JOURNAL GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF INDIA
Vol.97, July 2021, pp.760-766
Estimation of Optimum Burden for Blasting of Different Rock
Strata in an Indian Iron Ore Mine
Vivek K. Himanshu1, A. K. Mishra2, Vivek Priyadarshi1, Ravi Shankar1, R. S. Yadav1
and P. K. Singh1
1
CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR), Barwa Road, Dhanbad – 826 015, India
2
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad - , India
*E-mail: vivekbit07@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Burden movement plays very important role in the bench
blasting for the effective utilization of the explosive energy. The
optimum burden for a blast face varies with the nature of the strata
and explosive quantity & quality. There are various experimental
and empirical approaches for the estimation of optimum burden.
However, there is a need for the site-specific estimation suited with
the strata condition for estimation of optimum burden at the blast
faces having huge variations in the rock types. Two different
approaches have been used in this paper for computation of optimal
burden of different rock strata of an Indian iron ore mine. The
first approach is based on assessment of rock mass properties and
explosive properties for the blast. The assessed properties are put
in different empirical equations of Kuz-Ram model. To achieve
optimal burden desired fragment size has been computed by back
calculation from the empirical model. The second approach is
based on the assessment of critical vibration limit for different
rock strata. The determination of critical vibration is done using
the assessment of rock mass properties. The prediction of distance
up to which critical vibration limit will be achieved using the
designed charging parameters, gives the optimum burden. The
computed burden has been compared for both the approaches,
which gives a good correlation with correlation coefficient of 0.78.
The experimental blasts of different rock strata were conducted
using the computed optimal burden. The blast output with optimal
burden and charging parameters have been improved in terms of
fragmentation, blast face movement and reduction of back-break.
INTRODUCTION
Rock excavation by blasting has many hurdles at different stages
of its unit operations. The unit operations involved in the excavation
process are- preparation of free face, drilling, blasting and removal of
blasted muck. The proper sequencing of these unit operations along
with the effective utilization of explosive energy lead to productivity
enhancement. The effective utilization of explosive energy can be
achieved by assessment of strata demand for its breakage. However,
the lack in quantification of optimum explosive energy demand for a
strata lead to blasting hazards in terms of- vibration, air-overpressure,
noise, flyrock ejections, back break etc. The approaches for reduction
of these blasting hazards has been dealt separately by different
researchers. Most of the studies have focused on reducing vibration,
air-overpressure etc. near the surface structures. However, the vibration
magnitude can also be seen from a different perspective in order to
effectively utilize the explosive energy.
The main purpose of the bench blasting is the burden movement
using the explosive energy. The optimum burden for a blast face will
definitely lead to the reduction in back break and thereby enhancement
760 DOI: 10.1007/s12594-021-1757-4 |
in the explosive energy utilisation. The correlation of burden with
hole diameter is a general trend in the findings of earlier researchers.
Rustan (1992) has summarised the relation between hole diameter
and burden for the blast face based on the findings of Langefors &
Kilstrom (1978) & Ash (1963). The findings suggest the burden for a
blast face in between 14 to 76 times of the hole diameter. This general
trend however, is unsound from the point of explosive energy suitability
for a stratum. Wyle & Mah, (2004) have correlated the burden with
the bench height. The correlation suggests that the burden should be
0.33 to 0.25 times of the bench height (Wyle & Mah, 2004; Konya &
Walter, 1990). However, this interrelationship also becomes
impractical for the excavation in dense rock strata, as such strata
requires larger diameter drill holes even for the smaller bench height
in order to overcome the drill deviations. Langefors & Kilhstrom,
(1978) have related the burden with powder factor. The powder factor
for a blasting face is again dependent on the interaction of rock strata
with explosive. So, a need for the direct relationship of the burden for
a blast face with strata demand is felt. Further, different empirical
approaches have been used to correlate the burden with rock mass
properties and blast design parameters. Burden has been related with
hole diameter, rock mass condition, degree of confinement and
explosive properties (Langefors & Kilhstrom, 1976; Jemino et al.,
1995). The method of burden estimation is very effective as it considers
most of the parameters affecting the effectiveness of explosive energy
utilisation. Kuz-Ram model is one of the most popular empirical model
for rock fragmentation prediction. The empirical model relates most
of the rock and explosive specific parameters to predict the rock
fragment size distribution from a blast. So, the method with back
calculation from empirical Kuz-Ram model can be a comprehensive
approach for computation of optimum burden. However, the proper
assessment of the parameters associated with Kuz-Ram model in
practical situation is very difficult. Accordingly, another method for
the estimation of burden for the blast face has been proposed in this
paper. The method is based on the assessment of critical blast vibration
limit for a particular stratum to initiate the rock breakage under the
