OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING

TARGET

Peter G BELLAIRS MSc

DYNO WESFARMERS LTD

Mt Thorley Technical Centre, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT

The traditional concept of Optimum Drill and Blast is that it is achieved when
ore is produced at the lowest unit cost and due to the complexities of most mining
operations represents a band which extends either side of an overall cost minima.
The above definition implies that Optimum Drill and Blast is static and once
blasting is within the band around the cost minima then the process is optimised.
However mining operations are not static with many events both long and short
term impinging on the cost structure and productivity. Thus Optimum Drill and
Blast is dynamic with the consequent need to both continuously monitor and
improve the drilling and blasting process to ensure that is still within the
optimised band. This paper expands the definition of Optimum Drill and Blast
and presents a strategy to move a particular operation towards Optimal Drill and
Blast by continuous improvement which utilises a team approach based on
altering one blast design parameter at a time. One half the pattern is kept
standard with other half containing the design change. The blast is evaluated and
if the new design produces better results then two more split blasts are fired and if
the new design produces consistently better outcomes then it becomes the
standard. The process is then repeated with the next design change and so on. It
is in this manner that a mines drilling and blasting can logically move towards
Optimal Drill and Blast or respond to changes in mining or operational
parameters that affect the cost structure and therefore the blasting parameters
required to produce a saleable product at the lowest unit price. Two Case Studies
are presented which illustrate the concept that Optimal Drill and Blast is dynamic.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of Optimum Drilling and Blasting is extremely important as the

most effective method of optimising mining costs is through efficient blasting as
the degree of fragmentation and swell affects the loading, hauling and crushing
functions. In addition the percentage recovery of certain mineral products or the
price paid for these commodities can also be affected by drilling and blasting

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 46 1 of 13
operations (coal edge loss, coal fines generation, iron ore fines generation, etc).

Optimum Drill and Blast is achieved when ore is produced at the lowest unit
price for a mining operation. Traditionally this definition implies that:

- Drilling and blasting costs must be analysed as part of the overall mining cost.
-Blast designs must be refined based on overall (drilling, blasting, loading,
hauling, crushing, beneficiation etc) cost effectiveness.
-Optimum drill and blast represents a band which extends either side of the
overall cost minima, figure 1 below.

Based on the above definition it is therefore possible to optimise the Drill and
Blast Operations at a particular mine site and once optimised the only
requirement is to track costs and subtly alter the blast design to maintain the
status quo. However mining operations are not static as various
mining/equipment/rock type and cost parameters are in a constant state of change
thereby making Optimum Drill and Blast difficult to achieve. Blast design
therefore must be in a constant state of change to match the changes in rock
types, production parameters etc. The definition of Optimum Drill and Blast
therefore needs expanding to:

Optimum Drill and Blast is achieved when ore is produced at the lowest
unit price for a mining operation at a particular mining rate for a particular
set of operational parameters.

The question becomes how to achieve Optimum Drill and Blast in a dynamic
environment with the goal posts continually changing. Obviously care must be
taken in implementing any changes to blasting design as drill and blast costs as a
proportion of the overall mining cost only vary from a low of some 3% to a high
of 20% generally. Thus any changes in drilling and blasting especially, any
reductions in these costs, must be carefully monitored as a slight reduction in drill
and blast costs may be swamped by increases in loading, hauling, crushing etc
costs.

TEAM APPROACH

A team approach is the best strategy to achieve or at least move towards

optimum drilling and blasting as it utilises the strengths and abilities of the team
members to achieve the best possible results. This approach is illustrated by the
diagram below, figure 2.

Each one of the steps must be implemented and carried out in a quality
manner. If this is not achieved and there is not good communication between
each of the steps then continuous improvement with the aim of obtaining
optimum drill and blast will not be achieved.

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 47 2 of 13
 The team leader should be the individual that designs the blast and it is this
individuals responsibility either to act as or facilitate the communication link
between each of the steps.

