Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is

Uneconomical

Favreau R. F. Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Royal Military College Kingston

&
Favreau Patrice B.Eng., Blaspa Inc.

Abstract

In many quarries and construction sites visited by the authors over the last 50 years, the latter have
observed muck piles from blasting with explosives, which included numerous large blocks, in some
cases of dimensions larger than the input to the crusher. The names of these sites cannot be given in the
article because the owners insist that data obtained on such visits be kept confidential. Often the blasters
felt that the natural fissures in the rock would compensate for the use of a low powder factor, and they
asked the authors to explain why such blocks were present. A detailed analysis of the situation often
indicated that the cause of the blocks is that explained by figures such as 6 and 7 below in the article.
Indeed it is true that some blasts do give adequate fragmentation as a result of a large number of natural
fissures in the rock mass, even if a low powder factor is used. However, a blast with adequate
fragmentation with low powder factor blasting is often followed by a blast with large blocks and
inadequate fragmentation size distribution, the reason being that the later blast happens to be in
competent rock with few natural fissures; it is not easy to evaluate visually the degree of natural fissures
in the rock mass.
The article demonstrates how low powder factor blasting may lead to inadequate fragmentation size
distribution even in a competent rock, as well as difficult mucking and difficult crushing. The article
concludes that in the long run the savings in explosive costs from the low powder factor blasting in rock
that has many natural fissures are more than cancelled by the periodic high crusher costs for the blasts
when the rock is competent. In fact, whether the rock is fissured or competent, in both cases the low
explosive costs due to low powder factor blasting is usually cancelled by the higher mucking costs due
to the inadequate rock movement resulting from low powder factor blasting. This is a practical article
whose aim is to dispel the dubious premise that low explosive costs always save money, an opinion,
which the authors have found to be believed and followed by too many blasters, sometime under urging
by the owner of the quarry. The present article can assist blasters to convince the owner not to insist on
low explosive costs. In the long run, the most economical practice is usually to blast as if the rock mass
were competent.

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 1 of 10
Introduction
The principal objective of a blast with explosives in the rock bench of say a quarry is to create good
fragmentation size distribution and good movement of the fragmented rock. This will allow easy
mucking and low crusher costs. The crusher costs are more and more important because crushers use
much high cost energy. However, in a rock mass one sees a natural structure composed of joints and
fissures; these are weakness planes, whose presence can be estimated from the RQD values for the rock.
The authors have noticed that some blasters appear to rely on the presence of these natural fissures in the
rock mass in order to obtain what they consider as ‘free fragmentation’. Many blasters have asked the
authors to explain why some blasts produce big blocks. The article aims to answer this question, and to
show that so-called ‘free fragmentation’ is not necessarily profitable.
 
Explanation of how fragmentation is created by a blast
In order to show that ‘free fragmentation’ due to natural fissures is not necessarily advantageous, let first
be reviewed the mechanisms which occur during the excavation of a rock bench by explosives
(references 1 to 7). The first mechanism is as follows; immediately after the explosive column has
detonated, the explosion imposes a very rapid expansion of the volume of the borehole, as shown in
figure 1(a). This brutal expansion ceases after a few microseconds, because of the elastic resistance of
the roc. But nevertheless, it has created a shock wave of great intensity in compression, which crosses
the rock mass at a velocity Cr of about 5,000 m/sec.

Figure 1: Blast mechanisms

This wave being in compression, it causes little damage because rock is very resistant to compression.
However, on arrival at the free face, the incident wave is reflected in tension (see figure 1(b)); it then
travels back through the rock mass, and as the rock is less strong in tension, it creates in it a large
number of small primary cracks which weaken the rock mass. Nevertheless, even if the weakening of
the rock explained above is necessary, it does not give the good final fragmentation size distribution
which is desired; the latter is supplied by a second mechanism, as will next be explained. The reflected
tension wave has weakened the rock mass, so that the explosion gases whose pressure is still enormous
are now allowed to resume their expansion, imposing to the rock a second type of fragmentation action.
This second fragmentation does not occur at the same time everywhere in the rock mass; rather, as
shown in figure 1(c), it is produced by the gradual progression toward the free face of a front of semi-
static stress SS, behind which the rock is fully fragmented, and ahead of which it is only weakened by
the primary cracks. It is this stress field SS which fully fragments the rock, the latter being already
weakened by the shock wave. The full fragmentation occurs at the fragmentation front, as shown in

