See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342013600

THE EFFECT OF BACK ROWS DELAY TIMING AND SIZE OF BLAST ON

FRAGMENTATION AND MUCKPILE SHAPE PARAMETER

Thesis · May 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19739.49446

CITATIONS READS
0 3,636

1 author:

Anurag Agrawal
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
14 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ministry of Mines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anurag Agrawal on 08 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE EFFECT OF BACK ROWS DELAY TIMING AND SIZE OF
BLAST ON FRAGMENTATION AND MUCKPILE SHAPE
PARAMETER

Dissertation Report
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirement
Of award of degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
OPENCAST MINING

BY
ANURAG AGRAWAL
(Admission No. 15MT000550)

Under the Guidance of

Dr. B. S. CHOUDHARY
Assistant Professor

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY
(INDIAN SCHOOL OF MINES) DHANBAD – 826004
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “THE EFFECT OF BACK ROWS DELAY TIMING

AND SIZE OF BLAST ON FRAGMENTATION AND MUCKPILE SHAPE

PARAMETER” submitted by ANURAG AGRAWAL in the partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of Master of Technology degree in Opencast mining at Indian

Institute of Technology (Indian School Of Mines), Dhanbad is an authentic work carried out by

him under my supervision and guidance.

To the best of my knowledge, the matter embodied in the thesis has not been submitted to any

other University/Institute for the award of any Degree or Diploma.

Dr. B. S. CHOUDHARY
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Mining Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
(Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe my deep sense of gratitude and indebtness to my guide Dr. B. S. CHOUDHARY, Assistant
Professor in Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute Of Technology (Indian School of
Mines), Dhanbad, whose inspiring guidance, affectionate demeanor and large heartedness could
help me to complete this work, which was impossible otherwise. No other words are adequate to
express my deep indebtness and humble thanks to him.

I would like to acknowledge Prof. V.M.S.R.MURTHY, Head of the Department of Mining

Engineering, for extending his valuable support to partial complete of my project.

I am also grateful to all the staff at Indian School of Mines especially the people at Mining
Engineering Department for their various forms of support during my graduate study.

Last but not least, my sincere obligations are to my parents and brother, without their inspirations
this could have never been possible.

Date - ANURAG AGRAWAL

ADMISSION NO: 15MT000550
M.Tech (Opencast Mining)
Department of Mining Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
(Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC PAGE
Acknowledgement i
No.
Table of content ii-iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi-vii
Abstract viii

CHAPTER 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-2

1.1 Background 1
1.2 Parameters influence blasting 1-2
1.3 Objective of study 2

CHAPTER 2 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 3-12

2.1 Introduction 3
2.2 Blast Fragmentation Mechanism 3-4
2.3 Fragmentation analysis 5-6
2.4 Muckpile shape parameter 6-7
2.5 Four basic surface firing patterns 7-8
2.6 Inter-row delay timing 9-11
2.7 Purpose of study 11-12
2.7.1 Delay effect on Fragmentation 11

2.7.2 Delays effect on Muckpile shape parameter 11

2.7.3 No. of rows effect on Fragmentation and Muckpile 11-12
shape

CHAPTER 3 3.0 RESEARCH METHADOLOGY 13-16

3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 Step-by-Step Methodology to determine result 13
3.3 JKsim Blast Software 14
3.4 Fragalyst Software 15-16

ii
 3.5 Muckpile shape parameters 16

CHAPTER 4 4.0 FIELD OBSERVATION AND RESULTS 17-38

4.1 Introduction 17
4.2 Limestone Quarry-A: General, Geological and Mining 17-20
4.3 Field Data and Analysis
Details 21-38
4.3.1 Effect of no. of rows on mean fragmentation size 21-27
4.3.1.1 Effect of number of rows on mean fragmentation 25-26
size (MFS)
4.3.1.2 Effect of number of rows on muckpile shape 26-27
parameter
4.3.2 Effect of delays on blast performance 30-38
4.3.2.1 Effect of delay timing between rows on mean 37-38
fragment size
4.3.2.2 Effect of delay timing between rows on 38
muckpile shape parameter

CHAPTER 5 5.0 CONCLUSION 39

REFERENCES 40-41

APPENDICES- I 42-43
Blast- 05 Fragmentation distribution curve 42
Blast- 07 Fragmentation distribution curve 42
Blast- 09 Fragmentation distribution curve 42
Blast- 10 Fragmentation distribution curve 42
Blast- 12 Fragmentation distribution curve 43

APPENDICES- II 43-44
Blast- 04 Fragmentation distribution curve 43
Blast- 06 Fragmentation distribution curve 43
Blast- 07 Fragmentation distribution curve 44

iii
 Blast- 08 Fragmentation distribution curve 44
Blast- 09 Fragmentation distribution curve 44
Blast- 10 Fragmentation distribution curve 44

CONFERENCE 45-58
PAPER

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TABLE PAGE

NO.
4.1 Physico-mechanical properties of limestone deposit at 19
Quarry-A
4.2 Chemical properties of limestone at Quarry-A 19

4.3 Details of blast observation for different number of 21-22

rows in Quarry-A (Appendix-I)
4.4 Details of blast observation for different number of 22-23
rows in Quarry-A (Appendix-I)
4.5 Details of blast observation for different number of 27
rows by JK-SIM blast in Quarry-A.
4.6 Details of blast observation for different number of 29
rows by JK-SIM blast in Quarry-A.
4.7 Details of blast observation for different number of 30-31
delays in Quarry-A (Appendix-II)
4.8 Details of blast observation for different number of 32-33
delays in Quarry-A (Appendix-II)

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. DESCRIPTION OF FIGURE PAGE NO.

