A Case Study Examination of Two Blast Rounds at Gold Mine
A Case Study Examination of Two Blast Rounds at Gold Mine
A Case Study Examination of Two Blast Rounds at Gold Mine
Ed Mchugh and Joel Warneke, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
and
ABSTRACT
NIOSH researchers collected basic data from two blast rounds at the SSX-Steer Mine as a component of
a larger study on controlled blasting, the goal of which is to reduce injuries from falling rocks in
underground mines. Drilling and blasting procedures at the mine were observed. Rock mass property
data were collected, a program of seismic monitoring and analysis was conducted, and 3-D laser survey
scans of the workings before and after each blast were performed. The geologic data showed that the
rock mass quality was characterized as poor to very poor. It was essentially uniform within the panels
examined. The recorded seismic data indicated that fill material acted as an effective damper to seismic
energy. The pre- and post-blast laser scans showed both over-break and under-break conditions,
highlighting the problems associated with blasting a weak rock mass. By comparing the achieved
results to the intended design, potential improvements in the drilling and blasting practices can be
identified. Comparison of these data with similar data from other mines will help define how various
combinations of rock and fill behave during blasting. Through studies such as these, data collection
procedures and analysis techniques can be refined. An ultimate goal is to develop blast procedures tied
to rock mass characteristics that can minimize damage to rock in the perimeter of the opening, limiting
the amount of loose rock and improving the safety of miners.
INTRODUCTION
Falls of ground are a significant hazard for underground miners and a leading cause of fatalities. A
majority of metal and non-metal mines use drill and blast techniques for drifting and primary
development. After blasting, the broken rock is mucked out. This is followed by scaling or “barring
down” to remove any loose rock from roof, walls and face. The stability of the workplace is then
secured using rock bolts, mesh, shotcrete or other appropriate support systems. The entire process is then
repeated. All of these activities are potentially hazardous to the miners that perform them. This hazard
level is increased if care is not exercised in protecting the opening perimeter through the use of careful
blasting practices. In particular, unwanted blast damage to the perimeter rock increases the hazard to
those involved in the scaling and reinforcement tasks. It has been found that a majority of ground fall
injuries involve blocks formed within the half-meter of rock immediately surrounding an excavation
(Bauer et al., 1999; Mark and Iannachione, 2001). Whyatt et al (2003) summarized methods of
assessing blast-induced damage in underground mines and discussed the feasibility of improving ground
control results through the use of controlled blasting. Iverson et al (2007) outlined an approach for
assessing perimeter blast damage based on rock mass quality, seismic response, and laser scanning.
To assist industry in adapting good perimeter control blasting practices, the Spokane Research
Laboratory (SRL), of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has
implemented a program focused on developing practical, yet technically sound, perimeter blasting
design procedures. The objective is to provide techniques so that the as-built openings closely resemble
those designed. When applied, these will assist mine operators to create stable underground openings
with a minimum amount of loose or damaged surrounding rock, thereby enhancing the safety of miners.
The overall research and development program involves theoretical, laboratory, field and modeling
studies. The results are being integrated into a user-friendly blast design software package.
Field studies are an important component of the program. The purpose of the field studies conducted by
NIOSH is to fully document the results of a number of blast rounds carried out under a wide range of
rock conditions. The documentation includes: the blasting patterns, the actual versus the as-designed
drillhole locations and orientations, the final excavation profile, the seismic records from the blast, the
rock mass quality, the ground support, and a number of other parameters. The results of this study will
provide valuable baseline information on fragmentation practices and add to data compiled on mining
conditions in different geologic settings. This paper presents some preliminary results of studies carried
out at the SSX-Steer Mine.
Disseminated gold deposits were discovered at Jerritt Canyon in 1972. Open pit mining operations
involving several small open pits began in 1981 (Queenstake, 2006). Underground mining began in
1992 as the surface operations began to reach their economic limits (Ash, 2006). The SSX deposit
(figure 1) was discovered in the early 1990s by following structural trends from adjacent properties.
Accessed from a portal, it lies at depths ranging from 140 to 300 m (450 to 1000 ft) below surface.
Mining commenced in 1997.
