M INING

SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Mining Science and Technology 19 (2009) 0736–0739
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcumt

Optimization of drilling and blasting operations in

an open pit mine—the SOMAIR experience
AFENI Thomas Busuyi
School of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa

Abstract: Drilling and blasting play vital roles in opencast mining. These operations not only affect the cost of production directly
but as well and significantly, the overall operational costs. This research was carried out to find a possible way of optimizing the
drilling and blasting operations in an open pit mine of Somair (Société des Mines de l’Air), in the Niger Republic. In order to opti-
mize the drilling operation, the time taken by two drilling machines to accomplish the same task was analyzed statistically. The
result indicates that the Down the Hole Hammer Drilling Rig (DMNo406) is more efficient than the Drill Master (DM405). The
relative unit consumption of two explosives (Explus and Nitram 9), when used under the same operating conditions, were also con-
sidered and the results indicate Explus to be more economical per unit consumption with a range of 0.15 g/t–0.183 g/t, when com-
pared with Nitram 9 with a unit consumption range of 0.19 g/t–0.24 g/t in the study area.
Keywords: drilling; blasting; cumulative time; unit consumption explosive

1 Introduction important, a good driller (or drilling team) can make

In mining operations, the purpose of drilling is to
provide cavities for the placement of explosives. So
far, no alternative to blasting has been devised for
fragmentation of very resistant in-situ rock, although
some form of excavations are suitable without prior
blasting for soft rock. The technology of rock drilling
has, to a great extent affected the development of ex-
plosives as well as the technology of blasting[1].
Drilling and blasting are complex operations in
which so many factors dictate the outcome. However,
many authors failed to set a standard design of prac-
tice in this field. Changes often result from site to site
and optimization of blasting can only be achieved
over months or even years by means of trial and error.
Therefore establishing a guide to optimum and cost
effective drilling and blasting operations will surely
be of great assistance in this research area.
Drilling and blasting are fundamental operations in
the mining cycle and constitute an important compo-
nent of mining costs[2–3]. Problems associated with
improper drilling and blasting practices can create
losses of several millions of dollars per year. It has
been observed that when operators look to improve
drilling and blasting programs, drilling does not usu-
ally garner as much attention as blasting[3]. Drilling is
or mar a mining operation. By communicating and
using some common sense, a mine or quarry can im-
prove blast performance and save some money in the
process. Other investigators also support the view of
[2] and [3] by submitting that drilling and blasting
play vital roles in opencast mining[4]. It not only af-
fects the cost of production directly but as well and
significantly the overall operational costs. Thus, the
success or failure of drill and blast methods cast a
long shadow over the balance of the entire operations
in mines.
Rock drilling is performed by a number of tech-
niques ranging from rotary/percussive drilling in very
hard rock, via rotary/crushing drilling in medium hard
rock, down to cutting in soft rock types. An accurate
estimation of drilling rates usually assist in the plan-
ning of rock excavation projects. The ease with which
rocks can be drilled mainly depends on operational
variables and rock characteristics. Operational vari-
ables known as controllable parameters are the: rota-
tional speed, thrust, blow frequency and flushing.
Rock properties and geological conditions are uncon-
trollable parameters[5–7].
For all practical purposes, blasting is the only
means of preparing rocks for extraction. The output
of all kinds of quarry equipment and rock mining

