Dynamic Stress Field around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

R.Raghavaraju and B. Mohanty

Department of Civil Engineering and Lassonde Institute of Mining
University of Toronto, Toronto, CANADA, M5S 1A4
Abstract
Estimation of the dynamic stress field in terms of its amplitude and decay around a blast hole is a key
input parameter in all numerical modeling and blast prediction exercises. However, there is very limited
information available in literature on these critical parameters, which would be considered essential in
any blast modeling exercise. A laboratory-scale experimental study has been carried out in two different
rock types to study at very close range the stress wave decay from a blast hole at distances ranging from
3 to 10 borehole radii. The singlehole blasting experiments employed a centrally located detonating
cord (5.3 g/m) in 6 mm(1/4 inch) and 10 mm (3/8 inch) boreholes. The coupling medium employed was
air and water, in addition to using a thin-walled copper tube in intimate contact with borehole wall to
prevent of penetration of explosion gases into the emerging cracks. The paper describes the nature
(amplitude and decay) of the transmitted shock pressure and their evolution in the two rock types for
these various experimental conditions, which are present to varying degrees in all blasting operations.
Keywords:
blasting, dynamic stress field, single-hole blasts, detonating cord, laboratory-scale blasting experiments,
amplitude and decay characteristics, close range measurements

Introduction
Blasting operation represents the first stage in the size reduction process in rock mass during a mining
operation. Although the cost of blasting operation by itself is small compared to the overall mining and
processing cost, a poorly fragmented blast can increase the cost of production in the subsequent
operation very significantly. Aside from fragmentation issues, a poorly designed blast can also result in
excessive dilution and overbreak, the latter leading to unsafe conditions. Fragmentation of rock due to
blasting takes place in two stages: firstly, due to propagation of stress wave into surrounding rock
thereby creating the initial fracture network and secondly, further fracturing occurs due to penetration of
gas into fractures leading to further fragmentation and movement. Experimental studies have been
conducted by researchers to quantify the damage due to shock wave and gas penetration. Fogelson et al
(1959) and Nicholls and Hooker (1962) concluded from a series of experiments that the shock wave
energy constitutes only 10-18% in a granite rock and only 2-4% in salts. Kutter and Fairhurst(1970)
studied this dynamic effect in Plexiglas, and from the isochromatic fringe patterns concluded that gas
expansion into the crack occurs well after the shock wave has passed a particular point.
Brinkmann (1987, 1990) conducted small-scale single-hole blasts to measure the stress field around a
blast hole by accelerometers and strain gauges, which were placed at various distances from blast hole in

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

1 of 9

small-scale and some full-scale experiments. He also introduced a technique to separate stress wave
propagation from the gas penetration by placing aluminum and steel liners around the blast hole, thereby
preventing gas penetration into the rock. A similar technique has been employed in this work to separate
gas pressure from stress wave by placing a thin walled copper liner in the borehole. The effect of
decoupling (i.e. charge diameter being less than the borehole diameter and the coupling medium) in the
borehole is also an important parameter. This has been studied by several researchers in the past,
showing that air-coupling produces the least amount of cracking and water-coupling produces the
highest (Lownds et al, 2000; Paventi and Mohanty, 2002; Dehghan Banadaki, 2010).
Dynamic Pressure Measurement
Measurement of the dynamic stress pulse in the near-field of the blast hole is not straight forward, as the
sensors used will be lost in course of the measurement. Secondly, the response time of the sensors
should be very low, as duration of the stress pulse would be in the order of a few microseconds. As the
experiments are conducted in laboratory scale, the size of the sensors should be relatively small for them
to be mounted inside the samples, and not perturb the stress field. Therefore, use of accelerometers and
strain gauges is not feasible in such investigations. In the present study, laboratory-scale rock samples
(15 cm (6 inch), in length and width and 7.8 cm (3 inch) in height) and Carbon composite resistor
gauges (CCR) are used for this study. The applicability of CCR gauges to measure dynamic stress field
as a function of change in resistance has been studied extensively (Watson, 1967; Austing et al,1991;
Rosenberg et al, 2007; Cunningham et al, 2002). In the present study, 510 ohm CCR sensors with a
diameter of 1.9 mm and length of 1.9 mm were grouted into the target rock at varying distance from the
borehole.
Properties of selected rock types
Two types of rocks were selected for this study, one being a high strength brittle rock; Laurentian
granite, and the other being relatively soft rock; Flamboro Limestone. Both rocks are isotropic and
homogeneous, with grain size ranging between 0.2-2 mm in the granite, and <0.2 mm in the limestone.
The relevant properties of these two target rocks are given in Table 1.
Experimental methodology
Experiments were conducted on these two different rocks to determine the transmitted pressure at
various distances from the borehole wall. CCR sensors were placed in the sensor holes such that the
axial direction of the resistor is tangential to the stress wave propagation from the borehole to the
sensors. The effect of orientation of resistor is tested by placing them along two different orientations;
Table1 : Properties of the two target rocks
Rock type
Flamboro
Limestone
Laurentian
granite

