Journal of http://jvc.sagepub.

com/
Vibration and Control

ODM: a new approach for open pit mine blasting evaluation

M Taji, M Ataei, K Goshtasbi and M Osanloo
Journal of Vibration and Control published online 18 July 2012
DOI: 10.1177/1077546312439911

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jvc.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/18/1077546312439911
A more recent version of this article was published on - Jul 10, 2013

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Vibration and Control can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jvc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jvc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Version of Record - Jul 10, 2013

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 18, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:05pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

Article
Journal of Vibration and Control
0(0) 1–15

ODM: a new approach for open pit mine ! The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
blasting evaluation DOI: 10.1177/1077546312439911
jvc.sagepub.com

M Taji1, M Ataei2, K Goshtasbi3 and M Osanloo4

Abstract
In open pit mines, the blasting operation should be effectively optimized at the lowest possible total cost, providing
technical specifications and the required safety norms. The optimization demand measurement (ODM) value of blast
should be evaluated by considering blast results and other mine unit operations, comprehensively. The present research
proceeds by taking into consideration seven blast results including degree of fragmentation, muckpile, overbreak, boul-
ders, bench floor and toe conditions, environmental considerations and misfires. Consequently, these results have been
rated and classified. In the ODM, a value could be assigned to each blast, with lower values corresponding to better
results of the blasting operation. The ODM procedure indicates a relationship between blasting results, drilling and
loading performances. The specific mine unit operations index and the blast block situation rating are introduced in
order to determine the ODM value. The blast results evaluation and its effects on the mining operation are analyzed by
utilizing the blast results matrix [z], the performance matrix [P] and the ODM matrix [O]. Based on the results as well as
considering optimization, blasts are classified into five modes: very good, good, relatively weak, weak and very weak.
Thereafter, the ODM procedure is applied to the blasting operation at an Iranian iron ore open pit mine (Chador Malu),
with nine blast blocks. In summary, this approach could help design engineers to recognize the optimization demand of
the blasting operation at different mining conditions.

Keywords
Optimization demand measurement (ODM), open pit mine blasting operation, blast block situation rating (BBSR), blast
results matrix, performance index
Received: 7 February 2010; accepted: 9 May 2010

such as the degree of fragmentation (DF) and specific

1. Introduction
To optimize blasts, the analysis of blasting results is
necessary in an open pit mine. The data interpretation
might cause successive modifications of the design par-
ameters of a mine operation (Lilly, 2007). To achieve an
effective optimal open pit mine blasting operation as
well as its global evaluation, the main blast results
have to be analyzed. The process could lead researchers
to three important questions. First, what are the pre-
sent blasting operation conditions? Second, what pos-
ition should be given to the present blasting operation?
Third, which design will yield better results?
Since 1966, many researchers have studied the evalu-
ation of blasting operation results. In Table 1 the most
famous and important studies that have been presented
until now have been reviewed. The table shows many
indexes for evaluating blast operation. Some of them
charge (Sc) have been widely used in evaluation.
However, some less-common indexes such as the digg-
ability of loading machines (DL), explosive cost (EC)
and energy consumption (En.Cs), have also been
suggested. These indexes are not independent param-
eters but are based on some the parameters such as
bench floor conditions and boulder characteristics.
1
Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University (IAU), Tehran, Iran
2
Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of
Technology, Iran
3
Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of Engineering, Tehran, Iran
4
Amirkabir University, Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics,
Tehran, Iran
Corresponding author:
M Taji, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University (IAU),
Tehran, Iran
Email: taji@ymail.com

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:05pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

2 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Table 1. The most famous and important studies regarding the evaluation of blast operation
Reference EC OC El.Cs En.Cs TC Sc Sd DL Pe LP Cr.P MT Mu DF E.Co SB Di

Hammes (1966) # #
Mackenzie (1965) # # # #
Da Gama (1990) # # # # #
Nielsen and Kristiansen (1996), # # # # #
Nielsen and Lownds (1997)
Williamson et al. (1983) # # # #
Hodjigeorgiou and Scoble (1988) # # # #
Taqieddin (1989) # # # # #
Hunter et al. (1990) # #
Stagg et al. (1992) # #
Eloranta (1993, 1995, 1997) # # # # #
Da Gama and Lopez Jimeno (1993) # # #
Fuerstenau et al. (1995) # # # # # #
Mckee et al. (1995) # # #
Cunningham (2005) #
Adler et al. (1996a, 1996b) # # # #
Moody et al. (1996) # #
Frimpong et al. (1996) # # #
Eloranta (2001a, 2001b, 2007) # # # # # # #
Kanchibotla et al. (1998, 1999) # # # # # # #
Workman (2000,2001) # # # #
Harris et al. (2001) # # #
Grundstrom et al. (2001) # # # #
Singh and Yalcin (2002) # #
Workman and Eloranta (2008) # # # # #
Singh et al. (2003) # # #
Hamdi and du Mouza (2005) # #
Mosher (2005) # #
Kojovic (2005) # #
Morin and Ficarazzo (2006) # # #
Singh and Narendrula (2006) # # # #
Ryu et al. (2006) # # # #
Bremer et al. (2007) # # # #
AOG (2007, 2009) # # # # #
Calder and Workman (2008,2009) # # # # # #

EC: explosive cost, OC: operational (blasting, drilling or loading) cost, El.Cs: electrical consumption, En.Cs: energy consumption, TC: total costs of
mining, Sc: specific charge, Sd: specific drilling, DL: diggability of loading machines, Pe: expert personnel LP: loading equipment productivity, Cr.P:
crusher productivity and delays at the crusher, MT: mill throughput, Mu: condition of muckpile, DF: degree of fragmentation and required size
distribution of fragmented rocks, E.Co: environmental considerations, SB: secondary blasting, Di: dilution constrains.

