The University of Zambia School of Mines

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA
SCHOOL OF MINES
DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING
OPTIMISATION OF DRILLING AND BLASTING OPERTATIONS
AT
LUMWANA MINE.
BY
MUPETA CHISENGA
© AUGUST,2017
DECLARATION
I, Mupeta Chisenga do hereby declare that this project is my own work and that any ideas or
opinions of previous researchers have been referenced and cited in the body of the material and
the reference section of this report.
Signature…………………………………….Date………………………………….
Mupeta Chisenga (Author)
Signature…………………………………….Date………………………………
Prof. Mutale W. Chanda (Supervisor)
Signature……………………………………..Date…………………………………
Dr. Steven Kambani (Head of Department Mining)
Signature……………………………………..Date…………………………………
(External Examiner)
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page i
DEDICATION
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our creator, sustainer of our lives, giver of life and
light Jehovah God for his sincere love, care, patience and support. My parents: Mr. Bornwel and
Mrs. Diana Chibemba Chisenga for believing in me.
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am most grateful to the sovereign ruler of the universe, the only living and true God, Jehovah
for supporting me throughout my stay at University. I am highly indebted to my advisor, Prof.
Mutale. W. Chanda, for his technical knowledge, inspiration and support leading to the
successful completion of my research. Efforts in the production of this project report would have
amounted to nothing without the valued guidance, encouragement and support of all the lecturers
at the mining department for creating an engineering mind in me.
Further, I extend my appreciation to Barrick Gold Lumwana Mining Company especially Mr.
Chingube Kawana- Superintendent Mining Engineering Technical services, Mr. Mukonde
Chibomba, Mr. Shandavu. Kamane, Mr. Kilimuna Mwanda and the entire Technical services and
mining operations team for their technical assistance when hard decisions had to be made.
To Mr. Mundia Libati, Mr. Daniel S. Libati and my ever loyal spiritual brothers and sisters I say
thank you for the role you played during my study. Special thanks to my friends; Shakwenda,
Novack, Haggai, Sawuna and Isaac Lungu for their diverse support and prayers. To my lovely
parents Mr. Bornwel M. Chisenga and Dina Chibemba I say well done for the encouragement,
advice and love shown to me throughout my undergraduate studies.
Lastly, gratitude goes to all who directly or indirectly helped me in one way or the other during
the period.
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page iii
ABSTRACT
Drilling and blasting is the first unit operation in the mining process and has a major impact on
the performance and cost of subsequent unit operations. This research examines optimisation
drilling and blasting operations in Chimiwungo south pit at Lumwana mine. The efficiency of
Down the hole (DTH) and rotary drilling method for DK45KS hydraulic drill rig were assessed
in terms of instantaneous penetration rate and quality of production blast holes drilled. The most
efficient drilling method was pure rotary, although it gave an instantaneous penetration rate of
23.6m/hr compared to DTH with a penetration rate of 25.6m/hr. Rotary drilling proved to be cost
efficient with high availability and productions holes drilled were more stable compared to those
drilled by DTH.
Poor fragmentation has been dominant in the ore zone (resident in the schist) due to the
complexity of Chimiwungo rockmass, therefore there’s need to design blast patterns that will
give optimal fragmentation of 90% 1000mm. There is therefore a need to develop a model to
predict rock fragmentation. Artificial neural network (ANN) technique is preferred over other
empirical statistical predictive methods as it is able to incorporate the numerous factors affecting
the outcome of a blast. The 66 blast records consisting of even blast design parameters: (i) Blast
hole diameter, (ii) Burden, (iii) Spacing, (vi) Linear charge (v) Rock factor, (vi) Stemming
height and (vii) Powder factor were used to develop a two-hidden layer back-propagation neural
network model to fragmentation resulting from the blasts. The ANN program code was
developed in MatLabR2013a. The network was trained using Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm as
it provides the highest stability and maximum learning speed. The network was extensively
analyzed to assess its performance with different transfer function sand the number of hidden
layers to estimate the optimum network architecture. 33 data sets were used to train the model
and the remaining 33 datasets were used for testing the developed model. Predictions of
fragmentation by the ANN model were compared with those using a statistical model developed
in SPSS statistics. It was observed that the prediction capability of the trained neural network
model was found to be strong and it provides an easy option to the drilling and blasting engineers
to optimize the blast.
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page iv
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Mine background information ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Regional geology of Lumwana Mine ................................................................................... 3
1.3 Local geology of Lumwana Mine ......................................................................................... 4
1.4 Mine operations ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Process Control at Lumwana Mine ....................................................................................... 6
1.6 Problem statement ................................................................................................................. 7
1.7 Main Objectives .................................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Significance of the study ....................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 9
2.1.0 Principle of rotary drilling .................................................................................................. 9
2.1.1 Principle of Down The Hole drilling method (DTH) ................................................... 10
2.1.2 Principle of rotary drilling method ............................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Penetration rate ............................................................................................................. 11
2.1.4 Rotary Drill Pulldown Weight ...................................................................................... 12
2.1.5 Flushing medium .......................................................................................................... 12
2.1.6 Bailing velocity............................................................................................................. 12
2.1.7 Dust control .................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.8 Chip Sampling .............................................................................................................. 14
2.2 Blasting................................................................................................................................ 14
2.2 Fragmentation analysis........................................................................................................ 15
2.2.1 Evaluation of fragmentation ............................................................................................. 15
2.3 Artificial Neural Network (ANN) ....................................................................................... 17
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page v
2.4 Research methodology ........................................................................................................ 19
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 20
3.0 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................... 20
3.1 General site investigation .................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Field investigations ............................................................................................................. 20
3.2.1 Drilling practice ............................................................................................................ 20
3.2.2 Pre blast evaluations ..................................................................................................... 23
3.2.3 Priming and charging.................................................................................................... 23
3.2.4 Blast hole stemming practice ........................................................................................ 24
3.2.5 Explosive properties and initiation systems ................................................................. 25
3.2.6 Density measurements .................................................................................................. 25
3.2.7 Velocity of Detonation measurement ........................................................................... 27
3.2.8 Velocity of Detonation measurement field setup ......................................................... 27
3.2.9 Current Blast design Evaluation ................................................................................... 28
3.2.10 Timing and blasting .................................................................................................... 29
3.3 Blasting................................................................................................................................ 31
3.4 Post blast evaluation ............................................................................................................ 33
3.4.1 Fragmentation .............................................................................................................. 33
3.5. Software Application.......................................................................................................... 34
3.5.1 Artificial neural network (ANN) architecture .............................................................. 34
CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.0 RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 36
4.1 Geological structures ........................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Drilling ................................................................................................................................ 37
4.3 Velocity of Detonation measurements ................................................................................ 45
4.4. Fragmentation analysis....................................................................................................... 48
4.5 Development of a conceptual fragmentation model using ANN ........................................ 50
4.6 Development of statistical model ........................................................................................ 54
CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 57
5.0 DISCUSSION,CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 57
5.1 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 57
5.2 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 58
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page vi
5.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 63
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 65
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of Lumwana mining company ........................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Plan geology of Lumwana ..............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3: Malundwe geology, west to east section ......................................................................... 5
Figure 4: Geological cross section through Chimiwungo deposit .................................................. 5
Figure 5: Cross section of gyratory crusher and schematic of dump truck in a pocket .................. 7
Figure 6: Comparison between DTH and rotary.......................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Production drill hole being drilled wrongly .................................................................. 21
Figure 8: superimposed blast design of CS11232-B01................................................................. 21
Figure 9: Good usage of hole savers and sampling of drill chipping for gneiss ........................... 22
Figure 10: Drilled hole being measured for depth ....................................................................... 22
Figure 11: A 15mm downline used in a 15.6m hole .................................................................... 23
Figure 12: charging the explosive by bottom 0.1Properties and strength of explosives charging 24
Figure 13: Samples of explosives for measuring density ............................................................. 26
Figure 14: Timing plan for CS11232_B01 ................................................................................... 30
Figure 15: Timing plan for CS11244_B31,B34,B39,B4 ............................................................. 30
Figure 16: Video camera position relative to the blast for CS11232_B01 ................................... 31
Figure 17: Video camera position relative to the blast for CS11244_B31,B34,B39,B40 ............ 31
Figure 18: Stemming ejection for CS11232_B01 ........................................................................ 32
Figure 19: Stemming ejection for CS11244_B31,B34,B39 & B40 ............................................. 32
Figure 20: Examples of fragmentation photos taken from CS11244_B31.34,39 & 40 ................ 33
Figure 21: Face fragmentation photos taken from CS11232_B01 .............................................. 33
Figure 22: Typical ANN network window .................................................................................. 35
Figure 23: Typical ANN network architecture ............................................................................ 35
Figure 24: Cross section of the geological structures in a blast pattern CS11232_B01 ............... 36
Figure 25: Cross section of the geological structures in a blast pattern for CS1244_B31,34,39 &
40................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 26: Comparison between DTH and Rotary drilling methods ............................................ 37
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page vii
Figure 27: Comparison of DTH and Rotary in terms of cost per meter drilled ........................... 40
Figure 28: Planned vs Actual drilled holes for CS11232_B01 ..................................................... 41
Figure 29: Planned vs Actual drilled holes for CS11232_B31,34,39 & 40 .................................. 42
Figure 30: Planned vs. Actual burden for CS11232_000B01....................................................... 42
Figure 31: Planned vs Actual spacing for CS1_1232_B01 .......................................................... 43
Figure 32: Planned vs Actual burden for CS11244_00B31,34,39, 40 ......................................... 43
Figure 33: Planned vs Actual burden for CS11232_00B01......................................................... 44
Figure 34: Profile of the VoD holes for CS11232_000B01 ......................................................... 45
Figure 35: Traces for CS11232_000B01 ...................................................................................... 45
Figure 36: Profile of the VoD holes for CS11244_000B31, 34, 39, 40 ....................................... 46
Figure 37: Traces for CS11244_B31, 34, 39, 40 .......................................................................... 47
Figure 38: Fragmentation analysis for CS11232_B01.................................................................. 50
Figure 39: Optimum network regression curves .......................................................................... 52
Figure 40: comparing the measured and predicted fragmentations by ANN ............................... 53
Figure 41: Measured and predicted fragmentation by multiple linear regression ........................ 55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Tectono-Stratigraphy of Lumwana ..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2: Propertied and strength of explosives ............................................................................. 25
Table 3: Cup density samples for C11232_B01 ........................................................................... 26
Table 4: Cup densities for CS11244_B34 .................................................................................... 27
Table 5: Hole measurements for CS11232_B01 .......................................................................... 28
Table 6: Hole measurements for CS11244_B31,34,39,40 ........................................................... 28
Table 7: Blast design used at Chimiwungo pit ............................................................................. 29
Table 8: Consumable costs and associated metres for rotary drill................................................ 39
Table 9: Consumable costs and life of consumable for DTH ....................................................... 40
Table 10: VoD results and trace lengths for CS11232_000B01 ................................................... 46
Table 11: VoD results and trace lengths for CS 11244_B31, 34, 39 & 40 ................................... 47
Table 12: Fragmentation results.................................................................................................... 48
Table 13: Input parameters and their ranges ................................................................................. 51
Table 14: Comparison of different architectures .......................................................................... 51
Table 15Measured and predicted fragmentation by ANN ............................................................ 53
Table 16: Measured and predicted fragmentation by Multiple linear regression ........................ 56
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page viii
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Mine background information

