Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

Anneliese Botelho, Master Degree at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Sarah R. Guazzelli, PhD candidate at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Jair C. Koppe, Mining Engineer, MSc, PhD, Engineering Department, Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil
Enrique Munaretti, Mining Engineer, MSc, PhD, Engineering Department, Federal University of
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Abstract
Drill and Blast (D & B) is one of the main operations in the mining production cycle, which aims to
fragment rock according to a pre-defined plan for proper loading, haulage and processing specifications.
In this sense, data from a Brazilian iron ore mine was analyzed, given emphasis on blasthole length,
subdrilling and stemming. The D & B report, including mining data such as number of blastholes,
length, and diameter and stemming aspects, was analyzed in order to be able to compare these results
with the blast design. The study showed significant differences between the designed blasting pattern
and that one obtained by the operation. As a consequence, problems such as inadequate fragmentation,
incorrect size distribution and loss of energy, were identified. For example, when stemming has a
different length than it should have, noise and flyrock can occur, including inadequate fragmentation and
vibration in both situations. Therefore, a comparison between the usual D & B procedures and
recommended D & B design based on literature reveals the most important deviations and their
consequences. The study intends to identify solutions for simple problems, improving D & B operations
and safety practices.
Introduction
Drill and Blast (D & B) is one of the main operations in the mining production cycle, which aims to
fragment rock according to a pre-defined plan for proper loading, haulage and processing specifications.
In this sense, data from a Brazilian iron ore mine was analyzed, given emphasis on blasthole length,
subdrilling and stemming. The blasting pattern was compared to most common geometric relations from
literature.
The mining is carried out in a Banded Iron Formation (BIF) composed of five main rock types: Itabirito
friable and compact (the poorest iron ore type, containing between 50% and 63% of iron), Hematite
friable and compact, which contains between 63% and 66% of iron, and Blue Dust (a fine form of
hematite with grades between 66% and 69% of iron).
The resulting fragmentation of D&B usually presents many fines and boulders independent of the pit
region. Ore fragmentation can be improved just doing little changes in the procedures. These changes
will impact not only the drilling costs, but also in the subsequent operation.
Data were collected from January to May 2013, corresponding to 500 blast reports, which were
compared to theoretical and recommended blast design, making clear that the field practice is
completely independent from planning in this mine. Inadequate fragmentation, incorrect size distribution
and loss of energy, were identified.
Blast Design

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

1 of 9

One of the goals of blasting is to provide material into fragments for excavation and handling to supply
the comminution plant. Thus, primary crusher is the stage that defines the ideal ore size distribution to
be fragmented in the blast operation. The ore size distribution will impact excavation, loading and
haulage operations (Bozoic B, 1998).
There are several consequences of an inadequate fragmentation, all of them directly affect mine cost and
efficiency. Poor fragmentation can produce boulders, and as consequence, induces secondary blast and
load and haulage difficulties. Too many fines will reduce crusher efficiency and will influence mill
stage. Because of that, it is important to know what factors contribute in the fragmentation process
(Bozoic B., 1998).
Rock mass is not homogeneous, and in this case, the deposit consists of five different rock types. The
mining area suffered several deformation phases generating many structural discontinuities. Moreover,
this region has faults, joints and other discontinuities responsible for isolating large rock blocks allowing
gas penetration that can cause noise and vibration concerns.
In order to distribute the explosive energy as efficiently as possible and to promote adequate
fragmentation, an effective blast pattern must be developed. Thus, using the formulas suggested, it is
possible to establish an initial blast design. This plan will likely be changed to adapt to varying
geological characteristics.
The drilling equipment used in this study mine are shown in Table 1. Blasthole diameters vary from
101.6 mm (4 in) to 203.2 mm (8 in). One of the factors to determine the borehole diameter is the
geological structure. Large diameters are better in homogeneous rock that is easy to break, with few or
no weakness planes (Dick et al., 1983). In addition to rock characteristics, large holes are necessary to
mine a large volume of ore in large-scale operations. The mine in this study produces a large volume of
ore, however, it is not homogenous.
Table 1 Blasthole drills and their respective diameters
Blasthole Drill
Diameter (mm) Diameter (in)
ROC D7 Atlas Copco
101.60 mm
4 in
ROC L825 BAR Atlas Copco
146.05 mm
5 in
SKSW Terex
203.2 mm
8 in
1190E Sandvik
152.4 mm
6 in

