APPENDIX Q8.

1: HEMERDON OPEN PIT BLAST ANALYSIS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wolf Minerals (UK) Limited (Wolf Minerals) has requested Coffey Mining (Coffey) undertake collation
of additional data to support their Schedule 5 environmental permit application for the Hemerdon Mine
Waste Facility (MWF). This additional data includes an assessment of nearby open pit blasting
vibration levels likely to be experienced at the MWF.
The proposed Hemerdon Open Pit is located approximately 475m southeast of the proposed final
design location of the MWF, which encompasses a tailings storage facility and waste dump. The
designed open pit targets Tungsten bearing granite, which has intruded as sills and dykes into
Devonian sedimentary rocks comprising slates, shales, siltstones and tuffs.
The objectives of this study are to assess the effect of blasting on the MWF, specifically the:
frequency of blasting and ground vibration levels as the open pit mine develops, and
ground vibration levels due to blasting as compared to the maximum credible earthquake
(MCE) of the Hemerdon region.
This study is focussed on the effect of blasting at the least distance between the open pit and the
MWF during all stages of the project, which is 475m. The ground vibrations experienced at this
distance will be the highest, and as the mine develops, the separation distance between the blast and
the MWF will increase and the ground vibrations will reduce.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Seismicity in the Hemerdon Mining Lease

A document released in 2013 by the British Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Assessment for
Hemerdon Mine describes the mine site region as an area of low historic seismicity. Earthquake
intensity occurrences were modelled with specific return periods for the mine site, and the results are
presented in Table 2.1_1.

Table 2.1_1

Modelled Earthquakes (From BGS, 2013)

Return Period (years) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) (g)

475 0.015

2,500 0.040

10,000 0.082

30,000 0.133

The Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) for the Hemerdon project is a 1:10,000 year event.

2.2 Comparison of Ground Vibrations Caused by Earthquakes and Blasting

Stability modelling in Appendix B illustrates that the MWF, when exposed to the MCE of 0.082g under
expected phreatic conditions, exceeds the design acceptance criteria of a factor of safety (FOS) of
1.2.
The MCE peak ground acceleration (PGA) was used as a threshold value for which blast vibrations
from the open pit should not exceed. In order to calculate the PGA of various blast scenarios at
various distances, Cutback Consulting suggested three typical blast durations for the open pit, 0.3
seconds, 0.6 seconds and 1 second.

2.3 Pit Production Blast Design

Damage to the structural integrity of the MWF may occur due to ground vibrations or air blast
overpressure.
The magnitude of the ground vibration at a determined point varies according to the explosive weight
that is detonated. The largest quantity of explosive per delay has the most direct influence on
vibration intensity, and not the total explosive mass for the blast.
The Hemerdon open pit blast patterns have been designed by Cutback Consulting (Cutback) in
accordance with the mine schedule. Details provided by Cutback to Coffey on the blast design are as
follows:
Limit of 3 blasts per 16 hour day,
5m bench height,
Blasthole diameter 127mm charged with emulsion,
50kg charge weight per blasthole,
8 holes fired per delay,
400kg charge weight per delay,
Pre-splitting and free-faced trim blasting employed as wall control.

3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Limitation of this study include:
Ground vibration estimates from pit blasting were based on production blasts, not pre-split or
trim blasts. No account has been made for the disruption of surface wave motion caused by
pre-splitting the final walls prior to production blasting. The pre-fired pre-split line may
decrease the vibration incurred at the MWF site by shielding the radial ground motion waves,
Topographical shielding of the production blasts has not been considered in this study. The
MWF will experience some degree of shielding from pit blasts, due to a valley located
between the MWF and open pit. The surface level of the open pit is 210mRL and the average
ground surface of the MWF is 150mRL, which means that blast vibrations in the upper
sections of the pit may not reach the MWF site.

4.0 PREDICTED GROUND VIBRATION

The predicted ground vibration due to open pit blasting arriving at the MWF is determined by
calculation of the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). According to the Vibration Prediction Formula or
Propagation Law referenced from Australian Standard 2187.2, 2006, this is:



 = ( )
.

