Search Documents

By R. J. Cefalo

Blast and mining spillover between phases or critical areas of the pit is a continuing problem in the mining industry and a safety concern for operating mines. The challenge for many mines is to produce the highest value in the shortest amount of time for any project. For any project, the top priority of any mine is producing ore as fast as possible. The next challenge is to keep that ore feed continuous. To achieve continuous ore feed, pits are designed with multiple phases that are connected and are mined at different elevations. This difference in elevation causes dangers with spillover between the phases during mining, drilling, and blasting. This paper covers an incident that occurred at an active mine and the work completed in creating a spillover control program over an active mining phase. The drill and blast technical group was responsible for creating blast patterns to reduce spillover between these phases. Unrealistic goals and expectations were initially set for the area of the pit. The drill and blast technical group needed to figure blast objectives and work with the geotechnical team to align with these goals. This paper will go over the executed example of setting up spillover targets and expectations for multiple sections of an operating mine. Different sections of the pit had different control measures and blast objectives due to narrow laybacks and double benching. The use and value of blast objectives and goals were beneficial in setting expectations and measuring design success. Having unrealistic blast goals can set up the operations to fail or get frustrated in trying to work on an impossible task. The problems and risks of phase interactions for many open pit operations need to be considered in the design process, along with designed controls that minimize the probability of any safety incident. Mine designs are being created in the industry and do not consider phase-to-phase mining interaction and the impact it would have on safety or production. The best future for safer mines is blast patterns that reduce spillover between phases of mining and pit designs that might account for spillover interaction.

Jan 1, 2024

It is a case study of huge rock-mass, loosened out from the parent rock-body, & posing a potential danger to structures down below the slope on which this rock mass was standing. Case was dealt in two phases, by tying/stitching the rock mass to the parent rockbody and breaking it using controlled blasting technique.

Jan 1, 1997

By L. M. Lopez, J. A. Sanchidrian

This work investigates the performance of some of the measurement techniques used in vibrations from blasting monitoring. Two tri-axial geophones with cases of different size, shape and mass were tested in a shaker table. The geophone cases were mounted in three different ways on a granite slab fixed to the plate of the shaker: freely placed, sandbagged, and anchored. A known horizontal periodic motion of constant amplitude, and frequency from 16 to 200 Hz, was applied to the slab. Two amplitude levels of 5 and 20 mm/s (0.2 and 0.79 in/s) were applied when the sensors were sandbagged or anchored and only 5 mm/s when no holding force was applied. The transmissibility of vibrations from the rock to the longitudinal geophone as function of the frequency (i.e. ratio of response of the geophone to the slab motion) has been obtained for each measuring condition tested. The transmissibility is considered a composition of the transmissibility of the rock-to-sensor coupling and the transmissibility of the sensor’s mechanics and electronics. The transmissibility of the coupling is obtained normalizing the total transmissibility with the transmissibility of the seismographs, obtained by a suitable test to which a coupling transmissibility of 1 is assigned. Geophone-to-rock coupling is a resonant phenomenon that may alter the amplitude of the measured waveforms by a factor of 1.2 to less than 0.6. The most accurate and precise measurements are obtained with geophones anchored to rock. On the contrary, freely placed or sandbagged sensors are non-predictable planting conditions that lead to high amplification or damping in most of the frequency band analyzed. It is also shown that existing acceleration criteria to select coupling methods do not necessary lead to good quality (accurate and precise) vibration data.

Jan 1, 2014

By R Castedo, L. M. Lopez, J. A. Sanchidrian

In 2014 the authors presented results from 13 tests made with two blasting seismographs on a vibration exciter. They measured coupling transmissibility as function of frequency (i.e. ratio of the velocity of the sensor mount to the velocity of the ground motion) from 16 to 200 Hz at one or two vibrations levels (5 mm/s or 0.2 in/s, and 20 mm/s or 0.79 in/s) with mounts freely placed, sandbagged, and anchored to a granite slab firmly attached to the plate of a vibration exciter. As the memory capacity of one of the seismographs prevented to cover low frequencies, e.g. 4-16 Hz, a new measuring campaign has been recently made to extend the study down to 2 Hz. In this campaign, two more techniques, in which the sensor mounts were fixed with thermal adhesive or a combination of duct tape and gypsum plaster, have been also investigated from 2 to 200 Hz at 5 and 20 mm/s. Free and sandbagged mounts lead to a weak coupling of the mounts to rock, so that transmissibility depends on the characteristics of the imposed rock motion (peak velocity and frequency). Measurements are accurate only at low frequencies (below 17 Hz for free mounts and 10 Hz for sandbagged) in the tested conditions (velocities up to 20 mm/s). Above these frequencies, ground motion in the measurement can be modified by a factor of 0.16 to 1.22. Anchored, glued and plastered mounts achieve a stiff rock-to-ground coupling, ensuring consistent measurements for the frequencies commonly found in blasting independently of the vibration level and the mount characteristics

