2037 Table 3 – Sizing of the geometric elements of the blast design for 9” Lithology A(m) E (m) T (m) J (m) Min Max Med Min Max Avg. Min Max Avg. Friable 6,0 7,8 12,1 9,9 4,2 6,0 5,1 1,2 2,4 1,8 Semi-compact 5,4 6,5 7,3 6,9 3,8 5,4 4,6 1,1 2,2 1,6 Compacta 4,5 5,2 5,4 5,3 3,2 4,5 3,8 0,9 1,8 1,4 Table 4 – Sizing of the charge and powder factor for the 9” blast design Explosivo Q (kg/furo) RC (g/t) Tipo Kg/m3 Min Max Avg. Min Max Avg. 70-30 1150 480,3 622,6 551,5 146,8 230,6 188,7 70-30 1150 504,1 631,5 567,8 258,7 343,2 300,9 70-30 1150 511,4 644,3 577,8 369,2 475,0 422,1 The minimum delay between holes for blast patterns with a 7 7/8” diameter was 11 ms for friable lithologies, 6 ms for semi-compact lithologies, and 5 ms for compact lithologies; for blast patterns with a 9” diameter, the corresponding values were 16 ms, 9 ms, and 7 ms, respectively. Delays of 100 ms between rows are recommended. The X80 fragmentation simulations for 7 7/8” blast patterns resulted in 15.2 cm for friable lithologies, 21.3 cm for semi-compact lithologies, and 25.2 cm for compact lithologies. Likewise, for 9” blast patterns, the results were 20.0 cm, 25.1 cm, and 30.2 cm, respectively, as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 - Rosin-Rammler fragmentation curves for n = 0.75 simulated with AI support
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2