Blasting Analysis International

BLAST AUDIT REPORT
LOS COLORADOS MINE - CHILE
Prepared for
Orica Mining Services

Chile
Prepared by
R. Frank Chiappetta, MSc., P.Eng.

Explosives Applications Engineer
BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL

Explosives, Seismic & Mining Specialists
371 Daniel St., Allentown, PA, USA 18104
Tel (610) 530-7415 • Fax (610) 395-5552
blastinganalysis@rcn.com
Visit Dates: December 6 & 7, 2012
Authorized by
Mr. Marco Arellano

Technical Services Manager - Latin America
Submitted to
Mr. Alejandro Ferrada Vergara

Senior Blasting Technology Specialist – Latin America
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS ............................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Purpose of Blast Audit ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 BAI Qualifications and Disclosure Statements .................................................................................... 4
1.3 General Pit, Blast Design and Rock Property Information Provided to BAI ....................................... 5
2.0 FIELD CONTROLS ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Drill Cuttings Falling Back into Holes ................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Drill Cuttings Falling Bach into Holes When Bulk Loading Wet Holes ............................................. 8
2.3 Problems with Bulk Explosive Loading in Wet Holes....................................................................... 10
2.4 Explosive Dilution from Drop Height Impact of Stemming .............................................................. 12
2.5 Effects of Top Stemming Versus No Top Stemming on Fragmentation ........................................... 14
2.6 Crushed Rock Stemming versus Drill Cuttings and Hole Plugs ........................................................ 16
3.0 REDUCING OVERSIZE IN THE COLLAR ZONE............................................................................. 17
3.1 Main Source of Oversize .................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Scaled Depth of Burial Calculations (SD) ......................................................................................... 17
3.3 SD Used for Calculating the Top Stemming ...................................................................................... 20
3.4 Stem Charges to Improve Fragmentation in the Collar Zone............................................................. 21
3.5 Important Summary Notes When Using Stem Charges ..................................................................... 25
4.0 CREATING LOWER AND LOOSER MUCK PILES .......................................................................... 27
4.1 Requirements for a Lower/Looser Muck Pile .................................................................................... 27
4.2 Initiation Sequence and Tie-In ........................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Multiple Primers within Explosive Column to Improve Fragmentation, Lower Muck Pile Height,
and Create a Looser Muck Pile .......................................................................................................... 29
4.4 Dealing with Large Front Row Burdens ............................................................................................ 33
5.0 PRESPLITTING AND TRIM BLASTS ................................................................................................ 39
5.1 Recommended Blast Design Changes in Presplitting ........................................................................ 39
6.0 MASS BLAST DESIGNS TO INCREASE SIZE OF SHOT ................................................................ 42
6.1 Firing Trim Shots with Production Shots at the Same Time .............................................................. 42
7.0 SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS TO ACHIEVE A LOWER/LOOSER MUCK PILE, GOOD
FINAL PRESPLIT HIGHWALLS, REDUCE OVERSIZE IN THE COLLAR ZONE AND
INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY .............................................................................................................. 45
BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ii

BLAST AUDIT REPORT
LOS COLORADOS MINE - CHILE
(December 6 & 7, 2012)
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS
Blasting Analysis International, Inc. (BAI) was commissioned by Orica Chile to perform an on-
site blast audit for the Los Colorados mine during December 6 -7, 2012. This was done in
conjunction with Orica Chile’s continuing technical services to their clients. The main focus of
the blast audit was to increase the shot sizes, decrease muck pile heights, create looser muck
piles, improve the presplit highwalls, and reduce oversize in the collar zone.
Primary conclusions, recommendations and opinions are listed as follows:
1. All of the presplit design parameters for the given rock and site conditions were
acceptable, except for one major problem. The presplit lines were always tied into the
trim blasts with a 2-second delay, and this needs to be eliminated. This procedure can
cause a host of performance problems related to damage in the buffer holes next to the
presplit line. Even though each presplit hole only has 24 Kg of explosive, when the
presplit holes are fired instantaneously, there is enough energy to cause ground shifts,
explosive desensitization, and/or sympathetic detonations in the buffer holes.
Always fire the presplit line in advance and standalone, even before any of the trim blast
holes are drilled or loaded. This will eliminate over 90% of the presplit associated
highwall problems. Refer to Section 5.1 for more details and example blast results when
the presplit lines were fired in advance, versus when the presplit lines were tied into the
trim blasts.
2. The only problem with the trim shots was if mid-column air decks were used in any of
the buffer holes. Buffer holes loaded with a bottom hole large, a long mid-column air
deck, and a top stemming can create severe crest overbreak. A better alternative is to
load the buffer holes full column with a normal top stemming. Progressively decreasing
drill patterns in the buffer holes towards the presplit line, and progressively increasing
row delays from the front of the trim blast towards the presplit line are also
recommended. Refer to Section 5.1 for more details, and an example of crest overbreak
caused when mid-column air decks were used in the buffer holes next to the presplit line.
3. In reference to the field controls, some attention is required with drill cuttings around the
collar of the hole falling back into the holes, and the bulk loading procedures used when
loading wet holes. Both of these will affect the overall blast results. Refer to Sections
2.1 to 2.6 for detailed recommendations on the best permanent solutions.
4. To achieve larger blasts with lower/looser muck piles, minimal oversize in the collar
zone, and good consistent final presplit highwalls, a number of major blast design are
required. The good thing is that the mine has everything on site to achieve this
successfully. The necessary drilling, blasting and procedural requirements are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1 – Task Requirements to Achieve Larger Blasts, Lower/Looser Muck Piles, Good
Final Presplit Highwalls, Reduced Oversize in the Collar Zone and Increased Productivity
Task Operating and Blast Design Parameters Requiring Major Reference

Number Changes and/or Attention Section
1 Change loading procedures in wet hole conditions to eliminate explosive 2.3
contamination, and to get maximum energy output per hole.
2 Install cyclones on drills to eliminate drill cuttings falling back into the 2.2
holes.
4 Use electronic detonators. All
5 Always fire the presplit line in advance and standalone, even before any 5.1
other holes are drilled on the active blast block.
6 Eliminate all mid-column air decks in buffer holes, and replace with full 5.1
column charges.
7 Maintain the incrementally increasing row delays between 150 – 300 ms, 6.1
or change to 100 – 300 ms. Both will achieve good results.
8 Reduce the hole delay from 7 ms to 2 ms for improved fragmentation. 6.1
Ground vibration protection to the final highwalls comes from the
presplit blasts fired standalone and in advance.
9 Use stem charges in all production and buffer holes. 3.4, 3.5
10 Blast “Row by Row” to achieve lower and looser muck piles. 4.2, 6.1
11 Aim to blast to at least one free face. Blasting into a muck pile buffer 4.2
will result in a less looser muck pile, but it will still result in a flatter
muck pile. Fragmentation will not be affected in either case.
12 Use a top and bottom hole primer in the explosive column to improve 4.3
fragmentation and throw.
13 Bottom hole primer should always be placed just above floor level, for ---
the best compromise between safety and good floor breakage.
BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2