This individual therefore spends a considerable portion of their time in the

field. It is estimated that effective blast designers should spend at least two thirds
of their time in the mine ensuring that the steps are conducted to a high quality
whilst transferring the appropriate information from one step to the next. The
field work is also essential to ensure that changes in the blast design are
accounted for by changes in explosive type, column rise, decking etc thereby
ensuring a good blast result.

The individual in charge of the team should be both experienced and at a

relatively senior level to ensure that the correct information especially the
relatively sensitive costing, production etc data is readily available to optimise
the Drilling and Blasting process. Without this information it is difficult if not
impossible to optimise this important first step of any mining operation. These
two attributes are also required to ensure that the drilling and blasting process is
not compromised by short term production constraints or opportunities.

BENCH PREPARATION/PATTERN LAYOUT

The Drilling and Blasting team approach commences with the blast design
which must then be laid out in the field after the appropriate bench preparation.
Good bench preparation enables the drill to move onto the pattern easily and set
up for each hole efficiently as less time is taken to level the drill and commence
drilling. Each hole will be the same depth as the bench is the same RL across the
pattern. Each individual hole must be clearly marked with the hole number and
depth so that the driller can move onto the hole and be confident that the correct
hole with the correct depth is being drilled.

As the pattern is being laid out it must be checked by the pattern designer in
the field to ensure that the actual pattern matches the designed pattern as closely
as possible. The face position maybe different to that originally surveyed leading
to hole crowding (excess holes in the front row). This can be overcome by
making adjustments to the hole positions so as to still obtain good
energy/explosive distribution whilst minimising the number of additional holes.
The cost reductions are significant as savings arise in drilling, explosive,
explosive accessory costs, clean up costs due to less flyrock, reduced excavation
equipment downtime awaiting the blast clean up due to excessive flyrock and
higher initial loading rates due to a smaller low productive digging zone, figure 3.

DRILLING

The drills should either have drill monitors or the drillers should be logging

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 48 3 of 13
each hole on a metre by metre basis for hardness, presence of cavities etc. Drill
monitors obviously provide an objective assessment of rock conditions and can
also be programmed to cease drilling at the planned depth thereby eliminating
overdrill. The drillers must pay particular attention to drilling the hole at the
correct collar position and at the correct angle (azimuth and inclination) to ensure
the correct energy or explosive distribution. This is of particular importance with
angle drilling. Geological logging of blastholes may be appropriate depending on
the situation.
The information generated about rock types is of prime importance in the
design of the explosive loading parameters to be used such as the number of
decks required, the explosive types, the column rise etc.

EXPLOSIVE LOADING/STEMMING/TIE IN

Care must be taken to ensure that the explosive loading requirements, the
stemming lengths and the timing design are clearly presented in an easily
understood pictorial format so that the blast crew can implement the design easily
and efficiently. These design parameters must be discussed with the blast crew to
ensure that they understand the design and they should be given several copies of
the pictorial representation of the blast that can be taken into the field and used to
check that the design parameters are being followed.

Attention to detail must be practiced throughout the steps of priming,

explosive loading, stemming and tie in otherwise the rock mass to be fired will
not be efficiently broken. All blastholes must be plumbed for depth and
backfilled with drill cuttings if they are too deep. Short holes should be redrilled
if practical. Each hole should be primed as per plan with the bottom primer
placed at or slightly below grade level. An appropriate primer should be used to
obtain the best energy from the explosive to match the rock conditions. The
correct amount of explosive of the designed type should be loaded into each
blasthole or each deck.

The explosive should be loaded to a column height not to a weight. The

column rise must be monitored. Appropriate steps should be taken to overcome
voids (eg the use of air bag with stemming on top prior to the void) and to
dewater blastholes. The stemming (sized aggregate provides the best stemming)
of the appropriate size range and amount to obtain the correct stem length should
be carefully placed into the blasthole to minimise damage to the initiation
systems. Finally the surface initiation system should be implemented as per the
design and the shot fired and inspected in a safe manner.

