See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/334721455
Investigating The Role Of Effective Blast Block Size In Minimizing Drilling And
Blasting Costs In Open Pit Mines
Article · July 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 179
4 authors, including:
Amir H. Bangian Mohammad Taji
South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University Islamic Azad University of Shahrood
25 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 114 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ali Parhizkar
Islamic Azad University of Lahijan
6 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Creativity in architecture View project
Choosing an Appropriate Post Mining Land Use in Open Pit Mines Using Renewable Energies (Case study: Sangan iron ore mine) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Taji on 09 March 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Section Exploration and Mining
INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF EFFECTIVE BLAST BLOCK SIZE IN
MINIMIZING DRILLING AND BLASTING COSTS IN OPEN PIT MINIES
Ph.D. Candidate Ali Mozafari1
Assis. Prof. Dr. Amir Hossein Bangian1
Assis. Prof. Dr. Dr. Mohammad Taji2
Assis. Prof. Dr. Ali Parhizkar3
1
Department of Mining Engineering, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran,
20 on
Iran
19
e
2
Department of Mining Engineering, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood,
EM c
Iran
G ren
3
Department of Mining Engineering, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
rg S fe
.o S, n
ABSTRACT m E Co
Drilling and blasting operations are one of the most important mining processes in open
pit mines which encompass the crucial part of mining costs. Today, despite the
ge NC ific
development of mechanized drilling in surface mining, blasting operation has remained
w IE nt
as an inseparable part of mining operations in most open pit mines. This paper tries to
w SC cie
develop a mathematical model for finding an optimal length and width of the blast block
for minimizing drilling and blasting costs in open pit mines. With the approach, the
EO l S
most important parameters affecting the drilling and blasting operations in a blast block
in open pit mines will be identified and investigated, in order to minimize the costs of
G a
d ion
drilling and blasting by focusing on the effective blast block size. In addition, the article
.s
introduced a comprehensive set of effective criteria to determine the appropriate size of
an nat
the blast block using the multi-criteria decision-making method of fuzzy logic. In this
regard, applicability score (AS), using an engineering approach, acts as a decision tool
w
TH er
to determine the functional blast block selection. Model dynamism provides the ability
R Int
to eliminate or add some properties, but the new correlation coefficients must be
recalculated. Utilizing this decision model, the block size for production scheduling
EA th
purposes can be predicted such that to have economic benefits and prevent the loss of
19
natural resources. This model was implemented for Chadormalu iron ore mine and the
results of different scenarios proved the validity of the model.
Keywords: Blast block, optimal dimensions, open pit mine, drilling and blasting costs,
fuzzy logic.
INTRODUCTION
Drilling and blasting operations are two main mining cycles which should be considered
not only in planning and design phases but also during mine exploitation. These
operations are one of the most important mining processes in open pit mines which
encompass the crucial part of mining costs. Today, despite the development of
mechanized drilling methods, blasting operation has remained as an inseparable part of
mining operations in most open pit mines.
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.3 347
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019
Drilling, one of the main and critical operations of every hard rock mine contributes
about 15 % of the overall mining cost in some mining operations [1]. Finding efficient
methods of drilling and blasting, that would significantly reduce costs and improve
productivity while maintaining fragmentation and wall control are technical areas that
have well been researched [1],[2]. Several factors affect the blasting cost any piece of
in-situ rock. These factors include, but not limited to blast geometric parameters and
pattern: explosives costs, rock density and type, labour, oversize boulders, toes and
geological nature of the formation, block size and etc. The effective cost of poor
blasting can be several times the cost of the blast itself as can be demonstrated in terms
of fragmentation and environmental problems. Survey on several operations shows that
although mine blasts generally fragment rock to be handled by the mining process, there
20 on
is potential optimal fragmentation to improve the productivity and reduce the cost of all
downstream activities optimizing blast design parameters could reduce drilling and
19
e
blasting cost of a mine [3].
EM c
G ren
Finding the optimal dimensions of blast block is an important but a neglected task
which in light of the lack of a proper decision variable seems to be the main obstacle.
rg S fe
However, a minimum cost for blast size may not be in the best interest of the overall
.o S, n
mining system. A little more money spent in the blast block dimensions’ operation can
m E Co
be recovered later and the goal of the mining operator work should be to achieve a
minimum combined cost of drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, crushing and grinding.
ge NC ific
On the other hand, in mining operations, the design and production program are
w IE nt
developed on the basis of a block model. Concerning the blast block model, there are
many decisions involving the grades of the elements of interest, by-products and
w SC cie
impurities, the dilution percentage, the selectivity and the rock density. Finally, block
EO l S
modeling determines the deposit and the correct advancing direction for open pit mine
operations. Moreover, many direct and indirect costs are related to a mining operation,
G a
which some vital costs such as drilling and blasting expenses differ depending on the
d ion
.s
blast block size. Therefore, the costs can be reasonably reduced by determining the
an nat
optimal size of the extracted blast blocks.