Lumwana Mine is an open-cut copper mine project in the NorthWest Province of Zambia,
220km west of the Copperbelt and 95km south west of the provincial capital of Solwezi. Figure
1.1 shows the relative location of Lumwana mine. The mine was officially inaugurated in April
2009 by Equinox Minerals. The copper mining company is owned by Barrick Gold Corporation.
Equinox Minerals was acquired by Barrick Gold Corporation for C$7.3bn in July 2011. Barrick
Gold announced plans to suspend operations at the mine in December 2014 following the
Zambian government's move to raise the royalty rates on open-pit mining operations in the
country by more than three-fold
The mining license covers 1,355km² and includes two major copper deposits, Malundwe and
Chimiwungo deposits which are 7km apart. In addition to copper, the Lumwana project also
contains rich uranium deposits. Equinox completed a uranium feasibility study in 2008 that
showed output of 15,000t of copper could be mined simultaneously from the discrete uranium-
enriched zones. Since the commencement of copper production, uranium stock pile on the ROM
pad increased to 4.6Mt in the fourth quarter of 2010. The Uranium was, however, considered as
'waste' to the copper project. Equinox decided to process uranium later when the uranium plant is
built.
At the moment, all mining activity is focused on Chimiwungo pit (comprised of South, North,
West and East pits). From 2016 Lumwana has been mining about 75 Mtpa supplying annual mill
feed of 25 Mtpa. The measured and indicated reserves of Lumwana copper mines are 322Mt
averaging at 0.73% copper with additional inferred resources totaling at 561Mt averaging at
0.63% copper. Proven and probable reserves are estimated at 299Mt graded at 0.68% Cu.
Currently the mine seeks increase production of ore a from 75 Mtpa to 90 Mtpa from 2019
going forward then maintain 90 Mtpa target for the next for 5 years. The project has a mining
life of 27 years. The mine utilizes conventional truck and shovels to mine waste and ore from the
pits. This is in order to overcome the high strip ratio and maintain the copper production profile.
The Life of Mine strip ratio is 2.45:1 (tonnes of waste to tonnes of ore) at 0.60% copper grade.
Ore is concentrated on site through conventional crushing, grinding, flotation, concentrating and
dewatering , producing copper concentrates containing an average of 120,000 tonnes of copper
metal per year. Copper recovery is on average 92.4% (averaging majority fresh ore recovering at
93.4% and minority transitional ore recovering at 54.1%). Due to difference in recoveries, there
are varying cut-offs for fresh (ore from fresh sulphides) and transitional (material between
oxidized and fresh material) ore. The majority of the reserve, or 97% of contained copper, is
from fresh ore. The process throughput is the site constraint to copper production. Uranium
content in ore continues to be a challenge for producing sellable concentrate as the process of
concentrating copper also has the same effect on uranium. Proper ore control and blending of
material fed to the process plant on an hourly basis is necessary for ensuring concentrate is
acceptable to the smelters without incurring penalties. Ore is concentrated to target 30% copper
at site and transported to three smelters in the Copperbelt region: Konkola Copper Mine (KCM),
Mopani Copper Mine (MCM) and Chambishi Copper Smelter (CCS).
Figure 1: Location of Lumwana mining company
Optimisation of drilling and blasting in Chimiwungo open pit at Lumwana mine Page 2
1.2 Regional geology of Lumwana Mine
The Lumwana deposits of Malundwe and Chimiwungo are hosted within the Mwombezhi Dome,
a north-east trending basement dome in the western arm of the Neoproterozoic Lufilian Arc
thrust-fold belt. The Lufilian Arc is a major tectonic province characterized by broadly north-
directed thrust structures and antiformal Basement inliers or domes surrounded by Katanga
metasediments, which host the Central African Copperbelt. Figure 2 show the regional geology
of Lumwana Min. The Tectono-stratigraphy of the Malundwe and Chimiwungo deposits of
Lumwana are summarised in Table 1.
Figure 2: Plan geology of Lumwana (Source: Geology Dept. Lumwana Mine)
Table 1: Tectono-Stratigraphy of Lumwana (Source: Geology Dept. Lumwana Mine)
1.3 Local geology of Lumwana Mine

The ore zone is resident in Schist with varied geological structures such as joint sets, fault zones
and bounding. The waste rock is resident in Gneiss. The copper mineralization is hosted within
high-grade metamorphosed, intensely mylonitised, recrystallized muscovite-phlogopite-quartz-
kyanite schists with disseminated sulphides (typically <5%) dominated by chalcopyrite and
bornite. The ore bodies (Malundwe and Chimiwungo) are 95% Sulphide (with only 5% oxide)
and very consistent Of the two major deposits, Malundwe is smaller with higher copper grade
and contains discrete zones of uranium and gold mineralisation with occasional sporadic high
cobalt (>0.1%).
Chimiwungo is much larger and lower in copper grade, but has higher overall cobalt and
contains a number of significant high-grade (>0.1%) cobalt zones plus some sporadic uranium
mineralisation. The figures 3 and 4 show the geological cross sections of the two deposits
(Malundwe and Chimiwungo).
Figure 3: Malundwe geology, west to east section (Source: Geology Dept. Lumwana Mine)
Figure 4: Geological cross section through Chimiwungo deposit (Source: Geology Dept.
Lumwana Mine)
1.4 Mine operations
Lumwana Copper Mine is the largest single open pit copper mine, the mine is a multi-pit, multi
staged operation. A Pit optimization study was carried out using Whittle Four X software to
determine the pits to be used as the basis of final and stage designs. The final pits, with typically
two stages for each pit, were designed using the slope parameters developed as part of a
geotechnical study. The Malundwe and Chimiwungo South pits reach maximum depths of 166 m
and 287 m respectively.
Production involves the use of four hydraulic face shovels for waste and ore and two hydraulic
excavators (26m³) plus a smaller unit (15m³) for selective ore mining and 26 large AC-drive haul
units (242t). These units are being supported by a fleet of drills, front-end loaders, bulldozers,
graders and other ancillary equipment. The Malundwe and Chimiwungo pit is dewatered using a
combination of boreholes and in pit sumps.A detailed mining schedule that includes elevated
cut-offs for the Sulphide ore has been developed . This was aimed at improving copper
production, particularly in the early years.
• Elevated cut-off grade for Malundwe of 0.50% Cu

• Elevated cut-off grade for Chimiwungo of 0.35% Cu
The low grade ore is stockpiled together with the oxide material for processing later in the mine
life (DiNuzzo, 2005).
1.4 Process Control at Lumwana Mine

The primary crusher is the beginning of the comminution process. Comminution is the staged
size reduction of ROM ore to enable the liberation of the required mineral in the downstream
processes. The primary crusher used at Lumwana Mine is the FFE 1524mm x 2260.6mm
gyratory crusher. At least 90% of the crusher feed should pass the radial opening which is
1200mm to avoid blockages. The product of P90 of 119.25mm and P100 of 300mm is generated.
The weight of the mantle and shaft of the gyratory crusher is 66.5 tonnes and required a 120kw
motor to drive it. The mantle will wear at a 2.1 ratio over the concaves and the design capacity of
the gyratory crusher is 3858 tonnes per hour. Figure 5 shows cross section of the gyratory
crusher and schematic figure of Dump truck pocket respectively.
Figure 5: Cross section of gyratory crusher and schematic of dump truck in a
pocket
The dump truck pocket capacity is 500 tonnes which is equal to two truckloads. The surge bin
capacity is also 500 tonnes. Ultrasonic sensors monitor the level in the surge bin to avoid
overfilling. Overfilling the surge bin will cause damage to crusher. A “NO DUMP” light is
activated if the bin capacity is exceeded.
The crusher will reduce the ore from 1200mm to 300mm. The crushed product passes through
the crusher and into the surge bin. The discharge rate from the surge bin is regulated by a
variable speed apron feeder beneath the surge bin. The apron feeder speed is set by the control
room operator and is determined by conveyor and concentrator limitations.
1.6 Problem statement

During the process of drilling and blasting at Chimiwungo open pit, two drilling methods are
used these are using Sandvik D45KS hydraulic drill rigs: (1) rotary drilling and (2) down the
hole rotary drilling (DTH). During this process a number of problems have been reported which
are associated with the two drilling methods some of these problems are; low instantaneous
penetration rates, increased cost of drilling and increased number of re-drills.
Conventional blasting is used to fragment in-situ rock at Chimiwungo open pit. However, poor
fragmentation in the ore zone has been dominant, to optimize blast designs the mine uses trial
and error method. This approach has not been efficient because it has failed to give consistent
results of 90% passing and reduce the boulders resulting from the blasts. At the primary crusher
run off mine ore that is above 1200mm in diameter is considered to be oversize boulders.
Management wants to know how best the drilling and blasting operations can be optimised by
dealing with the above challenges
1.7 Main Objectives

General objective
Develop a conceptual fragmentation model in MATLAB using Artificial Neural Network as a
tool to optimise blast designs.
Specific objectives
•Investigate current drilling and blasting practices in Chimiwungo south Pit.
•Determine the most efficient drilling method between rotary and down the hole drill (DTH) for
D45KS hydraulic drill rig in Chimiwungo South Pit.
1.8 Significance of the study

This research is in line with Lumwana copper mine drilling and blasting optimisation program,
which is one of the company’s major objectives from the year 2016 going forward. Optimization
of drilling and blasting operation will help the company to attain the objective of increasing
production of ore from 75 Mtpa to 90 Mtpa, with reduced cost of drilling and blasting. Further
more this research will result in an improved efficiency of the overall mining system through
increased equipment productivity for the shovel and the primary crusher. The research will also
create a platform on which blast fragmentation optimization can be conducted.
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Efficiency of blasting operation in underground and surface mines determine to a large extent
utilization of equipment, productivity and economics. Proper fragmentation of blasted rocks and
coal improves the efficiency of downstream operations; loading, transport and crushing to
desired sizes. An optimal blast not only results in proper fragmentation but also reduces un
desirable effects like ground vibration, fly rock and formation of toe in quarry benches (C. V. B.
Cunningham, 2011). The drilling and blasting is the first unit operations in the mining process
and has a major impact on the performance and cost of subsequent unit operations. An increase
in the degree of fragmentation will give the loading equipment a higher rate of productivity. This
will result in lower costs per ton moved. The effect of wear and tear will also decrease, giving
lower operating cost per hour. Under similar conditions of haul, lift, size and type of truck, and
haul road condition, truck production per hour will increase with greater degree of fragmentation
due to faster shovel or loader loading rates and a decrease in bridging at the crusher. There will
be a consequent decrease in cycle time.
2.1.0 Principle of rotary drilling

