An Investigation Into The Methods of Secondary Blasting With Reference To Optimal Explosive Consumption

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE METHODS
OF SECONDARY BLASTING WITH REFERENCE
TO OPTIMAL EXPLOSIVE CONSUMPTION
A Thesis Submitted to
The University of New South Wales,
for the degree of,
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
JOSEPH MENSAH
JANUARY, 1989
UNIVERSITY OF N.S.W.
2 4 OCT 1989
LIBRARY
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the following
persons and organisations that contributed to make this presentation
possible.
1. At the University of New South Wales, particular appreciation is
extended to:
Professor F.F. Roxborough, Head of School of Mines, for making
available the facilities in the school for the success of this
research vrork.
Dr G.C. Sen, thesis supervisor, for his most helpful criticism,
guidance and continued assistance throughout the course of the
study.
Professor L.J. Thomas, for his assistance in supervision during
the absence of Dr Sen.
All staff of the Faculty of Applied Science, for providing
assistance in one form or another.
2. At the two quarries where the blasting tests were conducted
making use of their equipment and facilities, to:
Messrs Gribble, Cooksley and Miller, of Statebricks (Homebush
quarry). Messrs Burke, Baxter and Rick of Prospect (Readymix)
quarry.
Dr Green and Mr Dunn, of Londonderry.

ii
3. Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB)
for their sponsorship of my study in Australia.
4. I.C.I. for providing explosive materials.
5. Carol, for devoting her time in typing this thesis.
6. To my wife, Rosemary, for her continous incentive throughout
this work, and for her patience during the long period of this
study.
And finally to God, for His Fatherly care throughout this work.
iii
ABSTRACT
This thesis describes the result of experiments which investigated
the efficient use of explosives for breaking boulders by pop,
plaster and shaped charge shooting.
Tests were carried out at two quarries in Sydney; Homebush which
works shale, and Prospect which produces dolerite. The data from
these two quarries were compared with laboratory results obtained
from using pop shots and plaster charges on mortar blocks prepared
from different sand-cement compositions.
Appropriate similitude conditions to extend the results to natural
scale problems are deduced. A chapter analysing the cost of each
blasting method in each rock type has been detailed alongside the
cost of using a mechanical breaker. In addition, other aspects of
blasting mechanics are analysed in the light of experimental results
of the tests.
Both sets of results suggest that the degree of fragmentation
depends on the physical characteristics of the rock, the specific
charge, the depth of borehole, the position of borehole, the
thickness of clay capping (in the case of plaster shooting),
stemming material and the degree of coupling.

iv
ocwTarrs
PAGE
Acknowledgements i
Abstract iii
Contents iv
Tables ix
List of figures XI
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 ROCK FRAGMENTATION IN MINING 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND OUTLINE OF THIS STUDY 3
CHAPTER 2 THE CONCEPT OF OPTIMUM BLASTING 5
2.1 CHOICE AND QUANTITY OFEXPLOSIVES 6
2.2 SECONDARY BREAKAGE PROCESSES 9
2.2.1 Secondary Blasting
i) Pop Shooting
ii) Plaster Shooting 10
iii) Snakeholing 14
iv) Shaped Charge Shooting
2.2.2 Other methods of secondary breakage 21
a) Mechanical
i) Drop balling
ii) Hydraulic impactor
b) Chemical means 22
V
CHAPTER 3 THE PROCESS OF FRAGMENTATION
3.1 REVIEW OF RESULTS FROM MODEL STUDIES AND

SMALL SCALE STUDIES IN ROCKS 25
3.2 THE PROCESS OF DETONATION OF AN EXPLOSIVE

CHARGE IN A HOLE 27
3.3 THE REFLECTION THEORY OF ROCK BREAKAGE 30
3.4 PHENOMENA OCCURRING AROUND THE HOLE 35
3.5 STRESS WAVE GENERATION AND PROPAGATION 37
3.6 EXPLOSIVE ENERGY PARTITION AND UTILISATION 38
3.6.1 Reflection of stress waves and the

scabbing effect 40
3.6.2 The role of quasi-static gas pressure 41
CHAPTER 4 SIMILITUDE ANALYSIS OF FRAGMENTATION IN

SECONDARY BLASTING
4.1 INTRODUCTION 43
4.2 CONCEPT OF DIMENSIONS AND SIMILITUDE

FOR THE PROBLEM 44
a) Geometric similitude 47
b) Kinematic similitude 49
c) Dynamic similitude 50
4.3 METHOD OF MAKING COMPLETE SIMILARITY
4.3.1 Dimensionless Products 51
4.3.2 Dimensional Matrix 53
4.4 TESTS ON MODELS OF THE SAME ROCK 55
4.5 TESTS ON MODELS OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS 57
4.6 DISCUSSION OF THE VALIDITY OF SIMILITUDE

LAWS IN BLASTING 58
vi
CHAPTER 5 C0WT-4CREAR BLOCK BLASTING IN LABORATORY
5.1 INTRODUCTION 60
5.2 CONSTRUCTION OF MODELS 61
5.3 OVERVIEW ON PROPERTIES OF CEMH*T-M3RTAR BLOCKS 62
5.4 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
5.4.1 Pop Shooting 66
5.4.2 Plaster Shooting 67
5.4.3 General remarks 68
5.5 EXPERIMENTAL DATA 70
5.6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 75
CHAPTER 6 SMALL SGAI£ SECONDARY BLASTING IN SHALE

AND DOBUBRTEE
6.1 INTRODUCTION 83
6.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 85
6.3 DEFINITIONS 88
6.3.1 Optimum fragmentation 88
6.3.2 Fragmentation 88
a) Very good fragmentation 89
b) Good fragmentation 89
c) Fair fragmentation 90
d) Poor fragmentation 90
e) Size of fragments 90
f) Boulder 90
g) Distance of throw 91
vi i
6.4 EXPERIMENTAL DATA 91
a) Pop shooting tests 92
b) Plaster shooting tests 94
c) Shaped charge shooting 96
6.5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 99
CHAPTER 7 COST ANALYSES FOR SECONDARY BREAKING PROCESSES

IN SHAIE AND DGLERITB ROCKS 107
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND KBCXAMBNDATIGNB
8.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 114
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 120
REFERENCES 121
APPENDICES 127
Appendix A Consistent properties after mixing each mortar 127
Appendix B Equations used to calculate the compressive and

tensile strengths of the mortar blocks and
rock types 128
Appendix Cl Pop shooting in mortar blocks using

different charge masses 129
Appendix C2 Plaster shooting in mortar blocks using

Appendix C3 emulative mass of individual fragments

resulting from pop shooting tests 131
Appendix C4 Cumulative mass of individual fragments

resulting from plaster shooting tests 132
viii
Appendix D Mean fragment sizes of tests 20-30 using

Appendix E Properties of plastergel 133
Appendix FI Pop shooting (sand stemming) - Homebushshale 134
Appendix F2 Pop shooting (sand stemming) - Prospect dolerite 136
Appendix F3 Pop shooting (water stemming) - Prospect dolerite 138
Appendix F4 Plaster shooting - Homebushshale 139
Appendix F5 Plaster shooting - Prospect dolerite 140
Appendix F6 Shaped charge shooting - Homebush shale 141
Appendix F7 Shaped charge shooting - Prospect dolerite 143
Appendix G Equations used for the determination of dynamic

elastic constants of mortar blocks and rock types 145
ix
tables
PAGE
TABLE 2.1 Physical properties of copper 19
4.1 Dimensions of entities 48
4.2 Dimensional matrix of variables 54
5.1 Physical properties of cement-mortar blocks 63
5.2 Strength classification of rocks 65
5.3 Performance characteristics of pop shooting
in mortar blocks 70
5.4 Performance characteristics of plaster shooting 75
in mortar blocks
5.5 Table showing the t-test values for samples
20 to 30 79
5.6 Cumulative percent of fragments passing
(by mass) 80
6.1 Physical properties of rock types 84
6.2 Criteria for fragmentation assessment 92
in shale 92
(sand stemming) in dolerite 94

X
(water stemming) in dolerite 94
6.6 Performance characteristics of plaster
shooting in shale 96
6.7 Performance characteristics of plaster 96
shooting in dolerite
6.8 Performance characteristics of shaped charge
6.9 Performance characteristics of shaped charge
7.1 Cost comparison 109

xi
FIGURES
PAGE
FIGURE 2.1 Evaluation of optimum blasting 7
2.2 Pop shooting arrangement 13
2.3 Plaster shooting arrangement 13
2.4 Snakeholing arrangement 15
2.5 Shaped charge shooting arrangement 20
2.6 Shaped charge formation of jet 20
2.7 Shaped charge assemblies 23
2.8 Flyrock and noise factor 24
3.1 An illustration of detonation reaction 29
3.2 Blasthole pressure variation with time 29
3.3 Reflection of triangular compressivestrain pulse 32
3.4 Tensile fracture by reflection of a compressive
strain pulse 33
3.5 An illustration of fragmentation zones around
an explosion 36
5.1 Equipment used in laboratory tests 69
5.2 A typical mortar block used in the
laboratory tests 69
x.i i
5.3 Mortar block broken by pop shot (hole depth 160nm) 71
5.4 Mortar blocks broken with detonator only by
pop shot 72
5.5 Mortar blocks broken with plastergel by pop shot 73
5.6 Fragment sizes resulting from mortar block using
detonator only 74
5.7 Fragment sizes resulting fran mortar block using
plastergel 74
5.8 Percentage cumulative mass of fragments as
a function of screen size 81
6.1 Trapping fragments using a blasting mat 87
6.2 Homebush shale broken by pop shot 93
6.3 Prospect dolerite broken by pop shot 95
6.4 Homebush shale broken by plaster shot 97
6.5 Prospect dolerite broken by plaster shot 98
6.6 Homebush shale broken by shaped charge shot 100
6.7 Prospect dolerite broken by shaped chargeshot 101
6.8 Mean specific charge vs maximum boulder
dimension 102
CHAPTER 1
INTRCDOCTICN
1.1. ROCK FRAGMENTATION IN MINING
Blasting operations in mining, quarrying and heavy construction are
nowadays more concerned with the problem of fragmentation than in
the past. Strict specifications have now been imposed by modem
industry concerning the size grading of the products. Marketing or
further metallurgical treatment of mineral ores dictate the
permissible percentages of fines, and limits for the maximum size of
fragments.
Different situations can occur although some of them are
contradictory:
a) in valuable metal mining, since the finest ore fractions are
more concentrated of metal in general, methods of control are
desired to reduce the amount of metal waste in blasting; it has
to be ground to fine powder for subsequent treatment;
b) quarrying workings, on the other hand, often require that the
rock be broken into pieces that suits easy loading and the
crusher throat dimensions;
c) in quarrying for construction materials, it is often necessary
to remove blocks of a definite volume and shape, avoiding the
occurrence of cracks in the blocks;

2
d) In other cases, such as tunnelling operations, fragmentation is
a less critical problem, although oversize is limited by
transportation considerations.
These examples and many others emphasize the important role of rock
fragmentation in blast design.
Until recent years, when blasting was more of an art than science,
most of the above requirements were fulfilled by empirical
procedures. Today, with the development of rationalization in many
aspects of Rock Dynamics it is possible to foresee more reliable
approaches, scientifically based on the theories of blasting, rock
failure and comminution, however, the accurate prediction of the
degree of fragmentation remains still unsolved.
Appropriate selection of mining methods in order to get the minimum
cost for the overall operation is still a complex problem for every
mine. Though a small part of the problem, rock fragmentation is
important because of the influence it has on the rest of individual
mining operations (e.g. loading, hauling, crushing, concentration
etc).
Usually, it is assumed that a proper adjustment of drilling and
blasting parameters is sufficient to obtain the desired size grading
of ore, but in a more general view a large number of factors are
involved:
a) mechanical and geological properties of the rock;
b) the number of free faces of the rock mass subjected to blasting
and; their area;

3*
c) the nature of explosive employed, the sequence of firing, and
the weight distribution and shape of the charge necessary to
obtain the most efficient use of the explosive energy;
d) other factors such as decoupling, stemming, hole alignment,and
deviations in drilling are also important.
The complexity of these variables and their interactions makes it
difficult to forecast a complete solution of the problem or to
establish a general law of fragmentation in blasting.
However, an explanation of this phenomenon is desirable. To this
end, mathematical simplifying assumptions are justifiable
particularly when, as is the case in blasting, the complex physical
problems are mathematically intractable. However, with the present
state of knowledge certain assumptions have to be made in order to
quantify this problem. Ideal mechanical behaviour of rocks,
theoretical detonation conditions for the explosives, etc., are
common assumptions used in this investigation.
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND OUTLINE OF THIS STUDY
As part of general research into rock fragmentation, this study is
to investigate secondary breakage of rock. The topic is covered in
chapter 2.
Small scale secondary blasting experiments were conducted using
mortar blocks prepared in the laboratory with different cement-sand
compositions, and rock tests were conducted in sedimentary shales at
Homebush quarry, Sydney, and in dolerite at Prospect (Readymix)
quarry, which is also in Sydney.

4-
The study begins with the theoretical background of blasting
mechanisms, as it has been analysed through the years. The
fundamental concepts of rock blasting as now accepted are described
with reference to the contributions of a number of authors.
Because the main background of rock breakage is covered, it is
necessary to carry out a similitude analysis of the problem, in
order to predict how the results of laboratory tests can be extended
to natural scale, and to evaluate the performance characteristics of
the methods employed.
A series of blasting tests are described, and the results of
screening fragments to determine their size distribution are
presented. In the field tests, all boulders which could not be
screened were measured along their sides. The smallest side of the
largest boulder produced in each blast is recorded, and this is
termed the "critical boulder dimension" (Sen (1989) - Private
Consultation).
5
CHAPTER 2
THE CONCEPT OF OPTIMUM BLASTING
Blasting is one of the unit mining operations and the requirements
for its optimisation are closely related to fragmentation.
The concept of "optimum blasting" can be defined as blasting
practice which gives the fragmentation necessary to obtain the
lowest overall costs for drilling, blasting, loading, hauling and
crushing. (MacKenzie (1967).
The definition can be explained in two different ways; firstly, it
is the technique of producing the primary rock breakage which leads
to the minimum cost for the material obtained after a certain
blasting round. It includes only the cost of buying and handling
explosives in a way that the rock is fragmented with the least
expenditure of capital. Secondly, it may be explained as the
process of obtaining a convenient degree of fragmentation to
accomplish the optimum incremental cost as a component of the total
for interrelated mining operations.
The two ways usually do not coincide. Whilst the first treats
fragmentation as an objective, leading to a way for maximising the
size of the fragmented blocks, the second regards the operation as a
part of a whole.
With the evolution of blasting techniques and the utilisation of new
types of explosives the costs of blasting (considered as an unit

6 -
operation) in mining industry have been lowered. However, many
authors such as MacKenzie (1967) point out that the crushing and
milling operation costs have increased at the same time, at even
higher rates.
For a given set of geological conditions, the degree of
fragmentation is mainly a result of energy input and its
distribution in the rock mass. The fragmentation can then be
controlled by either changing the drilling pattern, or adjusting the
specific charge, or using a combination of the two parameters.
An increased degree of fragmentation will necessitate higher
combined costs for drilling and blasting. Finer fragmentation will,
however, also result in higher productivity, less wear and tear, and
therefore lower costs for loading, hauling and crushing. Some
operations will also realise savings for secondary blasting.
This is illustrated in principle in Figure 2.1.
2.1 CHOICE AND QUANTITY OF EXPLOSIVES
There are no fixed charts to which a consumer can refer to choose
the proper explosives or blasting agent. This choice mainly depends
on the tenacity and other physical characteristics of the rock being
broken, the field conditions, and in the final analysis, economic
considerations. The presence of bedding planes, joint planes and
planes of weakness also influences the choice.
Since cartridged nitroglycerine based explosives have been
predominant, impedance matching between rock and explosives is now a

DRILLING t BLASTING
COST/UNIT
LOADING .
CRUSHING
DE6REE OF FRAGMENTATION
F16.2.1 EVALUATION OF OPTIMUM BLASTING

( After Nielsen (1983))
8 -
popular theory. The impedance of a rock is the product of its
density and sonic velocity. The impedance of an explosive is the
product of its density and its detonation velocity. Thus a dense
competent rock calls for a dense high-velocity explosive.
The diameter of the borehole has an important role to play. Large
diameter boreholes or small diameter holes that are "chambered"
would call for the use of lower strength low-density explosives.
Small diameter boreholes are more economical to drill in the harder
formations which are also usually more tenacious. Higher strength
explosives are called for in these applications.
The quantity used is a function of the hole diameter, hole spacing,
hole depth and burden distance, after the type, strength and density
of explosive has been determined for the particular conditions.
According to Gregory (1966), in determining the type, strength,
quantity and cartridge diameter of explosive to be used for a given
purpose, the over-riding considerations are:
1. applicability to the particular job;
2. safety of life and property;
3. efficiency, usually stated in terms of explosives consumption,
kg per tonne of rock broken;
4. economy (a suitable measure of this factor should include a
comparison of the total cost of drilling, charging and firing
including the cost of explosives and accessories expressed in
terms of cost per tonne of ore or rock broken).

9.
Controlled in-the-mine research with careful cost analysis is the
best way to determine the optimum explosive product to use. The
choice of explosives will affect costs in the drilling, secondary
breaking, loading, hauling and crushing subsystems, as well as
blasting subsystems.
2.2 SECONDARY BREAKAGE PROCESSES
Secondary breakage is an activity to break large rocks produced from
the primary blast into a manageable size for loading and crushing.
The breakage may either involve the use of explosives or blasting
agent or else may use mechanical and chemical means.
2.2.1 Secondary Blasting
The methods described in this section are slanted towards secondary
blasting on the surface, since underground applications may have
specialised requirements.
i) Pop Shooting
This is a common method where boulders and oversize pieces of
blasted rock may be broken by drilling a hole slightly more than 60%
the actual depth of the boulder and at its approximate centre and
then detonating a small charge of explosive in the hole.
Fragments may be thrown for long distances so protection should be
provided against flyrock damaging personnel and structures.
Generally, high velocity explosive, or larger charges, will produce
the finest fragmentation.

10
Pop shooting is the most economical use of explosives, but drilling
is a labour intensive operation. It can also be inconvenient and
costly to provide the necessary compressed air or motive power.
A careful examination in accordance with the regulations must also
be made of each boulder before it is drilled to ensure that it does
not have drill holes containing explosives from the primary blast.
It has been recommended that (Explosives Today 1983) cartridged
nitroglycerine - based explosives be used for pop shooting. Smaller
rocks (up to lm width) are usually drilled with one pop hole.
However, larger rocks (above lm width) are usually drilled with more
than one pop hole. The charge mass has been worked out on a
specific charge of 0.05 to 0.10kg/m3.
Figure 2.2 is the arrangement of the pop shooting method,
ii) Plaster Shooting
In its simplest form the explosive is firstly placed in contact with
the boulder to be reduced. Then it is confined by means of clay or
mud, plastered around it. The soft enclosure is not expected to form
a projectile when the charge is detonated.
Some investigators, for example Lazenby and Philips (1978), reported
that the confinement provided by the clay reduces the amount of
explosives required by about 25% and the mass of the covering
material will increase the magnitude of the pressure against the
rock. The charge is placed on the boulder preferably where there is
a natural cavity.
11
The loading factor according to Lazenby and Philips (1978) ranges
from 0.75 to 1.04 kilograms per cubic metre. The amount of
explosive is also a function of the rock thickness. The larger the
thickness, the higher the quantity of explosive used.
While this crude use of explosives may be acceptable in some
situations as there is little preparatory work, more precise
objectives may be achieved by a particular form of plaster shooting,
called either "shaped" or "linear" charge.
In the former case, the explosive is placed in a specially designed
container which forms a hollowed-out wedge or cone shape in the base
of the charge and serves to direct the force of the explosion so as
to achieve closely controlled results (the Munroe effect).
Watergel and emulsion explosives in slab form have taken precedence
over low velocity AN Gelignite for plaster shooting because of:
- their good performance owing to their high detonation
velocity;
- their soft composition in a plastic wrapper, giving excellent
contact (coupling) on rock surfaces;
- their high safety against accidental impact, and
- their elimination of nitroglycerine headaches.
Before placing a charge the rock should be cleaned to ensure good
surface contact; and the charge should be primed with an
instantaneous detonator or detonating cord, and then covered with
clay or mud. The clay or mud is preferred to any other substance
because it is much more effective at confining the explosion than
dry or damp dirt or sand, as it packs and sticks together better.

