Final Version MS Thesis GDMa PDF

OPTIMIZING BLASTING OPERATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WORK SAFETY MEASURES AT

THE RAMONGO QUARRY
THESIS SUBMITED FOR PARTIAL FULLFILMENT

OF SPECIALIZED MASTER DEGREE IN
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF MINES (SMM)
Presented and defended publicly by
Simon Pierre JIOMENECK TSOPJIO

(MSc. Environmental Geology)
Supervised by
Mr Pegdewinde Fidele TORO and Dr Raffaele VINAI
Quarry Manager COGEB Lecturer at 2iE Foundation
International S.A
Promotion [2010/2011]
[Optimizing Blasting Operation and Recommendations on Work Safety Measures at the Ramongo quarry] [2011]
Table of contents
DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ......................................................................................................................... II
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... III
RESUME ............................................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ V
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... VII
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
A. PRESENTATION OF COGEB INTERNATIONAL ........................................................................ 6
B. BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER I. NATURAL MILIEU ........................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER II. MATERIAL AND METHOD ....................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER III. RESULTS ON BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS ....................... 19
CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS AND
PROPOSAL .......................................................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER V. RESULTS OF INQUIRY SHEET AND PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 30
GENERAL CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 36
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 a

RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 37
PERSPECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 39
ANNEX 1: Calculations of blast pattern used to determine powder factor in English units ................ 42
ANNEX 2. Inquiry sheet on the notion of work saety at the quarry by workers .................................. 43
ANNEX 3: Table 10: Preliminary risk assessment and preventive measures ....................................... 44
ANNEX 4: Table 11: Preliminary risk assessment and preventive measures when handling explosive
(AEL, 2000)........................................................................................................................................... 45
ANNEX 5: Conversion table from English units to metric units .......................................................... 46
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 b

DEDICATION
I dedicate this work the entire JIOMENECK family for all their support to my studies and
endeavors.
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 I

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was smoothly conducted thanks to the full collaboration of the COGEB
International S.A quarry plant personnel. I would like to express my gratitude to:
The General Manager of COGEB International S.A, Mr. Moctar MANDO, for
awarding me an internship in his enterprise;
The Quarry Manager of COGEB International S.A, Mr. Pegdwind TORO, my mentor
who supervised me on the field. His assistance in blasting operations, blast pattern
analysis and quarry plant management contributed to my understanding of blasting
operations and quarry plant management;
Mr. Salofou TRAHORE, Inspector of Mines at BUMIGEB, for his assistance

throughout my internship;
Dr. Raffaele VINAI, lecturer at 2iE Foundation, for his appreciations to the work and
for providing me with literature review on blasting operations;
Mrs. YOUGBARE commercial manager of COGEB International S.A quarry for her
assistance to having an internship within COGEB International S.A;
Lilly DAVE, senior engineering consultant and Baron FIDLER Bulk emulsion
Manager at DYNO Nobel Inc. for proving me with literature review on blast
operations optimization; and
Ken ELTSCHLAGER, mining/explosive engineer, for his advice on blast pattern

design;
My friends: Regis EGANFACK, Honorine MELI and Thierry NANGUE for their
moral support throughout my studies here in Burkina Faso,
My class mates for all their advice and support throughout my studies here at 2iE
Foundation.
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 II

ABSTRACT
This work deals with blasting operations at the Ramongo quarry plant and some safety issues
undertaken by COGEB International S.A. The Ramongo quarry is located 86 km from
Ouagadougou, along the road leading to the town of Koudougou. Based on field observations
of blasting operations at the quarry plant, this works aimed at optimizing blasting operations
and making recommendations on some safety issues to which personnel is exposed.
On the basis of some empirical formulae and methods used in designing blast patterns at
quarry plants, we analyzed the current blasting operation and proposed 2 (two) blast patterns.
The first blast pattern used an electric firing cap and the second used a non electric firing cap.
From our findings, the proposed blast pattern was more advantageous to use but since blasting
is not an exact science it needs to be tested on the field in oder to give a final conclusion.
The environmental aspects of our work aimed at assessing the notion of work safety by the
personnel and also carry out a preliminary risk assessment related to work post occupied by
the personnel. We used the work risk assessment and control (WRAC) method. It is a
participatory approach to examining all parts of work site and ensures that risks are
understood by the personnel. From our findings, most of the personnel are negligent as
concerns the use of their personal protective equipments (PPEs) and most of them are
ignorant on safety precautions at work site.
Keywords: blasting; optimizing; safety; risk; quarry, Burkina Faso.
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 III

RESUME
Le prsent travail porte sur les oprations dabattage la carrire de Ramongo et certains
problmes de scurit exploit par COGEB International SA. Cette carrire est 86 km de
Ouagadougou laxe Ouagadougou Koudougou route national N 2. Bas sur les
observations de terrain la carrire de Ramongo, ce travail vise optimiser les oprations
dabattage et de faire des recommandations sur certains problmes de scurit auxquels le
personnel est expos.
Sur la base de quelques formules empiriques et des mthodes utilises dans la conception du
plan de tire en carrire, nous avons analys les oprations dabattage et propos deux (02)
modles : le premir utilise un tir lectrique et le deuxime un tir non lectrique. De nos
constat, il est plus avantageux dutilis les models proposs mais puisque labattage n'est pas
une science exacte, il doit tre test sur le terrain avant de tirer une conclusion dfinitive.
Laspect environnemental de notre travail vise valuer la notion de scurit au travail par le
personnel et galement effectuer une valuation prliminaire des risques lis aux postes de
travail occups par le personnel. Nous avons utilis la mthode du contrle et l'valuation de
risque aux travaux (CERT). Cest une approche participative pour l'examen de toutes les
parties du lieu de travail qui s'assure que les risques sont compris par le personnel. De nos
constat, la plupart du personnel est ngligente en ce qui concerne l'utilisation des quipements
de protection personnel (EPP) et certains d'entre eux ignorent les prcautions de scurit sur
le site de travail.
Mots-cls: abattage; optimisation; scurit; risque; carrire, Burkina Faso.
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANFO: Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil
CERT: Contrle et l'Evaluation de Risque aux Travaux
EPP: Equipements de Protection Personnel
MEF: Ministry of the Economy and Finance
MHU: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
NONEL: Non Electric Firing cap
OHS: Occupational Health and Safety
PPE: Personal Protection Equipment
VOD: Velocity of Detonation
WRAC: Work Risk Assessment and Control
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 V

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Loss of pressure from blast holes ............................................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Fly rocks and dust produced during blast ................................................................................ 4
Figure 3. Localization of study area (www.googleearth.com). ............................................................... 9
Figure 4. Sparse vegetation with shrubs..9
Figure 5. Cattle grazing....9
Figure 6. Manual ground turning..9
Figure 7. Panea microcarpa..9
Figure 8. Granitic formation with a network of joints, quartz veins and cracks ................................... 11
Figure 9. Blast hole loaded with slurry and ANFO in a staggered pattern............................................ 17
Figure 10. Geological conditions of granitic formations ....................................................................... 19
Figure 11. Illustration of the ELEECTRIC blast design used at RAMONGO QUARRY ................... 23
Figure 12. Illustration of proposed NONEL blast design pattern.......................................................... 24
Figure 13. Illustration of proposed ELECTRIC blast design pattern ................................................... 25
Figure 14. Illustration of proposed ELECTRIC blast design pattern loading ....................................... 25
Figure 15. Histogram illustrating percentage (%) of workers with elementary PPEs at the Ramongo
quarry. ................................................................................................................................................... 31
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 VI