(g/cc)

Vp

Vs

(Km/s)

(Km/s)

2.66

6.2

3.0

2.65

4.4

2.8

Bulk
Shear
Modulus Modulus
(GPa)
(GPa)
71.2
24.2
24.4

20.3

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

UCS
(MPa)
130

Tensile
strength
(MPa)
6

259

7.3

2 of 9

resistors parallel to the borehole axis, and perpendicular to the borehole axis. The CCR gauges are
coupled to the rock in sensor holes((4 mm(5/32 inch) in diameter) ) with epoxy (System Three Clearcoat with a Shore D hardness of 82), which is allowed to harden for a minimum of three days. A
schematic diagram showing orientation of the sensors is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig.1: Schematic diagram showing two different orientations of placing the sensor in the target rock
In the single-hole experiments, the blast holes of 6.4 mm(1/4 inch) and 9.5 mm(3/8 inch) diameter and
extending the length of the test samples were charged with a single and centered strand of detonating
cord of 5.3 g/m strength and 3.1 mm(~1/8 inch) diameter. The sensors were placed at varying distances
from the borehole to measure the respective transmitted pressures. The stress wave is isolated from the
gas pressure by placing a copper liner of 0.6mm thickness with outer diameter of 6.4 mm in the smaller
blasthole, and 0.8 mm thick with outer diameter of 9.5 mm in the larger 9.5 mm diameter blasthole. In
all cases, the liner was in tight contact and fully bonded to the borehole wall by epoxy (Fig. 2).
A calibration equation, equation (1), was used to correlate change in the 510 ohm resistor with
transmitted pressure (Dehghan Banadaki, 2010);
(1)

P = 675.7 R/R0

where, P is the gauge pressure at the point in MPa, R is the change in the resistance, R0 the initial
resistance of the sensor.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

3 of 9

Fig. 2:
Cross-sectional view of the bore hole a) 6.4 mm(1/4 inch) diameter borehole and b) 9.5 mm(3/8 inch)
diameter hole

Fig. 3: Data acquisition system showing a) sample with CCR gauges, b) PCB constant current signal
conditioner: model 482A16, c) MREL DataTrap II with sampling rate up to 10 MHz
A 20 mA current was supplied to each sensor via a 4-channel constant current power supply module
(PCB model 482A16). The output from each sensor was recorded by a high-speed data acquisition
system (MREL DataTrap II), with a sampling rate of 10 MHz (Fig. 3). A pre-trigger mode was used to
accurately measure the time of detonation in each case.
Experimental Results
Because of the smaller diameter explosive charge (i.e. 3.1 mm diameter detonating cord) placed in a
larger diameter borehole (i.e. 6.4 mm or 9.5 mm), all blasts in these experiments would be considered
decoupled blasts. In addition to these diameter differences, there are also additional coupling

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

4 of 9

specifications, i.e. air filling the void between the explosive charge and the borehole wall (air coupling),
air replaced by water (water coupling), and the role of the copper liner itself. All of these parameters will
affect the nature of the transmitted pressure in the target rock. Typically, the CCR sensors are placed at
10 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm and 40 mm from the borehole wall.
Table 2: Recorded peak pressure in Flamboro limestone sample with different sensor orientations
Borehole
Diameter
(mm)

Coupling
Medium

Copper
liner

Charge
Weight
(PETN)

Charge
dia.