1.1 Geometry of blasting 2

2.1 Blasting Mechanism 3
2.2 Muckpile shape parameter 7

2.3 Different types of firing pattern with different drilling pattern 8

2.4 Vertical Face movement and Muckpile shape 9

2.5 Lateral Face movement and Muckpile shape 10

3.1 Flow chart Methodology 13

3.2 Layout of the Main Window 14

3.3 Image analysis for quantification of fragmentation 16

4.1 Benches at Quarry-A 18

4.2 View of Quarry -A 20

4.3 Blast hole section 20

4.4 B 05 Diagonal Firing Pattern analysed using JK-SIM blast 23

software
4.5 B 11 Diagonal Firing Pattern analysed using JK-SIM blast 24
software
4.6 B 09 Diagonal Firing Pattern analysed using JK-SIM blast 24
software
4.7 Relationship between Mean fragment size (MFS) 25
distribution and no. of rows in a diagonal firing pattern
for Quarry-A
4.8 Relationship between Throw, Drop, Spread and no. of rows 26
in a diagonal firing pattern for Quarry-A
4.9 Predicted Kuz-Ram fragmentation model by JK-SIM blast 28
software.

vi
4.10 Data of rock factor to determine fragmentation by Kuz- 29
Ram model in JK-SIM blast software
4.11 Blast simulation and information of deck material by JK- 30
SIM blast software
4.12 Diagonal Firing Pattern and uneven fragment size with 34
improper inter-row delay.
4.13 Diagonal Firing Pattern and good fragment size with proper 35
inter-row delay.
4.14 Predicted ground vibration of blast 01 by JK-SIM blast 36
software.
4.15 Predicted ground vibration of blast 06 by JK-SIM blast 37
software.
4.16 Relationship between Mean fragment size (MFS) and Mesh 37
area for Quarry-A
4.17 Relationship between Throw, Drop, Spread and Mesh area 38
for Quarry-A

vii
 ABSTRACT

This research investigate the significance of inter-row delay timing and multi-row blast round in
open cast mine because it not only dictates the mechanism of fragmentation but also offers a vast
potential in improving the overall results of fragmentation, muckpile characteristics, backbreak
and ground vibration by blasting.

This study also evaluate the effects of short and long inter-hole delay timing on blast performance
and whether or not by changing of delay times improve rock fragmentation in full scale bench
blasting. Row-to-row delay times included 42ms, 67ms, 100, 117ms, and 200ms, etc. across the
various zones. Multiple photographs were taken of each of the zones for Fragalyst and Muckpile
analysis and various delay times were used on the same bench blast, the effects of timing on
fragmentation were determined. This allowed for multiple delay times to be evaluated in each shot
and it provided visual comparison of the variable face movement and throw. The primary goal of
testing was to determine best delay timing which can improve rock fragmentation in full scale
bench blasting. Additionally, it was a goal to observe how inter-hole delays affect muckpile shape
parameter like Throw, Drop, and Spread.

viii
 CHAPTER 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Blasting is an essential part of the mining cycle. In virtually all forms of mining, rock is broken by
drilling and blasting. Blasting technology is the process of fracturing material by the use of a
calculated amount of explosive so that a predetermined volume of material is broken. From the
earliest days of blasting with black powder, there have been steady developments in explosives,
detonating and delaying techniques and in the understanding of the mechanics of rock breakage
by explosives. Good blast design and execution are essential to successful mining operations.
Improper or poor practices in blasting may have a severely negative impact on the economics of a
mine.
It is widely acknowledged that delay timing (inter-hole and inter-row), if optimised, can have a
positive impact on blast outcomes such as fragmentation, muckpile characteristics, back-break and
ground vibrations. For selecting suitable timing combinations are often not possible by site
engineers during the design process.
1.2 Parameters influence blasting. (Jimeno et al., 1995)
• Burden: It is the minimum distance between face and blast holes, shown in Fig. 1.1. Too less
burden can cause fly rock and air blast problem and too high a burden will produce sever back
break and greater vibration. Burden should be 0.5 to 0.8 times of the height of bench.
• Spacing: It is the distance between two consecutive blast holes.
Spacing = (1.2 to 1.5) burden
• Stemming: It is used after explosive is loaded in blast holes. Stemming affects blown out shot
of the hole and also affects fly rocks.
Stemming/burden > 0.6 (for controlling fly rock)
• Bore hole depth: It not only affects fragmentation but also the level of vibration. Bore holes
depth is a function of spacing and diameter of the hole. Short holes produce blasting at greater
violence and also produce greater vibration level of increased frequency.
• Sub drilling: Drilling of blast hole greater than height of bench. It is generally used for
eliminating toe formation of the bench. About 10% Sub-drilling gives better fragmentation in
the rock mass and lesser ground vibration.

1
• Geology of the area: The propagation of energy through vibration waves depends upon the
elastic properties of the medium. The rock types of the area and structured features play a great
part in propagation of energy.
• Types of explosives: Ground vibration is directly proportional to the type of explosives used.
• Explosive quantity: The level of vibration produced by a single row instantaneous blast is
same as the level of vibration produced by a single or multi row blast with delay if the charge
quantity per delay of the blast with delay equals to the total charge of the single row blast. Thus
it is the charge per delay that controls the level of blasting not the total charge.

Fig. 1.1 Geometry of blasting (Ash, 1963)

1.3 Objective of study

1. To determine the effect of back rows delay timing on Fragmentation.
2. To determine the effect of back rows delay timing on Muckpile shape parameter.
3. To determine the effect of size of blast on Fragmentation.
4. To determine the effect of size of blast on Muckpile shape parameter.

2
 CHAPTER 2.0
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
For a large blast, proper delay time is an important parameter for fragmentation as the burden,
spacing, sub-drilling, stemming, etc. Besides effecting the fragmentation, it also exerts a great
control on the related problems, such as, ground vibration, air blasts, fly rocks, back break, etc.
The delay timing controls the fragments size and consequently the profile of the blasted muckpile.
Selection of suitable delay between the successive rows of a multi-row, large-scale blast round is
absolutely important for the effective blast performance. This is due to systematic release of energy
and proper burden relief from one row to another in maintaining the continuous momentum for
inter-row displacements. In the instances of shorter inter-row delay, the burden from front row
remains in place while the charges from second row are also fired resulting in improper relief and
excessive confinement to the successive rows (Rai, 2004).
2.2 Blast Fragmentation Mechanism (Gokhale, 2010)
The various disintegration modes are as follows:

Fig. 2.1 Blasting Mechanism

Crushing of rock
The charge is detonated by a spark at the bottom of the blasthole and the detonation zone starts
moving up at a velocity of 2500 to 7000 m/s. The energy released and the gases generated in the
detonation zone exert extremely high pressure against the walls of the hole. Such high temperature

3
and pressure act together to crumble and pulverize a thick cylindrical layer around the blasthole
wall. This is called crushed zone. As much as 30% of the energy generated in detonation zone is
spent in crushing of rock as shown above Fig. 2.1.
Radial Cracking
A compression wave is created at the detonation zone. It starts moving away from the blasthole in
all directions at the velocity of sound in that medium. All the rocks are formed by different minerals
of different compositions; therefore they have planes of weaknesses.
Circumferential cracking
Within a very short time the compression wave reaches the free surface and gets reflected as tensile
wave. The speed of tensile wave is almost half as that of compression wave, i.e. 500 to 2500 m/s.
The amount of energy lost depends upon many factors such as rocks mass, burden, distribution of
pre-existing cracks, porosity of rockmass, etc. Fragments generated by circumferential cracking
have no confinement; therefore, they separate from the bench face and fall down. This
fragmentation is called spalling.
Radial push by gases
After radial and circumferential cracking the rock mass on the front side of the blasthole is already
loosened but remains without significant movement. Gases formed in detonation and held at
exceedingly high pressure start flowing to the circumferential cracks through the radial cracks and
exert outward pressure. This causes throw of rock fragments in an outward direction.
Cracking by flexure
At the initial stage gases form at the bottom (detonation starts at bottom) and exert upward
pressure. As the detonation layer moves upward, the gases formed in the upper region also add to
this pressure. Thus, the pressure in the middle of the blasthole length is higher than the pressure
in the bottom .This differential pressure causes bending moment in the burden wall.
Collisions by fragments
Collisions of fragments cause further fragmentation.
Separation of beds
Separation of beds (in sedimentary rocks) by cracks add to the process of fragmentation.
All the modes of rock fragmentation described take place in a very short time interval and it is
very difficult to give any sequence.

