A Performance Prediction Model for Optimized Drilling and Blasting Costs
D K SHARMA1 , A K PANDEy2, A SRIVASTAVA3 and A DAS4
ABSTRACT
Drilling and blasting constitute important activity in mining operations
and account for around 20% of the total excavation cost. The utilization
coefficient of energy for explosions of the fragmentation type is hardly 15
to 20% and an enhancement in this is possible only through optimization
of blast design. Designing ablast is a complex planning task, which for
optimum results calls for matching the energy level of the explosive, rock
properties and bench geometry. Optimum blast design needs a
comprehensive study and an objective analysis of the intersecting
elements. A cost optimised approach is often adopted with due
consideration for all the cost sectors viz., drilling, blasting, loading,
hauling dumping, and primary crushing, contributing to the overall
miningcoot.
The present study deals with a performance prediction model which
a
predicts the optimum burden for an explosive system in given rock type
to produce a certain desired fragment size. The model is framed on the
inputs : shovel size, drill size, unit cost of drilling, bench dimensions,
rock density, bond index, unit cost of explooive, maximum work
potential. The model has been extended to compute the drilling and
blasting costs for an assumed size of the bench to be blasted per round, so
as to arrive at the overall cost optimization from a number of explosive
systems. A comparative cost calculation with different explosive systems
has been presented for a typical iron ore mine in India.
1. INTRODUCTION
Viability of any mining operation depends upon the effectiveness
and efficiency of rock fragmentation by drilling and blasting
which in a production cycle accounts for around 20% of total
excavation costs. Utilization coefficient of the energy for
explosives of fragmentation type, is hardly 15-20% presently, can
be enhanced through optimisation of blast design for a given
explosive system in the given rock type, whereby losses can be
minimised and more of energy so conserved can be applied to
fragmenting rock. TIris, in turn improves efficiency of loading,
hauling, dumping and primary crushing. In designing such an
open pit blast, a cost optimised approach with due consideration
for all cost sectors viz. drilling(Cdr), blasting(Cbl), 10ading(Cl),
hauling(Ch), dumping(Cd) and primary crushing(Cc) leading to
optmised overall mining cost C. Blasting cost, by itself,
contributing only a smaller percentage of overall mining cost,
however, with explosives directly influencing all other costs has a
significant role to play. A high degree explosive, although
increases blasting cost CbI, but reduces drilling cost Cdr by way
of reducing number of holes to be drilled and other costs Cl, Ch,
Cd, and Cc by improved fragmentation of the muck pile, thereby
resulting in overall cost reduction.
1 Reader
2 Research Fellow
3 & 4 Former Graduate Students,
Department of Mining Engineering,
Institute of Technology,
Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi - 221 005
India
FRAGBLAST '90 Brisbane August 26 - 31
2. FACTORS INFLUENCING BLASTING RESULTS
2.1 Explosive Parameter
Selection of most suitable explosive is governed by : properties
of rock mass, degree of fragmentation and displacement desired.
Most important properties of an explosive are : strain energy(SE)
and gaseous or bubble energy(BE) produced, water resistance,
density, velocity of detonation(VOD) and critical diameter. The
SE\BE ratio influences mode of failure and varies with explosive
composition and velocity of detonation.
A dense explosive is preferable because it permits maximum
. utilization of each meter of blast hole length. High VOD
provides the shattering action needed for maximum
fragmentation. Detonation impedance which is a measure of the
relative abillty of different explosives to transmit their pressure to
stress wave in a given rock is product of density and VOD.
2.2 Rock Parameters
Rock parameters known to influence the blasting results include:
density, propogation velocity, specific damping capacity (SDC),
strength and structural discontinuities. Denser material require
explosive with high detonation pressure. Velocity with which
stress wave pr~pogates in a rock (usually equal to sonic velocity)
affects the distribution in space and time of stress imposed on the
rock by detonating explosive.
Characteristic impedence, a useful rock parameter for
analysing transfer of energy for detonation wave of the explosive
to stress wave in rock, is a product of density and gives an
indication of the ability of rock to attenuate explosive generated
stress wave and therefore indicating the relative significance of
strain energy and bubble energy. In general, for hard and
compact rocks SDC is low. A high strength rock requires high
stress level of failure. Structural discontinuities such as joints,
bedding planes, tend to dominate nature of fracture pattern.
Transmission of strain energy through structural discontinuities
being very poor, blasting in boundary area results in presence of
boulders in muck pile.
2.3 Bench Geometry
For obtaining desirable results from explosive forces, proper
selection of bench height, blast hole diameter, burden spacing
between adjacent holes, subdrilling and stemming is necessary.
2.3.1 Bench Height
Generally blast hole length and bench height are 2 to 3 times the
burden dimension. For given length of blast hole, small burdens
cause wide angled crators to form. Perssons reported break - out
angles for a given burden increased as blast hole lengthened up to
a point beyond which apparently no further significant change
occurs. Blast hole length thus influences blasting results. As a
result of unsuitable burden/bench height ratio (called as stiffness
of block) burden rock is stiffened too much, lateral movement is
inhibited and necessary uplift required to break the collar is
prevented. When this happens, toe also is left regardless of the
31
 D K SHARMA, A K PANDEY, A SRIVASTAVA and ADAS
amount of sub-drilling used. The Swedish wide - spacing method
takes advantage of reduced rock stiffness to achieve better
breakage. For the same bench height, larger spacing than those
customarily employed are obtained by reducing burden. Result