w
Most previous works have focused on drilling and blasting just in terms of costs
TH er
reduction by different means. Afeni and Afum et al. tried to investigate the cost effects
R Int
of different drilling equipment and blasting patterns respectively in two open pit mines
through experimental and onsite observations [4],[5]. Some other researchers made
EA th
attempts to optimize drilling and blasting operations from the technical point of view;
19
Sontamino and Drebenstedt addressed a dynamic model for a bench blasting design [6].
Bowa introduced a practical method in an open pit mine to optimize blasting design
parameters such as bench height, drill hole diameter, spacing, etc. [7]. Tosun and Konak
determined a particular charge for blasting operation to reduce operating costs through
an experimental method [8]. Jara et al. a study of the increase in mining cost that
provides a zero difference in net present value between the different block size options
is carried out, in order to determine the maximum increase in mining costs for which it
remains profitable to mine at a smaller block size [9].
A fundamental parameter of the model is the choice of the blast block dimensions, since
this will condition mining dilution and selectivity, affecting the operation and mining
costs. The objective of this study is to quantify the influence of the blast block size on
the mining selectivity and its impact over the projects final economic results (income,
348
Section Exploration and Mining
costs, and discounted cash flows), a topic that has not been systematically studied in the
literature so far.
EFFECTIVE FACTORS IN OPTIMAL BLAST BLOCK SIZE
The factor that influences the selection of the optimal blast block is shown in Fig. 1.
Geology Equipment
20 on
Optimal blast
block size
19
e
EM c
G ren
Site
rg S fe
factors
.o S, n
m E Co
Figure 1. Loop-like relationship between effective parameters in choosing the optimal
blast block size.
ge NC ific
Each factor has the following parts:
w IE nt
• Geology: Rock density (RD), strike and dip value (SV), joint structure and frequency
w SC cie
(JF), grade (G), dilution (D), water status in the block (W).
• Equipment: Feed thrust (FT), impact frequency (IFR), piston strike (PS), impact
EO l S
pressure (IP), rotation rate (RR), type of drill rig (DR), type of bit (B).
G a
d ion
• Site factors: Dimensions of the face (DF), diameter of hole ratio of spacing and burden
.s
(SB), length of hole (LH), inclination of hole (IH), number of rows (NR), wet or dry
an nat
holes (WD), drilling sequence (DS).
w
TH er
R Int
MULTI- CRITERIA DECISION- MAKING METHOD
In multi-criteria decision-making methods, when the number of criteria increases,
EA th
enforcing a paired comparison process becomes difficult. This issue becomes acute
19
when the number of decisions and variables increases. Moreover, the results depend
heavily on the experience of the decision team or the opinion of experts. In the present
study, a mathematical model originally introduced by Folchi [10] is applied to assess the
environmental impacts of an open-pit mine in Italy. For this purpose, we use a
correlation matrix, consisting of impacting factors (IFs) and decision components
(DCs). The approach has already been used by some authors [11],[12] for
environmental assessments of mines, but this study tries to apply the model for the first
time in the field of blast block dimensions and to demonstrate its capability. The model
will be modified using the fuzzy logic [13] for defining some scenarios and values such
that to enhance the corresponding accuracy. The input data of the model are the factors
affecting the size of blocks. Here, the fuzzy scenarios of each factor are defined by
studying a variety of literature. Then, the values of IFs are multiplied by the correlation
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.3 349
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019
matrix to calculate the effect of IFs on each DC (Eq. 1). Summing the overall impacts,
the AS index is obtained according to Eq. 2-4.
E1m = F1n Cnm (1)
m
AS Geo = E j (2)
j =1
m
AS Equ = E j (3)
j =1
m
AS SF = E j
20 on
(4)
j =1
19
e
Where E is a (1×m) matrix in which each element represents the amount of overall
EM c
G ren
impact on each decision component; F denotes a (1×n) matrix in which elements
represent values of impacting factors; and C is an (n×m) correlation matrix. The
rg S fe
parameters n and m are the number of IFs and decision components, respectively;
.o S, n
ASGeo, ASEqu, ASSF are the block score index for decision making on the geology,
m E Co
equipment, site factor and cost factor of a blast block, respectively.
ge NC ific
CORRELATION MATRIX
w IE nt
The correlation matrix assesses the influence of IFs on five decision components
w SC cie
including:
EO l S
➢ Conformity of short-term production planning with long-term production
planning (I),
G a
d ion
.s
➢ Control of blasting adverse effects (II),
an nat
➢ Increase the efficiency of drilling machines (III),
➢ Higher safety (IV),
w
TH er
R Int
➢ Reduce drilling, blasting and loading operations (V).
