Journal of http://jvc.sagepub.

com/ Vibration and Control

ODM: a new approach for open pit mine blasting evaluation

M Taji, M Ataei, K Goshtasbi and M Osanloo Journal of Vibration and Control published online 18 July 2012 DOI: 10.1177/1077546312439911 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jvc.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/18/1077546312439911

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Vibration and Control can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jvc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jvc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 18, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Article

ODM: a new approach for open pit mine blasting evaluation

M Taji1, M Ataei2, K Goshtasbi3 and M Osanloo4

Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0) 115 ! The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1077546312439911 jvc.sagepub.com

Abstract In open pit mines, the blasting operation should be effectively optimized at the lowest possible total cost, providing technical specifications and the required safety norms. The optimization demand measurement (ODM) value of blast should be evaluated by considering blast results and other mine unit operations, comprehensively. The present research proceeds by taking into consideration seven blast results including degree of fragmentation, muckpile, overbreak, boulders, bench floor and toe conditions, environmental considerations and misfires. Consequently, these results have been rated and classified. In the ODM, a value could be assigned to each blast, with lower values corresponding to better results of the blasting operation. The ODM procedure indicates a relationship between blasting results, drilling and loading performances. The specific mine unit operations index and the blast block situation rating are introduced in order to determine the ODM value. The blast results evaluation and its effects on the mining operation are analyzed by utilizing the blast results matrix [z], the performance matrix [P] and the ODM matrix [O]. Based on the results as well as considering optimization, blasts are classified into five modes: very good, good, relatively weak, weak and very weak. Thereafter, the ODM procedure is applied to the blasting operation at an Iranian iron ore open pit mine (Chador Malu), with nine blast blocks. In summary, this approach could help design engineers to recognize the optimization demand of the blasting operation at different mining conditions.

Keywords Optimization demand measurement (ODM), open pit mine blasting operation, blast block situation rating (BBSR), blast results matrix, performance index
Received: 7 February 2010; accepted: 9 May 2010

1. Introduction
To optimize blasts, the analysis of blasting results is necessary in an open pit mine. The data interpretation might cause successive modications of the design parameters of a mine operation (Lilly, 2007). To achieve an eective optimal open pit mine blasting operation as well as its global evaluation, the main blast results have to be analyzed. The process could lead researchers to three important questions. First, what are the present blasting operation conditions? Second, what position should be given to the present blasting operation? Third, which design will yield better results? Since 1966, many researchers have studied the evaluation of blasting operation results. In Table 1 the most famous and important studies that have been presented until now have been reviewed. The table shows many indexes for evaluating blast operation. Some of them

such as the degree of fragmentation (DF) and specic charge (Sc) have been widely used in evaluation. However, some less-common indexes such as the diggability of loading machines (DL), explosive cost (EC) and energy consumption (En.Cs), have also been suggested. These indexes are not independent parameters but are based on some the parameters such as bench oor conditions and boulder characteristics.
Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University (IAU), Tehran, Iran Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Iran 3 Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of Engineering, Tehran, Iran 4 Amirkabir University, Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Tehran, Iran
2 1

Corresponding author: M Taji, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University (IAU), Tehran, Iran Email: taji@ymail.com

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Table 1. The most famous and important studies regarding the evaluation of blast operation
Reference Hammes (1966) Mackenzie (1965) Da Gama (1990) Nielsen and Kristiansen (1996), Nielsen and Lownds (1997) Williamson et al. (1983) Hodjigeorgiou and Scoble (1988) Taqieddin (1989) Hunter et al. (1990) Stagg et al. (1992) Eloranta (1993, 1995, 1997) Da Gama and Lopez Jimeno (1993) Fuerstenau et al. (1995) Mckee et al. (1995) Cunningham (2005) Adler et al. (1996a, 1996b) Moody et al. (1996) Frimpong et al. (1996) Eloranta (2001a, 2001b, 2007) Kanchibotla et al. (1998, 1999) Workman (2000,2001) Harris et al. (2001) Grundstrom et al. (2001) Singh and Yalcin (2002) Workman and Eloranta (2008) Singh et al. (2003) Hamdi and du Mouza (2005) Mosher (2005) Kojovic (2005) Morin and Ficarazzo (2006) Singh and Narendrula (2006) Ryu et al. (2006) Bremer et al. (2007) AOG (2007, 2009) Calder and Workman (2008,2009) # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # EC # # OC # # # # El.Cs En.Cs TC Sc Sd DL Pe LP Cr.P MT Mu DF E.Co SB Di

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # #

EC: explosive cost, OC: operational (blasting, drilling or loading) cost, El.Cs: electrical consumption, En.Cs: energy consumption, TC: total costs of mining, Sc: specific charge, Sd: specific drilling, DL: diggability of loading machines, Pe: expert personnel LP: loading equipment productivity, Cr.P: crusher productivity and delays at the crusher, MT: mill throughput, Mu: condition of muckpile, DF: degree of fragmentation and required size distribution of fragmented rocks, E.Co: environmental considerations, SB: secondary blasting, Di: dilution constrains.

