International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Optimized design of drilling and blasting operations in open pit mines

under technical and economic uncertainties by system dynamic
modelling
H. Abbaspour a,⇑, C. Drebenstedt a, M. Badroddin b, A. Maghaminik c
a
Institute for Mining and Special Civil Engineering, Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Freiberg 09599, Germany
b
Civil Engineering Department, School of Computing and Engineering, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City 64110, USA
c
Institute of International Management of Resources and Environment, Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Freiberg 09599, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Drilling and blasting are the two most significant operations in open pit mines that play a crucial role in
Received 23 December 2016 downstream stages. While previous research has focused on optimizing these operations as two separate
Received in revised form 24 April 2017 parts or merely in a specific parameter, this paper proposes a system dynamic model (SDM) for drilling
Accepted 12 June 2018
and blasting operations as an interactive system. In addition, some technical and economic uncertainties
Available online 20 June 2018
such as rock density, uniaxial compressive strength, bit life and operating costs are considered in this
system to evaluate the different optimization results. For this purpose, Vensim simulation software is
Keywords:
utilized as a powerful dynamic tool for both modelling and optimizing under deterministic and uncertain
Drilling and blasting
Uncertainties
conditions. It is concluded that an integrated optimization as opposed to the deterministic approach can
System dynamic modelling be efficiently achieved. This however is dependent on the parameters that are considered as
Optimization uncertainties.
Vensim Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction et al. tried to investigate the cost effects of different drilling

Mining activity is mostly represented by these four main oper-
ations: drilling, blasting, loading and hauling. For a proper mine
planning and design, all of these operations need to be carefully
planned in such a manner that can prevent extra loads such as
operating costs, environmental footprints, etc. Amongst these
operations, drilling and blasting are known as the pioneers so long
as their appropriate design will result in a more compatible loading
and hauling operation.
Carefully engineered blasting will be an even more important
aspect of successful open pit mining as already know in the past
and moreover in the future as: (1) pits become deeper and steeper,
(2) quality separation to avoid dilution and ore losses during blast-
ing become paramount and (3) greater attention is paid to optimiz-
ing the entire mine-mill fragmentation system due to energy cost
concerns [1]. It has been observed that operators pay more atten-
tion to blasting than drilling programs. Meanwhile it is crucial to
consider both simultaneously to achieve an optimized design.
Most previous works have focused on drilling and blasting just
in terms of costs reduction by different means. Afeni and Afum
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hossein.abbaspour@student.tu-freiberg.de (H. Abbaspour).
equipment and blasting patterns respectively in two open pit
mines through experimental and onsite observations [2,3]. Some
other researchers made attempts to optimize drilling and blasting
operations from the technical point of view; Sontamino and
Drebenstedt addressed a dynamic model for a bench blasting
design [4]. Bowa introduced a practical method in an open pit mine
to optimize blasting design parameters such as bench height, drill
hole diameter, spacing, etc. [5]. Tosun and Konak determined a
particular charge for blasting operation to reduce operating costs
through an experimental method [6]. In addition, some other
researchers tried to study the environmental aspect of drilling
and blasting operations; Lashgari et al. and Attalla et al. investi-
gated the emission of NOx from blasting elements in a surface coal
mine through data gathering and mathematical equations [7].
As clearly seen, all of previous efforts regarding the drilling and
blasting operations have focused on a specific part in a determinis-
tic way. The most significant shortage of such viewpoints seems to
be: (1) the lack of system thinking and (2) the failure to assume
uncertainties in the design. In fact, there is not just a need to
account for the entire process of drilling and blasting as a system,
but a need to consider uncertainties in designing parameters. This
approach will lead to a more precise model closer to an optimal
solution.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2018.06.009
2095-2686/Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
840 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848
This paper presents an integrated optimization model for both
the drilling and blasting operations that consist of all related tech-
nical, economic and environmental parameters such as burden,
spacing, costs, emissions etc. In addition, for some of the most vital
technical and economic parameters including rock density, uniax-
ial compressive strength, bit life and operating costs, different
uncertainty scenarios will be considered. Finally, an optimization
will be performed for reaching the optimized design parameters.
2. System dynamic model
2.1. General description
System dynamics (SD) is a method to dynamically describe,
model, simulate and analyze complex issues and/or systems in
terms of the processes, information, organizational boundaries
and strategies [8]. This method was developed in the 1950 s to
assist managers in strengthening their understanding of the pro-
cesses. Nowadays, SD is being widely used in both the public and
private sector for policy analysis and design. System dynamics
modelling (SDM) is concerned with the dynamic behavior of sys-
tems. That is, the behavior of systems over time. In SDM, the mod-
eller attempts to identify the patterns of behavior being exhibited
by important system variables, and then builds a model that can
mimic the patterns. Once a model has this capability, it can be used
as a laboratory for testing policies aimed at altering a system’s
behavior in desired ways [9]. Generally, there are two different
types of system dynamic models. These are the open systems
and the closed systems. In the open systems the outputs do not
have any effect on their inputs in contrast to closed systems where
the outputs can control the inputs.
Every system dynamic model consists of constants, auxiliaries,
stocks, flows and feedbacks, which will be explained in the
following sections.
2.2. Constants and auxiliaries
All of the parameters that form a system dynamic model are
divided into two different groups of constants or auxiliaries.
Constants are permanently fixed amounts in the whole time of
the system processing while auxiliaries are defined as an equation
among different constants, which might change during system
processing.
2.3. Stocks and flows
In system dynamic models, it is essential to distinguish two
types of variables: stocks and flows.
Stocks: They represent results of accumulations over time. Their
values are ‘‘level” of the accumulation, which are also called
‘‘states” as they collectively represent the state of the system at
time t [10]. Some examples of stock could be cash balance, produc-
tion, etc.
Flows: They directly flow in and out of the stocks, thus changing
their levels. They represent the ‘‘rate of change” of stocks [10].
Income and expenses, production and sale rate, etc. are some
examples of flows. The unit of the rates must be defined as
unit/time. This feature fulfils the possibility of accumulation for
the stocks with time.
Fig. 1. A schematic view of a simple stock and flow diagram.
The graphical representation of stock and flow diagram is as
Fig. 1.
The general equation of any stock-flow diagram can be
described as:
dðStockÞ
¼ InflowðtÞ  OutflowðtÞ ð1Þ
dðtÞ
2.4. Feedback
Although stocks and flows are both necessary and sufficient for
generating dynamic behavior, they are not the only building blocks
of dynamical systems. More precisely, the stocks and flows are part
of feedback loops in real world systems, and the feedback loops are
often joined together by nonlinear couplings that often cause coun-
terintuitive behavior [9]. Fig. 2. shows a simple stock flow system
with a feedback that connects stock to inflow. The level in stock is
an effective parameter changes depending on the amount of inflow
which is based on the feedback it receives.
2.5. Positive and negative loops
Closed systems are controlled by two types of feedback loops:
positive and negative loops. Positive loops portray self-
reinforcing processes wherein an action creates a result that gener-
ates more of the action, hence more of the result. Anything that can
be described as a vicious or virtuous circle can be classified as a
positive feedback process. Generally speaking, positive feedback
processes destabilize systems and cause them to ‘‘run away” from
their current positions. Thus, they are responsible for the growth or
decline of systems, although they may occasionally work to stabi-
lize them. In Fig. 3, the loop is positive and defines a self-
reinforcing process. For example, if a shock were to suddenly raise
Variable A, Variable B would fall (i.e., move in the opposite direc-
tion to Variable A). On the other hand Variable C would fall but
move in the same direction as Variable B. Variable D would rise
and move in the opposite direction to Variable C and Variable A
would rise even further (i.e., move in the same direction as Vari-
able D) [9].
Negative feedback loops, on the other hand, describe goal-
seeking processes that generate actions aimed at moving a system
forward, or keeping a system at a desired state. In general, negative
feedback processes stabilize systems, although they may occasion-
ally destabilize them by causing them to oscillate. Fig. 4 presents a
generic causal loop diagram of a negative feedback loop structure.
Fig. 2. Feedback in a stock flow diagram.
Fig. 3. A positive feedback loop.
 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848 841