4
2.3 Fragmentation analysis
Optimized rock fragmentation is essential for minimizing downstream costs to mining operations.
Photographic fragmentation analysis, vibration monitoring, and high-speed video all provide
measurements of blast effectiveness and supply data that allows operations to modify blasts to
achieve downstream goals. Several studies have been conducted on the prediction of fragmentation
by blasting accounting for controllable and uncontrollable parameters. An equation on the basis of
the relationship between mean fragment size and specific charge was developed by Kuznetsov.
Cunningham based upon the Kuznetsov model and the Rosin & Rammler distribution, introduced
a new model, Kuz–Ram model, to predict rock fragmentation by blasting. Kuz–Ram model was
further improved by Cunningham.
Kuznetsov (1973) developed an equation for determining the mean fragment size, denoted as (X50)
as shown in equation
1
𝑄6 115 0.633
𝑋50 = 𝐴 ∗ 0.8 × ( )
𝐾 𝑅𝐸𝐸
Where, A is the rock factor, Q is the mass of explosive been used in kg, K is the powder factor
(specific charge) in kg/m3 and REE is the relative effective energy of the explosive, this is derived
by dividing the absolute weight strength of the explosive in use by the absolute weight strength of
ANFO and multiplying by 100%. The mean fragment size is first estimated to give an overview
of what outcome will be generated by the blast design parameters for effective prediction process.
Rossin-Ramlers Equation
The Rossin-Ramlers equation for percentage passing is determine in given equation. This is also
important in characterizing muck pile size distribution (Faramarzi et al., 2013).
𝑋
−( )𝑛
𝑅𝑚 = 1 − 𝑒 𝑋𝑐

Rm is the proportion of material passing the screen, n is the uniformity index, Xc is the
characteristic size (cm) and X is the Screen size (cm). The characteristic size XC is one through
which 63.2% of the particles pass. If the characteristic size XC and the index of uniformity n are
known, a typical fragmentation curve can be plotted.
Cunningham’s Uniformity index.
Cunningham (1987) established the applicability of uniformity coefficient through several
investigations by considering the effects of blast geometry, hole diameter, burden, spacing, hole
length and drilling accuracy-

5
 𝐵 𝑆 0.5 𝑊 𝐿
𝑛 = [2.2 − 14 (𝐷)] [0.5(1 + 𝐵)] [1 − 𝐵 ] [𝐻]

Where; B is the burden (m), S is the spacing (m), D is the hole diameter (mm), W is the standard
deviation of drilling accuracy (m), L is the total length of drilled hole (m) and H is the bench height
(m). Cunningham proposed the model in its most basic form, wherein the parameters required for
the fragmentation prediction were basically controllable elements of the blast design.
Rzhevsky (1985) related the optimum fragmentation with respect to excavator bucket size as
follows:
Xop= (0.15 – 0.2). Bc1/3

Where, Xop= optimum fragment size (m); Bc= Nominal bucket capacity, (m3)
Michaud and Blanchet (1996) quantified the influence of fragmentation on mine productivity by
focusing on the hauling portion of the productive cycle. They utilized a mine hauler equipped with
a mass monitoring system and defined fragmentation by digital analysis of rock fragments carried
from shovel to hauler.
2.4 Muckpile shape parameter (Choudhary et al., 2013)
Blast result affects the productivity of the loading equipment, not only because of the size
distribution of the material, but also because of its swelling and geometric profile of the muckpile.
When hydraulic shovels are used, the height of the bench will be the deciding factor for efficiency
of the machines and the blasts should be designed so as to provide adequate fragmentation and a
muckpile that is not too extended with few low productivity zones. If the front end loaders are
used, the tendency will be towards a type of blasting that produces maximum displacement and
swelling of the rock, high fragmentation and reduced height of the muckpile, but in case of shovel
in use it requires proper height of muck to handle it.
Muckpile shape parameters are throw, drop and lateral spreading and it is a post blast result. Throw
is the horizontal distance up which center of gravity of blasted muck lies, drop of muckpile is the
vertically lowering of the blasted muck and lateral spreading is the horizontal distance up to the
blasted muck lies. Throw, drop and lateral spreading of the muckpile are essential parameters for
effective pay loader operation and looseness of the blasted muck. Greater throw and drop spreads
the muckpile laterally, which largely facilitates the digging of the muck by the pay loaders as
shown in Fig. 2.2

6
 Fig. 2.2 Muckpile shape parameter
2.5 Four basic surface firing patterns (Sharma, 2010)
The firing pattern is a tool to break and fragment a mass of rock in the most effective way for
further handling and treatment in the mining or quarrying process. Although there are a lot of
different patterns used in the industry, most of them are derived from the following four basic
designs as shown in Fig. 2.3
1. Row by Row – This firing pattern can be applied in a pure Row-by-Row initiation sequence
with delay times only between rows or in a pattern with short delay times between holes and long

7
delay times between rows so there is no interaction between the rows. This design requires at least
one free face.
2. Chevron – In a Chevron firing pattern the delays between holes and rows are chosen so that the
firing sequence results in a V-formation. By using different delays, the angle of the V-formation
can be modified. The Chevron design requires at least one free face.
3. Echelon – The Echelon firing pattern is simply one half of a Chevron pattern. Echelon pattern
requires at least two free faces.
4. Diamond – Diamond firing pattern is used for box cuts, sump blasts and other applications where
there are no free faces parallel to the blast holes. The broken rock will be displaced upwards, with
an increased risk of fly-rock.