The influence weight of each IF on each decision component (DC) was defined as nil,
EA th
minimum, medium and maximum in a matrix. These weights were gained from the
19
integration of opinions of 30 Iranian experts in the field of ore block modeling
(Questionnaire as Table 1). The elements of this matrix are quantified by defining
maximum effect, which is twice the medium effect, and medium effect, which is twice
the minimum effect. Here, the sum of these coefficients for each DC equals to 10. After
calculating the AS index, a proper decision for applicability size of blast blocks can be
made using the classification presented in Table 2.
CASE STUDY
Chadormalu iron ore mine is located at the center of Iran Desert, at 180 km of the north
eastern of Yazd province and 300 km of the south of Tabas city (Fig. 1). The deposit
contains about 317 Mt of ore with an average grade of 53% Fe and 1% P. The blast
block model contains 17921 blocks with these dimensions 25×25×12.5 m.
350
Section Exploration and Mining
Table 1. Questionnaire: correlation matrix
Decision component (DC)
Impact factor
(IF)
(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V)
RD
SV
JF
Geology
G
D
W
FT
20 on
IFR
19
e
PS
Equipment
EM c
IP
G ren
RR
DR
rg S fe
B
.o S, n
m E Co
DF
SB
ge NC ific
LH
Site factor
IH
w IE nt
NR
w SC cie
WD
DS
EO l S
G a
Table 2. Classification for applicability of blast block size.
d ion
.s
AS >200 100-150 <100
an nat
Quality Good Medium Poor
w
TH er
R Int
EA th
19
Figure 2. Geographical location of the Chadormalu iron mine.
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.3 351
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019
As Table 1, I, II, III, IV and V are quantitative criteria and their values for various
options have been determined on the basis of detailed calculations. Criteria are
qualitative and expert opinion has been used to determine their values for different
options. In other words, rating and scoring in relation to the value of each of the
qualitative criteria (I to V) for each of the options were performed based on the fivefold
range according to Table 1. Thus, the decision matrix was determined according to
Table 3.
Table 3. Decision matrix for case study.
Decision component
Block size
(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V)
20 on
2.5*2.5*2.5 122.76 170.78 222.06 145.21 86.41
19
e
5*5*5 122.54 170.67 221.72 145.27 86.44
EM c
G ren
7.5*7.5*7.5 123.15 170.52 222.34 145.28 86.47
10*10*10 122.84 170.62 221.07 145.32 86.9
rg S fe
12.5*12.5*12.5 123.17 170.64 222.3 145.3 87.02
.o S, n
15*15*15 123.22
m E Co 170.68 222.36 145.29 87.11
20*20*12.5 127.14 171.21 223.42 145.37 87.2
ge NC ific
20*20*15 131.15 171.32 222.43 145.41 87.32
20*20*20 142.78 171.38 223.47 145.42 87.39
w IE nt
25*25*12.5 143.15 171.41 223.48 145.44 87.41
w SC cie
25*25*15 143.02 171.34 223.44 145.42 87.4
EO l S
25*25*25 143.14 171.32 222.43 145.43 87.41
G a
In this study, 20 parameters affecting the dimensions of the ore blocks were identified
d ion
.s
and related scenarios were defined in fuzzy forms. In the correlation matrix, every
common application in terms of these parameters was evaluated and the application that
an nat
receives the highest overall impacts was recognized as the most appropriate ones.
w
TH er
Measuring all the factors introduced in the model is suggested, but sometimes there are
situations where, due to the lack of adequate laboratory facilities, measurement of one
R Int
or more technical properties is not possible or it may be necessary that factors are added
or eliminated. The proposed model is a dynamic model that makes these changes
EA th
possible, but the new correlation coefficients must be recalculated. The boundaries of
19
Table 3 depend on a number of decision components; thus, they do not vary with the
change in factors that may need to be changed. In this way, the final normalized weight
of each criterion was obtained. The results are shown in Table 4. and then the weighted
normal matrix was obtained by multiplying the normal matrix elements by relative
importance of the criteria as Table 5.
Table 4. Final weight of DC.
DC Final weight
I 0.07545
II 0.04895
III 0.13963
IV 0.26371
V 0.09747
352
Section Exploration and Mining
Table 5. Normal weight matrix.
