Advantages in Using Real-Time Blasting Simulation in Surface Blast Planning and

Grade Control

Will Hunt, Orica USA

Peter Dare-Bryan, Orica
Lee Julian, Orica

Abstract

It is well-known that blasting has an economic effect on grade control activities. However, until recently,
methods did not exist for measuring the grade control value change caused by the blast. Rules of thumb
were the best method to minimize ore loss and dilution, as simulation has been traditionally constrained
by time and computer power. Even with these rules followed, an extensive study performed on over 150
blasts showed that the value change caused by the blasts followed a normal distribution – some blasts
created value, and some blasts destroyed value. The question naturally asked was “How can we ensure
the blast designs are optimized to create value?”

Recent advancements in computer power have enabled real-time blasting simulations that create post-
blast grade control models before the blast is fired. Understanding what will happen before it happens
allows blasters and grade control personnel to iterate designs, searching for the highest value achievable.

To manage this process, Orica created OREPro™ 3D Predict (“The Predictive Model”), a real-time blast
movement prediction program that simulates blasting dynamics and effects using sophisticated physics
algorithms, ending with a post-blast muckpile in minutes. The model is coupled with grade control
polygon optimization for swift scenario comparisons. The software can be applied to any hard rock
production surface blast design and calibrates itself using simple data gathered by the mine. The program
also provides a simulated muckpile for post-blast grade control optimization when drone surveys are not
practical.

This paper will detail the research into changes caused by blasting and offer real examples of using real-
time blast modeling in value optimization.
Introduction
The importance of mitigating the effects of blast movement has been well-understood for decades. In the
early 1980’s, ICI (pre-cursor to Orica) and others began working to build blast movement models (heave
models) with Sandia National Laboratories (Preece and Taylor, 1990; Preece et al. 1998), with the hope
of creating operational models that could mimic blasting and create representative muckpiles (Yang &
Kavetsky, 1990). These early models lacked computer power, leading to extremely long processing times
and over-simplified representations of the blast. However, due to the very large potential benefit for an
operational heave model, efforts continued using various methods to increase accuracy and reduce
processing times. Two distinct paths of heave model development formed within the numerical and
computational constraints of the 2000’s. The first path was a simplified representation of the rock mass
within the bench to achieve three-dimensional modelling. Preece and Chung (2005) used computationally
efficient spherical elements with artificial bulking to overcome the lack of swell inherent to spherical
elements. Tordoir et al., (2006) applied rigid body dynamics to heave modelling. However, to achieve
reasonable runs times, large particles were required to represent the blasted rock mass. The second path
was two-dimensional modelling, which allows for a more computationally expensive representation of the
rock mass as polygonal discrete elements that can support stress and strain within the blast event (Dare-
Bryan et al. 2012). However, this method was limited in representing the three-dimensional movement
within a blast required for grade control. Even with the numerical constraints applied to the modeling
techniques, the run times to generate a solution were hours for all the models.

As scheduling optimization and efficiency increased, it is somewhat rare for mines to have broken rock
sitting on the ground for days or weeks. The blasting and excavation cycles are extremely efficient, with
many operations being ‘hand-to-mouth’. Without the ability to create models very quickly, many previous
blast movement models (when applied to grade control) have been relegated to consulting tools or
academic pursuits. It is extremely costly to have excavation equipment sitting idle while a model is
processed, so the benefits given by an operational heave model are lost if the mine’s production stops to
wait on it.

For that reason, Orica’s (The Company) operational heave modeling and grade control optimization
software, residing in OREPro™ 3D (The Reactive Model), has previously been reactive – requiring a
survey of the post-blast muckpile surface to calibrate the model against each blast (Hunt, 2019). Blast-
specific modeling algorithms called SmartVectors™ were capable of processing a blast reactively in only
a few minutes. However, the program still required ground-truth muckpile surveys, which required time
and drone/lidar surveys to complete.

In 2021, The Company embarked on an ambitious plan to create a predictive operational blast movement
model (“The Predictive Model”), to add to The Company’s blast movement modelling and polygon
optimization software. The Predictive Model uses previously gathered data from the mine to calibrate
itself and produce a post-blast heave model, which is then coupled with the existing optimization systems.
The processing time goal was sub-20 minutes, defined as an operational constraint. This target appeared
attainable thanks in great part to the computer gaming industry, with developments in efficient numerical
modelling techniques (Hu et al., 2018) running on graphics processing units (GPUs).