Some indexes such as loading equipment productivity
(LP), specific drilling (Sd), environmental considerations
(E.Co) and secondary blasting (SB) are important but in
previous studies have not been studied comprehensively.
In order to develop a rational and economical opti-
mization of blasting operations, the present study has
suggested a new approach to measure the blast results.
In brief, the proposed optimization demand measure-
ment (ODM) is a quantitative procedure used to assess
the degree of optimization demand for open pit mine
blasting operation.
2. ODM procedure
The ODM is based on a systematic approach and inte-
grates knowledge from theoretical analysis, experiences
and monitoring, so can be utilized to compute and deter-
mine the ODM values for different blast block situation
(BBSs). The BBS is determined and classified based on the
blasthole water ratio, the number and type of free face, the
ratio of length to width of the blast block and type of blast
block material. The blast block situation rating (BBSR)
considers blast working conditions to rationally compare
blast blocks. So, it could be enter blast operation special

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:05pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

Taji et al. 3

characteristics such as: (1) the solutions to overcome the

blasthole water problems, (2) initiation and priming sys- BBSRj
tems by considering the effect of blast block size and shape
and the number of free face, (3) the necessity of blending
programs or fragmentation degree limitations by consider- ζFR ζMU ζOV ζFL ζBO ζEN ζMI
ing the effect of blast block material type (ore, waste, ore
and waste). To develop the ODM, the blast blocks needs
to be divided into five classes or representative blast blocks
Blast results matrix [ζ]
based on BBSR. S1 shows water presence or the blasthole
water ratio and S2 indicates the number of free face/pres-
ence of the buffer of broken rock, resting on one of the free Classification of (ζj)
faces from the previous blast. So, S3 and S4 indicate the
ratio of length to width of the blast block and type of blast
Relative evaluation of blast operation:
block material, respectively. Every blast block posited in
the BBSR class is numbered by 1, 2, . . . , j, . . . , m, respect- Calculation of specific charge,
ively. In principle, the BBSR helps to optimize blast specific drilling and specific
demand assessment according to very similar blast work- loading of every blast block
ing conditions.
To apply the ODM in open pit mines, the following
Specific mine unit
points are emphasized. operation index

1. In an open pit mine, the properties of blast are likely to

be different from one to other blocks. In other words,
the blast results will be different for each block. Hence,
the optimization and ODM values for different blast
blocks will be different. To develop the ODM, first
determine the BBSR class of the blast block.
2. When the blast results are determined and rated,
their contributions to the ODM values are expressed
by a dimensionless numerical value (Saaty, 1980;
Wang et al., 2005) based on the general principles
and experiences from the open pit mine blasting spe-
cialists, equipment operators and mining engineers.
3. A m  1 matrix [z] can be compiled by using the
blast results and their assigned values.
4. In fact, the weight and importance of each blast
result is different. To determine the weight and
importance of each blast result, we should develop
a performance index.
5. By transforming the specific mine unit operations
index (Suo) measured in each blast block into the
form of the specific mine unit operation ratios, a
1  m matrix, i.e. the specific mine unit operation
ratio or performance matrix [P] can be obtained.
6. By multiplying [z] and [P], a m  m matrix [O] is
achieved. The elements Ojj along the leading diag-
onal of the matrix [O] are the ODM values for the jth
blast block. Figure 1 demonstrates a flowchart of the
ODM procedure.
2.1. Blast results
As mentioned previously, the seven main blast results
are based on theoretical analyses as well as engineering
Performance matrix [P]
ODM matrix [O]
ODM values
Figure 1. Flowchart of the ODM procedure.
practice to discuss empirical assignments These are the
fragmentation degree, the muckpile, the overbreak,
bench floor and toe conditions, boulders, environ-
mental considerations of the blasting operation and
condition of misfires (Jimeno et al., 1995; Katsabanis
et al., 2005). The seven blast results are divided into
classes with numerical values of 1 to 20. A blast result
higher assignment value indicates a low optimal and a
higher degree of optimization demand in the block
blasting.
2.1.1. The degree of fragmentation (FR). The fragmenta-
tion degree is one of the most important factors of
blasting operation outputs. Apart from the classifica-
tion of size distribution or screening of the muckpile in
treatment plants, there is no method which enables a
quantitative evaluation of fragmentation in conditions
that would be trustworthy. The fragmentation degree
(zFR) is divided into six classes. According to Table 2,
these numbers show the numerical assigned value of
optimization demand for the blast block in an open
pit mine blasting operation.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:06pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

4 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

2.1.2. Condition of the muckpile (MU). Table 3 shows that 2.1.3. The overbreak condition (OV). A typical overbreak
the optimum geometry, height (Hm) and displacement condition and remaining rock after blasting is given in
of the muckpile depends on the applied digging and Figure 2. It shows damage and problems in the digging
loading system. and loading system as well as around the blast block

Table 2. The degree of fragmentation (zFR)

Class I II III IV V VI

Fragmentation >95 85–95 75–85 65–75 50–65 <50

efficiency (%)
Qualitative Excellent Very good Good Moderate Unsuitable Very poor
zFR 1 4 8 12 16 20

Table 3. Condition of the muckpile (zMU)

zMU

Class Description a b

I  Need to clean up more area 1 7

 The productivity is low (shovel)
 Loading safety is good
 Loading operation is easy

II  Irregular profile 4 12
 Need to clean up more area
 The productivity is low (shovel)
 Loading safety is good

III  Moderate clean up area 7 1

 The productivity is good (shovel)
 Loading safety is good

IV  High necessity of clean up * 10 16

 Need to clean up more area
 The productivity is very low (shovel) ** 12 20
 Loading safety is very good

V  Low clean up area 16 4

 The productivity is excellent (shovel)
 Loading safety is dangerous (loader)

VI  Muckpile displacement is very low 20 10

 Shovel operation to face wall clean up is difficult

a
Using loading equipment with access height lower than bench height (maximum access height is 2/3 bench height).
b
Using loading equipment with access height comparable to bench height.
*
Suitable bench width.
**
Low bench width.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:06pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

Taji et al. 5

equipment such as a dozer

carried out by mechanical
drilling operation. Table 4 indicates the assigned
optimization demand value of the overbreak (zOV).