LIST OF TABLES
Table1. Materials used in blasting operations at the Ramongo Quarry................................................. 12
Table 2. Correction factors for rock deposition..................................................................................... 14
Table 3. Correction factors for rock structure ....................................................................................... 14
Table 4. Interpretation of stiffness ratio results ..................................................................................... 15
Table 5. Typical powder factor for surface blasting.............................................................................. 16
Table 6. Blasting dimension pattern for the Ramongo quarry with 65mm drilling core....................... 20
Table 7. Blasting dimension pattern for the Ramongo quarry with 76 mm drilling core...................... 21
Table 8. Proposal of a blasting dimension pattern for the Ramongo quarry ......................................... 22
Table 9: summary of parameters used assess the level of understanding of personnel on the notion of
work safety and risks related to their work ........................................................................................... 33
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 VII

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The term optimization implies improving a process that has specifically defined goals. To this
end, it is necessary to consider all the processes and modify them to achieve the best possible
results (Mosch et al. 2010). The use of explosives in mining and construction applications
dates back to 1627. From 1627 through 1865, the explosive used was black powder. In 1865,
Nobel invented nitroglycerin dynamite in Sweden. From 1867 through the mid-1950s,
dynamite was the workhorse of the explosive industry. In the mid-1950s a new product
appeared which was called ANFO, ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. This explosive was more
economical to use than dynamite. During the 1970s and the 1980s, ANFO became the
workhorse of the industry and approximately 80% of all explosives used was ammonium
nitrate and fuel oil. In the late 1970s a modification of the water gels called emulsions
appeared on the scene. The emulsions were simple to manufacture and could be used in
similar applications as dynamites and water gels. Commercial explosives fall into three major
generic categories, dynamites, blasting agents and slurries (commonly called water gels or
emulsions) (US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 1991). In
quarry plants, blasting with explosives is a key element in the production of aggregates.
Injury is the principal cause of lost-person years of productive life in the United States and
accounts for more years of lost potential than cancer and cardiovascular disease combined
(Waller, 1987). People working in Quarry plants are exposed to accident which may occur on
duty and health problems related to the non-respect of hygienic regulations. Many accidents
and incidents on sites have a causal factor in the rules and regulations that supposedly are in
placed to prevent the incident from occurring. The causes involve a lack of awareness or
understanding, ignorance, or deliberate violations. There is a comment very few people have
accidents for which there is no procedure in place and we have a significant degree of
accidents as a result of people breaking rules, ignoring rules, or simply not knowing about
them. . . (Department of Mineral Resources, 2000). Therefore, if peoples behavior can be
influenced to stop them breaking, ignoring, or not knowing about rules and regulations, then it
should follow that it is possible to eliminate many accidents and injuries.
A study involving operators of remote control continuous miners in underground coal mining
found that a large percentage of the workforce believed that it was necessary to break the
rules to get the job done. Any mine that operates 100% within the rules will not produce a
TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 1

single tonne of coal (Department of Mineral Resources, 2000). Unfortunately the people at
the top tend to go around giving lectures and saying how important safety is, and how no
accident is acceptable and we must all pull together here. But unfortunately, no amount of
people talk is going to alter the way things are done. If you want to alter the way things are
done, you have to go down to the grass roots level and find out how things are actually being
done, and why they are being done, and why are these operators violating rules, as they often
are. And there are always good reasons why they are violating rules. In this way you can find
out what is needed to have them do the right thing. Its about changing systems and changing
procedures. It is not about getting people to believe that safety is important, which is,
unfortunately, so often the message that is conveyed (Safety On-line, 2001). Lack of
information and little technological training contribute to mistakes that cause accidents and
work incidents (Cox & Tait, 1991).
The mastery of firing operations will contribute to reduce nuisance, warrant security in
blasting operations, reduce operational cost, satisfy legal obligations and finally achieve
fragment sizes adapted to crushing installations. Most quarry operators focus their attention
on the aggregates produced (in response to demand in the market and quality control) rather
than the blasting operation (explosive consumption, operational cost) and environmental
related issues. There are several methods which could contribute to the proper mastery of
blasting operations in order to improve on the end product of blasting operations and meet
legal regulations. The framework of this study aimed at optimizing blasting operations at the
Ramongo quarry exploited by COGEB S.A and examining some environmental-related issues
on-site. To approach the problem, parameters used on the field were recorded and compared
with those obtained from calculations with empirical formulae. For environmental-related
issues, close attention was focused on the interaction between personnel and their working
conditions.

I. Problem statements
Blasting operations are very delicate exercises to perform and need to be carefully monitored
right from the blast design sheet, firing and after firing. Rock blasting is the most widely used
rock excavation technique among the various sectors of the mining and construction
industries because of its efficiency and relative low cost (Bhandari, 1997). Blasting designs
are still optimized over months or years by trial and error (Shimada, 2006). Large blocks
requiring secondary breakage, or an excess of fines, can result from poorly designed blasts or
due to adverse geological conditions. A well designed blast should produce rocks of shapes
and sizes that can be accommodated by the available loading and hauling equipment and
crushing plant with little or no need for secondary breakage (Hustrulid, 1999).
There are also environmental-related issues such as fatal accidents or injuries with machinery,
air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution which may result from blasting operations.
Another effect which may not be immediately felt is the disturbance of the ecosystem with
possible adverse consequences on the floral and faunal community in general (Aigbedion et
al. 2007). From studies carried by many researchers (Roth., 1979, Floyd J., 2004, Baron et al.
2009) most of the problems recorded during blasting operations are: fly rocks, excessive air
blast, back break and ground vibrations. From field observation of the different blasting
operations at the RAMONGO site, we observed the following phenomena materialized in the
fig.1 and 2 below:
:
Fly rocks found from blast site and in opposite direction from blast direction
Important back break of wall
Loss of pressure from blast holes
Vibration of materials far from blast site
Production of dust from blast site

Figure 1. Loss of pressure from blast holes
Figure 2. Fly rocks and dust produced during blast
It is from these field observations that we aimed at optimizing the use of explosive at the
RAMONGO quarry plant in order to reduce some of the phenomenea mention above. Taking
into consideration the hazards to which peoples are exposed in quarry plants, the
environmental issue will be aimed at assessing the notion of personnel work safety and
preliminary risk assessment related to work post occupied by the personnel. This, in order to
suggest some incentive mesures to minimise injuries which may result.
II. Principal objectives:

The principal objective of this work is to analyse the current blast pattern used by COGEB
S.A at the RAMONGO quarry and propose a suitable blast pattern for her operations. As
concerns work safety issues, the principle objective is to assess the notion of work safety issue
by the personnel and identify the risk to which they are exposed on their work post.
III. Specific objectives:

In order to optimize the use of explossives and suggest simple safety measures, we focused
our work on five main points:

Highlight geological characteristic of the formation (joints, faults, folds and bedding
planes);
Analyse the blasting design used by the blaster and suggest a blast design pattern;
Perform an inventory of personal protective equipments used by the personnel. This in

order to assess their notion on safety measures;
Carry out a preliminary risk assessment on operations at the quarry;
Suggest simple safety measures and first aid measures in case of hazard.
III. Structure of the thesis

The work has two main parts:
The first part of our work is focused on optimizing the use of explosives in blasting operation.
It is structured as follows:
Chapter I. Presentation of the natural environment;
Chapter II. Materials and Methods used in blasting operations;
Chapter III. Presentation of results obtained;
Chapter IV. Comparative Discussion of results.
The second part of our work will focus at some environmental-related issues: interaction
between man and his working environment. The proposal of some incentive measures to
mitigate hazard. It is structured as follows:
Inventory of personal protective equipments;
Preliminary risk assessment ;
Recommendations on safety measures.
Eventually, a general conclusion on blasting operations, safety assessment by the personnel

and recommendation concerning safety measures at work are presented.