Fig. 2.3 Different types of firing pattern with different drilling pattern

8
2.6 Inter-row delay timing
The significance of inter-row delay timing in a multi-row blast round in open-cast mines is a matter
of significant concern as it not only dictates the mechanism of fragmentation but also offers a vast
potential in improving the overall result of fragmentation by blasting. Available literature reports
numerous efforts by various researchers globally.
Lang (1979), Anderson et al., (1985) - Delay timing is an important and critical blast design
parameter which may have a direct impact on fragmentation, muckpile characteristics, back-break
and ground vibrations.
As by Jimeno et al. (1995) - Delays should permit the succession of the following events:
-Propagation of the compression and tensile waves from the blasthole to the free face.
-Readjustment of the initial field of tensions, due to the presence of radial cracks and the effect of
the reflection of the shock wave on the free face.
-Acceleration of the fragmented rock by the action of gases up to a velocity that assures an
adequate horizontal displacement.
Chiappetta & Postupack (1995) - Any increase in the burden requires an increase in inter-row
delays, while any decrease in the burden requires shorter inter-row delay timings As such,
comprehensive imaging technique have been recommended to optimize the inter-row delays.
Hyung & Rai (2011) - In the instances of short inter-row delay timing, the burden from front row
remains in place before the charges from second row are fired resulting in improper relief and
excessive confinement to the consecutive rows. This causes upward cratering (vertical uplift) that
results in poor fragmentation (with little heave) and tight muck piles close to the face as Fig 2.4.
On the contrary, if the delay time between the rows is too large, the material of the first row fails
to act as a screen and thus does not confine the remainder of the blasts, which results in
unwarranted lateral scattering, poor fragmentation, fly rocks, etc. as Fig. 2.5

Fig. 2.4 Vertical Face movement and Muckpile shape

9
 Fig. 2.5 Lateral Face movement and Muckpile shape
Onederra & Esen (2003) - In surface free face blasting, a key parameter that should facilitate the
process of selecting appropriate inter-hole and inter-row delays is the concept of minimum
response time (Tmin). This is the time which elapses between explosive detonation and rock mass
movement and is a function of explosive type, rock properties and blast design parameters.
As discussed by Chiappetta (1998) - Without using proper delay intervals in blasting operation,
good looseness for subsequent loading and hauling operations cannot be obtained. Moreover, a
blaster could unknowingly create intense vibrations by selecting improper delays.
A more objective methodology can be adopted from knowledge of the minimum response time.
For example, the delay time between holes in a row should be less or equal to the minimum
response time, to encourage positive interaction for improved breakage and fragmentation.
However the delay time between rows should be of the order of 1.5 to 3.0 times the minimum
response time to maximize material displacement and/or create a loose muckpile.
Tansey (1980) - The burden on any row should be well on move by the time the next row is fired.
Field trials revealed that the rock from the previous row should be moved by one third of the
burden distance before the next row is fired.
Oliver (1996) – The inter-row delay time is not well defined. It is commonly assumed to be the
minimum nominal delay time needed between a hole in one row and the nearest hole in the row
behind. The US Army Corp of Engineer suggests a value of between 13 and 20 ms/m of burden.
The fragmentation theory indicates blasting problems will occur where too tight timing is
employed. In fact, overly tight timing, on the assumption that it is possible to eliminate a problem
through speeding up a blast, is a false premise. When designing blast timing and contrary to the
popular accepted notion, it is better to err on the side of too long rather than too short timing

10
intervals. A minimum inter-row delay time, taking cap timing scatter into consideration, of 20
ms/m of hole burden is suggested.
Kazem & Bahareh (2006) stated that the outcome of a good blasting operation leads to the
productiveness of the next stages of mining, such as loading, hauling and crushing process.
Raina et al., (2002) there are a number of controllable as well as uncontrollable parameters that
govern the fragmentation of rock. The controllable parameters can be controlled by effective blast
designing and use of appropriate explosive for blasting. While the uncontrollable parameters as
the name suggests cannot be controlled. But certain measures have to be taken to minimize the
effects of these parameters in rock blasting in order to attain an optimum rock fragmentation
2.7 Purpose of study
2.7.1 Delay effect on Fragmentation
1. It increases downstream cost means loading, hauling, transportation cost.
2. It may create boulder so that it require secondary blasting and increase cost.
3. Due to improper delay there may be chance that more than 1 or 2 holes blast in one time so
that it will create more Vibration (PPV), Airblast.
4. Improper distribution of explosive energy in a hole and around blast so, it will not provide
desired fragmentation.
2.7.2 Delay effect on Muckpile shape parameter
1. Due to improper delay, improper shape of muckpile (throw, drop, spread) will get which create
difficulty in handling of material.
2. If the front end loaders are used, the tendency will be towards a type of blasting that produces
maximum displacement and swelling of the rock, high fragmentation and reduced height of
the muckpile.
3. Improper delay create greater throw and drop spreads the muckpile laterally, which largely
facilitates the digging of the muck by the pay loaders.
4. Muckpile shape and fragment size are correlated, if improper delay effect fragmentation it will
directly effect muckpile shape.
2.7.3 No. of rows effect on Fragmentation and Muckpile shape
1. No. of rows should be desirable so that it maintain the minimum gap of 13ms/m between two
rows if not it effects on fragmentation.

11
2. To avoid back-break in the last row drilled with very less amount of explosive with more
distance between last two rows.
3. The gap between two rows should be such that the first row act as a screen and confine the
remainder of the blasts if not the energy will come out from free space and boulder material
form.
4. The proper gap should be maintain between two rows so that one third of burden can easily
move before back row will blast and energy will distributed properly to achieve proper
muckpile shape.

12
 CHAPTER 3.0
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
In order to fulfill the research objective many full scale blasts were conducted in the quarries by
varying delay interval and no. of rows under the similar strata (same bench) and explosive
(Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (plant mixed) with shock tube initiation system, density being 0.8
g/cc and the VOD was 3700 m/s.) conditions.
3.2 Step-by-Step Methodology to determine result
Project Title
The effect of back rows delay timing and size of blast
on fragmentation and muckpile shape parameter

Literature Review
Blasting, Fragmentation, delay timing, Muckpile
shape, firing pattern

Collection of Field Data

Fragmentation, Muckpile shape by using tape and
Images of fragment size

Analysis of Data and Modelling

By using Fragalyst software to determine
fragmentation and JKsim software for size of blast

Interpretation
Fragmentation vs. delay timing and size of blast
Muckpile shape vs. delay timing and size of blast

Results
To determine best delay timing between rows and
size of blast

Conclusion
Fig. 3.1 Flow chart Methodology.