of blast in terms of height of pile govern the size of loading
equipment. Blasting results, thus govern the height of bench For
optimum loading, height of pile should approximately equal
maximum cutting height of the shovel.
2.3.2 Blast hole size
A large number of factors influence the selection of optimum
blast hole size.
These variables relate to explosives, geology and environment.
Above a critical diameter, detonation velocity increases with
diameter until an optimum rate (often called ideal detonation rate)
is reached. Increasing use of slurries have focused attention on
importance of the blast hole diameter.
Geological structure is a major factor in determining size of
blast hole. Explosive force works towards the area of least
resistance. In a jointed or bedded rock, explosive force tries to
open existing jointing and bedding planes rather than to form new
fractures and similar size blast holes are preferred in such
situations for improved fragmentation. Like wise in hetrogenous
rocks, explosive force pulverises softer rock and leaves
competent rock in ~locks. Environmental problems such as
ground vibration, airblast and flyrock also influence size of blast
hole. Trend of blasting practices the world over, evidenced a shift
towards larger blast holes. The greater pull down capability of
larger drill rigs and greater bearing strength of large diameter bits
gives penetration rates for larger diameter blast holes approaching
and some time exceeding penetration rate vs. Hole diameter for
'rotary drilling in hard iron ores (compressive strength 2114
Kg/Sq.Cm.)
2.3.3 Burden and spacing
For a given explosive charge, rock type and blast hole spacing,
there is an optimum burden from which the volume of suitably
fragmented and loosened rock is acceptable. With excess burden,
explosive consumption per unit volume of rock broken increases
and fragmentation may not be satisfactory. With reduced burden
there are larger number of holes and increase in drilling cost per
unit volume though the explosive consumption may decrease and
fragmentation may improved. Optimum burden lies normally in
range of 20-25 times blast hole diameter. In Indian iron ore
mines: Burden =3.428 + 10 d mm where, d = diameter of hole in
mm. Although satisfactory results are obtained when spacing and
burden are equal, improved performance is evident when spacing
is greater than burden. Langefork's work indicates that
rectangular pattern having larger spacing than burden produces
considerably better fragmentation than the square pattern with
spacing and burden equal. Swedish wide spacing technique
employing spacing/burden ratio of up to 8 has given good results.
Between straight and staggard rows, staggard ones usually give
better results. Change in burden tend to affect the generalised
fragmentation and presence of toe much more discernible than
change in spacing, hence spacing ought to be increased than the
burden in any blasting optimization programme.
2.3.4 Sub-drilling
In open-pit bench blasting, blast holes are drilled below the grade
level to ensure that toe does not remain. Ash suggested
sub-drilling to at least one third of burden. Extra drilling and use
of explosive below floor level are not only expensive but pose
32 Brisbane Augusl26 - 31
serious problems of severe floor damage and excessive ground
vibration. Explosive in subs-drilling has been substituted
successfully by broken rocks. Results of controlled small scale
bench blasts in dolomite carried out to investigate effects of
sub-drilling by Ash, Harris and Smith indicate greater increase in
toe left for the broken rock than when explosive was used in
sub-drilling but little change was produced on overall
fragmentation.
2.3.5 Initiation
Primer should be located in the zone of most difficult breakage
which may be at the toe or in an particular hard zone in the
burden. A primer located in sub drilling may increase ground
vibration. For single point initiation, primer should be located at
grade level so that maximum strain energy is developed at the
grade level to ensure easy digging condition and adequate
displacement near the bottom of the toe. Initiation at top and
bottom gives good results, while initiation at the middle of charge
gives poor results from fragmentation point of view.
Simultaneous or almost simultaneous initiation of shot holes in
multiple-hole blasting results in poor fragmentation.
3. DESIGNING A BLASTING ROUND
Blasts may be designed basically in three ways:
1. Using Powder factor
2. Trial and Error Approach
3. The Cratering Method
3.1 Using Powder Factor
By duplicating successful blasting operation obtained in similar
type of rock at other mines or from experience, is the usual
approach. Applying the cratering tests for blast design single
charge cratering test provide a direct measure of the powder
factor necessary for achieving the desired effect in conventional
blasting. If a desired blast effect is produced by a single point
charge at a particular scaled depth of 1/3 burial (absolute depth or
burial of charge/charge weight) then the cube of reciprocal of the
is
scaled deptl} considered to be the approximate powder factor
for duplicating the effect in a conventional array of blast holes.
3.2 Trial and Error Approach
Trial and Error Approach by experimenting with difference
charges until the right degree of fragmentation and explosive
consumption is attained.
3.3 The Cratering Method
This has found application in practice because of its innate
simplicity. The information needed for a blast design are the
critical depth (distance from surface to centre of gravity of
charge at which surface breakage ceases) and optimum depth (the
distance from surface to centre of gravity of charge
corresponding to maximum crater size). Small scale or crater
tests are conducted in the given locale to, establish their values.
4. OPTIMISATION OF BLASTING SUB-SYSTEM
.Designing a blast is a complex planning task, which for optimum
results calls for matching the energy level of the explosive, rock
properties and blast geometry. The optimum blast design needs a
comprehensive study and an objective analysis of the intersecting
elements. Figure 1 represents an overview of the system design
exercise for the optimisation of blasting.
FRAGBLAST '90
 OPTIMIZED DRILLING AND BLASTING COSTS