In rotary drilling, the bit attacks the rock with energy supplied to it by a rotating drill stem. The
drill stem is rotated while a thrust is applied to it by a pull-down mechanism using up to 65% of
the weight of the machine. The bit breaks and removes the rock by either a ploughing-scraping
action in soft rock, or a crushing and chipping action in hard rock, or a combination of the two.
Compressed air or water is supplied to the bit via the drill stem. The air cools the bit and
provides a flushing medium for the cuttings.
It is important to note that rotary drills are capable of two methods of drilling. The majority of
the units operate as pure rotary drills, driving tricone or fixed-type bits. The fixed-type bits, such
as claw or drag bits, have no moving parts and cut through rock by shearing it. Thus, these bits
are limited to the softest material. The other method utilized by rotary drill rigs is down-the hole
(DTH) drilling. High-pressure air compressors are used to provide compressed air through the
drill string to drive the DTH hammer .The primary difference between rotary drilling and other
methods is the absence of percussion. In most rotary applications, the preferred bit is the tricone
bit. Tricone bits rely on crushing and spalling the rock. This is accomplished through transferring
down force, known as pull down, to the bit while rotating in order to drive the carbides into the
rock as the three cones rotate around their respective axis. Rotation is provided by a hydraulic or
electric motor-driven gearbox (called a rotary head) that moves up and down the tower via a feed
system. Feed systems utilize cables, chains or rack-and pinion mechanisms driven by hydraulic
cylinders, hydraulic motors or electric motors. Figure 6 shows the comparison between the
operating principle of pure rotary and down the hole drilling (DTH).
Down-The-Drilling method Rotary drilling method
Figure 6: Comparison between DTH and rotary
2.1.1 Principle of Down The Hole drilling method (DTH)

The hammer is situated down the hole in direct contact with the drill bit. The hammer piston
strikes the drill bit ,resulting in an efficient transmission of the impact energy and insignificant
power losses with the hole depth. The method is widely used for drilling long holes, not only for
blasting, but also for water wells, shallow gas and oil wells, and for geo-thermal wells. In mining
it is also developed for sampling using there verse circulation technique (RC drilling).
2.1.2 Principle of rotary drilling method
Rotation is provided by a hydraulic or electric motor driven gearbox, called a rotary head,
that moves up and down the tower via a feed system, generating the pull down required to give
sufficient weight on the bit. Flushing of drill cuttings between the wall of the hole and the drill
rods is normally done with compressed air.
2.1.3 Penetration rate

Rock drillability is defined as the penetration rate of a drill bit into the rock. It is a function of
several rock properties such as:
• Mineral composition;
• Texture;
• Grain size;
• Degree of weathering.
As is obviously important to costs and productivity, penetration rate is one of the most important
factors in drilling. Some empirical equations have been developed from extensive rotary tests in
iron ore. The Bauer and Calder method states that penetration rate, P, can be calculated using the
following equation:
P  (61  28 log 10 Sc)

 300
W rpm
. ………………Equation [1]
where P = penetration rate

Sc = uniaxial compressive strength
W/φ = weight per inch of bit diameter
Rpm = revolutions of drill per minute
Variables used to predict penetration rate could be classified into three main categories such as
drill bit characteristics, characteristics of rock and operational variables. However, rock
properties such as compressive strength, porosity, density and geological conditions are
uncontrollable parameters (McGregor, K., 1967 and Beste, U. Jacobson, S. and Hogmark, S.,
2007). Penetration rate is the progression of the drilling bit into the rock in a certain period of
time which is generally expressed as “mm/s”. Paone and Madson (1966) carried out drillability
studies with impregnated diamond bits on 7 rock types in the laboratory and on 21 rock types in
the field and correlated penetration rates with rock properties. Penetration rates correlated quite
well with compressive and tensile strengths. It was also seen that penetration rates do not change
significantly for rocks having a compressive strength greater than 173 MPa. Paone et al. (1966)
statistically analysed the drilling capability of surface-set and impregnated diamond bits. The
results indicated that the most significant parameters affecting penetration rates of surface-set
bits were thrust, rotational speed, compressive strength, Shore hardness and quartz content. For
impregnated diamond bits, the most significant parameters were thrust, Young’s modulus, shear
modulus, abrasiveness, quartz content and compressive strength.
2.1.4 Rotary Drill Pulldown Weight

A portion of the machine weight is applied by the pulldown motor via the pulldown chain or
chains, rotary head and drill stems to the drill bit. As the bit diameter increases, the bearing size
increases thus allowing an increase in the tolerable load. Overloading the bit results in severe
loss of bit life.
2.1.5 Flushing medium

A key parameter of rotary drilling is flushing the cuttings from the hole. In most rotary blasthole
drills, cuttings are lifted between the wall of the hole and the drill rods by compressed air.
Sufficient air volume is required to lift these cuttings. Many types of tricone bits have been
developed to meet various drilling needs. Softer formation bits are built with long carbides with
wide spacing on the face of the bit. This design yields large cuttings which increase drill speed
and reduce dust. It is important to have sufficient clearance between the wall of the hole and the
drill rods in order for such large cuttings to pass. If this clearance, known as annular area, is not
sufficient, the cuttings will be ground between the wall of the hole and the rods or by the bit
itself (called regrinding) until they are small enough to exit the hole. This results in excess dust
and accelerated wear on the bit and drill rod. Approximately 20% of the air is forced through the
roller cones for cooling purposes by adjusting the air pressure across the bit using the bit nozzles.
2.1.6 Bailing velocity

The air volume is the primary requirement for bailing cuttings from the hole. Air velocity up the
hole is dependent on the air volume per minute as well as the hole annulus (ring-shape where
hole and stem meet). The velocity of the drill cuttings in this air is dependent on the chip size,
density, and shape. Experimentally, the balancing air velocity in metres per minute is given by:
Um  264 1/ 2 d 1/ 2 ………………Equation [2]

Where: d = diameter of the chip
γ = density of chip
Um=balling velocity
At air velocities above this balancing value, the chips begin to move, their velocity being
approximately one half the excess air velocity above the balancing value. A bailing velocity of
1800 mpm/s is usually adequate to bail 13 mm. Factors involved with choosing the air velocity
are that higher velocities:
i. Give higher bailing velocities
ii. Will bail larger chips
iii. Tend to give higher bit life
iv. Will help cater for hole cavities,
v. Will help cater for drill stem wear
vi. May give higher penetration rates and possibly lower cost per
vii. Reduce the volume of cuttings in the hole for a given penetration rate
The drawbacks of increased bailing velocities include
i. Will give increased stabilizer and pipe wear
ii. Increase dust deflector and deck bushing wear
ii. May damage borehole walls in soft drilling
2.1.7 Dust control

A necessary evil created by the air compressor in drilling operations is the generation of dust. To
control the dust, the area surrounding the hole is enclosed by a dust hood. Dust hoods are sealed
on the sides by dust curtains, and where the rod comes through the deck by a rod wiper or dust
seal. A dust control system must be used in conjunction with the dust hood and curtains.
The two most popular types of dust control are dry dust collectors and water injection. Dust
collectors are essentially large vacuum cleaners that pull the dust away from the dust hood
and run it through a collection of filter elements. Water injection systems inject a fine amount of
water into the air stream. Water injection is the more effective solution for ensuring dust is
minimized, but the introduction of water into the hole can slow down the drilling process by
increasing the density of the cuttings at the bottom of the hole that the air compressor must
move. Water injection systems require frequent refilling of the water tanks, and in freezing
conditions, elaborate heating systems must be used. Dust collectors offer a productivity
advantage, but they can become plugged if not turned off when wet material is encountered.
This is particularly a problem if the wet material freezes in the system.
2.1.8 Chip Sampling

Penetrating always involves" chip making". Usually penetration efficiency is improved when
large chips are produced and cleared quickly. The best chips are large chips; large chips often
make better samples. Large chips need:
• Bits with sharp cutting edges.
• Large amounts of energy per chip.
• Rapid clearing and transport up the hole to prevent regrinding of the chip.
Although larger amounts of energy are required for each large chip, fewer chips are produced
and the total energy used per metre of hole drilled is less (less surface area produced.
Many rigs produce good chips at the bottom of the hole but fail to clear them or lift them out of
the hole before they are broken up.
2.2 Blasting
Fragmentation of rocks by drilling and blasting is the first stage in the production cycle in most
mining operations. The optimisation of this operation is very important because fragmentation
affects the cost subsequent processes in mine production cycle; loading, hauling, crushing and, to
some extent, grinding Optimisation of rock fragmentation by drilling and blasting may be
understood to mean minimising the cost of these two operations. Efficiency of the unit
operations; loading, transporting and crushing is the maximum with optimum rock fragmentation
Maximum efficiency minimizes the cost of production. Therefore optimum rock fragmentation is
always one of the objectives in any production blasting. Rock fragmentation is said to be
optimum if the rock needs no further treatment after the blast.
A lot of research has already been conducted on the various aspects of the fragmentation with the
sole objective of improving the fragmentation% (Atasoy et al., 2001; Grundstrom et al., 2001;
Paley and Kojovic, 2001; Valery et al., 2001; and Adel et al., 2006) It is reported that more than
20 factors affect the blast results. These factors can be grouped in four different categories: rock
geotechnical parameters such as density, hardness, compressibility; explosive parameters such as
density, velocity of detonation; technical parameters such as delay interval, primer strength and
location and geometrical parameters such as burden, spacing, and stemming Concept of ANN
has been applied to model various aspects of blast-induced ground vibrations air overpressure ,
fly rock (Atasoy et al., 2001) back break powder factor estimation of blast geometry], estimation
of an appropriate type of explosive], estimation of fragmentation. A critical analysis of the
models indicates that the modeling using ANN is beneficial in rock blasting where a large
number of affecting variables and their complicated mutual dependence sometimes create
difficulties in the application of empirical modeling. Outputs of the developed ANN based
fragmentation models have been expressed either as the fragment size or as the sieve analysis.
Practicing mining engineers not only make use of this form of the output to evaluate the
fragmentation but at the same time they are also interested in knowing the boulder count so that
they can plan the secondary breakage operations.
2.2 Fragmentation analysis

Fragmentation analysis has been proven useful in the mining, construction and aggregate
industries by helping reduce energy costs, improving efficiency and minimizing equipment
maintenance costs. Mine-to-Mill optimization is the approach usually employed to accomplish
the reduction of energy and cost in mining as well as processing practices. This approach
involves sampling and modeling of blasting and processing, followed by computer simulation to
optimize the operation and develop alternatives (Adel et al., 2006). The entire operation is taken
into consideration, from blasting to comminution in order to optimize the size reduction process.
Mine-to-Mill optimization has been successfully applied in gold, copper, and lead/zinc
operations worldwide. As a result, the throughput increases from 5 – 18% and cost is reduced in
the neighborhood of 10% (Atasoy et al., 2001; Grundstrom et al., 2001; Paley and Kojovic,
2001; Valery et al., 2001; and Adel et al., 2006).
2.2.1 Evaluation of fragmentation

There are several fragmentation measurement methods available. The split desktop is an example
of image analysis method that is used in this research. This method usually comprises of the split
software, a computer, monitor and a keyboard. The split system should also be capable of
downloading the images onto the computer. To start, images are taken from muck pile or
stockpile with a scaling object usually a ball and downloaded onto a computer. The fragments in
each image are delineated to determine the fragmentation of the rock fragments. Graphs of the
resulting size distributions can then be plotted. The other methods commonly used to evaluate
fragmentation are;
i. Visual size assessment.
ii. Loading production rate.
iii. Digitizing of photos.
iv. Boulder count.
(i) Visual size assessment

