Mining Technology, 2017

VOL. 126, NO. 2, 59–76

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14749009.2016.1252556

Modelling of preconditioning by blasting in block and panel caving

Alex Catalana and Italo Onederrab
a
Chuquicamata Underground Project, CODELCO-Chile, Calama, Chile; bSchool of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper discusses the results of design and modelling work conducted to estimate the extent Received 23 June 2016
of preconditioning from the effect of multiple explosive charges detonated simultaneously Accepted 17 October 2016
within typical block and panel caving layouts. The analysis was conducted to support existing and
KEYWORDS
future implementation strategies of both conventional and higher intensity preconditioning by Confined blasting; blast
blasting. The work builds upon research previously published by the authors that concerned the damage modelling; blast
modelling of fracturing, disturbed and interaction zones in confined blasting. In this instance, preconditioning; explosive
the Hybrid Stress Blasting Model was used to determine the disturbed and interaction zones rock interaction; blast
for several scenarios involving 3–6 hole layouts. Modelling configurations were divided into two damage; disturbed and
groups: (1) blastholes drilled from the undercut level, and (2) blastholes drilled from both the interaction zones
extraction and undercut levels. The first group considered four design patterns, with the analysis
focusing on assessing whether a mining design layout of 32 × 20 m, using inclined holes were
able to achieve positive interaction to increase the extent of preconditioning within the volume
of interest. The second phase examined two designs where one and two additional holes are
drilled from the extraction level in order to maximise the disturbed and interaction zones
between blastholes. Variables such as the velocity of detonation; explosive density; intact rock
mass strength and in situ the stress field were considered. Results indicated that the pattern that
could maximise the extent of the disturbed zone and potential ‘interaction’ between blastholes
was a six hole pattern drilled from both the undercut and extraction levels. This design is referred
to as ‘ultra blast preconditioning’. Further work is currently underway to quantify the costs and
potential downstream productivity benefits of this particular scenario.

Introduction to a height of approximately 150 m. The explosive charge

is 130 m with primers positioned every 8 m along the
Cave initiation and its subsequent propagation are
explosive column. Preliminary modelling and prelimi-
essential to the success of block and panel caving. To
nary on site trials of a three blasthole configuration have
reduce inherent risks and geotechnical uncertainties,
been reported by Catalan, Onederra et al. (2012). This
cave-induction techniques such as preconditioning are
work is an extension of the results reported by Catalan,
being used to better manage the overall caving process,
Onederra et al. (2012) and also builds upon research
these include hydraulic fracturing and confined blasting
previously published by the authors that concerned the
(Catalan et al. 2012a). In preconditioning by confined
modelling of fracturing, disturbed and interaction zones
blasting, the creation of radial fractures and the exten-
in confined blasting with the use of the Hybrid Stress
sion of existing fractures may occur as a result of the
Blasting Model (HSBM) (Onederra, Catalan et al. 2013).
intensity and interaction of stress waves and complex
More specifically this paper discusses the results of blast
gas flow loading mechanisms. It is important to note
preconditioning modelling of several scenarios involv-
that ‘preconditioning by blasting’ does not solely refer
ing 3–6 hole fully confined explosive charges drilled
to a zone of intense macro-fracturing near the blast-
from both the undercut and extraction level.
hole (i.e. radial and circumferential fractures) but to a
The outcome of these analyses comprises a method-
combination of both macro- and micro-fracturing of
ology to define the radius of influence within the rock
intact rock. This can be associated with the passage and
mass, which can be identified as the ‘Pre-conditioned
superposition of stresses from simultaneously detonated
zone’, and is characterised by disturbed and interaction
explosive charges.
zones. In these zones, a reduction of the strength of the
An example of blast preconditioning is shown in
intact rock and thus the final strength of the rock mass,
Figure 1. As described by Catalan et al. (2012a), blastholes
as a whole, is to be expected.
in this case are drilled vertically from the extraction level

CONTACT  Italo Onederra  i.onederra@uq.edu.au

© 2016 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and The AusIMM
Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Institute and The AusIMM
60   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA

HF level

Preconditioning by
1 Hydrofracturing
Preconditioning
2 by Blasting @2.5m/fracture

Intensive
Block Pre-conditioning
Height Zone
@1.5m/fracture

Cave Front
Advance

Undercutting
UCL level
Post-Undercut
Strategy
EXT level
Production Construction Preparation & Development
Zone Zone Zone

Figure 1. Example of preconditioning implementation showing blastholes drilled from undercut level. Source: After Catalan et al.
(2012a, 2012b).