EVALUATION - PERFORMANCE QUANTIFICATION

It is recommended that each shot be videoed as this provides a good blasting

record, allows blasts to be analysed using slow motion, pause and still to

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 49 4 of 13
determine if the design is working and is very good for blast crew
training/feedback purposes. It also assists with making the blast crew members
of the team as the blast debriefing provides an ideal opportunity for them to put
forward ideas for improving blasting efficiency by participating in the
evaluation/performance quantification process.

Each blast should also be monitored for vibration and airblast levels if these
are of concern (final wall stability, near neighbours, statutory requirements).

Ideally, careful drilling, explosive loading and blasting cost records should be
maintained on a shot by shot basis. These costs should be tracked and graphed on
a historical cost data base on a shot by shot and pit by pit basis if the costing
system is designed to do this and it is a relatively simple mining operation. In
many mining operations the costing system is set up to produce monthly statistics
and these should be used to compare to other monthly statistics.

It is often difficult to accurately monitor costs for excavation, loading, hauling

and crushing on a shot by shot basis due both to a lack of sophistication of most
mine based accounting systems and the problem of separating costs when several
patterns are being dug simultaneously in many large mines. For this reason other
subjective (semi-objective) evaluation techniques including boulder count,
amount of backbreak, distance of flyrock, clean up time required before digging
commences due to flyrock, presence of flyrock at the back of the shot, muckpile
profile - size of low productive digging zones etc are used to evaluate each shot.
Longer term evaluation of drilling and blasting at a large mine usually involves
utilising the following monthly statistics:

-Total excavation cost per BCM or tonne.

-Digging rates per hour averaged over a monthly time frame.
-Secondary blasting costs (boulders, toe).
-Floor clean up costs - dozer time.
-Blast clean up costs.
-Average waste or ore truck productivity (per hour or per shift averaged over
monthly time frame).
-Crushing costs per tonne.
-Average crusher throughput (per hour or per shift).
-Number and length of crusher delays due to rocks/blockages.
-Maintenance costs especially ground engaging tools, dipper life, crusher concave
life etc.
-Cost per tonne of ore into the train load out, ship or stockpile.

The evaluation step is of prime importance as it provides feedback with which

to amend the blast design. Obviously many of the parameters mentioned above
that are commonly used to monitor blasting results are subjective or not totally
directly related to the blast. A far better approach would be to use a direct

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 50 5 of 13
measure of the results of the drilling and blasting process via the use of
excavation equipment monitors. Considerable work has been conducted in this
area, Humphreys (1994) but to date the majority of mines do not use excavation
equipment monitors and instead rely on the parameters mentioned above to
evaluate blasting results.

DRILL AND BLAST OPTIMISATION STRATEGY

The major strategy behind blast optimisation is to only alter one blasting
parameter at a time. One half of the pattern is the standard or original design
with one half being the new design. The blast is fired and if the new design is
evaluated as being an improvement then two more shots should be fired as
described above in the same rock type. If the new design performs better than the
standard on the three successive shots then the new design becomes the standard
design. The same or a new parameter is then altered based on the likelihood to
improve blasting. The parameter selection and the amount of alteration is based
on previous blasting evaluations. This is trialled as per the above strategy as it
provides a methodical approach to drill and blast optimisation based on
continuous improvement. If more than one parameter is altered simultaneously it
is often impossible to determine the relative effects that each of the parameters
had on the blasting results of the new design thereby making logical progress to
optimal blasting impossible to achieve.

This drill and blast optimisation strategy must involve the team approach as
this provides the sound basis where data collected at the evaluation/performance
quantification stage can be reliably used for design refinement. If the team
approach is not used and the initial design is not correctly implemented in each of
the stages prior to blast evaluation then the data collected is based on the
erroneous assumption that the initial design is not optimised. The design may in
fact be optimal but it has not been implemented correctly. Thus when the design
refinement is subsequently used even worse blasting results may occur. The team
approach coupled with only altering one parameter at a time therefore provides a
logical approach with which to implement and maintain a drill and blast
optimisation program that will quickly react to changing mining parameters, rock
types and costs.