The burden is defined as the distance from the borehole to the nearest free face at the moment of the
detonation (Dick et al., 1983). It can be calculated as a function of explosive diameter, borehole
diameter, confinement degree, explosive density, depending on the author. This mine has borehole
diameters ranging from 101 mm (4 in) to 203 mm (8 in). Since the literature shows several methods to
set the burden length and this will depend on the free face, it is assumed that the burden designed is
adequate. Once the burden is defined, it becomes the basis for subdrilling, stemming and spacing
calculations.
Borehole depth depends on the bench height. Here, bench height and hole depth are considered together.
Subdrilling is the distance drilled below the ground level, ensuring that all the rock will be removed

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

2 of 9

(Dick et al., 1983 and Konya, 1995). To calculate the subdrilling as a first approximation, it is used
thirty percent of the burden (Equation 1).
Equation 1
Where:
U = subdrilling (m) (ft) Bmax = maximum burden (m) (ft)
Borehole depth, as mentioned, is the sum of subdrilling to the bench height considering the inclination
(Equation 2). It is important to remember that it is impossible to drill exactly according to the calculated
theory because of inherent limitations in drilling equipment and operator ability (Olofsson, 1990).
Equation 2
Where:
H = hole depth (m) (ft)
K = bench height (m) (ft)
U = subdrilling (m) (ft)
If the bench inclination is considered, Equation 2 can be changed to Equation 3, as follows:
Equation 3
Where:
H = hole depth (m) (ft)
K = bench height (m) (ft)
U = subdrilling (m) (ft)
= bench inclination (degrees)
The stemming is the part of the hole that is not filled with explosive material. Stemming consists of inert
material to confine the gases from the blasting and to reduce air overpressure. Therefore, it is the noncharged part of the hole. To calculate, the stemming is equal to the burden, as in Equation 4.
Equation 4
Where:
T = stemming length (m) (ft)
B = Burden (m) (ft)

Case Study
The company records all information from blasts using an ordinary blast report. The Blast Report
contains data such as lithology, bench height, number of holes, burden, spacing, borehole depth, type
and quantity of explosive. Using this information, it was possible to analyze the borehole depth and the
stemming length and compare them to the fragmentation obtained.
It is assumed that the blaster has the freedom to choose the borehole diameter, even if it is limited by the
equipment size. According to the literature, the burden which was assumed as correct, depends on the

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

3 of 9

borehole diameter, type of explosive and rock. All of the other factors are based on burden, as
previously mentioned.
Analysis of the Borehole Depth
Since the borehole depth involves both bench height and subdrilling, these factors will be considered
together. Initially, the differences between bench height and borehole depth as reported in each blast
report were compared, as seen in Figure 1. It is presented only the data from January, 2013, as it is
representative and similar to the other months.
Maximum Borehole Length per Report

Minimum Borehole Length per Report

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

Bench Height (m)

Hole Depth (m)

Bench height

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Day

Figure 1 - Bench height and borehole deep, January, 2013.

The Figure 1 shows a huge scatter between the boreholes in each blast report, as can be seen when the
difference between the larger and the shallower borehole is observed. Nonetheless, this difference in the
boreholes depth is not dependent on the bench high, once it is not fixed. As demonstrated in the graphic,
in some blasts, the minimum borehole length is slower than the bench height. In this case, the
possibility to form toes is extremely high, due the lack of subdrilling. When the maximum borehole
length is analyzed, many times is deeper than should be expected, causing gaps in the level below.
Figure 2 shows only the deeper boreholes. It can be observed that 35% of the deeper boreholes are
smaller than calculated. It means that all the other boreholes in these reports are smaller than the
calculated. On the other hand, it is clear that almost 40% of the reports have the deeper boreholes are
larger than expected.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

4 of 9

Deeper Hole is larger than the

maximun depth calculated

35%

39%

Deeper Hole is equal to calculated

depth

Deeper Hole is smaller than the

minimun depth calculated

27%

Figure 2 - Blast patterns where the deeper hole is larger, smaller or equal to the theoretical depth.
Figures 2 and 3 shows the impressive difference between depths of the holes. In the most unfavorable
situation, the deepest hole of a pattern is 30% more than the set while the shallower can be up to 20%
less than the theoretical estimation.