Visual assessment method is used due to its simplicity and low cost. However, only large
differences in fragmentation are possible to register as it is difficult to assess the changes in
fragmentation with a naked eye when the difference in fragmentation isn’t large.
(ii) Loading production rate
This method of evaluating fragmentation maybe misleading if other factors affecting loading
production rate have not been taken into account. The loading production rate is for instance, to a
very high degree is affected by truck availability, skill of the operator, break-downs and
condition of the machinery.
When all these factors have been put into consideration, it cannot be certain that the degree of
fragmentation is reflected by the digging rate. For instance, there may be an improvement to
finer fragmentation, but with an unfavorable size distribution. This can cause worse digging
conditions due to tighter muck pile.
(iii) Digitising of photos

The true fragment size distribution is determined by sieving, but in most mining operations, due
to the scale, it is a too time consuming and expensive operation. The only suitable way to
measure the fragmentation result is to use some kind of image analysis system. Maerz and Zhou
(1998) give some examples of advantages of optical systems, compared to sieving, these are:
•Measurements can be completely automated.
•Many more measurements can be made, increasing statistical reliability.
•No interruption of the production process.
•No Screening in cases of large assemblages of rock.
In general image analysis systems consist of three key features, first the material is photographed
or filmed at a suitable location, then the pictures are segmented into individual grains, and finally
grain areas/volumes are calculated before the size distribution can be determined. In all of the
three steps in image analysis, different sources of errors induce inaccuracies to the final result.
Errors related to optical systems can be considered in four classes, Maerz and Zhou (1998),
•Errors related to the method of analysis of images.
•Errors related to sample presentation.
•Errors related to the imaging process.
•Errors related to the sampling process.
A fundamental condition for a successful analysis is that the pictures be of good quality i.e. good
lighting conditions, to avoid shadows, and pictures taken perpendicular to the surface, to avoid
perspective distortion. Due to segregation of the material analysed, it is not certain that the
pictures are representative for the size distribution. Other problems with images are that they just
show the surface of the material. They should represent a three-dimensional size distribution.
Moreover the theoretical limit of resolution is about two orders of magnitude, i.e. the largest
block is 100 times larger than the smallest (Maerz and Zhou, 1998).
(iv) Boulder count

This is a rather simple and common method where the number of visible boulders is a blast are
counted and compared to the number of boulders in previous blasts to assess fragmentation. This
method only takes oversize rocks into consideration.
2.3 Artificial Neural Network (ANN)

Rock fragmentation is influenced by controllable and non-controllable factors. The controllable
factors include the blast design parameters and the explosive type. The non-controllable factors
on the other hand are the physical and mechanical properties of the rock concerned. Certain
measures should be taken to reduce the effect of these non-controllable parameters in order to
attain a good rock fragmentation. Available empirical models developed have not been able to
incorporate the numerous variables and their interrelations. To overcome this drawback, the
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) in recent years has been put to good use. Over the past decade,
a number of research works have been executed in the area of rock fragmentation. Empirical
models have been developed by earlier researchers to predict Rock fragmentation. Kuznetsov
(1973) developed a relationship between mean fragment size and specific charge according to
the Rosin-Rammler theory. Cunningham (1983) later improved the efficiency of this approach.
These empirical methods despite their comprehensive usage failed to inculcate all the relevant
input parameters necessary for the best results. Many contemporary researchers have used
artificial intelligence methods such as artificial neural network (ANN) to address effectively the
weaknesses presented by these empirical methods of prediction.
Application of artificial neural networks in mining is growing consequently many researchers

have applied the ANN system to predict blast-induced rock fragmentation, airblast and ground
vibration (Khandelwal and Singh, 2005; Monjezi et al., 2010; Bahrami et al., 2011; Enayatollahi
et al., 2014; hajihassani et al., 2014). ANN have also gain use in other mining and civil related
works. Maulenkamp and Grima (1999) applied neural network for the prediction of the UCS
from hardness tests on rock samples based on input parameters hardness, porosity,density, grain
size and rock type information of a rock sample. The results of the network were compared to
predictions obtained by conventional statistical relations to examine the suitability of this
technique. A dataset containing 194 rock sample records, ranging from weak sandstones to very
strong granodiorites, was used to train the network with the Levenberg–Marquardt training
algorithm. The conclusion was that predictions of uniaxial compressive strength by artificial
neural network (ANN) were closer to the measured values.
The conclusion was that artificial neural network (ANN) is fast and cost effective. Evaluation
and prediction of the airflow rate in triaxial conditions at various confining pressures
incorporating cell pressure, air inlet pressure, and air outlet pressure using ANN technique was
investigated by Ranjith and Khandelwal (2012). A three-layer feed forward back propagation
neural network having 3-7-1 architecture network was trained using 37 data sets measured from
laboratory investigation. Based on coefficient of determination (CoD) and mean absolute error
(MAE) ANN model was compared with multi-variate regression analysis (MVRA). ANN proved
to be a better predictor. Rezaei et al. (2012) developed an ANN model to predict burden in the
blasting operation of Mouteh gold mine, using geomechanical properties of rocks as input
parameters. Blastability index (BI), rock quality designation (RQD), unconfined compressive
strength (UCS), density, and cohesive strength were among the input parameters used. It was
observed that the ANN prediction capability is better than that of MVRA. Further, a sensitivity
analysis shows that while BI and RQD were the most sensitive parameters, cohesive strength
was considered as the least sensitive input parameters on the ANN model output.
Extensive literature survey has indicated that no ANN model is available to predict 90% passing.
Furthermore, available literature on the research site was extensively reviewed, geotechnical
reports on Lumwana mine was also reviewed in order to have in depth understanding of the
geology and geotechnical properties of the Lumwana rock mass.
2.4 Research methodology

In order to accomplish the objectives of this research the following methodology was used:
i. A detailed literature study on optimisation of drilling and blasting in surface mines
ii. Field investigations:
 Review of geomechanical and structural properties of Chimiwungo rockmass.
 Collection of data on rotary and DTH drilling of production blast holes in
Chimiwungo south pit using the DK45K hydraulic drill rigs.
 Pre and post blast evaluations
iii. Use of softwares for data analysis: Microsoft excel, Split desktop, SPSS and Vulcan
iv. Development of a conceptual fragmentation model using ANN in Matlab
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 DATA COLLECTION
3.1 General site investigation

Data on rock mass properties was derived from core logging and bench mapping Rock mass
properties derived from the data collection was necessary for understanding of the rock mass
response to drilling and blasting operations and the feasibility of the particular blast design.
3.2 Field investigations

Field investigation include general site familiarisation of Lumwana copper mine, mapping of
bench of faces, assessment of drilling practice, logging of borehole cores, pre-blast and post
blast evaluation
3.2.1 Drilling practice

In this research data was collected on 4 Sandvik D45KS hydraulic drill rigs that were drilling
production holes in Chimiwungo south pit for the period of 2 months. Two of the drill rigs were
using down the hole drilling (DTH) method (DR07 and DR03) the other two (DR09 and DR05)
use rotary drilling methods. Standard drilling parameters were collected from the drilling
specialist then actual drilling parameters used were collected from the field during drilling
operations.
According to plan, all production holes for the three blasts monitored were supposed to be drilled
at 90 degrees angle; however some of the holes along the crest were drilled at an angle. The
importance of drilling angled holes was not clarified; furthermore, the conditions of the faces
were unknown because there was accumulation of blasted material on the faces. This could be
one of the causes of “runaway” holes. Figure 3 shows one of the holes being drilled at an angle.
Figure 7: Production drill hole being drilled wrongly
Data on time motion for the drill was conducted in terms of: set-up time, drilling time, drill string
changing time and tramming to the next drill hole time. The rate of consumable consumption and
costs for DTH and rotary drill rigs, total drilled meters for the four rigs drill rig was collected and
summarised in Tables 5-7, Graphs 1-8 and Table A-1 data collected on time motion study and
drilling parameters used of the four rigs, the data collected was based on six blast patterns and it
was collected at the time the rigs were drilling in the same drill patterns.
Figure 8: superimposed blast design of CS11232-B01
The practice at Lumwana Mine is that the AEL team together with the drill and blast mine
personnel has to measure hole depths before charging can be done. This is done in order to
ensure that holes which are over drilled can be backfilled and those which are under drilled can
be re-drilled. The planned hole depth is indicated on the drilling plan and the actual depth is
recorded by AEL on the hole log sheet. The mine uses a standard of 0.7m as the tolerable
deviation for hole depth on fresh rock (Schist/Gneiss).
After drilling, hole collars are equipped with plastic cones to prevent chippings from falling back
into the holes. The holes are also fitted with wooden tags which help in identifying holes. It was
however observed that some of the holes were not fitted with the tags and this made it difficult
for the holes to be identified. Figure 8 shows good usage of hole savers and sampling of
production holes for gneiss, figure 9 shows measuring the drilled hole for depth.
Figure 9: Good usage of hole savers and sampling of drill chipping for gneiss
Figure 10: Drilled hole being measured for depth
Random measurements were conducted in order to compare planned with design parameters. For
each blast, thirty (30) measurements were taken on hole depths, burden as well as on spacing.
The comparisons for the respective blocks are shown in Graphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
3.2.2 Pre blast evaluations
This involved the study of priming, charging, stemming and blasting practices at Chimiwungo
open pits. Properties of explosive, blast parameters and were assessed before the blast.
Fragmentation analysis was done as part of post blast evaluation to ascertain percent passing,
data collected. This was done in order to understand and quantify the effect of afore mentioned
practices and parameters on fragmentation.
3.2.3 Priming and charging

AEL has a Down-the-Hole (DTH) contract with Lumwana Mining Company. The mine does the
drilling, priming, tying up and initiation of the blast and AEL charges the blast holes.
The mine normally uses 15m downlines and 8m Trunklines due to the hole depths of less than
15m and holes spacing of 6m. During the audit, it was discovered that Blast CS11244_000B31,
34, 39, 40 had holes which were more than 15m and deeper, but the mine only had 15m Multi
SPD 500ms downlines which were used even in 15m and deeper holes.
This had an impact on booster positioning as the booster had to be pulled for more than 0.5
metres in order to expose a significant length of the shock tube on surface. The inconsistency in
booster positioning due to shorter downlines can also negatively impact on the floor conditions.
Figure 7 shows one of the holes where a 15m downline was used in a hole deeper than 15m.
Figure 11: A 15mm downline used in a 15.6m hole
Generally, charging practices were observed to be fairly good. Calibration of the MMU is done
regularly on bench by weighing a bucket filled with the emulsion in order to ensure that the
correct quantities of explosives are pumped. This is illustrated in Figure 8. Pumping of the
explosives is done from the toe of the hole therefore allowing displacement of water from the
hole, for holes with water.
Figure 12: charging the explosive by bottom 0.1Properties and strength of explosives charging
During charging, the actual charge per hole is achieved by twining/dipping, where the MMU
assistant will stop the MMU controller when the desired initial stemming length is achieved. The
charged quantities of explosives per hole are then recorded by the MMU controller on the
charging sheet. The same blast holes which were audited for depth were also checked on the
stemming lengths and amount of explosives charged per hole. This was also done to compare the
actual to the design parameters. Appendix A indicate how charging was done on the thirty
random measurements for the respective blocks.
3.2.4 Blast hole stemming practice

