique of Rock
Blasting''. John Willy & Sons.
Olofsson, S.O. ((1990)). Applied explosives technology for construction and mining.
ARLA, SWEED:: APPLEX, 2nd Edition.
Pal Roy, P. (2005). " Terms and Parameters Influencing mine and ground excavations".
In Rock blasting effects and operations, (pp. PP. 17-22, 61).

38
Pal, U.K and Gosh, N. (2002). "Optimization of blast design parameters at Sonpur Bazari
Opencast Project",. The Indian Mining & Engineernig Journal, September, PP. 36-
41.
Pugliese, J.M. (1973). Designing Blast Patterns using Empirical Formulas,. In Pit and
Quarry, Vol.66, No. 2, (pp. PP, 85-88).
Ramulu, A.G.S. (2012). "Blast optimization with In-situ rock mass characterization by
seismic profiling at an opencast coal mine in India". India.
Rorke, A.J. ((2004).). Blasting Technology,. a member of the Omnia Group,
Johannesburge, South Africa.
Sethi, N.N. and Dey, N.C. (2004). " A stimulated studies on blast design operation in
opencast iron ore mine",. The Indian Mining & Engineering Journal, January, PP.
17-23.
Sharp et al. (1972). Influence of groundwater on the Stability of rock masses drainage
systems for increasing the stability of slopes.
Singh, A.K and Dhillon, P.S. (1996). " Safety and optimization of explosive in large
opencut and underground mines". In Drilling and Blasting Book (pp. PP. 117-123).
Bhubaneswar, India : MINTECH Publications,.
Singh, S P and Abdul, H,. (2012.). Investigation of blast design parameters to optimize
fragmentation,. In In proceeding 10th International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting FRAGBLAST-10, (pp. November 26-29, PP 181-185.).
New Delhi, India,.
Thote, N.R and Singh, D.P. (1997). " Necessity of blast fragmentation assessment and
Correlation of rock parameters with blasting performances- a practicl approach".
The Indian Mining & Engineering Journal, September,, PP. 19-23.

39
 APPENDIX.

Drilling and blast pattern

Figure 6: Boulders produced at Songwe II limestone quarry

Figure 7: Secondary rock Breakage at Songwe II limestone quarry.

40
Table 3: Drilling and blast design data collected at Songwe II limestone quarry

Design Actual Design Actual Charge

Hole Hole Spacing Burden S.H S.H Length
S/N Depth (m) Depth (m) S (m) B (m) (m) (m) (m)
1 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
2 10 10 3.3 2.8 2 2.5 7.5
3 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
4 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2.5 7.5
5 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2.6 7.4
6 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
7 10 10 3.3 2.6 2 2 8
8 10 10 3 2.8 2 2.1 7.9
9 10 10 3.2 2.7 2 2 8
10 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
11 10 10 3.2 2.6 2 2 8
12 10 8 3.2 2.8 2 2 6
13 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
14 10 7.5 3.1 2.8 2 2 5.5
15 10 7 3.2 2.4 2 1.7 5.3
16 10 9 3.2 2.8 2 1.8 7.2
17 10 10.2 3.2 2.8 2 2 8.2
18 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
19 10 10 3.3 3 2 2 8
20 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
21 10 9 3.2 2.8 2 2.5 6.5
22 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
23 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
24 10 10 3.2 2.5 2 2 8
25 10 8 3.2 2.6 2 2 6
26 10 10.5 3.2 2.4 2 2.5 8
27 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
28 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
29 10 10 3.4 2.5 2 2 8
30 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
31 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8

41
32 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
33 10 7.5 3.2 2.8 2 1.8 5.7
34 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2.4 7.6
35 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
36 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
37 10 10 3.2 2.4 2 2 8
38 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
39 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
40 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
41 10 10 3 2.8 2 2 8
42 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
43 10 10.3 3.2 2.8 2 3 7.3
44 10 10.5 3.2 2.8 2 2.5 8
45 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
46 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
47 10 10 3.2 2.7 2 2 8
48 10 10.5 3.2 2.9 2 3 7.5
49 10 10 3.2 3 2 2 8
50 10 10 2.9 2.8 2 2 8
51 10 9 3.2 2.8 2 2 7
52 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
53 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
54 10 8 3.2 3 2 1.8 6.2
55 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
56 10 10 3.3 2.8 2 2 8
57 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
58 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2.3 7.7
59 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
60 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
61 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
62 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2.2 7.8
63 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
64 10 10 3.3 2.8 2 2 8
65 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
66 10 10 3.2 2.5 2 2 8

42
 67 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
68 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
69 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2.5 7.5
70 10 10 3.2 2.3 2 2 8
71 10 10 3.4 2.8 2 2 8
72 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
73 10 10 3.2 2.5 2 2 8
74 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
75 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
76 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
77 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
78 10 10 3.2 2.5 2 2 8
79 10 11 3.2 2.8 2 3 8
80 10 9 3.4 2.8 2 2 7
81 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
82 10 8 3.2 2.8 2 2 6
83 10 10 3.5 3 2 2 8
84 10 10.2 3.2 2.8 2 2.4 7.8
85 10 10 3.2 2.5 2 2 8
86 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
87 10 10 3.2 2.7 2 2 8
88 10 10 3.5 3 2 2 8
89 10 10 3.4 2.8 2 2 8
90 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
91 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
92 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2.3 7.7
93 10 10 3.2 2.4 2 2 8
94 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
95 10 10 3.2 2.6 2 2 8
96 10 10 3 2.8 2 2 8
97 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
98 10 10 3.2 2.9 2 2 8
99 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 2 8
100 10 10 3.2 2.8 2 3 7
average 10 9.832 3.209 2.762 2 2.084 7.748

43
KUZ-RAM MODEL ANALYSIS RESULTS

Figure 8: Proposed drill and blast design parameters based on Kuz-Ram model

44