CASE STUDIES

The first case study concerns the BHPIO (BHP Iron Ore) mine located at
Newman in Western Australia, figure 4. The main deposit is centred on Mt
Whaleback which is located at the Southeastern end of the Hamersley Iron Ore
Province about 1,200km North of Perth, the capital city of Western Australia.

The deposit is about 5.5km long, up to 1.5km wide and extends some 500m
below the original surface at its deepest point. Mt Whaleback originally

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 51 6 of 13
contained mineable reserves of 1 446 million tonnes at 63.5% Fe of very good
metallurgical quality, hard lumpy (52% lump) martite-hematite ore at an overall
waste to ore ratio of 1.6:1. The waste rocks are comprised of shales, banded
iron-formation (BIF) and to a lesser extent dolerite.
Mining is by open cut methods based on a shovel - truck operation feeding ore
from 15m high benches to two high grade crushers and a heavy media
beneficiation plant. Production at the time of the work described in this paper
was carried out (1984 - 1987) was about 100mtpa of which some 30mtpa was
high grade ore.

The operation had eight Bucyrus - Erie 60R (seven electric, 1 diesel electric)
Series 11/111 blasthole drills capable of drilling 380mm diameter production
blastholes to an average depth of 18m. Blastholes were charged with about 1
tonne of ANFO in dry holes or 1.6 tonnes of heavy ANFO in damp holes. These
charges were initiated with detonating cord (10g/m) and cast PETN boosters.

Blasted material was dug by crawler mounted electric shovels having buckets
ranging in size from 7.6m3 to 22m3. The shovels fed a fleet of diesel-electric
rear dump trucks of 120, 190 and 200 short ton capacity which hauled the
material to the crushers or waste dumps.

In 1984 the geological section of Mt Newman Mining Co Pty Limited became

involved in the development of optimum drilling and blasting practices in the Mt
Whaleback iron ore mine via the utilisation of geological data in blast pattern
design. The initial steps in these studies involved both determining the effect that
rock properties have on fragmentation via a literature search and the amount and
quality of the geological data being utilised in the blast pattern design at that time.

The literature search indicated that rock properties play a major role in
determining both the fragmentation characteristics of a blast and the main blast
pattern design parameters of burden, spacing, stemming and subdepth lengths if
the same explosive and blasthole diameter is used. The minimal geological data
previously utilised had resulted in the use of only two production patterns - one
for ore and the other for waste, Table 1.

The first attempt at integrating geological data with blast pattern design on Mt
Whaleback was based on the use of lithological, stratigraphic and ore type
information. Ore type data are derived from the Pilbara Iron Ore Classification
(PIOC) which is based on the physical (hardness, density), mineralogical and
genetic characteristics of the ore, Figures 5 and 6. The classification also extends
to the two main waste rocks, BIF and shale, Figure 7. Ore type plans indicate that
many areas on Mt Whaleback can be divided into various PIOC zones thus
making it very useful in blast pattern design. However, even though some major
advances were made using this system only limited blast pattern experimentation
was undertaken towards obtaining optimal drilling and blasting.

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 52 7 of 13
 During 1985 an experimental downhole geophysical program indicated three
ways in which density logging could be utilised to reduce drill and blast costs.
The success of this work led to an eight month part time geophysical logging
program being undertaken in 1986 which was designed to test the potential of the
method to consistently implement savings in drilling and blasting. The program
relied on the integration of geological data which was used to provide the initial
blast pattern design and geophysical logging which enabled different muckpiles
to be compared.

The major impetus for the implementation of the 1986 program and the
continuation of the program into 1987 was that the operation became drill
constrained when two of eight 60R blasthole drills suffered major breakdowns
that required several months to rectify. The problem then became one of
attempting to produce enough broken rock to meet the production plan without
significantly affecting loading, hauling and crushing rates and costs.

The above program was very successful as a 116% pattern expansion was
undertaken in soft ore which resulted in no loss of digging rates or increase in
either shovel maintenance, haulage or crushing costs. Pattern expansion was also
successfully trialled in footwall shale (95%) and overburden BIF (65%). Full
details of this work may be found in Bellairs et al (1986) and Bellairs (1987).