EVALUATION CRITERIA ACQUISITION OF DATA

:---------------------------: :-----~--------------:
1. ADEQUATE SIZING I
I : RELEVENT DATA FROM :
2. SECONDARY BLASTING : THE SITE AND
3. ACCEPTABLE MUCK PILE RESOURCES AVAILABLE : ANALYSIS
: PROFILE :---------------------: :--------------------1
: 4. MIN. VIBRATION LEVEL : 1. DIFFERENT TYPE OF:
I 5. LEAST COST :-->: EXPLOSIVE ,
I

: 6. STABILITY OF WALLS : : : 2. EXPERIENCE AND :-1 I

I

:---------------------------: : : EXPERTISE I
I 1--------------------:
I
I
I
:---------------------: :CRATOR SHOTS FOR :
I lBLAST GEOMETRY EVAL-:
PROBLEM FORMULATION :UATION FOR A GIVEN :
:---------------: : ROCK/EXPLOSIVE :
: ROCK BLASTING : : COMBINATION :
I OPTEMIZATION : :--------------------1
:---------1-----1 >: I
I :
t I
t I 1------------------1
:--------------------: t
I
ROCK FRAGMENTATION CONSTRAINTS MODEL FORMULATION
: OPTIMUM MANNER ;--------------------------------------;
1 AND COST I
t :1. NEARBY LOCATION OF STRUCTURE
1--------------------1 12. MAXIMUM SIZE OF BOULDER FOR GIVEN
:-->: SHOVEL :<--1
13. PRESENCE OF JOINTS AND FISSURES :
:--------------------------------------1
t

o B J E C T I V ERE V I E W :
1----------------------: I
IREVIEW PERFORMANCE : :
I
I l---:WITH STANDARDS :<---------------1
I
I : 1----------------------1
:--------------------1 1-------------:
SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVE
:----------------------------:
:1. DIFFERENT EXPLOSIVE/ROCK:
COMBINATION
:2. INITIATION :<----:
:3. CHARGING :
l----------------------------:
I I
I I