Laser Scanning
Three-dimensional survey scans for the two
blast rounds in the XC7 and XC11 ore panels
were conducted using a Leica Geosystems HDS
3000 laser system. A laser beam reflected from
any surface in the beam path (rock, fill,
equipment, etc.) is used to calculate the distance
and direction to that surface. The result is a
Figure 4. Seismic monitor C installed in an
three-dimensional point cloud representing the
armored steel box in XC7
size and shape of the excavation. It has an
accuracy of 6 mm over a range of 50 m (0.23 in
at 164 ft). The scan density was set to a
sample grid of 7.5 mm vertical x 5 mm
horizontal (0.3 in x 0.2 in) at a range of 6 m
(20 ft). Each scan was completed within
approximately 45 minutes.
Short lengths of PVC pipe were inserted into the blast holes as scan aids so that the laser scanner could
accurately capture collar locations as well as hole orientations. Software would later be used to estimate
the 3D location of each drill hole in space to its full depth.
The rock mass quality was evaluated for six sectors in the XC11 ore panel. Due to the presence of
bedding-planes and crosscutting fractures, the exposed bedrock appeared highly fractured. The fractures
were predominately north-trending with shallow inclinations. In addition, west-trending fractures with
shallow dips to the south, and steeper (75-81° NE) fractures with northwest strikes were exposed. The
south wall and back had a uniform RMR rating of 35 for all six sectors evaluated in XC11. Q ratings
were a consistent 0.55 in the back and in sectors 1 through 4 in the south wall. The rock in sectors 5 and
6 was even more highly fractured than the rest of the crosscut and Q values in the south wall were rated
at 0.34. Fill in the north wall was not rated. Based upon the Q values and RMR ratings, the rock in the
XC11 ore panel was classified as very poor.
A seismic monitor serving two geophones was installed on each wall of the entry for the November 7
round in the XC11 ore panel (see figure 2). Both geophones (A1 and A2) located along the right hand
wall were attached to solid rock. On the left wall, one geophone (B1) was attached to the fill wall of
panel 10 and the second geophone (B2) was attached to rock (panel 9 between fill panels 8 and 10).
The Minimate monitors were triggered by the blast at 17:27 and began sampling. The seismic
waveforms from monitor A showed peaks for each delay in the blast pattern over a duration of about 7
seconds (figure 7). As
expected, the peak
velocities recorded at
geophone A1 located
9.8 m (32 ft) from the
blast face, were
significantly higher than
those recorded at
geophone A2, which
was 16.2 m (53 ft) from
the face. The seismic
waveforms recorded by
monitor B revealed
velocities that were
clearly attenuated by the
presence of the fill. For
geophone B1, located
14.0 m (46 ft) from the
blast face, the peaks for
several blast delay
intervals were much-
reduced or essentially
missing when compared
to the signals from
geophone B2 (19.5 m or
64 ft from the face)
attached to rock.
(detonator delays 0-15), Monitor A1, Transverse channel; b- particle velocity vs time (detonator
delays 0-9) showing higher particle velocities in the A1 Transverse channel compared to A2
Transverse channel; c- particle velocity sum (three channels) vs time (detonator delays 0-9) showing
Table 2. Area of the round taken at 1-ft slices from the face.
Distance from Face (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Area (sq ft) 279 252 229 204 183 166 156 138 137 125 113 88 55 31
Table 3. Seismic data summary for the blast in the XC7 ore panel,
November 9, 2006, showing PPV for each channel, their PVS at
each geophone, and the timing delay of peak velocities.
The two blast rounds monitored at the SSX-Steer mine were part of their secondary recovery program.
XC11 was located on the southeast side of the mining section. The panel immediately to the northwest
of this panel had been previously mined and filled. The 4.3-m (14-ft) wide drift was being driven
leaving a 1.8-m (6-ft) wide rib pillar on the left hand side. The function of this rib was to limit damage
A more detailed look at the results of the standard blast round in XC11 can provide some insight
regarding drill-blast performance. The post-blast longitudinal and plan sections show that the excavated
opening tapered down from the drilled face, which was 53% larger than designed, to about the designed
area at the midpoint of the round, and to much less than designed (about 45%) at the drilled depth of 3.7
m (12 ft).
Figure 14 is a cross-section of the round generated by slicing a 0.30-m (1-ft) section of the laser scan.