12
It should be free of stones or pebbles that wculd create a hazard by
flying long distances.
Plaster shooting is only one of various secondary breaking
techniques, but it does have the following important advantages:
1. since the explosive energy tends to be directed towards the
solid rock, less flyrock is projected;
2. no drilling is required so time, labour, and machine costs are
saved;
3. it is a quick and easy operation;
4. unlike mechanical systems, there is no capital investment
required.
However, the method has disadvantages such as:
1. high associated noise levels. This makes it unsuitable in urban
areas which are environmentally sensitive;
2. wasteful use of explosives;
3. less predictable performance than pop shooting.
This method is effective on walls up to 350nm thick but over this
thickness the pop shooting method is preferable.
There are simple rules of charge geometry that may be applied in
plaster shooting to increase efficiency.
1. The charge should make the maximum possible area of contact with
the rock consistent with the nature of the explosive applied.
2. The detonator should be placed in a position such that the
directional effect of the explosive may be used to its maximum

13
Stemming Safety fuse or

Material Lead wires
Blasthole
Cartridge Detonator
Boulder
FIG.2.2 POP SHOOTING ARRANGEMENT
Detonator
Cartridge
Safety fuse or
Boulder Lead wires
FIG.2.3 PLASTER SHOOTING ARRANGEMENT

14
possible extent consistent with the maximum area-of-contact
criterion.
Figure 2.3 shows the arrangement of plaster shooting.
iii) Snakeholing
This method consists of making a hole beside or under a boulder and
firing a charge sufficient to lift it out of the ground and
preferably to break it also.
This method has the advantages of:
1. being more economical of explosive than plaster shooting,and
2. much less noisy.
It has the disadvantage of being more laborious than plaster
shooting.
The method is arranged as in figure 2.4.
iv) Shaped charge shooting
The shaped charge arrangement is similar to plaster shooting (fig
2.5), but the charge itself is of special construction in order to
obtain energy concentration.
In its usual application, only enough clay or sticky material is
applied to the end of the charge to stick on the rock. In this
investigation, a large quantity of clay was used to cover the whole
charge so as to suppress air blast, because the quarries are in
residential areas.
15
Safety fuse or
Boulder
Stemming materia.
Blasthole
Detonator
Cartridge
FIG.2-4 SNAKEHOLING ARRANGEMENT

16
The phenomenon of shaped charges was first documented by a Norwegian
engineer about 1790. Various discoveries followed, but its effect
was first detected by an American engineer, Munroe, in 1880. He
found that a cavity of approximately the reverse mirror image of a
particular shape is produced on a target after an explosive is
detonated. This process has a higher local penetration power by
explosives than with no depression because the explosives seem to be
concentrated along a finite axis. Credit also goes to a number of
researchers such as Huttl (1946), Rollins et.al. (1973), for
improving the process.
Many possible applications of shaped charges to general mining
problems proved attractive enough to warrant planning and laying out
test wcrk to determine the principles of the "Munroe effect". Some
of the applications considered included :
1. the secondary breakage problem, in lieu of plastering;
2. as an aid in barring down large dangerous slabs of rock
difficult to get at by conventional means;
3. to clean or expose rock sufaces both underground and on surfaces
prior to sampling or geological examination;
4. metal cutting such as the demolition of steel structures such as
headgears, chimneys, pylons, bridges and sheet piles;
5. underwater trenching.
Two factors led to the application of the shaped charge shooting for
this investigation. These are:
1. because a shattering rather than a wedging action is desired, it
was thought that boulder breaking would probably require a
broad, expanding jet of gas in place of a slender, pointed,

17
gaseous jet. It was believed that a charge, which would produce
a broad focussed jet, would be the most easily designed
explosive. Boulder blasting, therefore, from an experimental
point of view would be the path of least resistance;
2. explosive consumption was found to be much less than with a
conventional charge.
Basic Principles
The following six outlined points and sketches (fig. 2.6) show the
basic functions of shaped charge shooting.
1. An explosives charge, with an initiator, contained in a
convenient shape with a liner.
2. The detonation wave has reached the apex of the cone.
3. The wave has swept over part of the liner which has collapsed,
forming a plug and a jet.
4. The whole liner has collapsed, and the plug and jet are fully
formed.
5. The jet continues to lengthen and thin out.
6. The continued lengthening of the jet has finally led to its
breaking down into discrete fragments of kinetic energy and its
separation from the plug.
Design of Shaped Charges
For this investigation the following design parameters were
considered:
liner material, apex angle, shape and dimensions of charge, type of
explosive, and container which holds the explosive charge.

18
1. Liner Material
Copper was chosen for this investigation primarily because of its
high ductility, low cost, easy machineability and relatively high
density.
The physical properties of copper are shown in Table 2.1.
2. Apex Angle
Conical liners with approximately 90° cone angle were employed in
this study. This has been proved to be one of the most effective
geometries. (Rollins et.al. 1973).
3. Shape and charge dimensions
Linear charge was selected for this study. The charge lengths range
from 30mm to 100mm which are approximately equal to 2-5 times the
cone diameter. Height more that 2 cone diameters has been proved to
be sufficient to provide a fully developed detonation front before
it makes contact with the apex of the liner. (Rollins et.al. 1973).
4. Type of Explosive
Plastergel explosive was employed for this study because of its high
detonation pressure and velocity.
5. The container which holds the explosive charge was made from
pressed cardboard, to reduce the cost and to increase the safety of
the post-detonation effect.

19
TABLE 2.1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF COPPER
METAL TENSILE COMPRESSIVE ELONGATION

TYPE STRENGTH STRENGTH
kg/cm2 x 103 kg/cm2 x 103 %
Copper 2.39 45.50
HARDNESS MOD. OF MOD. OF DENSITY

ROCKWELL ELASTICITY RIGIDITY
kg/cm2 x 105 kg/an2 x 105 kg/m3
34RE 11.95 - 8690
MELTING PERCENTAGE AVERAGE * METAL *

POINT COMPOSITION MASS THICKNESS
°C % g mm
1083 +99 7.76 16
(Source, Rollins et.al. 1973)
* Measurements were taken by the writer

20
Detonator
Linear Charge
Safety fuse or
Cardboard Lead wires
Explosive
Container
Copper cone Boulder
FIG.25 SHAPED-CHARGE SHOOTING ARRANGEMENT
Explosive Metal liner
BEFORE DETONATION
STAGE 1
Detonation front
I------
STAGE 2 mm DETONATION
Detonation front
STAGE 3
FIG.2.6 SHAPED-CHARGE FORMATION OF JET

21
Preparation of charge
Copper material of thickness 1.6 mm was designed into cones of
height 20mm and outer diameter of 20mm with an apex angle 90°. The
cones were safely fixed in a cardboard. Plastergel was then loaded
in the cardboard. The assemblies of the shaped charge are shown in
figure 2.7.
2.2.2 Other methods of secondary breakage
a) Mechanical means
This is a process of secondary breaking operation which does not
involve the use of explosive or blasting agent.
Drop-balls and hydraulic impactors are mostly used in the quarry
industry. These methods allow operations such as loading and
trucking to proceed without interruption. At a quarry, oversize
rock may be removed to an area set aside for the task.
i) Drop balling
In this method of mechanical breakage a cast steel ball is dropped
from a height by a crane on to the oversize rock. The rock breaks
as a result of the impact.
ii) Hydraulic Impactor
With this type, the hydraulic machine has a long slim piston
attached. With a high energy output the piston attacks the rock at
a specific point and breaks it.

22
Mechanical means have the following advantages over explosives:
1. they reduce the noise problem;
2. the hazard caused by flyrock is eliminated;
3. there is a continous operation throughout the working shift.
However, they have the disadvantage of creating dust in the working
vicinity, unless sprays are used.
b) Chemical means
In another method, breakage is caused by the expansion of chemicals
such as Bristar, Astac, Calmmite, etc. Under confinement (such as
in a drilled hole), these chemicals react rapidly and generate an
expansion pressure which may be sufficient to crack boulders. If it
is used in a rock compatible with this type of chemical no
air-blast, ground vibration, or flyrock is experienced.
Figure 2.8 is the relation between flyrock and noise factor for some
methods of secondary breakage operation.

23
FIGURE 2.7 SHAPED CHARGE ASSEMBLIES

24
POP-SHOOTING PLASTER SHOOTING drop ball
FLYROCK
NOISE
FIGURE 2.8 FLYROCK AND NOISE FACTOR
(Source: Explosives Today, October, 1983)

25
CHAPTER 3
THE PROCESS OF FRAGMENTATION
3.1 REVIEW OF RESULTS FROM MODEL STUDIES AND SMALL SCALE STUDIES
IN ROCKS
Most work reported in the literature since about 1970 of rock
fragmentation by explosives deals with studies carried out in methyl
methacrylate (perspex and plexiglass), (Langefors (1959);
Kochanowsky and Pinto (1961); Porter (1961); and Johnson and Fisher
(1963), or homolite models. Some work has been reported from
studies done in small rock plates or blocks, but these have been
restricted. Earlier work presented the idea that the stress wave
was predominantly responsible for rock fragmentation by explosive
loading (Obert and Duvall (1967); Duvall and Atchison (1957); Hino
(1956). The principal mechanism of fragmentation was thought to be
spall-type failure in tension, as described by Duvall and Atchison
(1957): it proceeded by successive reflections of the compressive
pulse off the free face. The stress-wave theory of fragmentation
was favoured until it ran into difficulty following measurements of
the amount of explosive energy transmitted into rock by the strain
wave (Fogelson et.al. 1965). In 1978, Langefors and Kihlstrom in
their book on blasting techniques, included a fragmentation
mechanism involving gas pressurization of radial cracks emanating
from the borehole. Quasi-static models describing this mechanism
were further developed by Porter and Fairhurst (1970). One of their
conclusions was that fragmentation could occur in the absence of
high intensity stress pulses, which was the opposite of that
reached by earlier workers.

26
In 1971, Kutter and Fairhurst raised the following salient points
using their results of experiments done in homogeneous plexiglass
models and small, homogeneous rock models:
1. both stress waves and gas pressure play a role in rock
fragmentation by explosives;
2. the stress wave functions to precondition the rock by initiating
(in tension) radial cracks at the borehole wall;
3. expanding gases from detonation of the explosive pressurize
these cracks and extend them;
4. no new cracks would form in the area occupied by an old crack;
5. presence of a free surface favours extension of gas pressurized
radial cracks in the direction of the surface;
6. in situ stress heavily influences the direction in which a
radial crack will travel.
In the same year, Field and Ladegaard-Pederson (1971), investigated
the influence of the reflected stress wave on crack extension in
homogeneous models. The salient points made by these authors are as
follows:
1. the reflected stress waves influence the direction of radial
crack growth, as well as the length of the cracks;
2. reflected wave interaction can explain the breakout angle
resulting from concentrated charges in the rock;
3. control of stress-wave interactions by the geometry of the free
surface, or by the position and time of firing of neighbouring
charges, could have practical significance;

27
According to Winzer et.al. (1983) both of these studies, as well as
those by Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978), are similar in that they
use homogenous plexiglass models or small rock plates. This
approach does not take into account the presence of discontinuities
of different types present in rock in full scale blasting
situations.
3.2 THE PROCESS OF DETONATION OF AN EXPLOSIVE CHARGE IN A HOLE
A number of reports and monographs are available which deal with the
science of explosive reaction and detonation processes.
According to Pearse (1955), when a detonator initiates a charge of
detonating explosive, minute gas and vapour pockets between the
explosive particles are heated by adiabatic compression, and
chemical reaction spreads through each grain; a detonation shock
wave is propagated through the explosive at a speed characteristic
of the explosive type; this is termed the velocity of detonation
(V.O.D.). Johansson and Persson (1970) gave values of the V.O.D. to
be 2000 to 7000 m/s or more normally between 4000 and 6000 m/s.
The detonation which is a rapid, self-propagating, chemical reaction
involving change of state, moves through the explosive material at a
velocity, "V"; both V, and the streaming velocity behind the
shock-wave front, "W", are related to the velocity of sound, "a", at
the relevant temperature and pressure since chemical energy must be
released at a sufficient rate to sustain the wave, whilst the wave
must travel fast enough to avoid being weakened by rarefactions
behind the wave front. For stability in a closely confined
cartridge,
28
V = a + W 3.1
The schematic drawing, (Fig 3.1), depicts a typical detonation
process. The "primary reaction zone", the area in which the
chemical decomposition begins, is bounded at one end by the shock
front or forward pari: of the detonation zone. The rear boundary is
called the Chapman-Jouget plane (the C. J. plane). This plane,
according to Johansson and Persson (1970) is the boundary between
the steady and non-steady region, i.e. the plane in which the
expansion velocity of pressure disturbances equals the difference
between the detonation and the local particle velocity.
The primary reaction occurs between the shock front and the C.J.
plane. The length of this primary reaction zone is an inherent
characteristic of each explosive substance or mixture. Cartridged
explosives have somewhat longer reaction zones, and blasting agents
and slurries have still longer.
Behind the wave front there is a rapid conversion of the explosives
into a mixture of gases at high temperatures of the order of 3000°K
and high pressures in the range of 20 to lOOKbar. These gases are
at such high temperatures and pressures that they rapidly expand and
produce a shock or stress wave in the surrounding medium.
Sadwin and Junk (1965), and Coates (1970), have shown that an
explosive can be characterised by two pressures:
i) the detonation pressure, Pd, which is the dynamic pressure
which gives an explosive its shattering effect;

Djrtction of dotonotion MotmwiU
Point of
WtiatiM
FIG. 3.1 SIMPLIFIED ILLUSTRATION OF DETONATION REACTION

( After Cummins & Given (1973))
FIG. 3.2 BLASTHOLE PRESSURE VARIATION WITH TIME;

Pd is the detonation pressure, and Pe is the explosive
or borehole pressure.
( After Coates (1970))
30
ii) the explosion pressure, Pa, which gives an explosive its
heaving action.
Coates (1970) estimated the detonation pressure, Pd, from the
following equation:
Pd = PD2 3.2
where Pd is in Pa
p is the original mass density of the
explosive in kg/m3 and
D is the detonation velocity in m/s
Behind the detonation wave front the pressure quickly drops to
approximately half of the peak value as illustrated in Figure 3.2
This is the explosion or borehole pressure, Pe, which is between
200MPa to 800MPa for conmercial explosives.
The energy suddenly released by the explosive reaction results in
transmission of a strain wave through the rock, and permanent strain
around the borehole.
3.3 THE REFLECTION THEORY OF ROCK BREAKAGE
Rock may be broken by an explosive charge according to the
reflection theory propounded by Hino (1956) and elaborated by Duvall
and Atchison (1957) as follows:
"The detonation of the explosive charge creates a high gas pressure
in the charge hole, which in turn generates a compressive strain
pulse in the surrounding rock. This compressive pulse travels

31
outward in all directions from the charge hole. Near the charge
hole the amplitude of the strain pulse is sufficient to cause
crushing of the rock. However, as the strain pulse travels
outwards, its amplitude decays rapidly until no further crushing of
the rock is possible. The compressive strain pulse continues to
travel outward until it is reflected by a free surface. Upon
reflection, the compressive strain pulse becomes a tensile strain
pulse. As the strength of the rock in tension is much less than in
compression, the reflected tensile strain pulse is able to break the
rock in tension, progressing from the free surface back towards the
shot point. In other words, the rock is pulled apart, not pushed
apart. The high gas pressure generated by the detonation of the
charge produces the stress waves, but the expanding gases are not
responsible for much of the fracturing that occurs".
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show in a simple manner how a compressive strain
pulse reflects at a free surface to become a tensile pulse and how
fragmentation results.
Figures 3.3, A to F show the process of reflection of a divergent
longitudinal pulse at a free surface. A triangular compressive
strain pulse moving to the right impinges on a free surface. (Figure
3.3A).
Figures 3.3, B,C,D,E and F show the resulting pulse after equal
units of time. The dotted lines above the base line represent the
incident compressive pulse, and the dotted lines below the baseline
represent the reflected tensile pulse. The solid line is the
resulting strain pulse in the medium.

32
FREE SURFACE
LxJ
O
«<
U.
%
LU
LxJ
CTL
LX.
v COMPRESSIVE STRAIN
PULSE
TENSLE STRAW
PULSE
FREE SURFACE
------------------------- - Resultant Pulse
---------------------------Reflected Portion of Pulse
---------------------------Incident Portion of Pulse
FIG. 3.3 REFLECTION OF TRIANGULAR COMPRESSIVE

STRAIN PULSE
( After Atchison (1968))
33
FRACTURE DEVELOPS------ >|
TENSION
LU
o
«<
u_
OC.
LU
LU LU
CSC LU
U_ OC
Li.
COMPRESSIVE RESULTW6
STRAIN PULSE
STRAIN PULSE
N /
/
/
/
/
/
/ \ /
/
/
/
h/
TENSION
—>
*/
SLAB
s // SLAB
/ MOVES / MOVES
/
/ FORWARD
S / FORWARD
/
i
\ / V /
/ S\ //
/ ^ /
/ \'
NEW SURFACE
FIG.a4 TENSILE FRACTURE BY REFLECTION OF

A COMPRESSIVE STRAIN PULSE
( After Atchison (1968) )
34
Figures 3.4, A to D illustrate the process of tensile fracture by
reflection of a compressive strain pulse. Figure 3.4A, shows the
incoming compressive strain pulse just before it impinges on a free
surface. Figure 3.4B, illustrates the resulting strain pulse after
a given interval. The tensile strain developed at this time is
assumed to be equal to the tensile breaking strain of the rock, so
that a crack develops at the point of maximum tensile strain. This
crack will act as a new free surface from which the impinging strain
pulse will reflect. Figures 3.4C and D are the reflections on the
conditions after a series of another given interval.
Since most hard tenacious rocks are characterised by high
compressive strength, lower shear strength, and much lower tensile
strength, it is of course logical to aim to break the rock in
tension.
However, the phenomenon of spalling, as characterised by the
reflection theory, is not now regarded as the only cause of rock
failure. Several other factors contribute. The peak strain energy
developed at the wall of the blast hole by high detonation pressure
is designed to overcome the dynamic compressive strength of the
rock. This compressive strain wave causes crushing and cracking
around the blast hole. If a free face occurs within its zone of
influence, a reflected tension wave will generate external spalling
from the free face. The high borehole pressure developed by the
expanding gases then extends the cracks to the point of flexural
rupture of the rock, aided by the external spalling (Ash (1968).

35
3.4 PHENOMENA OCCURING AROUND THE HOLE
The review presented in this section was based on Atchison (1968)
who categorised the regions around the explosion in terms of the
phenomena that occur (Figure 3.5).
This illustration represents a spherically symmetrical picture of an
explosion with a spherical charge, or a section perpendicular to the
axis of a cylindrical charge. The rock medium is considered to be
infinite in extent so that the effects of free boundaries are not
included.
There are three major divisions:
1) the explosion cavity, where the originating process is
hydrodynamic and is associated with the detonation of the
charge;
2) the transition zone, where the pressure or stress is rapidly
reduced by processes that may include shock waves, plastic flow,
crushing and cracking, and
3) the seismic zone, where the stress is low and (if free
boundaries are not encountered) no fragmentation occurs.
The transition zone can be subdivided into four parts.
a) Hydrodynamic zone: this is the first region of rock that has
been subjected to the effects of high temperatures and
pressures. In a nuclear explosion, the intensity in this region
is so high that the rock is vaporized in the close vicinity of
the reaction. In conventional explosions, this phenomenon exists
but in much reduced scale.