 Drilling and blasting

but rock extraction

 dba > B or dsi > S

are not possible

 Face scaling by
2.1.4. The bench floor and toe condition (FL). Figure 3

is not possible
shows a typical bench floor and toe remaining rock,

equipment
where ‘HF’ is the average increased height of bench

loading
floor and ‘J’ is subdrilling. The optimization demand

IIX

20
numerical values of the bench floor and toe condition
are evaluated from Table 5.

rock extraction carry

are not possible but

equipment as dozer
 Drilling and blasting
loading equipment

out by mechanical
 dba > B or dsi > S

are not possible

2.1.5. Boulders and oversize characteristics in the muckpile

 Face scaling by
(BO). Important factors in boulder evaluation in the
muckpile are: the amount of boulders in the muckpile
as a volume percentage (MBO%), loading operation
safety degree, effect on productivity and loading equip-

VII

17
ment delay as shovel loading rate, secondary breakage

possible but rock

extraction carry
methods, the necessity of secondary blasting, position

blasting are not

out by loading
and/or dsi < S
of boulders in the muckpile (as shown in Figure 4),

 Drilling and

equipment
boulders size and probability of secondary breakage

 dba < B
in the next blast blocks, delay at the crusher and the
loading equipment and flexibility of breakage method

14
VI
to extraction. The classification of boulders and over-

scaling by loading

relatively difficult
 Drilling and face
size conditions (zBO), are given in Table 6.

 Drill equipment

equipment are
 dba < B and

location is

dangerous
relatively
2.1.6. Environmental considerations (EN). The environ- dsi < S
mental considerations for blasting consist of airblast,
ground vibration, noise, flying rock, dust and fumes.

11
V

These often causes environmental and production

scaling by loading
problems such as decreasing productivity and increas-

 Drilling and face

 Drill equipment

equipment are
relatively easy
ing equipment damage, increasing risk of loss, building
location is
 dba < B or

damages, labor and operator injures and finally increas-

relatively
dsi < S*

ing mining costs. Some of the factors should be con-

safe

sidered for evaluating of environmental considerations

IV

8
of blasting operation include: (1) the presence of office
 Drilling location
little backbreak,

is relatively safe

buildings, mine shops, warehouses and their distance

sidebreak and
tension crack
 There are a

from the pit; (2) the position and location of the dor-
 Face scaling

equipment
by loading
Table 4. The remaining rock and overbreak condition (zOV)

mitory, urban areas; (3) the distance between the main

is easy

roads, haul roads, service roads, in-pit roads to the

blasting site; (4) the position and location of the radio
III

5
 There is smooth

 Not necessary
to face scaling
wall with low
cracking

location
 Drilling

is safe
II

3
 There is smooth

 Not necessary
to face scaling
and cracking
wall without
damage

*B: burden, S: spacing.

1
I

Description

Figure 2. A typical overbreak condition and the remaining rock

Class

zOV

after blasting.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:06pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

6 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

2.1.7. The presence and condition of misfire (MI). If misfire

occurs, only few employees shall remain in the blasted
site. The blaster shall determine after each blast that no
misfire has occurred. Under most conditions the safest
way to dispose of a misfire is ‘reshoot’. The misfire
prognosis ability is of two types: (1) properly, certain
or suitable; (2) improperly, uncertain or unsuitable.
Table 9 shows the misfires conditions are classified
based on prognosis ability, the misfire number and
position.