5. It is important that all of the recommendations in Table 1 are implemented collectively to
succeed. Piece meal implementation might benefit some sectors, but they will not
achieve the total mine objectives. If all of the recommendations in Table 1 are properly
implemented, there should be no design restrictions on increasing the blast size from
300,000 tonnes to 500,000 tonnes or greater. The recommendations will also allow the
large production shots to be tied into, and fired at the same time with the trim blasts. The
only foreseeable restrictions would be with the maximum number of holes allowed with
the electronic detonators, and the maximum sleep time of the explosives.
6. Large front row burdens are currently dealt with by placing additional vertical holes in
the front row, essentially reducing the effective spacing by 50%. Because the new hole
spacings are very small compared to the large front row burdens, other blast design
changes are required to be successful. Changes will be required in how the front row of
holes are delayed, the row delay between R1 and R2, subgrade, and with the number of
priming points. Refer to Section 4.4 for the design details.
Respectfully submitted,
R. Frank Chiappetta
Explosives Applications Engineer
BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL
Explosives, Seismic & Mining Specialists

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Blast Audit
Blasting Analysis International, Inc. (BAI) was commissioned by Orica Chile to perform a
follow-up on-site blast audit at the Los Colorados mine during December 6 - 7, 2012. This was
part of Orica Chile’s overall continuing technical services to their clients. The main areas of
investigation, analyses, and review focused on:
1. Blast designs to increase the current blast size from 300,000 tonnes to 500,000 tonnes.
2. Creating lower and looser muck piles for safety, and to increase production rates.
3. Improve fragmentation in the collar zone.
4. Dealing with large front row burdens.
5. Field controls for drill cuttings falling back into holes, and bulk loading in wet holes.
6. Mass blasting to fire production blasts and trim blasts together.
This report is based and qualified on:
1. A review of the general mining plans, objectives, and current blast design parameters.
2. An on-site visit to selected areas in the pit during December 6 and 7, 2012.
3. Technical information supplied by mine officials and Orica Chile.
4. Field observations of the drilling, hole loading, muck piles and highwall conditions.
5. Previous reports and mine visits by BAI.
6. Digital images taken by BAI while on site.
7. BAI’S worldwide experience base involving similar blasting projects and concerns.
1.2 BAI Qualifications and Disclosure Statements
BAI is an international consulting group specializing in custom blast designs, blast diagnostics
and optimization, drill and blast audits, flyrock/fumes/dust/vibration/airblast controls,
presplitting and highwall controls, electronic detonator applications, blast damage investigations
and training. To date, BAI has evaluated, monitored, designed and/or supervised over 7,000 full-
scale blasts spanning 26 countries, in a multitude of diverse and challenging ground conditions.
Such projects included the first major Expansion and Deepening of the Panama Canal during
1994 to 2002, hundreds of blast damage claims, and specialized blast designs for very close-in
blasting to sensitive structures, processes and facilities.

BAI certifies that it is completely independent, and it is not associated with the financial business
activities of the Los Colorados mine, Orica Chile, or any of the on-site mining subcontractors.
BAI is also not involved in the manufacturing, distribution or sales of explosives, rock/mineral
products or blasting accessories. BAI’S services were retained strictly as an independent
engineering firm to assess the current blast designs, identify potential problem areas, and to
provide practical improvement recommendations from an engineering, scientific and safety
perspective.
1.3 General Pit, Blast Design and Rock Property Information Provided to BAI
The Los Colorados iron ore mine was mined as a typical open pit with 15 m benches.
Production hole diameters were 12 1/4 in (311 mm) and 10 5/8 in (270 mm), buffer hole
diameters were either 9 7/8 in (251 mm) or 6 1/2 in (165 mm), and the presplit hole diameter was
6 1/2 in (165 mm). Approximately 15% of the drill holes were in wet areas. Table 3.11 lists the
general ore and waste rock properties encountered at the mine.
Table 3.11 – Ore and Waste Properties

Rock/Ore Property Minimum Maximum Average
Ore
Sonic Velocity (m/s) 2,823 6,292 3,971
UCS (MPa) 53 247 122
Density (g/cc 4.41 4.90 4.72
Waste
Sonic Velocity (m/s) 4,190 5,361 5,099
UCS (MPa) 138 194 166
Density (g/cc 2.66 2.74 2.72
Production holes were drilled to depths of 17 m, with a 2 m subgrade. The main explosive used
was the Fortran Extra 50, with an average density of 1.22 g/cc, and a RBS =190. A 311 mm hole
loaded to a top stemming of 6 m would contain approximately 1,018 Kg of explosive. Drill
patterns in the ore and waste were B x S = 6 m x 7 m and 7.5 m x 10.5 m, respectively. The
average powder factors in the ore and waste were 280 g/t and 180 g/t, respectively.
Hole delays in the ore were 7 ms, and 17 ms in the waste to minimize ground vibration
amplitudes against the final highwalls. The row delays in both the ore and waste were
incrementally increased from 150 to 300 ms.

Presplit blasts used 6 1/2 in (165 mm) hole diameters, which were always angled at 70o. They
were spaced 1.5 m apart, and loaded with a powder factor of 0.80 Kg/m2 or 1.4 Kg/m. A presplit
hole would contain approximately 24 Kg.
Trim blasts were designed for 30 m wide benches against the final highwalls, with at least two
buffer rows of holes. The buffer row hole diameters were either 9 7/8 or 6 ½ in ( 251 or
165 mm), and the production row hole diameters were 10 5/8 (270 mm). The presplit line was
always tied into the trim blast to fire 2 seconds ahead.

2.0 FIELD CONTROLS
For the most part, the field controls at the mine were very good, except in two areas. These were
related to drill cuttings falling back into the holes, and with the bulk loading procedures used in
loading wet holes.
2.1 Drill Cuttings Falling Back into Holes
A big problem at the mine was drill cuttings falling back into the holes, when the drill bit was
being retracted out of the holes. The larger the drill cutting mound around the hole, and the finer
were the drill cuttings, the more problematic it was to achieve the correct hole depth on the first
pass. Refer to Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11 – Large drill cutting mounds around the borehole collars were always
problematic, because the drill cuttings could fall back into the holes, causing short
holes which would require the hole to be re-drilled.
But many other things could also cause the drill cuttings to fall back into the holes from:
1. Worker activity around the hole during explosive loading, sampling the drill cuttings
and/or during marking the hole for numbering, hole depth and water content.
2. Surface water and/or high winds eroding the drill cuttings back into the holes.

3. Not raising the dust flaps on the drills before moving to another hole.
4. Drilling a line of holes in the wrong direction or sequence.
5. Re-setting up over holes to be re-drilled.
There are many ways to eliminate or minimize drill cuttings from falling back into the holes such
as cone plugs, casings placed in the top hole collar, or installing the drills with cyclones or
defectors. Of these, BAI recommends installing cyclones on all of the drills, as the best
permanent solution. Refer to Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.12 – Example of a cyclone installed on a medium sized drill. Basically cyclones act as
powerful vacuum cleaners to displace the drill cuttings to one side of the hole. But they are 100%
effective in eliminating drill cuttings from falling back into the holes.
2.2 Drill Cuttings Falling Bach into Holes When Bulk Loading Wet Holes
When bulk loading explosives in wet hole, with the hose starting at the hole bottom, water will
rise on top of the explosive column all the way to the top of the hole, as illustrated in Figure 2.21
(a) to (d). When the water level reaches the top of the hole, and it gets trapped within the drill
cutting mound around the hole, the drill cuttings will be sucked back into the hole. This could
dilute the explosive column between 5 and 12%. This is another good reason to equip all of the
drills with cyclones. Figure 2.22 illustrates an example of when 100% of the drill cuttings
around the hole collar became water logged, and then were sucked back into the hole.