instance, the total drilling length for a drilling operation in a tech-

nical subsystem determines the drilling operating cost, which is an
economic subsystem. This feature provides the ability of building a
system while all parameters are interactive and interconnected.

3.2. Drilling and blasting constants and auxiliaries

The parameters used in the drilling and blasting model are

Fig. 4. A negative feedback loop.
If an external shock were to make Variable A fall, Variable B would
rise (i.e., move in the opposite direction to Variable A); Variable C
would fall (i.e., move in the opposite direction to Variable B); Vari-
able D would rise (i.e., move in the opposite directions to Variable
C) and Variable A would rise (i.e., move in the same direction as
Variable D). The rise in Variable A after the shock propagates
around the loop, acts to stabilize the system i.e., move it back
towards its state prior to the shock. The shock is thus counteracted
by the system’s response [9].
3. Drilling and blasting as a system dynamic model
For building any system dynamic model, a system structure
needs to be introduced in a frame of variables, stocks, flows and
feedbacks. All of these elements are clarified as follows.
3.1. General description of drilling and blasting system
Drilling and blasting can be considered as a system that consists
of three different subsystems, including technical parameters like
burden, spacing, depth, bit or drill hole diameter, penetration rate,
explosive mass, etc. ;economic parameters such as bit cost, hourly
drilling costs, drilling and blasting operational costs as well as
environmental parameters, for example, emissions of NOx, CO
and SOx. All of these subsystems are internally related and do inter-
act as well and they are connected to each other in some cases. For
divided into two groups:
Constants: In this type, a fixed quantity is set for the parameter.
Bit diameter, bit life, production per year, explosive density, explo-
sive price, etc. are included in this group. In this study, constants
are shown as a circle in the model.
Auxiliaries: They are obtained from constants or other auxil-
iaries through different equations. Burden, spacing, drill hole
depth, drilling and blasting costs, drilling and blasting emissions,
etc. are categorized in this group.
Table 1 shows some of these constants, auxiliaries and their
equations.
3.3. Stocks and flows
As already mentioned, flows are considered as rates directly
connected to the stocks which change levels with time. In drilling
and blasting operations, there are two important rates which play a
dominant role; the former is penetration rate and the latter is
blasting production rate.
3.3.1. Penetration rate
The penetration rate is one of the most important concepts in
the drilling operation that can significantly affect the whole
process of mining operations and planning. Therefore, it is
considered as a determinative element in the model. In spite of a
vast number of research and equations for predicting the penetra-
tion rate [11–15], the most applicable equation was presented by
Hustrulid as follows [1]:
  