The first version of The Predictive Model was created and validated in mid-2022. Processing times for a
typical blast varied from a few seconds to a minute – far faster than the goal.
Originally, this development program was intended to provide a stopgap for existing and future customers
who could not reliably acquire a post-blast muckpile survey for post-blast grade control optimization.
After early-adopter trials, the value-add grew into other opportunities that would not necessarily exist if
the simulation could not be run so quickly, including:

• Choosing blast designs with the highest achievable value to grade control
• Dealing with non-ideal edge conditions and choked blasting
• Re-assigning destinations to previously blasted rock
• Short-term planning and reconciliation improvements (plan for reality, not in-situ)

These benefits are discussed in subsequent sections.

Principals of Value Change - Ore Loss and Dilution Reduction

Ore Loss – unintentionally sending valuable material to a waste dump, and dilution – unintentionally
sending sub-economic material to a processing facility, is the vernacular chosen by many people to
describe the reasons for blast movement mitigation. What these terms are attempting to describe is
“value”. Is it sometimes appropriate to increase ore loss? That completely depends on the situation. For
example, if a vein contains marginally valuable ore but is so narrow that it can only be mined by taking
an enormous amount of dilution, then it should be sent to waste. Is it sometimes appropriate to increase
dilution? Consider the same example, but with extremely valuable ore. The resulting dilution is
inconsequential when compared to the overall gain. Did the blast cause dilution and ore loss? No, dilution
and ore loss are caused by the grade control polygon delineation. However, the blast can change the
achievable value due to the changed shape of the rock.

Understanding that the shape and location of the valuable minerals change due to the blast (Taylor, 1995),
it stands to reason that the achievable value changes during the blast (Hunt, 2019). A post-blast model is
required to perform polygon optimization (Isaaks E, 2014). This was the fundamental principle behind the
creation of The Company’s reactive modeling software, which required a post-blast muckpile survey.

Choosing blast designs with the highest achievable value to grade control
The change in achievable value due to blasting became obvious during a large study of over 150 blasts
that investigated the relationship between pre-blast value possible and post-blast value possible (Figure
1). To eliminate bias caused by human interpretation, the scenarios were calculated using the exact same
polygon optimization algorithms. The results indicated that some blasts increased the possible value, while
some detracted from value, with the mean resulting in no change. So, the often-uttered statement “blasting
causes dilution” just isn’t true. The blast changes the value achievable. Blasters should neither get credit
for the creation of value nor be blamed for destroying value unless they have some way of determining
what will happen before it happens.
 Figure 1. Change in value achievable caused by blasts over a one-year period

What if a blaster knew the outcome of a blast before it was implemented? Could a better design be used
to realize more value? These questions can only be answered if the simulation is run quickly and simply,
with results measured in dollars. Then, users can make decisions based on all the available data, with
consideration to the goal of the blast (e.g., wall control blasts rarely consider grade control impacts). With
the muckpile and post-blast grade control model, the grade control polygons can be optimized considering
any constraints the mine wishes, such as digging direction, digging face angle, single or multi-flitch
mining methods, selective or bulk mining, and/or bucket size.

Dealing with Non-Ideal Edge Conditions and Choked Blasting

An Achilles' heel for heave modeling is the boundary condition between the rock being blasted and the
surrounding space. Some boundaries will be completely free faced, some will have un-blasted rock, and
other boundaries will have various configurations of previously blasted rock (choked blast). During the
blast, rock can be pushed backward into air due to the lack of confinement. When rock moves against
choked conditions, it can shove the existing broken rock forward, or that rock may be overtopped by the
newly blasted rock.

All these conditions are extremely difficult to manage with strict rules and are impossible for a user to
assess from a visual comparison of the pre-blast bench and post-blast muckpile shape. However, modeling
algorithms based on physics and explosive properties coupled with calibrations made from previous blasts
in similar rock types can result in the required heave model accuracy. For example, the blast that will be
evaluated later in this paper has all three face conditions, each of which is considered in the heave model
physics (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Better models manage different pre-blast boundary conditions

The Predictive Model managed boundary conditions so effectively that these algorithms were added to
The Reactive Model with modifications to allow for a survey of the post-blast muckpile to be used as a
constraint. So, while this project had intended to create predictive algorithms only, the resulting algorithms
have made a significant impact in The Reactive Model’s accuracy.