1 - Explosion Cavity
2 - Transition Zone
2a - Hydrodynamic Zone
2b - Plastic Zone
2c * Crushed Zone
2d - Cracked Zone
3 - Seismic Zone
FIG. 3.5 FRAGMENTATION ZONES AROUND

AN EXPLOSION
( After Atchison (1968))
37
b) Plastic zone; immediately beyond the hydrodynamic zone the rock
is under the power of high pressures in a dynamic process so
that it behaves like a low viscosity fluid.
c) Crushed zone; where the rock is reduced to powdery form. The
extent of this area depends largely upon the ability of the rock
material to absorb energy when being crushed.
d) Cracked zone; where a system of both radial and circumferential
fractures occurs.
3.5 STRESS WAVE GENERATION AND PROPAGATION
The detonation of an explosive charge gives rise to a detonation
wave within the charge which upon arrival at the charge-solid
interface, imparts a sudden and extremely violent impact on to the
solid interface. As a consequence of this violent impact a
compressional disturbance travels outward into the previously
undisturbed solid medium. If the velocity of propagation is greater
than the longitudinal (i.e. "acoustic") velocity in the medium, then
it is known as a shock wave. It is suggested that only near the
hole would the wave travel at shock velocity (Aso (1966). For the
major part of its travel in the seismic zone it has the longitudinal
wave velocity. Though in the literature it is often referred to as
the shock wave, hereafter it will be referred to as a stress wave
for the above reason.
Study of the stress wave generation has been carried out for many
years under the impetus of problems of damage from underground and
surface blasts, of exploration seismology and of detecting nuclear
explosions. Theoretical studies of stress wave propagation have

38
been carried out by assuming a reasonable pressure input to the
unfractured zone for long cylindrical charges (Obert and Duvall
(1967). Extensive measurements of wave propagation in the seismic
zone near the explosion (20 to 500 charge radii) have been made by
the U.S. Bureau of Hines and others (Obert and Duvall (1967);
Nicholls and Duvall (1966).
3.6 EXPLOSIVE ENERGY PARTITION AND UTILISATION
When an explosive charge is detonated in a hole, its energy is
released in a very small fraction of a second in the form of gas at
an extremely high pressure and temperature.
Atchison (1968) estimated that energy of the order of 3 million
joules per kilogram is released. He also makes a very important
observation about the expenditure of energy in blasting:
". . .The processes occurring in the transition zone for a completely
confined explosion consume a major part of the energy released by
the detonating explosive. This continues to be true when the free
boundaries are present at normal blasting distances, as the energy
consuming processes are largely completed before the presence of the
boundaries can be communicated to the transition zone. It follows
that a major part of the fragmentation at a free face is
accomplished with a minor part of the explosive energy ..."
The amount of energy from an explosion in rock that enters the
seismic zone as stress wave energy has been calculated using both
theoretical considerations and experimental data. Fogelson et.al.
(1965) report that for a high explosive the shock wave energy most
probably amounts for 5-15 percent of the total energy of the

39
explosive at a theoretical estimate. Fogelson et.al.(1965) have
measured the intensity of the shock waves in the vicinity of the
drill hole and have from these experiments concluded that the energy
in the shock wave was about 9 percent of the whole energy for a high
explosive.
Fogelson et.al. (1965) report wave energies of the order of 10 to 18
percent of the total energy released for their tests in granite.
For a similar investigation with four explosive types in salt,
Nicholls and Hooker (1962) give values of 1.8. to 3.9 percent of the
total energy release. Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) suggest that
as the shock wave is distributed all around a charge, at least two
thirds of its energy will disappear without affecting the breakage.
This would imply that only 3 percent of the total energy is lost
through escape of gases, in the form of heat and as residual energy
in explosion product.
This confirms that the shock wave is not responsible for the actual
breakage of the rock, but only for providing the basic conditions
for this process.
In view of such low percentage of energy consumed in the actual
fragmentation, a better understanding of the processes involved in
fragmentation may lead to a significant improvement in the
efficiency of using explosive energy in blasting.
A number of ways have been suggested by which the explosive energy
accomplishes the task of fragmentation. The main processes
considered to be involved are (i) by reflection of stress waves and

40
the resultant scabbing effect, and (ii) by quasi-static gas
pressure.
3.6.1 Reflection of Stress Waves and the Scabbing Effect
Information about stress waves produced by explosives together with
concurrent studies of stress wave propagation in plastics (Kolsky
(1963), metals (Rinehart and Pearson (1965) and rock cores (Hino
(1956) led to the recognition of stress wave reflection and breakage
by it as one process contributing to fracture at the free face.
Reflection scabbing, may be defined as the spalling of brittle
materials from a free face of a solid body by stress waves reflected
within the body from the surface.
Rinehart (1960); Lewis and Clark (1964); Atchison (1968), clearly
illustrate the physics of wave reflection. For waves of normal
incidence, compressive waves are reflected from a free surface
(solid-air) as tensile waves. As soon as the reflected tensile
(stress) portion of the wave exceeds the oncoming compressive wave
by an amount equal to the fracture strength of the material a scab
will be formed. The number of scabs formed depends upon the
magnitude and shape of the wave. Rinehart (1960) has given several
formulae for various wave shapes and the effects of the wave front
on the free bodies of various geometric cross-sections.
However, many workers consider that the role of reflected stress
waves in blasting is not important since the reflected stress waves,
for the conventional burdens used in field blasting (50 to 100 times
41
the charge radii), become too weak to cause any breakage (Langefors
and Kihlstrom (1978); Johansson and Persson (1970).
Johansson and Persson (1970), for example, state that the small
charges used in most bench blasting, such as 0.5 to lkg/m3 in
granite, do not cause scabbing fractures. For stress waves to be
able to cause scabbing fractures it is suggested that the charge
should be much larger; for example 5kg/m3 or more in granite.
Evidence from high speed photography and other methods shows that
the period between detonation of the explosive charge and the
beginning of the movement of the bench face is between three to ten
times that taken for a stress wave to pass from the hole to the free
face and back (DuPont Research (1971); Bergmann et.al. (1974). This
confirms that breakage is not due to stress wave reflection.
However, some investigators are of the opinion that stress waves
play a minor role in blasting mainly in creating radial cracks in
the transition zone (Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978); Johansson and
Persson (1970); Ash (1973). Some of them suggest that the radial
cracks will grow as the gases enter these cracks and influence the
quasi-static stress field caused by gas pressure. Others suggest
that even in the absence of penetration, cracks will grow if
favourable conditions exist, and this is the major cause of
fragmentation.
3.6.2 The Role of Quasi-static Gas Pressure
Until stress wave reflection and scabbing theory was introduced, the
breakage of rock by explosives was considered to be mainly due to

42
the gaseous products at high pressure pushing the rock from the
explosive chamber to a free surface (Saluja (1967). During recent
years again a number of research workers have suggested that the
major part of work is carried out by gases and indicate specific
details of the mechanism.
Livingston (1956) suggested that blasting involved failure from at
least three sources: the shock wave, the shear wave and viscous
damping. In 1973, Livingston again proposed a similar type of
breakage. The formulae proposed have been useful in the design of
blasts but the suggested breakage process is complicated and has not
gained much acceptance.
According to Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978), rock fragmentation
results from three distinct mechanisms: radial fracturing, scabbing
and gas pressure effects. The scabbing, however, is considered to
be of secondary importance in a blast, being exceeded by the
influence of gas pressure. It is suggested that the role of gas
pressure is to expand the radial cracks and to cause yielding of the
free rock surface by a semi-stationary process in which the stress
pattern at any moment decides the continuation of cracks.

43
CHAPTER 4
SIMILITUDE ANALYSIS OF FRAGMENTATION IN SECONDARY BLASTING
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In order to predict how the results of laboratory tests can be
extended to natural scale, it is necessary to carry out a similitude
analysis of the problem. This modelling process is an excellent
method of providing data for the design of large scale field blasts.
The technique is beneficial from the standpoint of cost, time,
control of variables and simplicity, but it is absolutely necessary
for it to be based on reliable assumptions.
The similitude requirements must be completely satisfied for both
the rock nature and explosive characteristics, as well as for the
blasting methods. In this context, the term ’’similitude" is used to
imply physical similarity between two systems.
The particular characteristics of the material are not often
suitable to the attainment of definite information, particularly of
a quantitative nature. But, as qualitative indications are also
sought, the conclusions from "model" studies are almost always
profitable for interpreting the behaviour of a certain system or
"prototype" that is to be designed.
The terms "model" and "prototype" in this context are physical and
are used as described in the definition by Murphy (1950): "A model
is a device which is so related to the physical system that

44
observations on the model may be used to predict accurately the
performance of a physical system in the desired respect".
"A prototype is the physical system for which the predictions are to
be made". The following are some of the important applications of
the similitude methods (Baker, et.al. 1973):
- to obtain experimental data for quantitative evaluation of a
particular theoretical analysis;
- to explore the fundamental behaviour involved in a little
understood phenomena;
- to obtain quantitative data for use in prototype design problems,
particularly when mathematical theory is too complex or even
non-existent;
- to generate a functional relationship empirically in order to
solve a general problem;
- to evaluate limitations for an expensive system already in
existence.
The aim of this analysis is to study the similitude condition in
models built to design an actual secondary blasting method in order
to satisfy the required degree of fragmentation of the resulting
product.
4.2 CONCEPT OF DIMENSIONS AND SIMILITUDE FOR THE PROBLEM
The application of dimensional analysis for the problem is based on
the assumption that the detonation and propagation phenomena are
expressible as a set of influential variables included in

45
dimensionally homogenous equations, according to hydrodynamic
theory. These variables are found here by using the same ones that
belong to the differential equations governing the hydrodynamic
phenomena.
If it is accepted that the existing pressures in the medium are
sufficiently high for the rock modelled to act like a compressible
fluid, without shear resistance, then during the first phase of
propagation we can apply the hydrodynamic relationship (Murphy
(1950) that is valid for the propagation of shock waves from
cylindrical charges.
dp v R P3 M (p)
(P.D) __ 4.1
DR K (R)
where p shock wave front pressure (compressive stress in excess

of the pressure p0 of the undisturbed medium)
R distance of shock wave from blast source,
v reduced Lagrange energy-time integral
K (R) shock wave energy at R per unit area
M (P) the function
M (p) = 1 G
_____ • ^_____ ... 4.2
Po U2 2 (1+g) - G
U velocity of shock front in the direction of its normal
G function G (P) = 1 - PoU ... 4.3

PC -]
c sound velocity in the medium
density of the disturbed medium
g function: g (p) = 1 - p dy ... 4.4

u dP
46
<j> (P/D) = function
<P (P/D) 2 (1 - g) + G
... 4.5
2 (1 - g) - G
D = velocity of detonation of the explosive
According to these expressions, and accepting that the pressure po
in the undisturbed medium is negligible compared with the pressure
developed by the detonation, the defining variables of the
propagation state- are R,P,K,U,D and p.
However, this is not the complete situation because the
characteristics of rock as a solid become important after a certain
distance from the point of detonation. It has been pointed out
(Kolsky (1963); Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) that the tensile
strength of rock, the maximum principal stress (01)/ Young1s
modulus, (E), and Poisson's ratio,(v), are the controlling
parameters of rock fracture and slabbing. Furthermore, physical
parameters such as the volume of broken material, (V), the depth of
borehole, (H), and the length of charge, (S), can also be selected.
Replacing L for R to represent the linear dimension; ai for p,
defined as the initial stress that the wave carries when it starts
to propagate through the rock; and W the energy associated with the
wavefront for K, the whole phenomenon is essentially governed by
nine variables; (L, a-j,U, D,W, P ,E, , v ).
On this basis, the analysis of similitude conditions for the
blasting situation starts by settlement of the respective model

4.7
laws. This means the determination of a group of dimensionless
products from those variables, having the same value both for the
model and the prototype. Table 4.1 shows the dimensions of entities
assuming that they are either mass, length and time or force, length
and time.
Langhaar (1951), defined similitude as follows: "The function f' is
similar to the function f, provided the ratio f' ,/f is a constant,
when the functions are evaluated for homologous (i.e. at
corresponding, but not necessarily equal values of a variable)
points and homologous times. The constant Kf = fx/f is called the
scale factor for the function f". Similarly, Kt is the time scale
factor, Kl is the geometric scale factor.
For complete similitude the above conditions hold and due to their
importance they are now detailed:
a) Geometric Similitude
The ratios of homologous distances in the model and in the prototype
are equal, meaning the linear dimensions with the property of
obeying a defined point to point correspondence are identical. For
the rock dimension, this means that all linear dimensions must be
related by a certain distance scale factor, Kl.
If d is the diameter of holes, H the height of the charge hole and S
is the length of charge, we have:
dp = KLdm
Hp = KlHm
Sp = KlSui
48
TABLE 4.1
DIMENSIONS OF ENTITIES
(after Langhaar 1951)
Entity Symbol Dimensions Dimensions
for M,L,T. for F,L,T
Length, of hole, and of charge L L L
Area A L2 L2
Volume V L3 L3
Time T T T
Mass M M FL_1T2
Velocity V LT"1 LT"1
Acceleration A LT-2 LT"2
Force, Load F MLT"2 F
Mass density P ML"3 FL"4T2
Specific weight Y ML-2T-2 FL- 3
Angle 1 1
Angular velocity 0) T-i T-i
Angular acceleration d T-2 T-2
Pressure or stress P, CF± ML-1T-2 FL"2
Work or Energy T,W ML2T“2 FL
Momentum mv MLT"1 FT
Power P ML2T~3 FLT"1
Moment of force M ML2T“2 FL
Modulus of elasticity E ML-1T-2 FL’2
Strain e,at 1 1
Poisson's ratio V 1 1
Modulus of rigidity G ML-iT-2 FL"2
Bulk Modulus K ML-1T“2 FL'2

49
where subscripts p and m mean prototype and model respectively. Any
relationships between volumes (either of rock or explosive) are
ruled by the cube of the distance scale factor i. e. Kl 3.
b) Kinematic Similitude
The space-time relationships between the prototype and the model
shall signify similarity of motion, particularly for the waves in
this phenomenon. Langhaar defines kinetic similarity as "the
motions of two systems are similar, if homologous particles lie at
homologous points at homologous times".
Because there is a similar motion in both cases, the velocity and
acceleration vectors at homologous points and times will have
homologous directions. So, the components of velocity and
acceleration are similar. The scale factors for velocity, Kv, or
acceleration, Ka are:
Kv = Kl
Kt
and Ka = Kv = Kl
Kt Kt2
For this problem we have;
Up = KlUm and Dp = KlDm
Kt Kt
For acceleration of any motion belonging to the blasting mechanism:
Ap = KlAui
Kt2
50
If the acceleration of gravity is considered, which normally is not
the case for blasting, its relationship between the conditions in
the model and the prototype is:
gP = KLgm
Kt2
c) Dynamic Similitude
The model and the prototype are dynamically similar when homologous
parts of each sustain similar forces, i.e. the ratio of homologous
forces is constant.
This ratio will be:
Kf = Km Kl
K t2
where Km is the scale factor for mass and Kf the scale factor for
the total force components on homologous particles.
Consequently the specific masses are related by
Pp = Km Pm
K l3
and in the same way the stresses and are:
Pip = KmPim
KlKt2
Ptp = Km^tm
KlKt2
and Young's modulus is given by:
EP KmEm
KlKt2
51
For the energy transported in the stress wave,
Wp = Km KL2Wm
Kt2
Poisson's ratio, as a dimensionless quantity, must be given the same
value in the prototype and in the model:
Vp - Vm
That is also true for the strains and for other dimensionless
parameters of the rock,such as its angle of internal friction.
4.3. METHOD OF MAKING COMPLETE SIMILARITY
4.3.1 Dimensionless Products
The numerical value obtained by a test of a model depends on the
values of the independent variables in the problem. A dimensional
analysis of the relationship invariably leads to an equation of the
form,
= f (*if *2, *p) ... 4.6
in which all values of n are a complete set of dimensionless
products. If we wish to know a particular value of tt that
corresponds to specified numerical values ofiri,- - -,ttp one may
evidently achieve the result by means of a test of a model, provided
that the independent dimensionless variables tu , tt2 , —, ttp have the
same values for the model as for the prototype. The model and the
prototype are then said to be completely similar. Since a complete
set of dimensionless products determines all dimensionless products

52
of the given variables, every dimensionless product has the same
value for the model as for the prototype when complete similarity
exists. Obviously, complete similarity is impossible without
geometric similarity.
For a given set of N variables f (L,ai,U, D, W, P , E, at,v), as in
the problem, an infinite number of products of powers of these
variables can be formed as follows:
7T = 1^1^021103 DC4 WC5PC6 EC7C7tC8 ... 4.7
The exponents ci, C2, ..., cs may have either positive, negative,
fractional, integral, or zero value. The dimensions of these
products of powers of variables may be found by replacing the symbol
with the symbols of its fundamental dimensions for the problem (the
length, L, the mass, M, and the time, T, or the length, force, F,
and time).
From equation 4.7 the corresponding dimensional equation is,
tt = LC1 (ML_1T-2 )C2 (LT"1)03 (ML2T“2)05 (ML"3)C6
cs = C4=|d| = [u| = LT -1
C2 = ci - ca = | Qi| = | ot J J j
= E = ML-1T-2
In accordance with the algebraic properties of exponents, the above
dimensional expression for may be written:
TT - M(C2 + C5 + C6 ) L(C1 - + C3 + 2C5 - 3C6) t(~2C2 _C3 _2C5)
The use of the symbol tt to denote a dimensionless product is
conventional; it has no relation to the number 3.1416.

53
For a dimensionless product the exponents of the variables must be
equal to zero. Hence for above the following expression must hold:
M: C2 + C5 + C6
... 4.10
L: ci - C2 + C3 + 2c5 - 3c6
T: 2c2 + C3 + 2c5
In terms of Buckingham's Pi theorem and the determination of Pi
terms (Murphy, 1950), the following were deduced for the values of tt
D = U------- *i = _D_
U
CJi = pU - - - 7T2 = CJi

PU2
at = pu2------- 7T3 _ at
PU2
E = PU2------- TT 4 _ E
PU2
W = PL3U2 — — — tt 5 _ W
PL3U2
Vm — Vp — — — ^ 6 = =
4.3.2 Dimensional Matrix
A matrix is a rectangular array of numbers, accordingly, if the
coefficients of variables from fundamental dimensions are formed in
a rectangular array, the resultant is called the dimensional matrix.
From the previous example the dimensional matrix of the
coefficients, ci, - - -,ca can be formed as shown in Table 4.2.

54
TABLE 4.2
DIMENSIONAL MATRIX OF VARIABLES
A matrix is said to be "square" if the number of columns equals the
number of rows. If the number of rows is m and the number of
columns n, the order of the matrix is (m x n) for m £ n. A
determinant is a square array of numbers and its order is n if it is
a square matrix. For a matrix of order m x n, where m> n, we can
form many determinants of order n, n-1, n-2 etc. If a matrix
contains a non zero determinant of order r, and if all determinants
of order greater than r that the matrix contains have the same
value zero, the rank of the matrix is said to be r.
According to algebraic theory (Langhaar (1951), the number of
products in a complete set of dimensionless products of variables
Xi, X2, - -- , Xn is n - r, in which r is the rank of the
dimensional matrix of the variables. It is evident from this theory
that equation 4.10 has exactly (n - r) linearly independent
solutions where r is the rank of the dimensional matrix and n is the
number of variables. It can, however, be shown that any solution
(Ki, K2, - - -, Ki, Kn) is a linear combination of these (n-r)
linearly independent solutions. This leads to Buckingham's Pi

5.5
theorem in dimensionless analysis which states that: the number of
dimensionless products in a complete set is equal to the total
number of variables minus the rank of their dimensional matrix.
Another theorem by Buckingham in dimensional analysis states that:
if an equation is dimensionally homogenous*, it can be reduced to a
relationship among a complete set of dimensionless products
(Langhaar, 1951).
By means of the above theorems it can be shown that if there are N
variables and the rank of the dimensional matrix is r, there will be
Q dimensionless products of powers of the variables or tt - terms
where Q is given by:
Q = N - r ••• 4.11
4.4 TESTS ON MODELS OF THE SAME ROCK
The simplest case to be considered is the technique of employing the
same rock as model material to study any actual blasting operation.
Supposing the rock is considered continuous, homogeneous and
isotropic the complete scaling conditions for similitude will be
based on the assumption that the acceleration of gravity is
negligible compared to that of the particles.
if all the terms in a given equation reduce to the same
dimensions and it does not contain dimensional constants (i.e. a
proportionality constant that contains concealed dimensions),
the equation is said to be dimensionally homogenous.

