INDICES DE VOLABILIDAD

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 1

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 2
 INDICES DE VOLABILIDAD
Several investigators have attempted to correlate
blast desing factors with geological condition in order
to promote consistency in blasting performance, and
provide a path for design optimization.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 3

 LILLYS BLASTABILITY INDEX
Lilly (1986) developed a blastability index based
on a combination of physical and structural
properties of the rock mass to be blasted. Lillys
blastability index has a similar basis to the rock
mass classification systems developed by
Bieniawski, Barton and Hansagi; and was intended
for use with the Kuz-Ram model developed by
Cunningham (1983). The factors, and their ratings,
are shown in table 1, and it is noted that the index
is heavily weighted towards the nature orientation
of planes of weakness in the rock mass:

BI  0.5RMD  JPS  JPO  SGI  H 

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 4
Where Bi is the blastability index, and the
other terms are explained in table 1.
Lilly also related his blastability index to the
rock constants, A, required for imput to the
Kuz-Ram model (Cunningham, 1983)

A = 0.12 BI

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 5

The application of the blastability index can be
excepted to be site specific, but for the ore mines in
the Pilbara, Lilly found that the index ranger from a low
of around 20 for weak shales, to a high of around 100
for the massive, high density hematite. In these
application, the blastability index was then correlated
with an energy factor to determine the amount and
strength of explosive best suited to the rock types
being blasted. Larger blasts contained variable rock
types, and charging procedures were tailored to suit
the rock conditions in each section. Lillys correlation
with energy factor was of the form:

Energy factor= 0.015 BI

Where the energy factor was expressed in MJ/Tm.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 6
Discontinuidades estructurales en un macizo
rocoso.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 7

 Ratings for blastability index parameters (after Lilly, 1986)

Parameter Rating
Rock Mass Description (RMD)
Powdery/Friable 10
Blocky 20
Totally Massive 50
Table 1: Joint Plane Spacing (JPS)
Close (<0.1 m) 10
Intermediate (0.1 to 1m) 20
Wide (> 1m) 50
Joint Plane Orientation (JPO)
Horizontal 10
Dip out of face 20
Strike normal to face 30
Dip into face 40
Specific Gravity Influence (SGI) SGI =25*SG- 50
(where SG is in g/cc)
Hardness (H) 1 - 10
Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 8
Galería con taladros de drenaje.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 9

Having calculated the appropriate energy
requirements, charge lengths and explosive strengths
were chosen to provide the maximun column height of
explosive subject minimum stemming length
constraints and fixed blasthole diameter.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 10

The relative importance the different parameters in
deciding the fragmentation from blasting is highlighted
in Lillys index. Rock hardness for example, is used
directly, though the application is empirical, requiring
the operator to assess the factor on a scale of 1 to 10.

This factor, however, would have only a small influence

on the total blastability index, suggesting that rock
strength does not play a major role in determining
fragmentation. This is perhaps due to the extreme
pressure generated by even low strength explosive.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 11

ANFO, for example, generates a
blasthole pressure of around 2 GPa,
compared with a rock tensile strength of
usually no more than 30 MPa.

By assigning the effect of horizontal joint planes a

weighting of only 10, Lilly acnowledges the relative
minor impact which this type of jointing has on
fragmentation. Conversely, assigning a weighting of
40 to 50 each for wide spaced joint, massive rock
types, and jointing dipping into the face, recognises
the significant impact each of these factors can have
on fragmentation and blast performance.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 12

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 13
AFROUZ BLASTABILITY INDEX
Afrouz et al (1988) defined a blastability index based
directly on Bieniawskys rock mass classification
system, in conjunction with the empirical failure
criterion developed by Hoek & Brown (1980). The
method is little known, and the technical paper
presenting the method provides little field support. The
method, however, is worth closer investigation, and is
linked closely with theories developed by Langefors &
Kihlstrom (1978).
The Afrouz blastability index, , is defined as:

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 14

 2

m e RMR 100/14
 t
m e
t
 RMR 100 /14

2
 4e RMR 100/ 6.3 


Where:
mt, is the Hoek & Brown (1980) intact constant
varying from 7 to 25 for specimens free from joints,
RMR is the Bieniawski rock mass rating ranging from
20 for poor quality rock to 100 for high quality rocks.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 15

RMR (Rock Mass Rating) 1979 de Bieniawski.