Blast induced fracture propagation and in situ unstressed scenario, the cracks are distributed radially
stress field about the blastholes. It was observed that, when the
major principal stress is higher than the minor principal
In confined blasting, the importance of the stress field
stress, the fractures are orientated parallel to the major
in the generation and extension of fractures relates to
principal stress and large zones of unfractured rock were
the documented phenomena where the longest initial
created between holes.
cracks are formed in the direction parallel to the major
Donze et al. (1997) performed numerical analyses
principal stress. Pioneering studies carried out by Kutter
to reproduce the creation of the crushed zone and the
and Fairhurst (1971) indicated that the cracks were
radial fractures resulting from a single blasthole. The
preferentially extended and propagated in the direction
analyses included a simulated external uniaxial pressure
of the maximum principal stress. Schatz et al. (1987)
(194 MPa) on the model system to simulate the effect
performed several laboratory tests and developed the-
of a pre-existing load (i.e. a blast taking place in a pre-
oretical models with the objective of determining the
stressed environment). Again, the results demonstrated
parameters that control the occurrence, extension and
that fractures are aligned in the direction of the major
propagation of radial fractures. Variables such as the
principal stress axis as is shown in Figure 3.
anisotropy of stress (i.e. confining pressure), k = σ1/σ3,
Numerical modelling of discrete fractures was
were analysed in terms of the principal in situ stresses
­performed by Saharan and Mitri (2010) to evaluate
in order to quantify the fracture length. Analysis from
the extent of a fractured zone after de-stress blasting
these trials also confirmed that fractures extended in the
(Figure 4). A series of simulations was undertaken
same orientation as the major principal stress direction
varying ­several practical factors such as the: effect of
(Figure 2(a)–(c)) and the fracture length grew with an
confinement (e.g. 200 MPa), effect of stress anisotropy
increase in the stress ratio (k).
(e.g. stress ratio, k = σh/σv; σv = 100 MPa and k = 0.5,
Rorke and Brummer (1990) carried out numerical
1.0, 1.5 and 2.0) and effect of stress level (e.g. σh = 150
modelling to predict the probable fracture intensity –
and 300 MPa). The results of these studies indicated that
the extension and the orientation of radial fracturing
confinement has a significant impact on the extent of the
around blastholes at de-stressing sites. Two conditions
fracturing length, which can be reduced on the order of
were taken into account in predicting the orientation
2–3 times with increasing confinement. Also, the effect
and intensity of radial fractures, (a) the magnitude of
of stress anisotropy can be seen in that the fractures are
the principal stress field and (b) the stress ratio. In an
 MINING TECHNOLOGY   61

Figure 2. Effect of the stress field on fracture growth and orientation. Source: Schatz et al. (1987).

194 MPa
(a) (b)

194 MPa

Blast hole without external stress field Blast hole with external stress field

Figure 3. Blasthole modelling vs. fractures align to pre-existing stress field. Source: Donze et al. (1997).

(a) (b)
Fracture pattern with Fracture pattern with
horizontal stress, σ h = 150 MPa horizontal stress, σh = 300 MPa

Figure 4. Blast numerical modelling and the effect of the stress level. Source: Saharan and Mitri (2010).

aligned with the major principal stress direction and stress level, the fractures are aligned with the major prin-
the length of fractures along the main stress direction is cipal stress direction and the fracture length decreases
much longer than in other directions. With regard to the with an increase in the stress level.
62   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA
More recently Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013) used
the HSBM (Furtney et al. 2009; Furtney et al. 2011;
Onederra et al. 2013), to construct and analyse the
extent of fracturing, disturbed zones and interaction
from confined cylindrical explosive charges. The influ-
ence of the orientation and magnitude of in situ stresses
was considered in these analyses in order to evaluate the
radius of influence of instantaneous detonation charges
on rock mass damage. In-situ stress conditions were
evaluated at depths between 500 and 1500 m. Also, the
influence of the stress anisotropy (k = σh/σv) at a con-
stant depth of 1000  m was considered for k ranging
from 0.5 to 3.0. A threshold of incipient damage was
estimated from average intact rock properties and used
to assess the extent of potential disturbed zones, as well
as interaction caused by the simultaneous initiation of
confined charges. Figure 5 summarises the results at
depths of 500 and 1000 m and shows that the fractur-
ing in the vicinity of the blasthole and disturbed zone
(interaction between blasts) is significantly reduced
with the depth and an increase in the major princi-
pal stress. Note that the spacing between blastholes in
Figure 5. Influence of stress magnitudes on the degree of interaction/superposition for in situ stress regimes of 500 m to 1000 m with
blastholes spaced 15 m apart. Source: Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013).
this configuration was 15 m as reported by Onederra,
Catalan et al. (2013).
In terms of stress anisotropy ratios (k), the orientation
of radial fractures with respect to the principal stress
direction is more evident at anisotropy ratios greater
than 2.0, with fractures aligned according to the major
principal stress orientation. Figure 6 shows the simu-
lation results for values of k of 1.0 and 2.0 and as the
fractured zone near of vicinity of the hole is reduced and
also as is orientated according to the maximum principal
stress component. The confined blasting models docu-
mented by Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013) formed the
basis for the modelling and evaluation work discussed
in this paper.
HSBM calibration and input parameters
As discussed earlier the HSBM was used in this extended
modelling exercise. The mechanical aspects of the HSBM
computational engine have been discussed in detail
by Furtney et al. (2011). The borehole explosive and
near-field rock are represented as an axis-symmetric