W RS
PR ¼ ð356  217lgUCSÞ If 5000 6 UCS 6 15000 psi
D 300
ð2Þ

Table 1
Some of the constants, auxiliaries and equation used in the model.

Parameters Constants Auxiliaries Equations Equation

reference
Technical parameters Bit diameter D (inch) Burden B (m) B = 0.0254  KbD [1]
Uniaxial compressive strength UCS (psi) Spacing S (m) S = KsB [1]
Rotational speed RS (rpm) Depth of drill hole H (m) H = Kh B [1]
Pulldown force W (lbs) Stemming T (m) T = Kt B [1]
Rock density SGr (t/m3) Join drilling J (m) J = Kj B [1]
Explosive density SGe (kg/m3) Rock tonnage per one drill hole Mh (t) Mh ¼ SGr  B  S  H [17]

Constant of the bore hole depth Kh Number of Drill holes Nh N h ¼ TDL
HþJ
Constant of the burden Kb Cycle time of drilling one hole Ch (min) Ch ¼ H
PR
[17]
Constant of the stemming Kt Powder factor PF (kg/m3) PF ¼ EM
EV
[17]
Constant of the spacing Ks Explosive mass EM (kg) EM ¼ SGe  EV
Constant of the join drilling Kj Explosive volume EV (m3) EV ¼ p4D  ðH  TÞ
2

Drill fuel consumption DF (L/h) Total explosive mass TE (kg) TE ¼ EM  N h

Economic parameters
Environmental parameters
Bit life BL (ft)
Bit cost BC ($) Bit cost component C1 ($/ft) C 1 ¼ BC
BL
[1]
Explosive price Pe ($/kg) Operating cost component C2 ($/ft) C 2 ¼ HDC
PR
[1]
Hourly drilling operating cost HDC ($/h) Drilling operation cost DOC ($) DOC ¼ C 1 þ C 2 [1]
Blasting operation cost BOC ($) BOC ¼ TE  P e
Drill emission factor DEF Drill NOx emission (kg) Drill NOx Emission = DF  DEF
CO emission factor EFCO Explosive CO emission (kg) Explosive CO emission = EFCO  TE [7]
NOx emission factor EFNOx Explosive NOx emission (kg) Explosive NOx emission = EFNOx  TE [7]
SOx emission factor EFSOx Explosive SOx emission (kg) Explosive SOx emission = EFSOx  TE [7]
842 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848
  
W RS
PR ¼ ð378  236lgUCSÞ If 15000 6 UCS 6 25000 psi
D 300
ð3Þ
   very important parameters that deal with the production planning
W RS
PR ¼ ð210  115lgUCSÞ If 25000 6 UCS 6 50000 psi
D 300
ð4Þ
  