2.2. Structure of the blast results matrix []

Figure 3. A typical bench floor and toe remaining rock.
The blast results matrix is constructed by means of the
station, power house, power main lines, power station; blasting outputs. Let us suppose that the numbers of
(5) the presence of the historical construction, the envir- blast blocks and the blast results are m and n, respect-
onmental protected location and their distance from the ively, then the matrix will be a m  n matrix, the jth row
blasting site and related regulations; (6) yearly weather of which is occupied by seven blast results for the jth
conditions and their variances and degree of alter- blast block. In fact, j is the sum of zFR, zMU, zOV, zFL,
ations; (7) general direction and position of the wind; zBO, zEN and zMI. The possible minimum and maximum
(8) flexibility and changeability of mine facilities loca- zj are 7 and 140, respectively. The seven blast results and
tion and access ways; (9) bench width; (10) dilution and their matrix can be shown in the following form:
ore grades limitations and the blast block selection 2 3
based on these factors; (11) required degree of the cer- FR1 MU1 OV1 FL1 BO1 EN1 MI1
tain block blasting to provide production scheduling 6 7
6 FR2 MU2 OV2 FL2 BO2 EN2 MI2 7
objectives and selective mining; (12) flexibility of pro- 6 7
6 7
½ ¼ 6 FR3 MU3 OV3 FL3 BO3 EN3 MI3 7
duction constraints and blasting time scheduling under 6 . 7
6 . 7
different atmospheric conditions; (13) general shape of 4 . :::: 5
the pit and adjacent mining sites constraints; (14) pre- FRm MUm OVm FLm BOm ENm MIm
sent mine equipment; (15) Capability of equipment to 2 3
1
reach a safety zone; (16) bench and pit slopes stability 6 7
conditions in blasting practices (Pal Roy, 2005). 6 27
6 7
The blasting site sensitivity is classified into three 6 3 7
6 7
major groups: usual sensitiveness, relatively sensitive ¼6 7 ð1Þ
6 7
and sensitive. According to the above-mentioned 16 fac- 6 . 7
6 . 7
tors, usual sensitiveness shows that the facilities loca- 4 . 5
tions, the main roads, power and energy main lines m
and urban distances from the blasting site are suitable.
The in-pit roads are flexible and changeable. There are As shown in Table 10, the overall blast results values
no air noise limitations because the suitability of dormi- are classified into five classes.
tory and urban areas are probable. The yearly weather
conditions are desirable. The drilling, loading and
hauling equipment usage are probable. The production 3. Relative evaluating of blast operation
scheduling has high flexibility in bad climate conditions.
3.1. The performance matrix [P]
The bench and pit slopes stability conditions are good
and predictable. Blending reasons are not significant. To consider weight and importance of each the blast
The environmental influences and impacts of the results introduced the performance index (Pj). If the
blasting operation are classified into three positions measured specific mine unit operations index in the
i.e. acceptable, relatively acceptable, and relatively jth blast block is Suoj (kg:hr=m8 ), the performance
unacceptable, which are indicated in Table 7. index can be defined as
Table 8 shows the blasting operations’ environmen-
tal considerations (zEN), based on the considered fac- Suoj ¼ Scj :Sdj :Slj ð2Þ
tors in the environmental outputs of blasting operation Suoj
pj ¼ P m j ¼ 1, 2, . . . , m ð3Þ
and the sensitivity degree as well as blasting site condi- j¼1 Suoj
tions (usual, relatively sensitive and sensitive).

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
 XML Template (2012)
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d

Taji et al.

Table 5. The bench floor and toe condition (zFL)

(JVC)

Class I II III IV V VI VII IIX IX XII

[13.7.2012–2:06pm]

Description  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor
is leveled is leveled is leveled and is leveled and is leveled and is unleveled is irregular and is unleveled and is unleveled and its is unleveled and
its surface is its surface is its surface is unleveled with its surface is surface is rough its surface
planar or undulating rough rough hard toe undulating is stepped
 Bench floor  Loading  HF < 1/4 J  HF < 1/4 J  HF ¼ (1/4  2/3)J  HF ¼ (1/4  2/3)J  HF > 2/3 J  HF > 2/3 J  HF > 2/3 J  HF > 2/3 J
leveling is not equipment
necessary productivity
is very
good for floor
digging and
loading
[PREPRINTER stage]
[1–15]

 There is no  Bench floor  Loading  Bench floor  Bench floor  Digging and  Necessary to  Necessary to  Toe located  Toe located
bench floor breaking is low equipment extraction is Extraction and leveling by digging and digging by between holes between holes
breaking productivity not necessary* digging carried loading leveling dozer and in front
is good out by loading equipment is by dozer of holes
for digging and equipment** difficult
leveling
 The drilling  The drilling  Loading  Loading  Bench floor  Bench floor  Bench floor
productivity is productivity is productivity productivity to leveling by leveling is not leveling is not
good relatively good to clean up clean up is low shovel possible by loading possible by
is low is difficult equipment but loading
blasting is equipment but

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
necessary blasting is
necessary
zFL 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 20

*Bench floor leveling could be carried out during bottom block blasting.
**It may need to be blasted.
7
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:06pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

8 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

analysis. The ‘r’ value in Table 11 is calculated as

follows:

UL
r¼ ð8Þ
5

where U and L represent maximum and minimum Pj j ,

Figure 4. A typical muckpile area and location of the boulders
(after Jimeno et al., 1995).
where Pj is a dimensionless numerical value, and the sum-
mation of Pj for all blast blocks is 1. For a relative assess-
ment, the use of Pj can reduce the effects of the measuring
errors on the possible ODM values. Here Scj, Sdj, and Slj
are specific charge (kg=m3 ), specific drilling ðm=m3 Þ and
specific loading ðhr=m3 Þ, respectively. These are mea-
sured based on the volume of in situ rock in the jth
blast block. In reality, specific loading is arrived by divid-
ing the loading equipment total access time (hours) to the
total volume of the jth blast block (m3).
For m number of blast blocks and n number of the
blasting results, the specific mine unit operations index
ratio or performance matrix [P] is a 1  m matrix, i.e.
 
½P ¼ P1 P2    Pm ð4Þ
respectively.
4. The ODM application
4.1. Chador Malu mine information
The Chador Malu mine is located in Central Iran,
120 Km north-east of the city Yazd. The mine is con-
nected with the national railway which is used for trans-
porting iron ore to Isfahan Steel Plant. Chador Malu
mine includes five ore bodies. An estimated reserve is
about 300 million tons (NGDIR, 2009). The northern
ore body with 235 million tons of mineable deposit has
been in operation since 1995. Chador Malu is one of
the major producers of iron ore concentrate in Iran.
The annual production is 22 million tons including
10 million tons of ore and 12 million tons of overbur-
den and waste (R&D Department of Chador Malu
Mine, 2009).