Figure 6. Extent of disturbed zones at the interaction stage for stress anisotropy ratios of 1.25–1.75 with blastholes spaced 15 m
apart. Source: Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013).
continuum using the FLAC code. The explosive is repre-
sented as a special constitutive behaviour in the central
zones of the FLAC region. Ideal and non-ideal detonation
codes give as input to the FLAC model the velocity of
detonation (VOD) of the explosive, the parameters for
the Williamsburg equation of state, the final reaction
extent, the initial density and a reference state. Energy
release in the FLAC zones representing the explosive is
controlled by a programmed burn (PB) algorithm. The
rock in the near-field area is represented as a Mohr–
Coulomb material, which is coupled to the explosive reac-
tion products represented by the Williamsburg model.
Energy released by the reaction increases the isotropic
stress in the zones representing the explosive. The con-
fining material expands in response to the increasing gas
pressure, and the new confining volume is transmitted to
the Williamsburg equation of state, which returns a new
isotropic stress. In this way, rock and explosive are fully
coupled at all times. In fully confined conditions, ‘quiet or
absorbing boundaries’ are used in the model configura-
tion to ensure that wave energy is absorbed at the interior
(artificial) model boundaries (Furtney et al. 2009).
MINING TECHNOLOGY   63
The rock mass beyond the near field FLAC zone is
represented by a lattice-type discrete element method,
consisting of an assembly of point masses (or nodes),
each of which is connected by springs to its neighbours.
In this approach each spring operates in both the shear
and normal directions. The lattice method applies forces
to point masses, which have only translational degrees
of freedom, and the connecting springs have a tensile
breaking strength. The known dependency of tensile
strength on strain rate has been implemented in the
HSBM with a simple model where the tensile strength
is scaled by a power law function of distance away from
the nearest borehole:
(M − 1)
T= rb + 1
r0−b
where T is the tensile strength multiplier, r0 is the radius
of the borehole, r is the length from the nearest hole, M
and b are parameters which allow to scale by a power
law function of dynamic tensile strength. In all model
configurations associated with this study, the parameters
64   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA

M and b was set as 10 and −3, respectively. The adopted
model resolution was borehole diameter or 165 mm. This
is consistent with the findings reported by (Onederra et
al. 2009) which dictate that the model resolution (i.e.
minimum particle size in a model) should be kept at
values of equal or less than one borehole diameter for
effective coupling between the FLAC continuum and
the lattice nodes.
A damping coefficient also needs to be specified. This
coefficient takes into account the attenuation character-
istics of the intact rock or material such as rock fabric,
mineralisation, porosity, texture or other characteristics
which define its heterogeneity. Furtney et al. (2009),
indicated that a damping coefficient that may be set from
zero to unity. A value of zero corresponds to no-damping
and a value of unity corresponds to critical damping. A
value of 0.1 was assumed and was primarily based on
previous research that focussed on the evaluation of this
coefficient (Onederra et al. 2009).
The model calibration procedure in this particular
study was similar to that reported by Onederra, Furtney
et al. (2013; Onederra, Catalan et al. 2013 which con-
sider detailed aspects of the confined blasting process.
An iterative process was applied with the aim of match-
ing, as close as reasonably possible, radial velocity meas-
urements at defined distances (e.g. 7.5 and 9 m away).
Near field peak velocity measurements were calculated
from complete acceleration records obtained during the
implementation of single hole blasting trials (Catalan
et al. 2012b). Figure 7 shows the results of a calibration

Figure 7. Results of calibration tests where the radial peak particle velocity is approximately 1900 mm/s to 7.5 m away from the
closest explosive charge. Source: After Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013).
 MINING TECHNOLOGY   65