56
Maintaining the velocity of propagation the distance scale factor Kl
and the scale factor for time will be:
Kt = Kl
The equivalence of mass density between model and prototype imposes
Km = Kl3
For the explosive, the previous conditions impose
Dp — Dm
aip = oim
which means that we must use the same explosive. However, this is
not often possible, because of the difficulty of detonating most
industrial explosives below a certain diameter of charge and
moreover as a result of the problem of priming. It can be expected
that a maximum size of particle after blasting is simply related to
the linear factor Kl, while if one uses for the tests another
explosive with detonation velocity D1 and initial compressive stress
on rock °i1 the relative sizes will be related by:
SP = Kl K d2 V3
Kai Sm
where Kd = DP and KQi di p
D1m Oi m
These expressions show that a denser explosive employed on the model
experiments influences the predictions of the particle sizes for a
natural scale. The energy released in the detonation is scaled like
the volume, with the cubic linear factor;

57
Wp = K3LWm
It must be emphasized that the considerations of equal gravitational
acceleration, g, in the model and in the prototype lead us to rather
difficult solutions.
This condition imposes
Kt = Kl 5
and so, the velocities will not be the same but must be scaled with
Ki7 , and the stresses are scaled with KmKL'2, and the energy with
KmKL.
This situation requires that one make the model of materials
different from the prototype.
4.5 TESTS ON MODELS OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS
The consideration of a constant gravity acceleration, when it is
assumed that this factor can not be neglected, leads to the
impossibility of providing complete similitude with models of the
same rock as the prototype. However, the information that can be
obtained employing special model materials will be rather
qualitative than quantitative.
Unless it is possible to select or design a certain material to
satisfy the restricted set of conditions, all the simulations will
be distorted.
In order to assume that the size of blocks at the prototype, SP, is
predicted from the size of particles obtained in the blasting test

58
Sm, multiplied by the linear scale factor Kl, it will be necessary
that:
a) Up = DP = Kl*
Um Dm
b) °ip — °tp = Ep — Pp U2p — KmKL“2
^ii Ctm Em Pm U“m
c) Wp = Pp L3P U2p = KmKL
Wm Pm L3m U“m
d) Vp =Vm
This set of prerequisites is particularly difficult to attain
simultaneously.
However, the analysis can be done with the help of a series of
experiments to understand the correct meaning of each influential
variable in the phenomenon.
So, to obtain reliable information on this problem, it is necessary
to follow a complicated and time consuming process, and it is
doubtful that these conditions can be strictly obeyed. The
approximate satisfaction of the similitude rules is then justified
for the sake of useful results, although with some allowable amount
of deviation.
4.6 Discussion of the validity of similitude laws in blasting
Twd types of problems emerge from the similitude analysis of
blasting operations: the doubtful representability of the

59
theoretical predictions and the complete fulfillment of the required
conditions for proper simulation.
If the first problem is overlooked, according to various authors
(Johnson (1962) and Nicholls (1964), the second leads to the
conclusion that it is almost impossible to obtain the set of
requirements and the sort of materials (rock and explosive) that can
satisfy those conditions.
Most of the above variables are discussed in published literature,
either isolated or in groups, and some others have not been
considered, because of their slight influence on the overall system.
One example of this is the stress pulse, which controls the number
and thickness of the rock slabs obtained after the explosion.
(Rinehart (1960).
On the other hand, influences such as the ones due to rock structure
and heterogeneities can not be overlooked. It is important to
confirm the increase of volume of material when a blast occurs with
rock properties when those geologic phenomena, or variables really
exist.
With these important aspects considered directly or indirectly in
this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that for modelling
explosion blasts, the aforementioned variables will be used.

60
CHAPTER 5
CEM0TT - MORTAR BLOCK BLASTING IN THE LABORATORY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, details of the laboratory experimental procedure
and the results obtained are discussed. The experiments were
conducted in two phases. The first phase involved blasting
cement-mortar blocks of different composition in the laboratory
using either a No.8 instantaneous electric detonator by itself, or a
detonator with plastergel as the explosive.
For the first phase, the blasting was conducted in two sub-phases;
pop shooting and plaster shooting methods of secondary blasting
using a No.8 instantaneous electric detonator only as an explosive
in one stage, and a detonator with plastergel in another.
The second phase which will be discussed in a later chapter was
investigated on a larger scale in the field. Two quarries of
different rock types, sedimentary shale and dolerite, were chosen
for experimental investigations. The experimental set-up for both
quarries was identical in procedure as well as for the type of
explosive employed except that explosives in the dolerite were
electrically initiated, whereas the explosives in the shale were
fired with fuse.
The criteria for selecting the plastergel explosive were:
1) other types of explosives are limited to a certain diameter of
drill hole whereas the plastergel could be squeezed to suit any
diameter of hole;
2) it can be moulded;
61
3) it has a high velocity of detonation.
In the investigation using plaster shooting, the experiment was
conducted by:
i) placing the charge in a horizontal position and
ii) pointing down the detonator to determine which position was
more effective for blasting.
5.2 CONSTRUCTION OF MODELS
Mortar, (a mixture of sand, cement and water) was chosen as a model
material because:
1. it is a brittle material having a high ratio of compressive to
tensile strength (in the order of 10 to 1);
2. it is inexpensive and can be formed into blocks of almost any
required shape and size;
3. careful control in mixing and curing is possible, thus assuring
a reasonable uniformity.
Several investigators have used cement-mortar blocks for blasting
studies. Pomeroy (1972), showed many similarities between the
fracture mechanics of cement-mortar and brittle rock.
Cement-mortar blocks of dimensions 300mm x 300mm x 380mm were
obtained by mixing washed and dried fine beach sand with Type A
regular Portland cement and a sufficient quantity of tap water for a
workable mix. The mortar was mixed in an electric mixer. A number
of blocks were cast using the same wooden mould. This mould could
be taken apart when each block was set and re-assembled for a new
block to be cast. After pouring the concrete into the mould it was
manually vibrated to ensure uniformity and compactness. The blocks

62
were then left undisturbed for 24 hours after which they were moist
cured for 7 days at 100% relative humidity, and then left to dry for
at least 60 days before the test.
At the time of pouring the mortar mixture of a particular batch,
test cylinders 40mm diameter and 80mm height were cast and cured in
a controlled temperature cabinet at a constant temperature of 20°C
for 28 days. These samples were then used to test whether the mix
was of consistent properties. Details of each composition are shown
in Appendix A.
At the time of mixing and pouring each batch, smaller blocks were
cast and cured as before. Fran these blocks, diamond drill cores
were taken using the Hercus coring machine and tested for the
physical properties of the mortar blocks.
Three different compositions of cement: sand ratios (by mass) of
1:2.5; 1:3.0 and 1:4.0 were prepared. Table 5.1 gives the
properties of the cement-mortar blocks with different compositions.
The dynamic values of Young's modulus, Bulk modulus, modulus of
rigidity and Poisson's ratio were calculated using the formulae in
Appendix G.
5.3 OVERVIEW ON PROPERTIES OF CEMENT-MORTAR BLOCKS
The physical property data for these laboratory tests were obtained
by using the standardised tests on cores in the laboratory. Standard
expected trends occurred in all the properties.

63
TABLE 5.1 PROPERTIES OF CEMENT-M3RTAR BLOCKS

MORTAR 1 MORTAR 2 MORTAR 3
(1:2.5) (1:3.0) (1:4.0)
Compressive Strength, MPa 32.96 26.2 16.87

No. samples tested 6 6 6
Standard deviation 0.56 0.70 0.52
Age of mortar, days 70 64 71
Tensile strength, MPa 3.58 2.65 1.96

Density, p ,kgm-3 2095 2024 1940

Longitudinal Wave Vel;Vfc>,m/s 2637 2566 2334

No, samples tested 8 8 8
Shear Wave Vel; Vs,m/s 1737 1559 1423

Young's Modulus E,GPa 1.411 1.19 0.946
Poisson's ratio,v 0.18 0.20 0.21
Modulus of rigidity, G,MPa 798.72 749.3 594.6
Bulk modulus, K, MPa 579.75 533.3 482.5

64
The nature of rock failure by blasting varies from brittle to
plastic. Rocks which possess the lowest Poisson's ratio fail mainly
by brittle means, whereas those with a higher Poisson's ratio fail
by plastic neans. Upon this basis mortar blocks 2 and 3 will fail
by plastic means whilst mortar block 1 will fail by brittle process.
From their compressive and tensile strength values it could be
expected that mortar block 3 would be easily broken compared with 2
and 1. From their blastability coefficient (i.e. ratio of
compressive strength to tensile strength) - 10:1, 9:1, 8:1 for
mortar blocks 1, 2 and 3 respectively, it is also evident that
mortar block 3 has the most ease of breaking with explosives since
it is weaker than 2 and then 1 in that order. The analogy conforms
with the brittle failure theory (Roberts (1977).
It is shown from their density values that mortar block 1 is much
denser than 2 and then 3. This indicates that the energy
expectation in breaking mortar block 3 is least, and highest in 1.
The longitudinal and shear wave velocity values suggest that mortar
block 1 is much more elastic than 2 and finally 3.
The Young's modulus for the mortar blocks is highest for 1 and least
for 3. This goes to say that the least deformation will be produced
by a given value of stress in mortar block 1 and the highest in
mortar block 3.
Various investigators have measured values for the compressive
strength and Young's modulus for different rock materials.

65
Patchet (1970), and Farmer (1968) gave typical values for the
compressive strength and Young's modulus for some rock materials.
Patchet (1970), gave values for the compressive strength and Young's
modulus for halite rock as 19-39 MPa and 1.4-10.3 GPa respectively.
Farmer (1968) gave the value for compressive strength for coal as
5-49 MPa. Deere and Miller (1966) also classified intact rock on
the basis of strength as shown in Table 5.2.
TABLE 5.2 STRENGTH CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS
CLASS DESCRIPTION COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH, MPa
A Very high strength 220
B High strength 110-220
C Medium strength 55-110
D Low strength 27.5-55
E Vert low strength <27.5
The compressive strength and the Young's modulus of Homebush shale
was determined as 66.9MPa and 0.79GPa respectively whilst those of
Prospect dolerite were 72.14MPa and 5.9GPa respectively. On the
basis of their Young's modulus, the mortar blocks could be related
to Homebush shale but upon the basis of compressive strength only
the mortar blocks are relatively weaker than Homebush shale. None
of the mortar blocks could be related to Prospect dolerite because
the physical strengths of dolerite are relatively higher than those
of the mortar blocks. From the intact rock strength point of view
(Table 5.2) and considering the compressive strengths of Homebush
shale and Prospect dolerite, both rocks could be classified as a

66
C-Type rock. Looking at the compressive strength of the mortar
blocks as a separate entity, they could be classified as a D-Type
rock.
The mortar blocks therefore have a few strength characteristics in
common with Homebush shale but none with Prospect dolerite.
The blasting experiments discussed in this section were conducted
indoors at the UNSW Civil Engineering structural laboratory at
Randwick. Two methods (i.e. pop and plaster shooting) of secondary
blasting were used.
5.4.1 Pop Shooting
In this phase, different lengths of holes were drilled and blasted
for trials to determine the optimum length of hole for a given block
to achieve desired fragmentation. From several tests, it was found
that a depth of 100mm yielded the best results and therefore 100mm
length holes were drilled for the rest of the tests in this phase.
The holes were drilled at the centre of the mortar block using a
masonry drill of 8mm diameter. These mortar blocks were blasted
with only a No.8 electric detonator.
A detonator was placed to touch the bottom of the hole using the
direct method of charging. The hole was then stemmed to the collar
with some fine dry sand (the sand was fine enough to fill the cavity
'67
between the cap and the hole boundary to provide reasonable
coupling).
For mortar blocks to be blasted using plastergel, a 13mm diameter
masonry drill was used. Varying amounts (l.Og, 1.5g and 2.0g) of
plastergel explosives were employed. The explosive was placed to
touch the bottom of the hole and the detonator was placed to touch
the explosive so as to avoid an airgap. The hole was then stemmed
as described above.
5.4.2 Plaster Shooting
A number of trials were made on the smooth surface but the clay
capping was always blown off. An artifical cavity to the depth of
30mm was then created at the centre of each block to avoid this
problem. The block was broken using only a detonator. Preliminary
trials were made with it positioned either vertically or
horizontally. The amount of fragments formed after each trial
showed that the vertical position of the detonator was more
effective, so the rest of the tests were performed by positioning
the detonator vertically . A weighed quantity of clay was used for
the capping. This quantity was increased as the explosive charge
was increased. The mass of the clay was such that it was more than
ten times the mass of the explosives charge so that optimum results
could be obtained.
The cavities were wetted with water so as to create good coupling
between the block surface and the explosives. Three grams of the
explosives (comparable with the initial charge for the pop shooting)
was started with on each of the three different mortar blocks and
6a
initiated. The blocks only showed some cracks. They were reblasted
using another 3g. However, this did not produce any better result.
The slabs, however, had evidence of further damage and finally the
blocks were blasted again using 2.5g of explosive. The cumulative
charge was 8.5g (plastergel only). The final solid blocks left were
cracked and fragmented satisfactorily.
Varying amounts (lO.Og and 13.5g), of explosives were employed for
the rest of the tests.
Each test was conducted within a large portable wooden collecting
chamber (1.0m x 1.0m x 1.0m) in order to trap all the fragments
after blast.
Photographs of the equipment used for the tests are shown in Figure
5.1. Figure 5.2 is a photograph of a typical block used for these
experiments.
5.4.3 General Remarks
The procedure for each experiment in pop shooting was to insert: the
charge into the hole and to stem the hole as described above. For
plaster shooting the charge was vertically positioned on the block
and capped. The block was then placed in the collecting chamber,
and after testing the circuit with a Nobel Detameter it was fired
using a Schaffler 350 exploder.
After allowing the dust to settle, the fragments were collected and
weighed and the volume calculated. The largest fragments left were
also weighed and the volume calculated, and the size distribution
was determined using hand sieves.

69
FIGURE 5,1 EQUIPMENT USED IN LABORATORY TESTS
FIGURE 5.2 A TYPICAL MORTAR BLOCK USED IN LABORATORY TESTS

70
5.5 EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The fragmentation data for the different tests and their cumulative
size distributions are detailed in Appendix C (Cl to C4). Actual
masses retained on various sieves have not been given as those can
be deduced from the cumulative masses.
A selection of photographs of mortar blocks after being subjected to
a blast are illustrated in Figures 5.3 - 5.5. Photographs of
fragment sizes of some of the tests are also represented by Figures
5.6 and 5.7. The results of the experiments are summarised in
Tables 5.3 and 5.4.
Table 5.3 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF POP SHOOTING IN MORTAR

BLOCKS
MORTAR MEAN SPECIFIC MEAN VOLUME MEAN VOLUME SWELL

CHARGE BROKEN OF LARGE BLOCK FACTOR
LEFT
kg/m3 xlO-2,m3 xlO-2,m3
1 0.052 2.022 1.338 0.982
2 0.052 2.398 1.068 1.013
0.052 2.718 1.034 1.097

71
HOLE DEPTH-160mm
FIGURE 5.3 MORTAR BLOCK BROKEN BY POP SHOT

72
MORTAR 1
MORTAR 2
MORTAR 3
FIGURE 5.4 MORTAR BLOCKS BROKEN WITH DETONATOR

ONLY BY POP SHOT
73
MORTAR 1
MORTAR 2
MORTAR 3
FIGURE 5.5 MORTAR BLOCKS BROKEN WITH

PLASTERGEL BY POP SHOT
74
FIGURE 5.6 FRAGMENT SIZES FROM MORTAR BLOCK USING DETONATOR ONLY
(1-11)(-1.675,*1.675.*2.38,*4.76.*6.00.*12.50,*18.00,*25.40,*37.50.*50.00.*75.00).mm
FIGURE 5.7 FRAGMENT SIZES FROM MORTAR BLOCK USING PLASTERGEL

(1-11)(-1.675,*1.675,‘2.38,‘4.76,«6.00.*12.50,*18.00.*25.40.*37.50,»50.00,«75.00),mm
75
Table 5.4 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTER SHOOTING IN

MORTAR BLOCKS
MORTAR MEAN SPECIFIC MEAN VOLUME MEAN VOLUME SWELL

CHARGE BROKEN OF LARGE BLOCK FACTOR
LEFT
kg/m3 xlO-2,m3 xlO-2,m3
1 0.237 1.838 1.546 0.989

2 0.237 2.218 1.172 0.991
2 0.237 2.618 1.046 1.071
5.6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The analysis of experimental results obtained from mortar block
tests is presented in this section. As expected (from experience),
each test suggests that with the same type of explosive, an increase
in specific charge results in an increase in volume of fragments.
The resultant volume of fragments reflects on the physical strength
of the mortar blocks - the volume increases with a decrease in
physical strength of the mortar blocks.
A standard expected trend was also achieved from the plaster
shooting. The trend of values show that the volume of broken
material increased with an increase in the thickness of clay capping
(Appendix C2). This result conforms well with some published data
(Explosive Today (1983). It is assumed from the reference that the
larger the depression in the block the greater the volume of broken
material created. The general trend also indicates how the
effectiveness of the volume of broken material increases with the

76
increase in the thickness of clay capping. This is because the
large amount of clay confines the detonation process well which
therefore prevents the gas from escaping, hence the largest volume
of broken material, whilst with low confinement the detonation
process is of very short duration and is quickly dissipated because
the gases are not much confined. This results in minor crushing of
the rock and hence minimum fracture.
Further points which were observed from the tests were as follows:
1) it was found that the depth of blasthole had significant
influence on the degree of fragmentation. Longer (relative to the
380mm axis) hole depth, 160mm, caused the mortar block to split into
halves (Figure 5.3), whilst a shorter hole depth, 50mm, caused a
crater of depth 30mm with the remaining block showing no sign of
cracks. A hole depth of 100mm, resulted in a satisfactory degree of
fragmentation (Figures 5.4 and 5.5). This hole depth could then be
classified as the optimum blasthole depth for the block size used
for this investigation.
2) complete breakage took place with blocks blasted with charge
masses 2.11g and 2.61g (including detonator charge), in the case of
pop shooting; but a large unbroken part of mass between 30kg and
33kg was left when a charge of 1.61g was used in a similar block in
each cement-sand composition (Appendix Cl). In the case of plaster
shooting, breakage was complete with a charge mass of 14.11g, whilst
a large unbroken part was left with charge masses of 9. llg and
10.61g (Appendix C2).
3) the size distribution was unpredictable. Whilst some fragments
were fairly uniform within some size range, others lacked

77
uniformity, but the percentage of coarse fragments was higher
(Appendix C3). In each set of size range, the mass of fragments
increased as the mortar strength decreased. In the plaster shooting
tests a lower thickness of clay capping produced the least amount of
fragments in each size range and the converse is true (Appendix C4).
4) in both methods of blast, the swell factor increased with a
decrease in the physical strength of the blocks. However, the rate
of increase was higher in the pop shooting method than in plaster
shooting.
5) the tests also reveal that for mortar blocks of thickness 380mm,
an optimum specific charge of 0.06 kg/m3 is ideal for pop shooting
whilst 0.29 kg/m3 is recommended for plaster shooting. The specific
charge for the plaster shooting is about five times that of the pop
shooting.
6) in plaster shooting, the variation between the charge masses,
9.11g and 14.11g, did not have a significant influence on the size
of fragments produced from the different mortar blocks. For
instance, with a charge 9.11g to break samples 22 (mortar 1), 25
(mortar 2), and 28 (mortar 3), the mass of fragments produced in
each was closely the same. For example, for screen size - 1.675 mm,
the masses of fragments produced from samples 22,25, and 28 are
respectively 4.426g, 4.426g and 4.417g (Appendix C4). The close
relationship holds with a charge mass of 14.11g. The masses do not
seem to show any significant differences among the fragments in the
three different mortar blocks.
A t-test was therefore performed on the sizes of the fragments per
explosive charge on each test to determine if there was any

78
significant difference among the size ranges. It was assumed that
the variables follow the normal distribution curve.
Considering that the variables have size N; with a mean x, the
variance, a2, was determined by this equation;
2 E (A - X)2
(N - 1)
where A is a reputed mean and (N-l) is the degree of freedom.
The estimated standard deviation of the samples; 3 is
/E (A - X) 2
/ (N - 1)
The estimated standard error, <f> , of the sample mean is:
/N
From these derivations and equations, t, the t-test was determined
thus;
<P
From the experimental data (Appendix C4),
N = 11, therefore (N-l) = 10
A was chosen to be 1500
Using these data, the values on Table 5.5 were obtained.
It can be seen from the results (Table 5.5) that the t-test values
of samples in the same mortar group decreased as the mass of charge
was increased. But individual samples from different mortar groups
with the same charge mass showed no difference in the t-test values.
This confirms the fact that there is no significant difference among
the fragments in the different mortar groups using the same charge
mass.
79
Table 5.5 TABLE SHOWING THE t-TEST VALUES FOR SAMPLES 22 TO 30
MORTAR CHARGE SAMPLE MEAN FRAGMENT

MASS;g MASS; g 3 t
9.11 22 1234.1 1787.8 539.0 0.4
1 10.61 23 1305.8 1819.4 548.5 0.3
14.11 24 1386.8 1868.5 563.4 0.1
9.11 25 1241.4 1791.4 540.0 0.4
2 10.61 26 1333.0 1815.0 547.2 0.3
14.11 27 1415.6 1868.5 563.4 0.1
9.11 28 1232.4 1793.0 540.5 0.4
3 10.61 29 1312.8 1820.9 549.0 0.3
14.11 30 1387.2 1883.0 567.7 0.1
It can therefore be concluded that the same charge mass of a given
type of explosive would produce the same fragments in different
cement-sand composition for the same size of block.
From the statistical results, it is possible to:
1. group the three types of samples using the same amount of
explosive charge and,
2. find a mean for the groups of data.
The grouped samples and their mean fragment sizes are shown in
Appendix D.
80
The concept of the comminution principle to provide a measure of
fragmentation was also used to assess the significance of the
fragments among the different types of mortar blocks. Distribution
curves allow for this assessment and therefore the need for
cumulation. The cumulative percentage of the fragments from the
grouped samples is detailed in Table 5.6, and represented
graphically by the distribution curves in Figure 5.8.
Table 5.6 CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF FRAGMENTS (BY MASS)
Size, mm Samples Samples Samples

22.25.28 23.26,29 24.27.30
mass of mass of mass of
fragments,g fragments,g fragments, g
-1.675 4.423 4.660 4.662
+1.675 5.216 5.583 5.904
2.380 6.613 7.076 7.407
4.760 8.587 9.439 9.817
6.000 11.909 13.830 13.536
12.50 15.557 16.273 17.668
18.00 19.597 20.576 22.326
25.40 24.017 25.576 27.436
37.50 29.037 31.005 33.013
50.00 61.705 62.517 64.085
75.00 100.000 99.403 99.157
Two parameters that normally define distribution curves of the type
shown in Figure 5.8 are geometric mean size and standard geometric
81
% cumulative mass passed

oo oo
CJl © © cn
Screen size (mm)
FIGURE 5.8
00 00
cn © o cn
% Cumulative
Screen size (mm)
„
mass of fragments

oo oo
cn © o cn
Screen size (mm)
82
deviation. These parameters define the mid-point of the distribution
and the degree of dispersion about the mid-point. The geometric
mean size is the value corresponding to 50% and the standard
geometric deviation is the ratio of sizes corresponding either to
85% and 50% or 50% and 15%.
The geometric mean sizes of the fragments from samples represented
by A,B and C (Figure 5.8) were all within 43mm size. The respective
standard geometric deviations for these curves corresponding to 85%
and 50% were all 1.35 and those corresponding to 50 and 15% were all
3.31 (in these ratios, 85% mark was taken as 58mn; 50% = 43mm and
15% = 13mm). These values also indicate the insignif icant
difference among the fragments of the three different types of
mortar blocks.
Since the amount of fragments in each screen size were closely the
same irrespective of charge, it could be economical to use only
9.11g to blast the mortar blocks efficiently by plaster shot.

