The Economic Consequences of Drill Hole Deviation in Crushed
Aggregate Production
K Nielsen1
ABSTRACT
For many crushed aggregate producers will the finest fraction minus 4
mm represent a problem. The fine material will fetch a much lower price
than the coarser products, and may even be difficult to sell in some
markets.
The blasting operation will strongly influence the generation of fines
after both blasting and crushing. Drill hole deviation together with the
drill hole diameter, powder factor and velocity of detonation are the most
important blasting parameters with regard to the generation of fines. Drill
hole deviation is often ignored, and many operators will just reduce the
drilling pattern in order to avoid hard bottom and an excessive number of
boulders.
The paper presents a technical and economic analysis of how drill hole
deviation will lead to an increased generation of fines in crushed
aggregate production. The analysis shows that the loss of sales revenues
will be much higher than the extra costs for drilling and blasting caused
by compensating for drill hole deviation by putting in more holes.
INTRODUCTION
The generation of fines (minus 4 mm) can be a problem for many
producers of crushed aggregates. Fines will fetch a much lower
price than the coarser, good quality fractions. Fines may even be
difficult to sell in some areas, even as land fill material. The
amount of fines generated by blasting and crushing is normally
20 - 30 per cent of the total production in hard rock quarries in
Norway.
Laboratory experiments, industrial tests and full-scale
investigations have demonstrated that the blast design will not
only influence the efficiency of the quarrying operation, but also
the results of the subsequent crushing and screening. The applied
blasting energy will to a great extent determine the generation of
fines after blasting and subsequent crushing. (Sheahan and
Beattie, 1990; Kojovic et al, 1995; Kristiansen, 1995; Nielsen
and Kristiansen, 1996; Tunstall and Bearman, 1997; Nielsen
1998a and b).
Blasting should consequently be designed as a part of an
integrated size reduction process which leads from solid rock to a
marketable product.
Some of the important explosive parameters which determine
the effective input of blasting energy to the rock mass are:
• velocity of detonation (VOD),
• powder factor (kg/m3),
• spatial distribution of the explosives:
1. drill hole diameter,
2. drilling pattern, and
3. drill hole deviation.
Looking at the generation of fines after blasting and crushing,
the tests and investigations referred above have shown the
following:
• using an equal amount of explosive with a higher VOD, will
generate more fines after blasting and crushing compared
with a lower VOD explosive;
1. Department of Geology and Mineral Resources Engineering,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim,
Norway.
Explo ‘99 Kalgoorlie, WA, 7 - 11 November 1999
• using the same explosive but a higher powder factor, will
generate more fines after blasting and crushing;
• using the same bulk explosive and powder factor, but
increasing the drill hole diameter, will generate more fines
after blasting and crushing; and
• using a high VOD explosive and/or increasing the powder
factor, will reduce the crushing resistance of the rock.
The third factor which influences the spatial distribution of the
explosives, drill hole deviation, is often neglected in practical
blasting Many operators will just reduce the drilling pattern in
order to compensate for the irregular explosive distribution and
thus reduce the number of boulders and improve digging
conditions. This practice will, however, increase the powder
factor, reduce the crushing resistance, and lead to more fines
after blasting and crushing.
DRILL HOLE DEVIATION
Field investigations in hard rock quarries and construction work
show that practically all the drill holes in a bench blast will have
some degree of deviation, and that the deviation will usually
increase with the length of the holes (Amundsen, 1993; Karlsson,
1997; McKenzie, 1994). It is not unusual that an inclined hole on
a 14 metre bench may have a deviation of one to two metres at
the bottom. This means that the actual location of the drill holes
and distribution of the explosives can be very different from the
planned design at the bottom part of the blast. At the same time
is the bottom part the most critical due to the high degree of
confinement in this region.
Drill hole deviation may consequently lead to both poor
blasting results and dangerous conditions at the blast site. Some
holes will have excessive burdens leading to coarse
fragmentation, hard digging conditions and flyrock, whereas
other holes with too little burden may cause air blast and
additional flyrock.
Drill hole deviation is caused by one or more of the following
factors:
• incorrect collaring (incorrect position will be transferred to
the bottom of the hole);
• incorrect alignment of the drill rig (sideways deviation);
• incorrect feed angle (deviation in a vertical plane through the
planned direction of the hole);
• inhole deviation due to drillstring and bit (buckling of
drillstring);
• inhole deviation due to the mechanical state of the drill rig
(inability to maintain alignment and feed angle);
• inhole deviation due to excessive feed force during collaring
(buckling of drillstring); and
• inhole deviation due to geological conditions (schistocity,
fissures, open joints, etc).
Most of these factors lead to stochastic errors. This means that
a single drill hole may deviate in any direction, and that the
relative error between the bottom positions of two adjacent drill
holes may be much larger than the maximum deviation of a
single drill hole should indicate.
9
K NIELSEN