Some indexes such as loading equipment productivity (LP), specic drilling (Sd), environmental considerations (E.Co) and secondary blasting (SB) are important but in previous studies have not been studied comprehensively. In order to develop a rational and economical optimization of blasting operations, the present study has suggested a new approach to measure the blast results. In brief, the proposed optimization demand measurement (ODM) is a quantitative procedure used to assess the degree of optimization demand for open pit mine blasting operation.

2. ODM procedure
The ODM is based on a systematic approach and integrates knowledge from theoretical analysis, experiences and monitoring, so can be utilized to compute and determine the ODM values for dierent blast block situation (BBSs). The BBS is determined and classied based on the blasthole water ratio, the number and type of free face, the ratio of length to width of the blast block and type of blast block material. The blast block situation rating (BBSR) considers blast working conditions to rationally compare blast blocks. So, it could be enter blast operation special

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Taji et al. characteristics such as: (1) the solutions to overcome the blasthole water problems, (2) initiation and priming systems by considering the eect of blast block size and shape and the number of free face, (3) the necessity of blending programs or fragmentation degree limitations by considering the eect of blast block material type (ore, waste, ore and waste). To develop the ODM, the blast blocks needs to be divided into ve classes or representative blast blocks based on BBSR. S1 shows water presence or the blasthole water ratio and S2 indicates the number of free face/presence of the buer of broken rock, resting on one of the free faces from the previous blast. So, S3 and S4 indicate the ratio of length to width of the blast block and type of blast block material, respectively. Every blast block posited in the BBSR class is numbered by 1, 2, . . . , j, . . . , m, respectively. In principle, the BBSR helps to optimize blast demand assessment according to very similar blast working conditions. To apply the ODM in open pit mines, the following points are emphasized. 1. In an open pit mine, the properties of blast are likely to be dierent from one to other blocks. In other words, the blast results will be dierent for each block. Hence, the optimization and ODM values for dierent blast blocks will be dierent. To develop the ODM, rst determine the BBSR class of the blast block. 2. When the blast results are determined and rated, their contributions to the ODM values are expressed by a dimensionless numerical value (Saaty, 1980; Wang et al., 2005) based on the general principles and experiences from the open pit mine blasting specialists, equipment operators and mining engineers. 3. A m 1 matrix [z] can be compiled by using the blast results and their assigned values. 4. In fact, the weight and importance of each blast result is dierent. To determine the weight and importance of each blast result, we should develop a performance index. 5. By transforming the specic mine unit operations index (Suo) measured in each blast block into the form of the specic mine unit operation ratios, a 1 m matrix, i.e. the specic mine unit operation ratio or performance matrix [P] can be obtained. 6. By multiplying [z] and [P], a m m matrix [O] is achieved. The elements Ojj along the leading diagonal of the matrix [O] are the ODM values for the jth blast block. Figure 1 demonstrates a owchart of the ODM procedure.

BBSRj

FR

MU

OV

FL

BO

EN

MI

Blast results matrix []

Classification of (j)

Relative evaluation of blast operation: Calculation of specific charge, specific drilling and specific loading of every blast block

Specific mine unit operation index

Performance matrix [P]

ODM matrix [O]

ODM values

Figure 1. Flowchart of the ODM procedure.

practice to discuss empirical assignments These are the fragmentation degree, the muckpile, the overbreak, bench oor and toe conditions, boulders, environmental considerations of the blasting operation and condition of misres (Jimeno et al., 1995; Katsabanis et al., 2005). The seven blast results are divided into classes with numerical values of 1 to 20. A blast result higher assignment value indicates a low optimal and a higher degree of optimization demand in the block blasting. 2.1.1. The degree of fragmentation (FR). The fragmentation degree is one of the most important factors of blasting operation outputs. Apart from the classication of size distribution or screening of the muckpile in treatment plants, there is no method which enables a quantitative evaluation of fragmentation in conditions that would be trustworthy. The fragmentation degree (zFR) is divided into six classes. According to Table 2, these numbers show the numerical assigned value of optimization demand for the blast block in an open pit mine blasting operation.

2.1. Blast results

As mentioned previously, the seven main blast results are based on theoretical analyses as well as engineering

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

4 2.1.2. Condition of the muckpile (MU). Table 3 shows that the optimum geometry, height (Hm) and displacement of the muckpile depends on the applied digging and loading system.
Table 2. The degree of fragmentation (zFR) Class Fragmentation efficiency (%) Qualitative zFR I >95 Excellent 1 II 8595 Very good 4 III 7585 Good 8 IV 6575 Moderate 12

Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0) 2.1.3. The overbreak condition (OV). A typical overbreak condition and remaining rock after blasting is given in Figure 2. It shows damage and problems in the digging and loading system as well as around the blast block

V 5065 Unsuitable 16

VI <50 Very poor 20

Table 3. Condition of the muckpile (zMU) zMU Class I Description         Need to clean up more area The productivity is low (shovel) Loading safety is good Loading operation is easy Irregular profile Need to clean up more area The productivity is low (shovel) Loading safety is good a 1 b 7

II

12

III

 Moderate clean up area  The productivity is good (shovel)  Loading safety is good

IV

   