W RS
PR ¼ ð61  28lgUCSÞ If 50000 6 UCS 6 100000 psi
D 300
ð5Þ
where UCS in the uniaxial compressive strength of rock in pond
per squire inches (psi), W is the pulldown force in pound per inch
of bit diameter (lbs/in), D is the bit diameter in inch (in) and RS is
the rotational speed of the bit in round per minutes (rpm). Based
on numerous experiences and field practices regarding the drilling
operations, the variables in these formula (i.e. uniaxial compres-
sive strength, pulldown force, bit diameter and rotational speed)
are found to be interactive [16]. For instance, for bits that are dril-
ling in very soft to soft grounds (uniaxial compressive strength of
1000–10,000 psi), the rotational speed and pulldown force can be
in a range between 50 and 150 rpm and 1000–5000 lbs/in, respec-
tively. Hence, there are connections among uniaxial compressive
strength to the pulldown force and rotational speed (Fig. 5). Since
for these parameters a range is defined instead of a certain amount,
a random uniform function during simulation has been set for
assigning the numbers within the range to the parameters. The
unit of penetration rate is ft/h, which fulfils the criterion of units
for rates. The penetration rate is shown as a hallow arrow in the
model. Fig. 5 shows the model of the penetration rate with its
dependent variables.
It is required to calculate some of the geometrical blasting
parameters such as burden, spacing, drill hole depth, etc as a basic
need for evaluating the rock tonnage per borehole. In this regard,
the most common equations are presented by [1] as shown in
Table 1. Moreover, determining the cycle time of drilling a drill
hole is a function of the penetration rate [17]. Fig. 6 depicts the sys-
tem dynamic model for the blasting production rate. The unit of
the blasting production rate is tonne per day.
Fig. 5. Penetration rate and its dependant variable.
Fig. 6. Blasting production rate in system dynamic model.
3.3.2. Total drilled length and total blasting production
The total drilled length and total blasting production are stocks
which collect the inflow rates (penetration rate and blasting pro-
duction rate respectively) in the course of time. These stocks are
of a mine. Therefore, changing the rates will alter stocks and sub-
sequently production planning will be modified. Figs. 5 and 6 show
these stocks pictured by box and their connection with rates.
3.4. Feedbacks
The system model reported in this paper is an open system.
Hence, feedback loops are not defined. Nevertheless, different sub-
systems (i.e. technical, economic and environmental) are con-
nected to each other through related arrows. The overlay in
Fig. 7 shows the whole system dynamic model for the drilling
and blasting operations. All the constants and the auxiliaries are
represented by purple, red and green colours that depict technical,
economic and environmental variables respectively.
4. Case study
In this paper, a hypothetical open pit copper mine is considered,
which needs to produce 30 million tonnes of waste and 25 million
tonnes of ore based on its annual planning. This mine works 340
days a year, on which the drilling and blasting operations can be
carried out. Thus, the time scale of the dynamic model is set as
these operational days. Some of the other technical and economic
parameters of this mine are mentioned in Table 2.
In the model, bit diameter is a primary parameter that affects
both drilling and blasting operations. This happens through the
penetration rate and its dependent parameters such as pulldown
force and rotational speed and through the blasting geometrical
parameters like burden, spacing drill hole depth, etc., respectively.
Accordingly, the objective of the model is to find the optimum bit
diameter. In addition, simulation is only performed for the ore
products of the mine (30 million tonnes per year).
To evaluate the outcome of the model, simulation and optimiza-
tion are carried out under different conditions:
(1) Simulation with arbitrary bit diameters in deterministic
conditions
(2) Optimum bit diameter in deterministic conditions
(3) Optimum bit diameter in uncertainty conditions
4.1. Simulation with arbitrary bit diameters in deterministic
conditions
In a first attempt, the model was run in a deterministic condi-
tion, where all of the parameters were considered as fixed amount.
These quantities were drawn from the data as shown in Table 1. In
addition, the two different arbitrary bit diameters of 8 and 9 in.
were selected for this simulation. Fig. 8 illustrates the results of
the total blasting production and its costs. In the case of drilling
and blasting higher costs were expected from the bit diameter of
9 in. because of the higher bit cost component (Fig. 8b). In regards
to the data shown in Fig. 8a, operating with the bit diameter of 9 in.
will produce the whole amount of planned ore (30 million tonnes)
corresponding to the 294th day while for the bit diameter of 8 in.,
it would be only 27.65 million tonnes at the end of the year (340
days). As a result, these two bit diameters cannot be considered as
the final solution and as an optimal design. Some of the other tech-
nical, economic and environmental outcomes from the simulation
of these bit diameters are shown in Table 3. For a better under-
 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848 843

Fig. 7. General view of system dynamic model for drilling and blasting operations.

Table 2 an optimization. The payoff for a model can be described in terms

Technical and economic parameters of the hypothetical copper mine. of a comparison between model variables and actual data, or as a
Parameter Quantity Note combination of model variables. These two types of payoffs are
Average rock density (SGr) (t/m3) 2.2
known as calibration and policy payoffs respectively. Even though
Average uniaxial compressive strength 8000 there is no actual data for which an optimization process could be
(UCS) (psi) performed in this course of this study, we however made use of the
Average hourly drilling cost (HDC) ($/h) 350 policy payoffs. In this method, variables to be maximized are intro-
Average bit life (BL) (ft) 20,000
duced first. Then, their respective weights must be assigned. Con-
Bit cost (BC) ($) 1000– It changes based on
10,000 bit diameter sequently, positive weights are given to variables where more
Explosive price ($/kg) 1.10 Fixed in one year values are better and negative weights are assigned to which less
Explosive density (SGe) (t/m3) 0.8 ANFO is desired. Having done this, one can adjust weights up and down
to emphasize different aspects of the payoff. The readers are
referred to the Vensim help for more and detailed investigation.
standing and evaluation, these parameters are taken on day 294 as Three different variables were introduced in the model: the
already explained. total blasting production, the total drilling and blasting costs and
the daily penalty cost. The optimization of the bit diameter has
4.2. Optimum bit diameter in deterministic condition to be done based on these. In the first item, the goal is to maximize
the amount of production in a year while in the next two items,
The optimization ability of the Vensim software (Professional costs need to be minimized. Therefore, positive and negative
and DSS versions) is one of its useful features that can be utilized weights are assigned to these items respectively. The daily penalty
in dynamic modelling. These optimization is performed through cost denotes a penalty which is considered if the plan could not ful-
maximizing the payoff. A payoff is a single number that summa- fil the annual production. This daily penalty cost (regarding the
rizes a simulation which is necessary to be defined before running production costs, operating costs, opportunity cost, etc.) is