BLAST DESIGN 1. the drill hole deviation is caused by stochastic errors;

The initial blast design is often made by using simple empirical 2. the standard deviation of the drill hole errors is 2.5 per cent
rules coupled with experience. A number of more elaborate of the bench height; and
design methods have been developed, but these designs must also
3. the drill hole deviations are normally distributed.
be proven in practical blasting.
This means that a drill hole may have a maximum deviation
One of the rule of thumb design methods used in Norway is as
about one metre off target in any direction.
follows:
Based on these assumptions, a simple Monte Carlo simulation
The maximum burden (BM) is determined by the following of the drill hole deviations for the 40 drill holes used for the
rules: maximum blast design, will lead to a spatial distribution of the
Poor blastability rock: BM = 35 × drill hole diameter (mm) explosives as illustrated in Figure 2. The energy distribution at
the bottom level has changed quite substantially, and it must be
Medium blastability rock: BM = 40 × drill hole diameter (mm) expected that an excess of oversize material and hard bottom will
Good blastability rock: BM = 45 × drill hole diameter (mm) be found during loading of the blast.
In order to overcome these problems, it is assumed that the
The maximum spacing: (SM) = 1.2 × BM
burden and spacing is reduced by a factor of 0.8 as discussed
The rock blastability is a qualitative function of rock properties above. The new blast design will encompass 65 drill holes on
such as structure, mineral content and grain size, in situ order to break approximately the same volume as the 40 holes
fragmentation due to cracks and fissures, etc. with the maximum design. The drill hole deviations were again
In order to compensate for drill hole deviation, the rules say simulated by the Monte Carlo method. The spatial distribution of
that the maximum burden and spacing must be reduced as explosives will then be as illustrated in Figure 3. The energy
follows: density at the bottom level has generally increased in proportion
with the number of drill holes, but there are still local zones
Practical burden (BP) = 0.8 × BM where the available energy may be insufficient in order to avoid
Practical spacing (SP) = 0.8 × SM hard ground and coarse fragmentation.
A typical blast design using these rules for a medium The reduced burden and spacing combined with drill hole
blastability rock and 76 mm bits will then be: deviation, will also mean that a number of holes will be very
close to each other as shown in Figure 3. This may cause
Bench height: 14 m sympathetic detonations so that drill holes will go off out of
Drill hole inclination: 15° sequence, or the explosive in some drill holes may be
desensitised and not detonate at all. These effects will increase
Subdrilling: 1.0 m the basic problems caused by drill hole deviation.
BM : 3.0 m
SM : 3.6 m GENERATION OF FINES
BP : 2.4 m
Fines are generated both by primary blasting and subsequent
SP : 2.8 m crushing in several stages.
Most of the fines generated by blasting originates from a
DISTRIBUTION OF EXPLOSIVES volume around each drill hole as illustrated in Figure 4. This
volume, called the fines zone, is much larger than the crushed
Looking first at the maximum blast design without drill hole
zone around each drill hole caused by the first transfer of
deviation, the spatial distribution of explosives in the rock mass explosive energy into the rock mass.
can be illustrated as shown in Figure 1. The blast consists of four
rows, each with ten holes. The energy distribution at the bottom Figure 4 indicates in addition how drill hole deviation will
level is symmetric around each drill hole. cause an increased amount of fines where two drill holes are too
close together. It may also be possible that the amount of fines
In order to evaluate how commonly occurring drill hole will increase in high confinement areas due to high levels of
deviations can change the energy distribution, the following strain energy being accumulated in the rock before it finally
assumptions have been made: breaks.

FIG 1 - Spatial distribution of explosives at the floor level of a blast without drill hole deviation and a drilling pattern of 3.0 × 3.6 m (JKMRC 3x3-PRO).

10 Kalgoorlie, WA, 7 - 11 November 1999 Explo ‘99

 THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF DRILL HOLE DEVIATION

FIG 2 - Spatial distribution of explosives at the floor level of a blast with stochastic drill hole deviation and a drilling pattern of 3.0 × 3.6 m
(JKMRC 3x3-PRO).

FIG 3 - Spatial distribution of explosives at the floor level of a blast with stochastic drill hole deviation and a reduced drilling pattern of
2.2 × 2.8 m (JKMRC 3x3-PRO).