High necessity of clean up Need to clean up more area The productivity is very low (shovel) Loading safety is very good

* **

10 12

16 20

 Low clean up area  The productivity is excellent (shovel)  Loading safety is dangerous (loader)

16

VI

 Muckpile displacement is very low  Shovel operation to face wall clean up is difficult

20

10

Using loading equipment with access height lower than bench height (maximum access height is 2/3 bench height). Using loading equipment with access height comparable to bench height. * Suitable bench width. ** Low bench width.
b

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Taji et al. drilling operation. Table 4 indicates the assigned optimization demand value of the overbreak (zOV).
 dba > B or dsi > S  Drilling and blasting are not possible but rock extraction carried out by mechanical equipment such as a dozer

 Drilling location is relatively safe

 There are a little backbreak, sidebreak and tension crack

Table 4. The remaining rock and overbreak condition (zOV)

 Face scaling by loading equipment is easy  Drilling location is safe

III

 There is smooth wall with low cracking

 Not necessary to face scaling

II

 There is smooth wall without damage and cracking

 Not necessary to face scaling

3 zOV *B: burden, S: spacing. 1

Figure 2. A typical overbreak condition and the remaining rock after blasting.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Description

Class

2.1.6. Environmental considerations (EN). The environmental considerations for blasting consist of airblast, ground vibration, noise, ying rock, dust and fumes. These often causes environmental and production problems such as decreasing productivity and increasing equipment damage, increasing risk of loss, building damages, labor and operator injures and nally increasing mining costs. Some of the factors should be considered for evaluating of environmental considerations of blasting operation include: (1) the presence of oce buildings, mine shops, warehouses and their distance from the pit; (2) the position and location of the dormitory, urban areas; (3) the distance between the main roads, haul roads, service roads, in-pit roads to the blasting site; (4) the position and location of the radio

 Drill equipment location is relatively dangerous

 Drilling and face scaling by loading equipment are relatively difficult  Drilling and face scaling by loading equipment are relatively easy

2.1.5. Boulders and oversize characteristics in the muckpile (BO). Important factors in boulder evaluation in the muckpile are: the amount of boulders in the muckpile as a volume percentage (MBO%), loading operation safety degree, eect on productivity and loading equipment delay as shovel loading rate, secondary breakage methods, the necessity of secondary blasting, position of boulders in the muckpile (as shown in Figure 4), boulders size and probability of secondary breakage in the next blast blocks, delay at the crusher and the loading equipment and exibility of breakage method to extraction. The classication of boulders and oversize conditions (zBO), are given in Table 6.

 Drilling and blasting are not possible but rock extraction carry out by mechanical equipment as dozer

2.1.4. The bench floor and toe condition (FL). Figure 3 shows a typical bench oor and toe remaining rock, where HF is the average increased height of bench oor and J is subdrilling. The optimization demand numerical values of the bench oor and toe condition are evaluated from Table 5.

 Face scaling by loading equipment is not possible

IIX

 Face scaling by loading equipment are not possible

 dba > B or dsi > S

VII

 Drilling and blasting are not possible but rock extraction carry out by loading equipment

 dba < B and/or dsi < S

VI

 dba < B and dsi < S

 Drill equipment location is relatively safe

IV

 dba < B or dsi < S*

11

14

17

20

Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0) 2.1.7. The presence and condition of misfire (MI). If misre occurs, only few employees shall remain in the blasted site. The blaster shall determine after each blast that no misre has occurred. Under most conditions the safest way to dispose of a misre is reshoot. The misre prognosis ability is of two types: (1) properly, certain or suitable; (2) improperly, uncertain or unsuitable. Table 9 shows the misres conditions are classied based on prognosis ability, the misre number and position.

Figure 3. A typical bench floor and toe remaining rock.

2.2. Structure of the blast results matrix []

The blast results matrix is constructed by means of the blasting outputs. Let us suppose that the numbers of blast blocks and the blast results are m and n, respectively, then the matrix will be a m n matrix, the jth row of which is occupied by seven blast results for the jth blast block. In fact, j is the sum of zFR, zMU, zOV, zFL, zBO, zEN and zMI. The possible minimum and maximum zj are 7 and 140, respectively. The seven blast results and their matrix can be shown in the following form: 3 2 FR1 MU1 OV1 FL1 BO1 EN1 MI1 7 6 6 FR2 MU2 OV2 FL2 BO2 EN2 MI2 7 7 6 7 6  6 FR3 MU3 OV3 FL3 BO3 EN3 MI3 7 7 6 . 7 6 . :::: 5 4 . FRm MUm OVm FLm BOm ENm MIm 2 3 1 6 7 6 27 6 7 6 3 7 6 7 6 7 1 6 7 6 . 7 6 . 7 4 . 5 m As shown in Table 10, the overall blast results values are classied into ve classes.