Table 1. Intact rock mechanical properties. timeframe of 10 ms when all wave transients have dis-
Material properties Mean values Stand. Dev. sipated. Rock input parameters and in situ stress field
Density (kg/m3) 2790 70 values used in the modelling exercise are summarised
Tensile strength (MPa) 14.9 7.5 in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) 133 70.5
Elastic modulus (GPa) 67.5 19.1
Poisson ratio 0.32 0.14
Velocity of longitudinal wave (m/s) 5904 212 Disturbed and interaction zones criterion
Velocity of shear wave (m/s) 3151 231
The criteria used to define disturbed and interaction
zones proposed by Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013) was
Table 2. In situ stress field. also adopted in this extended modelling exercise. The
Orientation (plunge/trend) Magnitudes (MPa) criterion combined both the final state of the intact rock
σ1 = 6°/083° σ1 = 32.2 (e.g. lattice node contact failure in the HSBM model) and
σ2 = 5°/174° σ2 = 23.8
σ3 = 83°/302° σ3 = 13.6
the irreversible deformation or micro- fracturing caused
by a stress transient, which is assumed to be directly
related to a peak particle velocity (PPV) threshold. Due
test where the radial peak particle velocity is approxi- to the ability of the HSBM to dynamically display veloc-
mately 1900 mm/s to 7.5 m away from the closest explo- ity fields, this particular option of the tool has been used
sive charge. This peak value closely matches the range to identify different stages of the stress propagation and
of recorded values and was considered appropriate for attenuation process; and thus study whether interac-
modelling purposes. The model peak radial velocity is tion or stress superposition could be achieved between
due to the combined transfer of explosive energy from blastholes.
the FLAC explosive zone into the lattice zone (virtual As discussed by Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013) and in
rock mass). The model is stable within the test simulation reference to Figure 8, the confined blasting process starts

Spacing blast holes

Spacing initiation points

Stage 1 Stage 2

Stage 3 Stage 4

Stage 5 Stage 6

Figure 8.  Two blastholes describing the main numerical modelling stages and disturbed and interaction zones in the confined
blasting applications. Source: After Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013).
66   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA
with the initiation of an explosive column (stage 1), the
stress waves travel across the explosive charge (stage 2)
and interaction occurs between detonation points (stage
3). Immediately after the interaction of the detonation
front waves and once the explosive column has been
consumed, the gas simulation logic (pressure) is acti-
vated (stage 4). Afterwards, and in accordance with the
algorithms implemented in the HSBM, the combined
effect of the shock waves and gas produces the stress
wave imparted into the rock mass, generating a dis-
turbed zone (stage 5). Finally, the interaction zone is
delineated by the interaction between blastholes when a
specific threshold of PPV is reached (stage 6). This meth-
odology defines the disturbed and interaction zones, the
region of which are the main goals of preconditioning by
confined blasting or where the strength of the rock mate-
rial is potentially reduced, i.e. a ‘Pre-conditioned’ zone.
Particle velocities diminish with distance, however, an
optimal interaction between blastholes is achieved when
the spacing between them is closer and thus the potential
degree of preconditioning of the rock mass by blasting
becomes continuous and its fracture propagation aligns
with the principal stress direction. Summarising, the
extent of this interaction will depend on the attenua-
tion of the wave, the in situ stress regime, the distance
between initiation points and the detonation sequence
of these explosive columns.
Fractured zone
(Combination of macro and micro f ractures)
Disturbed zone
Peak particle velocity exceeding a threshold, e.g. 1,100 mm/s
(mainly micro-f ractures)
Figure 9. Disturbed and interaction zones preconditioning by confined blasting. Source: After Onederra, Catalan et al. (2013).
An important aspect in the definition of the extent
of preconditioning by blasting is having a better under-
standing of the potential impact of the intensity and final
attenuation of transient stress waves; their potential inter-
action/superposition and the influence of in situ stresses.
According to the definition of disturbed and interaction
zones described previously, a threshold of PPV is used as a
criterion for defining the potential areas of the rock mass
that have a high probability of being affected. Particle
velocities are determined by the three dimensional dis-
tribution of stress waves that is generated by explosive
charges and impacted by the location of the blastholes.
Figure 9 gives an illustration of how the modelling
output is interpreted. PPV envelopes are generated and
these provide a reference for different degrees of dam-
age – ranging from a fractured zone near the blasthole,
which is a combination of macro and inferred micro
fracturing (i.e. crushed and fractured zones) followed
by the disturbed zone, consisting mainly of inferred
micro-fracturing. In between blastholes there is also
an interaction zone that is produced by the interacting
shock waves, in these zones inferred micro-fracturing of
intact rock is also identified. It is important to note that
the HSBM is able to display only the final state of a point
in the rock mass (failed or intact lattice node contacts).
Figure 9 shows, in red, the threshold of the PPV with
amplitudes exceeding 1100 mm/s.
Interaction zone
Peak particle velocity intersecting a threshold. e.g. 1,100 mm/s
(mainly micro-f ractures)