Crushing will further increase the amount of fines depending

FIG 4 - Generation of fines around each drill hole, the fines zone.
on the type of crushers used, the operating practice, and the level
of blasting energy applied to the rock mass. An increased level of
explosive energy will reduce the crushing resistance of the rock,
and this will lead to a finer crushing product as demonstrated by
various workers (Bond, 1961; Nielsen and Kristiansen, 1996;
Tunstall and Bearman, 1997).
The reduction of the crushing resistance is caused by the
formation of numerous micro cracks throughout the entire rock
volume (Nielsen and Lownds, 1997; Nielsen and Malvik, 1998).
The micro cracks are generated by the primary shock wave
moving out from the drill hole. The cracks will be very small
because of the short duration of the transient deformations
caused by the primary wave. Even if the cracks may be enlarged
by the secondary wave and waves from neighbouring drill holes,
they still remain small. This means that a large number of micro
cracks will still be present in each rock fragment, also after
primary and secondary crushing.
The maximum and practical drilling patterns discussed above
indicate that the number of drill holes must be increased by about
60 per cent in order to compensate for the irregular explosives
distribution caused by drill hole deviation. This should lead to a
proportional increase in fines caused by blasting.

Explo ‘99 Kalgoorlie, WA, 7 - 11 November 1999 11

K NIELSEN

However, in practical blasting can a number of factors such as However, it is unlikely that the increase will be as high as 50 per
geological discontinuities, inaccurate initiation of drill holes, cent of minus 4 mm material. A more reasonable assumption
substandard explosive performance and detonation cut-off lead to may be that the amount of fines increases 20 per cent in addition
unsatisfactory results. It is therefore unlikely that the drilling to the 30 per cent caused by the additional drill holes.
pattern can be expanded to the maximum possible, even if drill Trying to compensate for the negative effects of drill hole
hole deviation could be reduced to the absolute minimum. deviation by reducing the drilling pattern, may then lead to a 50
A reasonable assumption may then be that the number of drill per cent increase of the proportion of minus 4 mm fines.
holes must be increased by 30 per cent in order to achieve
reasonable blasting results if the drill hole deviation as defined
earlier, is ignored. This will by itself lead to a 30 per cent ECONOMIC EVALUATION
increase in fines after blasting and crushing. In order to investigate the economic consequences of drill hole
As discussed above will the variations of the relative distances deviation, a case study has been used with typical Scandinavian
between adjacent drill holes also lead to more fines in addition to economic data and operating parameters. The basic parameters
the material from the fines zone around each drill hole. It is, are:
however, difficult to quantify this effect, and no data are known Annual production: 250 000 tonnes
from full-scale observations.
In order to get an indication, the Rosin-Rammler size Rock density: 2.6 tonnes/m3
distribution model takes into consideration the influence of drill Bench height: 14 m
hole deviation, and can be used to estimate the change in the Drill hole diameter: 76 mm
amount of fines. The Rosin-Rammler model can be expressed as
follows: Drill hole inclination: 15°
n
R = exp [ - ( x/xc) ] Proportion of fines with 30 per cent
drill hole deviation:
where: Proportion of fines without 20 per cent
R = Mass fraction larger than size x deviation:
xc = Characteristic size of fragments (69.3 per cent Drilling and blasting costs: 700 NOK per hole
passing size) Sales price for fines: 50 NOK/tonne
n = Uniformity index Sales price for other products: 110 NOK/tonne
The uniformity index usually varies between 0.8 and 2.2. High The drilling pattern used in order to compensate for drill hole
values indicate uniform sizing, while low values result in higher deviation is 2.4 × 2.8 m. One drill hole will then break about
proportions of both fines and oversize. The uniformity index can 94 m3 of rock, and 1020 holes must be drilled each year.
be calculated using the following formula: If drill hole deviation can be kept to a minimum, the drilling
pattern can be expanded so that each hole will break 30 per cent
n = (L/H) × [2.2 – 14 × (B/d)] × {[1 + (S/B)]/2}0.5 × [1 – (W/B)] more rock which is about 122 m3. The corresponding drilling
where: pattern will be about 2.7 × 3.25 m. With this pattern must 790
holes be drilled each year.
B = Burden (m)
The annual sales revenue with minimum drill hole deviation
d = Drill hole diameter (mm) and 20 per cent fines will be:
S = Spacing (m) 0.8 × 250 000 × 110: 22 000 000 NOK
W = Standard deviation on drill hole deviation (m) 0.2 × 250 000 × 50: 2 500 000 NOK
L = Charge length above grade level (m) Total: 24 500 000 NOK
H = Bench height (m) The annual sales revenue with the increased proportion of
fines caused by drill hole deviation will then be:
As a basis for calculating the proportion of fines caused by
drill hole deviation, two cases will be studied based on the 0.7 × 250 000 × 110: 19 250 000 NOK
following assumptions: 0.3 × 250 000 × 50: 3 750 000 NOK
• the average fragment size will be the same, 250 mm, for a
blast with drill hole deviation and a blast with a minimum of Total: 23 000 000 NOK
drilling errors; In addition to the loss of revenue caused by drill hole deviation
• the standard deviation of the drilling errors will be 2.5 and come the costs for drilling and blasting of more holes:
0.5 per cent of the bench height respectively; (1020 – 790) × 700: 161 000 NOK per year.
• the drilling pattern will be 2.4 × 2.8 m for both cases; and The loss of revenue will be 1 500 000 NOK per year, which is
• the charge length above grade is 11 m. almost ten times the extra costs for drilling and blasting in order
Looking at the minus 20 mm fragment size, the calculation to compensate for drill hole deviation. The costs for drilling and
shows: blasting will show up in the cost reports, but the loss of revenue
will not, and can be considered as invisible costs caused by drill
With drill hole deviation: 3.0 per cent of the blast will be finer hole deviation.
than 20 mm.
With minimum deviation: 2.0 per cent of the blast will be finer
than 20 mm.
CONCLUSION
A blast with drill hole deviation as defined above, will Drill hole deviation will in itself lead to an increased amount of
generate 50 per cent more material minus 20 mm compared with fines in crushed aggregate production, as well as hard digging
a blast with minimum deviation. conditions and an excessive number of boulders. The proportion
This may also be an indication of how the drill hole deviation of fines will further increase if the operator tries to compensate
can influence the generation of fines after blasting and crushing. for the negative effects by reducing the drilling pattern and put in
more holes.

