Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine

Carlos Scherpenisse
Guillermo Silva
Daniel Valdebenito
GeoBlast S.A.
&
Ricardo González Dumuihual
Alejandro Rosario
Barrick Gold, Pueblo Viejo

Abstract

A monitoring campaign to record dynamic pressures generated by detonation of a single blasthole was
implemented at Barrick Gold´s Pueblo Viejo Open Pit mine (PVDC), located in the Dominican Republic .
Pressure amplitudes beyond the dynamic compressive strength of the electronic detonator´s capsules have
the potential to damage these electronic devices, generating misfires along with all the associated risks
and entailed safety implications. In most instances, misfires generated from high dynamic pressures are a
direct consequence of drilling deviations resulting in blasthole distances smaller than originally designed.

Tourmaline Crystal Sensors specifically designed for high dynamic pressure measurements in aqueous
media were selected to address the challenge. These sensors are custom-made and require additional
instrumentation for proper operation, including signal conditioners and recording equipment capable of
capturing simultaneous events, both in their amplitude and frequency components.

Field-testing comprised detonation of a single blasthole using current explosive loading practices along
with an arrangement of sensors positioned within water-filled drillholes in a spiral configuration.
Distances, explosive weights and all 23 dynamic pressure record amplitudes are included along with
additional data regarding arrival time and P-Wave velocity estimations.

As with typical vibration models, the Scaled Distance concept (D/W1/2) was used to construct an
attenuation model relating Dynamic Pressure as a function of Distance (D) and explosive Weight (W).
The resulting model, adjusted to a 95% statistical confidence limit (covering 100% of the recorded data)
was used to generate a series of curves (Abacus) estimating dynamic pressure as a function of distance
for different explosive charges. These curves, in association with permissible pressure limits defined at
50% (FOS = 2) of the dynamic pressure strength reported by manufacturers for both, the 1000bar (Al) and
the 1400bar (Cu) capsules; allow for the determination of critical (safe) distances between blastholes.

Tests were implemented to cover a variety of field scenarios, accounting for different rock mass types,
qualities and water conditions; however, preliminary analysis indicate the convenience of developing a
unique trend that considers said variability. This approach allowed construction of a single, simple,
unambiguous and operationally applicable design tool to address entailed safety issues.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 1 of 12
Introduction and Background
This paper describes the main activities, results and recommendations arising from dynamic pressure
measurements1 implemented at Pueblo Viejo mine (PVDC) in the Dominican Republic. Between March
2017 and April 2018, PVDC experienced a series of undesired events related to dynamic pressure in
different areas of the mine, which affected their electronic detonators and generated misfires in adjacent
blastholes.2 Figure-1 shows the dynamic pressure effect on electronic and pyrotechnic Nonel detonator
capsules encountered after a blast at PVDC.

Figure 1: Dynamic pressure effects on detonator capsules

These dynamic pressure events represent a serious hazard requiring immediate proactive actions to ensure
personnel and equipment safety. Initial steps taken by PVDC included a field test-program implemented
by Orica3 during August 2017 focused on measuring dynamic pressure magnitudes.

Instrumentation
To measure the dynamic pressures within a liquid media, as is the case for emulsion explosives;
Tourmaline pressure sensors4 specifically designed for underwater pressure events, were selected to
conduct the experiments at PVDC.

Figure-2 (on left) shows a tourmaline crystal transducer with an ICP integrated amplifier circuit
connected to a low-impedance coaxial cable and an end plug for weight attachment. Figure-2 (on right)
shows the main instrumentation used during trials, consisting of a battery-operated Signal Conditioner ,
an external DC-power supply and the DataTrap-II voltage-recording unit.

Figure 2: Tourmaline crystal transducer and main testing instrumentation

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 2 of 12
Testing Methodology
As Figure-3 illustrates, from the six trials conducted at PVDC, three of them were implemented in
Montenegro Pit, two of them in Moore Pit and the remaining in Quemados Pit. Appendix-1 summarizes
available geotechnical information of PVDC Pits where testing was conducted.

Figure 3: Testing areas at PVDC Pits

To account for rock-mass anisotropy while making a rational use of the limited number of sensors
available, the drilling pattern selected consisted of a central blasthole with four monitoring holes ,
containing the tourmaline sensors, drilled in a spiral configuration at orthogonal directions. All five holes
were drilled in 8¾-inch (220 mm) diameter. Figure-4 illustrates the drilling configuration planned for
Test #1, which as expected, differs from the real implemented geometry determined by field surveying.