blast loading.
The critical vibration limit to initiate the rock mass damages has
been proposed by various researchers under varying conditions. Bauer
& Calder, (1970) have defined the peak particle velocity (PPV) limits
of the rock mass for initial fracturing, tensile slabbing, radial cracking
and complete breakup. The defined PPV limits for different nature of
fracturing in the rock mass is shown in Table 1 (Bauer & Calder, 1970;
Zadeh, 1965; Silva et al., 2019). The suggested limits by Bauer &
Calder (1970) is based on the nature of fracturing due to blast vibration.
However, the inconsistency in the fracturing in different rock types
has not been discussed under this classification. Holmberg et al., (1984)
defined the critical PPV limits for different hardness and jointing
0016-7622/2021-97-7-760/$
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA,
1.00 © GEOL.
VOL.97,
SOC.
JULY
INDIA
2021
characteristics of the rock mass. The critical PPV limits for the scale
of damages in the rock mass of different Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
has been suggested by Adhikari (1994). The criteria for damages
suggested by Holmberg et al (1984) and Adhikari (1994) is based on
the characteristics of insitu rock mass. However, the rock-explosive
interaction concepts suggest that the P-wave velocity of the rock mass
can be considered as the best criteria to define the rock mass damages
under the influence of detonation wave. Accordingly, the relationship
of critical PPV with material properties under plane wave condition
as suggested by Forsyth, (1993) is still most acceptable (Forsyth, 1993;
Liu et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2019). The suggested relationship is based
on the general law of elasticity, under which the PPV and p-wave
velocity of the rock mass has been considered as the change in velocity 
and original velocity to compute the strain. The damage has been Fig.1. An overview of working benches of Bailadila Iron Ore
considered against the tensile strength of the rock mass. The final Mine.
relationship, however, is based on the assumption that the tensile
strength is 10 % of the compressive strength. The relationship
correlating the material behaviour with critical PPV is shown in METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR THE ESTIMATION OF
equation 1. This relationship has been used in this paper to compute OPTIMUM BURDEN
the critical PPV limits for different rock formations. The frequent variations in the rock type in a single bench of the
mine has posed the necessity for the optimisation of burden. Two
PPVcritical = 0.1 (σc/E) Vp (1) different methodologies have been adopted in this paper for
computation of optimum burden. The first methodology is based on
Where, PPVcritical = critical peak particle velocity limit to initiate computing optimum burden using empirical Kuz-Ram model. The
damage in the rock mass. σc = uniaxial compressive strength of the second one is based on the computation of critical vibration limits and
rock. E = Youngs modulus of elasticity of the rock. Vp = P-wave velocity thereby computing the optimum distance of fracturing of the rock
of the rock. strata under the influence of vibration wave.
The empirical equations under Kuz-Ram model relates rock
SITE DESCRIPTION parameters, charging parameters and blast geometry to obtain the
The experimental trials for the estimation of optimum burden of desired fragment size of the blasted rock. The empirical model is
different strata formation has been carried out at Bailadila iron ore combination of three different equations as- Kuznitsov’s equation,
mine. The mine is located in Bailadila hill ranges. The name of the hill
has been derived from the shape of hills. As the hills of the range look
like ‘the hump of an ox’ it’s named so by the native inhabitants of this
place. The mine is located 40 km south-west of Dantewada,
Chhattisgarh state of India. The mine has very rich deposit of iron ore
(hematite). This iron ore series is of Precambrian age (Pichamuthu,
1974).
Geo-morphologically the region in and around Bailadila is
characterized by relic hill ridges with cliffs and valley topography
resulting from the hard-resistant Iron ore deposit. The Bailadila hill
incorporates two parallel ranges of nearly 40 kms in length and 4 kms
width. These ranges are striking in approx. N-S directions, and steeply
dipping towards east (variable dip amount i.e. 45°- 75°). The maximum
elevation of this region is around 1276 m above the mean sea level.
These ranges are in the form of isoclinal, synclines and an anticline
plunging in north direction near Jhirka village and are intersected by
numerous faults and superimposed folds. The iron ore in this zone
has been formed by the process of supergene enrichment. The leaching
of silica from BHQ (banded hematite quartzite) resulted in the
enrichment of iron and formation of hematite as the major ore type.
In addition, Iron ore is also available as soft (blue dust); homogeneous,
massive/ hard/compact steel grey and hard to medium hard blue grey
hematite form. Apart from these, shale lithology is also found in the
area and considered as waste. On the basis of physical characteristics,
chemical composition and associations, the iron ore deposition of this
region has been classified into five categories viz., Type-1 - steel grey
hematite with Fe content of 69 %; Type-2 – blue grey hematite having
67.5 % of Fe; Type-3 – banded hematite quartzite (BHQ) constituting
64 % Fe content; Type-4 - lateritic/limonitic ore comprising 61% of
Fe content; and Type-5 - blue dust/flaky ore which has Fe content of
around 67%. An overview of the working benches of the mine is shown
in Fig.1. The overview of different rock deposits of the mine is shown 
in Fig.2. Fig.2. An overview of different rock types of Bailadila Iron Ore Mine.