A. PRESENTATION OF COGEB INTERNATIONAL
COGEB INTERNATIONAL SA is a limited company founded in 1993 by Mr. Moctar

MANDO, the Administrator-General. The company's activities cover the following domains:
Public Works
Civil engineering
Urban development and water management
Construction
Industrial production of aggregates
Drinking water supply
COGEB INTERNATIONAL SA is registered in the trade register of the city of Ouagadougou

as N BF-OAU-2004-B-2405 and holds:
approval No. 85/89 of 6 February 2001, issued by the Ministry of the Economy and
Finance (MEF), to deliver supplies to the State
category B4 authorization No. 2006-00019/MHU/SG/DEP, of 29 December 2006,

issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHU) for the execution
of construction works:
category T4 authorization No. of 2005-044/MITH/SG/DEP, of 18 August 2005, issued

by the Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Town Planning, for routine road
maintenance, rehabilitation and management of earth roads:
In addition, for industrial production of aggregates by COGEB INTERNATIONAL

the Ministry of Mines, Quarries and Energy signed Order No. 2005-
072/MCE/SG/DGMGC/SCG / of 27 July 2005 to grant permanent authorization to
exploit a granite quarry.

The organization chart of the company is as follows:

A General Manager;
A technical department: works and feasibility studies;
An administration and finance department: personnel and accounting;
A materials department: utilization and maintenance of equipment.
The COGEB INTERNATIONAL quarry is organized as follows:

A Quarry Manager;
A finance and administration service;
A commercial service;
Technical services: production, maintenance, drilling and blasting.

BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS

B. BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS
CHAPTER I. NATURAL MILIEU
The aim of this chapter is to give some basic information from field observations of the study
area on: the geographical setting, the dominant vegetation and human activity and finally the
geology.
1. Geographical Setting
The Ramongo quarry is located 86km from Ouagadougou along the road leading to the town
of Koudougou. The actual area of exploitation is 319m above sea level with the following
coordinates: 12.20266N, 002.18960W.
The outcrop is a dome that has a pear shape form (fig.3). The study area is a relatively flat
land. The quarry is opened to the East. An old exploitation site is found close to the actual
zone of exploitation but due to the installation of high tension cables, it has been abandoned.
.
Figure 3. Localization of study area (www.googleearth.com 2011).

2. Dominant Vegetation and Human Activity of Study Area

From field observation, the vegetation around our study area is savanna type vegetation,
sparse with many shrubs in-between (fig.4). The majority of trees found here produce a lot of
wild fruits consumed by the population and commercialized (fig.7). The dominant species are
Panea microcarpa (wild grape) and Vitellaria paradoxa (Karit). The seeds of some of these
fruits are used in the production of local soap and oil known as beurre de karit (shea
butter). The grass in this area does not grow above 5cm in height because of intensive
grazing.
The dominant activity here is farming. We have stock farming (cattle and bird rearing) and
mixed cropping (millet, maize and bean). The dominant cattle breeds are cows and sheep
(fig.5). The population uses hoes anchored to cow to turn the ground during farming season.
However, a good majority of the population still uses hand hoes to turn the ground as
agricultural practices (fig. 6). Most of these farm products are sold in the local market and to
passersby . The eggs from bird rearing are sold along the road side to passersby and travelers.
Figure 4. Sparse vegetation with shrubs Figure 5. Cattle grazing
Figure 6. Manual ground turning Figure 7. Panea microcarpa (wild grape)

3. Geology
From field observation of the study area, the dominant type of formation found onsite is an
intrusive granitic formation. It is curve shaped were it outcrops. It has as dominant
mineralogical composition: quartz, feldspars, biotite and some ferromagnesian minerals. It is
compact, dense and has a granular texture. These are characteristics observed macroscopically
and from the mineralogical composition, it corresponds to that of a granitic formation. On the
surface of the formation quartz veins intrusions are observed (fig.8 B). Biotite forms layers in
some areas of the formation. This layer of biotite constitutes planes of weakness in this
formation. A network of joints can also be observed on the surface of the formation (fig.8 C).
The formation is very compact in the lower part of the formation but show a network of
fracture, joints and planes of weakness closer to the surface (fig.8 A).
(A) (B) (C)
Figure 8. Granitic formation with a network of joints, quartz veins and cracks

CHAPTER II. MATERIAL AND METHOD
In blasting, special materials are used in the process and the choice of materials and method is
important in the determination of blast pattern. Table 1 shows the list of materials used in
blasting at the Ramongo site..
I. Materials used by COGEB S.A in blasting operations
Table1. Materials used in blasting operations at the Ramongo Quarry
Characteristics :
Density :1.1
Length :50cm
Works well in wet and dry conditions.
Slurry
Characteristics:
Density: 0.8
Porous prills
Works poorly in wet conditions.
Ammonium nitrate prills
Characteristics:
Explosivese Type: Cordtex 10
Core load: 10g/m
Detonating cord
Characteristics:
Firing current: 0.25-0.60 A
Series firing current: <= 1.0A
Firing pulse: 3.0-5.0 mJ/ohm
Detonators Detonator resistance: 1.1-4.5 ohm
Characteristics:
Type: Gasoline
Fuel oil
Characteristics:
Length of stick: 3m
Core edge (65 and 76mm diameter)
Driller
Mechanics
Characteristics:
Loading capacity: 1.4m3
Diesel engine
Bucket shovel

Characteristics
Loading capacity: 14m3
Diesel engine
Damper
Characteristics:
Air Pressure: 8 bar
Diesel engine
Compressor
II. Methodology for blasting parameters

Blast design is not a precise science, but by considering the rock formation it is possible to
produce desirable results (Ibrahim, 2003). Because of widely varying properties of rock,
geologic structure, and explosives, design of a blasting program requires field testing. Field
testing is the best tool to refine individual blast designs. Throughout the blast design process,
two overriding principles must be kept in mind (US department of interior bureau of
reclamation, 1949):
Explosives function best when there is a free face approximately parallel to the
explosive column at the time of detonation.
There must be adequate space for the broken rock to move and expand. Excessive
confinement of explosives is the leading cause of poor blasting results such as back
break, ground vibrations, air blast, unbroken toe, fly rock, and poor fragmentation.
In other to to produce a good design and blast pattern, there are some factors which have to be
taken into consideration: type of explosive, the geology and structure of the formation. On the
basis of empirical formulae, some important factors (burden, spacing, stemming, sub drilling,
stiffness ratio and powder factor) used in blast design can be calculated (US. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 1991).
1. Burden (B)
The burden is defined as the distance from a blast hole to the nearest free face at the instant
of detonation. The empirical formula for approximation of burden distance is given below.
- SGe = specific gravity of explosive; - SGr = specific gravity of rock
- De = density of explosive
Taking into consideration that rock is not homogeneous, correction factors for specific
geological conditions are used. Table 2 and 3 give the correction factors to be considered in
blast designing.
Table 2. Correction factors for rock deposition

Rock deposition Correction factor for rock deposition (Kd)
Bedding steeply dipping into cut 1.18
Bedding steeply dipping in face 0.95
Other cases of deposition 1
Table 3. Correction factors for rock structure
Rock structure Correction factor for rock structure (Ks)

Heavily cracked, frequent weak joints, weakly
1.30
cemented layers
Thin well cemented layers with tight joints 1.10
Massive intact rocks 0.95
2. Stemming (S)
It is the addition of an inert material such as a drill cutting, on top of the explosive in a blast
hole for the purpose of confining the energy of the explosive. If the stemming distance is too
great, there will be poor top breakage from the explosion and back break will increase. And
when the stemming distance is in adequate the explosion will escape prematurely from the
hole.
3. Stiffness ratio (SR)

To gain insight into the potential problems which can result requires the consideration of the
stiffness ratio. For blasting purposes, it is the bench height (L) divided by the burden. It
affects several parameters: fragmentation, air blast, fly rocks, ground variation. Table 4 is a
summary of general potential problems as related to the stiffness ratio.