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 2 of 10
figure 1(c), there where the slope of the curve of the field SS is greatest. On the other hand, as the front
SS progresses from the borehole towards the free face, the intensity of the stress field SS reduces in
value. However, in order to fully fragment the rock, it is necessary that the value of the stress SS must
exceed the minimum value of stress SSo necessary to fully fragment the rock mass. Thus, in order that
the action of the explosive insures full fragmentation of all the rock between the borehole and the free
face, it is necessary that the intensity of the stress SS must exceed the required minimum stress SSo
everywhere during the passage of the fragmentation front between the borehole and the face. Figure 2
shows an example of the good final fragmentation size distribution achieved from a blast for which the
stress SS exceeds the minimum stress required SSo everywhere during the passage of the fragmentation
front between the borehole and the free face. The value SSo of the minimum stress required to fully
fragment the rock which has already been weakened by the shock wave varies from one rock type to
another (reference 5).

Figure 2: Fragmentation Size Distribution, SS>SSo=0.97 kbar everywhere in the rock mass
As can be seen from figure 2 (reference 9), the values of D20, D50 and D80 are excellent, namely: D80=
19.43cm (7.65"), D50=9.08 cm (3.57"), D20=3.54 cm (1.39"). For the rock in figure 2 the value of the
minimum stress required to fully fragment the rock is SSo=0.97 kbar.

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 3 of 10
Above, the definition of D80 is that 80% of the rock fragments are of dimension less than the value of
D80 in cm, and 20% of the fragments are of dimension greater than the value D80, etc. for D50 and
D20. Not all blasters use the terms D80 etc. regularly; however all blasters recognize that a blast is
excellent if 80% of the fragments are smaller than 19.43 cm (7.65"). On the other hand, if the properties
of another rock were such that the value SSo of the minimum stress required to fully fragment the rock
already weakened by the shock wave be larger than the value SSo=0.97 kbar of the rock in figure 2,
while the blaster uses the same low powder factor 0.69 kg/m3 as in figure 2 (see Annex A), possibly
because he relies on the presence of natural fissures in the rock mass in order to obtain what he
considers as ‘free fragmentation’, then the fragmentation size distribution can be poorer than that in
figure 2 above. The following section presents examples of such a situation.

Examples of results of a blast for which the blaster sometimes relies on the natural
fissures to obtain ‘free fragmentation’
In the examples below, the authors realize that for those blasters who are not familiar with the concepts
of D80, D50 and D20 to describe the fragmentation size distribution of the fragmented rock, it may
require some effort on their part to follow the discussion. However, the conclusions are clear, namely
that the fragmentation size distribution can be poor if in another rock stronger than that of figure 2 he
uses the same low powder factor 0.69 kg/m3 (see Table A), even when the properties of this stronger
rock are such that the minimum stress required to fully fragment the rock already weakened by the
shock wave has the value SSo= 1.153 kbar greater than the lower value SSo=0.97 kbar of the rock in
figure 2, so that for a part of the rock mass of this stronger other rock the explosive does not impose to
this part of the rock values of stress SS greater than the minimum value SSo=1.153 kbar required to
fully fragment this stronger other rock, and hence for that part of the rock mass of this stronger other
rock which is not subjected to a stress level SS greater than the minimum stress SSo=1.153 kbar
required, the fragmentation size distribution is that of the natural fissures. Hence it is felt that even if a
blaster is not fully at ease with the details of the discussions below, the article does achieve its purpose
of showing to blasters and owners of quarries that it is not really advantageous to use weak blasting,
because it raises the crusher costs. On the other hand, those responsible for the crushers in a quarry are
familiar with D80, D50 and D20, so that the values of D80, D50 and D20 resulting from the primary
blasting are important to them. An aim of the article is to encourage blasters to get more familiar with
D80, D50 and D20, which they can do by reading reference 9. An aim of the ISEE is to broaden blasters
knowledge.
The details will next be explained of examples of blasts for which a part of the rock mass of a strong
rock having a minimum stress required to fully fragment the rock of value SSo=1.153 kbar is not
subjected to a stress level SS greater than this minimum stress SSo=1.153 kbar, so that the
fragmentation size distribution in that part of the rock mass remains simply according to that of the
natural fissures. In figure 3 the burden B=3.048 m (10') (see Annex A).
Figure 3 shows a situation for which the fragmentation front (see figure 1(c) and reference 5) of stress
value SS greater than the minimum required stress SSo=1.153 kbar has progressed from the region of
the borehole to a point 1.83 m (6') toward the free face, where the intensity SS has diminished to the
value SSo=1.153 kbar. Hence for the rest of its progression toward the free face, that is for the region
between 1.83 m (6') from the borehole till the face at a further distance of 3.038m-1.83m=1.22 m (4'),
the stress SS of the fragmentation front is less than the minimum stress value SSo needed to fully
fragment the rock. Hence in this region of extent 1.22 m (4'), the rock is not fully fragmented by the
action of the semi-static stress field SS created by the explosives in the rock mass. So in this 1.22 m (4')