Production scale model configurations
Preconditioning modelling alternatives were defined
for a typical mine layout considering spacing between
undercut drives of 32 m; drawpoint distances of 20 m
in the extraction level and distances between levels of
26 m. This follows from the trials and experiences rec-
ommended by Catalan et al. (2012a).
Modelling configurations were divided into two
groups: (1) blastholes drilled from the undercut level,
and (2) blastholes drilled from both the extraction
and undercut levels. The first group considered four
design patterns, with the analysis focusing on assessing
whether a mining design layout of 32  ×  20  m, using
inclined holes were able to achieve positive interaction
to increase the extent of preconditioning within the
volume of interest. The second phase examined two
designs where one and two holes can be drilled from the
extraction level in order to maximise the disturbed and
interaction zones between blastholes. Charging param-
eters are similar to previous analysis and consisted of
165 mm diameters holes, 150 m long; with an explosive
charge of 130 m primed at 8 m intervals. The explosive
150m
Figure 10. Mine layout and preconditioning blasthole patterns case A.
150m
Figure 11. Mine layout and preconditioning blasthole patterns case B.
MINING TECHNOLOGY   67
charge consisted of a glass micro balloon sensitised
pumpable emulsion product at a density of 1.18 g/cc
and a confined VOD of 5500–5700  m/s (Onederra,
Catalan et al. 2013).
Group 1 – undercut up-hole drilling, cases A–D
Case A
Three blastholes are located at the same drive, spaced
at 15 m, fired simultaneously and distributed as shown
in Figure 10.
Case B
Four blastholes as shown in Figure 11. Two of them
are located on the same drive and the other two are
situated at an adjacent drive, spaced at 15 m between
holes and 32 m between drives; with all holes detonated
simultaneously.
Case C
Four blastholes as shown in Figure 12, three of them are
drilled on the same drive and one on an adjacent drive,
15m
15m
32m
68   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA
spaced at 15 m between holes and 32 m between drives.
All holes are blasted at the same time.
Case D
As shown in Figure 13, six holes are blasted simulta-
neously. Three of them are located on the same drive
spaced at 15  m, and the other three are located on
a contiguous drive, the separation between drives is
also 32 m. The main goal of this configuration is to
evaluate improvements in the pre-conditioned area
around the zone of caved and broken material (i.e.
drawbell zone).
Group 2 – combined undercut and extraction level
up-hole drilling, cases E and F
Case E
Four blastholes are drilled from the undercut level. Two
of them are situated in the same drive spaced at 15 m, the
150m
Figure 12. Mine layout and preconditioning blasthole patterns case C.
150m
Figure 13. Mine layout and preconditioning blasthole patterns case D.
other two are drilled on adjacent drives with a spacing of
32 m. The fifth hole is drilled from the extraction level,
located at the centre on the drawbell. These blastholes
are also detonated simultaneously. The pattern and ori-
entation of these holes are shown on Figure 14. The main
objective of the alternative is to achieve the interaction
between blastholes, increasing the pre-conditioned ver-
tical zone and that way ensuring a column of pre-con-
ditioned material.
Case F
As shown in Figure 15, six holes are blasted simulta-
neously and they have the same pattern as in case E.
However, two blastholes are drilled from the extraction
level and located at the interface between the drawpoint
and a drawbell (i.e. brow). As with the case above, the
aim of this option is to evaluate further improvements
on the pre-conditioned zone to enhance material flow
and guarantee vertical cave inducement.
32m
15m
15m
32m
 MINING TECHNOLOGY   69

175m

150m

20m
15m
20m
16m

32m

Figure 14. Mine layout and preconditioning blasthole patterns case E.

175m

150m

11m 15m
20m

32m

Figure 15. Mine layout and preconditioning blasthole patterns case F.

Modelling results and discussion for group 1 scenarios as they include inclined blasthole
drilling. For group 2 scenarios only one section is con-
The main objective of the modelling exercise was to
sidered because of the use of parallel holes and the pre-
make relative comparisons between all of the scenarios
cise and simultaneous initiation of the explosive column
described earlier. The approach considered delineating
with priming (initiating) points every 8 m.
the extent of the resulting fractured, disturbed and inter-
In each case, the interaction and propagation of blast
action zones (i.e. overall macro and micro fracturing)
induced stresses considered approximately five points of
from each scenario by taking snap shots of the dynamic
initiation. It is also important to note that the analysis of
propagation of velocities at specific times from the start
group 1 scenarios involved the presentation of isometric
of the detonation. In the analysis, a PPV threshold of
views of velocity field images taken at both the primer
incipient damage (i.e. 1300 mm/s) was estimated follow-
level (initiation point) and between primers. For group
ing the relationship proposed by Persson et al. (1994),
2 scenarios both isometric and plan view sections along
where PPV is a function of intact rock tensile strength,
and across the column charge are presented.
p-wave velocity and Young’s Modulus.
The HSBM models captured the actual geometry
Results – case A
of the layouts described in Figures 10–15. However, in
order to optimise the efficiency of model run times and Modelling results for case A are described in Figure 16
analysis processes, output interpretation focussed on for the bottom section of this pattern, i.e. between 0 and
two specific sections along the column charge of these 50 m; and Figure 17 depicts the results for the top side of
models (i.e. the bottom and top 50 m of each blasthole) the pattern, i.e. from 100 to 150 m, respectively.
70   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA

Figure 16. Degree of interaction of lower section of case A (between 0 and 50 m section).

