Ground reaction time measurement and modelling for improved blast outcomes.

Abstract

Maules Creek mine is an open cut coal near Boggabri in the Gunnedah Basin of New South Wales,
Australia. The mine is currently operating at an annualised run rate of 9.5Mt of saleable coal. The
plan is to ramp up production to 13Mtpa. Maules Creek has multiple seams each with varying depths;
the inter-burden ranges from a few metres thick to greater than 30m (98ft). Due to this, Maules Creek
mine is utilising truck shovel operations rather than a cast/dozer push operation.

Currently the mine utilises a non-electric initiation system for its blasting operations with standard
timing regimes for the various coal seam inter-burden horizons. The timing regimes are very generic
and not specifically selected for each blast area. These timing regimes were processed through a
scatter simulation to determine potential choking effects throughout the body of a standard blast,
which can be up to 200m (656ft) wide. Standard relief rates provided large areas of out of sequence
firing potential.

With the planned mine ramp up of production, management realised that a more engineered approach
to blasting would be required to achieve the mining rates desired. In consultation with the mine
engineers and management, a program has been devised to measure and model the ground reaction
times and pressure wave velocities in the different inter-burdens to provide a baseline for future
optimisation work.

The program will be utilising both High Frame Rate (HFR) video analysis and high frequency
vibration measurement to measure the exact effects and reactions that various inter-burdens in the
mine have to explosive detonation.

Once the specific reaction times and pressure-wave velocities are captured and measured they will be
modelled to allow analysis of timing regimes that promote fragmentation and muckpile looseness.
Timing regimes that are only possible with electronic initiation systems will be applied to improve
blast results, as part of an entire site effort to increase dig rates for the excavator fleets. This paper
will present the results of the program.
Introduction
The Maules Creek mine is an open cut coal near Boggabri in the Gunnedah Basin of New South
Wales, Australia. Approx. 75km (47mi) west of Tamworth and approx. 332km (206 mi) NW of
Sydney.

Fig 1. Location of Maules Creek coal mine.

The mine is located 16km (9.9mi) to the main rail line that connects the project to the coal port at
Newcastle. The mine operates a full train loadout facility and currently operates at an annualised run
rate of 9.5Mt of saleable coal.
The Maules Creek mine has up to 15 minable seams each with varying depths; the inter-burden ranges
from a few metres thick to greater than 30m. Due to this, Maules Creek mine is utilising truck shovel
operations rather than a cast/dozer push operation.
The reserves contains 362 million tonnes of recoverable resources and is considered by its owners,
Whitehaven Coal to be a Tier 1 resource. The plan is to ramp up production to 13Mtpa giving the
mine a life of 30+ years.
Current Drill & Blast setup
Currently the mine utilises a non-electric initiation system for its blasting operations with standard
timing regimes for the various coal seam inter-burden horizons. The timing regimes are very generic
and not specifically selected for each blast area (see Figure 2 for an example).
The current blast designs, whilst working are producing rather uneven heave profiles and dig rates
not achieving desired levels.

Fig 2. Standard blast timing regime

Reaction time measurement program
With Maules Creek having so many different coal seams each with quite different rock properties, a
program to test and measure each horizon was put in place. With site not being regular electronic
users currently, it was decided that the first set of blasts would be within a standard non-electric blast
but with the first 5-6 holes being initiated with electronics before firing the rest of the blast with non-
electric (see Figure 3).

Fig 3. Initiation point loaded with electronic detonators.

As blasting progresses and site start converting to electronics, then the reaction time measurements
will become a standard part of the blast videoing process.

The method to capture the reaction time or time to first movement (tmin) is quite straight forward. A
detonator is placed in a prominent position, timed the same as the initiating hole. The blast is recorded
at 1000fps by a high speed camera.
Once the video is clipped, the tmin can be calculated by counting the number of frames from the
initiating detonator firing to seeing the first movement of the face. Using video editing software a
grid can be placed on the face image to determine when the face actually moves.

1st Reaction time measurement firing

The first blast to be videoed for reaction time was in the Thornfield horizon (see Figure 4).

Fig 4. First reaction time measurement blast.

An ‘indicator’ detonator was placed on some pegs at the collar of the initiation hole. Orange balls
were hung over the face to aid in visually identifying when the face started to move (see Figure 5).

Fig 5. Indicator detonator and orange ball placements.

Unfortunately both the indicator detonator and the orange balls on the face were unable to be
identified when the high speed video was played back (see Figure 6).

Fig 6. Screenshot of high speed video.

The blast however was not without its positives. The method of timing and initiating the blast with
electronics and transitioning to non-electric worked flawlessly. The image quality of the video was
sufficient to be able to watch the shockwave travel through the rock giving confidence that once a
reliable method of indicating the initiation was solved, clean imagery for analysis was indeed
possible.

2nd Reaction time measurement firing

The second reaction time measurement firing was carried out in the Braymont horizon. The blast was
initiated with electronic detonators for the first 4 holes around the initiation point. Following on from
the 1st test it was decided to utilise 1m (3.3ft) of detonating cord over the face to try and get a nice
clean ‘flash’ to show when the initiating hole was fired. This worked extremely well and gave a very
clear start point from which to measure the frames (see Figure 7).

Fig 7. Detonating cord ‘flash’ indicating the hole has been fired.
The face was scanned and a cross section was taken at about 45deg to give a clean image of the face
with which to do the movement calculations (see Figure 8).