Table 4. Interpretation of stiffness ratio results

SR 1 2 3 4
Fragmentation Poor Fair Good Excellent
Air blast Severe Fair Good Excellent
Fly rock Severe Fair Good Excellent
Ground
Severe Fair Good Excellent
vibration
No increase
Severe back break Good control
REDESIGN benefit by
Comments and toe problems. Do and
if possible increasing SR
not shot. REDESIGN fragmentation
above 4
4. Spacing of blast holes (S)

Spacing is the distance between two blast holes. Proper spacing of blast holes is controlled by
the INITIATION TIMING and STIFFNES RATIO. Spacing in the field should be plus or
minus 15% of the calculated value.
i. Instantaneous initiation: SR greater than 1 but less than 4
ii. Instantaneous initiation: SR equal to or greater than 4
Case 1: instantaneous initiation with SR greater than 1 but less than 4
Case 2: instantaneous initiation with SR greater than 4
Case 3: delayed initiation with SR greater than 1 but less than 4
Case 4: delayed initiation with SR greater than 4
NB: on the field spacing (S) = S 15%(S)

5. Stemming material size (Sz)
The optimum size of stemming material would be material that has an average diameter of
approximately 0.05 times the diameter of the blast hole. Material must be angular to function
properly. The best size would be determined as follows:

Dh = blast hole diameter
6. Charge weight or total weight of powder column length (kg)

It is obtained by multiplying the loading density (kg/m) by the column (m) loaded with
explosives.
Charge weight = loading density x loaded column
Loading density = 0.3405 x (Dh)2 x explosive density
6. Powder factor (Pf)

It is the ratio of the total weight of explosives in powder column to the total volume of rock
fractured by one blast hole under the pattern area to a depth of the bench depth (US
department of interior bureau of reclamation, 1949). Intervals of typical powder factors are
given in table 5.
Table 5. Typical powder factor for surface blasting

Rock breakage difficulty Powder factor (kg/m3)
Low 0.1-0.18
Medium 0.18-0.34
High 0.34-0.57
Very high 0.57-1.14
7. Volume of rock (m3)

The volume of aggregates produced by one blast hole is obtained by multiplying the burden
(B) by spacing (S) and blast hole depth (L) divided by 27. The total volume of aggregates
produced in a blasting operation is therefore the volume produced by one blast hole multiplied
by the total number of holes drilled
8. Loading blast hole

The blast hole is loaded with slurry at the toe and at the middle of the bench. It is then filled
with ANFO up to the stemming depth. Stemming is done with a mixture of moist earth and
gravel. Fig.9 is a schematic diagram of blast hole loading on site.

Figure 9. Blast hole loaded with slurry and ANFO in a staggered pattern
III. Methodology for assessing notion of work safety

The environmental aspects of our work aimed at assessing the notion of work safety by the
personnel and also carry a preliminary risk assessment related to work post occupied by the
personnel. Taking into consideration the average level of schooling of the personnel an
inquiry sheet was designed and distributed to a population of 18 (eighteen) people on duty.
The method of preliminary risk assessment used in our study is known as the WORK RISK
ASSESSMENT and CONTROL (WRAC). It is a pro-active or pre-event approach to
examining any or all parts of the work site to ensure that risks are understood and controlled
to ensure a reasonable level. It is a participatory approach of identifying potential production
or maintenance operational losses (Risk Assessment workbook for mines, 2009). WRAC is a
qualitative risk assessment method designed to be applied when an organization wants to
understand risks and clearly identify the priority or highest risk in its operations (Mathew,
2009).
Risk is defined as the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon
objectives. In other words, it can be defined as the chance of something happening that will
have a negative impact on the health or safety of a person (Risk Assessment workbook for
mines, 2009). On the other hand, a Hazard is a source of potential harm or a situation with
potential to cause harm (Risk Assessment workbook for mines, 2009)
A qualitative assessment inquiry sheet was distributed at the quarry. Each individual simply
had to tick the corresponding box and make short, precise and concise comments in the spaces
provided.

IV. Treatment of Data from inquiry sheet

A proportion of workers with essential PPEs was computed from the results of the inquiry
sheet. The following working PPEs were considered as essential:
Fluorescent cross belts (Fc); Work Suite (WS); Goggles (Gg); Helmet (Ht); Safety shoes (Ss);
Gloves (G); Nose mask (Nm); Ear muff (Em).
These PPEs are essential because each worker is supposed to have it at their disposal before
working.

CHAPTER III. RESULTS ON BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS
The results presented in this report, are based on field observations of current blasting
operations carried out on the basis of empirical formulae used to design a blast pattern. Tables
6 and 7 show blast pattern used at the quarry while table 8 shows the proposed design pattern
for blasting operations and expected amount of aggregated produced. In order to define the
appropriate spacing in the pattern proposed model, the formula in case 3 as shown in the
methodology was used.
I. Presentation of the Quarry Characteristics and Blast Dimension Pattern.

Locality: Ramongo quarry
Geographical co-ordinates: 12.20266N, 002.18960W
Altitude: 320m
Company: COGEB S.A
Rock formation: Granite
Field observations of rock formation:
Presence of many open cracks on the surface of the formation with different directions
Presence of numerous fissures covering almost the entire formation Crushed blocks of
rocks in some areas of the formation from side view (fig. 10 A)
Note the action of physical weathering (thermal expansion and contraction) along
joints and chemical weathering (hydrolysis) between joints (fig. 10 B)
The rock has as dominant minerals: quarts, feldspars, biotite and ferromagnesian
minerals. These minerals show some preferential orientation and biotite forms layers
in some areas acting as planes of weakness.
Numerous quartz veins on the formation
Rock breaks preferentially along joints with quartz vein and biotite layers.
(A) Crushed rocks (B) Weathered zone and plane of weakness

Figure 10. Geological conditions of granitic formations

Table 6. Blasting dimension pattern for the Ramongo quarry with 65mm drilling core
DIMENSION OF FIRING PATTERN APPLIED
PARAMETERS
AT THE QUARRY
Blast hole diameter (mm) 65
(L) Bench height(m) 9
(B) Burden (m) 1.5
(SR) Stiffness ratio 6
(S) Spacing (m) 1.5
(T) Stemming (m) 0.8
(PC) Colomn of explosive loaded (m) 8.2
Firing patten 1.5 x 1.5 x 9
Loading density (kg/m) 1.99
Charge weight per hole (kg) 54.34
(PF) Powder factor (kg/m3) 2.6
Volume of rock per hole (m3) 20.64
3
Volume of rock blasted (m ) 2870
Nomber of blast holes 139
Timing of detonators (ms) 25
Type of design Staggered
Firing Cap ELECTRIC

Table 7. Blasting dimension pattern for the Ramongo quarry with 76 mm drilling core
PARAMETERS DIMENSION OF FIRING PATTERN APPLIED AT
THE QUARRY
(B) Burden (m) 1.5
(E) Spacing (m) 1.5

(PC) Colomn of explosive 8.1
loaded (m)
Firing patten 1.5 x 1.5 x 9
Charge weight per hole (kg) 71.30
(PF) Powder factor (kg/m3) 3.38
Volume of rock / hole (m3) 20.64
Volume of rock blasted (m3) 2870
Number of blast holes 139
Timing of detonator (ms) 25

Type of design Staggered
Firing Cap ELECTRIC

Table 8. Proposal of a blasting dimension pattern for the Ramongo quarry

DIMENSIONS OF FIRING DIMENSION OF FIRING
PARAMETERS PATTERN AFTER PATTERN APPLIED AT
CALCULATION THE QUARRY
(B) Burden (m) 2.5
(E) Spacing (m) 3 0.5
(Sz)Stemming material
3.6
(mm)
(PC) Column of explosive
7.2
loaded (m)
Firing pattern 2.5 x 3 x9
Charge weight per hole