4.2. The Chador Malu mine blasting parameters

3.2. The ODM matrix [O] The blasting accessories contain mostly detonating
By multiplying the blast results matrix [z] and the per- cords and the rarely used nonel system. The explosives
formance matrix [P], the ODM matrix [O] can be com- are ANFO (dry hole) and slurry (watery hole).
puted as
½O ¼ ½ ½P ð5Þ 4.3. ODM criteria
and a subsequent result is 4.3.1. The BBSR. The BBSR of the nine Chador Malu
2 3 mine blast blocks classified as class 2 are as shown in
o11 o12 . . . o1m1 o1m
Table 12.
6 o21 o22 7
6 . .. .. 7
½O ¼ 6
6 .
. . . 7
7 ð6Þ 4.3.2. The blast results matrix []. The numbers
4 5
om11 . . . om1m1 of blast blocks and the blast results are 9 and 7, respect-
om1 ... omm ively. In fact the blast results matrix will be 9  1 as
where follows:
8
>
> ODM1 ¼ O11 ¼ 1 P1 2 3 2 3
>
< ODM2 ¼ O22 ¼ 2 P2 8 4 11 9 9 5 3 49
.. ð7Þ 6 4 4 3 5 3 2 1 7 6 22 7
> 6 7 6 7
> . 6 8 1 8 9 7 5 1 7 6 7
>
: 6 7 6 39 7
ODMm ¼ Omm ¼ m Pm 6 12 12 14 11 11 10 3 7 6 7
6 7 6 73 7
½  ¼ 6
6 12 10 17 13 13 12 11 7 6 7
7 6 88 7 ð9Þ
¼
The m number of elements along the leading diag- 6 8 12 8 7 5 2 1 7 6 7
onal of the matrix [O] are the ODM values of the m 6 7 6 43 7
6 4 1 5 3 3 2 1 7 6 7
number of blast blocks. A larger ODM value for a blast 6 7 6 19 7
4 8 12 11 9 7 5 5 5 4 57 5
block indicates a lower optimization effect of the blast 8 7 5 9 9 6 3 47
block. Table 11 shows the ODM classification and their

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
 XML Template (2012)
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d

Taji et al.

Table 6. The classification of boulders and oversized conditions (zBO)

Class

Factors I II III IV V VI VII IIX IX

None <3 3–5 3–5 3–5 5–10 5–10 >10 >10

(JVC)

MBO %

Delay at the crusher None None Verylow Very low Low Moderate Moderate High Very high
[13.7.2012–2:06pm]

Delay at the loading None None Very low Low Moderate High1 High1 High1 Very high
equipment
Secondary blasting None Unnecessary Unnecessary OK OK OK necessary necessary necessary
Situation of boulders None Floor & Every area Every Interior Every Every Mostly Every
in the muckpile front area and top area area top area
Digging conditions Excellent Easy Relatively Relatively Moderate Relatively Relatively Difficult Difficult
easy easy difficult difficult
Loading operation Excellent Very good Very good Good Relatively Relatively Relatively Dangerous Dangerous
safety safe safe dangerous
[PREPRINTER stage]
[1–15]

Boulder breaking None By loading By loading Secondary Secondary Only Secondary Secondary Secondary
method equipment equipment blasting2 blasting3 secondary blasting4 blasting4 blasting4
blasting3
Extraction lost time None None Very low Low Moderate High High Very high Very high
due to secondary breakage
Productivity of loading Excellent Very good Very good Good5 Relatively good6 Moderate6 Low7 Very low Very low
operation
Probability of the boulders None None None High Moderate High Moderate Low None
breakage in the next blast blocks
Flexibility of breakage None Very good Very good Good Moderate Relatively Low Low Very low

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
method to muckpile low
extraction
zBO 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 17 20
1
Loading operation variable delay is high.
2
Or by loading equipment or mechanical means.
3
First boulders should be collected and subsequently used in the secondary breakage method.
4
They need two or more breakage methods.
5
Loading fixed time is less than 5% usual time.
6
Loading fixed time is 5–10% usual time.
7
Loading fixed time is more than 10% usual time.
9
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:06pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

10 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Table 7. Classification of the environmental influences and impacts of the blasting operation

The environmental influences and impacts of the blasting operation

Characteristics Acceptable Relatively acceptable Relatively unacceptable Unacceptable

Production delays None Yes1 Yes4 Yes9

Facilities damage None None Permissibly High
Flying rock Permissible limit Very low Troublesome5 Very high10
Air noise Permissible limit Very low Relatively high6 High11
Ground vibration permissible limit Permissible limit More than permissible High
Bench stability Any problem Problem2 Troublesome6 Very poor12
Slopes stability Any problem Problem3 Troublesome8 Very poor
1
These delays increase the direct costs for maximum amount of 10 percent of expected costs but these production delays are compensated by the end
of working shift.
2
Safety factor of bench and slopes stability is reduced locally.
3
There are not slope wedges and failure-intensive problems.
4
These delays cause increasing direct costs to a maximum of 30% of expected costs.
5
It is necessary to clean up roads from fly rocks.
6
The air noise is more than the permissible limit and there is ground vibration problems on the nearby building. The amount of dust is considerable.
7
Safety factor of the bench and slopes stability is reduced.
8
There are slope wedges and failures problems.
9
There are production delays and the equipment efficiency is reduced, especially hauling equipment, severely (its delay is more than two working shifts).
The delays give increasing direct costs of more than 30% extraction expected costs.
10
The roads are obstructed. The personnel injuries are intensive.
11
The air noise and ground vibration problems are severe.
12
There are bench and slopes failures and wedges severe problems.