:-----------------------:
REVIEW :
:------------------:
: REVIEW PROBLEM
: FORMULATION
:------------------:
I
I

:---------------------:

FrG. 1. Problem Solution at Mine Level for Blasting Optimization

5. REAL COST OF BLASTING Cdr=~ cdr Rs/m.

h.s.b.
Real cost of blasting in any open-pit includes cost of loading, Assuming s = b
hauling and crushing in addition to basic cost of drilling and
blasting. Cdr = (h + ts) cdr Rs/m (1)
h.s2
5.1 Cost of Drilling, Cdr
Cost of drilling per metre depth Cdr includes cost of drill, spares Calculations for cost of drilling per metre is shown in Table 1.
and wages.

FRAGBLAST '90 Brisbane August 26 - 31 33

 D K SHARMA, A K PANDEY, A SRIVASTAVA and ADAS

TABLE 1 TABLE 2
Calculation of cost of explosives (slurries) per meter height
Calculation of Cost of Drilling Per Metre, cdr
Diameter of borehole 250 mm
RBH 150 -160 mm drill Rs 40 lakhs appx. Density of slurry 1.2gm/cc
2 persons / B category Rs 35000 / annum. Quantity of slurry in 175 Kg
250 mm diameter borehole
W~ges 70,000
Cost@ 20,000 per te Rs.35oo
Power 60,000
Stores 400,000
Let x meter be the height of slurry explosive in the borehole.
Depreciation 444,444
Interest 480,000
22 d2
Then? 4x.$e = 175 Kg
1,454,444

22 625 Illf\ ~ = 175

7 4 X. \!/\J. 1000
300 working days Rs 4,648 / day
2 shift drilling 20 metre drilling 175 4 1000 7
in 1 hr. 45 min. x= 100 625 L2 22 =3 m.

Utilisation 70% of 2 shift hours

percentage i.e. 11 hr 45 min so, 1 meter length of slurry explosive in 250 mm diameter
borehole is Rs 3500 /3 = Rs 1167.00. Similarly the value can be
1 cycle of 20 m drilling 1 hr. 45 calculated for any particular slurry used.

5.3 Cost of Accessories

No of cycles / day 675/105 = 6 cycles
Cost per borehole for accessories will include the cost of
Drilling / day 20 m x 6 cycles detonating cord, booster, blasting caps etc. and is given by :
= 120 m per day
PI . a
Rs/cum.
Cost of drilling / m. Cdr = 4648/120 h. s . b
= Rs 40 / metre where,
PI = a constant
For 200 - 250 mm dia, this cost will be Rs 80 per metre. assuming s = b,

PI . a
Cost= - - Rs/cum. (3)
5.2 Cost of explosives h . s2
Normally Jhe price of explosive/tonne is given by the supplier on
FOR rates. For cartridged explosives, number of cartridges per
tonne are found out on an average and number of cartridges used 5.4. Total Cost
for hole gives the actual weight of explosives used. Total cost of explosive including drilling, explosive and its
Corresponding cost is calculated. For slurries/ANFO, the cost of accessories is
explosives per metre height is calculated with the other known
parameters like borehole diameter, density of explosives etc. .Q!±..!& Cdr + P. $e. K. d (h + ts -Is) + P1.a
Cost per cubic metre h.~ . h.~ h.~

P . $e . K . d2 ( h + ts - Is ) 1 .
(2) =--2 cdr (h+ts) +P. $e.K .d2(h+ts-ls)
h. s2 h. s

+P1 a
where, (4)
h . s2
P = cost of explosive/metre height
$e = density of slurry/ANFO
It is assumed that the cost of explosives includes all direct costs
K = a constant ( = 11xlO-6)
such as depreciation, interest, taxes on explosives, loading truck
d = diameter of borehole in mm.
etc., mixing equipments, magazine. While evaluating cost
ts = sub-drill programme of various explosives, above direct costs will be
Is = stemming length common, especially in case of cartridge/slurry explosive/ANFO,
Assuming s = b . the direct and indirect labour costs required to load the borehole
Calculations for cost of explosive (slurries) per metre height is should also be taken into accQ;Unt.
shown in Table 2.
6. COST OPTIMIZATION
An optimum blast design could be worked out for a given open

