See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285526864

Drilling and blasting practices in Nevada's openpit mines

Article  in  Mining Engineering · December 2003

CITATION READS

1 3,298

2 authors, including:

Pierre mousset-jones
University of Nevada, Reno
28 PUBLICATIONS   99 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pierre mousset-jones on 22 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Click here to return to TOC

T E C H N I C A L P A P E R S

Drilling and blasting practices

in Nevada’s openpit mines
Introduction I.R. FIRTH AND P. MOUSSET-JONES cuss current drilling and blasting
The geological distinction is practices in use in Nevada and com-
generally poor between ore and I.R. Firth and P. Mousset-Jones, members SME, are graduate pares these with accepted theory
waste material in the majority of and best practice.
student and professor, respectively, with the Mining Engineering
openpit gold and silver mines in Ne-
Department, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno,
vada. This circumstance has forced NV. Nonmeeting paper number 01-340. Original manuscript Blasting principles
mine operators to develop tech- The overriding principle guid-
submitted for review October 2001. Revised manuscript received
niques that allow material types to ing the majority of methods and
and accepted for publication June 2002. Discussion of this peer-
be delineated prior to the breakage reviewed and approved paper is invited and must be submitted to techniques in use in large openpit
of the in situ rock mass by blasting. mines is that of minimizing cost per
SME Publications Dept. prior to March 31, 2004.
The Mining Engineering De- ton mined. Prior to any significant
partment at the Mackay School of mining activity on a property, the pit
Mines is conducting ongoing research in the area of blast shell, highwall design, bench height and other significant
movement measurement and modeling. To maintain a blast-design parameters may be determined, or at least
clear picture of the local industry, periodic surveys are broad tolerances will be established for the deposit, ore
undertaken. The primary objective of these surveys is to body and rock type. Theoretical blast design and empiri-
ascertain the current state-of-the-art with respect to min- cal relationships allow for an infinite combination of the
ing technology and methods in use within the state and basic aspects of the blast. In practice, though, several of
to compare this with other significant mining areas. the major design variables are governed more by pro-
The most recent survey was begun in 1999. The sur- duction requirements than blasting theory.
vey information was gathered using a questionnaire that Due to grade-control requirements, the drilling and
was circulated to 25 mining operations in Nevada. At the blasting practices described here tend to contradict
time this paper was prepared, 13 operations had com- many of the standard openpit blasting concepts. Short
pleted a full response. Several operating mines included benches and square patterns are used and most of the
in the original circulation have sub- faces are choke- or buffer-blasted to
sequently ceased operations. The reduce lateral movement of the shot
questionnaire covers basic aspects Abstract muck. The rock mass in which many
of the mine operation. These include In most of the openpit pre- of these mines operate is weathered
annual tonnage, equipment fleets cious-metal mines in Nevada, there and heavily fractured, allowing
and details of unit operations such is no clear geological distinction some unconventional approaches to
as drilling, blasting, loading and between ore and waste material. blast design and blast management.
hauling. The questionnaire also cov- The ore bodies mined in the state
ered geology, geotechnical pro- are highly discontinuous in terms of Bench height. In can be argued
grams, the use of contractors, grade distribution. Hence, grade- that the choice of bench height is the
grade-control procedures, the use of control procedures are demanding. first aspect of the blast design that
technology such as drill or shovel Ore polygons are defined before will be fixed for a given operation.
monitoring systems and the applica- blasting using blasthole assays. The bench height chosen often re-
tion of mine management and infor- Drilling and blasting practices have flects the block size used during re-
mation systems, such as Dispatch. been developed that are intended to serve modeling. It is desirable to
Mining operations responding optimize grade control by minimiz- augment the original orebody
to the survey represent a broad ing forward rock movement, while model with updated blasthole data
cross section of the industry in Ne- creating a suitable product for load as it becomes available. And this
vada. Material movement ranged and haul operations. A study of the process is simplified if the bench
from 7.25 Mt/a (8 million stpy) to techniques now in use in Nevada height is chosen to be a multiple of
more than 90 Mt/a (100 million was carried out and the results are the orebody’s block size.
stpy). With one exception, respon- presented. Several methods in use in Sizing of primary loading equip-
dents list gold as the major value Nevada would not be readily appli- ment depends on bench height and,
product. The paper uses the results cable in areas in which good frag- hence, the expected height of the
of the drilling and blasting informa- mentation is more difficult to muckpile. So the bench height will
tion gathered in the survey to dis- achieve. often be chosen during preliminary