Received 23 February 2009; accepted 15 May 2009

Corresponding author. Tel: +27-798127137; E-mail address: olubusuyiafeni@gmail.com
AFENI Thomas Busuyi Optimization of drilling and blasting operations in an open pit mine 737

expenditures depend to a great extend on the organi-
zation and quality of blasting[8].
However, the amount of a particular explosive re-
quired to blast a certain volume of rock is difficult to
estimate, since it depends on parameters which in-
clude but are not limited to, the following: the
strength, toughness and incidence of discontinuities
within the rock formation[9]. It can therefore be said
that an explosive with the greatest energy and con-
centration is required for removing very hard and
medium hard rock, where high-velocity detonation
produces a shattering effect. A medium to high explo-
sive can be used in medium to hard laminated rocks.
The greatest efficiency is obtained with fairly bulky
explosives in soft to medium rock[10].
In the last twenty years, a number of investigators
have studied the possible ways of optimizing drilling
and blasting operations and arrive at different results.
Most of them suggested that the entire process should
be modelled[11–14]. Nevertheless, some of them are
still of the opinion that better understanding of the
site matter most in modeling and design of drilling
These sophisticated crawler rigs come with an
air-conditioned operator cabin with fully automated
rod handling. At the start of the drilling operation,
stop watches were switched on and switched off after
the drilling operation, when the required level of
drilling had been reached. A steel tape was used to
measure the depth/length of each of the holes drilled.
A minimum of seven holes were drilled per day by
each machine and the times taken to accomplish each
hole were recorded. These observations continued for
three months: from June to August 2003. Sample re-
sults of the timing of drilling operations for the two
machines are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The result
of analysis of the drilling operations is presented in
Table 3, while the cumulative result of the drilling
operation is presented in Table 4. In order to obtain a
comparison of the two drill rigs with respect to cu-
mulative time taken to accomplish a hole, the follow-
ing equations were used:
n
xi
Arithmetic mean x = ¦n
i =1
(1)

and blasting operations.

The main objective of this research is to compare Deviation di = xi − x (2)

¦ (x − x )
the performance of two drilling machines with a view n 2
to optimize the drilling time and to optimize the unit i
consumption of explosives for cost effective blasting. Variance s2= i =1
(3)
n −1
2 Study area
¦ (x − x )
n 2
i
This study was carried out at SOMAIR (Société 2
des Mines de l’Air), one of the important industrial Standard deviation ı= s = i =1
(4)
n −1
units in the Niger Republic, located in the northern
part of the country (district of ARLIT), at coordinates
Utilization coefficient K=
(5)
¦ time
19°3'45" and 8°25'12". The company invested in the T
exploitation of uranium ore by open pit mining. The where x is variable (shift); n number of holes drilled
average depth of occurrence of the ore ranges from per shift; ¦ time useful time of the machine per
40 m to 80 m. The sediments resulted from a
weathering process of crystalline rocks, combined shift; T duration of the shift; and Y cumulative time.
with some organic matter at the level of the Air The efficiency of a particular machine is given by
massif. The most important rocks housing the the coefficient K, when K<0.40 it means the machine
radioactive minerals (uranium-carnotite, pitchblende, is efficient; when K>0.40 the machine is not efficient.
autunite, broggerite and thorianite) are sand stone and Table 1 Timing of drilling operation on 27/06/03
shale. Length of Machine
Cumulative
Level Hole
Date time taken
drilling used (m) No.
(min)
3 Materials and method 27/06/03 21 DMNo406 25 19/38 1
27/06/03 21 DMNo406 17 19/38 2
In carrying out this study, two operations (i.e.,
27/06/03 21 DMNo406 17 19/38 3
drilling and blasting operations) were monitored.
27/06/03 21 DMNo406 17 19/38 4
3.1 Drilling operation 27/06/03 21 DMNo406 17 19/38 5
27/06/03 21 DMNo406 18 19/38 6
Data relating to the drilling operation were ob-
tained from two different machines: a Down the Hole 27/06/03 21 DMNo406 19 19/38 7

Hammer Drilling Rig (DMNo406) and a Drill Master 27/06/03 21 DMNo406 18 19/38 8
(DM405). A stop watch was connected to each of the 27/06/03 20 DMNo406 17 19/38 9
machine in order to determine its drilling time. The 27/06/03 20 DMNo406 17 19/38 10
two drilling machines were powered by a compressor. 27/06/03 20 DMNo406 16 19/38 11
They were equipped with down the hole air hammers. Note: Source: Field survey Somair, Niger Republic, 2003.
738 Mining Science and Technology Vol.19 No.6

