3bhandari 006947794

Studies in rock fragmentation in blasting
Author:
Bhandari, Sushil
Publication Date:
1975
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/5350
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/
Link to license to see what you are allowed to do with this resource.
Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/57051 in https://

repository.unsworks.unsw.edu.au on 2022-03-23
STUDIES ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION
IN
BLASTING
by
SUSHIL BHANDARI
A Thesis Submitted to The University of New South Wales,
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
OCTOBER,1975
UNIVERSITY GF N.SX j
i
71649 24. MAY 73

LIBRARY
i
ABSTRACT
An investigation into the fragmentation of rocks by explosives was

carried out. In the investigation the effects of burden and spacing
on fragmentation were studied to utilise explosive energy efficiently
and thus obtain better fragmentation (smaller average size), to some
extent without any increase in energy input. Experimental studies
were carried out on a small scale, utilising long cylindrical explosive
charges in single hole or in multi holes in blocks of rock or rock-like
materials. The block geometries represented typical mine or quarry
bench blasting. The processes involved in fracture and fragmentation
of rock were studied and the effect of quasi-static gaseous pressure
in hole(s) was analysed by the finite element method. The results
of the study were also applied to production blasting in an under
ground mine and in a quarry.
From the tests using single hole on homogeneous materials it was

observed that the optimum fragmentation burden, for obtaining
better fragmentation was smaller than optimum breakage burden, (BQb),
for obtaining maximum mass only. This conclusion was arrived at by
considering mass, average fragment size, new surface area and size
distribution of fragments obtained from various tests. From multi-
hole tests it was shown that for the optimum breakage burden (BQb),
spacings larger than twice the burden were not satisfactory. With
optimum fragmentation burden, (BQ^)S better fragmentation was obtained
and spacing to burden ratio greater than two could be used. Single
hole tests were carried out on granite blocks in which joints were
introduced. Jointed rock produced undesirable overbreak and also
resulted in a smaller fragment size than rocks without joints.
- ii
A study of the fragmented particles and cracks suggested that, at

burdens smaller than the optimum breakage burden (B^), both stress
wave and gas energies were much more efficiently used. It was shown
that by eliminating or reducing either of these energies, the
fragmentation obtained was poorer (i.e. larger average fragment size).
It was also concluded that the increased role of the stress waves aided
the process of fragmentation by the quasi-static gas energy - the
dominant energy involved in the blasting process.
The finite element analysis was used to predict the crack directions
and to determine the extents of breakages. A strain-energy-density
criterion was adopted to predict the limits of breakages in tests.
Evidence was obtained from the experimental studies to show that the
crack directions were along stress trajectories and could be predicted
by the analytical studies.
Changes in blasting patterns were carried out in a quarry and in an

underground lead-zinc mine. Extensive tests in stoping over a period
of one year showed considerable improvements in fragmentation. To
better utilise both the stress wave and gas energies, procedures
for systematic modifications of conventional patterns or designing of
new patterns were suggested.
- iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT 1
ACKNOWLEDGEI^NTS vi
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES xvi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. BLAST DESIGN PARAMETERS 4
2.1 FRAGMENTATION 4
2.2 THE BURDEN 8
2.3 SPACING 12
2.4 STEMMING 15
2.5 SUBDRILLING 16
2.6 HOLE DEPTH 16
2.7 HOLE DIAMETER 17
2.8 CURRENT PRACTICES IN OPEN PIT MINES 18
3. THE PROCESS OF FRAGMENTATION 20

3.1 THE PROCESS OF DETONATION OF AN
EXPLOSIVE CHARGE IN A HOLE 20
3.2 PHENOMENA OCCURRING AROUND THE HOLE 22
3.3 STRESS WAVE GENERATION AND PROPAGATION 25
3.4 EXPLOSIVE ENERGY PARTITION AND

UTILISATION 26
3.4.1 Stress Wave Reflection and the

Scabbing Effect 28
3.4.2 The Role of Quasi-static Gas

Pressure 30
3.5 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF REFLECTED STRESS