MINING ENGINEERING ■ DECEMBER 2003 33

firth, p. 33-38 copy 33 11/26/03, 9:30 AM

 planning stages and is rarely altered TABLE 1
thereafter. There are several empiri-
cal rules given in the literature for Variation in percentage
calculating bench height given vari- energy distribution (after
ous aspects of the blast geometry. AECI African Explosives and
The Atlas Powder Co. (1987) sug- Chemicals Industries, 1978).
gests a bench height of twice the
burden distance. In most large,
openpit mining operations the S/B Square
bench height will be dictated by ratio pattern % pattern %
other operational considerations. 1.00 77.0
So this relationship has limited prac- 1.15 76.0
tical value. Hustrulid (1999) notes 1.25 75.0
that most of the openpit operations 1.50 71.0
have a bench height equal to 2.00 62.0
about1.6 times the burden. The aver-
age bench height in the 13 mines
sampled is 7.3 m (24 ft), with a maximum of 12.2 m (40
ft) and a minimum of 4.6 m (15 ft). The choice of using a
relatively low bench height for the gold mines in Nevada
is generally attributed to intensive grade-control re-
quirements.
The bench height-to-burden ratio for the sample
shows an average figure of 1.44, compared with
Hustrulid’s general recommendation of 1.6. The maxi-
mum bench height-to-burden ratio is 2.2, for a 12.2-m
(40-ft) waste bench, and the minimum is 1.
Hole diameter. Having fixed a bench height, the next
aspect of the blast design likely to be decided is the
blasthole diameter. Konya and Walter, 1990, suggest the
following relation between bench height and blasthole
diameter.
L = 5DE (1)
where
L is the bench height (ft) and
DE is the blast hole diameter (in.).
An alternative to this equation given by the Atlas
Powder Co. (1987) is
H
D= (2)
10
where
D is the blast hole diameter (in.) and
H is the bench height (ft).
In addition to any theoretical computation of
blasthole diameter, practical considerations regarding
drilling equipment, such as maximum drill depth in a
single pass, productivity and cost, will all be important
considerations in the choice of blasthole diameter.
As a general rule, larger blastholes allow larger pat-
terns and, hence, a reduced primary breakage cost per
unit volume. As a consequence of this relation, the distri-
bution of explosive energy throughout the rock mass is
directly influenced by the blasthole diameter. Where
breaking conditions are difficult, a smaller than ideal
blasthole will help to distribute the explosive energy of
the blast, by forcing a reduction in burden and spacing.
This will also influence the unit drilling cost.
The average bench height in use in the sampled
mines is 7.3 m (24 ft). According to Eqs. (1) and (2), this
34 DECEMBER 2003 ■ MINING ENGINEERING
firth, p. 33-38 copy 34
would result in a range of blasthole
diameters of between 61 and 122
mm (2.4 and 4.8 in.). Actual
blasthole diameters in use in Ne-
vada range from 171 to 251 mm
(6.75 to 9.875 in.), the modal size
being 171 mm (6.75 in.). There are
various valid reasons for using a
Staggered larger hole size than theory suggests.
Larger diameter drill stems give bet-
98.5 ter directional stability, allowing
100.0 longer holes to be drilled with
99.5 higher precision. For hole diameters
94.6 less than approximately 100 mm (4
77.0 in.), the detonation characteristics of
bulk explosives are altered, increas-
ing the risk of misfires and reducing
the velocity of detonation likely to be achieved.
Burden and spacing. Burden is generally calculated
as a function of blasthole diameter with various empiri-
cal rules suggesting ratios of burden to blasthole diam-
eter and burden to spacing. The blast pattern used at any
given site will be the result of a certain amount of trial
and error.
Konya and Walter (1990) suggest
0.33
 SG 
B = 3.15 DE  E  (3)
 SGR 
where
B is the burden in feet,
SGE is the specific gravity of the explosive,
SGR the specific gravity of the rock and
DE is the diameter of the explosive charge in inches.
For practical purposes, when using bulk explosive
products, DE will be the blasthole diameter. Atlas Pow-
der co. (1987) suggest the empirical relation
25 − 35 DE
B= (4)
12
where
B is the burden (ft) and
DE the blast hole diameter (in.).
It is worth noting that as-drilled burden and as-shot,
or effective, burden can differ considerably, depending
on the drill pattern and blast sequence used.
Hustrulid (1999) drawing on original references by
Ash (1963,) also suggested a range of 25 to 35 times the
hole diameter for the burden, varying according to rock
and explosive characteristics. The average burden used
in the sampled mines was 5.12 m (16.8 ft), ranging from
3.7 to 7.9 m (12 to 26 ft).
The ratio of burden to hole diameter for the