Re-assigning Destinations to Previously Blasted Rock

As research for The Predictive Model progressed, it became apparent that mines who frequently believe
they have a true free face around the edge of the blast are, whether they know it or not, combining rock
from multiple blasts, due to residual material from previous blasts against the current bench. In some
cases, this can change the destination of the rock. Consider Figure 3. The material along the front of the
blast contains some ore (red) and some waste (blue). If the blast moves toward that face, a previously
intended destination for some areas might no longer be appropriate.

Figure 3. Rock along the face prior to the blast that will be mixed with the new blast

Solving this problem is extremely complex and involves creating a digital twin that changes with time.
While the model created for this paper can throw material over or with previously blasted material,
changing previously planned destinations requires a different approach to short-term planning and
reconciliation.

Short-term Planning and Reconciliation Improvements (Plan for Reality, Not In-situ)
If the achievable value changes due to the blast, then there is a disconnect between the plan and reality
when the rock is excavated. This leads some mining professionals to forgo post-blast optimization in favor
of ‘mining to the plan’. One of the authors of this paper has encountered dozens of mines where the
systems are so strict that significant value is lost because of the need to have the same number of polygons
pre- and post-blast, and the need to target the same tons – all for the sake of balancing a spreadsheet.
Working to the plan is important, but the plan should be adaptable to maximize value. How can a system
exist where both needs are met?

A fundamental problem with the mining industry’s approach to reconciliation and planning is that all
block models are static and created, evaluated, and reconciled in-situ. Also, planning for excavation is
typically done assuming a vertical mining face, which is only possible if the mine uses very short flitch
heights. The in-situ model blocks can never overlap because time is not considered. However, different
blocks of rock sometime occupy the same space at different times, and the rock is controlled, excavated,
and tracked post-blast by Fleet Management Systems.

With a predictive simulation that has a measurable level of accuracy, there are several options to marry
the plan with the post-blast reality. Ideally, a master blast plan should be constructed to consider the needs
of the operation with the best boundary locations between blasts. Then, each blast should be simulated to
find the best possible blast design for value. The plan selected should reflect the most profitable
combination of anticipated grade/tons/geochemistry in each blast over a period of time. Finally, the
blasting and excavation should be scheduled to make the most of mining directions and flitch elevations.

The Predictive Model discussed in this paper allows for planning on a single blast, but a much more robust
system is needed to attack the complex scheduling systems currently used by mining companies. It is
believed that there is significant value in using simulations to create a plan that takes the value of each
blast design into consideration, and further development in this area should be investigated.

Methodology
To demonstrate the grade control advantages of a predictive simulation, a single blast was evaluated with
four different timing designs: Centerlift, Echelon, Open V, and a Tight V. Additionally, the Tight V blast
was evaluated using a southeastern digging direction and a northeastern digging direction. Real data from
this anonymous mine was used to calibrate the heave model. The actual blast design and resulting
muckpile were within 1.8 m (5.9 ft) vertically (average) of the predicted surface after calibration (Figure
4), but much of the difference existed at the far reaches of the front face.

Figure 4. Cross-sectional comparison between modeled surface (solid, colored line) and surveyed
surface (wireframed, grey)

Over many years the blasters at this mine have iterated to find the hole loading profile that provides
desirable fragmentation and confinement. Therefore, the hole charging designs were not changed.
Additionally, the financial impacts of fragmentation were not considered in the evaluation. The actual pre-
blast conditions were used, including broken material that was choking the front of the blast. In the interest
of a clean comparison, the broken material along the front edges of the blast was excluded from the
polygon creation and calculations, which were then combined with the newly blasted rock (Figure 5).
 Figure 5. Blocks from a previous blast (grey) are combined with the newly blasted rock

For the rock in different blasts to be properly combined and considered in new grade control polygons, a
time-based model must exist that provides a snapshot of what really exists during the blast initiation.
Digital twins that solve this problem must allow rock to occupy the same space at different times,
thereby creating a Model-in-Time.

As a source of truth is required for scenario calculations, the post-blast model was assumed to be accurate.
No model will ever be as accurate as an actual scan of the muckpile, but the variance between the modeled
muckpile and the actual muckpile provides confidence in the reliability of the model for this purpose.
After the model created a post-blast muckpile, polygon optimization algorithms free from human editing
were used to construct optimized ore and waste polygons. The resulting polygons were compared to
determine the change in outcomes with each blast type.