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 4 of 10
region the rock mass remains only fragmented
according to its natural fissures, creating large
blocks which will simply be pushed into the
muck pile in front of the fully fragmented rock
coming from the 1.83 m (6') nearest to the
borehole, there where the stress SS does exceed
the minimum value SSo=1.153 kbar required.
For this example 1, figure 3 shows that the space
between the natural fissures is 1.22 m (4'), so that
the size of the blocks coming from the 1.22 m (4')
region near the free face will be 1.22 m (4'). This
choice of space between the fissures has been
chosen for the article entirely arbitrarily, and it is
used merely in order to explain the effect on the
fragmentation size distribution of a region which
has natural fissures and in which the blast does
not impose a stress intensity SS greater than the
minimum stress SSo required to fully fragment
the rock. In practice, the spaces between fissures
can have any value and can vary; in such other
cases, the analysis for the effect on the
fragmentation size distribution can be calculated Figure 3: Bench with some natural fissures
in the same manner as for the arbitrary case chosen in figure 3. Figure 4, left hand diagram, shows the
fragmentation size distribution curve for the structure of the natural fissures of the 1.22 m (4') rock mass
between 1.83 m (6') from the borehole and the free face at B=3.048 m (10').

Figure 4: Fragmentation Size Distribution in regions of fissures

As all the fragments in that region between 1.83 m (6') from the borehole and the free face at B=3.048 m
(10') are of dimension 1.22 m (4'), the curve in figure 4 is simply one point with 100 % on the vertical
scale, and 1.22 m (4') on the horizontal scale; for this curve D100= 122 cm (48"), that is 100 % of the
fragments are of dimension 122 cm (48") and 0 % of the fragments are of dimension other than 122 cm

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 5 of 10
(48"). On the other hand, figure 5 shows the fragmentation size distribution curve for the full
fragmentation imposed to the rock by the action of the stress field SS solely in the 1.83 m (6') region
between the borehole and 1.83 m (6') from the borehole, that is in the region where the stress SS does
exceed the minimum stress value SSo=1.153 kbar of the rock. The calculations in figure 5 is made with
a simulator called Zone, which gives the fragmentation size distribution solely in the zone from the
borehole to 1.83 m from the borehole, even as the burden is still 3.05 m, as described in reference 9.

There may of course be natural fissures as well in that region from the borehole to 1.83 m from the
borehole, but the level of accuracy sought in the calculations of figure 5 can reasonably neglect their
effect on the stress field SS, assuming that the fissures are not largely open. The two fragmentation size
distribution curves, namely that of figure 4 left hand diagram, and that of figure 5, can be combined,
since the first is known to represent 40 % of the rock mass and the second is known to represent 60 % of
the rock mass, so that to get the curve for 100 % of the rock mass one needs only to get the total % of
rock having a given fragmentation size, due to 40 % of the rock obeying the curve of figure 4 left hand
diagram, and 60 % obeying that of figure 5.

Figure 5: Fragmentation Size Distribution, stress SS>SSo=1.153 kbar from 0 m to 1.83 m (6')
The resulting combined fragmentation size distribution is shown in figure 6, in which for example the
fragment size 9.6 cm (3.78") in figure 6 must now be at 50 x 6 / 10 = 30 %, since figure 6 is for the full
3.048 m (10') rock mass rather than for 50 % of the 1.83 m (6') rock mass as in figure 5.

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 6 of 10
 Figure 6: Combined Fragmentation Size Distribution, 0 to 3.048 m (10')
As another sample calculation, the maximum 61 cm (24") size fragment at 100 % in figure 5 must now
be at 100 x 6 / 10 = 60 % in figure 6. Proceeding in the same manner, all the points in figure 5 become
the points in figure 6 up to size 61 cm (24") (noting that the horizontal scale is a log scale). As there are
no fragment sizes from 61 cm (24") to 122 cm (48"), hence the curve in figure 6 is flat in that region. At
size 122 cm (48"), the curve rises to 100 %. Reading at 50 % from the log horizontal scale in figure 6
gives that this combined fragmentation size distribution curve has D50=18 cm (7.09"), and at 80 % has
D80=122 cm (48"). From the curve of figure 6 one can see that the fragmentation size distribution sent
to the crusher for the entire 3.048 m (10') rock mass between the borehole and the face is very
inadequate. One can carry out a similar analysis for other natural fissure spacing, e. g. 0.61 m (2')
spacing instead of 1.22 m (4') spacing between 1.83 m (6') and 3.048 m (10'), or 1.22 m (4') for half of
the height of the bench and 0.61 m (2') for the other half of the height of the bench.