sampled mines ranges from 21 to 32, with an average of
26. Hustrulid (1999) suggested that, for average rock
while using a lower-density explosive such as ANFO, a
value of 25 would be appropriate. The majority of mines
in Nevada use ANFO as their primary bulk explosive.
In general, spacing will be related to burden by some
ratio. The Atlas Powder Co. (1987) suggested that the
spacing should be between one and 1.8 times the burden.
11/22/03, 11:33 AM
 As with many aspects of blast design, the actual ratio
chosen will usually be the product of a certain amount of
trial and error. All but one of the mines surveyed uses a
spacing equal to the associated burden. Many of these
mines cite grade-control procedures and requirements as
the primary reason for the use of a square pattern. This
is because grade can simply be assigned to a square area
based on blasthole assays.
Burden to spacing ratios and pattern layout are dis-
cussed in more depth later in the paper.
Subdrill and stemming. To ensure adequate break-
age at the intended toe of a given bench, the blasthole
will be drilled some distance below the level of the cor-
rect toe elevation. This distance, termed subdrill, should
be between 0.2 and 0.5 times the burden distance, ac-
cording to the Atlas Powder Co. (1987). Konya and
Walter (1990) suggest that 0.3 times the burden will suf-
fice for most circumstances. Subdrilling, especially in
short benches, has a significant effect on powder factor
and unit drilling cost, as the rock in front of the subdrill
is not factored into the volume of rock to be broken by
the blasthole. Excessive subdrill will also cause damage
to the crest of a bench below, causing difficulty in drilling
and blasthole stability problems. The average subdrill
length as a proportion of burden for the sampled mines
was 0.24, ranging from 0.04 to 0.4.
The stemming distance is also related to burden dis-
tance in most empirical formulae. Konya and Walter
(1990) suggest
0.33
T = 0.45 DE  v 
St
(5)
 SGr 
where
T is the stemming distance (ft),
DE is the explosive diameter (in.),
St v is the relative bulk strength of the explosive
(ANFO = 100) and
SGr is the specific gravity of rock.
The equation can be simplified to
T = 0.7B (6)
where
B is the burden distance (ft).
The Atlas Powder Co. (1987) suggests a similar rela-
tion to that in Eq. (6)
T = 0.7 – 1.3B (7)
Konya and Walter (1990) also suggest a relationship
between the blasthole diameter and the ideal stemming
size
SZ = 0.05Dh (8)
where
SZ is the ideal stemming particle size (in.) and
Dh the blast hole diameter (in.).
Konya and Walter (1990) note that this relation as-
sumes angular material, ideally single sized, crushed
firth, p. 33-38 copy 35
TABLE 2
Time delay between adjacent blast holes
(after Konya and Walter, 1990).
TH
Constant,
Rock type ms/ft
Sands, loam, marl and coal. 1.8-2.1
Some limestone, rock salt, shale. 1.5-1.8
Compact limestones, marbles, granites
and basalts, quartzite rocks, gneisses
and gabbro. 1.2-1.5
Diabase, diabase porphyrites, compact
gneiss and micashist, magnetites. 0.9-1.2
TABLE 3
Time delay between rows (after Konya and
Walter, 1990).
TR
constant,
ms/ft Results
2 Violent excessive air blast, back break.
2-3 High pile close to face, moderate air blast
and back break.
3-4 Average pile height, average air blast and
back break.
4-6 Scattered pile and minimal back break.
7-14 Casting of burden.
rock. The average stemming length in use in the sample
was 0.8 times the burden, ranging from 0.67 to 1.1, com-
paring well with suggested values. The stemming mate-
rial used on the majority of the mines surveyed was drill
cuttings. The blasting community has long accepted the
advantages to be gained from the use of crushed rock
stemming media, but the provision of such media at the
blast site for large operations is not a trivial exercise. A
small number of the mines visited operate stemming ve-
hicles. These vehicles are often modified ANFO charging
units, which are designed to feed aggregate into the
blasthole. Another alternative, which is gathering some
acceptance, is the use of stemming plugs to prevent pre-
mature stemming ejection, even when using fine drill
cutting as the stemming media.
Blasthole pattern
The final basic aspect of openpit blast design is that
of pattern layout and sequence. Blast patterns are based
on static burden and spacing distances. They can be laid
out in a staggered or square arrangement. Square pat-
terns are defined by the idea that the blastholes are laid
out on a right-angled grid pattern. If the burden-to-spac-
ing ratio is not equal to one, a square pattern will in fact
be laid out on a rectangular grid.
Discussion of the various merits of square vs. stag-