Figure 2.21 – When the water rise reaches the top of the hole, and it is trapped within the drill
cutting mound, the drill cuttings will be sucked back into the hole as mud.
Figure 2.22 – Example of 100% of the drill cutting mound which was sucked back into the hole,
during the bulk explosive loading process in a wet hole. Depending on the hole diameter and hole
depth, this could represent an explosive dilution of between 5 and 12%. Explosive dilution will
result in reduced explosive energy, and it is a major source of noxious fumes and nitrate residues
getting into the ground water. Image not from Los Colorados mine.

2.3 Problems with Bulk Explosive Loading in Wet Holes
Auguring or pumping bulk explosives from the top of a dry hole generally does not pose
performance problems for any type of explosive. But loading bulk explosives in wet holes
requires special procedures, because incorrect loading can contaminate/dilute the explosive at the
hole bottom, trap water within the explosive column, and it can cause the bottom hole primer to
float up. Any of these situations will contribute to very poor fragmentation, deflagrations, low
order detonations, misfires, oversize, noxious/toxic fumes., and nitrate residues getting into the
ground water. Good field controls, attentive field supervision and good record keeping are
essential in eliminating such problems.
Figure 2.31 illustrates the effects of auguring or pumping explosives from the top of a wet hole.
Water pockets and stringers will always be created throughout the entire explosive column.
These will lower the overall explosive density, and performance problems can be expected.
Thus, particular attention should be given to the use of the Fortran Extra 50 when used in wet
hole, because this explosive can only be augured from the top of the hole.
Figure 2.31 – Effects of auguring or pumping explosives from the top of a wet hole.
Digital image is courtesy of International Technologies, the Power Deck Company
and Dyno Nobel.

With bulk explosive trucks which can pump explosives from the hole bottom, loading should
always start at the hole bottom. Lowering the loading hose all the way to the bottom of a wet
hole, and then raising it 0.50 to 1.5 m before starting to pump the explosives, as is commonly
done by many operators, can cause a host of performance problems such as:
1. Primers to float up and ride above the explosive column all the way up, if the primer is
not weighted down. This is not a problem at the Los Colorados mine, because all primers
used in wet holes are weighted down.
2. Water pockets and/or water stringers to be trapped within the explosive column.
3. Explosive bridging right at the discharge end of the loading hose, when the explosive
begins to pump out the hose.
4. Explosive contamination and/or dilution.
Figure 2.32 illustrates the negative effects, when raising the hose end 0.50 to 1.5 m above the
hole bottom in wet holes, before starting to pump the explosives. As soon as the pumped
explosive is pushed out of the hose under pressure, it will immediately bridge in the hole right at
the discharge end of the hose. Large water gaps formed between the primer and explosive bridge
point could result in deflagrations, low order detonations, misfires and/or complete failures.
Severe explosive performance and irregular floor problems can also be expected with this
condition.
Figure 2.32 – Effect of pumping explosives in a wet hole when raising the hose end 0.50 to
1.5 m above the hole bottom. When pumping starts, the explosives will immediately bridge
at the discharge end of the hose, leaving large water gaps between the primer and explosive
bridge. Digital image is courtesy of International Technologies, the Power Deck Company
and Dyno Nobel.

2.4 Explosive Dilution from Drop Height Impact of Stemming
Explosive contamination/dilution in the upper part of the explosive column can occur when the
top stemming is dropped into the hole. On impact, some of the stemming particles will sink
further down into the explosive column, and they will displace the top part of the explosive
column to migrate up into the stemming zone. How far the stemming sinks into the explosive
column depends on the stemming particle size, the drop height, and the explosive viscosity, as
illustrated in Figure 2.41.
Figure 2.41 – Effect of dropping stemming aggregate (20 – 40 mm size) onto an

emulsion explosive from only one meter high. At higher drop heights, the stemming
particles would penetrate much deeper into the top part of an explosive column.
The penetration depth into the explosive column, and explosive rise in the stemming column can
be significant. In some cases with very low viscosity explosives, and stemming drop heights
between 5 and 7 m, BAI has measured the sink distance into the top part of the explosive column
to be up to 3 m. This contaminated top part of the explosive column will only deflagrate or
detonate at low order, but it will definitely not fire at a high order detonation. This type of
explosive contamination is directly responsible for:
1. Poor overall fragmentation

2. Oversize in the collar zone.
3. Violent and unpredictable flyrock/airblast.
4. Noxious fumes.
5. Nitrate residues getting into the ground water.

One way to eliminate explosive dilution in the top part of the explosive column from the drop
impact of stemming, is to use a plug on top of the explosive column, as illustrated in Figure 2.42.
The type of plug, as illustrated in Figure 2.43, does not matter, although each manufacturer will
always claim their plug is better than their competitors.
Figure 2.42 – Example of a hole plug to eliminate top stemming contamination.
Claims made by each plug manufacturer that their plug confines the explosive gasses better, and
thus results in better fragmentation is false. By the time the explosive has finished detonating, all
of the fragmentation development will have been completed in full, well before any displacement
of the broken rock takes place. However, the fragmentation in the collar zone will be better, but
only because the explosive contamination in the top part of the explosive column has been
eliminated by the plug.

Figure 2.43 – The type of plug used in the top part of the explosive column does not matter, as long
as it is effective in eliminating explosive dilution in the top part of the explosive column.
2.5 Effects of Top Stemming Versus No Top Stemming on Fragmentation
Many mine operators are surprised to find out that in terms of only fragmentation, the type of
stemming and/or stemming size used in the collar zone has no effect on the fragmentation, even
if no top stemming was used at all. The reason we know this to be a fact, is from developing
safe techniques for loading hot holes. In loading hot holes with very high temperatures, one has
to use special explosives, and the hole temperatures versus people’s exposure times on the blast
block must be carefully balanced. Even though the hot holes are always loaded last, no top
stemming is ever used in the holes to minimize peoples exposure time, and to minimize any
more heat built up within the loaded holes.
In these hot hole blasts, the hole diameter was 251 mm , hole depths were 20 m, and the 5 m
collar was left open to surface with no top stemming. No detonators, primers or downlines of
any kind were used within the explosive column, by design. Before priming any of the holes,
the blast guards were always first put in place. Then, a cast primer with a detonating cord
downline was lowered into the hole, as illustrated Figure 2.51.

Figure 2.51 – In hot hole areas, a top primer is placed on top of the explosive column
and then the blast is fired immediately with no top stemming. No other primers or
detonators are in the explosive column.
Figure 2.52 illustrates the fragmentation results, where no top stemming was used in the hot hole
blast. There was no difference in the fragmentation, compared to the use of a top stemming in the
past. This technique has been used successfully in the hot hole blasts at this mine for the last 7
years.
Figure 2.52 – Muck pile fragmentation from a hot hole blast, which used no top stemming. The
fragmentation was no different than when a top stemming was used in the past. Blasting with no
top stemming at this operation has been going on successfully for the last 7 years. The top
stemming was abandoned, because there were too many close calls of heat built up in the holes, and
personnel had to be quickly evacuated from the blast block. Powder factor on this blast was
0.80 Kg/m3.

