Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting

Operations in Hard-Rock Mines

Reinhold Daykin Schnell, RESPEC

Nathan Rouse, RESPEC
Piers Wendlandt, RESPEC

Abstract

Drilling and blasting are key components of every hard-rock (i.e., metal/nonmetal/coal) mining
operation. Well-executed and maintained drilling and blasting can have a major positive impact on the
overall success of such operations. This case study presents the implementation of a new drill and blast
engineer position and systematic improvement of the drill and blast operations at a surface metal mine.

The findings of and lessons learned from this case study can be applied to other mine operations to
improve safety, production, efficiency, and cost savings. Focus areas for the project included refined
communications, operational practices and procedures, planning, designing, and data collection and
analysis. This case study showed improved efficiency in communication and planning among the
engineers, operations team, and contractor groups over the course of the project. An increased awareness
of long-term plans and needs for the drills and blasters reduced or eliminated existing delays. Test blasts
that implemented new drill and blast designs and updated operational practices and procedures were
tested to streamline the process. Constraints regarding explosive product shipments, geological
considerations, and a uniform powder factor provided the basis for new blast designs.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 1 of 10
Background
A surface gold-mining client retained the authors to assist with implementing a new drill and blast
engineer position at the site. Responsibilities included improving communication between operations
and engineering, creating a workflow process for the position, collecting data, and evaluating potential
enhancements to the drill and blast process at the site. The gold mine sought to expand its operations and
experienced bottlenecks and delays caused by the drill and blast processes. The authors’ on-site work
involved drill and blast operations in two primary pits and obtained all data from geological models
produced by on-site personnel. The first pit (Pit A) was near the end of its first phase and under
preparation for its second phase. Phase 1 of Pit A involved harder (mostly ore-bearing) material with an
average material density of 2.78 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc). The in-situ material that was targeted
in Phase 2, still in its initial development, was softer with a density of 2.42 g/cc, and most of the material
was soft enough to be free dug. The second pit (Pit B) was in the developmental stage of its first (and
only) phase. Initially, Pit B was also free dug. The in-situ rock in the pit (with an average density of 2.42
g/cc) required consistent blasting after its initial lifts.

The mine operated three CAT 6290 drills with a 171.45-millimeter (mm) (6.75-inch [in]) bit, two CAT
5150 drills with a 114.30-mm (4.50-in) bit, and two Epiroc D65 drills that could use either bit size. Lifts
were mined at heights of 5.00 meters (m) (16.40 feet [ft]) and 10.00 m (32.80 ft). The CAT 6290 drills
finishing redrills on a pattern is shown in Figure 1. Separate designs that were based on the bit-diameter
that was used already existed for production and trim patterns. A pattern with a tighter design was used
for the harder dike material that was occasionally encountered on the mine site. The larger bit-diameter
patterns were used on both lift heights, while the smaller bit-diameter patterns were used only on
benches designed to 5.00 m (16.40 ft) and presplits. The preceding designs, which were well-established
and used throughout the site, were based on what had worked in the past and not designed with
individual powder factors in mind.

Figure 1: CAT 6290 Drills Working on Redrills

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 2 of 10
Upon arrival at the site, the authors’ primary concerns involved increasing operational drill and blast
efficiency through reduced rework (specifically focused on hole redrills); drill-pattern preparation;
quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC); tracking and reporting, implementing standard drill and
blast design practices; and technical testing and analysis under common and uncommon circumstances.
As a first action, the authors collected data and established a baseline for current drill and blast
operations, which was used to continuously measure and track the effectiveness of process changes over
time. The authors also established effective communication with operational and planning personnel
involved in the drill and blast process. The initial basic responsibilities included completing daily and
weekly plans and schedules, assisting with drill-pattern design, identifying items that could be remedied
quickly, and developing action items that the authors could complete throughout the remainder of the
project.

After the baselines and general responsibilities of the drill and blast engineer position were established,
the authors expanded their focus and assumed additional tasks. The later stage primarily concerned
pattern design. The authors considered additional factors and sought to optimize the efficiency and
effectiveness of the pattern design process while also implementing additional specialized blast-pattern
designs. Detailed QA/QC data were collected to quantify the impact of the design and process changes.
Additional technical tests that used drill and blast survey and recording equipment were also performed
to collect more detailed data.