The second case study involves a quarry that was set up to produce crushed
and sized aggregate. This quarry was designed to be a relatively small operation
capable of producing 10,000 tonnes of product per month but customer
requirements rapidly increased to a point where 45,000 tonnes were required on a
monthly basis. The quarry was faced with either not satisfying customer demand,
expending large amounts of capital to expand a nominal 10,000tpm crusher to
cope with the demand or some other alternative to obtain the 45,000tpm rate.
The quarry rejected the idea of not satisfying customer demand but did not want
to spend the capital to increase the crushing capacity as the increased demand
may have evaporated just as quickly as it increased. The decision was made to
increase the crusher throughput by firstly achieving better fragmentation during
blasting. Oversize was considered to be the major reason limiting crusher
throughput due to blockages, longer retention time in the crusher etc.

The strategy was therefore to eliminate or at least minimise oversize at the

blasting stage. An analysis of current blasting practices indicated that the
majority of the oversize originated from the top of the shot. The blast design was
therefore amended utilising reduced stemming lengths and stab holes. The main
production blast design was retained at 2.7m burden and 3.0m spacing on a
square pattern utilising 102mm diameter holes and an emulsion based gassed
explosive (30 ANFO:70 Emulsion). The stem length was reduced to 1.3m with
nominal 10mm crushed aggregate being used as the stemming material. Two
metre deep stab holes containing a one metre ANFO charge and located in the

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 53 8 of 13
mid point of the four surrounding production blast holes completed the changes
to the blast design.

Video analysis of the new design indicated that stemming ejection was
occurring but the fragmentation was excellent with no oversize. Blasthole barrels
were visible at the back of the 5 - 6 row deep shots with the rock being heaved off
the rock face. The muckpile was extremely easy to dig utilising a FEL resulting
in high excavation rates. This increased fragmentation, the elimination of
oversize and the introduction of a second shift has resulted in an average monthly
saleable product of 45,000 tonnes being achieved.

The introduction of a second shift obviously accounted for a doubling of

production and yet the quarry produces 4.5 times the designed capacity. The
increase in drilling and blasting costs of some 15% has obviously been
responsible for a large proportion of this additional (250%) productivity increase
making this an extremely cost effective solution to meeting the mines objective
of satisfying its customers needs whilst being extremely profitable and achieving
a high return on capital employed.

CONCLUSIONS

The two case studies graphically illustrate the dynamic nature of the concept
of Optimum Drill and Blast. The entire drill and blast process must be optimised
for a mine using the current mining parameters. The best method of achieving
this is to use the team approach outlined in this paper which utilises "Attention to
Detail" or a quality approach to each of the steps from the initial blast design
through to design refinement. It is imperative that the person designing the blast
be in control of the entire team to ensure that the design is implemented correctly
and to provide the communication link throughout the process. The strategy
employed for blast design optimisation is to alter only one parameter at a time.
One half of the pattern is the standard or original design with one half being the
new design. The blast is evaluated and if the new design provides better results
then two more blasts should be fired and if it continues to provide better results
then the new design becomes the standard. The process is then repeated a
number of times until the drill and blast process is optimised. This strategy
combined with the Team Approach provides a continuous improvement cycle to
either move a mine towards optimal Drill and Blast or to maintain a mines drill
and blast within the optimised band.

The Team Approach also provides the best mechanism for the drilling and
blasting process to be quickly optimised when stepwise changes either short term
or longer term occur in production, or cost parameters, and or customer demand.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 54 9 of 13
 The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution that his colleagues at the
Mt Thorley Technical Centre made in both editing and the many invaluable
discussions that led to, the formulation of this paper. Thanks to Lee Parkes who
typed the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Bauer, A., 1978. Trends in Drilling and Blasting, CIM Bulletin.

Bellairs, P.G, Sheppard, I., and Bulters, J., 1986. Blasthole Density Logging
as an Aid to Blast Pattern Design, The Aus IMM/IE Aust Newman Combined
Group: Large Open Pit Mining Conference, Newman.