12 Kalgoorlie, WA, 7 - 11 November 1999 Explo ‘99


Drill hole deviation is caused by a number of factors, and
many of these are related to unsatisfactory operating practices.
Drill hole deviation can consequently be minimised by adapting
ordinary Quality Assurance principles.
The costs for drilling and blasting will be lower, and the sales
revenues will increase, if the proportion of fines is reduced by
minimising drilling errors.
REFERENCES
Amundsen, J, 1993. Documentation and control of blasthole deviation, in
Proceedings Annual Rock Blasting Conference 1993, pp 14.1-14.17
(Norwegian Tunnelling Society: Oslo) (in Norwegian).
Bond, F C, 1961. Crushing and Grinding Calculations Part I and II. Chem
Eng, 6/6, pp 378-385.
Karlsson, F, 1997. Improved drilling accuracy in quarrying, MSc thesis,
Division of Mining Engineering, Lulea University of Technology,
Sweden (in Swedish).
Kojovic, T, et al, 1995. Impact of blast fragmentation on crushing and
screening operations in quarrying, in Proceedings EXPLO’95, pp
427-436 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Kristiansen, J, 1995. A study of how the velocity of detonation affects
fragmentation and the quality of fragments in a muckpile, in
Proceedings EXPLO’95, pp 437-444 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
McKenzie, C, 1994. Diagnosis makes for better blasting, Rock Products,
97(4):34-43.
Nielsen, K, 1998a. Economic optimization of the
blasting-crushing-grinding comminution process, in Proceedings
14th Annual Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research, New
Orleans, International Society of Explosives Engineers, pp 147-157.
Explo ‘99 Kalgoorlie, WA, 7 - 11 November 1999
THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF DRILL HOLE DEVIATION
Nielsen, K, 1998b. Economic optimization of the
blasting-crushing-grinding comminution process in a low-grade iron
ore (taconite) operation, in Proceedings Mine to Mill 98, pp 135-138
(The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Nielsen, K and Kristiansen, J, 1996. Blasting-crushing-grinding:
Optimization of an integrated comminution system, in Proceedings
5th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
FRAGBLAST 5, Montreal pp 269-277 (A A Balkema).
Nielsen, K and Lownds, C M, 1997. Enhancement of taconite crushing
and grinding through primary blasting, in Proceedings 36th US Rock
Mechanics Symposium and ISRM International Symposium,
NYROCKS’97, New York, 3:138-148 (Elsevier Science Ltd).
Nielsen, K and Malvik, T, 1998. Grindability enhancement by blast
induced micro cracks, in Proceedings 9th European Symposium on
Comminution, Albi, France, The European Federation of Chemical
Engineering, 1:81-88.
Sheahan, R M and Beattie, T A, 1990. Effect of explosive on fines
generation in blasting, in Proceedings The 3rd International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST 3, pp
413-415 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Tunstall, A M and Bearman, R A, 1997. Influence of fragmentation on
crushing performance, Mining Engineering, 49(1):65-70.
13