gered patterns is concerned with the distribution of ex-
plosive energy within the pattern. One of the most
coherent discussions of this principle is given by AECI
African Explosives and Chemicals Industries (1978). Fig-
MINING ENGINEERING ■ DECEMBER 2003 35
11/22/03, 11:33 AM
 FIGURE 1
Energy distribution comparison,
square vs. staggered pattern (after
Hustrulid, 1999, pp. 130, Figs. 5.10
and 5.11).
ure 1 demonstrates that, for a given zone of influence
surrounding blastholes in a pattern, the total area not
directly influenced by any specific blasthole is the same
for each pattern type, assuming static burden and spac-
ing are equal. However, the size of individual areas not
included in the zone of influence from adjacent holes is
much smaller in the staggered pattern. Table 1 demon-
strates the variation in percentage coverage for given
ratios of burden to spacing.
To make the blast layout practicable on the bench,
AECI African Explosives and Chemicals Industries sug-
gest the use of a spacing-to-burden ratio of 1.25. The ab-
solute optimum layout would use a spacing-to-burden
ratio of 1.15.
Only one mine in the sample used a staggered blast
pattern. The most common reasons cited for use of
square patterns were grade-control, followed by con-
cerns regarding the implementation of staggered layouts
on the bench. Many of the mines in the sample only use
survey personnel to lay out start-of-row/end-of-row
points or a base row of drill holes. Drill operators and
blasting personnel then use these points as guides in lay-
ing out the remainder of the pattern.
If staggered patterns are used, each blasthole assay
may be assigned to a square or rectangular area sur-
rounding the blasthole in much the same way as is the
case when using square blast patterns. Assuming that
adequate reference marks are placed on the bench by
survey personnel, it is the author’s experience that drill-
ing and blasting personnel are capable of laying out a
36 DECEMBER 2003 ■ MINING ENGINEERING
firth, p. 33-38 copy 36
staggered pattern on the bench.
Sequencing and initiating systems. The basic prin-
ciple of blast sequencing is to ensure adequate dynamic
relief for individual blastholes as the pattern is fired,
while maintaining confinement and controlling air blast
and vibration energy. To control these aspects of the
blast, a delay is placed between adjacent holes in the
same row and also between adjacent rows. The optimal
delay between adjacent holes or adjacent rows will de-
pend on the desired muckpile shape, the rock mass being
blasted and all of the previously discussed aspects of the
blast design. General rules of thumb for hole-to-hole
delay are given by Konya and Walter (1990)
t h = TH S ( 9)
where
th is the delay between rows or holes,
TH is a constant and
S is the spacing distance.
Table 2 gives suggested values for TH by rock type.
The average static spacing for the sampled mines is ap-
proximately 5.2 m (17 ft). Hence, according to Table 2, an
interhole delay of 1.2 to 1.8 ms/ft of spacing would be
appropriate, equal to 20 to 30 ms. Hole-to-hole delays for
the sampled mines range from zero to 65 ms.
Delay between rows is used to control overall blast
movement. In general, a longer inter-row delay will
cause a lower, flatter muckpile.
Konya and Walter also suggest rules of thumb for
the inter-row delay, this time based on the desired
muckpile shape. Using the relation
t r = TR B (10)
where
tr is the inter row delay in milliseconds,
TR the inter row time constant and
B the burden distance.
Table 3 gives suggested values for TR. The average
static burden for the sample is approximately 5.2 m (17
ft). This assumes a requirement for an average muckpile
shape. Table 3 suggests a row-to-row delay of 9.8 to 13.1
ms/m (3 to 4 ms/ft) of burden, or 51 to 68 ms. The row-to-
row delay used in the sample ranges from 17 to 134 ms.
Most of the mines surveyed appear to use a relatively
short row-to-row delay. The reason given for this prac-
tice is, once again, the desire to minimize forward rock
movement during the blast.
The mines surveyed show a variation in initiating
system choice and detail. Of the 13 mines surveyed,
seven use shock-tube systems in hole and on surface. Of
the remainder, two mines use shock tube in the hole and
detonating relays on surface. Four mines use the unusual
combination of detonating cord in the hole and shock-
tube systems on the surface. In general, the inter-row
timing used is short at between 25 and 65 ms, giving less
than 6.6 ms/m (2 ms/ft) of static burden on average. Once
again, this can be attributed to the desire to reduce lat-
eral movement to reduce mixing and dilution.
Explosive product. All of the mines visited use some
11/22/03, 11:33 AM
TABLE 4