13
3.3 JKsim Blast Software
2DBench is a graphical software program for the design and editing of bench blast designs. It gives
engineers and blasting personnel the ability to design and optimise the layout and initiation
sequence of almost any type of bench blast, as most commonly used in open cut mining. It allows
to:
• layout a pattern of blastholes.
• load explosive decks and other materials in the holes.
• install downhole and surface delays, with primer and connection details.
• simulate the detonation on screen.
• import and export data and print the design.
Individual elements of the design are defined by the user, including hole dimensions, explosives,
delays, connectors and boosters, and can be combined in a variety of design scenarios.
2DBench is a module of JKSimBlast shown in Fig. 3.2, which is a framework for a suite of
programs for data management in blasting, including design and simulation, analysis, data
collection and referencing, performance evaluation, prediction and optimisation.

Fig. 3.2 Layout of the Main Window

14
3.4 Fragalyst Software (Raina et al., 2002)
We use Fragalyst software for analysis of photographs taken from the bench of each shot was
performed and quantitative measurements of the fragmentation distributions resulting from the
various delay times were made and analyzed. This allowed for the effectiveness of the delays to
be evaluated side by side in the most controlled way in a full-scale production mine. The Fragalyst
analysis also showed how the relatively small variation in the rock can affect the fragmentation
size. In addition to the photographic image analysis, the shots were also monitored using high-
speed video and seismographs.
Fragalyst 4.0 is an advanced version of Fragalyst 2.0 developed indigenously by CIMFR and
Wavelet Group Pune. The software has multiple functions where the digital images of blasted
fragments can be analysed for size distribution (BBSD) and the in situ block size distribution
(IBSD) can also be determined using joint frequencies in a blast face. Initially an image of the face
is to be imported and joints determine by using a scanline method which in turn determine the
IBSD. Once blast to be carried out on the same face sufficient number of images (at least 15) need
to be imported in the software and analysed for fragmentation distribution. Several options of
image, enhancement, resize and crop are also available along with a large combination of threshold
parameters which makes edge detection easy. The detected edge of fragments can be edited using
advanced tools. The analysis of all the individual is then called for a merged analysis of the blasted
fragment size distribution. A fines correction option is now available for correcting the (BBSD)
for finers. The results have been compared to the result obtained with imported software and results
are conforming. The software has been tested at no. of sites in India and significant changes in
productivity have been reported. Shown in Fig.3.3 having fragmentation analysis by using
Fragalyst software.

15
 Fig. 3.3 Image analysis for quantification of fragmentation
3.5 Muckpile shape parameters
During the fieldwork, throw, drop and lateral spreading of muck for each blast was measured
immediately after the blast using tape measurements by taking the offset measurements on blasted
muckpile. (Chodhary et al., 2013). It was observed that in case of coarser fragmentation, muckpile
profile was of dome shape and in case of finer fragmentation muckpile profile was spread over
large area. This may be due to the inertia and interlocking effect of the coarse fragments
Choudhary (2011).

16
 CHAPTER 4.0
FIELD OBSERVATION AND RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
The objectives of the present study have already been enumerated in the chapter 1. To accomplish
these objectives field studies and field data acquisition was conducted at one limestone quarries.
These quarries are owned by Shree Cement Limited, Rajasthan, India. The quarries chosen for the
purpose of study were productive quarries of limestone which produce limestone for big cement
producing companies. It was stipulated to improve the efficacy of drilling and blasting operations
for enhancing the fragmentation which, in turn, affects the downstream operations. To fulfill this
objective the management of limestone companies where the studies were conducted provided the
permission and adequate support to vary the important blast design parameters on a limited scale
based on logical reasoning and discussions. Total 22 research blasts on different design parameters
were performed and results recorded carefully.
The general, geological and mining details of the limestone quarries where the studies were
conducted are discussed herewith:
4.2 Limestone Quarry-A: General, Geological and Mining Details
To meet the stated objectives in chapter 1, full-scale blasts were conducted in the limestone quarry.
The Nimbeti Limestone Mines of M/s Shree Cement Ltd. is a highly mechanised Limestone mines
having 15 million tones rock handling per annum & consuming 2500MT of explosives per
annum. The mine is situated near village Rasin, Pali District, Rajasthan, India & have mining
lease area of 750 hectares. The mine lies adjacent to the cement plant. Limestone is
metamorphosed in nature and highly fractured & structurally folded. The bed are having dip
varying from 450 to 600. The pegmatite is intruded in the weak zones both across & along the
dip/strike. The mine is presently feeding M/s Shree cement Ltd. cement plants situated at Ras
Beawar, Rajasthan.
The height of benches is varied between 10-13 m and width of benches varies from 30 to
50 m. At present requirement of limestone is met by most ecofriendly drilling & blasting practice
as on date available in India. The section of study benches is shown in as in Fig. 4.1.

17
 Quarry-A
B-1
overburden

B-2
weathered

B-3
medium grade deposit

B-4 ; STUDY BENCH

B-5 ; STUDY BENCH

B-6 ; STUDY BENCH

B-7; STUDY BENCH

B-8; STUDY BENCH

B-9; STUDY BENCH

Fig.4.1: Benches at Quarry-A

Lithology: Geologically, the Nimbeti Limestone Mines area covers rocks of the Ras Formation of
the Kumbhalgarh Group of the Delhi Supergroup. The general strike direction of limestone beds
in the area is N 25 0E - S 25o W and mostly beds are dipping in south-east direction. Dip amount
varies from 28o to as high as 68o. The reversal of dip is seen in western part of area, where a local
synform is formed. Stratigraphically, the limestone, litho unit of interest belongs to the Railo
Group of Delhi Super Group of rocks and rests unconformable over the basal biotite schist of the
Archaean.
The main area of the Nimbeti Limestone Mines is covered by limestone beds. The beds of
saccroidal coarse (crypto crystalline to crystalline in nature) limestone alternate with light grey
medium to coarse grained well bedded limestone, light grey limestone with micaceouscalc schist,
and occasionally with calcareous clay.
The limestone beds range from a few centimeter (thinly bedded) to a few meters (thickly bedded).
It is off – white to pure white with pinkish to ceramist tinge. At places the limestone contains
flakes of biotite and muscovite and specks hornblende, tourmaline and a few grains of quartz,
muscovite, biotite, emrald and hornblende minerals have developed in the limestone at places
where it has come in close contact with pegmatite bodies and in joint planes where pegmatitic

18
solutions were active. At places it has lenticular thin bands of amphibolites. The limestone has
been intruded by pegmatite bodies.
Table 4.1 and 4.2 gives the details of physico-mechanical and chemical properties of limestone
deposit. The view of Quarry –A.
Table 4.1: Physico-mechanical properties of limestone deposit at Quarry-A

Particulars Description

Moisture content 0%
Structure Coarse crystalline, Crypto crystalline

Hardness 3 to 4
Specific Gravity 2.5

Compressive Strength 60-63MPa

Tensile strength 6.0-6.3MPa

Drill penetration rate 15-20m/hr

Table 4.2: Chemical properties of limestone deposit at Quarry-A

Chemical Composition Percentage amount

CaCO3 75.5
MgO 1.12

Al2O3 2.5

Others 79.12

19
 Fig. 4.2: View of Quarry -A
Drilling and blasting practices: Blasting is done by down line initiation with noise less trunk line
detonator at top which is best technology available for reduction in ground vibration, fly rock and
noise pollution. The blast hole section is shown in Fig. 4.3. Secondary breaking by Rock breaker
is used in place of secondary blasts to minimize the hazards and for better environmental
conditions. Blast holes of 165 mm diameter are drilled by using rotary drill and the holes
are charged with bulk ANFO explosives.