Thus, in mining operation areas where flyrock/airblast is not a concern, and the safety radius for
equipment and pepople could be increased, no top stemming would be required for
fragmentation. BAI suggests that a test blast is performed for evaluation, where half the blast is
loaded with the normal stemming, and the other hlaf is loaded with no top stemming.
2.6 Crushed Rock Stemming versus Drill Cuttings and Hole Plugs
Figure 2.61 illustrates a comparison between the use of drill cuttings, hole plugs and crushed
rock stemming. BAI has found that crushed rock is always more effective than any commercial
hole plug on the market and fine drill cuttings. In fact, the top stemming load in Figure 2.61 -
Hole C, with 2 m of crushed rock on top of the explosive column, and topped off with normal
drill cuttings, is just as effective as that in Hole D. Basically, the 2 m of crushed rock stemming
on top of the explosive column is the hole plug. This would be of particular interest to mining
operators who have to purchase the crushed rock stemming.
Figure 2.61 – Crushed rock stemming is always more effective than any commercial
plug on the market or the use of fine drill cuttings. Also, there is no performance
difference between the top stemming load in Hole C and D.

3.0 REDUCING OVERSIZE IN THE COLLAR ZONE
3.1 Main Source of Oversize
The main source of oversize is always from the collar zone (i.e. top stemming), due to the lack of
explosives in that area. If the collar zone consists of a dense, massive cap rock, oversize is a
given when using conventional hole loads, blast designs and top stemming concepts. The greater
the top stemming column, the worse is the oversize. Regardless of the hole diameter, bench
height or explosive, there is always a definite top stemming limit as to how high the explosive
column can be brought up, without wasting explosive energy or creating severe flyrock and
airblast. Even if the powder factor was doubled, fragmentation in the collar zone would remain
largely unaffected, due to the end charge effects, which are characteristic of long cylindrical
charges.
Fragmentation can only be improved if more of the explosive energy is channeled or

redistributed into the stemming zone. Thus, a controllable means of redistributing more
explosive in the collar zone is required to minimize the oversize.
3.2 Scaled Depth of Burial Calculations (SD)
Scaled depth of burial calculations and their physical significance are important to understand
what happens in the collar zone. SD calculations can be confidently used to determine a safe top
stemming amount, a safe charge quantity when using short stab holes between production holes,
and for a small stem charge which is placed directly in the stemming column.
Many operators are not aware that the only thing which affects the fragmentation, heave, flyrock
and airblast in the stemming zone is only the top part of the explosive column, regardless of the
total length of the explosive column. This amount of defined explosive is equivalent to a length
of 10 times the borehole diameter, and is designated as W. For example, the length of the
defined explosive column W in a 311 mm hole will be (311 mm/1000 mm) x 10 = 3.11 m. If we
assume the explosive has a density of 1.22 g/cc., then one linear meter of explosives in a 311 mm
hole is equivalent to 92.5 Kg/linear meter of hole, and thus W= 3.11 m x 92.5 Kg/m = 288 Kg.
Refer to Figure 3.21.

The explosive quantity per linear meter or foot of hole depth can be acquired from standard
explosive tables or from the following equations:
Kg/m = Density x (De)2/ 1275…..(Metric) Eqn. 1
Where:
Density = Explosive Density (g/cc).
De = Diameter of explosive (mm).
The other related factor which affects fragmentation in the stemming zone is how far down the
center of the charge quantity (W) is from the surface. This distance is defined as D, in reference
to Figure 3.21. Note that D is not the stemming length. For example, if the normal stemming is
6 m, and W has a length of 3.11 m, then D = 6 m + (½ of 3.11 m) = 7.56 m.
Figure 3.21 – Example calculation for SD in Metric units.

SD is defined as:
D/W1/3 …Eqn. 2 and
Alternatively:
D = SD x W 1/3 …Eqn. 3
W = ( D/SD ) 3 …Eqn. 4
Where:
SD = Scaled depth of burial (m/Kg1/3)
W = Mass of explosive (Kg) equivalent to the length of 10 borehole diameters and,
D = Distance (m) from surface to the center of the charge quantity W.
SD was developed by BAI over the last 22 years, and is based on over 1000 controlled crater
tests, single holes and full scale blasts worldwide. An example calculation is illustrated in Figure
3.21. For example, if the explosive has a density of 1.22 g/cc and it is bulk loaded in a 311 mm
1/3
hole, SD = D/W1/3 = 7.56/(288) = 7.56/6.59 = 1.15 for the metric units. The physical
significance of the numerical value of SD is illustrated in Figure 3.22.
Figure 3.22 – Physical significance of the value SD

This indicates that a 6 m top stemming in a 311 mm hole, using an explosive with a density of
1.22 g/cc, would be ideal in reference to Figure 3.22. An SD = 1.15 would result in close to the
maximum volume of broken material in the collar zone, with minimal flyrock risk. If flyrock,
airblast and/or dust were potential problems, or if the blasting was very close-in to sensitive
structures, then it would be wise to increase the top stemming to eliminate the damage potentials.
But the drawback with increasing the top stemming is obviously more oversize, particularly if
there is a hard massive cap rock in the collar zone.
3.3 SD Used for Calculating the Top Stemming
The top stemming lengths in most blasts worldwide are designed with an SD between 1.0 – 1.4
(Metric Units), because this generally produces the greatest volume of broken rock in the
stemming zone, maximum swell for easier digging, and very reasonable flyrock/airblast controls.
An SD value well below 0.92 will generate very severe and uncontrolled flyrock, with a reduced
broken rock volume in the collar zone. This is what often happens when the stemming length is
purposely reduced, in attempts to reduce oversize in the collar zone. A smaller value of SD
below 0.92 will still improve the fragmentation, but on a diminishing basis, because it also
results in increasing energy losses. Every blasting operation has definite limits regarding the
minimum safe stemming column for this reason. Equation 5 can be used to estimate what the
top stemming should be, according to the chosen or desired effect of SD illustrated in
Figure 3.22.
For example, let’s assume that we want to force one of the conditions shown in Figure 3.22 for
the top stemming. Here we will select an SD value of 1.15, only to be consistent with the
previous example calculations in Section 3.2. If blasting was close-in to critical points of
concern, or say under power lines, SD would obviously be selected much more conservatively
between 1.4 -1.6. But any desired value of SD can be selected, depending on the desired results
illustrated in Figure 3.22 for different blasting objectives.

An example to calculate the top stemming with a selected SD value of 1.15, a borehole diameter
of 311 mm, and an explosive density of 1.22 g/cc follows as:
Top Stemming (m) – Metric Units
= (SD x (Ø3 x ρ/127500 ) 1/3 ) – (Ø/200) Eqn. 5
Where:
SD = Scaled Depth of Burial selected in Figure 3.32 as (1.15 m/Kg 1/3)
Ø = Explosive Diameter (mm)
ρ = Explosive Density (g/cc)
= (1.15 x (3113 x 1.22/127500 )1/3 ) – (311/200)

= (7.58) – (1.56)
= 6 m.
For mining operators who still experience unacceptable oversize in the collar with the normal top
stemming, when the minimum stemming limit is reached, or when there is a very hard cap rock
in the collar zone, other alternatives such as the use of stab holes or stem charges are required.
3.4 Stem Charges to Improve Fragmentation in the Collar Zone
A practical and economical way to redistribute more explosive energy in the collar zone is with
the use of a stem charge, as illustrated in Figure 3.41. With this technique, a small charge is
placed directly into the stemming column. The center of the stem charge is placed into the
stemming from surface, at a distance D equal to 50 to 65% of the normal stemming. A good
starting point is 60%. Generally, SD values between 0.92 and 1.60 are selected to force the
corresponding and desired conditions, as illustrated in Figure 3.22.
An example stem charge calculation is illustrated in Figure 3.42 for a 311 mm hole, with a top
stemming of 6 m. SD needs to be selected between 0.92 and 1.6, depending on the desired
objectives. Here, we will select SD as 1.10 in reference to Figure 3.22. The distance (D) from
surface to the center of the stem charge is set at 60% of the normal 6.0 m of the top stemming =
3.6 m. Using equation 4, the stem charge quantity W in this example would be:
W= (D/SD)3 = (3.6/1.10)3 = (3.27)3 = 35 Kg  56 Kg. Refer to Figure 3.42.