31%
More than 20%
10% - 20%
Up to 10%

69%

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

5 of 9

Figure 3 Blastholes less deep than theoretical estimated: 69% of them are up to 10% shallowest
than calculated and 31% of the holes are between 10% and 20% shallowest than expected.
Drilling more than necessary is wasteful. Besides increasing the quantity of explosives used, it increases
the vibration due to the high degree of confinement of the explosive. In mines encompassing multiple
benches, too much subdrilling can cause fracturing in the upper part of the bench below. Insufficient
subdrilling can cause accumulation of explosive above the bench below. It will reduce the life cycle of
the excavation equipment, while will increase secondary blasting (Dick et al., 1983). Beyond that,
insufficient subdrilling may cause irregular ground, toes, flyrock and step between the levels.
In Figure 4 it is possible to observe the consequences of poor drilling. In the mine, irregular ground, in
addition to hindering the next drilling, cause damage to load and haulage equipment and increase
maintenance costs. A toe will wear load equipment and reduce its life cycle.

Figure 4 - Left side, irregular ground caused by uneven difference in depth of the holes. Right
side, figure shows a toe caused by shallow hole.
Analysis of Stemming
Besides the depth of the hole, also the stemming was studied. As following in Figure 5, 56% of
stemming is larger than the calculated and almost 30% of stemming is equal (Figure 5, period from
January, 2013 to May, 2103).

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

6 of 9

Stemmings larger
than expected

28%

Stemmings smaller
than expected
56%
16%

Stemmings equal to
the expected

Figure 5 - Comparison between stemming length executed and stemming length calculated.
In the graph presented in Figure 6, it is possible to observe that 31% of blast reports have all the
stemming larger than planned, which represents 4191 holes. One reason for this can be the fear of
annoying the community near the blasting area. Nevertheless, 69% of the pattern has mixed length of
stemming (equal, larger and smaller stemming in the same pattern), which includes 5519 holes longer
than expected and 7631 stemming smaller or equal to theoretical stemming. As the company has no
standard for conducting stemming, these must be carefully analyzed.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

7 of 9

Pattern that all the

stemming are larger
than the expected

31%

69%

Pattern that the

stemming is larger,
equal or smaller than
expected

Figure 6 - Percentage of blasting patterns where stemming are larger than calculated and mixed
stemming length (larger, equal and smaller length together).
Selection of stemming length is usually a compromise between fragmentation and the amount of air
overpressure and flyrock that are acceptable. Too short of stemming will result in violent air
overpressure and flyrock and probably back break. Too big of a collar will generate a boulder on top of
the bench. It happens, particularly, when the top of the bench consists in different types of rock that have
to be fragmented.
An example of inappropriate fragmentation is Figure 7, in which fragmented ore is compared to a
basketball. This figure represents a large part of the blasts in the mine. A large amount of boulders can
be verified.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

8 of 9

Figure 7 - Boulder results from blasting compared to a basketball.

Conclusion and Future Studies

Monitoring and analyzing field operations are important tools to compare what is being performed to the
results obtained. Observing field practices in the blasting process is of fundamental importance to
achieve an adequate blast design and to obtain desired fragmentation. With better blast control the
blasting will be improved, generating better results and reducing the cost of subsequently operations.
This study showed that the mine has too much difficulty in planning and field practice. It is normal to
have such discrepancies, however, the data showed impressive differences, which, probably, means a
lack in management of D&B. The company needs to evaluate its Blast Design and find why the blasters
are not following it.

References
Olofsson (1990), Applied Explosives Technology for Construction and Mining (pp 62 118). Sweden.
Konya, J.C. (1995), Blast Design (pp 68 94). USA, Ohio: Intercontinental Development Corporation
Montville.
Bozoic, B. (1998), Control of Fragmentation by Blast. Croatia.
Dick, R.A. (1983), Explosive and Blast Procedures Manual (pp 57 74). USA: Bureau of Mines
Information Circular.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Blasthole Length, Subdrilling and Stemming Analysis in an Iron Mine

9 of 9