Fig. 8. (a) Total blasting production and (b) Total drilling and blasting costs for bit diameters of 8 and 9 in..
844 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848

Table 3 tion of 30 million tonnes. Table 4 depicts other parameters in the

Technical, economic and environmental parameters for the bit diameter 8 and 9 in.. optimization run. Fig. 9 also shows a comparison between the total
Parameter Bit diameter 8 in. Bit diameter 9 in. blasting production and the total costs of drilling and blasting
(at the day 294) (at the day 294) operations in three different bit diameters (8, 9 and 8.333 in.).
Burden (m) 5.08 5.715
Spacing (m) 7.62 8.573
Depth of drill hole (m) 12.7 14.29 4.3. Optimum bit dimeter in uncertainty conditions
Stemming (m) 3.556 4
Join drilling (m) 1.524 1.715
Rock tonnage per one drill hole (m3) 1.082 1.540 Uncertainty is one of the most common issues that any mining
Number of drill holes 19,628 17,447 project is confronted with. It originates from the inherent complex
Total blasting production (Mt) 23.78 30.02 nature of mining and no one can be all certain about the resulting
Bit cost component ($/ft) 17.17 20.60 events or the magnitude. All technical and economic issues are suf-
Drilling operation cost (M$) 1.475 1.767
fering from an uncertainty which needs to be carefully considered
Blasting operation cost (M$) 4.936 6.247
Total drilling and blasting costs (M$) 6.411 8.014 in designs. In this model, most technical and economic parameters
Explosive mass in one drill hole (kg) 237.22 337.76 where uncertainties have a significant impact on the outputs, are
Explosive volume in one drill hole (m3) 0.297 0.422 Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), Rock Density (SGr), Bit Life
Total explosive mass (t) 4656 5893
(BL) and Hourly Drilling Cost (HDC). Accordingly, these parameters
Explosive CO emissions (kg) 158,309 200,360
Explosive NOx emission (kg) 37,249 47,144
will be introduced as distribution functions instead of fixed
Explosive SOx emission (kg) 4656 5908 amounts. The assumed distribution function for these parameters
are represented in Table 5.
In order to find the optimized bit diameter, it is possible to con-
sider these parameters through 15 different states, with only one
Table 4
parameter or a combination of two or more being measured.
Optimized technical, economic and environmental parameters of the bit diameter
8.333 in.
Table 6 shows a list of all these different possible states. The results
of optimization for 15 states, which represent the related uncer-
Parameter Bit diameter 8.333 in.
tainties in case of technical, economic and environmental parame-
Burden (m) 5.292 ters, are depicted in Tables 7–9. As can be seen in Table 7 and
Spacing (m) 7.937 Fig. 10, the optimum bit diameter changes in a range between
Depth of drill hole (m) 13.23
Stemming (m) 3.704
7.997 and 8.285 in. This shows that the biggest bit diameter hap-
Join drilling (m) 1.587 pens in the uncertainty conditions of the economic parameters
Rock tonnage per one drill hole (m) 1.222 (BL and HDC) and the smallest occurs in a combination of two tech-
Number of drill holes 21,914 nical parameters (uniaxial compressive strength and rock density)
Total blasting production (Mt) 30.00
and one economic parameter, the hourly drilling costs. In addition,
Bit cost component ($/ft) 31.95
Drilling operation cost (M$) 3.174 different probability density functions were attempted to be fitted
Blasting operation cost (M$) 6.228 to the bit diameter frequency by EasyFit software in order to find
Total drilling and blasting costs (M$) 9.402 the best suited distributions for these values. As a result, some of
Explosive mass in one drill hole (kg) 268.11 them could be highly matched through different statistical tests
Explosive volume in one drill hole (m3) 0.335
Total explosive mass (t) 5.875
(e.g. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Anderson-Darling), which are pre-
Explosive CO emissions (kg) 199,760 sented in Table 8 and Fig. 11. According to the most fitted density
Explosive NOx emission (kg) 47,002 functions i.e. Generalized Extreme Value, Johnson SB and Gumbel
Explosive SOx emission (kg) 5875 Min, the highest probability happens after the bit diameter 8.21,
which is 42%, 41% and 40% respectively. In contrast to these prob-
assumed to be 10,000 dollars. For instance, if the annual ore pro- abilities, it would be only 26% for the normal density function,
duction plan (30 million tonnes) completed on day 360 instead which is less than the others. In spite of defining a normal distribu-
of 340, a total amount of 200,000 dollars will be considered as tion in the uncertainty conditions for different parameters (UCS-
the penalty for the project. In fact, this item is a controlling tool SGr-HDC-BL), the outcomes of the bit diameter would still not be
for checking the production. a normal distribution as the first priority.
The optimization process will be carried out to find the opti- Regarding the data in Table 9 and Fig. 12, the highest operating
mum bit dimeter while fulfilling all of the above mentioned crite- costs in both drilling and blasting happens when two economic
ria. As the final result of the optimization model shows, the bit parameters (BL and HDC) and one technical parameter (uniaxial
diameter of 8.333 in. is capable of achieving the annual ore produc- compressive strength) are uncertain.