63,36
(kg)
(PF) Powder factor

3 0.93
(kg/m )
Volume of rock / hole
67.5
(m3)
Volume of rock needed
2870
(m3)
Number of blast holes 42
Timing of detonators (ms) (17+25) ms 25ms
Type of design STAGGERED
Firing Cap NONEL ELECTRIC

Figure 11. Illustration of the ELEECTRIC blast design used at RAMONGO QUARRY

Figure 12. Illustration of proposed NONEL blast design pattern

Figure 13. Illustration of proposed ELECTRIC blast design pattern
Figure 14. Illustration of proposed ELECTRIC blast design pattern loading

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF BLAST PATTERN

ANALYSIS AND PROPOSAL
Based on the different blast pattern used and the proposed model, a comparative analysis can
be carried out.. The comparative analysis would be based on blast design parameters and
explosive parameters. Blast design parameters are: blast hole diameter, blast geometry
(burden and spacing), hole depth and cut design or initiation sequence (timing). On the other
hand explosive parameters are: borehole pressure, velocity of detonation (VOD), powder
factor and distribution of explosive. These parameters are important because their analysis
contribute to minimize damage of rock wall (Mandal et al. 2008). For the case study, the
parameters which will be taken into consideration due to limited material are: blast hole
diameter, number of blast holes, blast geometry (burden and spacing), charge weight and
powder factor.
1. Blasthole diameter
The blasthole diameter corresponds to the diameter of the drillers cutting edge. Two cutting
edges were used in drilling operations notably (65mm and 76mm). From field observation, the
drillers preferentially used the larger drilling edges (76mm) because it reduces the spacing
between blastholes. They suppose they will have more blocks by using the 76mm drilling
edge than the 65mm drilling edge. Compared to the larger drilling edge (76mm), the smaller
drilling edges (65mm) are less time consuming in drilling operations.. Even though, the larger
drilling edge was preferentially used in drilling due to the fact that it is expected to yield more
blocks, large holes influence the behavior of explosives. Large blasthole diameter will
influence the bore hole pressure and the resulting product. In general the larger the hole size,
the more problems are possible with air blast, fly rocks, good vibration and fragmentation. In
oder to gain an insight into the potential problems which can result, requires the consideration
of stiffness ratio. This because, blasthole diameter which also considered as explosive
diameter is used as a parameter to calculating burden (US. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration, 1991)

2. Number of blast holes

In order to produce 2870m3 of aggregates, 139 blast holes were drilled at a depth of 9m each.
After designing the proposed blast pattern we could produce the same volume of aggregates
by drilling 42 blast holes at the same depth. This reduces the number of blast holes by three
(03) and save time for blast operations.
3. Blast geometry (burden and spacing)

It defines the free face for explosive work. Burden is an important parameter to be considered
in designing blast pattern because she influences the dimensions of aggregates produced,
powder factor and the effect of back break control. The actual burden used is 1.5m but on the
basis of empirical formulae we defined a burden of 2.5m. Likewise spacing used for current
blasting operations was equal to burden (1.5m) but from calculations we defined a spacing of
3m (table 8). It is important to define an appropriate burden and spacing because they also
control the time of propagation of wave from explosion. If the burben an spacing are too large
or too small, it may be the cause of mise firings, back break, excessive ground vibration and
fly rocks (US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 1991).
4. Charge weight
The charge weight is the quantity of explosive used to break a given volume of rock
expressed either in pounds (lbs) or kilogram (kg). Using the 65mm dill edge the charge
weight is 54.34kg. When the 76mm drill edge was used, the charge weight increased to
71.30kg for the same volume of rock. But the proposed blast pattern has a charge weight of
63.4kg for a greater volume of rock and the same drill edge.
5. Powder factor
It is not a parameter used in designing blast pattern in our case study but it measures the
consumption of explosives in blasting operations. However, it could be used as a blast design
parameter aiming at having a reasonable consumption of explosive. To modify blast pattern
using powder factor (PF), the charge weight (W) is fixed as well as the powder factor and
only the burden (B) will vary in this case (Ash, 1963). The equation below shows how
powder factor can be used to modify blast design:

NB: spacing (S) = 1.3B; 1.3 is a factor used to determine spacing (Ash, 1963).
The current blast operations show and important use of explosive compared to the proposed
model. Using the 65mm drill edge the powder factor is 2kg/m3 (table 6) while the 76mm drill
edges has a powder factor of 3.36 kg/m3 (table 7). But after calculations, the proposed blast
pattern has a powder factor of 0.93 kg/m3 (table 8). Granit is a very hard rock not easy to
break and looking at table 5 which classifies powder factor for surface blasting, the proposed
blast pattern has an reasonable consumption of explosive. Higher powder factor results in
coarser fragmentation (Ash, 1963). This could probably be the reason why we have large
blocks requiring secondary blasting.
CONCLUSION
Taking into consideration the five parameters discussed, there are enormous differences
between what is done and the proposed blast pattern. The proposed blast pattern presents a
great deal of advantages: concerning time used to drill blast holes, blast geometry, charge
weight per blast hole and the powder factor.
The number of blast holes is three (03) times less than what is done. We have 42 blast holes
to drill rather than 139 blast holes currently used for the same volume of aggregates to be
produced. Since the number of blast holes is three (03) times less, this also reduces the time
used to materialize the drill pattern. Looking at the proposed drill pattern, the volume of
aggregates produced per blast hole is more important than what is being produced. The charge
weight per blast hole with the same drilling edge is more economical: 63.4kg for the proposed
blast pattern than the current charge weight (71.30kg) per blast hole. The powder factor for
surface blasting normally varies from 0.15 to 1.5 (kg/m3). The powder factor for blasting
operations at the Ramongo quarry is too high (2 kg/m3 and 3.36 kg/m3) compared to that of
the proposed blast design (0.93 kg/m3) for surface blasting. The powder factor for the
proposed blast design is in the interval of the value for surface blasting operations. Field
conditions should be taken into consideration prior to blasting. Modifications of the blast
pattern on the field should be recorded in the column provided in the blast sheet.

ENVIRONMENTAL RELATED ISSUES IN QUARRY

PLANTS

CHAPTER V. RESULTS OF INQUIRY SHEET AND PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT
I. Inquiry Sheet
Table 9 is a summary of the inquiry results obtained from the personnel working at the
Ramongo quarry. The parameters investigated were grouped into fourteen (14) main identities
notably: work post, age of personnel, number of years on duty per workshop, sex, inventory
of personal protective equipment (PPE), the use of PPEs, frequency of use of PPEs, working
position, cases of injury, causes of injury, time of injury, notions on first aid, report on injuries
and recommendations of personnel.
1. Gender, age and number of years on duty
From the inquiry sheet the majority of the personnel were male. Only 2 (two) of the eighteen
personnel on duty were female and occupied administrative functions. The rest were males
and occupied technical positions in the quarry plant. The age of the personnel varied from 22
to 63 years. The number of years of experience on duty varied from 1 (one to 9 (nine) years,
of which 5 (five) of the personnel had occupied their position for 1 (one) year and 4 (four) for
3 years (Table 9).
2. Workshop
At the Ramongo quarry plant there are eight work posts to which each personnel belongs.
These positions can be grouped into six main work posts notably: drilling, crushing,
laboratory, administration, conveying and maintenance. The maintenance workshop groups
the following; electricians, mechanics and welders while the conveying work post groups all
the drivers (table 9).
3. Personal protective equipment PPEs
An inventory of PPEs of the eighteen (18) personnel was carried. A check list of the
following PPEs was done: Fluorescent cross belts (Fc); Work Suite (WS); Goggles (Gg);
Helmet (Ht); Safety shoes (Ss); Gloves (G); Nose mask (Nm); Ear muff (Em); Welding Screen
(WS); Apron(Ap).
A population of 18 (eighteen) workers was interviewed on the PPEs they had at their disposal
on duty. This group of people was on day duty but also worked at night. There is a rotation
system for day and night shifts. The results could be considered for day and night shifts.
Figure 15 illustrates the percentage distribution of worker with PPEs at the Ramongo quarry.
8 (eight) of the workers attested having goggles for eye protection. They represent 44% of the
population interviewed. All workers attested having helmets and safety shoes. Excluding the

administrative personnel 4 (four) from the eighteen interviewed, 5 (five) had gloves for hand
protection. They represent 36% for the population of 14 (fourteen). Likewise not taking into
consideration the administrative personnel, 6 (six) had ear muff for ear protection at their
disposal. They represent 43% of the population of 14. 16 (sixteen) had nose mask as breathing
protection and fluorescent cross belts for easy identification. They represent 89% of the
population. Welding screen and Aprons were not taken into consideration in the
representation because they were specific to welders only.
Figure 15. Histogram illustrating percentage (%) of workers with elementary PPEs at the
Ramongo quarry.
II. Preliminary Risk Assessment