Jan 1, 2015

By J R. Brinkmann

The South African gold mining industry presently uses four different types of explosives in stope blasting. There is general agreement that the type of explosive has considerable effect on Important blasting results such as the degree of rock fragmentation, the intensity of damage to surrounding rock, and the success of break-out at the toe of the hole.

Jan 1, 1989

By D Frantzos, J J. Cotter, H Tammemagi, J B. Codrington, J Kaasalainen, A C. Webster

"Exploshres Technologies International (ED) is developing an instrument called ROCSCAN which isplanned to have broad application in both blasting and rock mechanics. The purpose of this paper is to outllne the background that has led to the development of ROCSCAN, describe its objectives and to present a progress report on the work to date. Some of the potential applications of ROCSCAN will also be reviewed."

Jan 1, 1989

By Nils Heinke, Stephen M. Collinsorth

To anyone who is responsible for the production of blast holes, who is looked to on a daily basis for drill maintenance and performance, whose bottom line may depend on the survival of the mine itself.. How much awareness should one have on such things that truly impact production, maintenance and overall job cost? Do you know your drill’s maximum capacity?

Jan 1, 1998

By Michael S. Wieland, Thomas C. Ruhe

Delay blasting in underground coal results in shock waves traveling through the coal that can damage delay charges remaining in the blast pattern. Undetonated explosives which are dynamically desensitized or react sympathetically from shock wave impact ruin blast results. Such malfunctions, sometimes manifest as misfires, more frequently are covert weak detonations, and result in poor coal breakage and fumes with above normal toxicity. To reduce these mining hazards and resolve charge performance problems, the Bureau of Mines has developed and tested forty prototype rugged explosives in the laboratory. Rugged explosives work properly under difficult circumstances because they not only retain their shock initiation sensitivity but also are resistant to shock damage. This research investigation resulted in one candidate emulsion explosive, formulation #37, which passed all the permissibility tests required by MSHA approval regulations. However, approval was not granted because it reached shelf-life (would not shoot properly) seven months into testing. For research purposes, the remaining tests were conducted with a second batch of formulation #37. This paper discusses the prototype rugged explosive composition and permissibility test results. Where possible, for reference purposes, comparisons are made to a commercial product that has been approved. Further research work is required to overcome the noted deficiency of short shelf-life.

Jan 1, 1992

By Tristan Worsey, John Rathbun, Andres Malone

A run of mine, low grade gold heap leaching operation is currently looking to increase ounce recovery by decreasing run of mine fragmentation size. Current blasting practices have resulted in an average fragmentation size of 80% passing 7.05 inches (179 mm). It is estimated that a decrease of 2 inches (51 mm) in the 80% passing fragmentation size has the potential to yield up to a 2.5% increase in the overall life of mine recovery within this ore body. This potential recovery increase could lead to an increase in recoverable ounces which, in turn, would lead to a better profit margin. As this particular deposit is composed of predominantly low grade heap leach the capital investment in a crushing facility was cost prohibitive, it was therefore decided to look into the current blasting practices as a means to improve fragmentation.

Jan 1, 2015

By William D. Hissem

While much technology has been developed and brought to bear in the area of blasting applications, the foundation work required for success in the muck pile begins with the drilling program.