RMR Clas Clasificación

e Nº
100 – I Roca Muy buena
81
81 - 60 II Roca Buena

60 - 41 III Roca Regular

40 - 21 IV Roca Pobre

< 20 V Roca Muy pobre

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 16

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 17
In his paper, Afrouz (1988) presents tables of values
for different rock types. The Afrouz blastability is also
equal to the ratio of compressive strength to tensile
strength, so that Afrouz (1988) believes that rock
strength has a major influence on fragmentation,
together with the rock mass condition as defined by the
Bieniawski rock mass classification system.
After estimating the blastability index, Afrouz develops
a relationship between the index and the specific
charge or powder factor, q, using the approach of
Langefors & Kihlstrom (1978). The relationship
developed is:

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 18

 B 1.04 5.2  1.5B 
q   0.20   1  
S    H 

Where:
B is the blasthole burden,
S is the blasthole spacing, and
H is the heigt of the bench

For calculation of the parameters B, S & H, Afrouz

uses the methods outlined by Langerfors &
Kihlstrom (1978).

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 19

 INIDE DE BOLABILIDAD DE V. BORQUEZ

DRILLING AND BLASTING ANALYSIS

The cost estimate derived here are based on

the simulation of several drilling performances
for various types of rocks, according to field and
drill core observations. In this section, specific
variables in the drilling and blasting operation
are indetified.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 20

ROCK MASS TYPE

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 21

Modelo matemático postulado por Pearse:

K P2
B
12 Std
Donde:
B = Burden (m)
K = Índice de volabilidad
= Diametro del taladro (pulg.)
P2 = Presión de detonación del explosivo (PSi)
Std = Resistencia Tensional Dinámica de la
Roca (MPa)

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 22

K  1.96  0.27 Ln( ERQD)
Donde:
ERQD = Índice de calidad de roca equivalente (%)
ERQD = RQD x JSF (Equivalent Rock Quality
Designation)
RQD = Índice de calidad de la roca (Rock Quality
Designation)
JSF = Joint Strength Correction Factor.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 23

In mining, all the unit operations are interrelated.
However, drilling and blasting are of utmost
importance. Drill patterns, and blasting techniques are
planned to break rock efficiently while avoiding
undesirable dilution and unstable conditiond in the
mine.
Optimization of the other procedures, such as loading,
hauling, and crushing operation, depends upon the
desired fragmentation.
The economics of these interrelated procedures are
strongly dependent on the drilling and blasting
operation, which in turn are directly responsible for
proveiding the desired rock fragmentation. Therefore,
it is critical to analyze the economics of the drilling and
blasting design.
Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 24
The tree basic elements governing the economics of
the drilling and blasting design are:

1. Rock geomechanical parameters, including

geological structures, joints, frequency and
orientation.
2. Explosives porperties; and
3. Drilling characteristics and equipment.

A conceptual diagram that shows how the drilling and

blasting design is optimized is presented in Figure I.
The variables that govern the drilling and blasting
performance are discused in the following sections.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 25

Drilling Variables

Penetration rate is a factor that has a major

influence on the productivity and, consequently, on
the overall cost per unit. The penetration rate (PR) is
a function of the uniaxial compressive strength (Sc),
diameter of the drill hole (Ø), type of drill and
pulldown pressure (W/Ø), and the revolutions of drill
pipe per minute (RPM). Therefore:

PR  f Sc,  ,W /  , rpm

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 26

Analysis of the drill performances on rocks of
different strength was reported by Bauer,
several monlinear correlation of penetartion
rate versus rock compressive strength, and
penetration rate versus revolution of drill pipe
per minute for various pulldown pressure
were presented.

FIGURE I

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 27

 Drilling and blasting diagram

Rock Explosive Drilling equipment

geomechanical properties
Characteristic

Drilling and blasting design

K P2
Pearse Eq  Burden
12 Std

Drilling and blasting

patterns calculation

Predicted fragmentation
a10Wi  Size 
b c
PS 
 
p
*
1.25B 

Desired Not desired

Actual fragmentation

Desired

No Yes

To next mining sequence

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 28
Otros factores que se deben conocer para poder
aplicar mecánica de rocas a la voladura, son los
siguientes:

•Rock Density (R)

•Longitudinal wave velocity within the rock mass (PW V)
•Tranversal wave velocity within the rock mass (TWV)
•Young‫י‬s Moduli of elasticity (E)
•Poisson Ratio ()
•Compressive Resistance (SC)
•Dynamic Tensile Stregth (Std)
•Shock Attenuation, etc.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 29