Fig. 9. Total blasting production and total drilling and blasting costs in 8, 9 and 8.333 in. bit diameters.
 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848 845

Table 5
Distribution function of parameters (UCS-SGr-BL-HDC).

Parameter Distribution function Min. value Max. value Mean value Standard deviation
UCS (psi) Normal 5000 12,000 8000 1000
SGr (t/m3) Normal 1.95 2.6 2.2 0.1
BL (ft) Normal 18,000 22,000 20,000 1000
HDC ($) Normal 300 400 350 50

Table 6 Table 8
All the different possible types for uncertainty condition. Best probability density functions fitted to the distribution of bit diameter.

Type of uncertainty Uncertainty parameters Probability density function Ranking based on the Ranking based on the
‘‘Kolmogorov-Smirnov” ‘‘Anderson-Darling”
One parametric (Type I) UCS
method method
SGr
BL Generalized extreme value 1 3
HDC Johnson SB 2 1
Gumbel min 3 4
Two parametric (Type II) UCS-SGr
Log-Pearson 3 8 2
UCS-BL
Normal 17 12
UCS-HDC
SGr-BL
BL-HDC
SGr-HDC (1) The capability of monitoring and measuring the changes in
Three parametric (Type III) UCS-SGr-BL
parameters and variables through time.
UCS-SGr-HDC (2) The possibility to control dynamic changes in the system,
UCS-BL-HDC where each part can simultaneously affect the others.
SGr-BL-HDC
Four parametric (Type IV) UCS-SGr-BL-HDC As a case study for evaluating and making the model function-
ing, a hypothetic copper mine was considered. The objective of this
model was to determine the optimum bit diameter that meets the
annual ore production. The most critical reasons for choosing this
parameter were:
In the case of an environmental condition based on uncertainty
(Table 10), the maximum difference among all uncertainty condi-
(1) The bit diameter is the most direct and determinative
tion for SOx emission is only 34 kg while for CO and NOx is 1125
parameter in both drilling and blasting operations. In fact,
kg and 264 kg respectively, which can be considered a significant
it has a direct influence on the penetration rate and burden
amount.
in drilling and blasting operation respectively (Figs. 5–7).
(2) While this model is a system in which all parts are interac-
5. Results and discussion tive (Fig. 7) for the whole design of these operations, espe-
cially in case of technical and economic parameters, proper
One of the main goals of this research was to present a new bit diameter has to be found.
method for modelling drilling and blasting operations. While pre-
vious research paid attention mostly to a specific part of these As a result of the bit diameter optimization in a deterministic
operations, the proposed model enables us to consider all techni- way, it was concluded that a bit diameter of 8.333 in. can cover
cal, economic and environmental parameters that were built as a the annual production of 30 million tonnes of ore in one year
system dynamic model. The major advantages of using such a (340 days). Other attempts of bit diameter (i.e. 8 and 9) failed
dynamic model are: due to the following reasons:

Table 7
Technical parameters in case of uncertainties.

Type of Uncertainty Optimum Bit Burden (m) Spacing (m) Drill hole Join Stemming (m) Total Blasting Production
uncertainty Conditions Diameter (in) height (m) drilling (m) (million tonnes)
Type I UCS 8.106 5.147 7.721 12.87 1.544 3.603 29.99
SGr 8.230 5.226 7.839 13.06 1.568 3.658 29.99
BL 8.214 5.216 7.824 13.04 1.565 3.651 30.00
HDC 8.240 5.232 7.848 13.08 1.570 3.663 29.99
Type II UCS-SGr 8.169 5.188 7.781 12.97 1.556 3.631 29.99
UCS-BL 8.202 5.208 7.812 13.02 1.562 3.645 30.00
UCS-HDC 8.204 5.232 7.848 13.08 1.570 3.663 29.99
SGr-BL 8.256 5.242 7.864 13.11 1.573 3.670 30.00
SGr-HDC 8.282 5.259 7.888 13.15 1.578 3.681 29.99
BL-HDC 8.285 5.261 7.892 13.15 1.578 3.683 29.99
Type III UCS-SGr-BL 8.161 5.182 7.773 12.96 1.555 3.628 30.00
UCS-SGr-HDC 7.997 5.078 7.617 12.69 1.523 3.555 29.99
UCS-BL-HDC 8.070 5.124 7.686 12.81 1.537 3.587 29.99
SGr-BL-HDC 8.136 5.166 7.749 12.91 1.550 3.616 29.99
Type IV UCS-SGr-BL-HDC 8.132 5.164 7.746 12.91 1.549 3.615 29.99
846 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848

Table 9
Economic parameters in case of uncertainties.