Table 8. The blasting operation environmental considerations based on the blast site sensitivity (zEN)

The environmental influences and impacts of blasting operation

The blast site sensitivity and conditions Acceptable Relatively acceptable Relatively unacceptable Unacceptable

Usual 1 5 10 16
Relatively sensitive 2 6 12 18
Sensitive 3 7 14 20

Table 9. The misfires conditions (zMI)

Prognosis ability

Misfire conditions Class Suitable Moderate Unsuitable

Misfire absence I 1 3 5
Few in number and/or concentrative II 9 11 13
Scattered and/or numerous III 16 18 20

Table 10. The zj classification and their analysis

Class I II III IV V

zj <25 25–50 50–75 75–100 >100

Condition Very good Good Moderate Weak Very weak

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:06pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

Taji et al. 11

Table 11. The ODM classification and their analysis

ODM class I II III IV V

ODMj L to L þ r L þ r to L þ 2r L þ 2r to L þ 3r L þ 3r to L þ 4r L þ 4r to U
Conditions Very good Good Relatively weak Weak Very weak
The requirement degree Very low Low Relatively high High Very high
to optimize

The seven blast results adapted degree and the over-

Table 12. The BBSR of the 9 Chador Malu mine blast blocks
all blast results value for the nine blast blocks in the
Chador Malu mine are shown as radar diagrams, as Number of 2 and 3 and
displayed in Figure 5. blast block 1 9 7 4 5 6 8

S1 0 0 0 þ5 3 2 þ5
4.3.3. The performance matrix [i]. The performance
S2 0 þ5 0 0 þ5 0 0
matrix is computed using Equations (2), (3) and the
specific charge, specific drilling and the specific loading S3 þ3 þ3 þ5 þ3 0 þ5 þ5
measured based on the volume of in situ rock in the S4 þ3 þ3 þ3 þ3 þ3 þ3 3
nine blast blocks. Table 13 shows the specific mine unit BBSRj þ6 þ11 þ8 þ11 þ5 þ6 þ7
operations and performance indexes in the Chador
Malu mine. The performance matrix [P] is a 1  7
matrix and can be established as follows:

 
½P ¼ 0:109 0:075 0:076 0:145 0:115 0:192 0:065 0:134 0:089 ð10Þ

4.3.4. The ODM values. By substituting Equations (9)
and (10) into Equation (5), the ODM matrix [O]
can be obtained. As specified in Equation (6), the
ODM values for the nine blast blocks are the nine elem-
ents placed along the leading diagonal of the matrix
[O]. The ODM and the overall blast results values for
nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine are shown
in Table 14.
4.4. Comparison analyses of the nine blast blocks
For convenience of comparison, the performance index
(Pj), the overall blast results value (zj) and ODM value
for the nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine are
shown as radar diagrams. These are shown in Figures 6
and 7. As a result, the following information can be
deduced.
1. The minimum ODM value is for the blast block
7. Also the minimum Pj (P7 ¼ 0.065) and j
(z7 ¼ 19) is obtained for this block, i.e. the overall
blast result and the efficiency of other operations
(drilling and loading unit) are very good. This
means that the minimal ODM value for these
blast blocks have a direct relation to their specific
unit operations and blast results. Thus, it shows
the performance, condition and results of other
operations will affect the rational analysis of
blast results.
2. The z2 and z7 are very good but the z3 and zFR3
are good. In fact, by considering the efficiency of
drilling and loading operations and blast results,
the ODM class of the blast blocks 2, 3 and 7 is I.
This means that these blocks indicate very good
condition.
3. The ODM class of the blast blocks 4 and 5 is V, i.e.
the requirement degree to optimization of these
blocks is very high.
4. The degree of fragmentation of the blast
blocks 1 and 6 are good. The loading system in
these blast blocks are a loader. The loader
access height is lower than the bench height in this
mine. For this reason, the ODM classes of the blast
blocks 1 and 6 are, respectively, III and IV. This
indicates that the better fragmentation would give
better overall blast results and mining operation
efficiency.
5. Conclusions
With respect to the above discussion, it seems that a
quantitative evaluation method is necessary and critical
in order to analyze a blasting operation. Consequently,
the present research proposes the concept and rating
procedure of the effective blasting results. The ODM
procedure is helpful because it enables enhanced
design and optimization as necessary for blasting

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:06pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]

12 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

Figure 5. The blast results adapted degree to the overall blast result value for nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine. (The
dashed lines are the overall blast results value.).

Table 13. The specific mine unit operations and performance indexes for nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine
 kg  m   kg:hr
No. Scj m3
Sdj m3
Slj mhr3 Suoj m8
pj

1 0.867 0.0309 0.0141 0.000378 0.109

2 0.847 0.0269 0.0114 0.000260 0.075
3 0.796 0.0265 0.0124 0.000262 0.076
4 0.910 0.0320 0.0172 0.000501 0.145
5 0.826 0.0265 0.0181 0.000396 0.115
6 1.094 0.0361 0.0168 0.000663 0.192
7 0.855 0.0278 0.0094 0.000223 0.065
8 0.917 0.0319 0.0159 0.000465 0.134
9 0.850 0.0283 0.0128 0.000308 0.089

Note: The loading operation for the blast blocks 1 and 6 are carried out by a loader.