83
CHAPTER 6
SHALL SCALE SECONDARY BLASTING IN SHALE AND DGLERITE
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Investigation by the United States Bureau of Mines proves that
laboratory-scale blasting can be used to predict full scale
operations observed in mine and quarry blasting.
The mass of explosives used in laboratory secondary blasting varied
between 0.5g to a few grams depending on the method of blasting;
while in mine and quarry secondary blasting usually between 20g to
70g of explosives per hole were used.
The amount of explosives used for secondary blasting in the mine and
quarry depends on the specific charge used for primary blasting. It
has been determined that the specific charge for secondary blasting
using pop shooting ranges between 1/4 and */3 of the primary blast,
and between 1/z and 3A of the primary blast for plaster shooting.
For this investigation, the specific charges for primary blasting in
the rock types were found to be 0.46 kg/m3 (shale) and 0.62 kg/m3
(dolerite).
Three methods of shooting (i.e. pop, plaster and shaped charge) were
tried in two different types of rock; shale and dolerite. The
arrangements and procedures for shooting have been described in
Chapter 2. The physical properties of the rocks are given in Table
6.1.
84-
Table 6.1 PROPERTIES OF ROCK TYPES
Hcmebush Prospect
Shale Dolerite
Compressive strength, MPa 66.9 72.14

No. samples tested 8 6
Standard deviation 11.6 8.6
Tensile strength, MPa 6.25 7.69

Density, p, kg/m3 2700 2838

Longitudinal vel; P-wave 2063 5608

vel., m/s
Shear velocity or S-wave 1038 2807

vel., m/s
No samples tested 8 6
Young's modulus E, GPa 0.79 5.9
Modulus of rigidity, G,GPa 0.59 2.2
Bulk Modulus, K, GPa 0.78 5.8
Poisson's ratio, v , 0.33 0.32

85
Only one type of explosive material; plastergel in conjunction with
a No.8 detonator, was used. This was to reduce the number of
variables in the experiments. The properties of plastergel are
given in Appendix E.
Dried sand was used for stemming in both rocks, although some
blastholes in dolerite were stemmed with water instead of sand in
order to compare the degree of fragmentation between both stemming
materials.
The experimental procedure in both sites was identical except that
in Prospect quarry the shots were electrically initiated, and in
Homebush quarry they were fired by fuse.
The pop holes were drilled vertically from the top of the boulders
using a petrol operated Cobra drill, approximately at the centre.
The depth of each hole was about 60% of the thickness of the
boulder. The diameter of each pop hole was 28mm.
In the case of plaster shooting, the thickness of clay capping was
kept constant. The quantity was such that it was approximately ten
times the mass of charge used.
The mass of charge employed for each test was dictated by the volume
and thickness of the boulder, the specific charge used for the
primary blast at the quarry, and the method of secondary blasting
used. Larger amounts of explosives were used for the plaster
shooting method and less for shaped charge shooting. The primed
.86
charges were placed such that the detonator pointed towards the
solid rock.
The boulders were blasted in isolation so that details of throw and
size of the fragments could be observed and in some cases sketches
of the fragments could be drawn.
Some of the boulders were covered with a blasting mat made from
strips of old vehicle tyres in order to restrict the fragments
within a small radius. Figure 6.1 shows how these boulders were
covered.
Before each test the boulder surface was examined, and boulders
containing fractures or other macroflaws were avoided since these
seem to reduce energy absorption and thus makes explosive breakage
easier. Each boulder was carefully measured for its volume, and
after shooting, the degree of fragmentation was systematically
recorded under the following parameters: optimum fragmentation,
fragmentation (very good, good, fair, poor and failed); size of
fragments; dimensions of largest fragment(s); distance of throw and
in some cases, shape of fragments.
The definitions of these parameters are given in section 6.3

87
FIGURE 6.1 TRAPPING FRAGMENTS USING A BLASTING MAT

88
6.3 DEFINITIONS
6.3.1 Optimum fragmentation
Toll (1973) defined fragmentation as a process which results in the
minimum cost per unit of prepared rock of the combined operations of
drilling and blasting, loading, hauling and primary crushing. Any
changes in blasting techniques which change the degree of
fragmentation will result in changes in the performance of all
subsequent steps in the mining operation. Therefore all proposed
changes to blasting techniques must be studied in relation to their
effect on productivity and costs in subsequent steps of the mining
operation.
It is most important to understand that optimum fragmentation is
relative to individual and local conditions. It is not an absolute
quantity. Depending on capital cost of equipment, purchase prices
of consumable items such as blasting agents, and labour costs, mines
in different parts of the world having apparently identical ground
conditions and using similar machines may arrive at significantly
different degrees of fragmentation for their optimum fragmentation.
However, ground conditions are by far the greatest influence on the
optimum degree of fragmentation.
6.3.2 Fragmentation
It is rather difficult to define fragmentation, since there is no
generally accepted way of measuring fragmentation. But in simple
terms fragmentation can be said to be the breaking up of rock so
that it can be loaded or cast efficiently and economically. There

89
are presently two methods of fragmenting rock; by ripping and by
blasting. Ripping is done in the soft and medium rocks and blasting
is used in the relatively harder rocks.
Ripping is generally by medium-weight or heavyweight tractor
rippers. Blasting is generally by drilling holes of appropriate
diameter, depth and patterns, and by using suitable explosives.
In blasting, the degree of fragmentation is influenced by spacing
between blastholes: the quality of the rock; specific charge;
distribution of charge; burden; drilling pattern; initiation
arrangements;and deviations in the drilling.
Fragmentation (in this thesis), has been categorised as very good,
good, fair and poor. The definitions are however, restricted to
this thesis.
a) Very good fragmentation
This is where the fragments are within the "mesh of grind" -
which is the 80% passing size of fragments. The smallest side of
the largest boulder, termed "critical boulder dimension" is ^
0.1m.
b) Good fragmentation
In this class the fragments could be the same as above but the
"critical boulder dimension" is the restrictive term which is >
0.1-0.25m.
9.0
c) Fair fragmentation
This range is those fragments whose "critical boulder dimension"
is 0.25-0.4m. Some of the fragments in this class need to be
reblasted. About 50% of these fragments are within the "mesh of
grind".
d) Poor fragmentation
This is where most (i.e. about 80-100%), of the fragments do not
feed into the crusher throat. These fragments need to be
reblasted.
In this class even additional loading and hauling units could
not increase the production.
e) Fragment
Fragments are pieces of rock below the optimum size which can
easily be loaded and transported efficiently. The maximum size
of a fragment depends on the standard loading and crushing
equipment used in the particular quarry or mine.
In Homebush quarry/ rock size less than 600mm is within the
crusher throat whilst rock size less than 900mm is a required
size for the crusher in Prospect quarry.
f) Boulder
This is any lump of rock that is on average bigger than the
crusher throat, or too large to be worked by the equipment or
transported by the haul vehicles.

91
Boulder size is relative to the individual quarry or mine. It
is not an absolute quantity.
g) Distance of throw
This is the displacement of fragments away from the blast
position. The distance of throw may often be due to the results
of overcharging or undercharging. For an overcharge situation
the muckpile is scattered over a larger area than for an
undercharge, also a greater part of the rock is crushed to very
small pieces in the case of an overcharge situation.
The throw increases if a high concentration of the charge
happens to be close to a free face of the rock.
6.4 EXPERIMENTAL DATA
This section contains several tables showing the performance
characteristics of the results of tests on 180 shots. The details
showing the controllable parameters are in Appendix F (FI to F7).
The fragments from each test were assessed by screening. All
fragments which could not be screened were measured along their
sides. The smallest side of the largest fragment produced by each
blast is recorded, and this is termed the ’’critical boulder
dimension". These results were grouped according to the criteria
shown in Table 6.2.
The data in this section have also been presented in a recent
publication (Sen and Mensah( 1989).

92
Table 6.2 CRITERIA FOR FRAGMENTATION ASSESSMENT
Fragment Group MA" "B" "C" "D" "E"
Very good Good Fair Poor Unbroken
Critical
boulder
dimension, ^ 0.1 >0.1 >0.25 >0.40
("X"),m 0.25 -0.40
a) Pop shooting tests
The results of these tests conducted in shale at Homebush have been
grouped in Table 6.3. The pop holes were stemmed with dry sand and
the shots were fired by plain detonator and safety fuse. A
photograph of a boulder before and after it was subjected to pop
shooting is shown in Figure 6.2.
Table 6.3 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF POP SHOOTING IN SHALE
Fragment Group "A" "B" "C" "D" "E"
Frequency of occurrence 19 15 4 2 -
Mean specific charge, 0.119 0.092 0.087 0.064 —
kg/m3
Critical boulder
dimension ("X"),m 0.10 0.23 0.40 0.47
Table 6.4 shows the performance characteristics of the results from
dolerite boulders using sand stemming with electric initiation.

93
BEFORE THE BLAST
AFTER THE BLAST
FIGURE 6.2 HOMEBUSH SHALE BROKEN BY POP SHOT

94
Table 6.4 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF POP SHOOTING IN

DOLERITE USING SAND STEMMING
Fragment Group A B C D E
Frequency of occurrence - 12 14 5 -
Mean specific charge, 0.111 0.097 0.076 -

kg/m3
Critical boulder
dimension ("X"), m 0.25 0.40 0.48 -
Some tests were performed in dolerite using water stemming. The
results of these tests are grouped in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF POP SHOOTING IN

DOLERITE USING WATER STEMMING
Frequency of occurrence - 2 13 8 1
Mean specific charge, 0.116 0.082 0.048 0.088

kg/m3
Critical boulder Stemming
dimension ("X"), m 0.25 0.40 0.48 blown
out
Photographs of the results of pop shooting in dolerite are shown in
Figure 6.3. The boulder shown in Figure 6.3a was stemmed with sand
whilst that in Figure 6.3b was stemmed with water. Both boulders
were of identical specific charge.
b) Plaster shooting tests
The results of these tests conducted in shale at Homebush are shown
in Table 6.6.
The thickness of clay capping was kept constant throughout the
experiment.
95
nr
i
A) WITH SAND STEMMING
P) WITH WATER STEMMING
FIGURE 6.3 PROSPECT DOLERITE BROKEN BY POP SHOT

96
Table 6.6. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTER SHOOTING

IN SHALE
Fragment Group "A" "B" "C" "D"
Frequency of occurrence 2 13 1 1

kg/m3
Critical boulder
dimension ("X"),m 0.09 0.24 0.34 0.44
Figure 6.4 illustrates the boulder before and after it was subjected
to blast. The performance characteristics of plaster shooting from
dolerite boulders are summarised in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTER SHOOTING

IN DOLERITE

kg/m3
Critical boulder
dimension ("X"),m 0.25 0.40 0.56 Unbroken
Figure 6.5 illustrates a dolerite boulder before and after it was
subjected to plaster shooting.
c) Shaped Charge Shooting
The charges for this experiment were assembled as described in
section 2.2.1 (iv). The outcome of one shaped charge shot each from
shale and dolerite boulder is shown in Figures 6.6 and 6.7.
The results from the shaped charge shooting in shale are summarised
in Table 6.8, and that from dolerite in Table 6.9.

97
BEFORE IHE BLAST
AFTER THE BLAST
FIGURE 6.4 HOMEBUSH SHALE BROKEN BY PLASTER SHOT

98
BEFORE THE BLAST
AFTER THE BLAST
FIS'JF.E 6.5 PROSPECT POLERIIE BROKEN BY PLASTER SHOT

99
Table 6.8 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SHAPED CHARGE SHOOTING

IN SHALE
Mean specific charge 0.105 0.092 0.074 0.066

kg/m2
3
Critical boulder
dimension", ("X"),m 0.10 0.24 0.38 - —
Table 6.9 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SHAPED CHARGE SHOOTING

IN DOLERITE
Fragment Group A B C D ]

kg/m3
Critical boulder
dimension ("X"),m 0.10 0.23 0.38 0.54
6.5. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The results of the majority section of the field trials by the
writer have been summarised in a recent publication (Sen and Mensah
(1989), but the detailed analysis is given below.
1. As expected, the "critical boulder dimensions" decreased as the
specific charge increased. This is illustrated by Figure 6.8.
2. The specific charge has to be increased in rock with higher
physical strength in order to obtain the same degree of
fragmentation as for weaker rock. For the weaker rock such as shale
the ratio for plaster shooting to pop shooting was about twice
whilst that for dolerite was about four times.

100
BEFORE THE BLAST
AFTER THE BLAST
FIGURE 6.6 HOMEPUSH SHALE PRPKEN FY SHAPEP CHARGE SHOT

101
BEFORE THE BLAST
AFTER THE BLASf
FIGURE 6.7 PROSPECT DOLERITE BROKEN BY SHAPED CHARGE SHOT

102
Shale pop shooting (sand)

--------- Dolerite pop shooting (sand)
*■"■**“ Dolerite pop shooting (water)
Shale plaster shooting
Dolerite plaster shooting
Shale shaped charge shooting
Dolerite shaped charge shooting
\ \
Max. Critical Boulder Dimension, m
FIG. 6.8 MEAN SPECIFIC CHARGE VS. MAX. CRITICAL BOULDER DIMENSION
103
3. The shaped charge tests showed how effective the "Munroe effect"
is. The mean value of the specific charge of shaped charge shooting
(i.e. 0.0868 kg/m3) compared with that of pop shooting
(0.0871 kg/m3), in shale was relatively the same. It could
therefore be judged that with approximately the same amount of
charge, a shaped charge shot can do the same damage as a pop shot.
Shaped charge shooting therefore has the advantage over pop shooting
of no hole being drilled, also the shaped charge can produce a
desirable degree of fragmentation at the lowest specific charge.
4. Shaped charge shooting also creates a cavity at the centre of
the fragmented rock. This shows the concentration of the explosive
energy at. the centre of the charge and the uni-directional effect of
the charge when it is vertically positioned on the solid rock.
5. The "Munroe effect" is more effective with vertical positioning
of the detonator on the solid rock than in the horizontal position
where the indentation in the detonator is not directed towards the
solid rock.
This could mean that, if the cartridge is placed vertically on the
rock, the PETN (pentaerythrite tetranitrate) and the priming charge
are concentrated at a finite point and therefore the surface area at
the point of contact is smaller as compared to the force. When
detonated from the far end, the head-on pressure of the detonation
wave is higher and it will cause somewhat greater crushing resulting
in efficient breakage. On the other hand, if a cartridge of high
explosive is lying on the rock, the rock will experience the side-on
pressure of the detonation wave, which is of only a few microseconds

104
duration (Clark 1987), plus the pressure of the gases as they push
away from the rock surface. Thus only minor crushing and chipping
will result with minimum fracture of the rock resulting in low
breakage.
6. In the shaped charge shooting, the ratios of length to diameter
of charge which varied between 1.5 and 5.0, did not seem to show any
significant effect in fragmentation.
7. From the pop shooting tests in dolerite using water and sand
stemming in turn, the following observations were made:
l) the specific charge was lower with water stemming than with
the sand;
ii) the fragments produced in the water-stenmed rocks were in big
lumps with virtually no small bits as against the fines
produced from the sand-stemmed rocks. Figure 6.3 (a and b)
shows this comparison.
This effect can be explained by comparison with the energy
induced by an explosive when detonating a charge underwater.
Since water is incompressible, the potential energy (i.e.
bubble energy) in the gases in the blasthole is confined and
hence there is no decoupling effect and as a result the
friction between the wall of the borehole and the water is
minimal. The energy is suddenly released by the explosive
reaction resulting in transmission of a strain wave through
the rock and permanent strain around the borehole, and hence a
105
larger volume of the boulder is affected by the explosive
energy.
In the case of sand stemming, since sand is in granular form,
air gaps exist between the granules. The bubble energy is
therefore expelled and the decoupling effect is large. Less
energy will then be consumed to break the rock whilst more
energy will be used for wave and sound propagation;
iii) the distance of throw of fragments on average was shorter
(about 2m diameter) for water-stemmed rock than that of
sand-stemmed. This could be due to the greater wave energy
released in the sand-stemmed rock which seemed to throw the
fragments over a longer distance; and
iv) post-detonation sound (i.e. air blast) seemed to be reduced
more in water stemming than in sand due to the greater energy
allowed for sound propagation in the latter.
These observations correlate well with experiments performed
in Japan in secondary blasting using water stemming
(Yamaguchi, et.al. 1986).
8. The fragments produced from shale were in horizontal layers, but
those produced from dolerite were in thick irregular blocks. This
could mean that the fragmentation of shale which is made up of a
multitude of joint-bounded blocks is controlled by those joints more
than by the explosive generated strain wave. In the dolerite, the
rock was almost devoid of planes of weakness, which meant that
fragmentation was entirely dependent on the generation and
intersection of blast-induced fractures.

106
9. Assuming the crushing time and cost is the same for a specific
size of rock, it means it would take a longer time to crush a bigger
boulder, and as a result accrue an extra crushing cost. Accepting
this fact, the following analogy could be made from flgire 6A
i) considering the pop shooting method in dolerite using water on
one hand and sand stemming on the other, the crushing cost at
the 0.45m - 0.80m "critical boulder dimension" range would
increase for water stemming;
ii) at a specific charge of 0.09kg/m3, with either water or sand
stemming, the same size of "critical boulder dimension" is
produced. Above this specific charge, water storming is
higher in crushing cost whilst the converse favours sand
stemming;
iii) considering the same "critical boulder dimension" (say 0.1m),
in shaped charge shooting and pop shooting in shale, and
considering the amount of charge used to produced this size
(i.e. 0.1m), it would be more economical to use the shaped
charge shooting in weaker rocks, such as shale as compared
with pop shooting.