Data Collection
An initial observation of the drill and blast operations showed that overall, communication regarding
drill and blast patterns (specifically, their preparation and information dissemination) was not ideal;
information related to the decision-making process was not communicated to appropriate personnel. The
authors determined that variances from and trends in the plan could be used to show its overall
effectiveness for improving drill and blast operations. The percentage of conformance to the plan was
recorded on a daily and weekly basis for 4 months. This record, along with a planned versus actual
comparison of weekly shot volume and length, assisted in tracking the impact that changes had on the
operation and its production (which could be compared to the production requirements of the load and
haul operations).

The authors implemented a plan to collect designed versus actual drill-process information to be used in
the QA/QC analysis. The collected information included designed and actual drillhole depths and collar
coordinate locations. Data collection was only required for Phase 1 of Pit A because of (1) an increased
and consistent number of blasts (compared to the inconsistent and infrequent blasts in Pit B), (2) an
increased rate of completed lifts (for better data analysis from lift to lift compared to Pit B), and (3) the
status of Pit A as the main ore producer at the site. After the first 2 weeks of data collection, drillers
were reminded to strictly adhere to a redrill tolerance of 0.50 m (1.64 ft), which was reinforced and
supported by operation supervisors, planners, and blasters.

Another focus item for the authors was reducing redrills. The redrill numbers and daily length drilled
were already tracked and presented as key performance indicators (KPIs) when the authors arrived on
site. Later in the project, the authors determined that recording the daily tonnes produced per meter

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 3 of 10
drilled would be beneficial, and data were collected from the end of the third month forward. The
number of tonnes produced per meter drilled was deemed a more important factor in the plan process
and assured the production of broken muck that was required for the load and haul operation.

While on site, the authors conducted one-time tests on various aspects of the operation to identify
performance improvements that could be implemented by the mine site. The authors performed
downhole surveys of drill holes to test the variance and accuracy and gathered delay time data for
material movement using a high-speed camera for an example of a few of the tests.

Data Analysis
Data were continuously analyzed throughout the project and used to determine whether or not changes
should be made to the operation to improve the overall efficiency of the drill and blast process. The
variances from and trends in the plan versus actual were analyzed to illustrate the plan’s overall
effectiveness regarding the drill and blast operations. The percent of conformance to daily and weekly
pattern shots in the plan was recorded on a weekly basis and is shown in Figure 2. Over their first few
weeks on site, the authors identified especially poor conformance to the drill and blast plans; thereafter,
the authors focused on ensuring that the drill-pattern preparation plans were more effectively conveyed
to operational teams by increased communication and the authors’ involvement in the field. As a result,
a better conformance to weekly plans on a month-to-month basis was noticed. Weekly conformance to
the blast plan (patterns shot during their scheduled week) increased by a monthly average of 10 percent
after the first month (from 60 percent to 70 percent), while a 72 percent average was maintained for the
last 2 months. Conformance to the daily plan increased by 10 percent from the first 2 months to the
second 2 months.

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
4/15/2019
4/22/2019
4/29/2019

5/13/2019
5/20/2019
5/27/2019

6/10/2019
6/17/2019
6/24/2019

7/15/2019
7/22/2019
7/29/2019

8/12/2019
8/19/2019
5/6/2019

6/3/2019

7/1/2019
7/8/2019

8/5/2019

Patterns Shot on the Scheduled Day Patterns Shot During Scheduled Week

Figure 2: Weekly Conformance of Actual Versus Planned Pattern Shot

The shot volume per week also increased over the course of the project, as shown in Figure 3. The
average weekly shot volume increased by 34 percent from the first 2 months to the second 2 months that