Figure 3.41 – Concept of a stem charge.
Figure 3.42 – Example stem charge calculation for a 311 mm (12 ¼ ) hole, with a top
stemming of 6 m, and a selected SD = 1.10.

But when using a stem charge, it is often better to increase the normal 6 m stemming to say, 6.5 or 7 m,
and let the stem charge take care of the collar breakage, because the stem charge is designed to only
create new fracture networks at its location, with very little energy losses. Refer to Figure 3.43.
Figure 3.43 – When using stem charges, it is often better to increase the normal stemming slightly
and let the stem charge break the collar zone.
An example stem charge calculation for a 311 hole, with an increased top stemming from 6 to
7 m is illustrated in Figure 3.44. The distance (D) from surface to the center of the stem charge
is set at 60% of the now 7.0 m of the top stemming = 4.2 m. Using equation 4, the stem charge
quantity W in this example would be:
W= (D/SD)3 = (4.2/1.10)3 = (3.82)3 = 56 Kg. Refer to Figure 3.44.

Figure 3.44 - Example stem charge calculation for a 311 mm hole, with a top
stemming of 7 m, and a selected SD = 1.10.
When using stem charges, it is very important to remember that the SD value selected for the
stem charge must always be the same or less than the SD value selected for the top stemming. If
this was reversed, the main charge will negate the stem charge effect, and it could actually make
the results worse. Refer to Section 3.21 and Figure 3.22.
It is critical when using stem charges that their field implementation must be fairly exact. For
instance, if the SD calculations for a stem charge call for a 56 Kg charge to be placed 4.2 m into
the stemming column, a 50 Kg or 61 Kg charge placed 3.7 m or 4.7 m into the stemming, will
not achieve the expected results. Thus, very responsible blasting crews are required to execute
this technique. Unless the bulk explosive loading system can consistently and accurately deliver
the exact small amount of the stem charge quantity, it is best to use pre-bagged weighed
explosives for the stem charge. Bagged stem or stab hole charges will also eliminate any
explosive contamination during the loading process.
How the stem charge is delayed with the main explosive column in the hole is also critical. The
best delay sequence when using a stem charge is to fire the stem charge and main explosive
column simultaneously with precise electronic detonators. Using the same in-hole 350, 500, or
750 ms pyrotechnic detonator is not recommended because of their inherent delay scatter. For
example, a 500 ms in-hole delay, with at best a plus or minus 5% scatter, could fire between
475 ms and 525 ms. If the main explosive column detonates first, there is a very high probability

that the stem charge could be ejected out of the hole before it detonates, causing even greater
problems.
If precise electronic detonators are not available, it is imperative that the stem charge is always
fired first, followed by the main column charge. Best results are achieved when the delay
between the stem charge and the main charge is short. On the other hand, the smaller the delay
between the stem charge and the main explosive column, the greater is the risk of a delay overlap
with standard non-electric in-hole delays. But when stem charges are properly calculated,
implemented and delayed, they always achieve excellent results.
The interesting thing about stem and stab hole charges is that although the amount of explosives
is only increased by 3 – 5% per hole, the fragmentation in the collar zone can be improved 5-10
fold or more. In contrast, doubling or even tripling the powder factor on a shot, without the use
of stem or stab hole charges, will have negligible effects on the fragmentation in the collar zone.
In very hard, dense, thick and massive cap rocks in the collar zone that have compressive
strengths of 400 MPa or greater, both a stem charge and a stab hole will be required.
3.5 Important Summary Notes When Using Stem Charges
The use of stem charges is the most economical and quickest way of eliminating or substantially
reducing oversize in the collar zone. Although precise electronic detonators are preferred, stem
charges can still be used effectively with the standard non-electric shock tube system. A few
important summary notes to remember are:
1. Stem and stab hole charges can be used anywhere in the mine (ore and waste) where
there is a cap rock problem in the collar zone, or to improve the overall fragmentation
for the plant requirements.
2. A stem charge can be placed anywhere in the stemming column, because SD

equations scale up or down quite reliably. A good starting point is to select D (the
distance from surface to the center of the stem charge as 60% of the normal stemming.
If the stem charge is placed too close to the surface, it will still work perfectly, but less
volume of rock will be broken in the collar zone. If the stem charge is placed too
close to the top of the main column charge, it basically becomes a continuation of the
main explosive column, reducing the stem charge effect.

3. The SD value for a stem charge must always be the same or less than the SD value for
the top stemming, otherwise the main column charge could destroy and negate the
stem charge role.
4. It does not matter what type of explosives is used for the stem or stab hole charges as
long they are not contaminated, and they detonate at high order. The reason for this is
that stem and stab hole charges act as point charges, which rapidly decay the stress
wave attenuation into the rock mass in a perfectly spherical fashion.
5. It is critical that the stem charge is always fired first before the main explosive
column, when using a non-electric initiation system, to avoid having the main charge
kick the stem charge up into the open air. If using precise electronic detonators, or
compatible detonating cord downlines with the explosives, then both the stem charge
and the main explosive column can be fired simultaneously. However, the use of
electronic detonators is always the preferred choice.
6. With any full scale explosive tests or major blast design changes, always start small,
and preferably in non-critical areas of the mine to evaluate the results. For example,
you do not want to perform the initial tests where the excavation equipment is
advancing faster than the blasting, in the event things do not work out as expected.
7. SD calculations are very predictable and repeatable, but responsible blasting crews are
required to place the exact stem charge quantity at the correct distance into the
stemming column.

4.0 CREATING LOWER AND LOOSER MUCK PILES
4.1 Requirements for a Lower/Looser Muck Pile
Mine management was of the opinion that the muck piles were too high regarding safety
concerns, and that they were more difficult to dig, particularly in the last half of the blast. Refer
to Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11 – Typical muck pile height. Mine management wanted lower and looser muck piles for
safety and higher productivity.
The factors which influence a lower and looser muck pile are:
1. Explosive energy.
2. Initiation sequence and tie-in.
3. Row delays.
4. Number of priming points within the explosive column.
5. Number of free faces.
6. Front row burdens.
When a lower muck pile is achieved, the muck pile will become looser by default, because the
same factors influence both. Lower muck piles are achieved with essentially blast cast design
concepts.