The last two properties can be determinated by
procedures developed by cil‫י‬s scientific staff. These
procedures are based on some modifications of
hopkinson‫י‬s tests.
These tests require actual explosive charges, sample
of the rocks and the diffusion of a lasser ray to
measure the velocity of the particles of the rock are the
characteristics of this test.
The measurements of the rock mass to be blasted can
be require, also, a sismic determination of the rock
mass and the plane of the geological structures.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 30

Rakishev (1982)

The rock mass properties which rakishev identified

as having the greatest influence on blastibility were:

• Density of the rock (0)

• Longitudinal wave velocity in the specimen (C)
• Poissons Ratio (V)
• Modulus of elasticity of the rock (E)
• Compressive strength of the rock (c)
• Tensile strength of the rock (t)
• Mean dimension of the natural structural unit (dn)
• Degree of opening and/or filling of fractures
• Properties of any fracture filling material

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 31

Rakishev went on to analyze the mechanisms
involved in the fracture of the rock mass, as well as
the effect of the rock mass structure and developed
the following expression:

 cor
Vcr  K gd n   1
0c

Where:
Vcr: Critical fracture velocity
K: Coefficient related to the structural properties of the
rock mass
g: Gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
cor: Corrected breaking stress in the blasting of
massive rock; cor = 0.1c + t
Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 32
 Once the critical fracture velocity has been
determined using equation (1), Rakishev proposed
that the rock mass be classified according to its
blastability based on the following scale.

Description Range

Easily blasted (EB) Vcr  3.6 m/s

Moderately easily blasted (MB) 3.6  Vcr  4.5m/s

Difficult to blast (DB) 4.5  Vcr  5.4m/s

Very difficult to blast (VDB) 5.4  Vcr  6.3 m/s

Exceptionally difficult to blast (EDB) Vcr  6.3 m/s

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 33

There have undoubtedly been many other
approaches developed over the years to relate
fundamental rock mass properties to blasting
performance.

Each has probably provided useful results within

the environment in which it was derived, but these
schemes invariably fail to cover a very wide range
of material properties or blasting situations.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 34

 Gupta R.N. et al (1990)

Based on a number of field data Gupta et al

suggested the following relationship to estimate
the charge factor (kg/m3) for various rock
strength.

L.F  0.278B  F 
0.407 0.62

Where:
L.F = Charge Factor
Bl. = Effective burden (m)
F = Protodyakonov strength index = C2/1.06 × E
Where C = Compressive strength of rock (kg/cm2)
E = Modulus of elasticity (kg/cm2)
Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 35
 El modulo de elasticidad de Young (E)

E = Constante conocida”modulo de elasticidad o

modulo de Young”, y representa desde un punto
de vista de la mecànica la deformabilidad del
macizo rocoso.


E


E = ”Modulo de elasticidad o modulo de Young”

σ = Esfuerzo
 = Deformación.

Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 36

 Problema de aplicación 1.
Los ingenieros de una compañía minera necesitan
conocer el índice de volabilidad de Afrouz, donde
ejecutaran una excavación subterránea permanente,
teniendo en cuenta que la roca es muy buena; y
además se cuenta con la siguiente información de
campo:
 Las rugosidades son el doble del numero de
alteraciones = 2; además dicho macizo rocoso tiene
tres contactos.
 Agua: 1 L/min.
 SRF = 0.5
 Mt = 8
En el siguiente diagrama conceptual, se tiene la
información necesaria y suficiente para resolver
el problema planteados.
Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 37
Se pide:
i. Usando uno de los modelos matemáticos
estudiados en clase, determinar los parámetros
geomecànicos del macizo rocoso.
ii. Determinar el índice de volabilidad de Afruoz
iii. Discutir los resultados.
Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 38
 “Nacì para alcanzar el éxito, no para fracasar
Nací para triunfar, no para inclinar mi cabeza en señal de derrota.
Nací para saborear las victorias y brindar por ellas, no para gemir
y lamentarme”.
¿Qué es lo que me ha sucedido? ¿En que momento todos mis
sueños se desvanecieron en una grisácea mediocridad, en la
cual las personas promedio se aplauden unas a otras como si
fuesen seres sobresalientes?
Ninguna persona ha sido jamás tan engañada por otra, como por
si misma. El cobarde esta convencido de que solo esta actuando
con cautela, y el avaro piensa que esta practicando la fragilidad.
No hay nada que resulte tan sencillo como engañarse uno
mismo.
Nadie, en toda mi vida, me ha engañado tanto como yo me he
engañado a mi mismo.

Profesor.
Carlos Agreda, Ph. D 39