Summary of blast design parameters.

Bench Bench Hole Burden Stem Stem Sub Sub

Mine Material height height diam Burden hole Spacing Spacing height height % drill drill % Charge/ Cu yd/ PF
No. name ft burden in. ft diam ft burden ft burden ft burden Pattern hole hole lb/yd3

1 Ore 20 1.11 6.75 18 32.00 18 1.00 14.00 78% 4 22% Stag 127 240 0.53
1 Waste 40 1.54 9 7/8 26 31.59 26 1.00 19.00 73% 7 27% Stag 760 1001 0.76
2 Ore 20 1.33 6 3/4 15 26.67 15 1.00 10.50 70% 4 27% SQ 171 167 1.03
2 Waste 20 1.33 6 3/4 15 26.67 15 1.00 12.00 80% 4 27% SQ 152 167 0.91
3 Ore 15 1.25 6 3/4 12 21.33 14 1.17 - - 3 25% SQ - 93 -
3 Waste 15 1.25 6 3/4 12 21.33 14 1.17 - - 3 25% SQ - 93 -
4 Ore 35 2.19 7 7/8 16 24.38 16 1.00 16.00 100% 5 31% SQ 414 332 1.25
4 Waste 35 1.75 7 7/8 20 30.48 20 1.00 18.00 90% 5 25% SQ 380 519 0.73
5 Ore 25 1.67 6 3/4 15 26.67 15 1.00 12.00 80% 6 40% SQ 241 208 1.16
5 Waste 25 1.67 6 3/4 15 26.67 15 1.00 12.00 80% 6 40% SQ 241 208 1.16
6 Ore 20 1.00 9 7/8 20 24.30 20 1.00 14.00 70% 1 5% SQ 190 296 0.64
6 Waste 30 1.67 9 7/8 18 21.87 18 1.00 14.00 78% 3 17% SQ 515 360 1.43
7 Ore 20 1.11 7 7/8 18 27.43 18 1.00 12.00 67% 4 22% SQ 207 240 0.86
7 Waste 20 1.11 7 7/8 18 27.43 18 1.00 12.00 67% 4 22% SQ 207 240 0.86
8 Ore 20 1.33 6 3/4 15 26.67 15 1.00 12.50 83% 4 27% SQ 146 167 0.87
8 Waste 20 1.33 6 3/4 15 26.67 15 1.00 12.50 83% 4 27% SQ 146 167 0.87
9 Ore 25 1.79 6 3/4 14 24.89 14 1.00 12.00 86% 3 21% SQ 203 181 1.12
9 Waste 25 1.79 6 3/4 14 24.89 14 1.00 12.00 86% 3 21% SQ 203 181 1.12
10 Ore 20 1.25 8.75 16 21.94 16 1.00 - - 4 25% SQ - 190 -
10 Waste 40 1.60 9 7/8 25 30.38 25 1.00 18.00 72% 4 16% SQ 705 926 0.76
11 Ore 20 1.43 7 7/8 14 21.33 14 1.00 15.00 107% - - SQ - 145 -
11 Waste 20 1.11 7 7/8 18 27.43 18 1.00 13.00 72% - - SQ - 240 -
12 Ore 20 1.11 - 18 - 18 1.00 - - - - SQ - 240 -
12 Waste 40 2.00 9 7/8 20 24.30 20 1.00 22.00 110% 6 30% SQ 651 593 1.10
13 Ore 20 1.33 6 3/4 15 26.67 15 1.00 10.00 67% 2 13% SQ 152 167 0.91
13 Waste 20 1.33 6 3/4 15 26.67 15 1.00 10.00 67% 2 13% SQ 152 167 0.91
Average 24.23 1.44 7.73 16.81 26.03 16.96 1.01 13.75 80% 3.96 24% - 298 289 0.95
Maximum 40.00 2.19 9.88 26.00 32.00 26.00 1.17 22.00 110% 7.00 40% - 760 1,001 1.43
Minimum 15.00 1.00 6.75 12.00 21.33 14.00 1.00 10.00ß

form of bulk explosive product. The choice of product is

heavily influenced by cost. In general, the most common
bulk products in use can be categorized as ANFO, as
heavy ANFO/blended products or as pure emulsions.
ANFO provides the lowest unit cost energy source for a
large proportion of open-pit blasting situations. The most
common reason for not using ANFO would be in situa-
tions where there is water in the blastholes. In this case,
heavy ANFO, a mixture of ANFO and generally less
than 50% (by weight) emulsion would be used.
Beyond ANFO and heavy ANFO, higher percent-