4.2 Initiation Sequence and Tie-In
All of the initiation sequences and tie-ins used at the mine were of the “V-Type”, which always
result in a high muck pile along the V, as illustrated in Figure 4.21. This type of muck pile
profile is particularly suited to large shovels, which prefer to stay at one location to dig before
having to be moved to another location. But for smaller equipment working or cleaning around
the base of the high muck pile, it could pose a safety concern.
Figure 4.21 – Example of a “V-Type” initiation. Inset image is from a mine in Canada, where
typically 20 to 50 V-rows of holes were fired per blast.
Figure 4.22 illustrates an example of “Row-by-Row” initiation, where each row is fired in
straight parallel rows. Each row could be initiated at the end of the row, or in the center of the
row. Movement of the broken material will always be parallel to the rows of holes, and thus
always results in the greatest horizontal displacement, when blasting off a free face. Assuming
the same powder factor was used as in the “V-Type” initiation, “Row by Row” blasting will
always result in the lowest, flattest and loosest muck pile. If the “Row by Row” blast was shot
into a muck pile buffer, it will result in less muck looseness, but it will still produce a lower
muck pile.

Figure 4.22 – Example of row by row initiation. Inset image is from an iron ore mine in Australia,
where 40 rows of holes were fired, which resulted in no side or back spilled material. Here the
muck pile used to be dug out with a backhoe in two lifts, until the muck pile was lowered as shown.
Flat muck pile was achieved with the blast design illustrated in Figure 6.11.
4.3 Multiple Primers within Explosive Column to Improve Fragmentation, Lower

Muck Pile Height, and Create a Looser Muck Pile
The combined use of electronic detonators and multiple priming points within an explosive
column will result in improved fragmentation, cast distance, and lower muck pile heights. A
good example to illustrate the effects of multiple priming points within an explosive column on
fragmentation and throw, is from full scale tests conducted in a Pennsylvania quarry. Refer to
Figure 4.31. Regulators gave quarry management an ultimatum to lower the muck pile or cut the
55 m (180 ft) bench in half, because it was much too dangerous for digging and haulage
operators working at the base of the muck pile.

But quarry management was very reluctant to cut the single 55 m (180 ft) bench in half, because
a single bench operation (with no need for ramps and with an in-pit crusher on the floor) was
very profitable. Since each blast only consisted of a single row, there were not too many options
in the blast designs to play with, and so it was decided to test multiple primers per hole to cast
the material out further.
The first test was done with three primers spaced equally within the explosive column, where all
three primers were fired instantaneously with precise electronic detonators. The second test was
done with four primers, and the last test was done with five primers. In each case, the blasted
material was thrown progressively farther out, and with progressively lower/looser muck piles.
Figure 4.31 – Muck pile results for blast design A, shown in Figure 4.32. Here, the one row blast
was initiated with a single controlling bottom hole primer in each hole, with a hole delay of 42 ms.

Figure 4.32 illustrates the old blast design (Hole A) with the new blast design (Hole B). In the
old design, Nonel detonators were used with three primers, which were placed at the bottom
(500 ms), center (525 ms) and top (525 ms) of the explosive column. In this setup, the explosive
column was initiated with the controlling (500 ms) bottom hole primer. The mid-column and top
primers were used only as backups, and thus contributed nothing to the final blast results. The
delay between holes in the single row was 42 ms.
Figure 4.32 – Differences in the priming and initiation for blast designs A and B.
In the new design (Hole B), five primers were equally spaced throughout the explosive column,
whereby all of the primers were fired instantaneously with electronic detonators. The delay
between holes in the row was reduced to 10 ms. Shorter hole delays could not be used due to the
prevailing ground vibration regulations.

Cast results for blast design B, with the multiple primers, are illustrated in Figure 4.33. The cast
was improved by over 50%
Differences in the muck pile heights for blast design A (single priming point) and B (multiple
priming points) are illustrated in Figure 4.34. The muck pile height was reduced by 40%.
Figure 4.33 – Results for blast design B with the multiple primers, lowered the muck pile height by
40%, and increased the cast by approximately 50%.
Figure 4.34 – Differences in the muck pile height for blast design A (i.e. single
bottom hole primer and blast design B (i.e. multiple priming points). The muck pile
for blast design B was reduced in height by 40% and the cast was increased by
approximately 50%.

But an equally important result which came out of these tests, was that the fragmentation for
blast design B (with the multiple priming points) was significantly much better than the
fragmentation from blast design A (with the single bottom hole priming point).
Follow up tests at other mining operations have confirmed that multiple priming points within an
explosive column will always result in much better fragmentation, providing that there is no run-
up VOD’s from the primers. If run-up VOD’S are present, it is a clear indicator that something
was out of order with the explosive formulation, the explosive was not appropriate for the
application, the primer was too small and/or poor field controls were used when loading wet
holes.
In addition to achieving much better fragmentation, cast, and a lower muck pile height, multiple
priming points within an explosive column offer many other benefits such as:
1. Simultaneous maximum energy release at each primer location.

2. Better utilization of shock/stress waves throughout the explosive column.
3. Minimizes performance problems associated with explosive slumping and air gaps.
4. Compensates for using poor loading techniques in wet holes.
5. Minimizes performance problems from internal ground shifts and/or explosive column
disruptions.
6. Minimizes or eliminates noxious fumes and nitrate residues.
7. Minimizes misfires in highly jointed rock.
Thus, BAI recommends (as a minimum) that a bottom and top primer are used in each hole to
improve the fragmentation, increase the throw, and create lower/looser muck piles. But it is
essential that both primers are fired instantaneously with electronic detonators.
4.4 Dealing with Large Front Row Burdens
Many of the production blast highwalls ended up with large front row burdens, due to backbreak
along the crests, wide safety berms along the crests if they were used, no angled hole capability
for the production holes, and inadequate blast designs for the applications and/or the field
conditions. To obtain consistent blast results, the powder factor in the front row needs to be the
same as in the normal B x S drill pattern. Large front row burdens can cause a host of problems,
such as poor throw, irregular floors, oversize, poor fragmentation, stemming blowouts, and even
back break past the presplit plane. If the large front row burdens are not properly dealt with, the

blasting problems will usually get progressively worse on each subsequent bench and cut. Refer
to Figure 4.41.
Figure 4.41 – Large front row burdens can cause a host of performance problems if
they are not dealt with properly.
Contributing factors to large front row burdens could be:
1. Poor drilling and field controls.

2. Poor loading practices in wet holes, as discussed in Section 2.3.
3. Poor presplit designs and field procedures, as discussed in Section 5.1.
4. Inadequate buffer row offset from presplit plane.
5. Explosive malfunction, particularly with gas sensitized products in deep, wet holes.
6. Back break from row delays being too short.
7. Erosion from heavy prolonged rains.
8. Bad ground conditions around dykes and ramp areas.
9. Using excessively wide safety berms along the crest.
Assuming that safety berms were used along the crests, first see if their widths could be reduced.
This will allow the drills to get much closer to the crests with vertical holes, while still
maintaining a reasonable level of safety for heavy equipment operators working on the blast
block. Refer to Figures 4.42 and 4.43.

Figure 4.42 – Unnecessarily high and wide safety berms contribute directly to large
front row burdens. Image not from Los Colorados mine.
Figure 4.43 – Reducing the width of safety berms will help to reduce front row
burdens by allowing the drill to get much closer to the crest, while still maintaining
a reasonable level of safety for heavy equipment. Safety berms only have to be
adequately wide and high enough to contain the vehicles working on the blast block.
They do not have to be constructed to accommodate and contain large haul trucks.
Image not from Los Colorados mine.