Blast hole stemming involves the use of a stemming Loader on the blast pattern. Before the
Stemming operation starts, the holes are checked to see if there correctly charged and measured
for final stemming height, all downlines are securely anchored and are positioned in the same
direction as the stemming is to progress (the loader will pass directly over the hole once
stemmed). Before stemming, all loaded blast whole collar openings were checked to ensure they
are free of bridging rocks / collapsed collars. Crushed angular aggregate of 15-25mm is
considered to be good material for blast hole stemming, final stemming length used as per design
was 3.0m. Final stemming height was recorded along other blast parameters summarised in
Table 13.
3.2.5 Explosive properties and initiation systems

A study of the properties and strength of the explosives used on the research site was done. This
was done in order to establish the compatibility between explosives and the rock mass. The
properties of explosives were obtained from AEL technical reports, the properties and strength of
explosives used at the time of the research are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Propertied and strength of explosives
Property Product (P700)

Minimum diameter 100
Water resistance Excellent
Sensitivity ANFO
Recommended Primer Pentonite Primer
Sensitising agent Sodium Nitrite Solution
Relative Effective Energy (%ANFO at 100MPa) 106
Relative Bulk Strength (% ANFO at 100MPa) 166
Unconfined VOD (Ø 100mm) (m/s) 3500-6000
3.2.6 Density measurements

For all the three blasts, five density cup samples were taken for each VoD hole that was
monitored and five other samples were taken randomly across the blocks. Figure 9 shows some
of the cup samples which were taken for density measurements and Tables 4, 5 and 6 below
show the cup samples of the product density for different holes for the respective blasts.
Figure 13: Samples of explosives for measuring density
Table 3: Cup density samples for C11232_B01
Sample
no Initial mass (g) Final mass (g) after 40min Density
1 700 565 1.03
2 705 545 0.99
3 700 545 0.99
4 700 545 0.98
5 720 540 -
6 720 sample lost 1.02
7 710 535 1.01
8 705 560 0.96
9 675 555 0.66
10 655 530 0.55
Mass of water 530
Ave density 0.99
Table 4: Cup densities for CS11244_B34
Sample
no Initial mass (g) Final mass (g) after 40min Density
1 675 565 0.99
2 675 545 0.99
3 675 545 0.99
4 675 545 0.98
5 720 540 0.97
6 715 535 1
7 710 535 0.97
8 705 570 1.04
9 675 555 1.03
10 655 560 1.02
Mass of water 550
Ave density 1
3.2.7 Velocity of Detonation measurement

AEL Mining Services has been contacted contracted to supply and carry out charging of blast
holes at Lumwana mine, every year AEL Mining Services, Mining Optimisation visits Lumwana
mine to conduct an annual blast audit which is aimed at improving the overall productivity of the
mine through the optimisation of drill and blast practices. During field investigations of this
research AEL Mining Services, Mining Optimisation team was conducting the contractual
annual audit at the mine, the audit entailed Velocity of Detonation (VoD) measurements,
Velocity of Detonation was carried out as part of this research, it was done under the supervision
on AEL, Mining optimisation team.
3.2.8 Velocity of Detonation measurement field setup

VoD is an in-hole measurement of the speed of the detonation front of the explosive. This is used
as a quality control measure, ensuring that the results obtained are within the manufacturer’s
specifications. The VoD range for SD130 is 3500 to 6000/s as specified in the AEL Product
Catalogue. Two blasts were captured for VoDs; Block CS11232_000B01, CS11244_B31, 34, 39
& 40. Five holes were selected per blast and monitored with a Micro Trap. The description of the
instrument’s operation is found in Appendix B. In all the blasts, the holes were selected from the
initiation point along the spacing. Hole 4 of Blast CS11244_000B31, 34, 39, 40 was discarded
due to cable damage. The layout of the VoD holes for the three blasts are as shown in Figures 26,
27 and 28 above. Figures 10, 11 and 12 are profiles of the holes and Tables 10, 11 and 12 are
information on the holes.
Table 5: Hole measurements for CS11232_B01
Hole
number Depth (m) Stemming (m) primer position (m) Charge length (m)
1 13.5 2.5 12.8 11
2 12.5 3.2 11 9.3
3 12.6 2.7 10.6 9.9
4 13.4 2.3 11.3 11.1
5 14.2 1.7 12.3 12.5
Table 6: Hole measurements for CS11244_B31,34,39,40
Hole
number Depth (m) Stemming (m) primer position (m) Charge length (m)
1 11.2 3 10.2 8.2
2 15.3 2.6 13.1 12.7
3 12 5.9 10.9 6.1
4 13.6 3.5 12.6 10.1
5 13.1 2.8 12.1 10.3
3.2.9 Current Blast design Evaluation

The blast design currently used at the research site in each blast domain was studied, with
emphasis on parameters that mostly affect fragmentation. These included the bore diameter,
powder factor, burden, spacing and stemming length. The blast design used at Chimiwungo open
pit at the time of the design is presented in Table 12.
Table 7: Blast design used at Chimiwungo pit
Current Blast Design CS11232_000B01 CS11244_000B31,34,39,40

Planned powder factor
(kg/m3) 0.9 0.93
Actual powder factor
(kg/m3) 0.93 0.85
Bench height (m) 12
Planned burden (m) 5.2
Planned spacing (m) 6
Hole diameter (mm) 203
Subdrill (m) 1.5
Planned initial stemming 4
length (m)
Planned final stemming 3

length (m)
Drill pattern Staggered
Stemming material Crushed stone
Explosive type SD130
Hole conditions (wet or dry) Wet
Charging method Pumped- bottom charged

Initiating systems Shock Tube:
Multi SPD 500
Trunk lines 25, 42, 67 and 100ms
Booster type 400g Pentolite
3.2.10 Timing and blasting

Initiation systems used at Lumwana are Multi SPD 500ms down-the hole; connected on surface
with Trunklines 25, 42, 67 and 100ms. A box cut (center lift) method of timing with intra-row
and inter row timing delays of 42ms and 67ms is used to accommodate the rock and geological
conditions. Figures 12 and 13 show the timing plans as well as VoD holes layout for the
respective blasts.
Figure 14: Timing plan for CS11232_B01
Figure 15: Timing plan for CS11244_B31,B34,B39,B4
3.3 Blasting
Videos of the three blasts were taken in order to view features such as stemming and face
ejection, initiation sequence, surface timing accuracy and flyrock. For blast CS11232_000B01,
the video camera was placed at about 400m from the blast, blast CS11244_000B31, 34, 39, 40 it
was placed at approximately 600m.Camera set-up layouts and top views of the blasts are
illustrated in Figures 14 and 15.
Figure 16: Video camera position relative to the blast for CS11232_B01
Figure 17: Video camera position relative to the blast for CS11244_B31,B34,B39,B40
Figure 18: Stemming ejection for CS11232_B01
Figure 19: Stemming ejection for CS11244_B31,B34,B39 & B40
3.4 Post blast evaluation
3.4.1 Fragmentation
Fragmentation analysis is conducted by means of taking a number of still photographs of the
muckpile after the blast, including a sizing object and then processing each photograph using
Split Desktop fragmentation analysis software.
Fragmentation photographs were taken in all three monitored blasts and a ball with a diameter of
150mm was used as a scaling object. Figure 18 shows some the pictures that were taken, thirty
five (35) pictures were taken in CS11232_000B01 and CS11244_000B31, 34, 39, 40 for
fragmentation analysis.
Figure 20: Examples of fragmentation photos taken from CS11244_B31.34,39 & 40
Figure 21: Face fragmentation photos taken from CS11232_B01
3.5. Software Application
In this research the Vulcan, Microsoft excel and Split desktop computer softwares were used to
analyse the data collected, the results of the analysis using the softwares is presented in chapter
3.5.1 Artificial neural network (ANN) architecture

A three-layer, defined by an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer feed forward back-
propagation neural network was developed. This three-layer neural network is used to predict
rock fragmentation due to its ability to accommodate large input data and its capabilities to solve
problems with vast complexities. The artificial neural network (ANN) model was generated by
(i) importing blast data in csv format into MATLAB® (ii) creating network using nntool
function (iii) training, validation and testing. A Total of 66 different blast data taken from the
mine was used for the development of a conceptual model for fragmentation, out of the 66 data
sets 33 were used for training the model and 33 were used for testing. The input parameters used
for the experiment are (i) Blast hole diameter, (ii) Burden (iii) Spacing, (vi) Linear charge per
meter, (v) Rock factor, (iv) Stemming length and (iiv) Powder factor. Detailed data set used in
the development of the model is presented in Table A-3 Among several parameters, the five (7)
chosen inputs parameters are those known from literature survey to significantly influence the
rock fragmentation with one output, percent passing. These inputs are enumerated in Table A-3.
The network type selected for the training was feed-forward back-propagation because it is good
for non-linear fittings. Trainlm was the training function adopted because it is the fastest
backpropagation algorithm in the toolbox. Trainscg function updates weight and bias values
according to Levenberg-Marquardt optimization. The learning functionality used was the
Learngdm and this function takes several inputs. Learngdm is the gradient descent with
momentum weight and bias learning function. The performance function e.g. Mean square error
(MSE), the number of layers, the number of neutrons and the transfer function e.g. tansig are all
selected accordingly in order to create the network. After successfully creating a network, the
next step is to train the network. Figures 20.1 and 20.2 are examples of ANN network window
and ANN network architecture respectively.
Figure 22: Typical ANN network window
Figure 23: Typical ANN network architecture
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Geological structures
Figure 24: Cross section of the geological structures in a blast pattern CS11232_B01
The figure above showing the cross section of the geological model indicate that the western
side B01 blast pattern is intercepted in the stemming section by internal gneiss, which was likely
to affect drillability and fragmentation in the far western end of the blast pattern .
Figure 5, on the other hand shows internal gneiss cutting through the blast patterns of B31, 34,
39 and 40, a lot of challenges would be expected on the part of both drilling and fragmentation
and a number of boulders would be expected.
Figure 25: Cross section of the geological structures in a blast pattern for CS1244_B31,34,39 & 40
4.2 Drilling
(a) Penetration rate calculations
Penetration rate (m/hr) =drilled meters (m) / time taken (hr)…….Equation [3]
Penetration rate (m/hr)
Figure 26: Comparison between DTH and Rotary drilling methods
Graph 1, Comparison of the drill performance between rotary and DTH
Equation [3] was used to calculate the penetration rates using the data collected presented in
table A-1, the results are represented in graph 1. DTH rotary drilling method was giving
instantaneous penetration rate above the planned penetration rate 25m/hr, DTH seemed to
perform fairly poor in areas where with minimal of no internal gneiss present. The average
penetrates based on the data collected in CS11232_B01 and CS11244_B31,34, 39 and 40 was
26.4m/hr for DTH. Pure rotary drilling the averaging was 23.4m/hr in the same blast patterns
were DTH was operating, penetration rates for pure rotary was consistent in in both high (above
1.5m thick gneiss in more than 30% of the blast) and low gneiss areas, sampling of drill
chippings shown in figure 3.2 was used for analyzing for presence of gneiss.
From figure 1, DTH showed low drilling efficiency in terms of machine availabilities and quality
of the drill holes drilled. DTH had an average availability of 69% against the planned 90%.
Rotary had an average availability of 92% against the planned 91%. Out of 67 production blast
holes that were drilled using DTH method in CS111244_B31.34,39 and 40 47% collapsed and
were fragged as drills hence contributing to high cost of drilling and delay in production
schedule. Out of 67 production blast holes drilled by pure rotary in CS11244_B31,34,39 and 40
only 7.2% were fragged as re-drills, this indicates high drilling efficiency. The planned re-drills
for every drill pattern is 8%, based on the collected data re-drills pure rotary were within the
plan.
(b) Cost of drilling per metre calculation
Cost/meter= Consumable cost ($) /average life of consumable (m) + Fixed cost / Penetration rate
………………Equation [4]
The fixed cost used in the calculation is $170/hr and average. From table 7, Rotary drilling has a
total cost of consumables of $11,797.93, with combined average life of 147,604m for all the
consumables, as shown in table 12. Figure 7, compares the average cost per metre and cost per
target metres for DTH and rotary.
From table 13, DTH has a combined cost of consumable of $17,783.54 with combined average
life of 37,963m, thus a high cost of average drilled meters shown in figure 7 for DTH compared
to rotary. There’s a difference $0.2 in the cost of target drilled meters between DTH and rotary.
Therefore equation [4] was used as a basis for determining the most efficient drilling method,
along with other factors such as stability of the drilled holes.
Table 8: Consumable costs and associated metres for rotary drill
Rotary 203mm
Average meters Target meters CPM- CPM - Target
Description Cost (m) (m) Average meters
$
Shock sub 12,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 $0.24 $0.24
Spindle $
sub 2,688.59 23,000.00 4,000.00 $0.12 $0.67
$
Saver sub 1,119.39 30,000.00 4,000.00 $0.04 $0.28
$
Drill rod 3,414.34 5,300.00 8,000.00 $0.64 $0.43
$
Drill rod 3,414.34 5,300.00 8,000.00 $0.64 $0.43
Inner deck $
bush 483.37 7,485.00 2,000.00 $0.06 $0.24
Outer deck $
bush 441.01 22,742.00 3,500.00 $0.02 $0.13
$
Bit sub 1,897.90 2,700.00 3,000.00 $0.70 $0.63
Bit 7 7/8 $
inch 2,146.97 1,077.00 1,200.00 $1.99 $1.79
Total string
CPM $4.22 $4.60
CPM Rock tools only
$9.00
$7.91
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00 $4.22 $4.60 $4.40
Rotary
$4.00
DTH
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
CPM-Average CPM - Target meters
Figure 27: Comparison of DTH and Rotary in terms of cost per meter drilled
Table 9: Consumable costs and life of consumable for DTH
DTH 203mm
CPM - Target
Description Cost Average meters Target meters CPM meters
Spindle sub $ 2,109.15 6,738.00 7,000.00 $0.31 $0.30
Saver sub $ 1,002.79 4,636.00 2,600.00 $0.22 $0.39
Drill rod $ 2,336.42 1,613.00 8,000.00 $1.45 $0.29
Drillrod $ 2,336.42 1,613.00 8,000.00 $1.45 $0.29