For this blast, the following assumptions were made:

• Cutoff grade = 1.5 g/t Au (0.043 oz/t), Ore at cutoff grade = $0/t profit
• Plant Recovery = 90%
• Gold price ($/oz) USD = $1800
• MMU (Minimum Mining Unit) = 15 m x 15 m (50 ft x 50 ft)
• Mining Direction = Southeast
• Mining Face Angle = 60° for Single Flitch, 90° for Two Flitches
• Bench Height = 15 m

The in-situ model used in this paper was created using grade control drilling, with original block sizes of
3m3 (Figure 6). The results of the analysis would surely be different depending on the amount of explosive
energy placed in the blast and the structural nature of the ore. For example, the results in high-energy
blasting of narrow veins would likely be drastically different from results in low-energy porphyry. This
blast contained soft gradational boundaries, which are extremely forgiving if a polygon delineation is
moved one way or another.
 Figure 6. In-situ grade control model (Au grade shown)

Results
The following results were obtained with each blast design used, and the pre-blast optimized polygons
were also included for reference. Table 1 shows the comparison between pre- and post-blast if a single
flitch is mined, and Table 2 includes the same data if the rock is mined in two flitches.

Table 1. Results Comparing Optimized Polygons – Single Flitch

Profit Ore Loss Dilution Total

Total Ore Total Waste Compared to Ore Loss Compared to Dilution Compared to tonnes of
Blast Design (t) (t) Total $ in Ore Net Profit ($) Pre-Blast (%) (t) Pre-Blast (%) (t) Pre-Blast (%) rock
Pre-Blast Optimisation 272,004 366,461 19,276,023 8,782,127 NA 20,253 NA 19,285 NA 638,465
Centerlift 273,926 364,591 19,292,248 8,724,201 -0.7% 18,968 -6.3% 20,056 4.0% 638,517
Echelon 279,852 357,219 18,528,948 8,732,249 -0.6% 21,819 7.7% 26,301 36.4% 637,071
Open V 285,389 353,065 19,662,253 8,651,962 -1.5% 11,529 -43.1% 18,798 -2.5% 638,454
Tight V SE direction 279,856 358,656 19,390,925 8,594,067 -2.1% 12,695 -37.3% 19,965 3.5% 638,512
Tight V NE direction 278,347 360,166 19,292,151 8,553,536 -2.6% 14,631 -27.8% 20,341 5.5% 638,513

Table 2. Results Comparing Optimized Polygons – Multi-Flitch Results

Profit Ore Loss Dilution Total

Total Ore Total Waste Compared to Ore Loss Compared to Dilution Compared to tonnes of
Blast Design (t) (t) Total $ in Ore Net Profit ($) Pre-Blast (%) (t) Pre-Blast (%) (t) Pre-Blast (%) rock
Pre-Blast Optimisation
Top Flitch 140,222 191,735 9,856,613 4,446,866 NA 17,028 NA 9,509 NA 331,957
Bottom Flitch 129,876 176,625 9,402,541 4,391,907 NA 9,094 NA 10,530 NA 306,501
Total of Both Flitches 270,098 368,360 19,259,154 8,838,773 NA 26,122 NA 20,039 NA 638,458
Centerlift
Top Flitch 184,688 220,571 13,146,765 6,021,505 35.4% 13,615 -20.0% 13,085 38% 405,259
Bottom Flitch 84,342 148,916 5,989,541 2,735,643 -37.7% 11,023 21.2% 4,669 -56% 233,258
Total of Both Flitches 269,030 369,487 19,136,306 8,757,148 -0.9% 24,638 -5.7% 17,754 -11% 638,517
Echelon
Top Flitch 157,163 192,254 10,794,262 4,730,895 -21.4% 10,683 -21.5% 12,259 -6% 349,417
Bottom Flitch 132,338 155,316 9,153,810 4,048,221 48.0% 6,483 -41.2% 16,165 246% 287,654
Total of Both Flitches 289,501 347,570 19,948,072 8,779,116 -0.7% 17,166 -30.3% 28,424 60% 637,071
Open V
Top Flitch 160,069 197,300 11,331,921 5,156,469 9.0% 17,639 65.1% 6,749 -45% 357,369
Bottom Flitch 116,394 164,751 8,048,050 3,557,555 -12.1% 7,450 14.9% 14,264 -12% 281,145
Total of Both Flitches 276,463 362,051 19,379,971 8,714,024 -1.4% 25,089 46.2% 21,013 -26% 638,514
Tight V
Top Flitch 178,297 189,176 12,552,210 5,673,508 10.0% 8,930 -49.4% 10,021 48% 367,473
Bottom Flitch 100,096 170,940 6,834,002 2,972,302 -16.5% 6,677 -10.4% 9,628 -33% 271,036
Total of Both Flitches 278,393 360,116 19,386,212 8,645,810 -2.2% 15,607 -37.8% 19,649 -6% 638,509