station, power house, power main lines, power station; (5) the presence of the historical construction, the environmental protected location and their distance from the blasting site and related regulations; (6) yearly weather conditions and their variances and degree of alterations; (7) general direction and position of the wind; (8) exibility and changeability of mine facilities location and access ways; (9) bench width; (10) dilution and ore grades limitations and the blast block selection based on these factors; (11) required degree of the certain block blasting to provide production scheduling objectives and selective mining; (12) exibility of production constraints and blasting time scheduling under dierent atmospheric conditions; (13) general shape of the pit and adjacent mining sites constraints; (14) present mine equipment; (15) Capability of equipment to reach a safety zone; (16) bench and pit slopes stability conditions in blasting practices (Pal Roy, 2005). The blasting site sensitivity is classied into three major groups: usual sensitiveness, relatively sensitive and sensitive. According to the above-mentioned 16 factors, usual sensitiveness shows that the facilities locations, the main roads, power and energy main lines and urban distances from the blasting site are suitable. The in-pit roads are exible and changeable. There are no air noise limitations because the suitability of dormitory and urban areas are probable. The yearly weather conditions are desirable. The drilling, loading and hauling equipment usage are probable. The production scheduling has high exibility in bad climate conditions. The bench and pit slopes stability conditions are good and predictable. Blending reasons are not signicant. The environmental inuences and impacts of the blasting operation are classied into three positions i.e. acceptable, relatively acceptable, and relatively unacceptable, which are indicated in Table 7. Table 8 shows the blasting operations environmental considerations (zEN), based on the considered factors in the environmental outputs of blasting operation and the sensitivity degree as well as blasting site conditions (usual, relatively sensitive and sensitive).

3. Relative evaluating of blast operation 3.1. The performance matrix [P]

To consider weight and importance of each the blast results introduced the performance index (Pj). If the measured specic mine unit operations index in the jth blast block is Suoj (kg:hr=m8 ), the performance index can be dened as Suoj Scj :Sdj :Slj Suoj pj P m j 1, 2, . . . , m j1 Suoj 2 3

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Taji et al.

Table 5. The bench floor and toe condition (zFL)

III  Bench floor  is leveled and its surface is planar or undulating  HF < 1/4 J  HF (1/4 2/3)J  HF (1/4 2/3)J  HF > 2/3 J  HF > 2/3 J Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor is leveled and is leveled and is unleveled its surface is its surface is rough rough  Bench floor  is irregular and unleveled with hard toe IV V VI VII IIX IX XII Bench floor is unleveled and its surface is stepped  HF > 2/3 J  HF > 2/3 J

Class

II

Description  Bench floor is leveled

 Bench floor is leveled

Bench floor  Bench floor  is unleveled and is unleveled and its its surface is surface is rough undulating

 HF < 1/4 J  Bench floor  Loading leveling is not equipment necessary productivity is very good for floor digging and loading  Digging and  Bench floor  Bench floor Extraction and leveling by extraction is not necessary* digging carried loading out by loading equipment is equipment** difficult  The drilling  Loading  The drilling productivity is productivity is productivity relatively good to clean up good is low

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

 There is no bench floor breaking

 Bench floor  Loading breaking is low equipment productivity is good for digging and leveling

 Necessary to  Necessary to digging and digging by leveling dozer by dozer

 Toe located between holes

 Toe located between holes and in front of holes

 Bench floor  Loading productivity to leveling by clean up is low shovel is difficult

 Bench floor  Bench floor leveling is not leveling is not possible by loading possible by equipment but loading equipment but blasting is necessary blasting is necessary 11 13 15 17 20

zFL 5 7 9

*Bench floor leveling could be carried out during bottom block blasting. **It may need to be blasted.

Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0) analysis. The r value in Table 11 is calculated as follows: UL 5

where U and L represent maximum and minimum Pj j , respectively.

Figure 4. A typical muckpile area and location of the boulders (after Jimeno et al., 1995).

where Pj is a dimensionless numerical value, and the summation of Pj for all blast blocks is 1. For a relative assessment, the use of Pj can reduce the eects of the measuring errors on the possible ODM values. Here Scj, Sdj, and Slj are specic charge (kg=m3 ), specic drilling m=m3 and specic loading hr=m3 , respectively. These are measured based on the volume of in situ rock in the jth blast block. In reality, specic loading is arrived by dividing the loading equipment total access time (hours) to the total volume of the jth blast block (m3). For m number of blast blocks and n number of the blasting results, the specic mine unit operations index ratio or performance matrix [P] is a 1 m matrix, i.e. P P1 P2 Pm 4

4. The ODM application 4.1. Chador Malu mine information

The Chador Malu mine is located in Central Iran, 120 Km north-east of the city Yazd. The mine is connected with the national railway which is used for transporting iron ore to Isfahan Steel Plant. Chador Malu mine includes ve ore bodies. An estimated reserve is about 300 million tons (NGDIR, 2009). The northern ore body with 235 million tons of mineable deposit has been in operation since 1995. Chador Malu is one of the major producers of iron ore concentrate in Iran. The annual production is 22 million tons including 10 million tons of ore and 12 million tons of overburden and waste (R&D Department of Chador Malu Mine, 2009).