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, JULY 2021 761

Table 1. Vibration limit for different nature of fracture in the rock mass (Bauer
and Calder, 1970)
<250 No fracture of intact rock
250-635 Minor tensile slabbing will occur
635-2540 Strong tensile and some radial cracking
>2540 Complete break-up of rock mass

Table 2. Parameters affecting Lilly's Blastability index (Lilly, 1986)

Parameters affecting rock Variants of Rating
fragmentation parameters
Rock Mass Description Powdery/ Friable 10
(RMD) Vertically Jointed Joint Factor (JF)
Massive 50
Vertical Joint Spacing (JPS) < 0.1m 10
0.1 m -1.0 m 20
1.0 m to drill pattern size 50
Joint Plane Angle (JPA) Dip out of the face 20
Strike perpendicular to 30
face
Dip into face 40
Rock Density Index (RDI) 25 × RD-50
RD-Rock debsity
(tonne/cu-m)
Hardness Factor (HF) If Y < 50 GPa, Y/3
Y= Young’s modulus
Y >50 GPa
UCS = Uniaxial UCS/5
compressive strength
(in MPa) 

Fig.3. Procedure of optimum burden computation using empirical Kuz-

Ram model.
Rosin-Rammler equation and Uniformity index equation (Kuznetsov,
1973 ; Cunninghum, 1983; Kansake et al., 2016; Adebola et al.,
2016). Kuznitsov’s equation (equation I) predicts mean fragment size factor, kg/m3. Q = Quantity of explosive per hole, (kg).
of the blasted rock based on rock mass conditions and quantity and Uniformity index equation
quality of explosive. Uniformity index equation (equation II) signifies
the blast geometry. Rosin-Rammler equation (equation III) predicts
mass fraction of the blasted rock retained on a screen of definite size.
The rock factors under Kuznitsov’s equation is computed using Lilly’s Equation II
blastability index The blastability index can be computed using
equation IV and equation V. Ratings for different parameters under Where, n = uniformity index. B = burden (m). S = spacing (m).
these equations has been defined, which is shown in Table 2 (Lilly, d = hole diameter (mm). W = standard deviation of drilling precision
1986). (m). L = charge length (m). BCL = bottom charge length (m). CCL =
The methodology for estimation of optimum burden using the Column charge length (m). H = bench height (m)
Kuz-Ram empirical model is shown in Figure 3. The methodology
includes computation of charge factor to get a defined mean fragment Rosin-Rammler Equation:
size. The computation is done by back calculation from Kuznitsov’s
equation. Later on, uniformity index ‘n’ is computed based on a Rx = exp[ -0.693 (X / Xm)n ] Equation III
defined fragment size to be retained on a screen. The percentage of
allowable boulder (fragment which is not retained on the screen) is Where, R x = mass fraction retained on screen opening X.
also defined in the computation. Uniformity index is computed by Xm = mean fragment size
back calculation using Rosin Rammler equation. Computed ‘n’ value
from Rosin Rammler equation is set in uniformity index equation. A = 0.06 × (RMD + RDI + HF) Equation IV
Known blasting geometry such as – hole diameter, bench height and
charging length are taken to compute optimum burden. Additionally, Where, A = rock factor. RMD = rock mass description. JF = joint
an assumption is made that there is no deviation in drill holes, to make factor. RDI = rock density index. HF = hardness factor.
the computation simpler. Optimum burden is computed using this
methodology. JF = JPS + JPA Equation V
Kuznetsov’s Equation:
Where, JPS = vertical joint spacing. JPA = joint plane angle.
Xm = AK-0.8 Q1/6 (115/RWS)19/20 Equation I
The second methodology for estimation of optimum burden is
Where, Xm = Mean particle size, cm. A = Rock Factor. K = Charge based on computation of critical vibration limits for different rock