ɸ = 8 ¾” ɸ = 8 ¾”
To signal
conditioning and
recording unit

Crushed
4.0m gravel
Stemming
Low impedance
coaxial cable

7.5m

Tourmaline
7m
crystal sensor
HA 65/35
Explosive
Weight
326 kg

11m Water

Sensor Drillhole Donor Blasthole

Figure 4: Design configuration corresponding to Test # 1 located at Montenegro Pit

The first five trials had similar drilling geometry; however, the last test at Quemados Pit needed changes
given that only one of the eleven sensors had survived. Rock displacement prevented their recovery from
the monitoring holes, however all sensors reported their corresponding pressure record.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 3 of 12
PVDC uses a 65/35 Heavy ANFO mix characterized by a microsphere-sensitized emulsion phase. At a
target density of 1.20 g/cc and VOD of 5500 m/s (18045 ft/s), said product generates borehole pressures
around 45 kbar (653 kpsi), more than double the one generated by standard ANFO at 0.80 g/cc & 4500m/s
(14764 ft/s). Figure-5 illustrates a typical VOD record of the Heavy ANFO mix as reported by PVDC. 5

VOD = 5506 m/s

(18064 ft/s)
Distance (m)

Time (ms)

Figure 5: VOD record of microballoon-sensitized Heavy ANFO (65/35)

Dynamic Pressure Measurement Results

Given the similarities between trials, only two tests are described in more detail: Test #1 at Montenegro
Pit, Bench-370 and Test #6 at Quemados Pit, Bench-110. However, as reference material, the dynamic
pressure records of the remaining four tests are included in Appendix-2 at the end of the present Paper.

Test # 1 Montenegro Pit Bench-370

This section details information of Test #1 conducted at Montenegro Pit in Bench-370. Figure-6 shows
coordinates and distances from the monitoring holes to the central blasthole containing the donor charge.

TEST # 1: Surveyed Distances Montenegro Pit

2096074

P1
2096072

2096070
5.4m (17.7 ft)
2096068 P4
7.1m (23.3 ft) P2
6.1m (20 ft)
2096066
Pexp
217kg (479 lbs)
2096064
6.6m (21.6 ft)
2096062

2096060 P3

2096058
375182 375184 375186 375188 375190 375192 375194 375196 375198

Figure 6: Drilling geometry for Test #1, Montenegro Pit Bench-370

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 4 of 12
Figure-7 shows final dimensions of monitoring and donor holes for Test #1, which differs from the
designed configuration in Figure-4. Relying on the strong confinement provided by crushed rock used as
stemming material, the decision was made to maintain a representative explosive column load and reduce
stemming length by half a meter.

ɸ = 8 ¾” ɸ = 8 ¾”
To signal
conditioner and
recording unit

3.5m Crushed
gravel
Stemming
Low impedance
coaxial cable
6.0m

4.6m

Tourmaline
crystal sensor
Explosive
10m Weight 217kg

Water Donor Blasthole

Sensor Drillhole

Figure 7: Implemented donor and monitoring hole s for Test #1

Figure-8 illustrates that stemming confinement did not meet expectations; the high energy delivered by
the sensitized Heavy ANFO generated a large crater. Three of the four sensors remained trapped within
their monitoring holes; however, all the pressure signals were properly recorded.

Figure 8: Crater resulting from a short stemming length and high explosive performance

Figure-9 displays the dynamic pressure records corresponding to each of the four sensors for Test # 1 at
Montenegro Pit, Bench-370. The arrival times for each pressure signal, later used to calculate P-wave
velocities, are also indicated in the corresponding graphs.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 5 of 12
 TEST #1_BLASTHOLE-1 (5.4 m @ 217 kg) TEST #1_BLASTHOLE-2 (6.1 m @ 217 kg)
1800 1200
1600
1000
1400 1731.9 PSI
1035.3 PSI

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)
1200 800

1000
600
800
400
600
400 200
200
0
0
-200 -200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.40 ms TIME (ms) 1.50 ms TIME (ms)

TEST #1_BLASTHOLE-3 (6.6 m @ 217 kg) TEST #1_BLASTHOLE-4 (7.1 m @ 217 kg)
800 800

600 600
667.97 PSI
PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)
400 400
491.8 PSI
200 200

0 0

-200 -200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.79 ms TIME (ms) 1.95 ms TIME (ms)

Figure 9: Dynamic Pressure records Test #1 Montenegro Pit

Table-1summarizes actual surveyed distances, dynamic pressures peaks and donor charge weight
implemented for this test.