4.2. The Chador Malu mine blasting parameters 3.2. The ODM matrix [O]
By multiplying the blast results matrix [z] and the performance matrix [P], the ODM matrix [O] can be computed as O  P and a subsequent result is 2 o12 . . . o1m1 o11 o22 6 o21 6 . .. . O 6 . 6 . 4 om11 . . . om1m1 om1 ... where 8 ODM1 O11 1 P1 > > > < ODM2 O22 2 P2 . . > . > > : ODMm Omm m Pm o1 m 3 6 5 The blasting accessories contain mostly detonating cords and the rarely used nonel system. The explosives are ANFO (dry hole) and slurry (watery hole).

4.3. ODM criteria

4.3.1. The BBSR. The BBSR of the nine Chador Malu mine blast blocks classied as class 2 are as shown in Table 12. 4.3.2. The blast results matrix []. The numbers of blast blocks and the blast results are 9 and 7, respectively. In fact the blast results matrix will be 9 1 as follows: 8 6 4 6 6 8 6 6 12 6  6 6 12 6 8 6 6 4 6 4 8 8 2 4 4 1 12 10 12 1 12 7 11 9 3 5 8 9 14 11 17 13 8 7 5 3 11 9 5 9 3 2 3 49 9 5 3 6 22 7 3 2 1 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 5 1 7 7 6 39 7 6 7 11 10 3 7 7 6 73 7 6 7 13 12 11 7 7 6 88 7 9 6 7 5 2 1 7 7 6 43 7 6 7 3 2 1 7 7 6 19 7 7 5 5 5 4 57 5 47 9 6 3

7 7 . . . 7 7 5 omm

The m number of elements along the leading diagonal of the matrix [O] are the ODM values of the m number of blast blocks. A larger ODM value for a blast block indicates a lower optimization eect of the blast block. Table 11 shows the ODM classication and their

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Taji et al.

Table 6. The classification of boulders and oversized conditions (zBO) Class I None None None None None Excellent Excellent None By loading equipment None Very good None Very good Very good Good None High Very good Good5 Very low Low Moderate Relatively good6 Moderate Moderate By loading equipment Secondary blasting2 Very good Relatively safe Secondary blasting3 Relatively easy Very good Unnecessary Floor & front Easy Unnecessary Every area OK Every area Relatively easy Good OK Interior and top Moderate None None Verylow Very low Very low Low Low Moderate Moderate High1 Moderate High1 <3 35 35 35 510 510 >10 High High1 necessary Mostly top Difficult Dangerous Secondary blasting4 High Moderate6 High Relatively low 7 9 11 Low7 Moderate Low Very high Very low Low Low II III IV V VI VII IIX IX >10 Very high Very high necessary Every area Difficult Dangerous Secondary blasting4 Very high Very low None Very low

Factors

MBO %

Delay at the crusher Delay at the loading equipment Secondary blasting Situation of boulders in the muckpile Digging conditions necessary Every area Relatively difficult Relatively dangerous Secondary blasting4

Loading operation safety Boulder breaking method None Excellent None None

OK Every area Relatively difficult Relatively safe Only secondary blasting3 High

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Extraction lost time due to secondary breakage Productivity of loading operation Probability of the boulders breakage in the next blast blocks Flexibility of breakage method to muckpile extraction zBO 1 3 5

13

17

20

Loading operation variable delay is high. Or by loading equipment or mechanical means. 3 First boulders should be collected and subsequently used in the secondary breakage method. 4 They need two or more breakage methods. 5 Loading fixed time is less than 5% usual time. 6 Loading fixed time is 510% usual time. 7 Loading fixed time is more than 10% usual time.

10

Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Table 7. Classification of the environmental influences and impacts of the blasting operation The environmental influences and impacts of the blasting operation Characteristics Production delays Facilities damage Flying rock Air noise Ground vibration Bench stability Slopes stability Acceptable None None Permissible limit Permissible limit permissible limit Any problem Any problem Relatively acceptable Yes1 None Very low Very low Permissible limit Problem2 Problem3 Relatively unacceptable Yes4 Permissibly Troublesome5 Relatively high6 More than permissible Troublesome6 Troublesome8 Unacceptable Yes9 High Very high10 High11 High Very poor12 Very poor

1 These delays increase the direct costs for maximum amount of 10 percent of expected costs but these production delays are compensated by the end of working shift. 2 Safety factor of bench and slopes stability is reduced locally. 3 There are not slope wedges and failure-intensive problems. 4 These delays cause increasing direct costs to a maximum of 30% of expected costs. 5 It is necessary to clean up roads from fly rocks. 6 The air noise is more than the permissible limit and there is ground vibration problems on the nearby building. The amount of dust is considerable. 7 Safety factor of the bench and slopes stability is reduced. 8 There are slope wedges and failures problems. 9 There are production delays and the equipment efficiency is reduced, especially hauling equipment, severely (its delay is more than two working shifts). The delays give increasing direct costs of more than 30% extraction expected costs. 10 The roads are obstructed. The personnel injuries are intensive. 11 The air noise and ground vibration problems are severe. 12 There are bench and slopes failures and wedges severe problems.