$
Inner deck bush 780.31 7,425.00 2,000.00 $0.11 $0.39
$
Outer deck bush 390.28 6,714.00 3,500.00 $0.06 $0.11
Adaptor/Bottom
sub $ 1,103.66 4,075.00 6,000.00 $0.27 $0.18
Hammer $ 5,801.05 4,449.00 5,000.00 $1.30 $1.16
Bit203mm $ 1,923.46 700.00 1,500.00 $2.75 $1.28

Total string
CPM $7.91 $4.40
Graph 1.1, shows comparison for drilling costs for DTH and rotary drilling. DTH showed high
cost of drilling in terms of the consumable consumptions and cost of drilled meters, pure rotary
indicated low costs in both consumable consumption and total drilled meters.
Figure 28: Planned vs Actual drilled holes for CS11232_B01
Figure 29: Planned vs Actual drilled holes for CS11232_B31,34,39 & 40
Figure 30: Planned vs. Actual burden for CS11232_000B01
Figure 31: Planned vs Actual spacing for CS1_1232_B01
Figure 32: Planned vs Actual burden for CS11244_00B31,34,39, 40
Figure 33: Planned vs Actual burden for CS11232_00B01
For all two blasts, the measurements from the audit clearly show that there is a variation between
the designed and actual blast parameters. According to the mine standard, the maximum
tolerable deviation for hole depth is 700mm and for spacing and burden is 300mm.
The results from the random measurements on hole depth indicate that 74% of the holes were
drilled to standard in blast CS11232_000B01 and less than 10% of the holes were drilled to
standard in blasts CS11244_000B31, 34, 39, 40
Burden and spacing results show that the holes were drilled closely to the design burden and
spacing in all monitored blasts, except in blast CS11232_000B01 whereby only 33% of the holes
were drilled to design burden.
The inaccurate drilling practices depicted from the measurements could be one of the issues that
contributed to the observed poor floor conditions. This in turn could make it difficult for the
drills and the MMU to access and manoeuver around the bench. Also, lead to uneven positioning
of the drilled holes at the toes, which could be another contributing factor to uneven floors.
Some of the spacing and burden measurements were found to be more than the designed
parameters, as some of the holes had collapsed, possibly as a result of geology and ground water.
4.3 Velocity of Detonation measurements
Figure 34: Profile of the VoD holes for CS11232_000B01
Figure 35: Traces for CS11232_000B01
Table 10: VoD results and trace lengths for CS11232_000B01
Figure 36: Profile of the VoD holes for CS11244_000B31, 34, 39, 40
Figure 37: Traces for CS11244_B31, 34, 39, 40
Table 11: VoD results and trace lengths for CS _1244_B31, 34, 39 & 40
VoD results for all three blasts were obtained and analysed. All the traces were readable except
for those in hole 3 of blast CS11244_000B31, 34, 39, 40. Although the traces are unreadable,
they indicate that the recordings took place at the expected cable cut and time.
The results indicate that the explosives performed well because the traces were found to be
within the specified range on 3500 to 6000m/s. The summary of the results for the respective
blasts is as depicted in Tables 13 and 14. Figures 20 and 20.1 show the overall recorded traces
for CS11232_000B01, CS11244_000B31, 34, 39, 40
4.4. Fragmentation analysis

In fragmentation analysis, a uniformity coefficient (n) greater than 1.0 indicates a uniform
distribution of the fragmentation sizes around the mean. The fragmentation results indicated that
the uniformity index (n) achieved in all three blasts were more than 1.0, which indicates a
uniform muckpile distribution size. Table 10 below shows a summary of the results obtained.
Table 12: Fragmentation results
Description CS11232_000B01 CS11244_000B31, 34,

39 & 40
Number of images 40 40
XC (mm) 308.3 178.5
n 1.55 1.39
P20 Size (mm) 131.43 135.67
P50 Size (mm) 241.84 213.76
P80 Size (mm) 355.59 296.67
Top Size (mm) 520.45 459.51
The graphs below indicate the percentage passing of the various particle sizes in the three blocks
respectively. According to the analysis, blast CS11232_000B01 the smallest size, 20% was
around 131.43mm, 50% was 241.84mm, 80% was 355.59mm and the top size was 520.45m.
Blast CS11244_000B31, 34, 39&40 the smallest size, 20% was around 135.67, 50% was
213.76mm, 80% was 296.67mm and the top size was 459.51mm. Blast CN11304_000B08 the
smallest size, 20% was around 72.96mm, 50% was 211.51mm, 80% was 390.31mm and the top
size was 1023.99mm. The mine classifies sizes from 80mm to 1000mm as coarse material which
is good for the crusher feed. According to the Split Desktop analysis the top size for all blasts is
large for the crusher feed.
Figure 38: Fragmentation analysis for CS11232_B01
Figure 18: Fragmentation analysis for CS11244_B31,34,39,40
4.5 Development of a conceptual fragmentation model using ANN

The analysis for the development of the conceptual fragmentation model was carried out with the
seven input parameters and their corresponding outputs for the 66 different blast data sets. These
inputs are enumerated in Table 13. Log-Sigmoid ((Logsig), Hyperbolic tangent Sigmoid
(Tansig), Positive Linear (Poslin) and Linear (Purelin) transfer functions are used in back
propagation neural network These four transfer functions are considered for optimization. The
standard procedure is to begin with more neurons and then change it, note the regression
coefficient for each architecture and its RMSE.
Table 14 shows the comparison of different network architectures, Equation (3.3) (Pearson et al.
1995; Neaupane and Adhikari 2006; Enayatollahi et al., 2014) below was used in computing the
root mean square error (RMSE) for the various models presented in Table 14.
………………….Equation [5]
where, y, y’ and N represent the predicted output, measured output, and the number of input–
output data pairs, respectively.
Table 13: Input parameters and their ranges
Parameter Symbol Range
Linear charge per metre Q 23.8 - 47.37
Hole diameter H 165 - 203
Burden B 4.5 - 6.3
Spacing S 4.2 - 5.2
Rock factor A 10 - 11
Final stemming height T 3 - 3.5
Powder factor kg/m3 P 0.8 - 0.98
Table 14: Comparison of different architectures
Transfer Number of
Model function nuerons Regression coefficients RMSE
Training Validating Testing Overall
1 Poslin 10 0.81435 0.96619 0.98317 0.867733 0.6432
2 Logsig 12 0.90149 0.90474 0.96598 0.91388 0.6678
3 Purelin 14 0.91223 0.91403 0.95707 0.91953 0.4033
4 Tansig 16 0.9094 0.88499 0.98231 0.92025 0.5083
The network was trained using different number of hidden layers and neurons. The regression
coefficients were noted for each of the architectures. The architecture providing the maximum
regression coefficient was selected for the prediction (Hagan M.T., Demuth H.B., Beale M.H.
and De Jesus O,2001), the network with the least RMSE was chosen to be the optimal network
architecture. Figure 20.2, represents the optimum network architecture with seven (7) neurons in
the input layer, thirteen (16) neurons in the hidden layer and three (1) neuron, figure represents a
regression curve showing the relationship between the outputs and targets for training, validation
and testing stages.
The optimum network developed was then used to predict thirty (33) new data sets with known
outputs. Results of the predictions were then compared with the known outputs to estimate the
accuracy of the optimum model. Figures 15 and graph 10, comparing the predicted and measured
fragmentation.
Figure 39: Optimum network regression curves
88
predicteded fragmnetation(%) R² = 0.8377
86
y = 0.8047x + 15.965
84
82
80
78
76
74
70 75 80 85 90
Measured frgamentation (%)
Figure 40: comparing the measured and predicted fragmentations by ANN
Table 15Measured and predicted fragmentation by ANN
Measured fragmentation (% passing) Predicted fragmentation (% passing)

85 84
84 84
80 83
78 75
78 75
86 86
86 85
86 83
85 83
84 85
86 85
86 85
86 85
86 84
85 84
80 80
80 80
78 79
85 85
75 75
75 77
85 84
75 77
78 77
75 75
80 83
86 85
75 75
75 75
75 76
75 76
85 80
There is a good correlation between the output and target datasets for the training, validation and
testing stages as shown in figure 20, the combined curve demonstrates a strong relationship
between the output and the target considering the R value 0f 0.9205. The coefficient of
determination (R2) for Table 15 and graph 10 above are very close to one (1) indicating a strong
correlation between the predicted and measured values for the output parameters using the
optimum artificial neural network (ANN) tool.
4.6 Development of statistical model