Decision component
Block size
(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V)
2.5*2.5*2.5 0.0462 0.0194 0.0121 0.0261 0.0186
5*5*5 0.0421 0.0197 0.0364 0.0264 0.0188
7.5*7.5*7.5 0.0435 0.0195 0.0607 0.0267 0.0192
10*10*10 0.0431 0.0198 0.0364 0.027 0.0194
12.5*12.5*12.5 0.0448 0.0196 0.0193 0.0274 0.0195
15*15*15 0.0458 0.0195 0.0121 0.0277 0.0199
20 on
20*20*12.5 0.0421 0.0175 0.0855 0.0281 0.0207
20*20*15 0.0431 0.0176 0.0721 0.0283 0.0208
19
e
EM c
20*20*20 0.0441 0.0173 0.0723 0.0287 0.0223
G ren
25*25*12.5 0.0419 0.0172 0.0719 0.0288 0.0228
25*25*15 0.0422 0.0174 0.0748 0.0286 0.0226
rg S fe
25*25*25 0.0423 0.0173 0.0771 0.0288 0.0224
.o S, n
m E Co
CONCLUSION
ge NC ific
Several factors including geometric parameters, technical explosive data and desired
w IE nt
fragmentation sizes influence the cost trends in the drilling and blasting operations of a
w SC cie
mine. A fundamental parameter of this model is the choice of the blast block
dimensions, since this will condition mining dilution and selectivity, affecting the
EO l S
operation and mining costs. The use of multi-criteria decision-making techniques is very
helpful as it enables consideration of the simultaneous impact of different criteria by
G a
d ion
taking into account their different relative importance. In this paper, we introduced a
.s
comprehensive set of effective criteria to determine the appropriate size of the blast
an nat
block using the multi-criteria decision-making method of fuzzy logic. In this regard,
applicability score (AS), using an engineering approach, acts as a decision tool to
w
TH er
determine the functional quality of the stones for use in the building. When the AS
R Int
index is within the range of 140-180, 100-140, and 60-100, the applicability quality of
stone (according to Table 2) will be ‘Good’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Poor’, respectively. Model
EA th
dynamism provides the ability to eliminate or add some properties, but the new
19
correlation coefficients must be recalculated. Utilizing this decision model, the blast
block size for production scheduling purposes can be predicted such that to have
economic benefits and prevent the loss of natural resources. This model was
implemented for Chadormalu iron ore mine and the results of different scenarios
showed that the optimal blast block size of extraction block is 25*25*12.5.
REFERENCES
[1] Gokhal, V.B Cost Analysis of Rotary Blasthole Drilling, CRC Press, Chapter 14,
2010.
[2] Olofsson S.O. Applied Explosives Technology for Construction and Mining, Nora
Boktryckeri AB, Sweden, pp 315, 1988.
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.3 353
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019
[3] Bozic B. Control of Fragmentation by Blasting, Rudarsko-geoloiko-nafini
zbornik, 10, str. Pp 49-57, 1998.
[4] Afeni T.B. Optimization of drilling and blasting operations in an open pit mine
the SOMAIR experience, Mining Sci Technol, 19, pp 736–9, 2009.
[5] Afum B.O. & Temeng V.A. Reducing drill and blast cost through blast
optimisation case sudy, Ghana Mining J, 15(2), pp 50–7, 2015.
[6] 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.
20 on
[7] 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.
19
e
[8] Tosun A. & Konak G. Determination of specific charge minimizing total unit cost
EM c
G ren
of open pit quarry blasting operations, Saudi Soc Geosciences, 8, pp 6409–23,
2015.
rg S fe
[9] Jara R.M., Couble A., Emery X., Magri E.J. & Ortiz J.M. Block size selection and
.o S, n
its impact on open-pit design and mine planning, Journal of the South African
m E Co
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 106(3), pp 205-212, 2006.
ge NC ific
[10] Folchi R. Environmental impact statement for mining with explosives: a
quantitative method, Proceedings of the annual conference on explosives and
w IE nt
blasting technique, ISEE, pp. 285-296, 2003.
w SC cie
[11] Monjezi M., Shahriar K., Dehghani H. & Namin F.S. Environmental impact
EO l S
assessment of open pit mining in Iran, Environmental geology, 58(1), pp 205-216,
2009.
G a
d ion
.s
[12] Phillips J. The application of a mathematical model of sustainability to the results
of a semi-quantitative environmental impact assessment of two iron ore opencast
an nat
mines in Iran, Applied Mathematical Modeling, 37(14-15), pp 7839-7854, 2013.
w
TH er
[13] Chang C.L. Fuzzy topological spaces, Journal of mathematical Analysis and
R Int
Applications, 24(1), pp 182-190, 1968.
EA th
19
354
View publication stats