Where:
PPV: peak vibration (mm/s),
k: rock transmission factor, a site constant. A value of 1140 was used, for a free face in hard or
highly structured rock referenced from the Australian Standard 2187.2, 2006,
 ,
d: distance in m between the blast and the point of interest,
w: charge mass per delay (kg).
The least distance between the MWF and the open pit is 475m, when the MWF is in its final stage.
Increasing radius distances have also been calculated to encompass pit blasting at the earlier stages
of the MWF construction where the pit is further afield. Varying holes detonated per delay of a 50kg
charge per hole for varying distances from the open pit have also been included, as presented in
Table 4_1.

Table 4_1

Predicted PPV (mm/sec) from Hemerdon Open Pit Blasting, experienced at MWF

Charge Holes Radius from Blast Location (m)

Weight per per

Delay(kg) Delay 475 500 600 700 800 900 1000

50 1 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

100 2 2.4 2.2 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.7

200 4 4.1 3.8 2.8 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3

250 5 4.9 4.5 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.5

300 6 5.7 5.3 3.9 3.1 2.5 2.1 1.7

400 8 7.2 6.6 4.9 3.9 3.1 2.6 2.2

500 10 8.6 7.9 5.9 4.6 3.7 3.1 2.6

1000 20 14.9 13.8 10.3 8.0 6.5 5.4 4.5

2000 40 26.0 24.0 17.9 14.0 11.3 9.4 7.9

5000 100 54.1 49.9 37.2 29.1 23.5 19.5 16.4

10000 200 94.2 86.8 64.8 50.7 40.9 33.9 28.6

Legend: Damage Guide PPV (mm/s) (From Hoek & Bray, 2001)

< 51 Limit below which risk of damage, even to old buildings, is very slight (less than 5%)

51 - 635 Minor - significant damage to structures

> 635 Damage to rock

From Table 4_1, it can be seen that the design blast at the distance of 475m has a PPV of 7.2mm/s,
which is significantly lower than the 51mm/s limit of damage referenced by Hoek and Bray, 2001.
Negligible damage to the MWF is expected at this distance from the blast.
The PGA of different blast durations at varying distances from the blast were calculated by dividing
the PPV from Table 4_2 by the duration of the blast. This value was then divided by the acceleration
due to gravity.
Figure 4_2

The minimum distance from the open pit to the MWF is 475m, where the effect of ground vibrations
will be most significant. As shown in Figure 4_1, at 475m at the typical blast duration scenarios, the
PGA remains under 0.005g, which is below the MCE threshold of 0.082g.
Figure 4_3 is the location map of the Hemerdon mine site, which depicts the proximity of the MWF to
the open pit. As can be seen from this map, initial drilling and blasting of the open pit near the surface
is where the MWF and open pit are in closest proximity. As the pit develops, the distance between
the MWF and open pit blasting increases.
 Figure 4_3

5.0 AIR BLAST OVERPRESSURE

Air blast overpressure is a vibration pulse in the air induced by ground vibrations, and can cause
damage to buildings and structures through resonance.
5.1 Maximum Permissible Level of Vibration
The Swedish Standard SS460 48 66 differs from the British and Australian standards and guidelines
in that it focuses on potential damage to structures such as reservoirs or dams.
A permissible level of vibration in SS460 48 66 is given by:


 =     
Where:
V0: Is based on rock type, and is between 35mm/s for sedimentary rock and 70mm/s for granite, an
average of 52.5mm/s was used,
Fb: Is based on the type of building is heavy constructions such as bridges, piers and defence
construction with a corresponding value of 1.7,
Fm: Is based on the type of construction material, the most suitable category was for artificial
limestone brick, with a corresponding value of 0.65,
Ft: Is based on the type of blasting, given a value of 0.75 to 1.0 for quarries and mines, an average of
0.88 was used,
Fd: Is based on the distance between the blast and the location of interest. For a distance greater
than 10 metres, the following formula is used:
 = 2.57 
.
Table 5_1 illustrates the permissible level of vibration according to Swedish standards for varying
distances from the blast.
 Table 5_1