 
Figure 7: Combined Fragmentation Size Distribution, 1.22 m (4') and 0.61 m (2') fragments

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 7 of 10
In this latter case, the right hand diagram of figure 4 shows the fragmentation size distribution curve for
the structure of the natural fissures, while figure 7 shows the combined fragmentation size distribution
when the right hand diagram of figure 4 and the curve of figure 5 are combined.
In most cases the fragmentation size distribution curve corresponding to those in figures 6 and 7 are
inadequate for the rock going to the crusher. In some extreme spacing cases, it is even possible that the
loader might not be able to efficiently muck the large blocks, possibly requiring costly secondary
blasting. On the other hand, figure 8 shows the fragmentation size distribution curve if the blaster had
used more explosives, for example by using a 15.24 cm (6") borehole instead of a 11.43 cm (4.5")
borehole, the other blast parameters remaining the same.

Figure 8: Fragmentation Size Distribution stress SS>SSo=1.153 kbar hole diameter=15.24 cm (6")
It is evident from figure 8 that in this case the fragmentation size distribution of the rock going to the
crusher is excellent, with D80=10.69 cm (4.2").
Conclusions
In many quarries and construction sites visited by the authors over the last 50 years, the latter have
observed muck piles from blasting with explosives which included numerous large blocks, in some
cases of dimensions larger than the input to the crusher, or even than the input to the loader. The names
of these sites cannot be given in the article because the owners insist that data obtained on such visits be
kept confidential. Often the blasters asked the authors to explain why such blocks were present. A

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 8 of 10
detailed analysis of the situation often indicated that the cause of the blocks is that explained by figures
such as 6 and 7 above in the article. When unit costs are included in the analysis (see an example in
Annex B), so as to evaluate the final unit crusher costs combining the primary blasting and the crusher
action, usually this combined unit crusher cost is higher when the blaster used low powder factor
blasting, whose use he explained was because he relied on the presence of natural fissures. In some
cases, the blaster said that his use of low powder factors was due to pressure from the owner who wished
to lower explosive costs by profiting from ‘free fragmentation’. The analysis in figures 6 and 7 is
tedious, but its conclusion is simple, namely that blasts are best designed without relying on natural
fissures to obtain so-called ‘free fragmentation’. A purpose of the article is to answer blasters’ questions
as to why low powder factor can give large blocks even when the rock has natural fissures, as well as to
supply blasters with a rigorous proof that can help them to resist the insistence of those owners who
wish to lower explosive costs.

It is pertinent that the reliable simulator for the fragmentation size distribution presented in reference 9
allows a specialist in blasting to carry out an analysis such as that for figures 6 and 7. This simulator
took 20 years to be created, and it opens interesting vistas for a growing blast design technology that
combines blasting and crushing. Progress in blast design technology is part of the ISEE objectives.
Annex A Blast parameters used in the study
Bench height H, Collar C, Subgrade drilling 12.2m (40ft), 3m (10ft), 1.5m (5ft)
Pattern B x S 3m x 3.7m (10ft x 12ft)
Diameter D 11.4cm or 15.2cm (4.5inch or 6 inch)
Explosive Anfo
Rock Young modulus 500 kbars
Rock Poisson ratio 0.29
Rock density 2.8 gm/cc
Rock resistance to shock wave 190 u. bl.
Rock stress resistance SS0 1.153 kb (except 0.97 kb in fig2)

Appendix B Rough estimate of savings from using more explosives:

This short appendix seeks to estimate roughly the savings possible from the use of more explosives. It
uses data from the authors’ files of site visits. Such data has been supplied by excavation sites whose
owners insist on confidentiality. Hence in this appendix exact data is not presented; rather the
calculations use plausible data compatible with site data. The purpose of the calculations is to help
readers understand how the analysis in the present article can assist to decide if the use of more
explosive is advantageous or not. The comparison is between the blasting methods of figures 6 and 8,
taking into account the differences in explosive costs and crusher costs. Crusher costs depend on what
rock fragments for which the owner has customers, or has use for them in a subsequent chemical
process. Hence a particular analysis must be made for each site.