ages of emulsion and straight emulsion products tend to
be used in rock masses that are hard to break, where sig-
nificant heave energy would be undesirable or for very
wet conditions.
Of the mines surveyed, 12 use ANFO as their pri-
mary blasting agent, with one mine using a heavy ANFO
blend. Many of these mines will use a small amount of
emulsion and blended products as required for wet holes.
The use of ANFO would appear to be the direct result of
price considerations, because a considerable premium is
charged for products containing emulsion. It is assumed
that this price differential is a result of the low-volume
market for emulsion-based products in the western
United States, as the raw materials used are relatively
similar for ANFO and emulsion.
The ability to use ANFO in most situations may also
be a result of the rock mass generally encountered in
Nevada’s openpit mines. Heavily weathered and frac-
tured, the rock mass is suited to a less-dense explosive
having a high proportion of gas energy. This promotes
heaving of an already well-fractured rock mass. The use
of ANFO does contradict, to some extent, the desire to
minimize lateral heave of the muck pile from the point
of view of grade control.
Wall control. Most of the mines surveyed use some
kind of wall-control blasting for intermediate and final
walls in the pit. Methods used vary from full presplitting
and line drilling for final walls to modified production or
buffer blasts for intermediate walls. The modified pro-
duction blasts used tend to be a two- or three-row trim
shot, using a 50% charge in the back row and altered
timing to promote good dynamic relief. Some mines also
combine a trim design with an uncharged presplit row
drilled on or at a fixed distance from the desired wall
position.
Several mines report the use of vibration-monitor-
ing equipment to measure peak particle velocity at
highwalls during production and trim basting.
Blast management
The most striking difference between the mines in
Nevada and many of those overseas is the tendency to
fire blasts on a daily basis. Many large openpit mining
operations have opted to blast once or twice a week,
even when loading rates exceed 200 kt/d (220,000 stpd).
Again, it is possible that the inconsistent nature of the
orebodies mined in Nevada require a higher degree of
flexibility in material loading schedules. It is also noted
that, due to the extensive area covered by many opera-
tion, with several active pits at many mine sites, blasting
operations do not generally create the production delays
more common in single large pits, such as those typified
by many diamond and copper mines.
Only two of the mines surveyed used the concept of
blasting domains and altered blast patterns according to
rock type in a systematic manner. Several mines report
the alteration of patterns based on observed blasting re-
sults.