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 4 of 10
the authors worked on site. The average drilled length shot per week increased by 22 percent from the
first 2 months to the second 2 months of the project. While conformance increased only slightly, the
volume and length shot per week increased significantly, and the actual weekly drill and blast
production was closer to the targets required for the operation’s scheduled production ramp-up.
Although the increase in shot volume per week can be partially attributed to redirecting the mining focus
to Pit B (which had a higher rate of tonnes per meter drilled than Pit A), drilled length shot per week still
significantly increased. This increase signifies improved overall drill and blast operation efficiency and
production while the authors were on site to help establish the drill and blast engineer position. While
significant achievements were made, common factors noted in the drill and blast operation, such as
delays, could still improve. Project delays included multiple rain events (which required reworking the
pattern preparation and drilled and shot patterns), periods of low drill availability caused by maintenance
issues, and general redrills (caused by poor pattern and ground conditions or drill technique). An
example of some patterns after rain events is illustrated in Figure 4.

500
450
Shot Volume (ktonnes)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
4/15/2019
4/22/2019
4/29/2019

5/13/2019
5/20/2019
5/27/2019

6/10/2019
6/17/2019
6/24/2019

7/15/2019
7/22/2019
7/29/2019

8/12/2019
8/19/2019
5/6/2019

6/3/2019

7/1/2019
7/8/2019

8/5/2019

Plan Actual

Figure 3: Weekly Shot Volume per Week Over Time

Figure 4: Pattern Requiring Additional Preparation After a Rain Event

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 5 of 10
A baseline for drill accuracy was established and is shown by patterns shot over time for Phase 1 of
Pit A. Data observation and compilation over the first 2 weeks indicated that the drillers needed to
refocus on strictly adhering to a redrill tolerance of 0.50 m (1.64 ft). Drillhole depths were continuously
recorded after this refocus; variances in the measured hole depth are compared to the design in Figure 4.
Patterns 1 through 9 represent the first 2 weeks on site. Five patterns that contained excessive surface
water or were shot with known and excessive exception to the redrill tolerance were removed from the
dataset and are not included in Figure 5. The average variance in the designed versus actual hole depths
was 0.53 m (1.73 ft) for the first 2 weeks, with 50 percent of the patterns averaging a variance over the
0.50-m (1.64-ft) redrill tolerance. In the second 2 weeks, which included refocusing on achieving the
designed depth by the drillers and operations team, the average variance in designed versus actual hole
depth was 0.39 m (1.28 ft), with 33 percent of the patterns still averaging a variance over the 0.50-m
(1.64-ft) redrill tolerance. The second 2 weeks also marked a 26 percent reduction in the average hole
depth variance compared to the first 2 weeks of data collection. The preceding data were just a small
dataset, and more information will become available over time. This additional data, once compiled and
processed, will provide a longer-term view of operational improvements.

0.90
0.80
Blast Hole Depth Variance (m)

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Pattern 16
Pattern 12

Pattern 13

Pattern 14

Pattern 15

Pattern 20
Pattern 1

Pattern 2

Pattern 5

Pattern 6

Pattern 7

Pattern 8

Pattern 9

Shot Patterns Over Time

Figure 5: Drill-Depth Accuracy Shown by Patterns Over Time

A comparison of drill-collar location variance data (for designed versus actual) is shown in Figure 6.
Thus far, this data has only been used to establish a variance baseline in the collar location for the
designed versus actual drill data. The average variance between the designed and actual shot collars was
0.64 m (2.10 ft) (the average excluded one pattern with excessive water on the surface that required
additional redrills and adjusting the collar location). Data for the variance in the collar stake-out location
were also collected by survey. The variances in the design versus actual location were negligible.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 6 of 10
 1.20

1.00

Collar Offset (m)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
Pattern 3 Pattern 4 Pattern 5 Pattern 6 Pattern 7 Pattern 9
Shot Patterns Over Time

Figure 6: Drill-Collar Accuracy Shown by Patterns Over Time

Site personnel recorded monthly drilled and redrilled length before and during the authors’ time on site;
these data were compiled and analyzed from January 2019 (which was 3 months before the authors’
on-site arrival) for a total of 7 months. Monthly drilled and redrilled information is shown as a
percentage of planned drilled length and redrilled length in Figure 7. The redrill percentage was
consistent before the authors’ arrival on site and initially increased during the second month after the
authors’ arrival. This increase can be attributed to refocusing on improving drilling technique and
accuracy, which resulted in ensuring and improving overall drilling accuracy through excessive redrills.
For the following 2 months that the authors were on site, the number of redrills was significantly
reduced, which can most likely be attributed to an increased focus on improving drill technique, pattern
preparation, and constructing sumps and additional water-management controls. The authors also noted
that the reported numbers for redrills do not accurately represent the number of bad holes requiring
redrills. Some holes that were not in accordance to the redrill tolerance were not redrilled and the pattern
was shot as is, which skewed the perceived number of bad holes that required redrills.