Table 8. The blasting operation environmental considerations based on the blast site sensitivity (zEN) The environmental influences and impacts of blasting operation The blast site sensitivity and conditions Usual Relatively sensitive Sensitive Acceptable 1 2 3 Relatively acceptable 5 6 7 Relatively unacceptable 10 12 14 Unacceptable 16 18 20

Table 9. The misfires conditions (zMI) Prognosis ability Misfire conditions Misfire absence Few in number and/or concentrative Scattered and/or numerous Class I II III Suitable 1 9 16 Moderate 3 11 18 Unsuitable 5 13 20

Table 10. The zj classification and their analysis Class zj Condition I <25 Very good II 2550 Good III 5075 Moderate IV 75100 Weak V >100 Very weak

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Taji et al.
Table 11. The ODM classification and their analysis ODM class ODMj Conditions The requirement degree to optimize I L to L r Very good Very low II L r to L 2r Good Low III L 2r to L 3r Relatively weak Relatively high IV L 3r to L 4r Weak High V

11

L 4r to U Very weak Very high

The seven blast results adapted degree and the overall blast results value for the nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine are shown as radar diagrams, as displayed in Figure 5. 4.3.3. The performance matrix [i]. The performance matrix is computed using Equations (2), (3) and the specic charge, specic drilling and the specic loading measured based on the volume of in situ rock in the nine blast blocks. Table 13 shows the specic mine unit operations and performance indexes in the Chador Malu mine. The performance matrix [P] is a 1 7 matrix and can be established as follows: P 0:109 0:075 0:076 0:145 4.3.4. The ODM values. By substituting Equations (9) and (10) into Equation (5), the ODM matrix [O] can be obtained. As specied in Equation (6), the ODM values for the nine blast blocks are the nine elements placed along the leading diagonal of the matrix [O]. The ODM and the overall blast results values for nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine are shown in Table 14.

Table 12. The BBSR of the 9 Chador Malu mine blast blocks Number of blast block S1 S2 S3 S4 BBSRj 1 0 0 3 3 6 2 and 9 0 5 3 3 11 3 and 7 0 0 5 3 8 4 5 0 3 3 11 5 3 5 0 3 5 6 2 0 5 3 6 8 5 0 5 3 7

0:115

0:192 0:065 0:134 0:089

10

4.4. Comparison analyses of the nine blast blocks

For convenience of comparison, the performance index (Pj), the overall blast results value (zj) and ODM value for the nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine are shown as radar diagrams. These are shown in Figures 6 and 7. As a result, the following information can be deduced. 1. The minimum ODM value is for the blast block 7. Also the minimum Pj (P7 0.065) and j (z7 19) is obtained for this block, i.e. the overall blast result and the eciency of other operations (drilling and loading unit) are very good. This means that the minimal ODM value for these blast blocks have a direct relation to their specic unit operations and blast results. Thus, it shows the performance, condition and results of other operations will aect the rational analysis of blast results.

2. The z2 and z7 are very good but the z3 and zFR3 are good. In fact, by considering the eciency of drilling and loading operations and blast results, the ODM class of the blast blocks 2, 3 and 7 is I. This means that these blocks indicate very good condition. 3. The ODM class of the blast blocks 4 and 5 is V, i.e. the requirement degree to optimization of these blocks is very high. 4. The degree of fragmentation of the blast blocks 1 and 6 are good. The loading system in these blast blocks are a loader. The loader access height is lower than the bench height in this mine. For this reason, the ODM classes of the blast blocks 1 and 6 are, respectively, III and IV. This indicates that the better fragmentation would give better overall blast results and mining operation eciency.

5. Conclusions
With respect to the above discussion, it seems that a quantitative evaluation method is necessary and critical in order to analyze a blasting operation. Consequently, the present research proposes the concept and rating procedure of the eective blasting results. The ODM procedure is helpful because it enables enhanced design and optimization as necessary for blasting

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

12

Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Figure 5. The blast results adapted degree to the overall blast result value for nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine. (The dashed lines are the overall blast results value.).

Table 13. The specific mine unit operations and performance indexes for nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Scj kg
m3

Sdj

m
m3

hr Slj m 3 0.0141 0.0114 0.0124 0.0172 0.0181 0.0168 0.0094 0.0159 0.0128

Suoj

kg:hr
m8

pj 0.109 0.075 0.076 0.145 0.115 0.192 0.065 0.134 0.089

0.867 0.847 0.796 0.910 0.826 1.094 0.855 0.917 0.850

0.0309 0.0269 0.0265 0.0320 0.0265 0.0361 0.0278 0.0319 0.0283

0.000378 0.000260 0.000262 0.000501 0.000396 0.000663 0.000223 0.000465 0.000308

Note: The loading operation for the blast blocks 1 and 6 are carried out by a loader.

Table 14. The ODM and the overall blast results values for nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine
The degree of fragmentation The overall blast result ODM The requirement degree to optimize Relatively high Very low Very low Very high Very high High Very low High Low

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

zFR 8 4 8 12 12 8 4 8 8

Class III II III IV IV III II III III

Condition Good Very good Good Moderate Moderate Good Very good Good Good

zj 49 22 39 73 88 43 19 57 47

Class II I II III IV II I III II

Condition Good Very good Good Moderate Weak Good Very good Moderate Good

Value 5.3 1.7 3 10.6 10.1 8.3 1.2 7.6 4.2

Class III I I V V IV I IV II

Condition Relatively weak Very good Very good Very weak Very weak Weak Very good Weak Good

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Taji et al.