762 JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, JULY 2021

strata. In this methodology, initially data is being gathered in the form
of blast design parameters such as- explosive charge weight per delay,
total explosive charge to meet the production demand, availability of
drill diameter for blast holes etc. The second step includes the
conduction of experimental blasts with the varying charging
parameters. Necessary blast vibration data is gathered from the
experimental blasts. The blast vibration predictors are accordingly
established by correlating the recorded vibration data with the blast
design parameters. The next step is the collection of the core samples
of the different rock strata and its testing for the assessment of rock
mass properties. The critical vibration limit is being computed based
on the assessed rock mass properties. Finally, the distance of rock
fracturing initiation is computed using blast vibration predictors and
the critical PPV limit.

ASSESSMENT OF ROCK MASS PROPERTIES OF

DIFFERENT STRATA
The core samples of Steel Grey Hematite, Blue Grey Hematite,
Banded Hematite Quartzite (BHQ), Lateritic ore and Shale were
collected from the mine. The rock mass properties for these rocks
were assessed using uni-axial compressive strength (UCS) testing.
Accordingly, UCS and Young’s modulus (E) has been measured.
The core samples for P-wave velocity measurement were prepared
as per IS norms: 9179-1979. The rock specimen was put in electric
oven at a temperature of 110ºC for nearly 12 hours to eliminate all the
moisture content of the rock specimen. The ultrasonic pulse method
using ULTRASONIC 4600 instrument has been used to determine
the p-wave velocity of the rock sample. The instrument consists of
transmitter and receiver in combination, which can be moved separately
on the surface. The frequency range of transducer is between 1 and
1000 KHz. The instrument generates suitable pulses and measures the
time of their transmission through the rock specimen. The distance
travelled by pulse in the medium is taken as the length of the rock
specimen. The ratio of distance travelled by the pulse through the
rock specimen and the transmission time is taken as P-wave velocity.
The diagrammatic layout of p-wave velocity measurement for a rock
specimen is shown in Fig.4.
Based on the measured rock mass properties, rock factor of Lilly’s
blastability index and the critical PPV limit for different rocks has
been computed. The computed rock factor using Lilly’s blastability
index for different rock types is given in Table 3. The computed
critical PPV limit along with the measured rock mass properties
data for different rock formations of the mine is given in Table 4.
EXPERIMENTAL BLASTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF BLAST
VIBRATION PREDICTORS
Altogether thirty-two experimental blasts were conducted at
different working benches of the mine. Nineteen blasts were conducted
with the existing blast design pattern practiced at the mine and thirteen

Fig.4. Diagrammatic layout of p-wave velocity measurement for a
rock specimen.
blasts were conducted with the modified pattern for the validation
purpose. The blasts were conducted in all types of rocks. The blast
hole diameter during the experimental blasts were of 250 & 150 mm.
The depth of the blast holes was 12 m. Burden-spacing were varied
based on the rock mass condition. Burden distance of 5.0 m, 4.5 m
and 4.0 m were taken for blast in soft, medium and hard strata using
250 mm blast hole diameter. Spacing of the blast holes were 1.1 – 1.3
times of the burden. Burden for the blast using hole diameter of 150
mm was kept 2.5 m, 3.0 m and 3.5 m respectively for the hard, medium
and soft strata. Steel grey hematite, blue grey hematite and BHQ were
considered in hard strata category, Lateritic and limonitic ore was
considered as medium strata and blue dust was considered as soft
strata for the blast design. The average explosive weight charged in a
hard stratum was 350 kg and 150 kg for the blast hole diameter of 250
mm and 150 mm respectively. Delay timing of 17 ms, 25 ms and 42
ms was used for the firing of the blast holes in a row. Incremental
delay starting from 65 ms between the row was used during the
blasts.
The blast induced ground vibration was recorded by placement of
seismographs for all the blasts. The seismographs were placed at a
distance of 30 m – 650 m. The charge weight per delay was varied for
the blasts. However, no sensitive structures were located in the
proximity of the mine. So, the charge weight per delay could have
been varied as per the production demand. The blast vibration data