Fig 8. Cross section profile of the Initiation Point.

In the video it can be clearly seen when the surface non-electric circuit is firing (burning front), then
the detonating cord goes off indicating that the initiation hole has been fired and the ground starts to
move (see Figure 9). It looks like the face moves before indicated but when using the video software
the change in colour is just the shockwave travelling out and along the face.

Fig 9. First movement indicated at 69ms.

Time to first movement (tmin) = 69ms. With an average burden of this hole along it length of 4.5m
(14.8ft) this gives a minimum relief time of 15.3ms/m(4.6ms/ft)
First Movement (tmin) Average Face Burden Ongoing minimum relief to be
used
69ms 4.5m (14.8ft) 15.3ms/m (4.6ms/ft)
Table 1- First movement results.
The video was then further analysed to measure the time to roughly 1/3 cast (see Figure 10). This
time frame gives the ground enough time to heave and move enough to create relief for the ground
behind it but without losing any momentum gained from the explosive expansion. By timing the blast
to coincide with this figure you get a nice clean heaved profile, with ground that is well aerated and
‘fluffed up’ thus aiding in the ease of digging.

Fig 10. 1/3 Cast time measured.

The time to 1/3 cast = 240ms. With a standard pattern of 7.5mx6m (24.6ft x 19.6ft) this results in a
relief range of 32ms/m – 40ms/m (9.8ms/ft – 12.2ms/ft) depending on the direction of the blast
initiation.
Time recorded to 1/3 cast Standard burden & spacing for Relief value for electronic
blast timing
240ms 7.5m x 6.0m 32ms/m to 40ms/m (9.8ms/ft –
(24.6ft x 19.6ft) 12.2ms/ft)
Table 2- Time to 1/3 cast results.

Retro analysis of a previous non-electric blast

Now that some clean relief figures had been measured, a retro analysis of a previous blast could be
carried out. This analysis works out if each hole in the blast has enough relief from the holes in front
of it to allow good movement during firing. The relief figures calculated are input into the simulation
and it tells us the likelihood of the hole having enough relief to fire successfully. The holes are then
displayed by colour from Green (100% success) to Red (<10% success).
The old ‘standard’ timing regimes were processed through a scatter simulation to determine potential
choking effects throughout the body of a standard blast, which can be up to 200m wide (see Figure
11).

Fig 11. Relief analysis of standard non-electric timing.

Standard relief rates provided large areas of out of sequence firing potential.
Upon further investigation it was found out that the heave profile for that particular blast was very
rough and looked like a ‘skate park’.
The same blast had the model rerun but with electronic timing to show the difference on relief (see
Figure 12).

Fig 12. Relief analysis of standard timing converted to electronics

As can clearly be seen the relief throughout the blast is much more consistent which will result a
cleaner heave profile and utilising the electronic timing tools the blast can be timed with the relief
rates calculated to give much improved heave and digging result.
P-wave analysis
As part of the original project plan, analysis of the pressure wave (p-wave) was planned and for both
the blasts, multiple vibration monitors were placed at various points to record the pressure pulse from
the initiation hole (see Figures 13 and 14).

IP

IP

Fig 13 & 14. Vibration monitor placement for p-wave measurement.

The results from the 2 initial measured blasts has come back with a wide range of p-wave
measurements ranging from 1500m/s (4921ft/s) to 3000m/s(9843ft/s). With such a large range
variance further specific p-wave measurement test will need to be carried out. Given the amount of
variation in geology and the presence of multiple dykes running throughout the mine this is not
surprising. When looking to utilise interactive timing for fragmentation improvement the higher speed
will be used for the interactive calculations.

Full electronic blast

The first full electronic blast was fired utilising the relief values measured. This blast had a large dyke
running through the middle of it (highlighted with the while boundary) that had been causing the mine
problems with previous blasts. This blast was timed using a V2 interactive timing throughout the
body of the blast and the dyke zone was changed to a V1 interactive timing to help improve the
fragmentation throughout this zone (See figure 15).

Fig 15. Timing contours showing change in Dyke zone

The dyke zone was also timed with the same relief rate to ensure that it didn’t adversely affect the
heave and movement of the blast. As can been seen in figure 16 the dyke zone continued with the
same relief as the rest of the shot. The body of the blast behind the dyke has very minor variations,
less 1-2ms/m due to the angle of the dyke through the shot, this didn’t affect the overall result of the
blast.

Fig 16. Relief contours showing the consistency through the Dyke zone

Conclusion and Future Work

At the time of writing this paper, 2 measurement blasts and 1 full relief timed blast have been fired.
While the initial test firing was unsuccessful, a good number of learnings were found from it which
in turn made the second measurement blast such a clear success with clean data collected.
The first full electronic blast timed utilising the relief figure gained from the second test blast has just
been fired. Over the next few months a full investigation will be carried out to analyse the results
from the blast fired with timing derived directly from the relief measurement program. This will be
repeated for all the individual horizons for each coal seam to be mined.

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the D&B team from Maules Creek Coal Mine for all the work that they
have put into this project to date.

References
Hawkins, J. (2013). How to Write a Paper for the ISEE. The International Society of Explosives
Engineers Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-3). Cleveland: ISEE.
(2013). Maules Creek Coal Mine, Mine Plan Fact sheet. Gunnedah: Whitehaven Coal LTD