Table 14. The ODM and the overall blast results values for nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine
The degree of fragmentation The overall blast result ODM

The requirement
No. zFR Class Condition zj Class Condition Value Class Condition degree to optimize

1 8 III Good 49 II Good 5.3 III Relatively weak Relatively high

2 4 II Very good 22 I Very good 1.7 I Very good Very low
3 8 III Good 39 II Good 3 I Very good Very low
4 12 IV Moderate 73 III Moderate 10.6 V Very weak Very high
5 12 IV Moderate 88 IV Weak 10.1 V Very weak Very high
6 8 III Good 43 II Good 8.3 IV Weak High
7 4 II Very good 19 I Very good 1.2 I Very good Very low
8 8 III Good 57 III Moderate 7.6 IV Weak High
9 8 III Good 47 II Good 4.2 II Good Low

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:06pm] [1–15]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC) [PREPRINTER stage]
Taji et al.
Figure 6. The Pj and zj radar diagram of the nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine.
Figure 7. The Pj , zj and ODM radar diagram of the nine blast blocks in the Chador Malu mine.
engineering. The key conclusions that can be drawn
from this paper are as follows:
. By integrating the theoretical analyses, experiences
and monitoring, the blast results can be classified.
The assigned values and their changes can be con-
veniently analyzed in the form of matrices.
. The ODM provides an efficient evaluation mechan-
ism for the main outcome of the blasting.
. To define and assess of the ODM values, the blast
blocks should be divided into different classes based
on blast block situation rating and considering blast
working conditions.
. The seven main blast results considered include frag-
mentation degree, muckpile, overbreak, bench floor
and toe conditions, the boulders, the environmental
considerations and condition of misfires. They
should be classified and rated accordingly.
. In this procedure, the blast results and the efficiency
of other unit operations are analyzed together.
. The specific charge, specific drilling and specific
loading indexes should be recognized as one of the
objective criteria for the ODM assessment.
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
13
In a nutshell, the ODM can help design engineers to
recognize the optimization demands of each blasting at
different mining conditions. Using this approach, the
actual evaluation of the blast results can be achieved
in an open pit mine.
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to the Khandagh Tech. & Eng. Company
and the Chador Malu, the Choghart, Gole Gohar mine, Iran
for their crucial support during this study. We express our
gratitude to A Mahzun, H Mahmudabadi and staff and tech-
nicians of Khandagh Co. The authors are also indebted to
Eng. SH Hoseinie and Dr F Sereshki of Shahrood University
of Technology and Eng. A Afsharian of the Chador Malu
mine for their valuable suggestions and help.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Adler J, Du Mouza J and Arnould M (1996a) Measurement
of the fragmentation efficiency of rock mass blasting and
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:07pm]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC)
14
its mining applications. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 33: 125–139.
Adler J, Du Mouza J and Arnould M (1996b) Evaluation of
blast fragmentation efficiency and its prediction by multi-
variate analysis procedures. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics 33:
189–196.
AOG (2007) AOG Workshop: Blast Fragmentation and
Mining Cost, Quebec, Canada, 18–19 August 2007,
Available online 21 July 2008, http://www.AOG.com/.
AOG (2009) http://www.AOG.com/ drill to mill for mines/
pdf/dix12 k71/.
Bremer D, Ethier R and Lilly D (2007) Factors driving
continuous blasting improvement at the Lafarge Ravena
Plant. In: International Society of Explosives Engineers –
33rd Annual Conference on Blasting Technique.
Calder and Workman (2008) An Analysis of Blasting
Profitability and Productivity, Hunter Valley, NSW,
28–31 October 2008, pp. 41-45, http://www.calderwork-
man.com/.
Calder and Workman (2009) Optimum Blasting, A literature
review, 4 September, http://www.calderworkman.com/.
Cunningham CVB (2005) The Kuz–Ram fragmentation
model – 20 years. In: Proceedings 3rd EFEE World
Conference on Explosives and Blasting, September,
Brighton, UK, 2005. pp.201–210.
Da Gama CD (1990) Reduction of costs and environmental
impacts in quarry rock blasting. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Brisbane, 26–31 August 1990. pp.5–8.
Da Gama CD and Lopez Jimeno C (1993) Rock fragmenta-
tion control for blasting cost minimization and environ-
mental impact abatement. In: Proceedings of
FRAGBLAST 4, Fragmentation by Blasting, 1993.
Eloranta J (1997) The efficiency of blasting versus crushing
and grinding. In: Proceedings of the Twenty Third Annual
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Las
Vegas, NV, February 1997. International Society of
Explosive Engineers, Cleveland, OH, pp.157–163.
Eloranta J (2007) The effect of fragmentation on mining
costs, a literature review. In: Workshop on the
Measurement of Blast Fragmentation-Cost, Quebec,
Canada.
Eloranta JW (1993) Practical blast evaluation at the Minntac
mine. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference of
Explosives and Blasting Technique, San Diego, CA, 31
January–4 February 1993. International Society of
Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, OH, pp.101–107.
Eloranta JW (1995) The effect of fragmentation on down-
stream processing costs. In: Proceedings of Explo95
Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4–7
September 1995. pp.25–28.
Eloranta JW (2001a) Improve milling through better powder
distribution. In: Proceedings of the twenty-seventh confer-
ence of Explosives and Blasting Technique, Orlando, FL,
28–31 January. International Society of Explosives
Engineers, Cleveland, OH.
Eloranta JW (2001b) Optimized iron ore blast designs for
SAG/AG Mills. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Autogenous and Semiautogenous Grinding
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
[1–15]
[PREPRINTER stage]
Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
Technology, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 30 September–3
October. Vol. 1, pp.262–270.
Frimpong M, Kabongo K and Davies C (1996) Diggability in
a measure of dragline effectiveness and productivity. In:
Proceedings of 22nd Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Techniques. pp.95–104.