Fig. 4.3: Blast hole section

20
4.3 Field Data and Analysis
4.3.1 Effect of number of rows on blast performance
Table: 4.3 Details of blast observation for different number of rows in Quarry-A (Appendix-I)

Blast No. B 01 B 02 B 03 B 04 B 05 B 06

Burden, (m) 3 3 3 3 4.5 4.5

Spacing, (m) 3.5 3.5 3,5 3.5 6.5 6.5

Depth of holes, (m) 8 7.5 8.5 7 12.06 11.99

No. of holes 22 25 28 23 54 164

No. rows 2 2 3 3 4 4

Stemming length, (m) 3.5 3 5 4 3.5 3.5

Explosive per hole, (kg) 29.9 19.41 33.2 28.11 153 153.484

Total Explosive (kg) 657.875 485.325 857.875 825 8262.42 25171.36

PF (te/kg) 7.02 10.14 6.71 6.54 5.77 5.71

Total Broken rock (te) 4618 5000 5756 4777.5 47641 143800

Firing pattern Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal

Front row burden 1.2 1.5 1.25 2 2.5 2.25

Throw, (m) 10 5 8 5 13 17

Drop, (m) 1.5 1 1.5 1 5 4

Spread, (m) 30 26 42 30 38.5 52

End break length, (m) 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 1.25 1.5

21
 K20, (m) 0.61 0.35 0.5 0.45 0.35 0.45

MFS K50, (m) 0.81 0.64 0.66 0.7 0.66 0.5

K80, (m) 1.06 0.7 0.85 1.15 0.85 1.1

K100, (m) 1.41 0.86 1.1 2 1.6 1.75

Table: 4.4 Details of blast observation for different number of rows in Quarry-A (Appendix-I)

Blast No. B 07 B 08 B 09 B 10 B 11 B 12

Burden, (m) 4.5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5

Spacing, (m) 6 6 6 6 6 6

Depth of holes, (m) 11.98 12.07 11.3 11.76 12.56 11.36

No. of holes 50 107 83 120 70 42

No. rows 5 5 6 6 7 7

Stemming length, (m) 3 3.5 3.25 3.5 3.5 3.5

Explosive per hole, (kg) 112.459 139.55 121.565 128.44 136.287 131.13

Total Explosive (kg) 5622.95 14931 10089.91 15412.86 9540.11 5507

PF (te/kg) 7.19 6.49 6.28 6.18 6.22 6.5

Total Broken rock(te) 40433 96844 63332 95293 59349 35775

Firing pattern Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal

Front row burden 1.75 3 2.5 2 2.75 2.5

Throw, (m) 16 17 15.5 14 18 15.5

22
Drop, (m) 4 4 2.5 5.5 2.5 2.5

Spread, (m) 45 50 55 57 47 49

End break length, (m) 1.5 1.5 0.75 1.5 1.75 1

K20, (m) 0.25 0.33 0.15 0.1 0.2 0.23

MFS K50, (m) 0.45 0.47 0.30 0.25 0.6 0.4

K80, (m) 0.65 0.65 0.35 0.42 0.84 0.72

K100, (m) 1.2 0.95 0.65 1 1.25 2

Fig. 4.4 B 05 Diagonal Firing Pattern analysed using JK-SIM blast software

23
Fig. 4.5 B 11 Diagonal Firing Pattern analysed using JK-SIM blast software

Fig. 4.6 B 09 Diagonal Firing Pattern analysed using JK-SIM blast software

24
From the tables 4.3 and 4.4, it is evident that the blasts B-01 to B-12 were fired on diagonal firing
pattern in which 2 to 4 number of rows having fragmentation in terms of mean fragment size
(MFS) (0.50-0.81m) and its max. K100 values (.86-2.0 m) are larger than the optimum fragment
size (OFS) (0.30-0.35m). The fragment size distribution is un-even. Oversize fragments were
observed inside the muck during excavation increased the average cycle time of the front end
loader and shovel. And same results obtained if the blast carried with 7 (Fig. 4.5) rows having
MFS (.4-.6 m) and K100 (1.25-2 m) which shows uneven fragmentation.
But if we prefer 5 or 6 number of rows the fragmentation results reveals improvement in MFS
(0.25-0.47m) and max. K100 (0.65- 1.2 m). The improvement in MFS and K100 size helped in
improving the excavation process which resulted less cycle time of loaders and excavators. In blast
09 (Fig. 4.6) the mean and maximum fragments both are optimum due to having proper burden
and spacing between holes in a multi row blasting.

4.3.1.1 Effect of number of rows on mean fragmentation size (MFS)

No. of rows vs MFS

0.9

0.8

0.7
R² = 0.6227
Mean fragment size

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

No. of rows

Fig. 4.7: Relationship between Mean fragment size (MFS) distribution and no. of rows in a
diagonal firing pattern for Quarry-A

25
From the Fig.4.7 it is evident that the MFS is higher when of rows are 4, as the rows increases it
reduces up to 6 but after that it increases. By this end we understood that having less and more no.
of rows will directly effect on fragmentation distribution because less no. of rows in a blast causes
improper front-row-burden, the explosion gases find too much resistance to effectively fracture
and displace the rock and part of the energy becomes seismic and intensifies the vibration. But if
more no. of rows are their then improper free-face will be created, pushing the fragmented rock
and projecting it uncontrollably, provoking an increase in overpressure of the air and noise. With
this back break will be generated which create back-side boulder generation, and overall cost of
mining will increases like drilling cost, charging cost and secondary blasting cost.