Table 3. Computation of Lilly’s Blastability index for different rock types of Bailadila iron ore mine
Parameters Rating suggested Rating suggested Rating suggested Rating suggested Rating suggested
affecting rock for Steel Grey for Blue Grey for BHQ for Lateritic for Shale
fragmentation Hematite Hematite Ore
Rock Mass Description Massive Massive Massive Massive Massive
(RMD) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50)
Rock Density Index (RDI) 25 X 4.7 -50 = 67.5 25 X 4.7 -50 = 67.5 25 X 3.6 -50 = 40 25 X 2.7 -50 = 17.5 25 X 3.45 -50 = 36.25
Hardness Factor (HF) Y= 34.29 GPa Y= 28.63 GPa Y= 16.54 GPa Y= 3.28 GPa Y= 15.04 GPa
UCS=196 MPa UCS=146.9 MPa UCS=94.0 MPa UCS= 8.91 MPa UCS= 48.03 MPa
Rating = 34.29/3 Rating = 28.63/3 Rating = 16.54/3 Rating = 3.28/3 Rating = 15.04/3
= 11.43 = 9.54 = 5.51 = 1.09 = 5.01
Calculated Rock Factor 7.73 7.62 5.73 4.11 5.47

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, JULY 2021 763

Table 4. Critical vibration limits for different rock types of Bailadila iron ore Table 5. Computed Charge factor using Kuznitsov’s equation for different
mine rock strata of the mine to achieve various mean fragment size
Rock Type/Ore type Young's UCS P-Wave Critical PPV Mean
Modulus (MPa) Velocity Limit fragment Charge factor (kg/m3)
(GPa) (m/s) (mm/s) size (mm)
Steel Grey Hematite 34.29 196.03 4639 2652 Steel Grey Blue Grey Banded Hematite Lateritic Shale
Blue Grey Hematite 28.63 146.98 4878 2504 Hematite Hematite Quartzite Ore
BHQ 16.54 94.02 4892 2781 (BHQ)
Lateritic Ore 3.28 8.91 4040 1097
150 1.29 1.27 0.93 0.61 0.84
Shale 15.04 48.03 4030 1287
200 0.90 0.88 0.65 0.42 0.58
250 0.68 0.67 0.49 0.32 0.44
300 0.54 0.53 0.39 0.25 0.35
collected from the first nineteen blasts along with the charging
parameters were taken together for regression analysis to establish the
blast vibration predictors. Various vibration predictors such as Duvall Table 6. Computed burden-spacing using empirical Kuz-Ram model for
and Fogleson, (1962); Duvall et al., (1963), Ambraseys-Hendron, different rock strata of the mine
(1968); Ghosh and Daemen, (1983), Pal Roy, (1993), Himanshu et al. Rock Type Hole diameter Burden Spacing
(2018) and many more are widely used for the prediction of blast (in mm) (in m) (in m)
induced vibration. United State Bureau of mines (USBM) predictor Steel Grey Hematite 250 4.7 5.8
equation as suggested by Duvall & Petkof, (1959) is widely used for 150 3.5 4.3
the prediction of vibration. The vibration control around various Blue Grey Hematite 250 4.7 5.9
sensitive structures has been achieved using the results of prediction 150 3.5 4.4
by USBM predictor equation. Mishra (2013) has been able to control BHQ 250 5.5 6.9
vibration near surface structures of a big opencast mine with improved 150 4.1 5.1
production. Mishra et al., (2017) have controlled the vibration within Lateritic ore 250 5.8 7.2
2 m from the blasting face using the prediction by USBM predictors. 150 4.3 5.4
Shale 250 5.2 6.4
The USBM predictors were used by Mishra (2013) and Mishra et al.
150 3.9 4.8
(2017) for the prediction of blast induced ground vibration.
Accordingly, USBM predictor equation for the recorded vibration data
has been established for the mine. The predictor equation has the blasted rock within a desired screen size is the main objective of a
incorporated the blast vibration data along with the blast design for good blast. This can be achieved by optimization of blast geometry.
first nineteen blasts conducted at the mine. The plot of regression For the purpose of optimisation, the mean fragment size of 200 mm
analysis for development of USBM predictor is shown in Fig.5. The has been considered. The uniformity index ‘n’ has been computed
USBM predictor equation for the Bailadila Iron Ore Mine is shown considering that the 85% of the rock fragment having size less than
as Equation VI. 500 mm is retained on the screen. The selection of screen fragment
size has been done considering the requirements of excavators and in
PPV = 175.63 (D/√Q)–1.332 Equation VI order to reduce power consumption during crushing operation. The
computed value of ‘n’ considering the above values of rock
Where, PPV = peak particle velocity of vibration (mm/s). fragmentation output comes to 1.1. Optimum burden has been
D = distance of blast vibration monitoring point from blast face (m). computed for different rock strata using this value of ‘n’ in uniformity
Q = maximum weight of explosive per delay (Kg) index equation. The computed values of burden for different rock strata
is given in Table 6.
COMPUTATION OF OPTIMUM BURDEN USING
EMPIRICAL KUZ-RAM MODEL COMPUTATION OF OPTIMUM BURDEN USING CRITICAL
The optimum burden for different rock strata of the mine has been VIBRATION LIMIT ASSESSMENT APPROACH
computed using the discussed algorithm shown in Fig.3. Initially, the The initial burden movement plays crucial role in the performance
charge factor to achieve different mean fragment size has been of blasting. So, the critical vibration limit for initial burden movement
computed from Kuznetsov’s equation. The computed Charge factor has been taken as per Table 4. The computed burden movement with
for different rock strata is shown in Table 5. different weight of explosive per delay for the different strata using
Reduction of oversize boulder and maximizing fragment size of this approach is shown in Table 7. Considering the economy of drilling
and blasting, the optimum burden for the hard strata (Steel Grey
hematite, blue grey hematite and BHQ) has been taken with MCPD of
500 kg & 1000 kg for the blast hole diameter of 150 mm and 250 mm
respectively. The optimum burden for medium hard strata (lateritic