Table 1: Summary Results Test # 1 Montenegro Pit, Bench-370.

Test # 6 Quemados Pit Bench 110

By this latter stage of field-testing, only one tourmaline sensor had survived the initial five trials.
Additionally, only four of the usual five holes were drilled in the testing area. This required a change in
monitoring strategy, whereby a single tourmaline sensor was used to capture the pressures generated by
three different explosive blastholes.

Figure-10 illustrates all four drillholes comprising Test #6, specifically, the monitoring hole containing
the sensor and the three explosive donor charges with their corresponding delay times of 900ms, 950ms
and 1000ms. Recording unit triggered at 850ms.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 6 of 12
 TEST #6: Distances & Delay Times Quemados Pit
2094300

SENSOR
(850ms) 6.60m
2094298 (21.6 ft)

Pexp 1
2094296 (900ms)

7.70m
(25.3 ft) 10.0m
(32.8 ft)
2094294

2094292
Pexp 2
(1000ms)
Pexp 3
(950ms)
2094290
375046 375048 375050 375052 375054 375056

Figure 10: Drilling geometry and delay times. Test #6 Quemados Pit, Bench-110
Table-2 lists the corresponding explosive weights and dynamic pressure peaks recorded during testing,
indicating distances from each donor charge to the single monitoring hole containing the sensor.

Table 2: Summary Results Test #6 Quemados Pit Bench-110

Distance Distance Explosive Explosive Pressure Pressure
Blasthole to Sensor to Sensor Weight Weight Peak Peak
(m) (ft) (kg) (lbs) (PSI) (Bar)
Pexp-1 6.60 21.6 304 670 898.3 61.9

Pexp-2 7.70 25.3 303 668 754.9 52.1

Pexp-3 10.0 32.8 264 582 246.3 17.0

Figure-11 shows an expanded view of the three records generated by the donor blastholes, indicating
their corresponding peak dynamic pressure and arrival times. The fourth graph illustrates the same three
pressure signals as recorded by the tourmaline sensor during Test #6, Quemados Pit, Bench-110.
TEST #6_BLASTHOLE-1 (6.6 m @ 304 kg) TEST #6_BLASTHOLE-2 (7.7 m @ 303 kg)
1000 1000

800 800
898.3 PSI
PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

600 600 754.9 PSI

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113
50.75 ms TIME (ms) 103.9 ms TIME (ms)

TEST #6_BLASTHOLE-3 (10.0 m @ 264 kg) TEST #6_BLASTHOLE-1-2-3 (6.6, 7.7, 10m @ 304, 303, 264kg)
300 1000

800 491.8 PSI

200 754.9 PSI
246.3 PSI
PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

600
246.3 PSI
100 400

200
0
0

-100 -200
155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
156.3 ms TIME (ms) TIME (ms)

Figure 11: Dynamic Pressure records Test #6 Quemados Pit, Bench-110

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 7 of 12
Dynamic Pressure Monitoring Results
Table-3 summarizes all 23 dynamic pressure measurements obtained during field trials at PVDC. Details
of Distances (m), Explosive Weights (kg) and Dynamic Pressures (PSI & Bar) are listed with data related
to Primary Wave Velocity (VP) calculated for the first five trials.