To understand the data gathered in the above tables, Figure 7 shows each blast design, the percentage
change in ore loss, dilution, and the change in achievable value (USD). The old adage in mining that the
goal should be to “minimize ore loss and dilution” is proven to be false. The echelon blast design results
in the highest value of the four designs evaluated, even though the tons of dilution and ore loss have
both increased from in situ. In this case, it is advantageous to take more dilution in order to have a
higher net profit. If the goal was to unconditionally reduce tons of dilution, much more ore would be
thrown in the waste dump, and the net profit would greatly diminish, as in the Tight V blast results.

Ore Loss, Dilution, & Value Changes Caused by the Blast

(Pre-Blast Optimization Compared to Post-Blast Optimization)
50.0% $-
Ore Loss Change
Ore Loss & Dilution Change Caused by the Blast

40.0% Dilution Change

Value Change
30.0% $(50,000)

Reduction in Value Caused by the Blast

20.0%

10.0% $(100,000)

0.0%

-10.0% $(150,000)

-20.0%

-30.0% $(200,000)

-40.0%

-50.0% $(250,000)
Echelon Centerlift Open V Tight V SE direction Tight V NE direction
Blast Designs

Figure 7. Change caused by the blast in ore loss, dilution, and value achievable

The mining direction can make a significant impact on recovery if the same polygons are mined from
different directions, but an optimizer that considers the mining face angle and direction can mitigate the
effects of different mining directions (Hunt, 2019). In the Tight V blast, if the mining direction was
rotated by 90° to northeast, the resulting polygons look different (Figure 8), but contain very similar
grade, tons, and value (Table 3).

Figure 8. Optimized polygons for different mining directions overlaid

 Table 3. Single flitch Tight V evaluation with different mining directions

Profit Ore Loss Dilution Total

Total Ore Total Waste Compared to Ore Loss Compared to Dilution Compared to tonnes of
Blast Design (t) (t) Total $ in Ore Net Profit ($) Pre-Blast (%) (t) Pre-Blast (%) (t) Pre-Blast (%) rock
Tight V SE direction 279,856 358,656 19,390,925 8,594,067 -2.1% 12,695 -37.3% 19,965 3.5% 638,512
Tight V NE direction 278,347 360,166 19,292,151 8,553,536 -2.6% 14,631 -27.8% 20,341 5.5% 638,513

Analysis
When mining as a single flitch (Table 1), there is little profit difference (~2%) across the optimized grade
control values for the different blast designs. Of the designs evaluated, there was no design that increased
the post-blast value achievable from the pre-blast value, and only the Tight V blast reduced the value by
more than 2%, no matter which mining direction was used to attack the post-blast muckpile. This
illustrates the point that blasters are not always to blame if the content of the ore polygons results in lower
value. Sometimes, it’s unavoidable, even with sophisticated polygon optimization algorithms. Without the
application of post-blast polygon optimization, however, the impact of different blast designs could be
catastrophic to grade control value downstream and would vary greatly from the pre-blast polygon values.

To further illustrate the points made in the Principals of Value Change - Ore Loss and Dilution Reduction
section, there is no correlation between the profit in each simulation and the change in ore loss and dilution
tons. Every blast design mined as a single flitch actually decreased the ore loss and dilution (except the
Echelon design), and the corresponding profit also went down. But, the Echelon blast significantly
increased the ore loss and dilution, while being the most profitable blast design! Again, blasts do not cause
ore loss and dilution – the grade control polygon delineation causes those items to increase or decrease,
which is not always a bad thing. The tons of ore loss and dilution are not necessarily tied directly to the
profit contained in each polygon.

The multi-flitch analysis makes another point when examined closely: there is significant change across
the flitch boundaries due to vertical movement and heave. As expected, blasts with the most vertical heave
(Centerlift) will see the greatest change across the flitch boundaries. Some material is moving down, but
most material is moving upward (Figure 9), resulting in the bottom flitch containing 37% less profit and
the top containing 35% more profit than in pre-blast (Figure 10, Figure 11).