A risk assessment involves a detailed and systematic examination of any activity, location or
operational system to identify hazards.
From the results of the percentage of workers with elementary PPEs at their disposal, a group
of hazards to which these workers are exposed to were identified:
36% (thirty six) percent of the workers have gloves at their disposal. Those handling
sharp object, hot plates and electric appliances are exposed to hazards such as:
electrocution; wound by cut from sharp objects and burns from hot surfaces.
43% (fourty three ) percent had ear muff at their disposal. Prolong exposure to
working areas were the noise produced has very high decibels may at long result to
deftness.

44% (forty four ) percent had goggles amongst their PPEs. 56% (Fifty six ) hadnt
goggles. They are exposed to eye injuries if exposed to drilling and crushing activities
and flying particles which may hit the eyes. If exposed to welding and electric
activities, they may receive sparks in the eye and those in the mechanics workshop
may receive oil spills in the eye.
89% (eighty nine ) percent had their fluorescent cross belts. The remaining 11%
(eleven ) percent not having their fluorescent cross belts run the risk of: being crushed
by a truck especially those on night duty and run the risk of being considered as an
intruder by guards.
Table 10 (ANNEX 1) shows current risks to which the personnel is exposed to at work,
possible causes and preventive measures to be respected on duty. During blasting operations,
there are risks to which the personnel are exposed when handling explosives. Table 11
(ANNEX2) lists risks to which the personnel are exposed and preventive measures to be
observed when handling explosives

Table 9: summary of parameters used assess the level of understanding of personnel on the notion of work safety and risks related to their work
NOTI
FRE WORK CASE
USE CAUSE OF ON
WORK GROUP N PPE Q POSITI OF TIME
A G PPE INJUY 1ST
N USE ON INJURY RECOMMENDATIONS
G E AID REPORT ON INJURY
Y Y FROM PERSONNEL
E N
ACD L M R G HS N E WA F N U K S WN C D UW MA N Y N
ED W G e R S V HO
d r r b C g t s m mS p c O p n T t n o m t C r t t es O
s
Need worksuit, safety
2 shoes and Protective
1 X 1 M X X XX X XX X X X X
2
goggles
Need worksuit, ear
2
2 X 1 MXXX X XX X X X X protection and change
7
the nose mask
Need worksuit, goggles,
2 rain coats and ear
3 X 1 M XX XX X X X X
7 protection and change
the nose mask
Need worksuit, ear
2
4 X 2 M XX XX X X X X X X Slide on a rock protection and change
7
the nose mask
3
2
5 X , F XX X XX X X X
8
5
Destroying misfired
2 detonator, his colleague
6 X 6 M X X X XX X XX X X X XX X X He needs more training
9 enabled detonators
regardless of his position
Need worksuit, safety
2
7 X 3 M XX X XX X X X X x shoes and Protective
9
goggles
Protective equipment
2
8 X 1 F XX X XX X X X X X X Equipment not adequate must be distributed on
9
time

3 He was new in his position Distribution de

9 X 3 M X X X XX X XX X X X XX X X
0 and had no PEP combinaison de travaille
1 3
X 4 MXXX X X XX X X X X
0 1
1 3
X 3 MXXX X XX X X x x Sufficient equipment
1 3
Need worksuit, ear
1 3 protection and change
X 1 M XX X X X X X X
2 4 the nose mask
1 3 Need gloves and

X 5 M XX X XX X X X X X X Carelessness of the victim
3 4 worksuit
Protective equipment
1 3
X 9 M X X X XX XX X X X X X X X X must be distributed on
4 5
time
The strictness in the port
1 3
X 3 MXXX X X X X X X X X Carelessness of the victim of equipment and the
5 7
distribution on time
Equip trucks with 2
1 4
X 7 M XX X XX X X X X X X Road in poor condition mirrors and improve the
6 7
equipment on work site
Distribution of gloves,
1 5
X 5 M XX X X XX X X X XX X X Maintenance operation goggles and change the
7 6
quality of nose mask
Thorough inspection of
1 6
X 8 M X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X Was not wearing his gloves work equipment and
8 3
updating
Drilling (D); Crusher (Cr); Mechanic (Mc); Welding (W); Driver (Dr);Electrical (E); Administration (Ad); Laboratory (Lb); Witness (Wt);
Victim (V); None (Nn); Fluorescent crossbelt (Fc); Work Suite (WS); Carelessness Operator (Co) ; Defective Material (Dm); Under Trained
(Ut); Working Condition (WC); Health (H);Others (O); Goggles (Gg); Helmet (Ht); Safety shoes (Ss); Gloves (G); Nose mask (Nm); Ear muff
(Em); Welding Screen (WS); Apron (Ap); Regularly (R); Sometimes (S); Upright (Up); Knee (Kn); Seated (ST); Morning (Mr); Afternoon (At);
Night (Nt)

CONCLUSION
From the results of the inquiry sheet, no worker had all essential PPEs. Most of them used
the PPEs at their disposal but did not know the importance of having them. They listed the
PPEs they used but could not say why they had to wear them.
Concerning the cases of accidents reported in the inquiry (table 9), 6 (six) of the workers were
victims while 4 (four) witnessed cases of accidents on duty. 5 (five) of the cases reported
were due to the carelessness of the operator, 3 (three) were due to the use of defective
material and working conditions and 2 (two) cases were due to the fact that they were under-
trained (novice).
The risk assessment shows that those manipulating sharp objects, hot plates, slippery objects
and electric appliances are exposed to cuts, burns and electrocution. There is also a risk of
deafness for those exposed to sounds of very high decibels. Those working at the quarry or
visitors are exposed to eye injury for not wearing goggles. Finally only 1 (one) worker out of
18 (eighteen) had notions on first aid intervention in case of injury or accident.