Table 3: Dynamic Pressure Monitoring Data

Explosive Explosive Arrival Average
Pit & Distance Pressure Pressure Vp
HOLE # Type & Load Time Vp
Bench (m) (PSI) (Bar) (m/s)
Diameter (kg) (ms) (m/s)
TEST # 1
Hole-1 217 5.4 1731.9 119.4 1.402 3820
Pit MONTE
Hole-2 HA 65/35 217 6.1 1035.3 71.4 1.504 4056
NEGRO 3787
Hole-3 ɸ= 8-3/4 217 6.6 668.0 46.1 1.794 3651
B-370
Hole-4 217 7.1 491.8 33.9 1.948 3622
TEST # 2
Hole-1 171 5.2 370.3 25.5 1.196 4348
Pit MONTE
Hole-2 HA 65/35 171 5.8 635.1 43.8 1.712 3388
NEGRO 3953
Hole-3 ɸ= 8-3/4 171 8.1 494.1 34.1 1.930 4197
B-370
Hole-4 171 7.0 331.9 22.9 1.804 3880
TEST # 3
Hole-1 342 4.0 2245.8 154.8 0.892 4428
Hole-2 HA 65/35 Pit MOORE 342 5.0 2322.3 160.1 1.180 4250
4462
Hole-3 ɸ= 8-3/4 B-120 342 6.1 2602.4 179.4 1.392 4368
Hole-4 342 7.0 1243.5 85.7 1.460 4801
TEST # 4
Hole-1 295 3.9 1441.3 99.4 1.214 3207
Hole-2 HA 65/35 Pit MOORE 295 5.0 1843.3 127.1 1.566 3220
3101
Hole-3 ɸ= 8-3/4 B-160 295 6.1 1235.2 85.2 1.724 3510
Hole-4 295 6.9 1765.0 121.7 2.798 2468
TEST # 5
Hole-1 369 2.2 790.7 54.5 0.730 3066
Pit MONTE
Hole-2 HA 65/35 369 5.0 393.8 27.2 1.286 3855
NEGRO 3601
Hole-3 ɸ= 8-3/4 369 6.1 251.4 17.3 1.586 3864
B-330
Hole-4 369 6.5 272.1 18.8 1.790 3620
TEST # 6
Blasthole #1 (900ms) 304 6.6 898.3 61.9
HA 65/35 QUEMADOS
Blasthole #2 (950ms) 303 7.7 754.9 52.1
ɸ= 8-3/4 B-110
Blasthole #3 (1000ms) 264 10.0 246.3 17.0

To establish a pressure trend as a function of Distance and Explosive Weight, a Scaled Distance (D/W1/2)
equation was defined by fitting experimental data in a similar way as for typical attenuation models.

With the exception of Test #5 (Montenegro Pit, Bench-330), the remaining nineteen (19) pressure data
values were used to construct the model. Parallel shifting from 50% to 95% statistical confidence
generates a more conservative predictive model defined by parameters k = 20.23 and α = -1.967, resulting
in a reasonable correlation factor (R2 = 0.652) where 100% of the data is covered at said confidence level.

The tests implemented covered a variety of field scenarios, however, this study defines a single trend that
absorbs variability; constituting a unique, simple and operationally applicable tool of unequivocal use,
given the safety implications involved. Figure-12 shows the attenuation model relating Dynamic Pressure
to Scaled Distance (SD, D/W1/2) at a 95% confidence level defining the predictive tool.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 8 of 12
 Dynamic Pressure Attenuation (PVDC - 2019)
500 7250

400 Dynamic Pressure95% (Bar) = 20.321 SD-1.967 5800

R² = 0.652

Pressure (PSI)
Pressure (Bar)
300 4350

95% Confidence
200 2900

100 1450
Test # 5

0 0
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Scaled Distance, SD (m/kg1/2)

Figure 12: Dynamic Pressure predictive model at 95% confidence level

With the defined 95% confidence model comprising all the recorded data (except Test # 5), an abacus
relating dynamic pressure as a function of distance for different explosive loads was constructed. In
association to said abacus, a permissible maximum pressure of half (½) the dynamic compressive strength
recommended by detonator manufacturers was used for both, the aluminum 1000Bar (14500 psi) and the
copper 1400Bar (20300 psi) capsules. In other words, a Factor of Safety FOS = 2 was applied to the
permissible pressure limits provided by manufacturers. Figure-13 shows the abacus curves relating
pressure and distance for different explosive loads, as well as acceptable capsule limits.

It is worth emphasizing that the previous relationships are site specific, comprising all geological
conditions present at the different testing pits of the mine, as conditions differ from pit to pit in terms of
rock hardness, fracture frequency and water levels.

Ábacus Dynamic Pressure (PVDC - 2019)

(Dynamic Pressure 95% [Bar] = 20.321· SD -1.967)
1400
150 kg
200 kg
1200 250 kg
300 kg
350 kg
1000 400 kg
Pressure (Bar)

Permissible Limit (FoS=2)

800
50% Limit for 1400 bar (Cu capsule)

600
50% Limit for 1000 bar (Al capsule)

400

200

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Distance (m)

Figure 13: Dynamic Pressure Abacus and established permissible pressure limits

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 9 of 12
As an alternative to the previous graph, Table-4 tabulates dynamic pressure limits for different blasthole
distances and explosive loads to help determine critical distances.

