6
Delimitation of mining cuts
The comparison between blast sketches before the improve-
ment (calculated with Excel) and those with the Ore
Control model indicates several improvements. The prep-
aration time for blast sketches has been reduced by over
50%. The time required for developing monthly and quar-
terly mining plans has also seen a reduction. Additionally,
it facilitates a more dynamic scheduling of surfaces for
mining. The model enables immediate retrieval of grade
and chemical characteristics (reports) by simply having the
mining cut and the ore control model (Table 7).
For sequencing, it is essential to generate a half-bench
polygon for long-duration phases that accurately represents
the solid of each extraction phase. Mining cuts are created
for sequencing to optimize the best representative grade and
tonnage. Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13
Table 5. Statistics for the 2016 database (EDA 2016) vs. the
2023 database (Implemented 2023)
Summary Statistics
EDA 2016
FeM
Implemented 2023
FeM
Valid Data 25,544 31,350
Total Data 25,743 31,579
Missing Data 199 229
Invalid Data 199 229
Minimum 0.010 0.000
Maximum 63.600 63.600
Mean 17.740 18.403
Variance 88.550 103.846
Standard Deviation 9.410 10.190
Coefficient Of Variation 0.530 0.554
First Quartile (Q1) 11.900 12.000
Median (Q2) 18.400 18.900
Third Quartile (Q3) 23.000 23.900
Table 6. Table of comparison blast before of the
implementation and after the implementation
Blast name KTonnes FeMag FeT SiO2
2C09120667MA1 30.280 24.860 67.940 2.280
F1A-447 54.170 24.030 67.210 2.710
2C09120550MA1 78.390 24.390 66.840 1.810
Blast name KTonnes FeMag FeT SiO2
2C09120667MA1 42.913 27.199 68.454 2.053
F1A-447 37.680 19.970 66.640 2.940
2C09120550MA1 79.050 24.580 66.730 1.880
Method before implementation
Implementation
Figure 10. Blasting sketch with the previous methodology
Figure 11. Blasting sketch with Ore Control model
Figure 12. Planner interface with report of different
polygons
Table 7. Report from three blasts
C ut T onnes Volume FE M FE T S C AO S IO2 P AL 2O3 MG O
2C 09120550MA1 79,057 24,105 24.582 68.734 0.054 0.678 1.879 0.011 0.607 0.241
2C 09120667MA1 42,913 12,767 27.199 68.454 0.083 0.776 2.053 0.010 0.800 0.307
F1A-447 37,685 12,021 19.970 66.639 0.155 0.971 2.939 0.013 1.015 0.359
G rand T otal 159,655 48,892 24.197 68.260 0.082 0.764 2.130 0.011 0.745 0.284
Delimitation of mining cuts
The comparison between blast sketches before the improve-
ment (calculated with Excel) and those with the Ore
Control model indicates several improvements. The prep-
aration time for blast sketches has been reduced by over
50%. The time required for developing monthly and quar-
terly mining plans has also seen a reduction. Additionally,
it facilitates a more dynamic scheduling of surfaces for
mining. The model enables immediate retrieval of grade
and chemical characteristics (reports) by simply having the
mining cut and the ore control model (Table 7).
For sequencing, it is essential to generate a half-bench
polygon for long-duration phases that accurately represents
the solid of each extraction phase. Mining cuts are created
for sequencing to optimize the best representative grade and
tonnage. Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13
Table 5. Statistics for the 2016 database (EDA 2016) vs. the
2023 database (Implemented 2023)
Summary Statistics
EDA 2016
FeM
Implemented 2023
FeM
Valid Data 25,544 31,350
Total Data 25,743 31,579
Missing Data 199 229
Invalid Data 199 229
Minimum 0.010 0.000
Maximum 63.600 63.600
Mean 17.740 18.403
Variance 88.550 103.846
Standard Deviation 9.410 10.190
Coefficient Of Variation 0.530 0.554
First Quartile (Q1) 11.900 12.000
Median (Q2) 18.400 18.900
Third Quartile (Q3) 23.000 23.900
Table 6. Table of comparison blast before of the
implementation and after the implementation
Blast name KTonnes FeMag FeT SiO2
2C09120667MA1 30.280 24.860 67.940 2.280
F1A-447 54.170 24.030 67.210 2.710
2C09120550MA1 78.390 24.390 66.840 1.810
Blast name KTonnes FeMag FeT SiO2
2C09120667MA1 42.913 27.199 68.454 2.053
F1A-447 37.680 19.970 66.640 2.940
2C09120550MA1 79.050 24.580 66.730 1.880
Method before implementation
Implementation
Figure 10. Blasting sketch with the previous methodology
Figure 11. Blasting sketch with Ore Control model
Figure 12. Planner interface with report of different
polygons
Table 7. Report from three blasts
C ut T onnes Volume FE M FE T S C AO S IO2 P AL 2O3 MG O
2C 09120550MA1 79,057 24,105 24.582 68.734 0.054 0.678 1.879 0.011 0.607 0.241
2C 09120667MA1 42,913 12,767 27.199 68.454 0.083 0.776 2.053 0.010 0.800 0.307
F1A-447 37,685 12,021 19.970 66.639 0.155 0.971 2.939 0.013 1.015 0.359
G rand T otal 159,655 48,892 24.197 68.260 0.082 0.764 2.130 0.011 0.745 0.284