107
CHAPTER 7
COST ANALYSES FOR SECONDARY BREAKING PROCESSES
IN SHALE AND DGLERITE ROCKS
This chapter gives the costs involved in the operations done in
Prospect quarry and the secondary breakage processes in both shale
and dolerite.
The cost of explosives and initiation devices as supplied by I.C.I
(Explosives Division) and the quantity of each used are given below.
1. Plastergel explosives (115 sticks of 200g each) = $113.00
2. No. 8 Electric Detonators (3.6m leads) = $223.00 per 100
3. No.8 Plain Detonator (fuse firing) = $ 37.40 per 100
4. Connecting wire (60m per roll) $ 13.77 per roll
5. Safety fuse = $102.75 per 250m
6. Fuse igniters (2min) = $ 85.00 per 100
a) One metre length of safety fuse was used for each hole in shale.
b) One igniter was used for six holes.
c) Three metre length of connecting wire was used for each hole in
dolerite.
d) The length of cable extended to the exploder was not accounted
for since it was used repeatedly.

108
Based on the information supplied, an attempt has been made to
calculate the cost of the various breakage processes, using the
following assumptions:
1. new drill was used
2. the breaker had sufficient blow energy to break the rocks
3. the rocks were placed in a position for easy drilling and easy
capping
4. the dolerite rock is more massive than the shale so the
consumable costs are higher in dolerite
5. the tonnes per hour of rock broken by the hydraulic breaker is
based on the fact that there is no downtime
6. crushing costs varies in terms of production and the size of
rock. The higher the production the lower the total crushing
cost and the bigger the rock fragment the higher the crushing
cost
7. labour costs are based on average basic pay rates of $10.75 per
hour for quarry crew.
Table 7.1 illustrates the cost items per tonne of rock broken after
being subjected to secondary blasting and tabulation gives
comparable costs for an hydraulic breaker as well as the average
costs per tonne of the normal operations in Prospect quarry.
At Prospect quarry, the boulders were broken by a hydraulic breaker.
The hiring cost per hour at the time of this investigation was
$130.00. The breakage per hour was 180 tonnes (i.e. about 72m3).
TABLE 7.1 COST COMPARISON
S? ? S’
C/5 "O
O
T
CO
tl)
109
lip
The operator cost per hour was $10.75. The cost per tonne of rock
broken was approximately $0.78.
The broken lumps were loaded into trucks and transported directly to
the primary crushing at the loading and hauling cost of $0.93 per
tonne.
About 40-100% of the total delivery goes through the primary
crusher. The oversize lumps (250mm up), are recrushed in the
secondary crusher to a size of about 5mm to 20mm diameter at a
cumulative cost of $1.63.
The sum of the operation cost per tonne of rock broken comes to
$5.49.
At Homebush quarry, the oversize shale is not mechanically broken;
it is stockpiled and allowed to break down by weathering.
The broken lumps after being transported from the pit are passed
through the primary crusher which reduces the particle size down to
2.4nm or less. They are then ground and screened and the oversize
pieces are returned to the secondary crusher for further crushing.
Further manufacturing processes such as shaping, drying, firing and
delivering of the bricks go on. It has been vrorked out that if the
price of bricks is taken to be $100 per 1,000 all the operations are
accomplished for around 2.5 cents per kilogram of material handled.

1.11
Obviously, from the cost point of view, the mechanical breaking
system which was not wholly looked into in this investigation would
be a less economical and effective means of breakage in Prospect
dolerite. The natural weathering in Homebush shale yielded the
least cost apart from stockpiling and pick-up charges.
With regards to the methods applied for this investigation, the
following deductions were made:
1. the cost per m3 of rock in dolerite (with sand stemming)
irrespective of the breaking method was almost the same (Table
7.1). However, for the economics as far as breakage
effectiveness is concerned, the pop shooting method outweighs
the others.
From the detailed results in dolerite (section 6.4), none of the
boulders failed to break when they were subjected to either pop
shooting (with sand stemming) or shaped charges, but the number
of occurrence in each fragment group was higher for pop shooting
except two in group A for shaped charges. The fragments (apart
from the largest) produced after blast from each test were
smaller in size from the pop shots than from the shaped charge
shots. The crushing time is relatively shorter for the
fragments produed from the pop shots and hence the cost of
crushing is lesser.
Six of the boulders failed to break when they were subjected to
plaster shooting. There is therefore the possibility of failure
in breaking Prospect dolerite by plaster charges. This failure
will lead to wastage of money.

112
2. the cost per m3 of Homebush shale was virtually the same for pop
and plaster shooting but slightly less for shaped charges. The
number of occurrence in failing to break was highest in shaped
charge shots. As explained before, the shaped charges would
tend to loose precedence over the others in Homebush shale.
Similar reasoning overlooks the plaster shooting method in
Homebush shale since three of the boulders failed to break on
its application. However, with a critical application of the
plaster charges, it will have precedence over the pop shot with
the advantage of no hole being drilled since the fragments
produced from each test was almost the same and therefore the
crushing cost will be the same. Moreover, the specific charge
for plaster shooting was about twice the amount required for pop
shooting to obtain the same degree of fragmentation. The extra
cost for explosives will more than offset the drilling.
3. the total costs on the table reveal that the cost of breaking
dolerite by using either pop shooting (with sand stemrung),
plaster shooting or shaped charges is about twice that for
shale. This cost difference was caused by the electrical
initiation devices used in breaking dolerite which on average
cost more than those used for shale. On the other hand if plain
detonator and fuse is substituted for an electric detonator for
blasting dolerite, the relative costs per m3 would be $2.15,
$2.20 and $2.21 for pop shooting, plaster shooting and shaped
charges respectively. The cost differences could be accounted
for by the high density of dolerite which results in high cost
in drilling and blasting as compared to shale.

113
4. with water stenming in dolerite, the cost of plastergel used per
m3 of rock was lower than that for sand stenming for the same
size. In terms of drilling and blasting only, the water
stenming wculd therefore be cheaper. But for the fragments size
to be crushed, the water stenming will lose precedence over the
sand stenming. The fragments produced from water-stemmed rocks
were in bigger lumps as compared with the fines produced from
sand-stemmed rocks. The crushing time will be longer for
water-stemmed rocks which in turn will increase the crushing
cost.
On comparing the economics of the methods applied, it is highly
recommended that pop shooting with sand stemming could be
applied on Prospect dolerite and plaster charges on weaker rocks
such as Homebush shale.

114
CHAPTER 8
CCNCLUSICNS AND RECttfflENDATICNS
8.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results of individual tests are discussed in each chapter, and
compared and summarised here.
1. SHAPE AND SIZE OF FRAGMENTS
Fragments produced by a few grams of plastergel explosive in mortar
blocks are very similar in shape, size and scaled quantity to the
fragments produced by much larger charges in rocks at the quarries.
Unlike the shale, the fragments produced from the mortar blocks and
dolerite rock were irregular in shape. Because both the mortar
blocks and dolerite were fairly homogeneous, they were almost devoid
of planes of weakness which could have helped in breaking them into
some defined shapes. This undefined shape meant that fragmentation
was entirely dependent on the generation and intersection of
blast-induced fractures.
The fragments produced from shale were in horizontal layers. This
meant that the joint-bounded blocks in shale controlled the
fragmentation more than the explosive generated strain wave.
In the model tests, most (40%) of the fragments produced were in the
25.40mm size range whilst the least were in the +1.675mm size range.
Mast (60%) of the fragments produced from the field tests were in
the 0.25m and 0.40m "critical boulder dimension" range.

115
The size distribution from both tests is highly significant when
scaled.
2. BREAKAGE MECHANISM
The mechanism of breakage in both the model and the field tests was
by spall-type failure in tension and proceeded by successive
reflections of the compressive pulse off the free face.
Scabbing, that is breakage by reflected strain pulses, was also
found to be one of the primary causes of mortar breakage with
explosives. Furthermore, expanding gases seemed to be responsible
for some of the breakage when the charge was well confined.
3. CHARGE MASSES
The mass of charge used in the model varied between 1.61g to 2.61g
in pop shooting and between 9.11g to 14.11g in plaster shooting.
Simple calculations showed that the specific charge for the plaster
shot was about five times that of the pop shot.
The mass of charge used in the field tests varied between 20g to 50g
in Homebush shale using pop shooting method and between 40g and 70g
for plaster shooting in the same rock. Using shaped charges, the
mass of charge varied between 19g to 43g in shale. In dolerite, the
charge mass varied between 40g to 65g using pop shooting with sand
stemming and between 30g to 55g with water stemming. The charge
mass varied between 55g to 196g with plaster shooting and between
55g to 87g for shaped charges.

116
Calculations show that the specific charge ratio of plaster shooting
to pop shooting was about two for shale and about four for dolerite.
It is therefore convincing that the charge mass for a plaster shot
must be increased to at least four times that of a pop shot in order
to obtain the same degree of fragmentation.
Comparing the specific charge ratios of plaster shooting to pop
shooting in both the model and dolerite, the charge masses in each
case could be said to be well conformed.
It was also deduced from both the model and the field tests that the
greater the charge mass, the finer the fragment size. This result
correlates with the tests carried out by Lande (1983), in Northern
Luzon, Philippines, and with the reports by Langefors (1965), and
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978).
In conclusion, for effective degree of fragmentation, the specific
charge ratio of plaster and pop shooting in secondary blasting must
not be less than four.
4. DEGREE OF FRAGMENTATION
The degree of fragmentation in both the model and the field tests
was generally low. The reason could be that the boulders selected
and the mortar blocks prepared for this investigation were fairly
homogeneous (i.e. no existing macroflaws), which therefore impeded
the fragmentation. These macroflaws (i.e. cracks, voids, pore
space, fissures, faults and existing planes of weakness), could have
improved the breakage (Atchison (1968); Seinov and Chevkin (1968).

117
However, in some of the tests with a higher degree of fragmentation,
it was observed that the fragmentation was independent of the charge
mass. Large fragments were produced no matter how much charge was
used. This could be that the flow of gases was concentrated more
readily in a single direction which enhances the charge effect in
loosening and breaking the rock. It could also be due to too great
fixation of the rock, or faulty drilling of the holes so that one
side of the rock proved to be too large.
On a smooth surface, plaster shooting was virtually impossible since
the explosives did not seem to be well confined to the rock, and in
many cases the explosive was lifted off by its detonation gases.
This was in conformation with the fact that before the blast force
attacks the rock, the explosive force will seek an escape in the
direction of empty spaces and stemming. It is therefore recommended
that the charge should be placed into a natural cavity on the rock
surface.
5. FRAGMENT THROW
The throw of fragments in the model tests was restricted within a lm
diameter box. This was to allow for details of size and shape of
fragments as well as volume of fragments produced to be taken.
Some tests in the field were covered with 3m x 3m blasting mat to
restrict the fragments within a small zone to allow for details as
in the model tests to be taken. The rest of the tests were not
covered and the throw distance was measured in most cases. The
118.
throw of fragments was indicated as a function of the specific
charge. The throw increased with increased specific charge.
When the breaking took place an increase in specific charge gave an
equally large increase of the throw. Whilst some were thrown out in
a long distance, others were only moved some few metres away. This
meant that the pieces of rock which were thrown to a long distance
had obviously accquired the energy for their movement from external
sources. On the other hand it could be due to their having been
thrown off by the gases which pass out through the holes at a high
velocity if the rock only cracks in some few large blocks.
The throw of fragments was more pronounced in shale than in dolerite
with sand stemming in both rocks. On the average the distance of
throw of fragments from a pop shot in shale ranged between 3m to 7m
radius whilst the fragments throw in dolerite from a similar shot
ranged between 2m to 4m radius. This could mean that shale
fragments are projected over a longer distance than dolerite because
of their lower density. In dolerite, using water stemming, the
distance of throw of fragments was on average within 2m diameter.
This was shorter compared to the same type of rock using sand
stemming. This means that the more wave energy generated from
sand-stemmed blast seems to throw the fragiments over a long
distance.
Waiving the effect of overcharging and undercharging on blast with
regards to fragments throw, it can be concluded that the density of
rock is an indicator of the distance of throw of fragments.

119
6. STEMMING
Fine dry sand was used as stemming material in both the model and
the field tests. In each case the borehole was filled with the sand
to the collar to provide reasonable coupling.
Some boulders of dolerite rock were stemmed with water to the collar
of the borehole.
Fragments produced from the sand-stemmed tests were in small bits as
against the big lumps produced from the water-stemmed tests. The
general observations made from the results of using water and sand
stemming have been detailed in section 6.6.
Water stemming apparently requires less explosive charge for
required degree of fragmentation. It also produces less flyrock.
The results from the tests using different stemming material reveal
that the absence of bubble energy in sand makes the decoupling
effect large. As a result the friction between the wall of the
borehole and the sand becomes high. Less energy is therefore
consumed to break the rock whilst more energy is used for wave and
sound propagation, hence a small volume of the boulder is affected
by the explosive energy. But, in the case of water stemming, the
friction between the wall of the borehole and the water is minimal.
Large energy is suddenly released by the explosive reaction
resulting in high strain wave through the rock and permanent strain
around the borehole. Large volume of the boulder is therefore
affected by the explosive energy.

120
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
In underground stopes where ore passes and finger raises are
blocked, a boulder can be blasted by shaped charge shooting.
However, the task ahead is to determine the "stand-off" distance for
the charges, and to decide on the effective coupling substance
between the charge and the rock.
The efficient use of explosives for breaking boulders has been
looked in to satisfactorily, and it is hoped that this thesis will
lead us to overcome some of the problems of secondary breaking by
explosives.
This thesis infers that the most desirable method is that which
yields the least cost per m3 at the final production phase.

121
Ash, R.L., (1968) The Design of Blasting Rounds.

Surface Minincr, Ed E.P. Pfleider.
A.I.M.E. New York dp 373-397
Ash, R.L., (1973) The influence of Geological

Discontinuities on Rock Blasting.
Ph.D. Thesis, Univ.of Minnesota, pp 289
Aso, K., (1960) Phenomena Involved in Pre-splitting by

Blasting. Ph.D Thesis, Stanford Univ.,
pp 177
Atchison, T.C. (1968) Fragmentation Principles.

Surface Minina. Ed. E.P. Pfleider,
A.I.M.E. New York, pp 355-372
Baker, W.E., Westine,P.S. Similarity Methods in Engineering

and Dodge, F.T. (1973) Dvnamics. Theorv and Practice of Scale
Modellina. Spartan Books, Havden Book
Comoanv: Inc. Rochelle Park. N.J.
Bergmann, O.R.,Riggle, Model Rock Blasting Measures: Effect of

J.W. and Wu, F.C.,(1974) Delays and Hole Patterns on Rock
Fraomentation. Ena., Min. Journal.
Vol.175. pp. 124-127
Clark, G.B., (1987) Principles of Rock Fraomentation

John Wiley & Sons. N.Y., Chichester,
Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore, pp. 457.
Coates, D.F., (1970) Rock Dvnamics. Rock Mechanics

Principles. 3rd ed.rev., Ottawa
Information. Canada pp. 8-18 to 8-26.
Cummins, A.B. and SME Mining Eng. Handbook,

Given,I.A. (1973) Vol.l pp 11-92 to 11-93
Deere, D.U., and Eng. Classification and Index Properties

Miller, R.P. (1966) of Intact Rock. AFWL Report TR-65-116
Washington D.C.
122
DuPont Research (1971) Facts About Delay Blasting.

DuPont Research, E.I. DuPont De Nemours
and Co (Inc.). Wilmincrton. dd. 11.
Duvall, W.I., and Rock Breakage by Explosives.

Atchinson, T.C., (1957) USBM R.I.. 5356
Explosives Today (1968) A newsletter from the Explosives Div. of

African Explosives and Chemical
Industries Ltd. No.14 Feb.
Explosives Today (1983) Series 2 No.33, 3rd October.
Fanner, I.W. (1968) Eng. Properties of Rocks.

London E.& F.N. Spon Ltd._
Field, J.E. and Ladegaard The Importance of The Reflected Stress

-Pederson, A. (1971) Wave in Rock Blasting. Int.J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. Vol. 8, Pergamon
Press. dd 213-226.
Fogelson, D. E., D'Andrea, Effects of Decoupling and Stemming on

D.V. and Fischer, R.L., Generated Pulses in Mortar. A laboratory
(1965). studv. USBM R.I. 6679
Gregory, C.E. (1966) Explosives for Engineers. A primer of

Australasian Industrial Practice. 2nd
ed. Univ. of Queensland Press. pp88.
Hatch, T., and Statistical Description of the Size

Choate, S.P. (1929) Properties of Non-uniform Particulate
Substances. J. Franklin Inst.,
Vol. 207. dd 369-387.
Hino, K. (1956) Fragmentation of Rock through Blasting

and Shock Wave Theory of Blasting.
Proc. 1st Ann. SvrnD. on Rock Mech.
Quart. Colo. Sch. Mines, Vol. 51,
No. 3. dd 189-209.
Hino, K. (1959) Theorv and Practice of Blasting.

Nippon Kavaku Co., Asa. Yamaguchi-Ken,
Japan, dd 189.
Hutt, J.B. (1946) The Shaped Charge for Cheaper Mine

Blasting. Min. Journal. Vol 147, No.5,
May. pp 59-63.
Johansson, C.H. and The Mechanism of Rock Blasting.
Persson, P.A. (1970) Detonics of Hiah Explosive.
Swedish Detonic Research Foundation.
Sweden Academic Press. London and N.Y.
pp 267.
Johnson, J.B. (1962) Small-scale Blasting in Mortar.

USBMR.I. 6012
Johnson, J.B. and The Effects of Mech. Properties of

Fischer, R.L. (1963) Material on Cratering. USBM R.I. 6188
Kochanowsky, B.J. (1961) Theory and Practice of Inclined Drilling

Surface Minincr. Ouart. Col. Schol.
Hines Vol. 56 No.l dp 297.
Kochanowsky, B.J. and Laboratory Blasting with Models.

Pinto, J. (1961) Proc. 4th Svmp. Rock Mech.. Ed H.L.
Hartman. Penn.. U.S.A.
Kolsky, H. (1963) Stress Waves in Solids. Dover

Publications N.Y.
Kutter, H.K. and On the Fracture Process in Blasting.

Fairhurst, C. (1971) Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Vol 8
pp 181-202.
Lande, G. (1983) Influence of Structural Geology on

Controlled Blasting in Sedimentary Rocks.
Case historv. 1st Int. Svmp. on Rock
Fracrmentation bv Blastincr. Lulea.
Sweden. August.
Langefors, U. (1959) Calculations of Charge and Scale Model.

Trials. Ouart. Colo. Sch. Mines.
Vol 54, No.3 pp 219-249.
Langefors, U. (1965) Fragmentation in Rock Blasting.

7th Svmp. in Rock Mech., Penn. State
Univ.
Langefors, U. and The Modem Technique of Rock Blasting.

Kihlstrom, B. (1978) John Wilev, N.Y. . Almovist and Wiksell.
Stockholm, pp 19-27.
Langhaar, H.L. (1951) Dimensional Analysis and Theory of

Models. John Wiley & Sons Inc., N.Y. and
London.
12.4
Lazenby, D. and Cutting for Construction. The

Philips, P. (1978) Architectural Press. London Halsted
Press Div. . John Wilev & Sons. N.Y.
pp 39-41.
Lewis, R.S. and Elements of Mining. 3rd ed. John Wiley &
Clark, G.B. (1964) Sons Inc. N.Y., London, Sydney,
pp 145-173.
Livingston, C.W. (1956) Fundamental Concepts of Rock Failure.

Proc. 1st Svmp. Rock Mech.. Colo Sch.
Mines, Quart. Vol. 55 No.4
Livingston, C.W. (1973) Control Blasting.

U.S. patent No.3735704. pp 70.
MacKenzie, A. (1967) Optimum Blasting.

Twentv-Eight Annual Min. Svmp. Duluth
Murphy, G. (1950) Similitude in Engineering. N.Y. Ronald

Press Company, pp 36-37
Nichols, H.L. Jnr. (1976) Blastincr. Movincr the Earth. 3rd ed.
pp 9-35 to 9-37.
Nicholls, H.R. and Comparative Studies of Explosives in

Hooker, V.E. (1962) Salt. USRM R.I. 6041
Nicholls, H.R. (1964) A Case Study of the Validity of Scaling

Laws for Explosion-Generated Motion.
USBMR.I. 6472
Nicholls, H.R. and Effect of Charge Diameter on Explosive

Duvall, W.I. (1966) Performance. USBM R.I. 6806 pp 22
Nielson, K. (1983) Optimization of Open Pit Bench Blasting.