The current method of dealing with large front row burdens was to placed additional vertical
holes along the front row of holes, as illustrated in Figures 4.44 (a) and (b) and 4.45.
Figure 4.44 – Current method of dealing with large front row burdens was by
placing extra holes along the front row.
As logical as this may first appear, placing extra vertical holes along the front row can actually
make things considerably worse, if a number of other blast design parameters are not changed at
the same time. For example, if the normal front row hole spacing was 10.5 m in the waste, and it
is reduced 50% down to 5.25 m, there will be a very high probability of adjacent holes along the
row of breaking into each other, before displacing the large toe burdens. In ore blasts with a
normal hole spacing of 7 m, the additional holes will now reduce the spacing down to 3.5 m.
Short hole delays of 17 ms in the waste or 7 ms delay in the ore will not change the outcome,
because the damage to an adjacent hole will be completed in less than 1 ms. Recent full scale
tests have clearly shown that when 10 5/8 in (270 mm) holes were spaced 5.5 m apart with 100%
confinement, explosive desensitization and damage to the receptor primers/detonators will occur.
Because much larger hole diameters of up to 12 1/4 in (311 mm) were used at the mine, these
problems would be further aggravated.
For explosives to deliver maximum energy, they must be suitably burdened and confined.
Confinement between adjacent holes spaced only 3.50 to 5.25 m, relative to the large front row
burdens of 15 – 20 m, will be immediately jeopardized. The larger the front row burdens, the
worse will be the results. Lost explosive confinement can lead to low order detonations,
deflagrations, and even complete failures. Gas sensitized explosives can be completely
desensitized.

Assuming that good presplit designs are being used, and proper wet hole loading techniques
have been implemented, a number of other blast design parameters will also need to be changed
when dealing with large front row burdens, and closely spaced holes along the front row. Figure
4.45 illustrates the main changes in red.
Figure 4.45 – BAI recommendations for dealing with large front row burdens with
vertical holes. Major changes are designated in red.
The main design changes and explanations are listed as follows:
1. In order to eliminate borehole confinement losses and explosive malfunctioning between

holes in the front row, which are spaced only 3.5 to 5.25 m apart, all of the holes in the
front row must be fired instantaneously. Electronic detonators are highly recommended
for this purpose. In-hole nonelectric detonators will not work, because the shock/stress
wave from an adjacent hole spaced 3.5 to 5.25 m apart will occur in less than 1 ms.

2. Large front row burdens have a very high TMIN (i.e. rock response time to dynamic
loading). This means that when the front row of holes detonate, the large burden mass
will need a very long time before the broken rock begins to displace, compared to a
normal design burden of 6 m. So, the first row delay between R1 and R2 should be same
as the row delay between the last two rows on the blast. In Figure 4.35, this would be
300 ms. The larger the front row burden, the more time that is required between R1 and
R2. But the currently used row delays of 150 - 300 ms between the other rows would be
acceptable.
3. Because the toe burdens along the front row are very high, the subgrade along all of the
front row holes should be increased to between 2.5 and 3 m from the normal 2 m
subgrade.
4. The last thing required to succeed is multiple priming points within all of the holes in the
front row, as illustrated in Figure 4.45. The reason for this is similar to that discussed in
Item No. 1. A 10 m continuous explosive column will need approximately 1 - 2 ms to
detonate for its complete length, depending on the explosive VOD. This is also enough
time for a detonating hole, with just a single bottom hole primer, to damage an adjacent
hole spaced only 3.5 to 5.25 m away. As long as the multiple primers are fired
instantaneously with electronic detonators, this problem will be eliminated.
It is important to note that all of the above listed recommendations need to be made together to
succeed. But for excessively large front row burdens, angled holes will need to be used along
the front row of holes. In most cases, it will probably be necessary to angle the first two front
rows on the blast block. Angled holes will require profiling the highwall first, to decide what
hole angle to use relative to the toe burdens, and how high the explosive column should be safely
raised relative to the crest burdens.

5.0 PRESPLITTING AND TRIM BLASTS
There only two areas requiring attention, is when the presplit were tied-into the trim blast with a
2-second delay, and when a mid-column air deck was used in the buffer row next to the presplit
line.
5.1 Recommended Blast Design Changes in Presplitting
No changes in the presplit hole diameter (6 ½ in), spacing (1.5 m) or powder factor (0.80 Kg/m2)
are required, because these are ideal choices for the site and rock conditions.
The biggest problem was when and how the presplit was fired. Always fire the presplit line in
advance of the blast block standalone, before any of the buffer or production holes are drilled
and/or loaded, as illustrated in Figure 5.11 (a), 5.12 and 5.13 (a). This will eliminate the presplit
holes from damaging any buffer and/or production holes from ground shifts, explosive
desensitization and/or sympathetic detonations, as illustrated in Figure 5.11 (b).
Figure 5.11– Fire presplit line in advance of blast block, before any other holes on
the blast block are drilled or loaded.
Firing the presplit line in advance and standalone, will eliminate 90% of all the problems
associated with poor presplit highwalls.

Figure 5.12 – In this setup, the presplit could be fired with the blast.
Figure 5.13 - In setup (a), the new presplit could also be fired with the blast, but the new presplit
line will need to be delayed in groups of holes. Example of a damaged presplit highwall, when a
parallel presplit 50 m away was fired instantly, without using delayed groups of holes.
The benefits of firing the presplit line in advance and standalone, is clearly illustrated in Figure
5.14. In the top 4 @ 10 m benches, the presplit line was tied into the trim shot with a short
delay. In the bottom bench, the presplit line was fired in advance and standalone, before any of
the other holes on the trim shot were drilled.

Figure 5.14 – Top 4 benches illustrate example of final presplit highwall conditions,
when the presplit shots were tied into the trim blasts and fired together. Bottom
bench illustrates example when the presplit line was always fired in advance and
standalone of the blast block.
Eliminate mid-column air decks in all buffer holes, and replace with full column normal charges.
Figure 5.15 illustrates the enormous crest overbreak damage, caused when the buffer hole next to
the presplit line was loaded with a bottom charge, a long mid-column air deck, and top
stemming. Even though the explosive was at the hole bottom, the energy was immediately
transferred to the stemming interface where the damage occurred. In this case, the crest damage
broke right through a previously formed presplit plane in massive sandstone.
Figure 5.15 – Effect of using a mid-column air deck in buffer holes next to the presplit line.
6.0 MASS BLAST DESIGNS TO INCREASE SIZE OF SHOT
6.1 Firing Trim Shots with Production Shots at the Same Time
One of mine management’s objectives was to increase the sot sizes from 300,000 tonnes to
500,000 tonnes. There are no technical reasons restricting this from being achieved successfully,
because the mine has everything it needs on site to do this. Larger shots can be taken standalone,
or they could also be tied into the trim blasts. Firing a trim shot with a production shot at the
same time is referred to as mass blasting. When small trim shots 30 m wide have to be taken
standalone against the final highwalls, it reduces production rates substantially, due to the cyclic
setups and teardowns for the trim blast, moving equipment to safe distances, and clearing people
to safe locations.
Figure 6.11 illustrates the concept of mass blasting, where a trim shot is merged in with a
production blast. In this example, the rows of holes are fired parallel to the presplit line.
Figure 6.11 – Example of mass blasting where the trim shot section is merged in
with the production shot. But the presplit line must be fired in advance and
standalone without being tied into any blast.