160.0% 25.0%
Planned Meters Drilled

140.0% 20.0%
120.0%
Redrills

15.0%
100.0%
10.0%
80.0%

60.0% 5.0%

40.0% 0.0%

Planned Meters Drilled Redrills

Figure 7: Monthly Drill Production and Redrills

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 7 of 10
Additional Changes to the Operation
The authors contributed to several other operational and design changes while on site with a goal of
increasing the overall communication regarding drill and blast operations and improving the standards
of drill and blast-pattern planning and design.

Operational changes included ensuring that the blast holes were properly labeled to effectively convey
the required information to on-site personnel. To ensure that the drillhole flags were no longer
incorrectly labeled, the authors implemented (and assisted supervisors with) a refocus on proper hole-
labeling by drillers. This initiative markedly improved the quantity and quality of properly labeled holes.
Through active attendance and involvement in daily KPI and planning meetings, the authors created
positive relationships with the on-site supervisors, which helped to ensure effective communication of
the drill and blast plan (primarily regarding drill-pattern setup and preparation). An example of the
improved pattern preparation is illustrated in Figure 8. This communication included a daily plan sheet
that was created by the authors and sent to personnel involved in the drill and blast process. The daily
plan sheet included prioritized pattern preparation and drill patterns and the shots scheduled for the next
few days. The weekly plan, which initially only included a drill and blast plan for the upcoming week
(with limited information regarding the shot details), also improved. The authors increased the number
of weeks included in the schedule and began to include additional detailed and consistent information
regarding the individual shots, such as the pattern design, explosives load, and tonnage produced. With
this additional information, shot plans and communications with other departments and contractors
improved.

Figure 8: An Example of the Improved Pattern Preparation

The approach to pattern design changed with the planning process. Patterns were initially designed using
five pattern designs with set burden and spacings based on bit-diameter and pattern type (i.e., trim,
production or hard-dike rock). Upon arrival at the site, the authors changed the process so that blast
patterns were designed using a powder factor that was based on material density. The average powder
factors of the initial designs ranged from 0.69 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) (1.16 pounds per cubic
yard [lb/yd3]) to 1.00 kg/m3 (1.69 lb/yd3) when explosive weight by volume was considered, and

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 8 of 10
0.25 kg/tonne (0.50 lb/ton) to 0.41 kg/tonne (0.82 lb/ton) when explosive weight by material weight was
considered. Throughout the first month that the authors were on site, the powder factors that were used
averaged 0.70 kg/m3 (1.18 lb/yd3) and were based on data regarding pattern design information from the
authors and explosive load information from the contractors. The average powder factor for Pit A was
0.67 kg/m3 (1.13 lb/yd3), while the average powder factor for Pit B was 0.73 kg/m3 (1.23 lb/yd3).
Table 1shows the powder factors of the original designs used when the authors arrived on site. After the
design process changed, powder factors were more consistent and related to the material type for trim
and production patterns in each pit.