1st Int. Svmp. Rock Fragmentation bv
Blasting. Lulea. Sweden. August,
pp 653-664.
Obert, L., Windes, S.L. Standardised Tests for Det. the Physical
and Duvall, W.I. (1946) Properties of Mine Rock. USBM R.I.3891
pp 67.
Obert, L. and Rock Mech. and the Design of Structures

Duvall, W.I. (1967) in Rock. John Wilev & Sons Limited.
125
Patchet, S.J. (1970) Rock Mech. Studies Ass. with the Dev. of
a Deep Potash Mine. Ph.D Thesis, Univ.
of Newcastle Upon Tyne, U.K.
Pearse, G.E. (1955) Rock Blasting. Mine and Quarry Eng. .

Jan. Vol. 21 pp 25-30.
Pomeroy, C.D. (1972) Some Similarities and Differences between

the Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and
Brittle Rocks. Ver des Inst Bodenmech.
Felsmech, Univ. Fredriciane, Karlsruhe.
Vol. 55. pp 163-175.
Porter, D.D. (1961) Crater Formation in Plaster of Paris.

Models by Enclosed Charge, M.S. Thesis,
Colo. Sch. Mines.
Porter, D.D. and A Study of Crack Propagation Produced by

Fairhurst, C. (1970) Sustained Borehole Pressure in Blasting.
12th Svmp. Rock Mech.. A.I.M.E., N.Y.
pp 497-515.
Products (1985) I.C.I. International "Downline", Dec.
Rinehart, J.S. and Behaviour of Metals Under Impulsive

Pearson, P.A. (1965) Loads. Dover Pub. Inc., N.Y.
Roberts, A. (1977) Geotechnology - An Intro. Text for

Students and Engineers. Pergamon Press.
1st ed.
Rollins, R.R.,Clark, G.B Expt. In Plate Cutting by Shaped High

and Kalia, H.N. (1973) Explosives Charges. Int.J. of Rock
Mech and Min Sci. Vol 10 pp 183-204.
Sadwin, L.D. and Measurement of Lateral Pressure Generated

Junk, N.M. (1965) by Cylindrical Explosive Charges.
USBM R.I. 6701
Saluja, S.S. (1967) Mechanism of Rock Failure Under the

Action of Explosives. 9th Svmp. Rock
Mech. Golden. Colo. April
Seinov, N.P. and Effect of Fissures on the Fragmentation

Chevkin, A. I. (1968) of a medium by blasting, ibid No.3 pp
57, May-June
126
Sen. G.C. and Fragmenting Oversize Boulders.

Mensah, J. (1989) Proc. 15th Conf.Explosives and Blasting
Techniques. Feb.. New Orleans.
Society of Explosives Engineers, N.Y.
Siegmund, B. (1970) Statistical and Computational Methods in

Data Analysis. North-Holland Pub. Co. ,
Amsterdam. London. American Elsevier
Pub. Co.. Inc. N.Y. pp. 125-127.
Toll, G.L. (1973) Assessing Rock Fragmentation in Open Cut

Mines. Drilling and Blasting-Australian
Mineral Foundation Inc. Workshop
Course. Adelaide, ppl.
Wills, B.A. (1985) Mineral Processing Technology.

3rd ed. Pergamon Press, pp 107.
Winzer, S.R., Anderson, Fragmentation by Explosives. 1st Int.

D.A. and Ritter, A.P. Svmp. on Rock Fragmentation bv
(1983) Blasting. Lulea. Sweden.
Yamaguchi, U., Shimotani, Studies on Effects of Decoupling and

T. and Mogi, G. (1986) Tamping Materials for Rock Blasting.
Kaovo Kavaku. Vol. 47, No.5.
127
APPENDIX A
TESTING FOR CONSISTENT PROPERTIES AFTER MIXING EACH MORTAR
Appendix A1 Values of Compressive Strength Showing Consistency

in Mixing Mortar 1
Sample Samples Mean Compressive Standard

No. Tested Strength, MPa Deviation
1 6 24.38 0.90
2 6 24.95 1.01
3 6 19.30 1.12
4 5 26.00 0.85
5 6 24.57 0.95
6 5 22.67 1.05
Appendix A2 Values of Compressive Strencrth Showincf Consistency

in Mixmcr Mortar 2

9 6 9.46 0.55
10 6 9.52 0.96
11 4 9.61 0.54
12 6 9.20 0.72
13 5 9.48 0.57
128
Appendix A 3 Values of Compressive Strength Showing Consistency

in Mixing Mortar 3

17 5 4.13 0.41
20 5 4.76 1.16
21 5 4.73 0.35
22 5 4.27 0.35
APPENDIX B
The ecaiations used to calculate the compressive and tensile

strengths of the rock materials
1. a = F
A
2. T = 2F
tt Dt
where, F is the failure load, kN
A is the cross-sectional area of sample, m2
a is the compressive strength of the material, MPa
T is the tensile strenth of the material, MPa
D is the diameter of sample, m
t is the thickness of sample, m and
it is a constant = 3.142
(after Roberts (1977)

129
2 o CO
! : ss •O - f © 5
le ft ,
y 8 © 5
x 10
O A w „ c: o, - if a ®
”
0 <6 w <° c3 Iff
3 o
Volume
CT g
2
3 ~-g mE ©
Mass ol
kg
r I i|
Log. 3 2 o 2 CO ■© Is, ?
? f §_ 1 f A
3LOO ©
® X 8 © © I H
2- ? n * w! I © X
© s CO
| I I “ I S 1 I *
I
iss = li
|f * 1? -
i
a iti o 11 w
b p 2
s GO 00 o>
on 2 O 2
0.421
S
Cfl ® I i 00 3 o o
sa
o ii § I » a
H CO
o o
1
S a
W o) b ivo
* c § 2 00 8 IVO "*■ i« m
is o
35.78
s 03 o
0 * 2
o +
of
o r^2
1 N 6
A 1 00
A
0.018
is
24.64
8 ^oi
0.263
I E
o ca
cS ”ll o
3 t 3 »
5 I
co co N> ro 33 <5
CO 0 £ at 00 _®
2 b § 8 2
0.018
8 s
45.28
0.210
a o
■a b>
8 « O
<3 + 9 P 8 00 00
00 o b 2 s
46.56
0.210
® 3 00
_ ®
8
O
8CL f I i
GO a> o GO
§ *5. 1 • • b 00
& bi 8 8 00
0.132
^ 8© 00
CO
©
POP SHOOTNG USING Dl
p
P N> GO O
© i on £ -
38.04
s O
0.263
0)
1.61 (2)
g_
8
(/) 00
900
© N a>
• GO
12
5 00
68.34
8 8
Mortar
0.263
(0)
1
O p N
• • O) GO
00 8 2 cn GO
69.78
8
0.263
p
cn P
00 a> 2 8 GO
37.84
is 8
0.263
o
• • u O
15
CD GO
000
8 O
66.79
Mortar
0.263
PLA5
” 3
m
a> jj
O 00 00 N> O
• • b 2 8 GO
8 O) 8 «
0.263
8 P
O
8 on CO
s 8 b ro 2 ro GO CD
29.44
8
0.263
O p P §
• • 00
8 £ on GO 8 |
66.54
8
0.263
GO
O 00 r°
■ • on o> § GO O ro
8 ro
68.20
O
0.263
C/3
C/3
m
PLASTER SHOOTING USING DIFFERENT CHARGE MA!
a a
§ E
8-
a- ^
o p
1- £
fe
co
§
c
o
33
§
T>
C/3
5
rE R G E L
-*•
rvj
t
2
CO
*
8 S
M ortar 2
CO
o
»
°
CO
CT>
CD
ro
03
fv,
ro
ro
CD
o
26
o
o
05
O
05
o
05
O
05
o
03
®
3
cn
s
0 .6 1 0 .6 1 9.11 (1) 14.11
o
05
9.11 10.61 14.11 9.11 14.11
<o
r\)
8
C la y m a s s
ro
8
200
8
A
05
400 800
8
600
05
8
400 800 800
9
£
ro
2
00
u
r>o
o
3 8 .1 4 2 0 .4 4
s
CO
2
in
©
3 5 .1 6 6 9 .7 4
cn
48.41
3
4 9 .5 2 6 8 .2 0
b
6 9 .2 0
7T
0
<
s4
COO-
o
o
CD
o
O)
ro
A.
1 .8 8 1 .0 0
ro
b
ro
3 ®
o
©
1.68 3 .3 3 2 .3 9 2 .4 5
M
cn
co
3 .3 7
CO
3
3 .5 7
130
Xs:
a
q
2
cn
cn
0D
f\3
o
£
CO
2 8 .4 3 0 .5
o>
co
s
C/5
3
3 6 .3 2 1 9 .3 9 2 0 .1 0
05
•
®
o q
1
96 0 660
ro
ro
r\3
05
N
s
o
b
1 .4 0
o
* 1©
^ o
1.51 1.73
8
o
•
•
CO
®
p.
6G 0
o
00
00
o
b
00
S p e c ific
oo
00
0 .0 1 8
ho
O
<o
©
CO
©
O
0 .2 5
o
K>
(3)
cn
0 .2 5
©
0 .2 9
8
0 .3 9 0 .3 9
CO
k g /m
333
8c/>
9
a
131
+ 4^ 1
tl Ol CO io 3 io s- 5?
cn o vi cn 00 IO **vj b
o b O)
o o o cn o cn 00
s cn 3 3 §
3
No fragmei
cr SIN3W3VH.i ON
r-+
, cn cn CO ro
i
§ o ro cn CO CD VI cn
0 ■U b b b b
b o b CO cn CO CD ro O
V) o CO ro 00 cn
o ro CO CO CO 00 CO cn
s' 2
C
■u CO ro ro !>
§ vi Cl cn Ol CO ro d
b b vl o co < o
o Si 8 IO IO 8 2 8 z
o o ro 3 00 Ol 00 o Vl
Si
% w §
33
CO cn CO ro IO
, CO 2 cn cn CD 01 CO vl cn - % O
b CO b b b b b b o > z
cn cn 00 £ CO w
d CD CO 2 cn cn 3 5
to
z
o cn a. ro
to
CO cn cn 2 cn . o 00 oo
b b b oo b ^ CQ
o
o CO 8 cn 3 ro
ro ro CO V| 00 cn cn v| F
fii
CO
sxNawDvna ON 00
g ro vl
ro 2 O ro CO
b b o b b b
IO Ol § -*•
00 001
o o § *0 ro vi VI o
cn ro 2
ro - pi pi ■u co o
o o 3
' b co GO b
o 8 8 3 ro-"
o 00 ro Ol 00 o cn VI cn vl
-
o cn £ ro -n-
CO CO 00 o 00 VI
■u *>- b io b ro b b
o
o CO IO 3 3
§ CD <o cn o o CO 2
o
CO ro c
s CO cn 00 CO o Ol pi CO CO
RESULTING FROM POP SHOOTING TEST
b a b
<o CO 3 CO c
CUMULATIVE MASS OF INDIVIDUAL FRAGMENT!
s CO
8
vl 8
o 00 8
00 8
Ol o CO 3 £
d m
33
o 01 CO ro 5 m to
00 S -si CO ■u CO v| pi pi
b b
m
o b b CO o b b
CO 00 ro CO 3 | 1
o CO 3 cn v|
o s CO cn cn IO
- 8
33
IO ro >
o CO VI cn to
o to CO 01
CO cn b g CO b
o CO CO & cn
o o CO CO CO 3 z
cn CO cn v| cn v| o
cn co
o ro ro
ro io 00 ro 3 3 00 vl cn cn
b cn b o b b b co
o 8 CO
o cn o IO IO 3
3 8 o CO CO CO 00 ro
cr> CO IO IO 2
o 00 pi cn o
vi 00 IO V| ■u o
cn CO ro b b o b
o io 8 I
o ro 00 8 IO
ro CT) CO CO o cn o co
CO
o <n CO ro ro
CO IO vi -U CO 00 cn cn
ro b -*• CD b
b 8? 2 CD 2
o cn cn -U CD
ro ro cn 3 o CO v|
132
+ + + CO
vi cn ro ■u ro §■
cn o cn v| co
o o 4*. 05 co 3 §
o o o § S 3
ro ro 00 05 4k
oo —■
-4k bo vJ
cn ro VJ 00
8 8 cn ro cn cn
&
vl 05 cn 4k
CD
I o
c=
05 o
2
00 £
c
o
cn ro IO p
cn 00 o cn bo o <
b b £ cn m §
8 8 •vl s 00 05 m z
CO CO CO -u 05 4k
s I
I $ §
33
ro >1 cn 4k oo *■> "O
05 05 00 ro
b b OO bo io
b 00 a 01 M &
CO u cn ro O § 8 cn C/5
IO 05 00
Z
---- P
Vl v| Vl 00 ro ro
_A. _A —t IO CD ro o
boo cn ■u b io vi
ro io ro -vl 05 ro
oo 03 oo 05 05 ro 00
cn oo ro &
->■ £ ro O CD 05 cn
05
!u !-*• ro io 8 3 00
5 ■vl cn ro
8 8 8 ro
o 05 ro ro - 00 cn p ■u
co 00 CO cn
o b b b b b
o cn V| CD io ro
o i IO fe vl 3 $ 05
o cn cn
o cn CO ro CO 05 cn 4k §
ro cn o 05 00
io CD
o b *s| CD 2 03 w
o 00 ro 8 8 8 00 o
o CO CO ■u CO
O) 00 ro ro p vl cn 4*.
8 00 ro ro v| 00
b ro 03
RESULTING FROM PLASTER SHOOTING TEST
b b b o 03 ro 00 £
CUMULATIVE MASS OF INDIVIDUAL FRAGMENT!
o CO
o 2 vl vl CD
-vl o CD cn IO 00
o 05 IO 00 cn cn
8 co cn ro
-vl
03 03
o io 00 cn io cn
o 00 IO 5! 3 8 IO cn 05
ro 00 cn cn
£ -o
o cn 03 IO ro 00 CO Vl on 4k o
05 ro 05 VI a.
4k bo 4k vl ro w CO
o ro *n| b cn 03 H
o iD CD CD ■vj cn O Vl 05
03 Ol S r\3 ro m
33
G)
m
o 00 ro ro vl 05 4k
2 00 ro 00 00 o
o ■C- b o b b 8 2
o o 00 00 00
03 03 00
o 05 IO - 00 05 cn 4k.
8 co cn
03 4k
o vj b o b b b £
o Vl 00 00 v|
00 8 v| cn
.
o 05 00 ro p p p 4k. o
IO cn O cn 00 a
io oo b
o b b b b b o CD 0)
IO 8
o 00 co co cn 05 05
-Vl ro cn 2 vl 00
o 05 00 ro IO p vl cn 4k
00 ro ro vl 00
b ro b b b
o Sg ft ro 8 8 cn
o Vl cn 4k 05
03 03 03 o 2
133
APF0CDIX D
Table showincr the Mean Fragment Sizes for Tests 22 to 30

Using Different Charge Masses
Mass of charge.g 9. llg 10.61g 14.llg

Mass of Mass of Mass of
Screen Size, rim Fragments, g Fragments,g Fragments, g
-1.675 4.423 4.660 4.662
+1.675 0.793 0.923 1.242
2.38 1.397 1.493 1.503
4.76 1.974 2.363 2.410
6.00 3.322 3.830 3.719
12.50 3.648 3.004 4.132
18.00 4.04 4.303 4.658
25.40 4.42 5.00 5.110
37.50 5.02 5.429 5.577
50.00 32.668 31.512 31.072
75.00 38.276 36.886 35.072
APPH©IX E
Properties of Plastercrel Explosive as

Supplied bv the Manufacturer
Type of Wt. Strength Bulk Density Vel.of Det

Explosive Strength (Unconfined)
Relative to Relative to
(%) (%) g/cm3 m/s
B.G. ANFO B.G. ANFO

Plastergel
75 103 74 191 1.48 5,000
B.G. Blasting gelatine

ANFO Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil
134
APPENDIX FI
POP SHOOTING (SAND STEMMING)“HOMEBUSH SHALE
Boulder Hole Boulder Specific Volume of "X" Degree

Depth depth Volume charge largest of
Boulder fragment fragmen
depth tation
m m3 kg/m3 m3 m
1 0.33 0.70 0.192 0.150 0.0005 0.06 A
2 0.44 0.70 0.253 0.160 0.0017 0.10 A
3 0.50 0.62 0.330 0.130 0.0040 0.12 B
4 0.24 0.67 0.151 0.180 0.0005 0.05 A
5 0.37 0.68 0.231 0.150 0.0005 0.05 A
6 0.48 0.71 0.242 0.170 0.0067 0.14 B
7 0.75 0.61 0.529 0.110 0.0721 0.28 C
8 0.47 0.68 0.367 0.090 0.0072 0.10 A
9 0.46 0.63 0.322 0.090 0.0046 0.12 B
10 0.46 0.78 0.383 0.080 0.0077 0.10 A
11 0.28 0.46 0.191 0.140 0.0860 0.32 C
12 0.43 0.70 0.336 0.090 0.0460 0.20 B
13 0.27 0.50 0.096 0.200 0.0072 0.10 A
14 0.45 0.79 0.194 0.170 0.0064 0.10 A
15 0.57 0.61 0.487 0.090 0.040 0.20 B
16 0.44 0.52 0.527 0.050 0.1060 0.40 C
17 0.46 0.74 0.344 0.080 0.0016 0.07 A
18 1.00 0.69 1.298 0.060 0.1040 0.43 D
0.42 0.60 0.196 0.130 0.0002 0.06 A
0.52 0.64 0.932 0.050 0.104 0.30 C

135
POP SHOOTING (SAND STEMMING)- HOMEBUSH SHALE
Exp.No Boulder Hole Boulder Specific Volume of "X" Degree

depth tation
m m3 kg/m3 m3 m
21 0.44 0.61 0.585 0.080 0.0450 0.18 B
22 0.45 0.67 0.301 0.110 0.0189 0.14 B
23 0.38 0.68 0.198 0.140 0.0084 0.07 A
24 0.43 0.65 0.563 0.050 0.0067 0.08 A
25 0.45 0.67 0.294 0.110 0.0031 0.06 A
26 0.37 0.51 0.250 0.160 0.0013 0.06 A
27 0.50 0.44 0.410 0.110 0.0227 0.15 B
28 0.43 0.47 0.508 0.080 0.0900 0.23 B
29 0.69 0.43 0.813 0.070 0.065 0.21 B
30 0.45 0.44 0.859 0.080 0.078 0.18 B
31 0.40 0.47 0.501 0.070 0.0340 0.16 B
32. 0.43 0.49 0.475 0.070 0.0032 0.09 A
33 0.45 0.44 0.616 0.065 0.0070 0.10 A
34 0.67 0.59 0.697 0.065 0.0045 0.10 A
35 0.41 0.32 0.379 0.047 0.058 0.12 B
36 0.42 0.33 0.374 0.067 0.1060 0.47 D
37 0.43 0.70 0.405 0.110 0.0093 0.21 B
38 0.45 0.60 0.345 0.120 0.0045 0.10 A
39 0.51 0.59 0.600 0.050 0.0840 0.14 B
40 0.47 0.62 0.389 0.090 0.0028 0.10 A

136
APPENDIX F2
POP SHOOTING (SAND STEMMING) - PROSPECT DOLERITE
Exp,.No Boulder Hole Boulder Specific: Volume of "X" Degree

depth tation
m m3 kg/m3 m3 m
1 0.44 0.55 0.2247 0.104 0.0401 0.31 C
2 0.51 0.61 0.3468 0.133 0.0596 0.24 B
3 0.53 0.64 0.4531 0.108 0.0225 0.26 C
4 0.37 0.65 0.2564 0.084 0.0135 0.14 B
5 0.80 0.54 0.3162 0.163 0.0322 0.26 C
6 0.53 0.58 0.5568 0.090 0.0524 0.23 B
7 0.51 0.59 0.3713 0.125 0.0402 0.20 B
8 0.41 0.61 0.2400 0.095 0.0595 0.29 C
9 0.76 0.59 0.4902 0.100 0.0665 0.28 C
10 0.52 0.54 0.2191 0.156 0.0258 0.20 B
11 0.66 0.62 0.4533 0.110 0.0675 0.37 C
12 0.55 0.60 0.4080 0.110 0.0330 0.25 B
13 0.71 0.56 0.6138 0.082 0.0363 0.24 B
14 0.37 0.49 0.2782 0.075 0.0729 0.32 C
15 0.45 0.44 0.1523 0.131 0.0183 0.26 C
16 0.59 0.63 0.4439 0.097 0.0728 0.21 B
17 0.59 0.69 0.4840 0.090 0.1464 0.41 D
18 0.72 0.64 1.2403 0.046 0.2218 0.44 D
19 0.53 0.64 0.7684 0.091 0.1009 0.29 C
20 0.63 0.49 0.4400 0.100 0.0746 0.34 C