MINING ENGINEERING ■ DECEMBER 2003 37

firth, p. 33-38 copy 37 11/22/03, 11:33 AM

 The use of technologies such as high-speed film, ve-
locity of detonation measurement, vibration monitoring
and fragmentation assessment are generally less than for
similar operations in Southern Africa and Australia. This
may be due to the forgiving nature of the rock masses
encountered and the use of straightforward drilling and
blasting practices. Because most of the mines surveyed
use a heap-leaching process, fragmentation may be of
less concern than for mining operations using milling cir-
cuits. It is noted that several mining operations in Austra-
lia have achieved considerable improvements in mill
economics by reducing fragment size in the pit beyond
what is traditionally necessary for load and haul opera-
tions (Scott et al., 1999). Improvements in leach kinetics
can be achieved for heap-leach operations in a similar
way, and one operation in Nevada reports studies in this
area.
Only one mine site reported the appointment of a
drilling and blasting engineer position in the mine-engi-
neering department. Six mines in the sample report the
use of drill-monitoring technology. The primary use of
this equipment is in drill-position monitoring to allow
stakeless drilling and monitoring of productivity.
Summary
Drilling and blasting practices used in openpit mines
in Nevada appear to be largely governed by the intensive
grade-control practices that have developed as a result
of the complex grade distribution found in these ore
bodies. The use of choke blasting, short benches and
square patterns, with high powder factors and short in-
38 DECEMBER 2003 ■ MINING ENGINEERING
firth, p. 33-38 copy 38
View publication stats
ter-row delays are a result of the desire to minimize blast
movement and, hence, dilution.
These requirements must have some influence on
the efficiency of the blasting operations in terms of frag-
mentation and cost, though the relatively weak rock
mass encountered at many of these mines undoubtedly
attenuates these considerations. ■
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all of the mine sites and individu-
als that contributed to the information gathered during
this study.
References
AECI African Explosives and Chemicals Industries, 1978,
“Blasthole drilling and initiation patterns in surface blasting,” Explo-
sives Today, Series 2, No. 12, June.
Ash, R.L, 1963a, “The mechanics of rock breakage (Part 1),” Pit
and Quarry, No. 56, Vol. 2, pp. 98-100.
Ash, R.L, 1963b, “The mechanics of rock breakage (Part 2) —
Standards for blast design,” Pit and Quarry, No. 56, Vol. 3, pp. 118-122.
Atlas Powder Co., 1987, Explosives and Rock Blasting, Maple
Press, USA, 647 pp.
Hustrulid, W, 1999, Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining, Vol.
1, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 382 pp.
Konya, C.J., and Walter, E.J., 1990, Surface Blast Design, Prentice
Hall, New Jersey, USA, 303 pp.
Scott, A., Kanchibotla, S., and Morell, S., 1999, “Blasting for mine
to mill optimization,” in Proceedings Explo ’99, The Australian Insti-
tute of Mining and Metallurgy in association with the Western Austra-
lian School of Mines, pp. 3-8.
11/22/03, 11:33 AM