The drill hole locations projected to mid-round from the hole collars at the drilled face were used to
align the designed blast round with the resulting excavation. Deviations from ideal positions for these
locations reflect both the actual drilled deviations and errors in projecting the drill holes from the scan
aids used to collect hole orientation.
Although the total cross-sectional area at
mid-round was approximately as
designed, the laser section at that point
shows that over-break in the back
accounted for 15.4% of the designed
area. Over-break ranged from about 18
to 78 cm (7 to 31 in) in the back and
averaged 59 cm (23 in) for a total of 2.8
m2 (30.2 ft2). Less significant over-
break along the right rib, based on
perimeter hole locations, amounted to
about 0.9 m2 (9.3 ft2), with a range of 20
to 28 cm (8 to 11 in), and an average of
24 cm (9 in) or 4.7% of the designed
area. At the same time, under-break
occurred along the left rib as shown by
the retained, unloaded perimeter holes.
The under-break amounted to about
2.1m2 (22.4 ft2), with a range of 32 to 55
cm (13 to 22 in), and an average of 46
cm (18 in) or 11.4% of design. The
remaining apparent under-break, about
10%, was in mostly broken material on
the floor of the mucked opening.
SUMMARY
Two blast round surveys were completed at the XC11 and XC7 ore panels in the Zone 7–7170 level.
Rock quality was classified as very poor and poor for the XC11 and XC7 ore panels, respectively. PPV
measurements near the blasts were much lower in the fill than in the rock. The laser surveys showed
both over-break and under-break conditions in the XC11 ore panel. Generally, the laser surveys illustrate
the problems associated with blasting a weak rock mass. Study of additional blast rounds can be used to
document changes in rock mass characteristics or to verify correlations between blasting methods and
wall rock damage. Data from successive blast round surveys would provide a basis for the design and
testing of new blast designs. Expanding on the use of laser data will allow more detailed comparison
between blast designs and final configuration of the resulting excavations.
Seismic data and blasting outcome case studies will be used to calibrate new models for predicting blast
damage to the perimeter of underground openings. Drilling and blasting methods that minimize blast
damage will reduce the hazards of loose, broken rock underground and enhance the safety of miners.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sam Ash, mine manager, and Jennifer Haas, mine engineer, arranged for access to the mine workings
and assisted with data collection during the drilling and blasting cycles. Russ Kinsman, trainer and EMT
coordinator, provided site-specific safety training that allowed entry to the test sites and the use of a
NIOSH-owned vehicle to transport personnel and equipment. Drillers and powder crews contributed to
documentation of drilling and loading procedures.
The findings and conclusions in this report have not been formally disseminated by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.
REFERENCES
Ash, S., 2006, “Mining on the edge of the Murray Mine”, Mining Engineering, December 2006, pp. 26
29.
Barton, N.R., R. Lien, and J. Lund, 1974, “Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of
Tunnel Support”, Rock Mechanics, v. 6, No. 4, pp. 189-239.
Bauer, G. and D. Donaldson, 1992, “Perimeter Control in Development and Breasting by use of a
Blasting Program Readily Accepted by Miners”, Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on
Explosives and Blasting Technique, Florida, ISEE, Cleveland, Ohio, pp. 133-140.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1976, “Rock Mass Classification in Rock Engineering”, Proceedings of the Symp.
Exploration for Rock Engineering, v. 1, Bieniawski, Z.T., ed., Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 97-106.
Iverson, S., E. McHugh, J. Dwyer, J. Warneke, and C. Caceres, 2007, “Ground Control Safety
Implications of Blast Damage in Underground Mines”, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference
on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, Peng, S.S., C. Mark, G. Finfinger, S. Tadolini, A.W.
Khair, K. Heasley Yi Luo, eds., pp. 328-335.
Mark C, and A.T. Iannacchione, 2001, “Ground control issues for safety professionals”, Mine health and
safety management, Karmis M., ed., Littleton, CO, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Inc., pp. 347–367.
Muntean, J.L. and C.D. Henry, 2006, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the North Half of the Jerritt Canyon
Mining District, Elko County, Nevada”, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report 06-17,
scale 1:24,000. Electronic digital file available at http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/of0617.pdf