. Table 4: Dynamic Pressures according to Spacing and Explosive Weight

DYNAMIC PRESSURE (BAR) according to DISTANCE & EXPLOSIVE LOAD (PVDC_2019)

Explosive Load per Hole

Distance
between Holes 330 lbs 441 lbs 551 lbs 661 lbs 772 lbs 882 lbs 992 lbs

150 kg 200 kg 250 kg 300 kg 350 kg 400 kg 450 kg

1.0 m 2,807 3,724 4,638 5,549 6,458 7,364 8,269
1.5 m 1,264 1,678 2,089 2,500 2,909 3,317 3,724
2.0 m 718 953 1,186 1,419 1,652 1,884 2,115
2.5 m 463 614 765 915 1,065 1,214 1,364
3.0 m 323 429 534 639 744 848 953
3.5 m 239 317 395 472 549 626 703
4.0 m 184 244 303 363 422 482 541
4.5 m 146 193 241 288 335 382 429
5.0 m 118 157 196 234 272 311 349
5.5 m 98 130 162 194 226 258 289
6.0 m 83 110 137 164 190 217 244

: Dynamic Pressure GREATER THAN 700 Bar (50% of 1400 Bar)

: Dynamic Pressure BETWEEN 500 & 700 Bar (50% of 1000 Bar & 1400 Bar)
: Dynamic Pressure SMALLER THAN 500 Bar (50% of 1000 Bar)
Considerations: 1.- Attenuation trend fitted at 95% statistical confidence and covering 100% of recorded data
2.- Maximum permissible criteria to NOT EXCEED 50% Dynamic Strength as declared by manufacturer

The above table provides a practical tool to prevent detonator malfunctions associated with dynamic
pressures with potential to generate misfires. For example, explosive loads ranging between 350kg
(772 lbs) to 400kg (882 lbs) at distances ≥ 4m (13.4 ft) will not damage electronic detonators regardless
of the capsule strength used or the surrounding environment (rock mass condition, water presence, etc.).
If higher strength capsules are used (1000 bar-1400 bar), said safe distance could be reduced to ≥ 3.5m
(11.5 ft). Similarly, for blastholes loaded with 200kg (441 lbs) to 300kg (661 lbs), the critical safe distance
will be ≥ 3.0m (9.8 ft) or ≥ 2.5m (8.2 ft), depending on the strength of the detonator capsule used.

Determination of Primary Wave Velocity (VP)

Pressure records obtained during test implementation at PVDC allowed for the calculation of the Primary
Wave Velocity (VP ) corresponding to each of the rock mass conditions tested. Primary Wave Velocity
was determined by identifying the arrival time of the shock generated by detonation of the donor
blasthole, to each of the monitoring holes containing the tourmaline sensors. Knowing distances between
the donor blasthole and the different sensors, the VP corresponding to each rock mass type was
determined.

It is worth mentioning that all trials implemented at PVDC had the monitoring holes drilled in orthogonal
directions, which is why some dispersion in VP values is to be expected, as the rock medium is not
isotropic, therefore it does not have the same mechanical properties in all directions. Figure-14 illustrates

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 10 of 12
how VP values were determined from dynamic pressure records. The example corresponds to Test # 1,
Sensor-1 of Montenegro Pit, Bench-370, where the external trigger pulse (t=0) and arrival time pulse
defining travel time are clearly identified. Knowing the distance between donor blasthole and sensor will
define VP values from each pressure record. Table-3 includes VP values for each individual record as well
as an average value for the test.

Determination of Arrival Time for VP Calculation

Example for Test # 1_Sensor-1

External Arrival
Trigger (t = 0) Time

Zoom area of interest

Figure 14: Determination of Primary Wave Velocity (VP) from dynamic pressure records

Conclusions
Pueblo Viejo mine (PVDC) has been experiencing misfires due to electronic detonator malfunctions
owing to dynamic pressures from nearby blastholes. Immediate proactive measures undertaken by PVDC
to prevent misfires comprised the use of backup electronic detonators on the surface. Although successful,
the decision proved extremely expensive due to the high costs involved in using these electronic devices.
A field campaign to monitor dynamic pressures in three different Pits of the mine was implemented using
tourmaline crystal sensors specifically design to measure pressures within liquid media.
All measurements proved successful; a Scaled-Distance predictive model at a 95% confidence level was
used to construct an abacus relating Pressure-Distance for a variety of Explosive Loads. A permissible
pressure criterion of 50% of the dynamic pressure strength of the detonator capsules was associated with
these curves. Dynamic pressure strengths for both, aluminum (Al) and copper (Cu) capsules were those
reported by product manufacturers. A table relating dynamic pressures, explosive loads and blasthole
distances was constructed, providing a very useful tool to define critical distances between blastholes and
prevent misfires.
Upon conclusion of the field campaign, PVDC took into consideration the Weight-Distance
recommendations resulting from this study, reinstating standard practices with no misfire events
occurring for the last six months.