Table 2 Timing of drilling operation on 12/07/03 spective holes during charging operations. Electric
Cumulative detonators were used with each respective charge.
Length of Machine Level Hole
Date
drilling used
time taken
(m) No. The tonnages of blasted materials produced were re-
(min)
corded. The weights of explosives consumed were
12/07/03 23 DM405 35 0/19 1
also recorded. The summary of the results is pre-
12/07/03 23 DM405 33 0/19 2
sented in Table 5.
12/07/03 23 DM405 36 0/19 3
12/07/03 23 DM405 35 0/19 4
4 Results and discussion
12/07/03 23 DM405 37 0/19 5
12/07/03 23 DM405 37 0/19 6
The study is limited to only two level of operation
12/07/03 23 DM405 35 0/19 7
i.e., levels 0/19 m and 19/38 m, where laborious
Note: Source: Field survey Somair, Niger Republic, 2003. blasting work was needed to fragment the overburden
material. Therefore, the two drilling machines were
Table 3 Result of analysis of drilling operation used under the same operating conditions in order to
Arithmetic Standard Utilization evaluate their performance. Tables 1 and 2 present a
Variance
Shift means x s2
deviation coefficient Machine day sample field records for drilling operations car-
ı K
(min) ried out using machines DMNo406 and DM405,
1 18.0 0.625 0.625 0.41 DMNo406 clearly showing that it takes machine DM405 more
2 18.9 0.400 0.400 0.39 DMNo406 time to drill and accomplish the same depth of hole,
3 21.1 0.150 0.150 0.39 DMNo406
compared with machine DMNo406. The result of the
analysis of the drilling operations when the statistical
4 24.1 0.900 0.900 0.35 DMNo406
equations were used as shown in Table 3, indicate
Mean 0.385 that machine DMNo406 is more efficient, given its
<0.40 average utilization coefficient K<0.40, while the av-
1 35.4 0.450 0.450 0.52 DM405 erage utilization coefficient of machine DM405 is
2 36.6 0.450 0.150 0.61 DM405 K>0.40. The cumulative result of the drilling opera-
tion in Table 4 and its graph in Fig. 1 shows clearly
3 38.0 0.200 0.200 0.63 DM405
that the cumulative time spent by Drill Master
4 37.2 0.500 0.500 0.56 DM405
DM405 is within 260 min and 413 min while the
Mean 0.58 cumulative time spent by the Down the Hole Hammer
>0.40 Drilling Rig, DMNo406 is between 169 min and 198
Note: Source: Field survey Somair, Niger Republic, 2003. min.

Table 4 Cumulative result of drilling operation

DMNo406 – Machine 1
Shift 1 2 3 4
No. of holes (n) 11 10 9 7
Cumulative time (Y) 198 189 190 169
DM405 – Machine 2
Shift 1 2 3 4
No. of holes (n) 7 8 9 11 Fig. 1 Cumulative drilling time as a function of
Cumulative time (Y) 260 300 336 413 the number of holes

Note: Source: Field survey Somair, Niger Republic, 2003.

The summary of the analysis of explosive con-
sumption, shown in Table 5, indicates that the unit
3.2 Blasting operation consumption of Explus is between 0.150 g/t and
0.183 g/t while that of Nitram 9 ranges between 0.190
During blasting operation, three explosives were
g/t and 0.240 g/t. Fig. 2 which shows the graphical
considered, i.e., Explus, Nitram 9 and ANFO. Batch
representation of unit consumption of explosives as a
weights (EB-BWR102) are used to measure the
function of the number of blasts reveals that Explus is
amount of each of the explosives before loading into
more economical for the same amount of tonnage of
the blast hole. In charging operations, each of the two
blasted material with almost the same consumption of
explosives (Explus and Nitram 9) was used as the
ANFO, as shown in Fig. 3.
base charge in their individual holes, while ANFO
was used as a deck or column charge to enhance the
performance of each of these explosives in their re-
 8QLWFRQVXPSWLRQRIH[SOXV