4.3.1.2 Effect of number of rows on muckpile shape parameter

Number of rows vs Throw, Drop, Spread Throw Drop Spread

60

50
Throw, Drop, Spread

R² = 0.7819
40

30

R² = 0.6895
20

10
R² = 0.5908

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of rows

Fig. 4.8: Relationship between Throw, Drop, Spread and no. of rows in a diagonal firing pattern
for Quarry-A

If fragment sizes will be uneven it directly effects on muckpile shape parameter because boulder
generated profile cause to less throw with less spreading as given in Fig. 4.8. As the number of
26
rows increases the muckpile shape parameters are also increases and touching the optimum
distance and later it start reducing. The muckpile shape parameters are optimum in the range of 4-
6 rows.

Table: 4.5 Details of blast observation for different number of rows by JK-SIM blast in Quarry-A.

Blast No. B 01 B 02 B 03 B 04 B 05 B 06

No. rows 2 2 3 3 4 4

K20, (m) 0.578 0.3 0.577 0.49 .345 0.51

MFS K50, (m) 0.799 0.56 0.71 0.61 .76 0.59

K80, (m) .98 0.636 0.83 1.3 1.38 1.2

K100, (m) 1.5 0.95 1.19 1.8 1.55 1.86

27
 Fig. 4.9: Predicted Kuz-Ram fragmentation model by JK-SIM blast software.

28
Table: 4.6 Details of blast observation for different number of rows by JK-SIM blast in Quarry-A.

Blast No. B 07 B 08 B 09 B 10 B 11 B 12

No. rows 5 5 6 6 7 7

K20, (m) 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.15 0.25 0.34

MFS K50, (m) 0.51 0.42 0.29 0.32 0.56 0.52

K80, (m) 0.71 0.72 0.41 0.35 0.69 0.69

K100, (m) 1.35 1.1 0.75 .89 1.16 1.42

Fig. 4.10 Data of rock factor to determine fragmentation by Kuz-Ram model in JK-SIM blast
software

29
 Fig. 4.11 Blast simulation and information of deck material by JK-SIM blast software
4.3.2 Effect of delays on blast performance
Table 4.7- Details of blast observation for different number of delays in Quarry-A (Appendix-II)

Blast No. B 01 B 02 B 03 B 04 B 05

Burden, m 5 5 5 4.5 5

Spacing, m 6 6 6 6.5 6

Depth of holes, m 12.27 10.48 12.11 10.94 12.08

No. of holes 50 60 100 77 73

No. rows 5 4 4 5 6

30
Stemming length 3.25 3 3.5 3.5 3.25

Explosive per hole (kg) 144.195 124.3 144.133 130.388 145.49

Total Explosive (kg) 7209 7494.1 14413 10039.91 10620

PF (kg/t) 6.38 6.3 6.3 6.13 6.23

Total Broken rock(t) 46013 47175 90844 61571 66131

Firing pattern Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal

Front row burden 3 2.5 3.25 2 3.5

Row to row delay 42,67,92,117 67,92,117 67,92,117 42,65,100,100 67,92,117

Delay per unit burden 8.4/13.4/18.4/ 13.4/18.4/ 13.4/18.4/ 9.3/14.4/22.2/ 13.4/18.4/

23.4 23.4 23.4 22.2 23.4

Throw, m 16 16 14 15 14

Drop, m 5.5 2.6 5.5 3 5.5

Spread, m 50.2 40 53 17.5 57

End break length, m 2 2.5 1 1.5 1.5

PF, Kg/Mt 6.38 6.3 6.3 6.13 6.23

MKS,K20 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.35

K50 0.25 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.45

K80 0.35 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.67

K100 0.55 0.33 0.37 0.45 1

31
Table 4.8 – Details of blast observation for different number of delays in Quarry-A (Appendix-II)

Blast No. B 06 B 07 B 08 B 09 B 10

Burden, m 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Spacing, m 6 6 6 5.5 5.5

Depth of holes, m 11.01 11.3 11.98 10.96 11.36

No. of holes 82 83 50 80 64

No. rows 6 6 5 5 5

Stemming length 3.5 3.25 3 4.25 3.5

Explosive per hole (kg) 122.133 121.565 112.459 110.504 117.191

Total Explosive (kg) 10014.91 10089.91 5622.95 8840.32 7500.23

PF (kg/t) 6.09 6.28 7.19 6.14 6

Total Broken rock(t) 60953 63332 40433 54249 44999

Firing pattern Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal

Front row burden 2.25 2.5 1.75 3 2.5

Row to row delay 25,42,65,10 65,65,100, 42,67,67,92 42,42,75 65,65,100,

0,100 100 100

Delay per unit burden 5.5/9.3/14.4/ 14.4/14.4/ 9.3/14.9/14.9/ 9.3/9.3/16.7 14.4/14.4/

22.2/22.2 22.2/22.2 20.4 22.2/22.2

Throw, m 14.5 4.5 4 3 2.5

Drop, m 3.5 45.5 45 35.5 38

32
Spread, m 40.5 0.75 1.75 0.75 1.3

End break length, m 1.5 2 2 1.5 2

PF, Kg/Mt 6.09 6.28 7.19 6.14 6

MKS,K20 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.2

K50 0.45 0.25 0.45 0.3 0.4

K80 0.7 0.35 0.65 0.5 0.6

K100 1.3 0.65 1.2 1.1 1.2

33
Fig. 4.12 Diagonal Firing Pattern and uneven fragment size with improper inter-row delay.

34
Fig. 4.13 Diagonal Firing Pattern and good fragment size with proper inter-row delay.

35
Fig. 4.14: Predicted ground vibration of blast 01 by JK-SIM blast software.

36
 Fig. 4.15 Predicted ground vibration of blast 06 by JK-SIM blast software.

4.3.2.1 Effect of delay timing between rows on mean fragment size

Delay vs MFS
Mean fragment size

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Delay

Fig. 4.16: Relationship between Mean fragment size (MFS) and Mesh area for Quarry-A

37
From the tables 4.7 and 4.8 it is quite evident that the blast numbers B 01– B 10 were fired on
diagonal firing pattern. From B 01 to B 05 shown good fragmentation having MFS (0.15-0.45) in
every blast with delay per unit burden is 8.4/13.4/18.4/22.4 which shows better mesh area between
rows. But from B 06 to B 10 shown uneven and lump size in maximum blast which having delay
per unit burden is 5.5/9.3/14.4/22.2/22.2 as shown in Fig. 4.16.
It is due to the proper inter-row delay time is not well defined and the many holes are blast in one
time having gap less than 8ms. The fragmentation theory indicates blasting problems will occur
where too tight timing is employed.