For the best fragmentation and lower muck pile results on a consistent basis, BAI recommends a
hole delay between 1 – 3 ms, depending on the sonic velocity and distance between holes in the
effective row. The ultra-short hole delays always result in much better fragmentation.
For the row delays with electronic detonators, BAI recommends incrementally increasing row
delays between approximately 100 and 300 ms, as illustrated in Figure 6.11 for a 22 row blast.
This procedure could be used for any size blast, but if the blast only has a few rows (say 5 rows),
one could end the last row delay at about 200 ms. In any case, one should never exceed 300 ms
between the last two rows on the blast, because this will now start to create free faces between
each row, the cast begins to drop, and airblast/flyrock will increase substantially.
The main reason for incrementing the row delays from the front towards the back of the blast is
to systematically increase the forward relief, minimize back break, reduce ground vibration
amplitudes, and to create a looser muck pile for digging.
In mines which have very small bench widths, and/or when no material can be thrown into the
pit, the same principles will apply, as illustrated in Figures 6.12. In this example, the production
shot is initiated perpendicular to the highwall and trim shot. Here the production shot section is
fired first, and then the trim shot section is fired second. Typical delays between the production
and trim shot are 1 to 3 seconds. Providing that all of the electronic detonators have been
energized to start timing out in both the production shot and trim shot sections, it should not
cause any problems. Many mines have used this technique successfully when they were
constricted in the pit.
The tremendous advantages of mass blasting for increasing productivity are:
1. Minimal shot setups and tear downs.

2. Less equipment movement to safe locations prior to blasting.
3. Less shot clearances.
4. Eliminates standalone trim blasts.
5. Drills can keep working well in advance of the blast blocks.
6. No damage to the final highwalls.
7. Can be used with a free face or blasted into a muck pile buffer, although a free face is
preferred.
8. There is no limit on the number of production rows which can be fired.

Figure 6.12 – Mass blasting. “Row by Row” initiation in production shot section and
“Row by Row” in trim shot section.
Both options for the “Row by Row” and “V” initiation for the production shot sections will
produce good fragmentation, because the hole delay will be very short (1 to 3 ms), each hole will
be using a stem charge, and each hole will have at least a top and bottom primer. It’s only when
the powder factor is much lower, that the “V” initiation will produce the better fragmentation.
But the “Row by Row” initiation will always result in the lowest overall muck pile height, and
also the loosest muck pile to dig.
The only two things which could restrict the size of a mass blast are the maximum number of
holes the electronic initiation system is limited to, and the maximum sleep time of the
explosives. So, it’s recommended that these two things are defined before proceeding to very
large blasts. Do not attempt a combined production and trim blast together, if the presplit line
has not been fired in advance, because the presplit acts as a very effective vibration filter to
protect the final highwalls.

7.0 SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS TO ACHIEVE A LOWER/LOOSER MUCK
PILE, GOOD FINAL PRESPLIT HIGHWALLS, REDUCE OVERSIZE IN THE
COLLAR ZONE AND INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY
A point form summary is listed in Table 8.11 to achieve a lower/looser muck pile, good final
presplit highwalls, reduce oversize in the collar zone and increase productivity.
Table 7.11 – Task Requirements to Achieve Lower/Looser Muck Piles, Goo d Final Presplit
Highwalls, Reduce Oversize in the Collar Zone and Increase Productivity
Task Operating and Blast Design Parameters Requiring Major Reference

Number Changes and/or Attention Section
1 Change loading procedures in wet hole conditions to eliminate explosive 2.3
contamination, and to get maximum energy output per hole.
2 Install cyclones on drills to eliminate drill cuttings falling back into the 2.2
holes.
4 Use electronic detonators. All
5 Always fire the presplit line in advance and standalone, even before any 5.1
other holes are drilled on the active blast block.
6 Eliminate all mid-column air decks in buffer holes, and replace with full 5.1
column charges.
7 Maintain the incrementally increasing row delays between 150 – 300 ms, 6.1
or change to 100 – 300 ms. Both will achieve good results.
8 Reduce the hole delay from 7 ms to 2 ms for improved fragmentation. 6.1
Ground vibration protection to the final highwalls comes from the
presplit blasts fired standalone and in advance.
9 Use stem charges in all production and buffer holes. 3.4, 3.5
10 Blast “Row by Row” to achieve lower and looser muck piles. 4.2, 6.1
11 Aim to blast to at least one free face. Blasting into a muck pile buffer 4.2
will result in a less looser muck pile, but it will still result in a flatter
muck pile. Fragmentation will not be affected in either case.
*12 Use a top and bottom hole primer in the explosive column to improve 4.3
fragmentation and throw.
13 Bottom hole primer should always be placed just above floor level, for ---
the best compromise between safety and good floor breakage.
*With large front row burdens, three primers fired instantaneously will need to be used in the explosive columns of
all front holes. Refer to Section 4.4 for more details.
For the above recommendations to be effective, they will all need to be implemented at once.
Piece meal implementation will provide some benefit with specific functions, but it will not
achieve the total mine objectives.
File:Orica Chile-Los Colorados Mine Blast Audit Report for Dec 6 -7 2012 - 022613

Blasting Analysis International - Chiap LC

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Blasting Analysis International - Chiap LC

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BLAST AUDIT REPORT

LOS COLORADOS MINE - CHILE

Orica Mining Services

R. Frank Chiappetta, MSc., P.Eng.

Visit Dates: December 6 & 7, 2012

Mr. Marco Arellano

Mr. Alejandro Ferrada Vergara

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS ............................................... 1

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ii

(December 6 & 7, 2012)

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS

Primary conclusions, recommendations and opinions are listed as follows:

Task Operating and Blast Design Parameters Requiring Major Reference

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 3

1.1 Purpose of Blast Audit

This report is based and qualified on:

1.2 BAI Qualifications and Disclosure Statements

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 4

Table 3.11 – Ore and Waste Properties

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 5

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 6

2.1 Drill Cuttings Falling Back into Holes

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 7

4. Drilling a line of holes in the wrong direction or sequence.

5. Re-setting up over holes to be re-drilled.

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 8

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 9

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 10

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 11

Figure 2.41 – Effect of dropping stemming aggregate (20 – 40 mm size) onto an

1. Poor overall fragmentation

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 12

Figure 2.42 – Example of a hole plug to eliminate top stemming contamination.

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 13

2.5 Effects of Top Stemming Versus No Top Stemming on Fragmentation

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 14

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 15

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 16

3.1 Main Source of Oversize

Fragmentation can only be improved if more of the explosive energy is channeled or

3.2 Scaled Depth of Burial Calculations (SD)

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 17

Kg/m = Density x (De)2/ 1275…..(Metric) Eqn. 1

Figure 3.21 – Example calculation for SD in Metric units.

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 18

Figure 3.22 – Physical significance of the value SD

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 19

3.3 SD Used for Calculating the Top Stemming

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 20

Top Stemming (m) – Metric Units

= (SD x (Ø3 x ρ/127500 ) 1/3 ) – (Ø/200) Eqn. 5

= (1.15 x (3113 x 1.22/127500 )1/3 ) – (311/200)

3.4 Stem Charges to Improve Fragmentation in the Collar Zone

W= (D/SD)3 = (3.6/1.10)3 = (3.27)3 = 35 Kg  56 Kg. Refer to Figure 3.42.

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 21

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 22

W= (D/SD)3 = (4.2/1.10)3 = (3.82)3 = 56 Kg. Refer to Figure 3.44.

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 23

BLASTING ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 24

3.5 Important Summary Notes When Using Stem Charges