Figure 9. Vertical movement in centerlift blast (cross-section)

 Figure 10. Pre-blast model in centerlift (cross-section, red is ore, blue is waste)

Figure 11. Post- blast model in centerlift (cross-section, red is ore, blue is waste)
These results indicate that using near real-time predictive simulation can assist in the critical decision-
making processes of blast design selection and planning, but the real profit-making decision is in the
polygon creation post-blast.

Conclusion
The downstream effects of the blast design are critical to many aspects of mining, especially to grade
control activities. Predictive models can enable better decision making, connect short-term planning to
reality, provide better material tracking, and improve reconciliation. Additionally, where field surveys of
the post-blast muckpile are not available, predictive simulation can still allow for grade control
optimization, which has been shown to be critical in driving profit. These benefits can only be realized
with fast and easy-to-use simulations that meet operational time constraints. The operational time
constraints established in the creation of this model were met, making the model feasible for use in daily
activities.

More time is needed to determine if the predictions will get better with more data. Surely, the predictions
will reach an asymptote where more accuracy cannot be achieved, but that level of accuracy has not yet
been determined and is likely site-specific. Accuracy of the predictive post-blast model is extremely
important, and research should continue to ensure the post-blast model is as accurate as practically
possible. Risk factors and uncertainty caused by chaotic blasting conditions should be investigated and
quantified if possible.

Ore Loss and Dilution tons should not be the metric of a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ blast. This research clearly shows
that the tons of ore loss and dilution do not directly correlate to the overall profit in a blast.

Different mineralization will have drastically different results with blast design comparisons. For example,
there will likely be a stark difference between narrow vein gold with high energy and soft porphyry copper
with lower energy blasting. A large-scale study should be performed on many blast types to determine the
value in blast design optimization for grade control value.
Additional research is needed to incorporate fragmentation and mine-to-mill value in the predictive
simulation benefits. Future work should incorporate iterative master blast layouts, blast progression
scheduling, time-based digital twins, and operational scheduling on a mass scale.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their many friends and customers globally who contributed data,
recommendations, ideas, and their time to studying the possible value increases from simulations and
grade control optimization. Additionally, this work would not have been possible without Foresight
Mining Software Corp and Julian Ramirez Ruiseco.

References
Dare-Bryan, P.C., Pugnale, B. and Brown, R., (2012). Computer modelling of cast blasting to calculate
the variability of swell in a muckpile, Proc. 10th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, New Delhi, India, 26-29 November, Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 283-293.
Hu, Y., Fang, Y., Ge, Z., Qu, Z., Zhu, Y., Pradhana, A., & Jiang, C. (2018). A moving least squares
material point method with displacement discontinuity and two-way rigid body coupling. ACM
Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(4), 1-14.
Hunt, W. (2019). How to Use Heave, Movement, and Ore Block Optimization to Increase Grade and
Decrease Dilution. SME Annual Conference, Denver: SME.
Isaaks E, B. R. (2014). Modelling Blast Movement for Grade Control. Mining Geology, Adelaide:
AUSIMM.
Kavetsky, R. Y. (1990). A three dimensional model of muckpile formation and grade boundary movement
in open pit blasting. International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, 18-34.
Preece, D.S. & Taylor, L.M. (1990). Spherical element bulking mechanisms for modelling blast iInduce
rock motion, Proc. 3rd. Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, Queensland,
Soc. of Experimental Mechanics, pp. 189-194.
Preece, D.S., Chung, S.H. and Tidman,J.P. (1998). An assessment of ore waste and dilution resulting from
buffer/choke blasting in surface gold mines, Proc. of the 14th Annual Symp. on Explosives and
Basting Research, New Orleans, Louisiana, Soc. of Explosives Engineers, pp. 137-146.
Preece D, C. S. (2005). The Effect of Electronic Detonators and Precise Detonation Timing on Blasting
Induced Rock Movement, Proceedings 29th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique, International Society of Explosives Engineers, Orlando FL.
Taylor, S. (1995). Blast induced movement and its effect on grade dilution at the Coeur Rochester Mine.
Reno: Thesis, University of Nevada Reno.
Tordoir, A., Weatherley, D., Onederra, I. and Bye, A. (2009). A new 3D simulation framework to model
blast induced rock mass displacement using physics engines, Proc. 9th. Int. Symp. on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, Spain, 13-17 September, A.A. Balkema, Roterdam, pp. 381-
388.
Yang, R.L. and Kavetsky, A., (1990). A three dimensional model of muckpile formation and grade
boundary movement in open pit blasting, Int. Journal on Mining and Geology Engineering, Vol.
8, pp. 13-34.