34 Brisbane August 26 - 31 FRAGBLAST '90

 OPTIMIZED DRILLJNG AND BLASTING CQSTS

pit employing a certain explosive system. Steps involved are as

follows:
• For a given shovel size Sw, calculate desired average
fragmentation size Fav. START
• For a given drillhole size d, calculate burden which would READ
result in the desired Fav.
• Fix spacing at SIB value 1 to 2 depending on strata Compute
condition.
Sw, Hb, L, B, $, rn, Se,
• Fix bench height at LIB value 2 to 3 so as to minimise
QE, D, Ce, cdr
bench-break and toe formation. However, if bench is fixed
on the basis of drilling and loading equipment,.burden has to
be back calculated and necessary adjustment done.
• Maintain stemming at TIB ratio between 0.7 to 1.0.
depending on the collar fragmentation required and on
B -:O.7K + (0.49 K8K + 4Hb. K) 1/2
flyrock problem encountered.
2
• Fix up sub-grade length to 0.3 times the burden B.
The above approach of blast design could ensure better
utilization of explosive energy for a given mine using a particular Where,
explosive system. However, this need not lead to a cost
K=f(D,L,R, Se, We)
optimised design as the explosive in use may not give overall
economics in mining. Hence, it is necessary to first of all select Where,
the most effective explosive system from the point of view of We=f(Hb, L, R, $r, QE, Ib)
overall mining cost. It is not practicable to evolve optimum blast
design for a number of explosive systems through lengthy and Hb. L. R. Sr. ID K
costly field trials and then compare their relative performance for 1000 * QE g
arriving at the best explosive system. To overcome this problem: CbI = 0.785 D*D$e (Hb-0.4B) .N. ce
a. "Performance Prediction Model" has been developed which Cdr = N (Hb + OAB ) cdr
predicts the optimum burden for an explosive system in a given N = F (We, D, Hb, B, $e)
rock type to produce a certain desired fragment size. This model Cbd=Cbl +Cdr
has been extended to compute the drilling and blasting costs also
for an assumed size of bench to be blasted per round, so as to
Print
arrive at the overall cost optimisation for a number of explosive
system. This model is framed on the following inputs :
- Shovel size B, CbI, Cdr, Cbd
- Drill size & unit cost of drilling
- Bench dimensions Where,
- Rock density & Bond Index Sw = Shovel width,-m
- Density, Maximum Work Potential & Unit cost of explosive Hb = Bench height, m
The Flow chart is given in Figure 2. The output from the L =Bench length per round, m
progranune in terms of optimum burden and the total drilling and B =Burden,m
blasting costs per round has been verified with the available data R = Bench width per round, m
from an Iron Ore mine. A comparative cost calculation with three d = Borehole diameter, m
difference explosive systems A, B and C have been presented for
a typical Iron Ore mine. N =No. of holes perround, m
We =Total weight of explosives per round, Kg
$r =Rock density, Kg/cu.m
$e = Explosive density, Kglcu.m
7. CASE STUDY ID = Bond index, K.J/te
Three explosive systems A, B and C were taken up and cost QE = Maximum work potential of the explosive, K.J/Kg
calculation done for an Iron Ore mine. ce = Unit cost of explosive, Rs/Kg
The mine uses: Cdr =Unit cost of drilling, Rs/m
1. Shovel with an opening Sw=2.0m CbI =Blasting cost per round Rs
2. Drill with borehole dia. D=0.15m Cdr = Drilling cost per round, Rs
3 Unit drilling cost cdr = Rs 80 per meter Cbd =Sum of blasting and drilling costs per round, Rs
4 Bond Index for Iron Ore 1 = 3.60 KWH/te
5. Density of ore Cbd =Unit cost of blasting and drilling, Rs/te
$e = 4.25 x 10 3
Kg/cum
6. Bench size (assumed for calculation of comparative cost of
drilling and blasting) FIG. 2. Flow Chart
Bench length per round L= 150m