137
POP SHOOTING (SAND STEMMING) - PROSPECT DOLERITE
Exp.No Boulder Hole Boulder Specific Volume of "X" Degree

Boulder fragment f ragmen'
depth tation
m m3 kg/m3 m3 m
21 0.49 0.78 0.4571 0.095 0.0845 0.32 C
22 0.50 0.64 0.5741 0.095 0.0518 0.27 C
23 0.52 0.71 0.5368 0.081 0.0806 0.32 C
24 0.66 0.68 1.1233 0.049 0.2090 0.48 D
25 0.65 0.62 0.5127 0.073 0.0374 0.25 B
26 0.65 0.57 0.4797 0.075 0.0470 0.25 B
27 0.49 0.41 0.2397 0.136 0.0119 0.14 B
28 0.66 0.59 0.5257 0.114 0.1818 0.46 D
29 0.69 0.55 0.6071 0.099 0.0794 0.37 C
30 0.63 0.57 0.4440 0.075 0.1354 0.45 D
31 0.66 0.62 0.7649 0.080 0.0776 0.33 C

138
APPENDIX F3
POP SHOOTING (WATER STEMMING)-PROSPECT DOLERITE
Exp,.No Boulder Hole Boulder Specific: Volume of "X" Degree

Boulder fragment fragmentation
depth
m m3 kg/m3 m3 m
1 0.66 0.61 0.5946 0.088 0.1098 0.32 C
2 0.60 0.72 0.6053 0.088 0.1848 0.48 D
3 0.66 0.61 0.6506 0.086 0.1709 0.43 D
4 0.63 0.60 0.4657 0.088 - - Blown Out
5 0.71 0.65 1.0565 0.055 0.1175 0.32 C
6 0.69 0.65 0.5388 0.080 0.0894 0.40 C
7 0.60 0.50 0.2371 0.119 0.0104 0.18 B
8 0.53 0.66 0.3858 0.090 0.0768 0.32 C
9 0.75 0.53 0.7020 0.073 0.1141 0.40 C
10 0.59 0.64 0.5246 0.074 0.0949 0.43 D
11 0.88 0.55 0.7392 0.072 0.2088 0.40 C
12 0.67 0.36 0.2734 0.112 0.0823 0.35 C
13 0.77 0.71 1.3552 0.036 0.1484 0.40 C
14 1.00 0.56 2.7084 0.022 0.6658 0.78 D
15 0.85 0.66 2.0801 0.027 0.4973 0.75 D
16 0.88 0.64 1.2545 0.036 0.4308 0.68 D
17 0.89 0.58 1.6776 0.030 0.4906 0.73 D
18 0.96 0.45 2.4797 0.023 0.7741 0.80 D
19 0.63 0.59 0.3210 0.112 0.0320 0.25 B
20 0.68 0.51 0.2872 0.104 0.0750 0.29 C
21 0.48 0.54 0.2590 0.083 0.0296 0.28 C
22 0.96 0.59 0.5040 0.106 0.0833 0.35 C
23 0.87 0.57 0.7691 0.065 0.1332 0.37 C
24 0.57 0.60 0.4058 0.096 0.0822 0.31 C

139
APPENDIX F4
PLASTER SHOOTING - HOMEBUSH SHALE
Exp.No Boulder Hole Boulder Specific: Volume of "X" Degree

Boulder fragment f ragmen'
depth tation
m m3 kg/m3 m3 m
1 0.4430 0.45 0.0560 0.130 0.0407 0.15 B
2 0.3120 0.51 0.0670 0.210 0.0081 0.12 B
3 0.5220 0.42 0.0490 0.090 0.1154 0.24 B
4 0.2900 0.40 0.0460 0.160 0.0127 0.14 B
5 0.2870 0.40 0.0450 0.160 0.0171 0.17 B
6 0.2640 0.38 0.0440 0.170 0.0566 0.24 B
7 0.4100 0.48 0.0600 0.150 0.0122 0.15 B
8 0.3250 0.46 0.0570 0.170 0.0270 0.20 B
9 0.2230 0.44 0.0500 0.220 - - E
10 0.2760 0.33 0.0610 0.221 0.0076 0.12 B
11 0.2920 0.40 0.0625 0.214 0.0049 0.09 A
12 0.1610 0.27 0.0209 0.130 0.0567 0.44 D
13 0.1150 0.28 0.0161 0.140 0.0081 0.34 D
14 0.1700 0.38 0.0340 0.210 - - E
15 0.1610 0.40 0.0400 0.250 - - E
16 0.2500 0.42 0.0520 0.210 0.0256 0.17 B
17 0.5110 0.43 0.0620 0.120 0.0645 0.24 B
18 0.4210 0.45 0.0600 0.140 0.0245 0.17 B
19 0.4250 0.50 0.0700 0.160 0.0017 0.06 A
20 0.502 0.52 0.0700 0.140 0.0192 0.16 B

140
APPENDIX F5
PLASTER SHOOTING - PROSPECT DOLERITE
Volume Depth Charge Specific Vol. of "X" Degree

of of mass charge largest of
rock rock fragment fragmentation
m3 m kg kg/m3 m3 m
1 0.1395 0.34 0.0378 0.271 0.0294 0.28 C
2 0.2043 0.43 0.0430 0.210 0.1575 0.54 D
3 0.4660 0.58 0.0553 0.119 - - E
4 0.4312 0.44 0.0501 0.116 - - E
5 0.4067 0.52 0.0891 0.219 0.1720 0.48 D
6 0.3130 0.52 0.0469 0.150 - - E
7 0.3184 0.61 0.0658 0.207 0.2160 0.60 D
8 0.7864 0.56 0.1644 0.209 0.7145 0.56 D
9 0.2940 0.40 0.0562 0.191 0.2774 0.40 D
10 0.4851 0.49 0.0659 0.136 - - E
11 0.6580 0.70 0.0772 0.117 - - E
12 0.2080 0.43 0.0559 0.269 0.0648 0.35 C
13 0.3659 0.58 0.0876 0.239 0.1106 0.48 D
14 0.0974 0.28 0.0396 0.406 0.0108 0.15 B
15 0.3742 0.54 0.0949 0.254 0.1664 0.55 D
16 0.3681 0.78 0.1072 0.275 0.0559 0.26 C
17 0.3750 0.62 0.1013 0.270 0.0694 0.34 C
18 0.1796 0.46 0.0690 0.384 0.0396 0.20 B
19 0.3690 0.68 0.0892 0.242 0.2383 0.62 D
20 0.2449 0.53 0.0711 0.290 0.1128 0.40 C
21 0.6461 0.73 0.1954 0.302 0.0741 0.23 B
22 0.2565 0.46 0.0957 0.373 0.0600 0.25 B
23 0.3222 0.53 0.0973 0.302 0.0508 0.18 B
24 0.5559 0.71 0.1004 0.181 - - E
25 0.5636 0.63 0.1036 0.184 0.2274 0.56 D
26 0.4693 0.60 0.09827 0.209 0.0911 0.45 D

141
CO 00 cn Cn 4* CO ho P 4 2 W
O X
•
rt
•
o o o o o o o o O
. . . • • • • • • h a
(_n 4* 4* 4» CO 4* Cn Cn 4» 3 O CD
.4 4
-j 4* P 4 hO oo CO ho o P 4 o o ^
** h» r+
o o O o o O o o O h <
. . • • • • • • • 3 O o
Cn ho hO ho P 4 hO CO 4* hO CO o O f—1
O Cn -0 o I-4 4* o -J CO hi c
O CO CO CO I-4 -J I-4 CD oo 3
0 .2 1 0 0
O o o o o O o O o (D
a o M O
hO P 4 I—4 I-4 (-* P 4 P 4 I-4 h- tr (D U
. • • • • • • • • D> a> D fU
h-4 CTi o o o o o cn o 3 H q h
1 .0 7
4» 1—* -j -0 —1 -J t-4 -o a> iq rt »q
rt (D tr cd
(D
H
O O o o o o o o o £ o
• • • • • • • • • ?r oi tr
o o o o o o o o o CQ CO 0)
hO I-4 ho P 4 P 4 1—> ho I-4 CO H
4> Cn CD o cn OO 00 cn oo CQ
0 .0 1 9 1 CO hO Cn oo oo oo CD 4* CO CD
O CO
O O O o o o o O o tr^J
• • • • • • • • • cQ 0J CD
o t-1 o l-4 o o o o o \ H O
o Cn o Cn "J cn Cn -J 3 iq p.
0 .0 9 1
Cn 1—* CO hO h-4 cn CO CO -0 CO CD Hi
P-
o
Hi M<
o o O o o o o H (Do
• • • • • • • DJ H{
P1
o o P 4 o o I-4 1 l I-4 3 ig tq o c
Cn 4* o P 4 Cn ho ho CO 3 (D Hi 3
4» Cn 4^ o 4s» -0 -J (D CO CD
0 .0 5 9 8
-j Cn CO CO cn o D rt
SHAPED CHARGE SHOOTING - HOMEBUSH SHALE
rt
O o o o o
.
o O • . • • 1 l • ><
• • ho o CO ho ho 3 3
ho ho 00 CO 00 cn 4*
0 .3 5
CO 4*
Hi o
H$ CD
O i£)
ro DO O > o O M M Dd Hi
"9 Hi
3 CD
(D CD
D
rt
£D
rt
P-
O
D
142
ro I—4 M H-4 H-4 t-4 I-4 H-4 2 M

o 00 -J O'! On d* 00 NO I-4 O X
• 13
rt
o o O o o o o O O
• • • • • • • • H D
d* 00 00 d* On cr> 00 On 3 o CD
.5 1
I—4 o OO o h-4 -j -J CN O O 13
Hi rt
3*
o o O o o o o o H <
• • • • • • • • 3 O O
d* K) no 00 on on da da 00 o o c-
d* 00 c OO 00 da o OO ?r HiC
M CN no h-4 OO NO -J 00 3
0 .6 9 5 0
N> O o o o da on O CD
a o M O
t-4 t-4 i—4 no no NO i—4 NO H- 3^ CD 3*
• • • • • • • • CD (U 3 CD
00 CT> CTi h-4 i-4 I-4 <S\ t-4 3 H oQ H
2 .1 4
M h-4 I-4 d* da da h-4 da CD rt uQ
ft (D 3* CD
CD
H
O O O O O o o O s o
• • • • • • • • ** cd tr
O o o o o o o o oQ C0 CD
00 no no da da NO 00 C0 H
o ON -j 00 da 00 -J OO iQ
0 .0 4 2 4
o oo OO NO On OO 00 00 CD
O cn
o o o O o o o o ** 3^*0
• • • • • • • • oQ CD CD
o M H4 h-4 o o o o \ H o
cr> O O H-4 OO 00 cr> -J 3 oQ H-
0 .0 6 1
00 -J -J O 00 I—4 OO 00 CD Hi
H-
O
Hi 1—1 <
o O O O o o H o
• • • • • • CD H h-1
o o o o o H-4 3 ip IQ o c
I—4 NO NO OO NO OQ l 1 00 3 (D Hi 3
oo (T\ 00 -J -J 00 CD CO CD
0 .1 3 4 4
NO O O I—4 NO OO S3 rt
SHAPED CHARGE SHOOTING - HOMEBUSH SHALE
rt
_
o O O o O o X
• • • • • • 1 1 3
t—1 I—4 I-4 NO I-4 00
0 .3 4
CTi o o NO on NO
Hi O
H CD
CD O oQ
O W > > Od Cd o M M OQ Hi H
3 CD
CD CD
3
rt
CD
rt
H-
o
3
143
00 -0 cn cn ►c* oo NO Z W
O X
• >0
rt
•
o o o o o o O O
. • . • • • . • M D
CTi on On cn cn 3 O CD
.5 1
On -J 1—* i—1 cn Cn O O V
Hi rt
&
o o O o o o o O
• . . • • • * • M <
00 NO NO NO H-* NO NO I—1 B o o
00 cn CD on CD 00 o O I-1
o 00 00 On CD On 00 OO ?rH)C
0 .6 1 9 9
oo Ol M On 00 NO 00 OO 3
CD
00 00 00 00 00 00 o o M O
• • • • . • • • h- or (D or
o o o o o o o o 01 pi 3 CD
4 .0 0
o o o o o o o o 3 M ■Q M
CD cQ rt iQ
r+ CD or cd
CD
H
o o o o o o o o £ o
• • • . • • • • cdtr
o o o o o o o o c£J cn cd
O'! CN cn cn cn cn on On cn m
-J cn cn cn -O *£> cQ
0 .0 8 2 1
o on -j CD t—1 cn CD
O cn
o o o o o o o o ort3
. • . • • • • • cQ CD CD
I—1 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO M O
VO 00 NO NO OO cn 1-* -0 3 cQ H*
0 .1 3 2
CTl M O 00 o CD 00 CD Hi
H-
O
Hi M <
o O O o o o O O hf 0) o
• • . . • • • • Cl) H
o o H1 o o o o o 3 cp i£} o c
on -J 00 CD ►fc* CTi oo 00 3 CD Hi 3
-j o NO 00 CD on o o CD Cn CD
0 .1 2 4 3
on NO NO on O 00 CD D ft
ft
SHAPED CHARGE SHOOTING - PROSPECT DOLERITE
o O O o O o o o
. . • . • • • • X
NO 00 00 00 NO 00 NO NO 3 z
0 .4 6
CTI o oo CTi 00 o OO NO
Hi o
H CD
CD O cQ
"9 Hi M
3 CD
CD CD
O O o O td o o 00 3
ft
CD
rt
H-
o
:=>
144
H» t-1 i-1 M i—* i—1 H-1 M t—1 3 M

CO 00 -j cn cn 4> CO ro H» O K
•
rt
•
O o o o o o O o O
• • • . • • • • • M a
Cn 4* CO 4* Cn 4* Cn -j cn 3 O CD
.5 6
o Cn Cn CO CD CD CO o -j O o
JV Hi rt
3*
o o o o o O O o o
• . . . • • • • • M <
CO 4* tO ro to CO cn CO 3 O o
I-1 tO OO Cn CO OO CO to CO o O M
CO O NO 4* CTi ro OO 4s cn ^H|0
0 .4 2 4 9
Cn OO cn CD o CD to to 3
CD
cn cn cn cn cn cn 4s. 4^ 4s a o 1—* o
• ♦ • • • • • • • h- 3" CD 3*
o o o o o o o O O P> DJ 3 0>
5 .0 0
o o o o o o o O o 3 h q H
CD uQ ft l£)
r+ CD 3* CD
CD
H
o o o o o o o o o s n
• • • • • • • • • ** pj u
o o o o o o o o o cQ co pj
CD CD CD -J -0 -0 -J cn co it
tO cn cn 00 cn 4> cn -J cn ^q
0 .0 9 5 9 Cn t-» CO CO -o ro CD o CD
O cn
o o o o o o o O o ** 3"0
• • • • • • • • • cQ P) CD
(NO tO ro ro ro CO h* to \ ^ o
CD ro co OO ro CD 4s o 3 cq h-
0 .2 2 6
Cn -O o Cn ro to CO cn CO CO (D Hi
H-
o
Hi 1- <
o o o o o o O O o H P> o
• . • • • • • • • P> h{ I-1
o I—1 i-* o o o ro to o 3 cQ IQ O 3
CO CO cn -j CO CO M to 4* co 3 CD Hi 3
o 4* cn 4* cn -j ro -J CD CD CO CD
0 .1 2 4 4
ro 4^ tO 4* CO cn Cn -j O 3 rt
rt
SHAPED CHARGE SHOOTING - PROSPECT DOLERITE
o o o o o o o o O
. • . . . . . . . ><
o 4s» Cn ro M h-1 4s Cn (—* 3
0 .3 6
CD 00 i—* M cn O cn 4^ cn
Hi D
H CD
PJ O cQ
cQ Hi H
3 CD
CD CD
> a a 03 03 > a D (33 3
rt
P>
ft
H*
O
3
145
APPENDIX G
Determination of Dynamic Elastic Constants
The equations used to calculate the dynamic elastic constants of

rock materials are as follows:
pVs2 (3Vp2 - 4Vs2)
(Vp2 - Vs2)
(Vp2 - 2Vs2)
2 (Vp2 - Vs2)
G E
2 (1 - v )
where E is Young's modulus of elasticity
v is the Poisson's ratio
G is the modulus of rigidity
K is the bulk modulus
VP is the longitudinal wave velocity
Vs is the shear wave velocity
g is the acceleration due to gravity
and p is the unit weight of the material

An Investigation Into The Methods of Secondary Blasting With Reference To Optimal Explosive Consumption

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

An Investigation Into The Methods of Secondary Blasting With Reference To Optimal Explosive Consumption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE METHODS

OF SECONDARY BLASTING WITH REFERENCE

TO OPTIMAL EXPLOSIVE CONSUMPTION

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the following

persons and organisations that contributed to make this presentation

1. At the University of New South Wales, particular appreciation is

Professor F.F. Roxborough, Head of School of Mines, for making

available the facilities in the school for the success of this

Dr G.C. Sen, thesis supervisor, for his most helpful criticism,

guidance and continued assistance throughout the course of the

Professor L.J. Thomas, for his assistance in supervision during

the absence of Dr Sen.

All staff of the Faculty of Applied Science, for providing

assistance in one form or another.

2. At the two quarries where the blasting tests were conducted

making use of their equipment and facilities, to:

Messrs Gribble, Cooksley and Miller, of Statebricks (Homebush

quarry). Messrs Burke, Baxter and Rick of Prospect (Readymix)

Dr Green and Mr Dunn, of Londonderry.

3. Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB)

for their sponsorship of my study in Australia.

4. I.C.I. for providing explosive materials.

5. Carol, for devoting her time in typing this thesis.

6. To my wife, Rosemary, for her continous incentive throughout

This thesis describes the result of experiments which investigated

the efficient use of explosives for breaking boulders by pop,

plaster and shaped charge shooting.

Tests were carried out at two quarries in Sydney; Homebush which

these two quarries were compared with laboratory results obtained

from different sand-cement compositions.

Appropriate similitude conditions to extend the results to natural

scale problems are deduced. A chapter analysing the cost of each

cost of using a mechanical breaker. In addition, other aspects of

blasting mechanics are analysed in the light of experimental results

Both sets of results suggest that the degree of fragmentation

depends on the physical characteristics of the rock, the specific

charge, the depth of borehole, the position of borehole, the

thickness of clay capping (in the case of plaster shooting),

stemming material and the degree of coupling.

1.1 ROCK FRAGMENTATION IN MINING 1

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND OUTLINE OF THIS STUDY 3

CHAPTER 2 THE CONCEPT OF OPTIMUM BLASTING 5

2.1 CHOICE AND QUANTITY OFEXPLOSIVES 6

2.2 SECONDARY BREAKAGE PROCESSES 9

2.2.1 Secondary Blasting

ii) Plaster Shooting 10

iv) Shaped Charge Shooting

2.2.2 Other methods of secondary breakage 21

ii) Hydraulic impactor

CHAPTER 3 THE PROCESS OF FRAGMENTATION

3.1 REVIEW OF RESULTS FROM MODEL STUDIES AND

3.2 THE PROCESS OF DETONATION OF AN EXPLOSIVE

3.3 THE REFLECTION THEORY OF ROCK BREAKAGE 30

3.4 PHENOMENA OCCURRING AROUND THE HOLE 35

3.5 STRESS WAVE GENERATION AND PROPAGATION 37

3.6 EXPLOSIVE ENERGY PARTITION AND UTILISATION 38

3.6.1 Reflection of stress waves and the

3.6.2 The role of quasi-static gas pressure 41

CHAPTER 4 SIMILITUDE ANALYSIS OF FRAGMENTATION IN

4.2 CONCEPT OF DIMENSIONS AND SIMILITUDE

4.3 METHOD OF MAKING COMPLETE SIMILARITY

4.3.1 Dimensionless Products 51

4.3.2 Dimensional Matrix 53