References
1. 229_NT_GEOBLAST_T110419_V0, “Ensayos Presión Dinámica Mina Pueblo Viejo”. April, 2019
2. Internal Report Barrick Pueblo Viejo. D&B “Análisis Eventos Presión Dinámica”. June 19, 2018.
3. Ruilin Yang & Remi Proulx. “PVDC Dynamic Pressure Testing Evaluation”. Orica. August, 2017
4. PCB Piezotronics. Tourmaline Crystal Sensors, Series 138 Models A05, A10, A25, A50}
5. VOD Report. October 2018. Site PVDC. Orica. October 03, 2018.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 11 of 12
Appendix-1: Available Geotechnical Information

Montenegro Pit Bench-330/370 Moore Pit Bench-120

Lithology Andesitic Lava Lithology Andesitic Sandstone
Density 2.80 g/cc Density 2.80 g/cc
Young Modulus (E) 40 -45 (GPa) Young Modulus (E) 25-30 (GPa)
UCS 90 < 100 (MPa) UCS 55 (MPa)
RMR 62 (Good) RMR 65 (Good)
Field Hardness R3.5 - 4.0 Field Hardness R3.0

Moore Pit Bench-160

Lithology Volcanogenic sediment
Density 2.80 g/cc
Young Modulus (E) 15 (GPa)
UCS 42 (MPa)
RMR 45 (Fair)
Field Hardness R3.0

Appendix-2: Remaining Dynamic Pressure Records

TEST #2 TEST #3
TEST #2_BLASTHOLE-1 (5.2 m @ 171 kg) TEST #2_BLASTHOLE-2 (5.8 m @ 171 kg) TEST #3_BLASTHOLE-1 (4.0 m @ 342 kg) TEST #3_BLASTHOLE-2 (5.0 m @ 342 kg)
400 700 2500 2500

600
2000 2000
300 370.3 PSI 2245.8 PSI
500 635.1 PSI 2322.3 PSI
PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)
1500 1500
200 400

300 1000 1000

100 200 1.71 ms
500 500
100
0
0 0
0 1.18 ms
1.20 ms 0.89 ms
-100 -100 -500 -500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms)

TEST #2_BLASTHOLE-3 (8.1 m @ 171 kg) TEST #2_BLASTHOLE-4 (7.0 m @ 171 kg) TEST #3_BLASTHOLE-3 (6.1 m @ 342 kg) TEST #3_BLASTHOLE-4 (7.0 m @ 342 kg)
600 400 3000 1500

500
300
494.1 PSI 331.9 PSI 2000 2602.4 PSI 1000 1243.5 PSI
PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

400

200
300
1000 500
200
100

100
0 0
0
0
1.93 ms 1.80 ms 1.39 ms 1.46 ms
-100 -100 -1000 -500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms)

TEST #4 TEST #5
TEST #4_BLASTHOLE-1 (3.9 m @ 295 kg) TEST #4_BLASTHOLE-2 (5.0 m @ 295 kg) TEST #5_BLASTHOLE-1 (2.2 m @ 369 kg) TEST #5_BLASTHOLE-2 (5.0 m @ 369 kg)
2000 2000 1000 500
790.7 PSI 393.8 PSI
1441.3 PSI 800 400
1500 1500
1843.3 PSI
PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

600 300
1000 1000
400 200
500 500
200 100

0 0
0 0
1.57 ms 1.29 ms
1.21 ms 0.73 ms
-500 -500 -200 -100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms)

TEST #4_BLASTHOLE-3 (6.1 m @ 295 kg) TEST #4_BLASTHOLE-4 (6.9 m @ 295 kg) TEST #5_BLASTHOLE-3 (6.1 m @ 369 kg) TEST #5_BLASTHOLE-4 (6.9 m @ 369 kg)
1500 2000 300 300

251.4 PSI
272.1 PSI
1235.2 PSI 1500
1000 1765.0 PSI 200 200
PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

PRESSURE (PSI)

1000
500 100 100
500

0 0 0
0
1.72 ms 1.59 ms
2.80 ms 1.79 ms
-500 -500 -100 -100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms) TIME (ms)

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Dynamic Pressure Study to Minimize Misfires at Pueblo Viejo Mine 12 of 12