Maximum Permissible Level of Vibration due to Air blast Overpressure according to SS460 48 66

Radius from Blast Location (m) Maximum Permissible Vibration Level (mm/s)

475 9.9

500 9.6

600 8.9

700 8.4

800 7.9

900 7.5

1000 7.2

Table 4_1 indicates that the proposed blast design at the closest point of 475m experiences a PPV of
7.2mm/s, which falls under the 9.9mm/s maximum permissible air blast vibration level displayed in
Table 5_1, according to the Swedish standards.

5.2 Deterioration due to Multiple Blasts

The deterioration of structural integrity and the outer layer of the MWF due to the effect of multiple
blasts over time was analysed. According to Stagg, 1984, 10,000 blasts at a PPV of 12mm/s have
the ability to cause non-structural damage to a building. In relation to these figures, blasting analysed
in this study from a proximity of 475m incurs a PPV of 7.2mm/s, and the scheduled number of total
3
blasts over the mine life is is approximately 2,473. The average blast size is assumed to be 9000m
3
for a total blasted volume of 22,255,000m . In comparison, there is considered negligible risk of
structural integrity degradation due to repeated blasting as the frequency of blasting and PPV are
below the limits able to cause damage.

6.0 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Coffey recommends that the following activities should be considered:
A more detailed blasting study is required to ascertain the effects of topographical shielding,
and pre-splitting on the PPV which is experienced at the MWF during all stages of the MWF
construction. This study has not considered the following and as such may be needlessly
conservative,
Blast vibration monitoring is required at the commencement of open pit blasting to obtain an
expected frequency range of blasts through the rockmass, and
Blast monitoring in close proximity to the MWF would provide invaluable data to ensure air
blast overpressure and PPV recommended limits are adhered to.

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

For the blast design outlined for the MWF at a minimum distance of 475m from open pit blasting, the
ground vibrations will cause negligible damage to the structural integrity of the MWF. Results from
the study are as follows:
The PPV limit below which risk of damage, even to old buildings, is very slight (less than 5%) is
51mm/s. The calculated blast PPV encountered at the MWF was well below this limit at 7.2mm/s.
The PGA for blast vibrations at 475m from the open pit using three typical blast durations were
calculated at below 0.005g, which is significantly less than the MCE PFS of 0.082g.
Blasting will create an air overpressure of 7.2mm/s at the MWF which is below the recommended
9.9mm/s limit,
Minor damage to a residential building can be experienced where 10,000 blasts of 12mm/s PPV
occur. According to the production schedule, 2,294 blasts will be completed at 7.2mm/s PPV, which
is significantly lower than the frequency and intensity required to cause minor damage.

8.0 REFERENCES
1. Australian Standard 2187.2, 2006, Explosives- Storage, Transport and Use App. J.
2. British Geological Survey, 2013, Seismic Hazard Assessment for Hemerdon Mine.
3. Cantab Consulting, 2013, Hemerdon Waste Facility Environmental Permit Application.
4. Coffey, 2011, Stability Analysis of the Hemerdon Waste Dump Design.
5. Coffey, 2011, Mine Waste Dump and Tailings Management Facility Design Report.
6. Hoek, E. and Bray, J.W., 2001, Rock Slope Engineering, Revised third edition.
7. Oriard, L.L., 1982, Influence of Blasting on Slope Stability; State of the Art.
8. Nichols, H.R., Johnson, C.F. and Duvall, W.I., 1979, Blasting Vibration and Their
Effects on Structures, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 656.
9. Stagg, M.S., 1984, Effects of Repeated Blasting on a Wood-Frame House, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
10. Standardiserings-Kommissionen Sverige, 2011, SS 460 48 66- Vibration And Shock -
Guidance Levels For Blasting-Induced Vibration In Buildings.