Fuerstenau MC, Chi G and Bradt RC (1995) Optimization of
energy utilization and production costs in mining and ore
preparation. In: XIX International Mineral Processing
Congress, San Francisco, CA, October 1995. pp.161–164.
Grundstrom C, Kanchibotla SS, Jankovic A and Thornton D
(2001) Blast fragmentation for maximising the sag mill
throughput at Porgera Gold Mine. In: Proceedings of the
Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique, Orlando.
Hamdi E and du Mouza J (2005) A methodology for rock
characterization and classification to improve blast results.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 42: 177–194.
Hammes J K (1966) The economics of producing and deliver-
ing iron ore pellets from North American taconite type
resources. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Mining
Symposium, University of Minnesota. pp.9–16.
Harris GW, Mousset JP and Daemen JK (2001)
Measurement of blast induced rock movement in surface
mines by application of magnetic geophysics. Transactions
of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (Section A:
Mining Industry) 108: AI72–A180.
Hadjigeorgiou J and Scoble M (1988) Prediction of digging
performance in mining, Int. Journal of Surface Mining 2:
237–244.
Hunter GC, Sandy DA and Miles NJ (1990) Optimisation
of blasting in a large open pit mine, Fragblast ’90.
In: Proceedings 3rd International Symposium on
Fragmentation by Blasting, Inst. Min. Metall., Victoria,
Australia, pp.21–30.
Hustrulid W (1999) Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining,
Vol.1-General Design Concepts. Rotterdam: A.A.
Balkema.
Jimeno C, Jimeno E and Carcedo F (1995) Drilling and
Blasting of Rocks. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Kanchibotla SS, Valery W and Morrell S (1999) Modelling
fines in blast fragmentation and its impact on crushing and
grinding. In: Proceedings Explo-99 Conference, Kalgoorlie.
Katsabanis T, Thomas C, Workman L, Palangio T and
Eloranta J (2005) From drill to mill for mines and quar-
ries. Newsletter of Advanced Optimisation Group 4(1).
Kojovic T (2005) Influence of aggregate stemming in blasting
on the SAG mill performance. Minerals Engineering 18:
1398–1404.
Kontoghiorghes EJ and Gatu C (2006) Optimisation,
Econometric and Financial Analysis (Advances in
Computational Management Science). Rotterdam: A.A.
Balkema.
Lilly DP (2007) A statistical approach to integrating blasting
into the mining process. In: Oxford Business and
Economics Conference, 2007.
MacKenzie AS (1965) Cost of explosives - do you evaluate it
properly? In: American Mining Congress. Las Vegas, NV.
XML Template (2012) [13.7.2012–2:07pm]
K:/JVC/JVC 439911.3d (JVC)
Taji et al.
McKee DJ, Chitombo GP, Morrell S (1995) The relationship
between fragment fragmentation in mining and comminu-
tion circuit throughput. Mineral Engineering 18(11),
1265–1274.
Moody L, Cunningham C and Lourens H (1996) Measuring
the effect of blasting fragmentation on hard rock quarry-
ing operations. In: Proceedings of FRAGBLAST5,
Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
25–29 August 1996. pp.353–359.
Morin M and Ficarazzo F (2006) Monte Carlo simulation as
a tool to predict blasting fragmentation based on the Kuz–
Ram model. Computers and Geosciences 32: 352–359.
Mosher JB (2005) Comminution circuits for gold ore process-
ing developments. Mineral Processing 15: 253–277.
NGDIR (2009) Development planning and equipment of
Chador Malu Iron ore mine. Technical Report, http://
www.NGDIR.org.
Nielsen K and Kristiansen J (1996) Blasting–crushing–grind-
ing: optimisation of an integrated comminution system.
In: Mohanty B (ed.) Rock Fragmentation by Blasting—
Proceedings of Fragblast 5. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema,
pp.269–277.
Nielsen K and Lownds CM (1997) Enhancement of taconite
crushing and grinding through primary blasting.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 34: 226.e1–226.e14.
Pal Roy P (2005) Rock Blasting Effects and Operations. New
Delhi: Oxford & IBH nublishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
R&D Department of Chador Malu Mine Guidelines of
Mining Operation. T4108 project final report.
Ryu DW, Shim HJ, Han CY, and Ahn SM (2006) Prediction
of rock fragmentation and design of blasting pattern based
on 3-D spatial distribution of rock factor, International
journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences 46(2):
326–332.
Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Singh SP (2006) Fragmentation prediction during ring blast-
ing using a discrete Kuz–Ram Model. In: 16th
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on November 22, 2014
[1–15]
[PREPRINTER stage]
15
International Symposium on MPES, Torino, Italy, 20–22
September.
Singh SP and Yalcin T (2002) Effects of muck size distribu-
tion on scooping operations. In: Proceedings of 28th
Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Techniques. pp.315–325.
Singh SP, Yalcin T, Glogger M and Narendrula R (2003)
Interaction between the size distribution of the muck
and the loading equipment. In: Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Computer Applications in
Mineral Industries. pp.1–13.
Stagg MS, Otterness RE and Siskind DE (1992) Effects of
blasting practices on fragmentation. In: Proceedings of the
33rd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Santa Fe, 3–5
June 1992. pp.313–322.
Taji M (2008) The classification of open pit mine blast results
by BBSR. In: Proceedings of the 1th National Symposium
on Blasting Engineering and Industrial Explosives, BEIE
2008, Electronic file No. 004.
Taqieddin SA (1989) Evaluation of the efficiency of a blasting
operation designed for a dragline strip mining process.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Science and Geomechanics 8: 59–64.
Wang Y-J, Zhang X-Z and Qi L-Q (2005) Unconstrained
optimization reformulation of the generalized nonlinear
complementarity problem and related method.
Optimization 54: 563–577.
Workman L (2001) An analysis of blasting profitability and
productivity, Hunter Valley, NSW, 28–31 Oct., pp.41–45.
Workman L and Eloranta J (2008) The effects of blasting on
Crushing and grinding efficiency and energy consumption,
3 June 2008. Available at: http://www.isee.org/
Williamson S, Mckenzie C, O’Loughlin H (1983). Electric
shovel performance as a measure of blasting efficiency.
In: 1th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, Luleå University of Technology, Vol.1,
pp.76–83.