Table 7. Computed burden (in m) for different rock type under varying MCPD
Rock Type/Ore type Maximum Charge Weight Per Delay (Kg)
150 500 700 900 1000 1200
Steel Grey Hematite 1.6 2.9 3.4 3.9 4.1 4.5
Blue Grey Hematite 1.7 3.0 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.7
BHQ 1.5 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.4
Lateritic Ore 3.1 5.6 6.7 7.6 8.0 8.8
Fig.5. USBM predictor equation for Bailadila Iron Ore Mine.  Shale 2.7 5.0 5.9 6.7 7.1 7.8

764 JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, JULY 2021

 Table 8. Computed MCPD for initial, successive and last row blast holes for different strata formations
Rock Type Maximum Charge Weight Per Delay (Kg)
Blast hole diameter (150 mm) Blast hole diameter (250 mm)
Initial Successive Blast holes Initial Successive Blast holes
holes holes of last row holes holes of last row
Steel Grey Hematite, Blue 450 - 500 300 - 350 100 - 130 900 - 1000 600 - 700 270 - 330
Grey Hematite & BHQ
Lateritic Ore & Shale 150 - 170 150 - 170 100 - 150 500 - 700 500 - 700 500 - 600

ore, Limonitic ore & Shale) has been taken with MCPD of 150 kg &
500 kg for the blast hole diameter of 150 mm & 250 mm respectively.
The suggested optimum burden with the respective MCPD infers that
there is need to fire three initial holes simultaneously to achieve the
required burden movement. However, after initial burden movement,
the additional free face in V-cut firing of the blast holes will need
comparatively lesser explosive energy for the movement of other holes
in a row. The use of short delay detonators in the firing pattern, will
also lead to have the impact of total explosive charge in the successive
blast holes. Accordingly, the MCPD with two blast holes at a time
were suggested for the successive blast holes after the initial burden
movement.
The critical vibration limit computed using the assessment of rock
mass parameters is for the complete breakup of the rock mass. The
complete breakup of the rock mass takes place under various physical
phenomenon such as – compressive and tensile breakage. The
compressive breakage lead to development of back break after the
blast. Accordingly, it was planned to have tensile slabbing due to the
explosive charge of blast holes in the last row. So, the MCPD for the
last row of the blast face were changed considering the vibration limit
for tensile slabbing as -635 mm/s as per Table 1. The computed MCPD
for initial holes, successive blast holes and the blast holes of the last
row is given in Table 8. The computed results show that the decking
will be required in the blast holes of the last rows of the blast faces
with hard strata. However, direct charging needs to be preferred for
the blast faces of medium strata.
the predictions of two approaches shows that the predictions are
correlated with correlation coefficient of 0.78. The correlation validates
the prediction results of both the approaches.
The experimental trials were also done to validate the prediction.
Altogether thirteen blasts were conducted with the computed burden
and charging parameters. Firing pattern of the blast holes were also
changed to match the computed charging parameters as per Table 8.
The firing pattern of the blast holes used for the hard rock and soft
rock strata is shown in Figs.7 and 8 respectively. The movement of
the blast face has been improved considerably using the modified
blast design parameters. A view of comparison of face movement in
hard rock strata for experimental blasts conducted during review and
validation period is shown in Fig.9. The optimum utilization of
explosive energy was achieved with the proper distribution of explosive
for burden movement. This has resulted in to the reduction of back
break in the blasted face. A view of back break magnitude in blasted
face for experimental blasts conducted during review and validation
period is shown in Fig.10.
Fig.7. Firing pattern of blast holes for blast faces with hard rock strata. 