 8QLWFRQVXPSWLRQRIQLWUDP


    
1XPEHURIEODVW

Fig. 2 Unit consumption of explosive as a Fig. 3 Unit consumption of ANFO by the two
function of the number of blast explosives as a function of the number of blast

Table 5 Summary of the analysis of consumption of explosives

No. of Burden x Unit consumption of ANFO (g/t) Unit consumption of explosive (g/t)
Blasting Depth of Tonnage
Level holes spacing Explus Nitram 9 Explus Nitram 9
No. 4 holes (m) (t)
n (m2) 1 2 1 2
1 0/19 30 10 6x12 99790 85 84 0.150 0.190
2 19/38 10 24 6x11.5 31600 95 95 0.160 0.200
3 19/38 8 22 6x11.5 23910 89 88 0.167 0.210
4 19/38 32 21 6x11.5 87360 91.1 90 0.183 0.240
5 19/38 18 23 6x11.5 57200 89 88 0.157 0.200

Note: Source: Field survey Somair, Niger Republic, 2003.

5 Conclusions
Drilling and blasting are important steps in the
chain of mining processes and their results, such as
fragmentation, muckpile shape and looseness, dilu-
tion, damage and rock softening, affect the efficiency
of downstream processes. However, the application
of the operation of blasting must conform to site con-
ditions and should not be borrowed from somewhere
else where improvement have been made based on
safety, economy and selectivity requirements. This
study has been able to show that after monitoring
drilling and blasting operations in a particular open
pit mine one can use statistical methods to optimize
the entire operations for the smooth running of a
mine.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the contribution of Mr.
Idrissa Abass for providing field data of the study
area.
References
[1] Khochman L, Hadjadj A E. New methodology selection
of drilling machines. Asian Journal of Information
Technology, 2006(5): 1310–1312.
[2] Piche A, Liu Q, Tran H, Van H L. Drilling and blasting at
the Noranda Technology Centre. CIM Bulletin, 2000(93):
38–44.
[3] Steve F. A solid drilling program yield more benefits
than simply cost savings. Engineering and Mining
Journal, 2000.
[4] Brahma K C, Pal B K, Das C. A study on application of
Markovian decision process in drilling and blasting op-
eration of opencast mines. Journal of Mines, Metals and
Fuels, 2007(55): 24–29.
[5] McGregor K. The Drilling of Rock. London: C.R. Books
Ltd, 1967.
[6] Kahraman S, Bilgin N, Feridunoglu C. Dominant rock
properties affecting the penetration rate of percussive
drills. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 2003(40): 711–723.
[7] Beste U, Jacobson S, Hogmark S. Rock penetration into
cemented carbide drill buttons during rock drilling.
Journal of Wear, 2007(264): 1142–1151.
[8] Rzhevsky V V. Open Cast Mining Unit Operation.
Moscow: Mir Publishers, 1985.
[9] Franklin J A, Dusseault M B. Rock Engineering. New
York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1989.
[10] Bell F G. Engineering in Rock Masses. London: Butter-
worth Heinemann, 1992.
[11] Neiman I B. Mathematical model of the explosive action
of a fracturing charge in a ledge rock mass. Soviet Min-
ing Science, 1984(19): 494–499.
[12] Favreau R F, Lilly D. Optimizing blasts through charac-
terization and on-site computer modeling during blast
preparation. In: Proceedings, Annual Meeting Society of
Mining Engineers AIME. Minnesota, 1986.
[13] Smith M L, Hautala R L. Coupling numeric and sym-
bolic modeling in blast design. In: Proceedings of the
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. Las
Vegas, 1991.