13

Figure 6. The Pj and zj radar diagram of the nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine.

Figure 7. The Pj , zj and ODM radar diagram of the nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine.

engineering. The key conclusions that can be drawn from this paper are as follows: . By integrating the theoretical analyses, experiences and monitoring, the blast results can be classied. The assigned values and their changes can be conveniently analyzed in the form of matrices. . The ODM provides an ecient evaluation mechanism for the main outcome of the blasting. . To dene and assess of the ODM values, the blast blocks should be divided into dierent classes based on blast block situation rating and considering blast working conditions. . The seven main blast results considered include fragmentation degree, muckpile, overbreak, bench oor and toe conditions, the boulders, the environmental considerations and condition of misres. They should be classied and rated accordingly. . In this procedure, the blast results and the eciency of other unit operations are analyzed together. . The specic charge, specic drilling and specic loading indexes should be recognized as one of the objective criteria for the ODM assessment.

In a nutshell, the ODM can help design engineers to recognize the optimization demands of each blasting at dierent mining conditions. Using this approach, the actual evaluation of the blast results can be achieved in an open pit mine. Acknowledgements
We are thankful to the Khandagh Tech. & Eng. Company and the Chador Malu, the Choghart, Gole Gohar mine, Iran for their crucial support during this study. We express our gratitude to A Mahzun, H Mahmudabadi and sta and technicians of Khandagh Co. The authors are also indebted to Eng. SH Hoseinie and Dr F Sereshki of Shahrood University of Technology and Eng. A Afsharian of the Chador Malu mine for their valuable suggestions and help.

Funding
This research received no specic grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.

References
Adler J, Du Mouza J and Arnould M (1996a) Measurement of the fragmentation efficiency of rock mass blasting and

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

14
its mining applications. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 33: 125139. Adler J, Du Mouza J and Arnould M (1996b) Evaluation of blast fragmentation efficiency and its prediction by multivariate analysis procedures. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics 33: 189196. AOG (2007) AOG Workshop: Blast Fragmentation and Mining Cost, Quebec, Canada, 1819 August 2007, Available online 21 July 2008, http://www.AOG.com/. AOG (2009) http://www.AOG.com/ drill to mill for mines/ pdf/dix12 k71/. Bremer D, Ethier R and Lilly D (2007) Factors driving continuous blasting improvement at the Lafarge Ravena Plant. In: International Society of Explosives Engineers 33rd Annual Conference on Blasting Technique. Calder and Workman (2008) An Analysis of Blasting Profitability and Productivity, Hunter Valley, NSW, 2831 October 2008, pp. 41-45, http://www.calderworkman.com/. Calder and Workman (2009) Optimum Blasting, A literature review, 4 September, http://www.calderworkman.com/. Cunningham CVB (2005) The KuzRam fragmentation model 20 years. In: Proceedings 3rd EFEE World Conference on Explosives and Blasting, September, Brighton, UK, 2005. pp.201210. Da Gama CD (1990) Reduction of costs and environmental impacts in quarry rock blasting. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, 2631 August 1990. pp.58. Da Gama CD and Lopez Jimeno C (1993) Rock fragmentation control for blasting cost minimization and environmental impact abatement. In: Proceedings of FRAGBLAST 4, Fragmentation by Blasting, 1993. Eloranta J (1997) The efficiency of blasting versus crushing and grinding. In: Proceedings of the Twenty Third Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Las Vegas, NV, February 1997. International Society of Explosive Engineers, Cleveland, OH, pp.157163. Eloranta J (2007) The effect of fragmentation on mining costs, a literature review. In: Workshop on the Measurement of Blast Fragmentation-Cost, Quebec, Canada. Eloranta JW (1993) Practical blast evaluation at the Minntac mine. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference of Explosives and Blasting Technique, San Diego, CA, 31 January4 February 1993. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, OH, pp.101107. Eloranta JW (1995) The effect of fragmentation on downstream processing costs. In: Proceedings of Explo95 Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 47 September 1995. pp.2528. Eloranta JW (2001a) Improve milling through better powder distribution. In: Proceedings of the twenty-seventh conference of Explosives and Blasting Technique, Orlando, FL, 2831 January. International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, OH. Eloranta JW (2001b) Optimized iron ore blast designs for SAG/AG Mills. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding

Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Technology, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 30 September3 October. Vol. 1, pp.262270. Frimpong M, Kabongo K and Davies C (1996) Diggability in a measure of dragline effectiveness and productivity. In: Proceedings of 22nd Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques. pp.95104. Fuerstenau MC, Chi G and Bradt RC (1995) Optimization of energy utilization and production costs in mining and ore preparation. In: XIX International Mineral Processing Congress, San Francisco, CA, October 1995. pp.161164. Grundstrom C, Kanchibotla SS, Jankovic A and Thornton D (2001) Blast fragmentation for maximising the sag mill throughput at Porgera Gold Mine. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Orlando. Hamdi E and du Mouza J (2005) A methodology for rock characterization and classification to improve blast results. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 42: 177194. Hammes J K (1966) The economics of producing and delivering iron ore pellets from North American taconite type resources. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Mining Symposium, University of Minnesota. pp.916. Harris GW, Mousset JP and Daemen JK (2001) Measurement of blast induced rock movement in surface mines by application of magnetic geophysics. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (Section A: Mining Industry) 108: AI72A180. Hadjigeorgiou J and Scoble M (1988) Prediction of digging performance in mining, Int. Journal of Surface Mining 2: 237244. Hunter GC, Sandy DA and Miles NJ (1990) Optimisation of blasting in a large open pit mine, Fragblast 90. In: Proceedings 3rd International Symposium on Fragmentation by Blasting, Inst. Min. Metall., Victoria, Australia, pp.2130. Hustrulid W (1999) Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining, Vol.1-General Design Concepts. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Jimeno C, Jimeno E and Carcedo F (1995) Drilling and Blasting of Rocks. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Kanchibotla SS, Valery W and Morrell S (1999) Modelling fines in blast fragmentation and its impact on crushing and grinding. In: Proceedings Explo-99 Conference, Kalgoorlie. Katsabanis T, Thomas C, Workman L, Palangio T and Eloranta J (2005) From drill to mill for mines and quarries. Newsletter of Advanced Optimisation Group 4(1). Kojovic T (2005) Influence of aggregate stemming in blasting on the SAG mill performance. Minerals Engineering 18: 13981404. Kontoghiorghes EJ and Gatu C (2006) Optimisation, Econometric and Financial Analysis (Advances in Computational Management Science). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Lilly DP (2007) A statistical approach to integrating blasting into the mining process. In: Oxford Business and Economics Conference, 2007. MacKenzie AS (1965) Cost of explosives - do you evaluate it properly? In: American Mining Congress. Las Vegas, NV.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012

Taji et al.
McKee DJ, Chitombo GP, Morrell S (1995) The relationship between fragment fragmentation in mining and comminution circuit throughput. Mineral Engineering 18(11), 12651274. Moody L, Cunningham C and Lourens H (1996) Measuring the effect of blasting fragmentation on hard rock quarrying operations. In: Proceedings of FRAGBLAST5, Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2529 August 1996. pp.353359. Morin M and Ficarazzo F (2006) Monte Carlo simulation as a tool to predict blasting fragmentation based on the Kuz Ram model. Computers and Geosciences 32: 352359. Mosher JB (2005) Comminution circuits for gold ore processing developments. Mineral Processing 15: 253277. NGDIR (2009) Development planning and equipment of Chador Malu Iron ore mine. Technical Report, http:// www.NGDIR.org. Nielsen K and Kristiansen J (1996) Blastingcrushinggrinding: optimisation of an integrated comminution system. In: Mohanty B (ed.) Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Proceedings of Fragblast 5. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp.269277. Nielsen K and Lownds CM (1997) Enhancement of taconite crushing and grinding through primary blasting. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 34: 226.e1226.e14. Pal Roy P (2005) Rock Blasting Effects and Operations. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH nublishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. R&D Department of Chador Malu Mine Guidelines of Mining Operation. T4108 project final report. Ryu DW, Shim HJ, Han CY, and Ahn SM (2006) Prediction of rock fragmentation and design of blasting pattern based on 3-D spatial distribution of rock factor, International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences 46(2): 326332. Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Singh SP (2006) Fragmentation prediction during ring blasting using a discrete KuzRam Model. In: 16th

15
International Symposium on MPES, Torino, Italy, 2022 September. Singh SP and Yalcin T (2002) Effects of muck size distribution on scooping operations. In: Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques. pp.315325. Singh SP, Yalcin T, Glogger M and Narendrula R (2003) Interaction between the size distribution of the muck and the loading equipment. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Applications in Mineral Industries. pp.113. Stagg MS, Otterness RE and Siskind DE (1992) Effects of blasting practices on fragmentation. In: Proceedings of the 33rd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Santa Fe, 35 June 1992. pp.313322. Taji M (2008) The classification of open pit mine blast results by BBSR. In: Proceedings of the 1th National Symposium on Blasting Engineering and Industrial Explosives, BEIE 2008, Electronic file No. 004. Taqieddin SA (1989) Evaluation of the efficiency of a blasting operation designed for a dragline strip mining process. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science and Geomechanics 8: 5964. Wang Y-J, Zhang X-Z and Qi L-Q (2005) Unconstrained optimization reformulation of the generalized nonlinear complementarity problem and related method. Optimization 54: 563577. Workman L (2001) An analysis of blasting profitability and productivity, Hunter Valley, NSW, 2831 Oct., pp.4145. Workman L and Eloranta J (2008) The effects of blasting on Crushing and grinding efficiency and energy consumption, 3 June 2008. Available at: http://www.isee.org/ Williamson S, Mckenzie C, OLoughlin H (1983). Electric shovel performance as a measure of blasting efficiency. In: 1th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation University of Technology, Vol.1, by Blasting, Lulea pp.7683.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at LESLEY UNIV LIBR on October 29, 2012