VALIDATION OF THE COMPUTED RESULTS

The computed optimum burden using two different approaches
has been compared. The comparison of optimum burden under different
rock conditions is shown in Figure 6. The comparative plot shows
that the optimal burden using critical vibration limit assessment Fig.8. Firing pattern of blast holes for blast faces with medium hard
approach is always less compared to empirical Kuz-Ram model based strata.
approach. However, the variation under two approaches are within
30 %. The optimal burden for all the rock types except BHQ are almost
similar under both the approaches. The regression plot between


Fig.9. Comparison of face movement for the experimental blasts during
review and validation period.

 
Fig.6. Comparison of predicted optimal burden using two different Fig.10. Comparison of magnitude of back break for the experimental
approaches. blasts during review and validation period.

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, JULY 2021 765

CONCLUSIONS
The optimum utilisation of explosive energy for a bench blast leads
to proper burden movement with minimal back break beyond the last
row. Two different approaches have been used in this paper for
computation of optimal burden of different rock strata of an Iron ore
mine. The Kuz-Ram empirical model has been used to compute the
optimal burden using assessment of rock mass properties, geometry
of the blast and explosive properties. The computation has been done
by back calculation from three different equations namely Kuznitsov’s,
Rosin-Rammler and uniformity index equations. Another approach
used in this paper is based on assessment of critical vibration limit for
rock strata. The approach deals with the assessment of rock mass
properties such as – elastic modulus, uni-axial compressive strength
and p-wave velocity of the rock mass to compute the critical vibration
limit for its complete break-up. Once, the critical vibration limit is
computed, the optimum burden is calculated based on the site specific
ground vibration predictor equation. The calculated optimum burden
along with the respective charging parameter is used for better
fragmentation and muck-pile movement output from a blast. The last
row of the blast face however, requires the controlled charging to
diminish the chances of compressive breakage and thereby reducing
the back break. Accordingly, the vibration limit for tensile slabbing of
the rock mass is taken as the critical vibration limit for the optimisation
of charge in the last rows of the blast face.
Computed optimal burden using both the approaches has been
compared. The comparison shows very good correlation between the
computed data from the two approaches The computed results have
also been validated with thirteen experimental blasts conducted at
different blast faces of the mine. The results show the improved blast
face movement and reduced back-break generation with the modified
blast design patterns. The predictions of optimal burden may be refined
in the future research work using the other recent empirical
fragmentation models. The use of KCO model, Modified Kuz-Ram
model and Swebrec functions may give more accurate predictions of
the burden.
Acknowledgements: Authors would like to thank Director, CSIR-
CIMFR for giving permission and necessary support for writing paper.
The support and co-operation by the mine management of Bailadila
Iron Ore Mine, M/s National Mineral Corporation Limited is also
thankfully acknowledged.
References
Adebola, Jethro M., Ajayi, Ogbodo D. and O, Peter E. (2016) Rock
Fragmentation Prediction using Kuz-Ram Model. Jour. Environ. Earth
Sci., v.6(5), pp.110-115.
Adhikari, G.R. (1994) Open-cast blasting trends and techniques in the Indian
mining industry. Jour. Mines, Metals and Fuels, v.4(11&12), pp.333-339.
Ambraseys, N.R. and Hendron, A.J. (1968) Dynamic behavior of rock masses:
rock mechanics in engineering practices. Wiley, London
Ash, R.L. (1963) The mechanics of rock breakage, standards for blasting
design. Pit and Quarry, v.56(3), pp.118–122.
Bauer, A. and Calder, P.N. (1970) The Influence and Evaluation of Blasting