In the example, it is assumed that the blasting and crushing must produce broken rock of size 6.7 cm or
less, to be sent to the next process. Thus for the method of figure 6, the primary blasting will supply
20% of the 135 m3 of rock blasted by each borehole, i. e. 0.20 x 135 = 27 m3, of broken rock of size 6.7
cm or less to be sent to the next process; for the method of figure 8, the primary blasting will supply
62% of the 135 m3 of rock blasted by each borehole, i. e. 0.62 x 135 = 84 m3 of broken rock of size 6.7
cm or less to be sent to the next process. Thus blasting by the method of figure 8 versus by the method
of figure 6 will reduce the crushing to be done by the crusher by 84 – 27 = 57 m3. Accurate unit

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 9 of 10
crushing costs are difficult to obtain; however, if an owner needs a great deal of broken rock of size 6.7
cm or less, the writer has encountered owners who will evaluate all the crusher costs related to crushing
to size 6,7 cm or less. The results are confidential, but a value of 2.00 $/m3 is plausible. Thus if the
owner blasts by the method of figure 8 rather than that of figure 6 he saves in crushing costs 57 m3 x
$2.00 = $114.00 for the rock from one borehole.

However, if the owner blasts by the method of figure 8 instead of that of figure 6, then his explosive
costs increase as follows. He uses 166 kg of Anfo per hole instead of 93 kg since the hole diameter
increases from 11.4 cm to 15.2 cm. Thus he uses 166 – 93 = 73 additional kg of Anfo, for which
$0.90/kg is plausible, so an increase in explosive costs of 73 kg x 0.90 = $ 65.70 per hole.
As the hole diameter has increased from the method of figure 6 to that of figure 8, there will be some
increase in bit costs. However, the blast of figure 8 moves the fragmented rock better than that of figure
6, which will reduce the mucking costs. For a simple sample calculation, let it be assumed that the
increase in drilling costs and the decrease in mucking costs cancel.
Hence the crushing costs decrease by $114, while the explosive costs increase by $65.70, showing that
for this case it is advantageous to use more explosive. Owners who allow the authors to visit their sites
insist that the data remain confidential. The authors must respect this constraint, since such visits are
essential to their research. Using their confidential data, an owner or his blaster and crusher operator
can carry out an analysis like that above to evaluate the effect of using more explosive, especially since
the required reliable simulators are available on the web.

Reference
1. R. Favreau, ‘Generation of strain waves in rock by an explosion in a spherical cavity`, Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 17, 1969.
2. T. C. Atchison, W. E. Tournay,`Comparative studies of explosives in granite`, U. S. Bur.Mines
Rept. Invest,. 5509, 1959.
3. W, I. Duvall, `Strain wave shapesin rock near explosions, geophysics, 18, 310, 1953.
4. J. A. Sharpe,`The production of elastic waves by explosion pressure`, Geophysics,
7(2),144,1942.
5. R. Favreau, P. Favreau,`L’effet de la geologie et des proprietes mecaniques du roc sur les
resultants d’un sautage`, Laval University, Quebec, Canada, November 2017.
6. R. F. Favreau, P. Favreau,`How to design a blast with computer simulations`, CIMM
2000,Toronto, March 2000.
7. R. Favreau, P. Favreau, `Designing blasts by simulations rather than solely by trial and error`,
ISEE, February 2013.
8. R. Favreau, P. Favreau, `Blast studies using computer simulations on the model ‘Blaspa’ via the
Web`, Laval University, October 2004.
9. R. Favreau, P. Favreau, February 2012, ‘Evaluation of the fragmentation size distribution
resulting from blasting as derived from basic principles’, ISEE, Nashville, Page 7 figure 3.
10. H. Kolski,`Stress waves in solids`, Oxford, 1953.
11. P. R. Michaud, J. Y. Blanchet, `Establishing a quantive relationship between post blast
fragmewntation and mine productivity`, Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Montreal, Canada, August 1996.
12. M. A. Cook, `The Science of High Explosives`, Reinhold, New York.
13. R. F. Favreau, `L’effet d’une faille sub-horizontalesur les resultats d’un sautage de banc`, Laval
University, November 2000.

Copyright © 2018 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2018G - Low Powder Factor Blasting to Take Advantage of Natural Rock Fissures is Uneconomical 10 of 10