Type of uncertainty Uncertainty Conditions Drilling operating costs (M$) Blasting operating costs (M$) Total drilling and blasting costs (M$)
Type I UCS 3.561 6.228 9.789
SGr 3.319 6.216 9.536
BL 3.507 6.227 9.734
HDC 3.314 6.226 9.541
Type II UCS-SGr 3.417 6.209 9.626
UCS-BL 3.507 6.227 9.734
UCS-HDC 3.314 6.226 9.541
SGr-BL 3.771 6.197 9.968
SGr-HDC 3.255 6.219 9.475
BL-HDC 3.672 6.215 9.888
Type III UCS-SGr-BL 3.553 6.195 9.749
UCS-SGr-HDC 3.725 6.193 9.918
UCS-BL-HDC 3.793 6.228 10.020
SGr-BL-HDC 3.672 6.226 9.898
Type IV UCS-SGr-BL-HDC 3.343 6.212 9.554

Fig. 10. Optimum bit diameter range in different uncertainty conditions.

(1) In spite of lower total operational costs through drilling by

the bit diameter of 8 in., the annual production of the mine
was not fulfilled (Fig. 8).
(2) Although the bit diameter of 9 in. could reach the annual
plan even earlier than the 30 million tonnes of ore produc-
tion (at the 294th day), it imposed more than 1.3 million
dollars extra cost to the project (Table 3 and Fig. 8). Fig. 12. Drilling and blasting costs in uncertainty conditions.