FRAGBLAST '90 Brisbane August 26 - 31 35

 D K SHARMA, AKPANDEY, ASRIVASTAVAand ADAS

Bench width per round R = 125 m The output from above in terms of optimum burden, number of
Bench height Hb= 11.75 m holes and total drilling and blasting cost per round are tabulated
7. Unit cost of explosive Ce in Table no. 3.
Explosive A Rs 12.32 per Kg
TABLE 3
Explosive B Rs 9.32 per Kg
The optimum Burden, Number of Holes and Total Drilling and
Explosive C Rs 10.46 per Kg
Blasting Costs
8. Maximum work potenti~ of explosive A,
QE = 42.308 KJJKg
Explosive
From the above data burden B was calculated from equation: Systems A B C

B= -0.7K+0.49K*k+4HBK Unit of explosive Ce 12.32 9.32 10.46

(5)
2 RSJKg
Predicted Optimum Burden 6.96 5.41 6.52
M
K= f(D,L,R,$r,We) (6)
Number of Hoks requrred 3287 6344 42
We= f(Hb, L,R, $r, QE,IB) (7) N
Cost of Blasting CbI 9.82 7.42 8.34
= HB.L.R.$r * ~ Kg Lakhs Rs
1000 QE Cost of Drilling Cdr 4.50 4.03 4.29
Lakhs Rs.
11.75 x 150 x 125 3 36
1000 x 4.25 x 10 x 42:31 Total Cost of Drilling and 14.32 11.45 12.63
Blasting Cbd
Lakhs Rs
= 79671.91 Kg Unit cost of Drilling and
From this we get Blasting cbd 1.53 1.22 1.35
K = 7.040 (from equation 6 ) Rs/te
and
7.1 Discussion of results
B = - 0.7 x 7.04+ [0.49 (7.042) + 4 x 11.75 x 7.04 1/2]
2 From the above table it is evident that
=6.96m 1. Although with explosive B, having least unit cost of
Now considering the relation explosive ce, we get maximum unit cost of drilling and
blasting.
N =f(We, D, Hb, B, Se)
2. Explosive C could be taken as the most effective from
Here
overall cost consideration.
We = D*D/4 (Hb + .4B ) .N. $e
Where, Hb + O.4B is hole length and 0.8B is stemming. 8. CONCLUSION
Therefore, (Hb + O.4B - 0.8B) gives (Hb-0.4B) as height of
explosive. The above leads us to the conclusion that Performance Prediction
Model for optimized drilling and blasting cost is a useful tool to
In this,
predict optimum burden for an explosive system in a given rock
Hb= 11.75 m
type to produce a certain desrred fragment size. It also computes
B= 6.96 m
drilling and blasting costs to arrive at overall cost optimization
D= 0.15 m
for a number of explosive systems. Since it is not practicable to
$e= 1300 Kg/ cU.m
evolve optimum blast design through lengthy and costly field
trials for a number of explosives and then compare therr reliable
79671.91 = .785 x. 15*. 15/4 (11.75.4 x 6. 96 x N x 1300)
performance to arrive at decision for best explosive system is
Therefore N 387 possible.
From the above,
Cost of blasting CbI 9. REFERENCES
= 0.785. D*D .$e (Rb-O.4B) .N.Ce
Ash, R. L., 1973 Standard for blasting design, Pit and Quany, No 10
= 0.785 x.15*.15 x1300 (11.75 -. 4 x 6.96)
x38 7x 12.32 Das, A., 1982 Optimization of drilling and blasting economics in
open-cast Iron ore mines-computer aided Project report, Dept. of
= Rs 9.821akhs
Mining Engineering, B.H.U. Varanasi (Unpublished)
Cost of drilling Cdr
Langefors, U., 1%5. Fragmentation in rock blasting, Proc. Ninth Symp.
= N (Hb + O.4B) cdr on Rock Mechanics, Pennsylvania State University.
= 387 (11.75 +.4 x 6.96) x 80
Persson, P.A., Lundborg, N. and Johnson, C.H., 1970. The basic
= Rs 4.50 lakhs mechanisation in rock blasting, Proc. Second International Symposium
Total cost of Drilling and Blasting Cbd on Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Yugoslavia Vo1.3, Sec. 5-3.'t
= CbI +Cdr Smith, N.S., and Ash, R.L., 1977. The b1asthole burden, spacing and
=Rs 9.82 + 4.50 lakhs length affect rock breakage, Proc. Third Conf. on Explosive and
=Rs 14.321akhs Blasting Techniques, SEE, Pittsburgh.

36 Brisbane Augusl26 - 31 FRAGBLAST '90