GENERAL CONCLUSION
The proposed blast pattern presents a great deal of advantages concerning time used to drill
blast holes, blast geometry, charge weight per blast hole and the powder factor.
In designing the proposed blast pattern, field conditions were taken into consideration prior to
blasting. The number of blast holes is 3 (three) times less than what is done. We have 42 blast
holes to drill rather than 139 blast holes currently used for the same volume of aggregates to
be produced. Consequently, this also reduces the time used to materialize the drill pattern.
The volume of aggregates produced per blast hole is more important than what is being
produced. The charge weight per blast hole with the same drilling edge is more economical:
63.4kg for the proposed blast pattern than the current charge weight (71.30kg) per blast hole.
The powder factor (0.93 kg/m3) for the proposed blast design is in the interval (0.15 to 1.5
(kg/m3) of the value for surface blasting operations.
As concerns the environmental related issue investigated at the RAMONGO quarry, we can
draw some conclusions. From the results of the inquiry sheet, no worker had all essential
PPEs. Most of them used the PPEs at their disposal but did not know the importance of
having their PPEs on them while on duty. Concerning the cases of accidents reported in the
inquiry, 5 (five) of the cases reported were due to the carelessness of the operator, 3 (three)
were due to the use of defective material and working conditions and 2 (two) cases were due
to the fact that they were under-trained (novice). The risk assessment shows that those
manipulating sharp objects, hot plates, slippery objects and electric appliances are exposed to
cuts, burns and electrocution. Those exposed to sounds of very high decibels for a long period
without their ear muffs run the risk of becoming deaf. Those working at the quarry or visitors
are exposed to eye injury for not wearing goggles. Finally only 1 (one) worker out of 18
(eighteen) on duty had notions on first aid intervention in case of injury or accident.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Taking into account time constraints and the shortage of material available on the market due
to demand pressure on miners and mining companies, not all aspects of blast operation
analysis could be covered. The following measures could be put in place at the quarry:
I. Safety Measures
First and foremost, national legislation regulating activity and standards for
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) should be respected
Adoption of a maintenance system, preventive and adequate inspections of work
equipment
Adoption of personal protection equipment (PPE) on work areas
Only authorized visitors and personnel on duty should have access to the quarry and
blast sites
All communication instruments (mobile phones, talkie-walkies and any frequency
receivers) should strictly be forbidden on blast sites.
Regularly review safety measures and update them if necessary
Assign a person dedicated to occupation, health and safety issue recording
Creation of viable and efficient rules and procedures for safe work
Lay out an emergency rescue policy and train workers on first aid interventions.
II. Implementation of work safety measures
Create a department responsible for implementing Occupational Health and safety

(OHS) procedures at the quarry plant;
Train all personnel on the importance of using their PPEs while on duty via
occupational health and safety workshops;
Train all the personnel on how to carry first Aid interventions in case of injury on
work site;
Brief all visitors on the importance of having their PPEs and on occupational health
and safety issues before visiting the quarry plant;
Post sign boards of PPEs on each work post at the quarry plant reminding the
personnel on their specific PPEs they should have on duty;

Carry spontaneous inspections at the quarry plant to identify those who do not comply
with established Occupational Health Safety proceedings and note down the why are
not wearing them;
Penalize all those who have been noticed or regularly breaking rules and regulation as
concerns Occupational Health and Safety issues;
And finally simulations of cases of injury and hazards should be performed to evaluate
the training given to the personnel on first aid intervention and emergency rescue
policy of the company.

PERSPECTIVES
From the results obtained from this study, it would be interesting to study other aspects of
blasting operation to improve the companys output. All blasting operations should be
recorded and kept in a register-book for future assessments.
On the basis of records, further assessments should be carried out to evaluate the
energy consumption per work post. This will help identify where there is over-
consumption of energy in order to lay out a strategy of energy efficiency consumption.
Operational cost assessment of blasting operations should also be carried out on
proposed blast patterns and current blast patterns in order to optimize blasting
operations. It is important to carry out a cost assessment on the same parameters in
order to appreciate which operation is more expensive to run than the other.

REFERENCES
A.E.L. (2000), African Explosive Limited Material Safety Data Sheet.

Aigbedion,I., & Iyayi, S.E. (2007), Environmental Effect of Mineral Exploitation in Nigeria.
International Journal of Physical Sciences Vol. 2 (2), pp. 033-038.
Ash, R. L. (1963), The Mechanics of Rock Breakage. Pts. IIV, Pit and Quarry, Vol. 56, Nos.
25, Aug.Nov., pp. 98100; 112; 118123; 126131; 109111; 114118.
Baron F., Matt B., & Dave L. (2009), Volume 1 - Cusum for the Control of Vibration and Air
Blast. International Society of Explosives Engineers.
Bhandari S. (1997), Engineering Rock Blasting Operations.
Cox, S. J., & Tait, N. R. S. (1991), Reliability, Safety and Risk Management: An Integrated
Approach. London: Buttenvorth-Heinemann.
Department of Mineral Resources. (2000), A Study of the Risky Positioning Behavior of
Operators of Remote Control Mining Equipment (Report no. 5004). In C.J. Pitzer (ed).
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Department of Mineral Resources.
Hustrulid W. (1999), Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining, Volume 1-General Design
Concepts. New York: A. A. Balkema.
Ibrahim A. (2003), Blasting Rocks, ENCE 420-Construction Equipments and Methods.
Floyd J. (2004), Power Deck Optimization.
Mathew B. (2009), Mine Safety Operation. Version 05, 64 pages.
Risk Assessment workbook for mines. (2009), Metalliferous, Extractive and Opal Mines, and
Quarries. New south wales Government, Industry and Investment.
Roth, J. (1979), A Model for the Determination of Flyrock Range as a Function of Shot
Conditions. Management Services Association, Los Altos, CA, Report NTIS, PB81-
222358, US Bureau of Mines.
Mandal, S., Singh, M. & Dasgupta, S. (2008), Theoretical Concept to Understand Plan and
Design Smooth Blasting Pattern. Geotech Geol Eng 26:399416.
Mosch, S., Nikolayew, D., Ewiak O., & Siegesmund S. (2010), Optimized Extraction of
Dimension Stone Blocks.
Shimada H. (2006), Study on Effect of Blast Vibration on Size of Fragmentation at Limestone
Quarry. Journal of the Mining and Materials Processing Institute of Japan, 122: 11-19.
US. Department of interior bureau of reclamation. (1949), Engineering Geology Field
Manual; Second Edition, volume II.
US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (1991), Rock Blasting

and Overbreak Control. Publication No. FHWA-HI-92-001.
Waller, J. A. (1987), Injury: Conceptual Shifts and Prevention Implications. Annual Review
of Public Health, 8, 2149.
INTERNET:
Google earth image. (2011). http://www.earth.google.com
Safety On-line. (2001). Available from: http://www.safetyonline.com.au/ industry
wrap/default3.asp

ANNEX 1: Calculations of blast pattern used to determine powder factor in English units
For English unit
BLAST 1
Charge
Hole Powder Hole Explosive Loading Powder
Stemming weight Burden Spacing Cubic
depth column Diameter Density density Factor
(ft) per hole (ft) (ft) yards
(ft) (ft) (in) (g/cc) (lbs/ft) (lb/yd^3)
(lbs)
30 2,6 27,4 2,6 1,9 4,4 119,8 5 5 27,78 4,31
BLAST 2
Charge
(lbs)
30 3 27 3 1,9 5,8 157,2 5 5 27,78 5,7
BLAST 3
Charge
(lbs)
30 6 24 3 1,9 5,8 139,7 8 10 88,89 1,57

ANNEX 2. Inquiry sheet on the notion of work saety at the quarry by workers
1-Workshop;
- Drilling; - Crusher; - Mechanic; - Welding; - Driver; - Electrical; - Administration; - Laboratory
2-Age..
3-Gendre: -masculine -feminine
4-Number of years on duty on workshop occupied in the company.
5-Case of work injury; -victim - witness - -none
6- If you were a victim or witness of an injury, what was the cause?
- Carelessness of Operator; - Defective Material; - Under-Trained; - Working Conditions; - Health; - Others
Comments
7- At what time of the day did the injury occur? -Morning -Evening -Night
8- Inventory of Personal Protective Equipments (PPE) and position (attitude) on duty
Safety Ear Nose Fluorescent Upright Knee Seated
Goggles Helmet Gloves
shoes plugs mask harness position position position
D L
type C O
D = Dark; C = Clair; L = Leather; O = Other.
9- Do you use your PPEs? -Yes -No
10- How frequently do you use your PPEs?
-Regularly - Sometimes
a- If yes list the PPEs you frequently use and why?
b- If no, give reasons for not using them ...
11- What are your recommendations concerning the PPEs you use
............................................................................
.
12-Have you notions of first-aid as concerns injury at work site: -Yes -No