The statistical model in SPSS environment using multiple regression analysis was used validate
the predictions by the developed ANN model since the developed fragmentation model can’t be
validated on site due to a number of challenges. Multiple linear regression analysis was
developed using the same input-independent variables and output-dependent variables used for
the ANN processing. In general, the multiple regression equation of ẑ on X 1, X2, …, Xk is
given by:
ẑ= b0 + b1 X1 + b2 X2 + …………………… + bk Xk
……………….Equation [6]
where the term ẑ is the predicted value estimated from Xi, b0 is the intercept, and bi are
the partial regression coefficients.
Multiple linear regression developed in in this research is given below:
Fragmentation (%) = 109.346-[0.9*P]+ [0.134*H]-[3.72*B]+[2.94*S]+[0.125*Q] [0.44*A]+[0.97*T]
Parameters in model developed in multiple linear regression are defined in Table 11.Results of
the predictions were compared to measured outcomes for correlation. The RMSE calculated
using equation 3.3 was 0.8703.
Figures 21 and table 16 illustrate the relationship between predicted and measured rock
fragmentation respectively using multiple linear regression analysis.
86 y = 0.7299x + 22.058
predicted fragmentation (%)
85 R² = 0.7224
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88
meausured fragmentation (%)
Figure 41: Measured and predicted fragmentation by multiple linear regression
Table 16: Measured and predicted fragmentation by Multiple linear regression
measured fragmentation (% passing) predicted fragmentation (% passing)

80 85
78 77
78 77
86 84
86 85
84 85
86 85
86 85
86 85
85 82
80 81
80 81
78 78
75 78
75 78
85 82
75 78
78 78
75 76
80 84
86 85
75 77
75 77
75 76
75 76
85 78
78 78
78 78
85 83
76 77
85 85
80 84
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION,CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Discussion
For the purpose of comparing rotary versus DTH drilling, it would be prudent to focus on
instantaneous penetration rate, quality of the blast holes drilled and the cost of drilling for each
the rig. The discussion thus far has been centered around the rock in the ore horizon. It was seen that
the overburden material (gneiss) was stronger and more competent. The inconsistencies in rock
hardness are just indicative of the very prevalent characteristics of Chimiwungo rockmass.
Attempting to hold constant as many variables as possible indicates a substantial reduction in the
instantaneous penetration rate with the rotary drilling in the ore zone, which mean increased cost
of drilling per metre according to equation [2] It would be prudent to say that the rotary
penetration rate could was be much as 20% higher in low gneiss areas within the ore zone, but
this is still far below the overall penetration rate of DTH drilling rate. As the pull down force and
rotation speed are increased beyond the optimum (200KN), the penetration rate will continue to
climb hence a remarkable reduced cost of drilling per metre this was the case with DTH.
Unfortunately, higher pulldown and rotation speed usually results in increased vibration and
lower bit life. The vibration causes increased wear-and-tear on the rig, this explains the low
availabilities for DTH drilling methods frequent break down and high consumable consumption
in the end affecting production schedule. The overall drilling cost per unit, also known as Total
Drilling Cost (TDC), TDC is calculated using the bit cost per meter and the total rig cost per
hour. The unit cost per hour includes labor, maintenance and power, and possibly capital cost.
This conceptual fragmentation model was developed in Matlab an optimum ANN model was
used to predict thirty (66) new dataset and the predicted outputs are compared with the real
measured outputs to estimate the accuracy of the model. The results obtained from ANN model
are much closer to reality, thus the ANN model is suitable for predicting new datasets in the
field. Multiple linear regression analysis model was used to validate the developed model using
the same date set that was used to develop the conceptual model in ANN, results demonstrate
that the ANN model is more accurate than the Multiple linear regression analysis model based on
the coefficients of determination R2 and the root mean square error (RMSE). R2 for ANN model
was 0.8047 and RMSE was 0.4033, for Multiple regression model R2 was 0.7224 and RMSE
0.87for the same parameters in the ANN model are relatively smaller compared to those of the
multiple linear regression analysis model for the same data set.
5.2 Conclusion
From the result of this research the following conclusions have been drawn:
1. Pure rotary drilling method will lead to reduced production delays, that have been
associated with the frequent break downs of DTH drill rig and cost of drilling associated
with re-dills can be reduced if all the drill rigs are converted to rotary drilling methods.
Rotary drilling is the most efficient drilling method compared to DTH.
2. An accuracy of more than 80 % in the predictions of fragmentation is sufficient. The
result of the conceptual model developed by ANN had an accuracy of 80%, therefor it
can be used as a tool to optimize drill and blast parameters that can give an optimal blast
of 90% at the lowest possible cost unlike trial and error methods
5.3 Recommendations
This research has produced significant evidence that ANN models are best for predicting
fragmentation and blast impacts. Further studies are required to enhance work carried out in this
study as discussed below:
1. The input parameters could be expanded to include mechanical and geotechnical
rock parameters such as rock strength, RQD, rock hardness, number of joints etc. to provide the
ANN model a wider platform to operate and be used to predict penetration rate for the drill rigs.
2 To achieve a uniform and well fragmented top 5meters section of blasted ore in areas that have
been identified to contain gneiss sample drill cutting for each blast hole so as to validate the
designed locations then drill stab holes to achieve uniform fragmentation in areas with high
gneiss
Appendix A
Table A-1, Comparison of Time motion study DTH and rotary
DRILL
DRILL METHO START TIME FINISH TIME Drilling
LOCATION ID D HOLE # (hr) (hr) time (hr) METRES
CS11244_B31 DR 07 Rotary 169 15:52:00 16:10:00 00:25:00 12.3
CS11244_B31 DR 07 Rotary 151 16:17:00 16:34:00 00:42:00 13
CS11244_B31 DR 07 Rotary 116 07:29:00 07:54:00 00:43:00 13.7
CS11244_B31 DR 07 Rotary 31 23:16:00 23:33:00 00:34:00 12
CS11244_B31 DR 07 Rotary 32 00:10:00 00:26:00 00:41:00 12.5
CS11244_B31 DR 08 Rotary 33 03:06:00 03:22:00 00:33:00 11.4
CS11244_B31 DR 08 Rotary 34 04:34:00 04:51:00 00:33:00 10.6
CS11244_B31 DR 08 Rotary 1 05:33:00 05:54:00 00:37:00 15.1
CS11244_B39 DR 08 Rotary 2 10:08:00 10:27:00 00:36:00 14.7
CS11244_B39 DR 08 Rotary 3 10:19:00 10:35:00 00:37:00 14.8
CS11244_B39 DR 07 Rotary 4 10:27:00 10:46:00 00:38:00 4.7
CS11244_B39 DR 07 Rotary 6 10:43:00 11:04:00 00:37:00 14.4
CS11244_B39 DR 07 Rotary 7 11:10:00 11:30:00 00:39:00 14.7
CS11244_B40 DR 07 Rotary 8 11:33:00 11:51:00 00:39:00 14.1
CS11244_B40 DR 07 Rotary 5 01:33:00 01:51:00 00:38:00 4.6
CS11244_B40 DR 08 Rotary 121 09:33:00 09:51:00 00:36:00 13.7
CS11244_B40 DR 08 Rotary 177 12:02:00 12:21:00 00:37:00 15.4
CS11244_B40 DR 08 Rotary 209 12:34:00 12:51:00 00:35:00 13.8
CS11244_B40 DR 08 Rotary 237 13:06:00 13:21:00 00:34:00 15.5
CS11244_B40 DR 08 Rotary 185 13:23:00 13:40:00 00:34:00 13.5
CS11244_B40 DR 08 Rotary 208 13:37:00 13:56:00 00:34:00 15.7
CS11232_B01 DR 08 Rotary 86 14:44:00 15:06:00 00:39:00 16
CS11232_B01 DR 08 Rotary 121 15:21:00 15:40:00 00:38:00 16
CS11232_B01 DR 08 Rotary 105 16:48:00 17:08:00 00:42:00 12.1
CS11232_B01 DR 08 Rotary 107 17:51:00 18:11:00 00:39:00 12.7
CS11232_B01 DR 08 Rotary 123 18:38:00 19:00:00 00:42:00 12.2
CS11244_B34 DR 08 Rotary 125 19:25:00 19:49:00 00:44:00 12.4
CS11244_B34 DR 08 Rotary 108 20:19:00 20:39:00 00:42:00 13.3
CS11244_B34 DR 08 Rotary 124 21:25:00 21:45:00 00:44:00 13.2
CS11244_B34 DR 08 Rotary 61 23:00:00 23:22:00 00:42:00 12.7
CS11244_B34 DR 08 Rotary 38 23:51:00 00:13:00 00:42:00 13.6
CS11232_B01 DR05 DTH 61 19:09:00 19:20:00 00:33:00 12.7
CS11232_B01 DR05 DTH 62 01:37:00 01:48:00 00:33:00 13
CS11232_B01 DR05 DTH 63 02:49:00 03:01:00 00:23:00 13.3
CS11232_B01 DR05 DTH 111 03:55:00 04:04:00 00:20:00 13.7
CS11232_B01 DR05 DTH 60 04:48:00 04:59:00 00:23:00 13
CS11232_B01 DR05 DTH 82 18:13:00 18:25:00 00:21:00 12.3
CS11232_B01 DR05 DTH 104 19:04:00 19:16:00 00:23:00 13.2
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 126 19:40:00 19:51:00 00:23:00 14.3
Optimisation of drilling
CS11232_B01 DR 09 and blasting
DTH in
62 Chimiwungo open
20:20:00 pit at Lumwana
20:32:00mine 00:24:00 Page
1359
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 84 21:08:00 21:19:00 00:22:00 12.2
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 106 10:19:12 10:29:48 00:22:36 13.5
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 80 15:52:00 16:02:00 00:21:00 14
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 41 16:17:00 16:29:00 00:22:36 15.2
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 61 7:29:00 7:42:00 00:23:00 14.1
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 63 23:16:00 23:27:00 00:23:00 15.8
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 81 0:10:00 0:20:00 00:23:00 15.2
CS11244_B31 DR 09 DTH 102 3:06:00 3:16:00 00:21:00 14.4
CS11244_B31 DR 09 DTH 100 5:34:00 5:47:00 00:23:00 13.5
CS11244_B31 DR 09 DTH 278 5:33:00 5:45:00 00:22:00 14.8
CS11244_B31 DR 09 DTH 277 10:08:00 10:18:00 00:23:00 4.7
CS11244_B34 DR 09 DTH 270 10:08:00 10:19:00 00:23:00 14.4
CS11244_B34 DR 09 DTH 190 01:37:00 01:50:00 00:23:00 14.7
CS11244_B34 DR05 DTH 189 02:49:00 03:01:00 00:23:00 14.1
CS11244_B34 DR05 DTH 188 03:55:00 04:05:00 00:23:00 4.6
CS11244_B34 DR05 DTH 187 04:48:00 05:00:00 00:24:00 13.7
CS11244_B39 DR05 DTH 217 18:13:00 18:23:00 00:20:00 15.4
CS11244_B39 DR05 DTH 105 19:04:00 19:16:00 00:24:00 13.8
CS11244_B39 DR05 DTH 107 19:40:00 19:52:00 00:22:00 15.5
CS11244_B39 DR05 DTH 123 10:19:00 10:23:00 00:16:00 13.5
CS11244_B39 DR05 DTH 125 10:27:00 10:37:00 00:22:00 15.7
CS11244_B40 DR05 DTH 108 10:43:00 10:56:00 00:17:00 12.3
CS11244_B40 DR05 DTH 124 11:10:00 11:21:00 00:21:00 13
CS11244_B40 DR05 DTH 61 11:33:00 11:37:00 00:17:00 13.7
CS11244_B40 DR05 DTH 38 11:40:00 11:51:00 00:22:00 12
CS11244_B40 DR05 DTH 61 01:33:00 01:45:00 00:16:00 12.5
CS11244_B40 DR05 DTH 62 12:02:00 12:12:00 00:21:00 11.4
CS11244_B40 DR05 DTH 63 12:34:00 12:45:00 00:23:00 14.6
CS11244_B40 DR05 DTH 33 13:06:00 13:17:00 00:21:00 11.4
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 61 12:34 12:47 00:24:00 10.6
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 56 13:06 13:19 00:24:00 15.1
CS11232_B01 DR 09 DTH 45 13:23 13:35 00:25:00 14.7
Table A-2, Overall performance of the drills
DRILL ID Actual Avail Actual UoA Actual (m/hr) Actual Depth

DR03 84% 67% 16.5 1,376
DR04 68% 57% 24.0 2,701
DR05 100% 0% 12.9 1,098
DR06 64% 72% 19.7 1,638
DR07 63% 68% 19.7 538
DR08 35% 61% 24.8 1,428
DR09 63% 57% 20.5 2,311
DR10 83% 60% 21.1 1,518
DR11 72% 72% 23.2 1,835
DR13 50% 0% 20.8 283
DR14 90% 11% 33.4 881
Table A-3: Comparison of availability, ultilisation of availability and penetration rate
DRILL ID Planned Avail planned UoA Planned (m/hr.)