4.3.2.2 Effect of delay timing between rows on muckpile shape parameter

Delay vs Throw, Drop, Spread

Throw Drop Spread
60
Throw, Drop, Spread

40

20

Delay
Fig. 4.17: Relationship between Throw, Drop, Spread and Mesh area for Quarry-A
If fragment sizes will be uneven it directly effects on muckpile shape parameter because boulder
generated profile cause to less throw with less spreading. As given in Fig. 4.17 the delay per unit
burden in B 01 to B 05 shown common throw in all blast and effective spreading of blasted material
with less drop. But in B 06 to B 10 shown high throw and drop with less spreading due to boulder
fragmentation. The muckpile shape parameters are optimum when delay per unit burden
13.4/18.4/23.4 is high but when delay per unit burden 5.5/9.3/14.4/22.2/22.2 or 9.3/9.3.16.7 is low
it shows improper muckpile.

38
 CHAPTER 5.0
CONCLUSION
1. By the use of state-of–art image analysis technique in conjunction with some important indirect
measurement techniques it is easy for assessment of fragmentation results.
2. The role of inter-row delay interval and no. of rows is crucial from the viewpoint of
fragmentation in field-scale blasts.
3. JKsim software use to evaluate different no. of rows, firing sequence better delay between rows
and predicting ground vibration.
4. From the study it was found that less than 04 rows and at 07 no. of rows the MFS is 0.5-0.81m
while at 05 or 06 no. of rows the MFS is 0.25-0.5m.
5. The no. of rows directly effect on fragment size which changes profile shape of muckpile.
6. From the study it was found that when delay per unit burden is high either 8.4/13.4/18.4/22.4
or 13.4/18.4/23.4 shows good fragmentation and optimum muckpile profile but when delay
per unit burden is low 5.5/9.3/14.4/22.2/22.2 it shows improper fragmentation and muckpile.
7. Concept of optimum mesh area is useful in improving the fragmentation results.
8. Minimum response time can be used as a key input parameter in the design of appropriate
inter-hole and inter-row delays under free face blasting conditions.
9. In stronger sandstone formations, the inter-row delay interval must be shorter in terms of ms/m
of firing burden to promote the inter-rock collision for better fragmentation.

39
 REFERENCES
1. Ash, R. L., 1963. The mechanics of rock breakage, standards for blasting design. Pit and
Quarry 56(3): 118-122.
2. Anderson, D. A., Ritter, A. P., Winzer, S. R., and Reil, J. W., (1985). A method for site specific
prediction and control of ground vibration from blasting In proc. 1st mini. Symp. Explosive
and Blasting research, San Diego. CA, pp. 28-43.
3. Chiappetta, R.F., (1998). Blast Monitoring Instrumentation and Analysis Techniques, With an
Emphasis on Field Applications, FRAGBLAST-International Journal of Blasting and
Fragmentation, Vol.2, No. 1, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam: pp.79- 122.
4. Choudhary, B.S., (2011). Assessment of fragmentation in limestone quarry blasts, Ph.D. thesis,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi
5. Choudhary B.S., and Rai, P., (2013), Stemming Plug and Its Effect on Fragmentation and
Muckpile Shape Parameters, Int. J. of Mining and Mineral Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 296-
311.
6. Cunningham, C.V.B., (1987). Fragmentation estimations and the Kuz–Ram model –four Years
on. Proceedings of Second International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Keystone, Colorado. pp. 475–487.
7. Chiaperta, R. F., & Postupak, C., (1995). 'An Update on Causes and Recommendations for
Controlling Coal Damage when Blasting Overburden’. Proceeding of Explo-95, Brisbane, pp.
345.
8. Faramarzi, F., Mansouri, H., and Ebrahimi Farsangi, M.A., (2013). A rock engineering
Systems based model to predict rock fragmentation by blasting, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences 60, pp. 82–94.
9. Gokhale, B. V., (2011). ‘Rotary drilling and blasting in large surface mines’. Taylor and
Francis Group, LLC, pp. 435.
10. Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L. & Carcedo, F.J.A., (1995). Drilling and Blasting of Rocks, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands: 235-286.
11. Kuznetsov, V. M., (1973). The mean diameter of fragments formed by blasting rock. Sov Min
Sci 9: 144–8.
12. Kazem & Bahareh, (2006). Prediction of Rock Fragmentation in Open Pit Mines, using Neural
Network Analysis.

40
13. Lang, L. C., (1979). ‘Buffer blasting technique in open pit mine’,SEE.
14. Michaud, P.R. and Blanchet, J.Y. (1996). Establishing quantitative relation between post blast
fragmentation and mine productivity: a case study. Proc. 5th Int. symposium on Rock
fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, Canada, 25-29 Aug., 389-396.
15. Oliver, P.H., (1996). Changes to frill pattern and adequate inter-row delay time improve blasting
performance, Metal Mining.
16. Rai, P., (2004), Interrow delay requirement for strong sandstone strata on high dragline
benches- a case study.
17. Rai, P., Imperial, F.L. & Choudhary, B.S., (2006). A pattern for improvement, Quarry
Management Journal, Special issue on “Drilling & Blasting”, Sept., pp. 23 -30.
18. Raina, A. K., Choudhury, P. B., Ramulu, M., Chrakraborty, A. K., Dudhankar, A. S., (2002).
Fragalyst – an indigenous digital image analysis system for grain size measurement in mines.
J. Geol. Soc. India 59, pp. 561–569.
19. Rzhevsky, V. V., (1985), Opencast mining unit operations, Mir Publishers, Moscow.
20. Sharma, P. D., (2010). Techniques of controlled blasting for mines, tunnel and construction
workings to mitigate various blast induced adverse effects. Journal of mines, metals and fuels,
June: pp. 152-161.
21. Tansey. D. O., (1980). A delay sequencing blasting system, Procs. 6th SEE Conf. Expl. &
Blasting Tech., Florida, USA, pp. 345–374.
22. Yang, H.S., & Rai, P., (2011). Characterization of fragment size vis-à-vis delay timing in
quarry blasts, Powder Technology Journal, 211, 2011, pp. 120-126.

41
 APPENDICES- I

Blast- 05 Fragmentation distribution curve Blast- 07 Fragmentation distribution curve

Blast- 09 Fragmentation distribution curve Blast- 10 Fragmentation distribution curve

42
 Blast-12 Fragmentation distribution curve

APPENDICES- II

Blast- 04 Fragmentation distribution curve Blast- 06 Fragmentation distribution curve

43
 Blast- 07 Fragmentation distribution curve Blast- 08 Fragmentation distribution curve

Blast- 09 Fragmentation distribution curve Blast- 10 Fragmentation distribution curve

44

View publication stats