ANNEX 3: Table 10: Preliminary risk assessment and preventive measures

WORK POSITIONS HAZARD CAUSES PREVENTIVE MEASURES
Eye injured Flying particles Wear goggles
hearing Prolong exposure to sound of very high decibel Wear ear plugs or ear muffs
Drilling Breathing and
Inhaling dust during drilling operations Wear nose mask, use an aspirator
pulmonary infection
Head injured Flying particles Wear helmet
Foot cuts Cuts from sharp edges of rocks Wear safety shoes
Radiation Body exposure to the emission of particles during welding Wear worksuite and leather aprons
Walking on wounded cables, wrong connections, wet Wear safety shoes and leather gloves when handling electric
Electrocution
hands, defective material, wounded cable on wet surfaces appliances, shoot down power generator during maintenance
Feet injured Falling objects on feet Wear safety shoes
Welding/Electricity
Breathing and
Inhaling Toxic fumes from welding activities Wear nose mask
pulmonary infection
Eye injured Sparks in the eye and radiation from welding, Wear dark goggles and use welding screen
Fire and explosion Defective gas bottle, bottle exposed to heat source Inspect gas bottle before use
Eye injured Flying particles from crusher and conveyor Wear goggles
hearing Prolong exposure to sound of high decibel Wear ear plugs or ear muffs
Breathing and
Crushing Inhaling dust from crusher, sifter and grinder Wear nose mask, spray aggregates with water
pulmonary infection
Head injured Falling aggregates from conveyor Wear helmet
Death Slide fall in crusher or knock head on hard surface Attach safety belts (harnet) and shoes when working
Eye injured Spontaneous spills of oil in the eye Wear goggles
Mechanic Truck rolling on body Breaks failure, starting truck with technician at work Block tires and remove key on contact
Wounds Cuts from sharp edges of tools or parts Wear gloves and appropriate worksuits
Fire and explosion Defective gas bottle Inspect gas bottle before use
Laboratory Breathing and
Dust from sifting operation and bad smell from heating Wear nose mask
pulmonary infection
Slippery road, poor distance appreciation in reverse, soft
Truck fall Good road maintenance and equip trucks rear-view mirrors
spots
Driving
Over speed, driving in wrong direction, Fatigue, slippery
Truck collusion Speed regulation and traffic direction panels clearly posted
road

ANNEX 4: Table 11: Preliminary risk assessment and preventive measures when handling
explosive (AEL, 2000)
PREVENTIVE
MATERIAL HAZARD CAUSE
MEASURES
Breathing and Inhalation of decomposing
pulmonary gases may cause serious Use PPE: nose mask
infections delay lungs effect
Eye irritation Dust particles in the eye Use PPE: goggles
Repeated or prolonged Wear suitable gloves
Skin irritation contact may cause skin when handling material
irritation for long period
ANFO
Gastro The swallowing of large Do not eat food or use
(Ammonium
intestinal quantities may cause gastro mouth to open bags when
Nitrate prills +
disorder intestinal disorder handling explosives
Gasoline)
1-Use water, do not use
chemical extinguishers or
Thermal decomposition of
foam.
NH4NO 3. Evolving toxic
Fire 2-A self-contained
and irritant vapour in contact
breathing apparatus and
with oxidizing agent
full protective clothing
must be worn
Breathing and Inhalation of decomposing
pulmonary gases may cause serious Use PPE: nose mask
infections delay lungs effect
Eye irritation Dust particles in the eye Use PPE: goggles
Bulk Emulsion Repeated or prolonged Wear suitable gloves
(Slurry) Skin irritation contact may cause skin when handling material
irritation for long period
Gastro The swallowing of large Do not eat food or use
intestinal quantities may cause gastro mouth to open bags when
disorder intestinal disorder handling explosives
Breathing and
An explosive material,
pulmonary
Unlikely except the cord high temperature, ignition
Detonating cord infections
burns source, excessive impact
Eye irritation
or friction
Skin irritation

ANNEX 5: Conversion table from English units to metric units

ENGLISH UNITS (To) METRIC UNITS MULTIPLY BY
Lb/yd3 (pound per cubic yard) Kg/m3 (kilogram per cubic meter) 0.5933
Yd3 (cubic yard) M3 (cubic meter) 0.02832
Lb (pound) Kg (kilogram) 0.45359
Ft (feet) M (meter) 0.3048
In (inch) Cm (centimeter) 2.54
METRIC UNITS (To) ENGLISH UNITS MULTIPLY BY

Kg/m3 (kilogram per cubic meter) Lb/yd3 (pound per cubic yard) 1.6855
M3 (cubic meter) Yd3 (cubic yard) 1.3079
Kg (kilogram) Lb (pound) 2.20462
M (meter) Ft (feet) 3.2808
Cm (centimeter) In (inch) 0.3937
For English units
Hole Stemming Powder Hole Explosive Loading Charge Burden Spacing Cubic Powder
depth (ft) column Diameter Density density weight (ft) (ft) yards Factor
(ft) (ft) (in) (g/cc) (lbs/ft) per hole (lb/yd^3)
(lbs)

Final Version MS Thesis GDMa PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Final Version MS Thesis GDMa PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPTIMIZING BLASTING OPERATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ON WORK SAFETY MEASURES AT

THESIS SUBMITED FOR PARTIAL FULLFILMENT

Presented and defended publicly by

Simon Pierre JIOMENECK TSOPJIO

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ V

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... VII

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

A. PRESENTATION OF COGEB INTERNATIONAL ........................................................................ 6

B. BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER I. NATURAL MILIEU ........................................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER II. MATERIAL AND METHOD ....................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER III. RESULTS ON BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS ....................... 19

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF BLAST PATTERN ANALYSIS AND

CHAPTER V. RESULTS OF INQUIRY SHEET AND PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 30

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 a

ANNEX 5: Conversion table from English units to metric units .......................................................... 46

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 b

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 I

Mr. Salofou TRAHORE, Inspector of Mines at BUMIGEB, for his assistance

Ken ELTSCHLAGER, mining/explosive engineer, for his advice on blast pattern

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 II

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 III

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 IV

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 V

Figure 1. Loss of pressure from blast holes ............................................................................................. 4

Figure 2. Fly rocks and dust produced during blast ................................................................................ 4

Figure 3. Localization of study area (www.googleearth.com). ............................................................... 9

Figure 4. Sparse vegetation with shrubs..9

Figure 5. Cattle grazing....9

Figure 6. Manual ground turning..9

Figure 7. Panea microcarpa..9

Figure 10. Geological conditions of granitic formations ....................................................................... 19

Figure 12. Illustration of proposed NONEL blast design pattern.......................................................... 24

Figure 13. Illustration of proposed ELECTRIC blast design pattern ................................................... 25

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 VI

Table1. Materials used in blasting operations at the Ramongo Quarry................................................. 12

Table 2. Correction factors for rock deposition..................................................................................... 14

Table 3. Correction factors for rock structure ....................................................................................... 14

Table 4. Interpretation of stiffness ratio results ..................................................................................... 15

Table 5. Typical powder factor for surface blasting.............................................................................. 16

work safety and risks related to their work ........................................................................................... 33

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 VII

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 1

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 2

Important back break of wall

Loss of pressure from blast holes

Vibration of materials far from blast site

Production of dust from blast site

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 3

Figure 1. Loss of pressure from blast holes

Figure 2. Fly rocks and dust produced during blast

II. Principal objectives:

III. Specific objectives:

TSOPJIO JIOMENECK Simon Pierre | MSGDM 2010-2011 4

Perform an inventory of personal protective equipments used by the personnel. This in

Carry out a preliminary risk assessment on operations at the quarry;

III. Structure of the thesis

Chapter II. Materials and Methods used in blasting operations;

Chapter III. Presentation of results obtained;

Chapter IV. Comparative Discussion of results.