Fig. 11. Probability density function of the bit diameters: (a) Generalized Extreme Value (b) Johnson SB (c) Gumbel Min (d) Log-Pearson 3 (e) Normal.
 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848
Table 10
Environmental parameters in case of uncertainties.
Type of uncertainty Uncertainty conditions Explosive CO emission (kg)
Type I UCS 199,766
SGr 199,389
BL 199,734
HDC 199,712
Type II UCS-SGr 199,155
UCS-BL 199,734
UCS-HDC 199,712
SGr-BL 198,775
SGr-HDC 199,492
BL-HDC 199,671
Type III UCS-SGr-BL 198,723
UCS-SGr-HDC 198,643
UCS-BL-HDC 199,768
SGr-BL-HDC 199,701
Type IV UCS-SGr-BL-HDC 199,241
Therefore, none of the above bit diameters were true represen-
tative for an optimized decision. Hence, an optimization which can
cover this defect was developed as highlighted in the following
steps:
(1) The parameters that are required to be maximized or mini-
mized (i.e. the total blasting production and total opera-
tional costs respectively) are defined.
(2) The criteria of calculating this process is defined by payoff,
which is responsible for optimizing the parameters.
(3) Positive and negative weights are assigned to the parame-
ters that must be maximized or minimized respectively.
(4) Defining a daily penalty cost which is a representative of
production control is considered. In fact, a lower production
from scheduled plan would be set as an imposed cost. This
cost can be varied in different projects. In this case, it was
considered 10,000 dollars per day.
Based on the optimization and modelling, the bit diameter of
8.333 in. is the optimized choice that may not only achieve the
annual production of the scheduled plan (340 days in a year) but
optimized operation costs in contrast with two other tried bit
diameters (8 and 9 in.). This calculation was carried out under
deterministic conditions that were based on the average amount
of input data (Table 2). However, in case of uncertainty, where a
fixed amount could not be allocated, the input data was considered
as a possible range through distribution functions instead of a con-
stant quantity (Table 5). After examining these possibilities in 15
different trials (Table 6), the optimized bit diameter ranges
between 7.997 and 8.285 in. (Table 7). The following conclusions
can be drawn from this finding:
(1) The final production at day 340 (end of the year) is just the
two quantities of 29.99 Mt and 30 Mt. This happened due to
the numerical accuracy of the Vensim software. Neverthe-
less, it was considered that the annual production planned
has been fulfilled through each of these productions.
(2) The optimum bit diameter calculated in the deterministic
condition (8.333) was larger than the uncertainty conditions
(7.997–8.285). As can be seen, there is no significant differ-
ence between deterministic and uncertainty conditions
(0.336–0.048 in.) unlike the difference in the total costs.
(3) The best probability density functions that could be matched
with the bit diameter values were Generalized Extreme
Value, Johnson SB and Gumbel Min. They showed a probabil-
ity of 42%, 41% and 40% respectively that corresponded to a
bit diameter larger than 8.21 in. while the normal density
847
Explosive NOx emission (kg) Explosive SOx emission (kg)
47,004 5875
46,915 5864
46,996 5875
46,991 5874
46,860 5858
46,996 5875
46,991 5874
46,771 5846
46,939 5867
46,981 5873
46,758 5845
46,740 5842
47,004 5876
46,988 5874
46,880 5860
function showed 26%. This implies that in spite of defining
a normal distribution for the uncertainty conditions for the
parameters (UCS-SGr-HDC-BL), the outcomes would not nec-
essarily be the normal distribution as the first priority.
(4) The total operating costs in case of uncertainties represented
a higher amount in contrast to the total operational cost in a
deterministic way. The difference between deterministic
and uncertain conditions is between 73,000 and 618,000
dollars a year.
(5) In case of emissions, the maximum amount of CO, NOx and
SOx occurred in the uncertainty condition of UCS-BL-HDC
and a bit diameter of 8.070 in.. These amounts represented
other values rather than just the bit diameter of 8.333 in.
with a difference of 1, 2 and 90 kg respectively.
In spite of a desirable functioning of this model, the following
points must be taken into account:
(1) This model takes more parameters and variables into
account as much as possible. Nevertheless, there is a possi-
bility for adding any other influential item into the model
such as air blast and ground vibration using boosters or pri-
mers in blasting. While doing so, it is necessary that their
location and connection in the model are precisely defined.
(2) This model was implemented for a hypothetical mine while
it would be more helpful if a productive mine could be
examined as a real case study in future.
(3) The distribution function of the uniaxial compressive
strength, rock density, bit life and hourly drilling cost are
considered and assumed as a normal distribution. This can
be promoted by measuring real data from a mine and deter-
mining the fitted distribution function. This can definitely
assist researchers and mine planners to reach more realistic
conclusions.
6. Conclusions
In this research, the system dynamic method for modelling dril-
ling and blasting operations was proposed. This model could effi-
ciently connect and evaluate all the technical, economic and
environmental parameters of these operations. In addition, the
changes in parameters through the simulation period (one year
of production), especially in case of the total production and costs
were measured. An optimization process for bit diameter in two
different conditions, deterministic and uncertainties was carried
out. It was shown that the optimum result can be totally different
in the case of deterministic (8.333 in.) and uncertainty (the range
848 H. Abbaspour et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 839–848
between 7.997 and 8.285 in.). In spite of assuming a normal den-
sity function in uncertainty conditions for the parameters (UCS-
SGr-HDC-BL), the distribution of optimum bit diameters was more
fitted to the Generalized Extreme Value, Johnson SB and Gumbel
Min density functions. In addition, the total drilling and blasting
costs in the uncertainty conditions differ from 9.475 to 10.020 M
$, which present higher costs as compared to the deterministic
optimization (9.402 M$). It was also proposed that the real distri-
bution function for the uncertain parameters can be defined by
gathering real data of a mine for running a more practical model.
References
[1] Hustrulid W, Kuchta M, Martin R. Open pit mine planning and design. Boca
Raton: Taylor & Francis group; 2013.
[2] Afeni TB. Optimization of drilling and blasting operations in an open pit mine-
the SOMAIR experience. Mining Sci Technol 2009;19:736–9.
[3] Afum BO, Temeng VA. Reducing drill and blast cost through blast optimisation-
a case sudy. Ghana Mining J 2015;15(2):50–7.
[4] Sontamino P, Drebenstedt C. A prototype dynamics model of bench blasting
design. In: The 10th international conference on mining, materials and
petroleum engineering. Songkhla: Sciences and Technologies Towards; 2012.
[5] Bowa VM. Optimization of blasting design parameters on open pit bench a case
study of Nchanga open pits. Int J Sci Technol Res 2015;4(9):45–51.
[6] Tosun A, Konak G. Determination of specific charge minimizing total unit cost
of open pit quarry blasting operations. Saudi Soc Geosciences 2015;8:6409–23.
[7] Attalla MI, Day SJ, Lange T, Lilley W, Morgan S. NOx emissions from blasting
operations in open-cut coal mining. Atmos Environ 2008;42:7874–83.
[8] Pruyt E. Small system dynamics models for big issues. Delf: TU Delft Library;
2013.
[9] Radzicki MJ, Taylor RA. Introduction to system dynamics, a systems approach
to understanding complex policy issues. Sustainable Solutions; 1997.
[10] Barlas Y. System dynamics encyclopedia of life support system. Oxford: Eolss
publishers; 2009.
[11] Bilim N. Determination of drillability of some natural stones and their
association with rock properties. Sci Res Essays 2011;6(2):382–7.
[12] Taheri A, Qao Q, Chanda E. Drilling penetration rate estimation using rock
drillability characterization index. J Inst Eng (India) 2016;97(2):159–70.
[13] Saeidi O, Torabi S, Ataei M, Rostami J. A stochastic penetration rate model for
rotary drilling in surface mines. Int J Rock Mech Mining Eng 2014;68:55–65.
[14] Kahramana S, Bilginb N, Feridunoglub C. Dominant rock properties affecting
the penetration rate of percussive drills. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2003;40:711–23.
[15] Hoseinie SH, Ataei M, Osanloo M. A new classification for evaluating of rock
penetrability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46(8):1329–40.
[16] Atlas Copco. Blasthole drilling in open pit mining. Atlas copco; 2012.
[17] Lowrie RL. SME mining reference handbook. Littleton: Society for mining,
metallurgy and exploration; 2009.