Figure 17. Degree of interaction of upper section of case A (between 100 and 150 m section).

Based on the criteria described earlier, this three-
hole configuration identifies a fractured zone radius of
approximately 1.5–2.5 m, which is characterised by a
number of radial fractures contained in this envelope.
Near the vicinity of the blasthole, this fractured zone
is independent of the spacing between blastholes and
they show the biggest radius at the interaction zone
between detonation points where shock waves are
produced.
With regards to the disturbed zone, the red zones
indicate the radial PPV pre-defined at 1300 mm/s, are
reaching this level 1.5 ms from the initiation of the det-
onation process for each individual blasthole. There is
no interaction between them, nonetheless. At the ini-
tiating primer, disturbed radii of approximately 5.0 m
are achieved, and radii of 6.0 m are achieved mid-way
between primer positions. These radii are defining the
disturbed zone and scenario A (between 0 and 50 m) is
used to help identify the potential extension of this zone.
Figure 16 shows that in the lower part of this aligned
three-hole array, interaction is possible and the precon-
ditioning zone can be extended to distances between all
 MINING TECHNOLOGY   71

charges. The degree of interaction is clearly more prev-
alent between initiating primers than at the plane of a
primer. Figure 17 shows that in the upper part of the
pattern, as the distribution of charges begins to separate,
interaction may still be achieved in the plane between
primers due to detonation front collisions, but it is
reduced in the plane of an initiating point. In the upper
section of this pattern, preconditioning from positive
interaction of stress waves would be continuous between
explosive charges.
From the adopted configurations it is concluded
that continuous interaction of incoming waves between
blastholes is evident along the explosive column (i.e. at
the primer and between primers) at spacing of 15 m.
Interaction zones are achieved within 2.0 ms from the
start of detonation.

Figure 18. Degree of interaction of lower section of case B (between 0 and 50 m section).

Figure 19. Degree of interaction of upper section of case B (between 100 and 150 m section).
72   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA
Results – case B
Modelling results for case B are described in Figure 18
for the bottom section of this pattern, i.e. between 0 and
50 m. Figure 19 depicts the results for the top side of the
pattern, i.e. from 100 to 150 m, respectively.
Regarding the fractured zone, all blastholes show
identical results of a radius of approximately 1.5–2.5 m
near the vicinity of each borehole. As is described in
case A, the largest radius is reached between detonation
points (i.e. interaction zone).
With regards to the disturbed zone for each individ-
ual blasthole, the red zones indicate the radial PPV of
1300 mm/s are being reached at 1.5 ms from the ini-
tiation of the detonation process. Interaction between
holes is not achieved at this detonation time. Radii of
approximately 5.0 m at the level of the initiating primer
or 6.0 m mid-way between primer positions can be seen,
defining the disturbed zone.
With respect to the interaction zones, there is clear
evidence that blastholes located at the same drive (spac-
ing of 15 m) achieve a better interaction than blastholes
located at adjacent drives, with a spacing of 32 m. The
optimal interaction is achieved 2.0 ms from the begin-
ning of the detonation of aligned holes.
As expected, interaction between in-line charges
spaced at 15 m is identified in the lower section of this
configuration (Figure 18) and consistent with previous
analysis. The degree of interaction is reduced at the plane
of an initiation point or primer. As shown in Figure 18,
clearly at distances of 32 m the likelihood of interaction
is practically nil. The model does not show evidence of
interaction or pre-conditioned zone between drifts.
Conversely, in the upper section of this configuration
(Figure 19), interaction zones are not reached neither
Figure 20. Degree of interaction of lower section of case C (between 0 and 50 m section).
at the primers nor at the middle initiation points.
Summarised, the upper section of this pattern does not
show any interaction between blastholes. There is no
evidence of pre-conditioned zones.
Results – case C
Modelling results for case C are described in Figures 20
and 21 for the lower and upper sections of this pattern,
respectively. As with the previous analysis, interaction
between in-line charges spaced at 15 m can be identified
in the lower sections of this configuration. As shown
in Figure 20 the degree of interaction is reduced at the
plane of an initiation point or primer. Again at distances
of 32  m there is no proof of interaction taking place,
making it a zone where preconditioning is not likely to
occur.
In the upper section of this pattern (Figure 21) the
interaction is not evident in the plane of detonation from
collisions between primers. There are no zones of nil
interaction at the primer plane. This analysis identifies
an ‘inert’ zone in the middle of the pattern, where the
likelihood of preconditioning practically disappears.
It appears that an extra blasthole could extend the
preconditioning envelope and increase the likelihood
of positive interaction between charges making sig-
nificant improvements to the overall preconditioning
envelope.
Results – case D
Modelling results for case D are described in Figure 22
for the lower section of the six holes configuration; and
Figure 23 for the upper sections of this configuration. As
described, interaction between in-line charges spaced at
 MINING TECHNOLOGY   73

Figure 21. Degree of interaction of upper section of case C (between 100 and 150 m section).

