3
3. Reset model items.
4. Interpolation of grades.
5. Calcs in block model.
6. Interpolation of zones.
To ensure the selection of the optimal block model
size, a preliminary verification was undertaken. Three block
models with different supports were created to observe the
behavior of the tonnage and compare it with the tonnage
reported by the dispatch system. The goal was to choose the
block model with the least variation. The bench height is
14 m, the analysis focused on changing only the “X” and
“Y” axes. The decision was made to explore three models, as
shown in the Table 1.
The following steps were taken to analyze the tonnage
behavior:
1. The mining cuts, were encoded onto the three block
models ensuring at least 50% of their volume of
block is inside the polygon and were assigned in
the variable (PMIN) a value of 1.
2. The FeM values from the RC were interpolated
onto the block model using the following interpo-
lation parameters:
– Interpolation method: Ordinary kriging
– Modeling: Spherical isotropic variogram
– Parameters: nugget =0, search range =30, and sill
=1.
3. With the interpolated FeM values based on the
defined criteria, density was calculated using the
following formula:
SG FeMh
1000
2511.35 31.383 #=+c ^m
This formula is a simplified version applied to the long-
term model, where the mineral percentage in the blocks is
not considered. For the Ore Control model, contacts are
constrained by reverse circulation drilling, resulting in a
unique value for each block without dilution of the mineral
percentage. Three reserve logics were created to compare
the three models. Once the processing of the three models
Figure 4. Actual blasting sketch
Figure 5. Actual process
Figure 6. Workflow in Axis
Table 1. Model blocks dimensions and names
Block Size File Name PCF File Name 15
7.5 x 7.5 x 14 m PC7510.dat PC0315.dat
5 x 5 x 14 m PC0510.dat PC0115.dat
2.5 x 2.5 x 14 m PC2515.dat PC0215.dat
3. Reset model items.
4. Interpolation of grades.
5. Calcs in block model.
6. Interpolation of zones.
To ensure the selection of the optimal block model
size, a preliminary verification was undertaken. Three block
models with different supports were created to observe the
behavior of the tonnage and compare it with the tonnage
reported by the dispatch system. The goal was to choose the
block model with the least variation. The bench height is
14 m, the analysis focused on changing only the “X” and
“Y” axes. The decision was made to explore three models, as
shown in the Table 1.
The following steps were taken to analyze the tonnage
behavior:
1. The mining cuts, were encoded onto the three block
models ensuring at least 50% of their volume of
block is inside the polygon and were assigned in
the variable (PMIN) a value of 1.
2. The FeM values from the RC were interpolated
onto the block model using the following interpo-
lation parameters:
– Interpolation method: Ordinary kriging
– Modeling: Spherical isotropic variogram
– Parameters: nugget =0, search range =30, and sill
=1.
3. With the interpolated FeM values based on the
defined criteria, density was calculated using the
following formula:
SG FeMh
1000
2511.35 31.383 #=+c ^m
This formula is a simplified version applied to the long-
term model, where the mineral percentage in the blocks is
not considered. For the Ore Control model, contacts are
constrained by reverse circulation drilling, resulting in a
unique value for each block without dilution of the mineral
percentage. Three reserve logics were created to compare
the three models. Once the processing of the three models
Figure 4. Actual blasting sketch
Figure 5. Actual process
Figure 6. Workflow in Axis
Table 1. Model blocks dimensions and names
Block Size File Name PCF File Name 15
7.5 x 7.5 x 14 m PC7510.dat PC0315.dat
5 x 5 x 14 m PC0510.dat PC0115.dat
2.5 x 2.5 x 14 m PC2515.dat PC0215.dat