Bellairs, P.G., 1987. The Application of Geological and Downhole

Geophysical Data to Blast Pattern Design, Second International Symposium on
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, Colorado.

Dyno Wesfarmers Ltd/Blast Dynamics Inc., 1993, Efficient Blasting

Techniques Course, Sanctuary Cove and Perth.

Humphreys, M., 1994. Blast Optimisation for Improved Dragline

Productivity, International Society of Explosive Engineers - Proceedings of the
Twentieth Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Austin,
Texas.

Kneeshaw, M., 1984. Pilbara Iron Ore Classification - A Proposal for a

Common Classification for BIF - Derived Supergene Iron Ore, Proc. Australia.
Inst. Min. Metall. No.289: 157 - 162

McFarlane, G.A., Parker, R.J. and Swindells, C.F., 1986. Geotechnical

Investigation of the South Wall, Mt Whaleback Pit - A Case Study - How
Geotechnology can Pay its Way, The Aus IMM/IE Aust Newman Combined
Group: Large Open Pit Mining Conference, Newman.

TABLE 1Mt Whaleback Standard Pattern Sizes - February 1984

SIZE ORE WASTE

380mm 9.2m x 8.0m1 11.0m x 9.6m2

1 9.2m equilateral triangle pattern.

2 11.0m equilateral triangle pattern.

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 55 10 of 13
FIGURE 1 Zone of maximum
blast efficiently after Dyno
Wesfarmers Ltd/Blast Dynamics
Inc 1993

FIGURE 2 Team Approach to

achieving Optimum Blast
performance after Dyno
Wesfarmers Ltd/Blast Dynamics
Inc 1993

FIGURE 3 Muck Profiles from

Overblasted and Optimum
Blasted Material adapted
from Bauer 1978

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 56 11 of 13
FIGURE 4 Locality Plan
after MacFarlane et.al.
1986

FIGURE 5 Pilbara Iron Ore Classification - Schematic Showing Relative

Distribution Of Classes Of Main Ore Types And Approximate Location Of
The Average Type For Specific Pilbara And Some Other Ore Bodies. (After
Kneeshaw (1984))

ORE/BIF (Parent) ALTERATION (ore only) HARDNESS MINERALOGY

0 Prime ore 0 No alteration ore 1 to 3 As Per Fig 5
1 Fresh BIF 1 Hardcap on ore 1 to 7 as per Fig 5
2 Leached BIF 2 Semi hardcap on ore BIF/Shale
3 Oxidised BIF 3 Hardcap ore on BIF 2 Hard
4 Shale/Shaly 4 Semihardcap ore on BIF 4 Med. Hard/Semi Leached
5 Degenerate ore 6 Leached/Dust
6 Recrystallised
Examples 0031 Tom Price -
Whaleback martite -
hematite ore
0052 Normal Brockman
martite - goethite ore
0073 Normal Marra Mamba
martite - limonite ore
0032 Primary Brockman

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 57 12 of 13
 martite - goethite ore
0131 Hardcap Tom Price -
Whaleback martite -
hematite ore
4062 Shaly Biscuit martite -
goethite ore
3020 Hard BIF
3040 Medium hard BIF
3060 Soft runny BIF
4020 Hard black shale
4040 Medium hard shale
4060 Oxidised soft shale
FIGURE 6 Pilbara Iron Ore Classification - Four Digit Code. (After Kneeshaw
(1984))

SHALE BIF
4020 HARD shale usually black shale 3020 HARD - ringing sound when hit with
hammer - jarring - dense - can look like ore
4040 MEDIUM HARD red, green, 3040 MEDIUM HARD - thud sound when hit
pink, black shales with hammer - easily broken by hammer
blow
4060 SOFT oxidised/leached shales 3060 SOFT - broken with hands - runny - dug out
of face with hands - dusty - biscuity BIF
FIGURE 7 Number Mnemonic For Pilbara Iron Ore Classification Waste Rocks

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1995 v1 G - OPTIMUM DRILL AND BLAST AN EVER CHANGING TARGET - P 58 13 of 13