Figure 22. Degree of interaction of lower section of case D (between 0 and 50 m section).

15 m is evident in the lower sections of this configura-
tion. Again, the degree of interaction is slightly reduced
at the plane of an initiation point or primer. At the larger
distances of 32 m there is however no evidence of inter-
action taking place, making it a zone where precondi-
tioning is not likely to occur.
Similar to case C, this analysis identified ‘inert’ zones
in the middle of the layout, where the likelihood of pre-
conditioning is extremely low. As has been suggested
with the previous scenario, an extra blasthole could
be located in order to improve the pre-conditioned
zone and increase the likelihood of positive interaction
between charges, particularly when simultaneous initi-
ation is used and so, a continuous pre-conditioned zone
could be achieved.
Results – case E
Modelling results for case E are described in Figure 24.
Based on the criteria discussed previously, this five-
hole configuration identifies a fractured zone radius
between 1.5 and 2.5  m, which is consistent with the
74   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA
Figure 23. Degree of interaction of upper section of case D (between 100 and 150 m section).
Figure 24. Degree of interaction of case E (mid-section).
earlier scenarios. The fractured zone is independent of
the spacing between blastholes and only depends on the
explosive charge distributed between detonation points.
As is expected, the largest radius is developed between
initiation points.
With regards to the disturbed zone, envelopes of
1300 mm/s are reached at 1.5 ms, approximately 5.0 m
at the level of the initiating primer and 6.0 m at the mid-
way position. The red zones indicate the pre-defined
radial PPV. However, interactions between holes are
not reached at this stage. Figure 24 shows that with this
five-hole configuration a reasonable interaction between
blastholes is reached and the pre-conditioned zone can
be extended because the degree of interaction is clearly
visible. PPV of 1300  mm/s are extended through all
the vertical extent of the explosive charge and an entire
pre-conditioned zone is achieved.
This configuration shows a considerable advan-
tage in comparison to the previous configurations
because a continuous and homogeneous interaction
zone of incoming waves is noticeable along the entire
explosive column. According to these results, the
main objectives of this pattern (i.e. an increasing of
the vertical shock wave interaction so as to ensure a
column of pre-conditioned material) can be satisfac-
torily achieved.