Peak Pressure(MPa) at various

distances from blasthole wall
Horizontal
Vertical
10 mm 20 mm 10 mm 20 mm

9.5

Air

Yes

5.3g/m

3.1mm

29.5

17.3

24.5

14.6

9.5

Air

Yes

5.3g/m

3.1mm

26.5

18.7

27.9

6.4

Air

Yes

5.3g/m

3.1mm

39.4

19.5

38.2

19.8

The effect of sensor orientation (i.e. vertical or horizontal) with respect to shock front has been studied.
The recorded peak pressure for air-coupled shots for both 6.4 mm and 9.5 mm diameter boreholes are
shown in Table 2 for identical distances from the borehole wall. The results show that there is no
significant difference in the measured peak pressure values. That makes it easier to align the sensor
holes (i.e. parallel or perpendicular to the charge hole axis). In all cases, the sensors were mounted
tangential to the expected shock front.
A typical transmitted pressure pulse in Laurentian granite at a distance of two borehole diameters from
the center of a 6.4 mm diameter borehole (i.e. 1.5 borehole diameters from the borehole wall) is shown
in Fig. 4. Centrally placed 5.3 g/m detonating cord served as the explosive charge in the borehole. The
total duration of the pulse is <5 microseconds and its rise time is about 1 microsecond.

Fig. 4: Transmitted pressure pulse in Laurentian granite at 13.3 mm from the centre of 6.4 mm diameter
borehole (air-coupled with Cu liner; 5.3g/m detonating cord (3.1 mm nominal diameter)

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

5 of 9

Effect of Decoupling and Coupling Media

Decoupling reduces the pressure on the borehole wall significantly. This would be reflected in the
respective pressure pulse transmitted in the rock. The effect of such decoupling on the transmitted
pressure in Laurentian granite is shown in Fig. 5 for air-coupled blasts in two diameters (6.4 mm and 9.5
mm), with the same 5.3 g/m detonating cord (3.1 mm nominal diameter). The respective decoupling
ratios (i.e. ratio of charge diameter to borehole diameter) for the two cases were 0.49 and 0.33. At closein range (i.e. 4 borehole radius away from the centre of the blasthole), there is nearly a 100% reduction
in pressure for the higher decoupling value. However at increasing distance from the borehole, the
difference between the two decoupling ratio appears less drastic.
The same effect of decoupling (air) in the limestone rock is shown in Fig. 6 for a 5.3 g/m detonating
cord in 6.4 mm and 9.5 mm diameter boreholes. The data exhibits greater scatter than those in the
granite sample (Fig. 5), but the same decay trend is observed for the transmitted pressure. The
transmitted pressure in the limestone rock is lower than the granite rock at the same distance from the
blasthole, but the decay in amplitude with distance is significantly larger in the limestone rock than in
granite.
The effect of water-coupling instead of air-coupling in a 9.5 mm diameter blasthole with the same 5.3
g/m detonating cord is shown in Fig. 7. As expected, there is a drastic increase in transmitted pressure
when air is replaced by water for identical blasting conditions. At one diameter away from the borehole
wall, the transmitted pressure in the water-coupled case is nearly three times that of the air-coupled case.
This difference narrows somewhat farther away from the blast hole, but the water-coupled case still
exhibits significantly higher transmitted pressure than air-coupling. For water-coupled blast hole of 9.5
mm, the peak transmitted pressure (78.49 MPa) was found to be still higher than the air-coupled 6.4 mm
borehole.
60
y = 164.8x-0.957
R = 0.925

Peak Pressure(MPa)

50
40

6.4 mm Diameter Air-Coupled borehole

with Cu liner
9.5 mm Diameter Air-Coupled borehole
with Cu liner

30
20

y = 54.158x-0.595
R = 0.859

10
0
0

2
4
6
8
10
Normalized distance from centre of borehole with respect to radius.

12

Fig. 5: Transmitted peak pressure decay with distance due to decoupling for two diameters in Laurentian
granite (air-coupled; 3.1 mm diameter, 5.3 g/m detonating cord)

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

6 of 9

6.4 mm Diameter Air-Coupled borehole with Cu

liner

45
40

9.5 mm Diameter Air-Coupled borehole with Cu

liner

Peak Pressure(MPa)

35
30

y = 228.24x-1.255
R = 0.9713

25
20
y = 64.89x-0.718
R = 0.6537

15
10
5
0
0

4
6
8
10
12
Normalized distance with borehole radius

14

16

Fig.6: Transmitted peak pressure decay with distance due to decoupling for two diameters in Flamboro
limestone (air-coupled; 3.1 mm diameter, 5.3 g/m detonating cord)
9.5 mm Diameter Water-Coupled borehole
with Cu liner

100
90
Peak Pressure(MPa)

80
70

y = 272.68x-0.999
R = 0.8774

60

9.5 mm Diameter Air-Coupled borehole with

Cu liner

50
40
30
20

y = 54.158x-0.595
R = 0.859

10
0
0

2
4
6
8
Normalized distance from centre of borehole with respect to radius.