Table 1: Original Pattern Designs Based Used on Site

Powder Factor
Pattern kg/cubic lb/cubic
kg/tonne lb/ton
meter yard
Hard (5 m) 0.69 1.16 0.25 0.50
4.3-m Burden × Hard (10 m) 0.86 1.45 0.31 0.62
5.0-m Spacing Soft (5 m) 0.69 1.16 0.29 0.58
Large Bit,
Soft (10 m) 0.86 1.45 0.36 0.72
171.45 mm
(6.75 in) 3.7-m Burden × Hard Trim (5 m) 0.80 1.35 0.29 0.58
4.6-m Spacing Hard Trim (10 m) 1.00 1.69 0.36 0.72
(Hard-Dike Soft Trim (5 m) 0.80 1.35 0.33 0.66
Material Design) Soft Trim (10 m) 1.00 1.69 0.41 0.82
3.0-m Burden × Hard (5 m) 0.81 1.37 0.29 0.58
Small Bit, 3.5-m Spacing Soft (5 m) 1.37
0.81 0.33 0.66
114.3 mm
(4.50 in) 3.1-m Burden × Hard Trim (5m) 0.74 1.25 0.27 0.54
3.4-m Spacing Soft Trim (5m) 0.74 1.25 0.31 0.62

Table 2 shows that based on material density, the new designs targeted separate powder factors for trim
and production shots. Any on-site engineer could then adjust pattern designs based on the material
density expected in the preferred pit or location by using the newly implemented workbook and
provided calculations. The authors used this new process to design and adjust normal production and
trim patterns as well as implement modified (or combined) trim and production patterns and secondary
and trench shots. Details were added to the pattern design workbook to account for the number of holes
and explosive weight per pattern. This information was used in the previously mentioned plan versus
actual and weekly scheduled tasks to improve communication and efficiency regarding the drill and
blast operation. The resultant patterns fit the maximum daily capacity of the bulk trucks that delivered
products to the site more closely. Optimizing the use of the bulk trucks helped the operation to further
optimize production while the blasting contractors remained under their hour restrictions from the
Department of Transportation.

Future Work
Overall, the authors succeeded in improving drill and blast operations and establishing a drill and blast
engineer position while they were retained by the surface gold-mining client. The client observed a

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 9 of 10
positive impact on efficiency and effectiveness in the drill and blast operation over time. The plan
process is more efficient, volume and length shot per week have increased, and rework has decreased
when compared to the initial baseline from the author’s arrival on site. While the authors took positive
strides to improve the drill and blast operation on site, tasks to ensure operational efficiency were also
completed. The established data collection procedures, plan and design processes, and technical tasks
will be maintained and further improved in the future.

Table 2: New Pattern Design by Powder Factor

Powder Factor
Pattern kg/cubic lb/cubic
kg/tonne lb/ton
meter yard
Hard Production 0.8 1.35 0.29 0.58
Soft Production 0.7 1.18 0.29 0.58
Soft Trim 0.9 1.52 0.36 0.72
Hard Trim 1 1.69 0.36 0.72

A plan to continuously collect planned versus actual data was implemented and will assist with
identifying process changes and the success of previous operational changes. Additional QA/QC will be
collected and analyzed throughout the life of Pit A, Phase 1, to observe the long-term impact of changes
in the drill and blast operations of a single phase of one pit. A new method to record redrills that better
represents the drilling efficiency will also be considered and implemented.

Future work also included signature hole tests based on material types in each pit. Signature hole tests
will be necessary to ensure that the drill and blast operations team uses the most effective delay time in
each location. The operation also intends to acquire seismographs to actively monitor highwalls and
blast vibrations in the near field. The authors plan to help ensure that the appropriate site personnel are
properly trained in seismograph usage and placement.

The authors also compiled a list of general recommendations for a mine site when establishing a new
drill and blast engineer position. The first priority is to collect baseline data around the drill and blast
operation to document improvements or changes to the operation. Data collected regarding the plan
should consist of the plan versus actual data, volumes and lengths drilled, and the effectiveness of the
drills (i.e., redrills required). The drill and blast engineer should also maintain a field presence, which
will assist with continued communication and interaction between the planning and operations group
and, ultimately, the success of the overall operation. The role should include an effective method to
design and communicate the plan to ensure that the required material is produced. Part of the plan will
entail focusing on using refined drill-pattern designs; specifically, designs based on powder factor and
material type/hardness. The collected data should be effectively analyzed with appropriate changes
made to the plan and operation. The drill and blast engineer role should also be prepared to perform
additional tests and analysis in special drill or blast circumstances to improve specialized aspects of the
drill and blast process.

Copyright © 2020 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2020g - Case Study: Systematically Improving Drilling and Blasting Operations in Hard-Rock Mines 10 of 10