Jan 1, 1997

By Marco Larghi, Jurg Knobel, Braden Schmidt

Remote Avalanche Control Systems (RACS) which uses solid explosives has been used in Europe since 1996 and North America since 1999. With large destructive avalanches in transportation corridors, various States and Provinces have started implementing RACS into their summer construction projects to minimize traffic shutdowns. Since 2014 in North America, many of the projects are requiring the RACS deployment boxes to be removable by light duty helicopter for loading and summer storage. This is to further remove workers from the mountain tops, where inclement weather and Occupational Health and Safety concerns are widespread. We did not believe the method of flying primed charges under a helicopter was safe, so we developed a new charge container to deal with the issue. In spring of 2016, the Inauen Schatti company of Switzerland started the development of a flyable RACS deployment box to complement their 2 stand alone tower systems. To go along with the new flyable deployment box, a new S-Load charge carrier was developed. The newly developed and patented S-Load explosive charge for the LM32 RACS system features a mechanism which combines the explosive and priming material just before the blast. These are stored separately during transport and storage in the LM32 RACS deployment box. The S-load is divided into two parts. The upper part contains the plastic bobbin and ignition sequence (impact pull wire igniter, safety fuse and #8 blasting cap), whereby the explosive material and detonating cord are positioned in the lower part of the explosive container. The explosive material and ignition sequence are separated by a certified housing during transport and storage. The key idea of the S-Load system was to achieve a maximum level of safety by keeping the priming components separate from the explosive material until just before detonation. Because of this the S-Load and the LM32 tower remains safe during transport by helicopter or when being stored in the deployment box on the mountain side in the avalanche start zone.

By Marco Larghi, Jurg Knobel, Braden Schmidt

Remote Avalanche Control Systems (RACS) which uses solid explosives has been used in Europe since 1996 and North America since 1999. With large destructive avalanches in transportation corridors, various States and Provinces have started implementing RACS into their summer construction projects to minimize traffic shutdowns. Since 2014 in North America, many of the projects are requiring the RACS deployment boxes to be removable by light duty helicopter for loading and summer storage. This is to further remove workers from the mountain tops, where inclement weather and Occupational Health and Safety concerns are widespread. We did not believe the method of flying primed charges under a helicopter was safe, so we developed a new charge container to deal with the issue.

Feb 1, 2020

By Riaan Van Wyk, Gys Landman

In today’s mining environment the use of radio communications in the form of two-way radios, cellular phones and even automated mining, form a vital part of the daily operations of a mining site. The radio transmissions that are used are a form of energy and as with all other types of energy it can have an influence on blasting equipment.

Jan 1, 2011

By T. N. Singh, Vasudev Singh

Most of the surface mines in India have drilling and blasting practice as excavation method. All the mines have to keep the blast vibration level below a certain limit. But when mining operation is near some important civil structure, prediction and control of ground vibration becomes critical. Prediction of safe charge and finding the appropriate methodology is important for blasting near important civil structures.

Jan 1, 2006

By Mario Dobrilovic, Zvonimir Ester, Vinko Skrlec, Vjecislav Bohanek

The first public garage in the city of Dubrovnik has been built in highly urbanized area, on location Ilina Glavica. The excavation of the building pit has been done partly by construction machinery, i.e. by hydraulic hammer for excavations and partly by drilling and blasting. In the vicinity of the building pit there are houses, buildings and two schools. Drilling operations and blasting have been performed during the working hours while regular school classes have been held and activities in other buildings took place. The nearest structures are some 5 to 10 meters (16.4 to 32.8 ft) away from the building pit, which makes it even more difficult to perform blasting operations in the urban environment. For the purpose of determining safe and permissible oscillation velocity limits, i.e. the proportion of seismic effects of blasting, a trial blasting has been conducted. The permissible mass of explosive charge has been determined by original method respecting the requirements of existing standards (ISO 4866, DIN 4150, US BM 8507), which determine the permissible oscillation velocities in relation to their frequencies. According to measuring results of the oscillation velocity during the test blasting the design parameters of blasting field have been corrected and zones have been established within the excavation area considering the possible effect of blasting to the building pit environment. Further blasting operations have been performed in stages, in smaller blasting fields with deck charge within a blast hole while respecting the requirements of the transport possibilities for the blasted rock mass within the building pit and performance of control measurements of oscillation velocity for each blasting. Through application of all the protection measures, design solutions and systematic control of performance of activities the complete excavation by blasting has been completed without any damage on neighboring structures/buildings. This article presents these solutions and methods for reduction of seismic impact of blasting to the environment.