Figure 25. Degree of interaction of case F (mid-section).
Results – case F
Modelling results for case F are presented in Figure 25.
In this scenario continuous interaction and super-
position of shock waves between blastholes are being
achieved almost in the entire volume of the pre-con-
ditioned zone, as well as the pre-defined criteria for
the pre-conditioned zones (i.e. thresholds of PPV of
1300 mm/s).
We refer to this case as ‘ultra blast preconditioning’.
In this configuration, maximum interaction between
blastholes is expected which is expected to translate
into improvements in vertical cave inducement as well
as conditioning of caved material. This is also expected
to improve the flow of pre-conditioned material and
secondary fragmentation outcomes. Further work is
currently underway to quantify the costs and poten-
tial downstream productivity benefits of this particular
scenario.
Conclusions
In preconditioning by confined blasting, the creation of
radial fractures and the extension of existing fractures
may occur as a result of the intensity and interaction of
stress waves and complex gas flow loading mechanisms.
It is important to note that ‘preconditioning by blasting’
does not solely refer to a zone of intense macro-frac-
turing near the blasthole but to a combination of both
macro- and micro-fracturing of intact rock. This can be
associated with the passage and superposition of stresses
from simultaneously detonated explosive charges. The
HSBM was used to quantify the disturbed and inter-
action zones of several scenarios. This work followed
research previously published by the authors that studied
MINING TECHNOLOGY   75
the modelling of fracturing, disturbed and interaction
zones in confined blasting.
Preconditioning modelling alternatives were defined
for a typical mine layout considering spacing between
undercut drives of 32 m; drawpoint distances of 20 m
in the extraction level and distances between levels of
26 m. Modelling configurations were divided into two
groups: (1) blastholes drilled from the undercut level,
and (2) blastholes drilled from both the extraction and
undercut levels. The first group considered four design
patterns, with the analysis focusing on assessing whether
a mining design layout of 32 × 20 m, using inclined holes
were able to achieve positive interaction to increase the
extent of preconditioning within the volume of inter-
est. The second phase examined two designs where one
and two holes can be drilled from the extraction level in
order to maximise the disturbed and interaction zones
between blastholes.
Results from group 1 indicated that although a degree
of interaction is achieved in the target volume, the extent
of preconditioning is constrained by the available mine
design layout and drilling access. The use of inclined
holes favours interaction and a potential increase in the
preconditioning zone in the upper parts of the volume,
however the level will be dependent upon the drilling
accuracy of the inclined holes. It was noted that dis-
turbed (preconditioned) zones can still be constrained
even with the use of six blastholes drilled only from the
undercut level.
Results were clearly different in group 2 where holes
are drilled from both the undercut and extraction levels.
A more uniform distribution of charges is achieved in
this 5 and 6 hole configuration. Group 2 layouts showed
a considerable advantage when compared to group 1. A
76   A. CATALAN AND I. ONEDERRA
continuous and homogeneous interaction zone of incom-
ing stress waves was observed along the entire explosive
column. The six blasthole configuration, referred to in
this paper as ‘ultra blast preconditioning’ produced
the maximum potential for interaction between blast-
holes. This is expected to translate into improvements
in vertical cave inducement as well as conditioning of
caved material which is likely to enhance the flow of pre-­
conditioned material and improve secondary fragmen-
tation outcomes. Further work is currently underway to
quantify the costs and potential downstream productiv-
ity benefits of this particular scenario.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Prof Gideon Chitombo of
the Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland
for his contributions. This study formed part of the princi-
pal author’s PhD thesis supported by the WH Bryan Mining
and Geology Research Centre of the Sustainable Minerals
Institute and Newcrest Mining.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Catalan A, Dunstan G, Morgan M, Green S, Jorquera
S, Thornhill T. 2012a. “Intensive” preconditioning
methodology developed for the Cadia East panel cave
project, NSW, Australia. 6th International conference
and exhibition on mass mining, MassMin 2012, Paper No
6819, June 10–14; Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Catalan A, Dunstan G, Morgan M, Green S, Jorquera S,
Thornhill, T, Onederra I, Chitombo G. 2012b. How can
an intensive preconditioning concept be implemented at
mass mining method? Application to Cadia East panel
caving project. Proceedings 46th Congress, US Rock
Mechanics/Symposium, Paper No ARMA 12-681, July
24–27; Chicago, IL, USA.
Catalan A, Onederra I, Chitombo G. 2012. Proposed
methodology for evaluation of the preconditioning by
blasting at the Cadia East panel cave mine. 6th International
conference and exhibition on mass mining, MassMin 2012,
Paper No 6920, June 10–14; Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Donze FV, Bouchez J, Magnier SA. 1997. Modeling
fractures in rock blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
34:1153–1163.
Furtney JK, Cundall PA, Chitombo GP. 2009. Developments in
numerical modeling of blast induced rock fragmentation:
updates from the HSBM project. Proceedings of the 9th
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Granada, Spain; Taylor & Francis, London; p.
335–342.
Furtney JK, Cundall PA, Onederra I, Sellers E. 2011.
Numerical modeling of rock blasting: validation tests
for Blo-Up 2.5. In: Sainsbury H, Detournay C, Nelson
M, editors. Continuum and distinct element numerical
modeling in geomechanics – 2011. Melbourne: Itasca
International; p. 2–9.
Kutter HK, Fairhurst C. 1971. On the fracture process in
blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 8:181–202.
Onederra I, Catalan A, Chitombo GP. 2013. Modelling
fracturing, disturbed and interaction zones around fully
confined detonating charges. Min Technol. 122:20–32.
Onederra I, Chitombo G, Cundall PA, Furtney J. 2009.
Towards a complete validation of the lattice scheme in the
Hybrid Stress Blasting Model (HSBM). 9th International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada,
Spain; Taylor & Francis Group; p. 343–351.
Onederra I, Furtney JK, Sellers E, Iverson S 2013. Modelling
blast induced damage from a fully coupled explosive
charge. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 58:73–84.
Persson PA, Holmberg R, Lee J. 1994. Rock blasting and
explosives engineering. Chapter 8. USA, FL: CRC Press;
p. 247.
Rorke AJ, Brummer RK. 1990. The use of explosive
in rockburst control techniques. Rockbursts and
seismicity in mines. In: Fairhurst, editor. Proceedings
of the 2nd International Symposium on Rockbursts and
Seismicity in Mines; 1988 June 8–10; Minneapolis, MN;
p. 377–384.
Saharan MR, Mitri H. 2010. Numerical modelling
investigations to study effect of geotechnical and explosive
properties in limiting rock fracturing due to blasting in
deep mining roadways. ISRM International Symposium
2010 and 6th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium –
Advances in Rock Engineering, 2010 October 23–27; New
Delhi, India; p. 1–14.
Schatz JE, Zeigler BJ, Hanson J, Christianson M. 1987.
Multiple radial fracturing from a wellbore – experimental
and theoretical results. 28th US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, 29 June–1 July 1987; Tucson, p. 821–829.
Copyright of Mining Technology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.