on Stability. In: Open Pit Mining. Society of mining engineers of the
American institute of Mining, metallurgy and petroleum Engineers.
Cunningham, C.V.B. (1983). The Kuz–Ram model for prediction of
(Received: 31 Janaury 2020; Revised form accepted: 25 September 2020)
766
fragmentation from blasting. Proceedings of 1st International Symposium
on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, pp.439–454.
Duvall, W.I. and Fogelson, D.E. (1962) Review of criteria for estimating
damage to residences from blasting vibrations. US Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Duvall, W.I. and Petkof, B. (1959) Spherical propagation of explosion generated
strain pulses in rock. USBM RI 5483
Duvall, W.I., Johnson, C.F. and Meyer, A.V.C. (1963) Vibrations from blasting
at Iowa limestone quarries. USBM RI 6270 for Building Research, Report
D15:1984, Stockholm, pp.114.
Forsyth, W.W. (1993) A discussion of blast-induced overbreak around
underground excavations, 4th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting- Fragblast’4, Vienna, Austria, Balkema, pp.161-166.
Ghosh, A. and Daemen, J.K. (1983) A simple new blast vibration predictor.
Proc. 24th US Symp. Rock Mechanics, Texas, USA, pp.151–161.
Himanshu, V. K., Roy, M. P., Mishra, A. K., Paswan, R.K., Panda, D. & Singh,
P. K. (2018) Multivariate statistical analysis approach for prediction of
blast induced ground vibration. Arabian Jour. Geosci., v.11, pp.460.
Holmberg, R. et al. (1984) Vibrations Generated by Traffic and Building
Construction Activities, Swedish council.
Jimeno, C. L., Jimeno, E. L., Carcedo F.J.A. and Balkema, A.A. (1995) A
review of “Drilling and Blasting of Rocks, Int. Jour. Sur. Min., Recl. and
Env., v.10(1), pp.V-VI.
Kansake, B.A., Temeng, V.A., Afum, B.O. (2016) Comparative Analysis of
Rock Fragmentation Models – A Case Study; 4 th UMT Biennial
International Mining and Mineral Conference, pp.1–11.
Konya, C.J. and Walter, E.J. (1990) Surface Blast Design, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, USA, pp.303.
Kuznetsov, V.M. ( 1973). The mean diameter of fragments formed by blasting
rock. Jour. Min. Sci., v.9, pp.144–148.
Langefors, U. and Kihlström, B. (1976) The Modern Technique of Rock
Blasting, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Langefors, U., and Kihlstr6m, B. (1978) The Modern Technique of Rock
Blasting. Almqvist and Wiksell/Gebergs frlag AB, Stockholm.
Lilly, P.A. (1986). An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability.
Proceedings, Large Open Pit Mining Conference (J.R. Davidson, Ed.),
The Aus IMM, Parkville, Victoria. pp.89-92.
Liu, N.W., Zhu, H.W., Mei, G.D., He X.J. (2012) Research on accidents
mechanism and prevention measures towards poisoning and asphyxiation
of explosion smoke, Nonferrous Metals (Mine Section), v.64(3),
pp.1–6
Mishra, A. K. (2013) Unlocking possibility of blasting near residential structure
using electronic detonators. Jour. Geol. Soc. India, v.81, pp.429-435.
Mishra, A.K., Nigam, Y.K. and Singh, D.R. (2017) Controlled blasting in a
limestone mine using electronic detonators: A case study. Jour. Geol. Soc.
India, v.89, pp.87–90.
Pal Roy P. (1993) Putting ground vibration predictors into practice. Colliery
Guardian, v.241(2), pp.63-67.
Pichamuthu, C.S., (1974) On the Banded Iron Formations of Precambrian
Age in India. Jour. Geol. Sco. India, v. 15(1), pp.1-30.
Roy, M. P., Paswan, R. K., Md Sarim, Kumar, S., Jha, R. R., & Singh, P. K.
(2016) Rock Fragmentation by Blasting – a review. Jour. Mines, Metals
and Fuels, v.64(9), pp.424-431.
Rustan R. A. (1992) Burden, spacing and borehole diameter at rock blasting,
International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment,
v.6(3), pp.141-149.
Silva, J., Worsey, T., and Lusk, B. (2019) Practical assessment of rock damage
due to blasting. Internat. Jour. Min. Sc. Tech, v.29 (3), pp.379-385.
Wyllie D.C. and Mah C. (2004) Rock Slope Engineering, Fourth Edition:
Fourth edition. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from http://books.google.
com.pk/books?id=4Gd7Hg2tz-sC
Zadeh, L.A. (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, v.8(3), pp.338-353.
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, JULY 2021