Jan 1, 2009

By Richard J. Mainiero, Harry C. Verakis, John J. Mulhern

There are application in coal mines where it would be advantageous from a safety stand point to fire unconfined shots. However, the firing of mud caps (adobes) or other unconfined explosive charges in underground coal mines is not permitted because of the explosion hazards associated with methane gas and coal dust. Present safety regulations in Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations prohibit such Practices. Recently, MSHA proposed revised coal mine regulations for the approval and use of sheathed explosives for Public comment.

Jan 1, 1987

By Gour Sen, Peter Bellairs

Blasting conducted in rock temperatures greater than or equal to 55°C (13 1 “F) and / or in rock containing sulphide minerals and their oxidation products can result in unplanned detonations. Blasting practices involving the identification of the affected areas together with the use of speciality explosive products and rigorous attention to quality control are required to safely blast in these types of environments. Sulphide dust explosions occur in some underground mines where the primary blast results in a secondary explosion of the sulphide rock dust which propagates some distance from the primary blast area. This phenomena results in considerable damage and the generation of significant volumes of toxic gasses delaying re-entry to the affected area of the mine thereby increasing both costs and safety concerns. The exothermic reaction between ammonium nitrate based explosives and rock types containing partially oxidised sulphides have resulted in numerous high risk blasting incidents. These reactions can occur at ambient temperatures and often result in premature detonations / deflagrations causing a great deal of consternation at the affected minesite resulting in lost production and considerable expenditure to solve the problem. Rock masses at elevated temperatures can also result in unplanned detonations unless appropriate precautions are taken. This paper discusses each of these hazards, cites some case studies and details appropriate generic safe and efficient blasting techniques for each of the above applications using appropriately formulated explosive products.

Jan 1, 2000

By John C. Didlinger

How do you measure the highwall? Why do you even need to know the highwall measurement? Why is it important? The importance of this measurement is to help keep a level floor and to help control vibration. Nevertheless, since most of us are not mountain climbers, there must be a safe and easy way to make an accurate highwall measurement. So with these factors in mind, how do you make your measurement?

Jan 1, 1997

By Shazad Hosein, William J. Birch, Robert Farnfield, David Jameson, Catherine E. Johnson

The current and consented quarry workings at a slate quarry in North Wales {UK} intersect old long abandoned underground slate mine workings. The old underground slate mine contains the remains of World War II buildings used to house artworks to protect them from war damage. Over the past 20 years, there have been a number of roof falls in the old underground slate mine, which have damaged the buildings and make general access unsafe. From observation of the timing of these falls, they occurred in the mid 2000’s. The purpose of the exercise was to determine the possible relationship between blast vibrations experienced on the surface and those experienced on the roof of the abandoned mine caverns. Thus preventing the need to regularly monitor in the old mine workings. In order to achieve this, a rigorous geotechnical assessment of the stability of the caverns was undertaken by a fully qualified Geotechnical Engineer. Once it had been determined that it was safe to do so, 3 “MEMs based” blasting seismographs were attached to the roof, in accordance with the instruction of the geotechnical engineer. In addition, 8 “MEMs based” blasting seismographs were deployed at various locations on the surface. The trial blast comprised of 51 blastholes, with charges varying between 46kg [101lbs] and 124kg [273lbs] of bulk emulsion explosive. The blastholes were in 4 rows of holes. The blast was connected using shock tube 25ms, 33ms and 65ms delay period relay detonators. The minimum distances from the blast to the surface and underground monitoring points were 78.1m [256 ft] and 114 m [374 ft] respectively. The results from the three underground monitoring locations in terms of resultant peak particle velocity was 4.42 mm/s [0.174in/s], 3.47 mm/s [0.137in/s], and 4.69 mm/s [0.185in/s]. In line with previous research, it was determined that the underground results [when compared on a “like for like” basis in terms of scaled distance] were lower in amplitude than the surface results. In this case by a factor between 0.47 and 0.87, averaging 0.68.

Jan 21, 2025

By Jerry Bennett

A recant Bureau of Mines analysis has shown that failure of blast area security systems is the mayor cause of mine blasting accidents. Accidents occur during scheduled blasting because of failure to clear the blast zone, inadequate guarding, and failure of personnel to follow instructions, retreat to a safe location and/or take adequate cover. The high incidence of blastslte security-related accidents could be considerably reduced by increased attention to improving minesite blast-guarding practices.

Jan 1, 1984