10

Fig. 7: Comparison between air-coupled and water-coupled transmitted peak pressure with distance
from a 9.5 mm diameter blast hole charged with the same 5.3 g/m PETN detonator cord in Laurentian
granite.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

7 of 9

Conclusions
The transmitted pressure from the single-hole laboratory-scale blasts in both air-coupled and watercoupled cases has been successfully measured in two homogenous and isotropic rock types (Flamboro
limestone and Laurentian granite). The two borehole diameters employed in this drilled-through case but
with no stemming, were 6.4 mm and 9.5 mm diameter. Carbon composite resistor (CCR) sensors have
been used for the purpose of measurement of pressure at distances ranging from three to ten borehole
radii from the charge hole, with a 5.3 g/m detonating cord serving as the explosive source. Thin-walled
copper tubes were used in the boreholes to prevent the explosion gas from penetrating into the target
rock. Water-coupling resulted in a peak transmitted pressure more than three times that of the aircoupled case close to the borehole wall. Decay of peak transmitted pressure with distance has a good
correlation with the attenuation equation:
(2)
where, P0 is the peak pressure at the borehole wall, r the radius of the borehole, R is the distance of the
gauge point from the sensor and n is the decay coefficient. The later was found to be significantly
higher for the limestone than for the granite. The attenuation coefficient was higher in case of limestone
(i.e. n=1.26), compared to Laurentian granite (i.e. n=0.96). Additional tests are underway with a larger
variety of target rocks to study the phenomenon further.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Center for Excellence in Mining Innovation
(CEMI) during the conduct of this research.
References
Austing, J.L. Tuli,A.J., Hrdina, D.J., Baker, D.E., and Martinez, R.(1991). Carbon composite resistor
gauges for measuring shock and detonation pressure-I. Principles of functioning and calibration,
Propellants, Explosives, and Pyrotechnics,16,5,pp. 205-215
Brinkmann, J. R. (1987). Separating shock wave and gas expansion breakage mechanism, Proc. 2nd
Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,(ed: Fourney W.L. and Dick R.D.,), Keystone;USA, 6-15
Brinkmann, J. R. (1990). An experimental study of the effects of shock and gas peneration in blasting,
Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,Brisbane,Australia, 55-66
Cunningham, B., Vandersall,K.S.,Niles,A.M., Greenwood, D.W.,Gracis, F., Forbes, J.W., and Wilson,
W.H.,2002. Carbon resistor pressure gauges calibration at low stresses, AIP Conference
Proceedings,620,pp. 1137-1140

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

8 of 9

Dehghan Banadaki, M. (2010). Stress-wave induced Fracture in Rock due to Explosive Action, PhD
Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto,Canada.
Folegson, D.E., Duvall, W.I and Atchison, T.C.(1959), Strain energy in explosion generated strain
pulse, p-17, USBM
Ginsberg, M.J., and Asay, B.W.(1991).Commercial carbon composite resistors as dynamic stress
gauges in difficult environments, Rev. Sci. Instruments,62,9,pp.2218-2227.
Kutter, H.K. and Fairhurst, C.(1970). On the fracture process of blasting, Int. J. Rock Mech. and Min.
Sci.Vol-8,pp.181-202
Lownds, M. (2000),Measurement shock pressures in splitting of dimensional stone. Proc. 1st World
Conference on Explosive and Blasting Techniques; (ed. Holmberg R), Balkema, pp 241-246.
Mohanty B and Dehghan Banadaki M.(2012), Numerical simulation of stress wave induced fractures
in rock, Int. J. of Impact Engineering,40-41,pp-16-25
Nicholls, H.R. and Hooker V.E.,(1962). Comparative studies of explosives in salt,USBM,p-46
Paventi, M., and Mohanty B, (2002). Mapping of blast-induced fractures in rock Proc. 7th Int. Symp.
Rock Fragmentation by Balsting (ed. Xuguang, W.) Metallurgical Industry Press; Beijing, pp 166-172
Rosenberg Z., Ginzburg, A.,and Ashuach,Y.,(2007). More on commercial carbon composite resistors as
low pressure gauges, Int. J. of Impact Engineering,34,4, pp 732-742
Watson, R.W.(1967), Gauge for Determining Shock Pressures. Rev. Sci. Instrumentation.38, 978.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Dynamic Stress Field Around a Blast Hole A Laboratory Study

9 of 9