DR03 78% 79% 25.0
DR04 80% 79% 25.0
DR05 78% 800% 25.0
DR06 53% 56% 25.0
DR07 53% 55% 25.0
DR08 80% 79% 25.0
DR09 80% 56% 25.0
DR10 57% 79% 25.0
DR11 80% 79% 25.0
DR13 80% 29% 23.0
DR14 80% 29% 23.0
Drill Rig performance
3,500
50.0
3,000
2,500 40.0
meters
2,000 30.0
1,500
20.0
1,000
500 10.0
- 0.0
DR03 DR04 DR05 DR06 DR07 DR08 DR09 DR10 DR11 DR13 DR14
Actual Depth 1,376 2,701 1,098 1,638 538 1,428 2,311 1,518 1,835 283 881
Planned Depth 2579.0 2919.0 0.0 1919.0 1913.0 2927.0 2090.0 1896.0 2654.0 552.0 442.0
Actual (m/hr) 16.5 24.0 12.9 19.7 19.7 24.8 20.5 21.1 23.2 20.8 33.4
planned(m/hr) 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0
Figure A-1,drill rig performance
Planned/Actual Availabilities
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
DR03 DR04 DR05 DR06 DR07 DR08 DR09 DR10 DR11 DR13 DR14
Actual Avail Planned Avail
Figure A-2, Actual vs planned availabilities
Appendix B
Table B-1, Input blast parameters used to develop the conceptual model
P H B (m) S Q A T (m) Measured

(Kg/m3) (mm) (m) (kg/m3) fragmentation
(%)
0.89 165 5.1 4.29 23.83 10 3.5 85
0.93 165 4.5 4.2 24.66 10 3.5 84
0.93 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 11 3.5 80
0.98 203 6.0 4.8 41.43 11 3 78
0.99 203 6.0 4.8 41.43 11 3 78
0.97 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 11 3 86
0.95 172 4.5 4.3 27.56 10 3.5 86
0.95 165 4.5 4.2 24.66 10 3 86
0.95 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 11 3.5 85
0.95 172 4.5 4.3 27.56 10 3.5 84
0.95 172 4.5 4.3 27.56 10 3.5 86
0.95 172 4.5 4.3 27.56 10 3.5 86
0.95 172 4.5 4.3 27.56 10 3.5 86
0.95 165 5.1 4.29 24.66 10 3.5 86
0.95 172 5.3 4.472 27.56 10 3.5 85
0.95 172 6.3 5.3 27.66 10 3.5 80
0.95 172 6.3 5.3 27.66 10 3.5 80
0.98 203 6.3 5.278 41.43 11 3.5 78
0.95 165 5.7 4.8 47.37 10 3.5 85
0.96 203 6.3 5.278 41.43 10 3.5 75
0.98 203 6.3 5.278 41.43 11 3 75
0.95 165 5.1 4.29 24.70 10 3 85
0.95 203 6.3 5.3 41.43 11 3 75
0.96 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3 78
0.96 203 7.6 6.4 41.43 11 3.5 75
0.97 165 4.5 4.2 24.70 10 3 80
0.94 165 4.7 4.5 24.70 10 3 86
0.91 203 6.0 4.8 41.43 11 3 75
0.96 203 6.0 4.8 41.43 11 3 75
0.86 203 7.6 6.4 41.43 11 3 75
0.85 203 7.6 6.4 41.43 11 3 75
0.99 203 6.5 5.6 41.43 11 3 85
0.89 203 6.5 5.6 41.43 11 3 78
0.97 203 6.5 5.6 41.43 11 3 78
0.95 165 5.0 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.89 203 6.0 4.8 37.22 11 3 76
0.97 165 4.5 4.2 24.66 10 3.5 85
0.95 165 4.5 4.2 24.66 10 3 80
0.89 203 6.0 4.8 41.43 11 3 75
0.89 165 4.8 4.5 24.70 10 3.5 80
0.97 165 4.5 4.2 24.70 10 3.5 80
0.89 203 6.5 5.3 41.43 11 3.5 78
0.97 203 6.1 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 78
0.95 203 6.2 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 78
0.89 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.98 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.99 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.97 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.95 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 84
0.89 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 84
0.98 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 84
0.99 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.97 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.95 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.99 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
1 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.96 165 4.7 4.5 24.66 10 3 85
0.86 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 80
0.85 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 80
0.99 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 80
0.89 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 80
0.97 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 80
0.95 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 80
1.1 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 78
0.89 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 78
0.98 203 6.0 5.2 41.43 11 3.5 78
REFERENCES
[1] Monjezi, M., Rizi, S. H., Majd, V. J., and Khandelwal, M., 2014. Artificial neural
network as a tool for backbreak prediction. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 32(1), 21-30.
[2] P.K. Simpson, 1990. Artificial Neural Systems. Foundation, Paradigms, Applications,
and Implementations. Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
[3] Yang Y, Zang O., 1997. A hierarchical analysis for rock engineering using
artificial neural networks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 30:207-222.
[4] Adel Greg, Toni Kojovic, and Darren Thornton, 2006. Mine-to-Mill Optimization of
Aggregate Production. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.
[5] Bahrami, A., Monjezi, M., Goshtasbi, K., & Ghazvinian, A., 2011. Prediction of
rock fragmentation due to blasting using artificial neural network. Engineering with
Computers, 27(2), 177-181.83
[6] Sayadi, A., Monjezi, M., Talebi, N., and Khandelwal, M., 2013. A comparative
study on the application of various artificial neural networks to simultaneous prediction
of rock fragmentation and backbreak. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, 5(4), 318-324.
[7] Kanchibotla S., 2001. Optimum blasting? Is it minimum cost per broken rock or
maximum value per broken rock? Proceedings of Explo, Australasian institute of mining
and metallurgy.
[8] Hustrulid W., 1999. Blasting principles for open pit mining, vol1. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
[9] Atasoy, Y., Valery, W., & Skalski, A., 2001. Primary versus secondary crushing at
St Ives (WMC) SAG mill circuit. In SAG 2001 (Vol. 1, pp. 248-261). University of
British Columbia.
[10] Michaux S, Djordjevic N., 2005. Influence of explosive energy on the strength of the
rock fragments and SAG mill throughput. Miner Eng 18:439–448.
[11 ] C. L. Jimeno, E. L. Jimeno and J. A. C. Francisco, “Drilling and Blasting of Rock,” Taylor
& Francis, New York, 19
[12] Cunningham C.V.B. 1987. Fragmentation estimations and Kuz-Ram Model-Four years on,
2nd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, Colorado. pp. 475–
487.
[36] Monjezi, Masoud, Mahdi Hasanipanah, and Manoj Khandelwal, 2013. Evaluation
and prediction of blast-induced ground vibration at Shur River Dam, Iran, by artificial
neural network. Neural Computing and Applications, 22.7-8: 1637-1643.

The University of Zambia School of Mines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Zambia School of Mines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

OPTIMISATION OF DRILLING AND BLASTING OPERTATIONS

Mupeta Chisenga (Author)

Prof. Mutale W. Chanda (Supervisor)

Dr. Steven Kambani (Head of Department Mining)

1.1 Mine background information

Figure 1: Location of Lumwana mining company

Figure 2: Plan geology of Lumwana (Source: Geology Dept. Lumwana Mine)

1.3 Local geology of Lumwana Mine

• Elevated cut-off grade for Malundwe of 0.50% Cu

1.4 Process Control at Lumwana Mine

1.6 Problem statement

1.7 Main Objectives

1.8 Significance of the study

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.0 Principle of rotary drilling

Down-The-Drilling method Rotary drilling method

Figure 6: Comparison between DTH and rotary

2.1.1 Principle of Down The Hole drilling method (DTH)

2.1.3 Penetration rate

P  (61  28 log 10 Sc)

where P = penetration rate

2.1.4 Rotary Drill Pulldown Weight

2.1.5 Flushing medium

2.1.6 Bailing velocity

Um  264 1/ 2 d 1/ 2 ………………Equation [2]

2.1.7 Dust control

2.1.8 Chip Sampling

2.2 Fragmentation analysis

2.2.1 Evaluation of fragmentation

(i) Visual size assessment

(iii) Digitising of photos

(iv) Boulder count

2.3 Artificial Neural Network (ANN)

Application of artificial neural networks in mining is growing consequently many researchers

2.4 Research methodology

3.0 DATA COLLECTION

3.1 General site investigation

3.2 Field investigations

3.2.1 Drilling practice

Figure 8: superimposed blast design of CS11232-B01

Figure 10: Drilled hole being measured for depth

3.2.3 Priming and charging

Figure 11: A 15mm downline used in a 15.6m hole

3.2.4 Blast hole stemming practice

3.2.5 Explosive properties and initiation systems

Table 2: Propertied and strength of explosives

Property Product (P700)

3.2.6 Density measurements

Table 3: Cup density samples for C11232_B01

3.2.7 Velocity of Detonation measurement

3.2.8 Velocity of Detonation measurement field setup

Table 5: Hole measurements for CS11232_B01

Table 6: Hole measurements for CS11244_B31,34,39,40

3.2.9 Current Blast design Evaluation

Current Blast Design CS11232_000B01 CS11244_000B31,34,39,40

Planned final stemming 3

Charging method Pumped- bottom charged

Booster type 400g Pentolite

3.2.10 Timing and blasting

Figure 15: Timing plan for CS11244_B31,B34,B39,B4

Figure 19: Stemming ejection for CS11244_B31,B34,B39 & B40

Figure 20: Examples of fragmentation photos taken from CS11244_B31.34,39 & 40

Figure 21: Face fragmentation photos taken from CS11232_B01

Fragmentation (%) = 109.346-[0.9P]+ [0.134H]-[3.72B]+[2.94S]+[0.125Q] [0.44A]+[0.97*T]