WAVES AND QUASI-STATIC GAS PRESSURE 42
3.6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR FIELD PRACTICE 43

- iv -
PAGE
4. EXPERIENTAL STUDIES 47
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS 47
4.2 SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON HOMOGENEOUS MATERIALS 64
4.2.1 Single Hole Tests on Cement-

Mortar Blocks 64
4.2.2 Single Hole Tests on Granite

Blocks 66
4.3 MULTIHOLE TESTS ON CEMENT-MORTAR BLOCKS 66
4.4 SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON "JOINTED" GRANITE

BLOCKS 69
4.5 ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 73
4.5.1 Single Hole Tests on Cement-

Mortar Blocks 73
4.5.2 Single Hole Tests on Granite

Blocks 81
4.5.3 Multihole Tests on Cement-

Mortar Blocks 83
4.5.4 Tests on "Jointed" Granite

Blocks 93
4.6 DISCUSSIONS
4.6.1 Efficient Utilisation of Explosive

Energy 95
4.6.2 The Importance of Stress Waves

and Scabbing in Fragmentation 97
4.6.3 The Role of Gas Energy 104
4.6.4 The Relative Roles of Stress

Waves and Gas Energies 112
4.6.5 The Burden and Spacing Relationships 115
4.6.6 Effect of "Joint" 120
5. ANALYTICAL STUDIES BY THE FINITE ELEMENT FETHOD 123

5.1 THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 123
5.2 MODELLING THE ROCK MASS IN THE CHARGE

DIAMETER PLANE 126
V
PAGE
5.3 ANALYTICAL MODELS OF BURDEN VARIATIONS 130
5.4 DISCUSSIONS 146
5.4.1 Crack Directions 146
5.4.2 Extent of Fracture 151
6. APPLICATIONS IN PRODUCTIONBLASTING 153

6.1 APPLICATION IN CUT AND FILL STOPING 154
6.1.1 Conventional Drilling and Blasting

Method 155
6.1.2 Experimental Blasting Patterns 157
6.1.3 Evaluation of Results 162
6.2 APPLICATION IN SHRINKAGE STOPING 165
6.3 APPLICATION IN A QUARRY 166
6.4 IMPLICATIONS IN PRODUCTION BLASTING 171
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECQfENDATIONS 175

7.1 SIGNIFICANT RESULTS OBTAINED FROM STUDY 176
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 181
REFERENCES 183
APPENDIX I CURRENT BLASTING PRACTICES IN OPEN
PIT MINES A-i
APPENDIX II SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FRAGMENTS

AND BLOCKS AFTERTESTS a-3
ACKNOW I FDGFMFNTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation to the many persons and
organisations who contributed to the completion of this study. In
particular, special thanks are due to the following:
- Professor S. Budavari, Mr. V.S. Vutukuri and Dr. A.K. Bhattacharya,
thesis supervisors, for their most helpful criticism, guidance and
continued assistance throughout the course of the study;
- Professors J.E. Andersen, L.J.E. Thomas and J.P. Morgan for their
encouragement, beneficial suggestions and personal support;
- The University of New South Wales for providing financial support
and facilities;
- I.C.I. Australia Limited (Nobel Group), for providing necessary
explosives;
- Mr. L. Cowen of Readymix Concrete, Broken Hill for supply of specially
mixed cement-mortar and for quarry experiments;
- The North Broken Hill Limited, for making available facilities
for underground production scale experiments;
- Mr. K.J. Murray, for his personal and professional assistance in
the experimental, photographic and computational work;
- Messrs. B. Hebblewhite and R. Van Proctor for the aid in the
execution of the finite element programme *

- vi i
- Messrs. R.J. Ellice, J.D. Eyers, G.H. Jeffrey, B.F. Olds, J.
Vaughan, S. Varma, K.R. Vost, B.P. Watson and Dr. R.J. Stening
and many others who provided assistance of one form or the other;
- Mrs. L.R. Tweedie for her painstaking typing.
A final special acknowledgement is given to my wife, Sudha and my
parents Mrs. and Professor R.M. Bhandari, for their unfading
encouragement and patient understanding throughout the entire length
of time devoted to study. It seems just that this thesis be dedicated
to my family and to Australia-India friendship.

- viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1. Typical costs of mining operations and 2
optimum blasting definition.
1.2. Effect on total costs, of improved 2

fragmentation, without increase in
drilling and blasting costs.
2.1. Terminology used for bench blasting. 5
2.2. Characteristics of long cylindrical charge 11
craters breaking to bench geometry.
3.1. Fragmentation zones around an explosion 23
in rock (after Atchison, 1968).
3.2. Geometric relationships around a pressurised 33
hole in a semi-infinite plate.
4.1. Casting of cement-mortar blocks. 50
4.2. Geometries of various blocks, (a) Single 51
hole cement-mortar, (b) Multihole cement-
mortar. (c) Single hole granite, (d) Single
hole granite with joint. All dimensions are
in mm.
4.3. Two protective chambers, detonating cord, 56
detonators and fuse head used in experiments.
(1) Chamber for single hole tests. (2)
Chamber for multi hole tests. (3) Detonating
cord. (4) No. 6 electric detonator. (5)
Mild initiating detonator. (6) Fuse head.
4.4. A single hole test in cement-mortar block 58
with detonating cord in the hole and a No.
6 electric detonator taped to the protruding
cord.
4.5. A test in cement-mortar block with 60
detonating cords in two holes and a No. 6
electric detonator taped to two cords coupled
together.
4.6. Plate attached to the bench face for wave- 61
trapping experiment, (a) cement-mortar
(b) granite.
4.7. Variation of measured mass, M; average 75

fragment size, FS; fragmentation gradient,
G; and new surface, NS, created for single
hole tests in cement-mortar blocks (hole
diameter =4.8 mm).
ix -
Figure Page
4.8 Variation of measured mass, M; average 75

G; and new surface, NS; created for single
diameter =6.4 mm).

diameter = 7.9 mm).

hole wave trapping tests in cement-mortar
blocks (hole diameter =6.4 mm).
4.11 Sized fragments for single hole cement- 78

mortar tests for 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45
and 50 mm burdens placed in vertical rows
(hole diameter =4.8 mm). Particles
arranged in vertical rows for small to
the largest in the sizes, -3.33, +3.33,
+6.35, +12.7, +25.4, +38.1, +50.8 and
+63.5 mm.
4.12 Variation of measured mass of fragmented 79

material for single hole tests in cement-
mortar blocks (hole diameter = 4.8, 6.4
and 7.9 mm and wave trapping tests).
4.13 Variation of mass-surface of fragmented 79

material for single hole tests in cement-
mortar blocks (hole diameter = 4.8, 6.4
and 7.9 mm and wave trapping tests).
4.14 Variation in width of breakage for different 82

burdens from single hole tests on cement-
mortar blocks (hole diameter =4.8 mm).
Numbers on each block indicate burden in cm.
4.15 Variation in mass of rock produced for 84

multi hole tests in cement-mortar blocks.
4.16 Variation in average fragment size of 85

particles for multi hole tests in cement-
mortar blocks.
4.17 Variation in fragmentation gradient for 86

various tests at different burdens and
spacings in two or three simultaneously
fired holes in cement-mortar blocks.
X
Figure Page
4.18 Variation in new surface area created for 87

multi hole tests in cement-mortar blocks.
4.19 Variation in mass surface for various 88

tests at different burdens and spacings
in two or three simultaneously fired holes
in cement-mortar blocks.
4.20 Sized fragments placed in vertical rows for 89

tests with 20, 30 and 40 mm burdens (B)
with 60 and 90 mm spacings (S) in tests
with three simultaneously fired holes in
cement-mortar blocks. Particles arranged
in vertical rows for small to the largest
sizes, -3.33, +3.33, +6.35, +12.7, +25.4,
+38.1, +50.8 and +63.5 mm.
4.21 Sized fragments placed in vertical rows for 90

tests with 30 mm burden (B) and various
spacings (S) with three simultaneously
fired holes in cement-mortar blocks.
Particles arranged in vertical rows for
small to the largest sizes are, -3.33,
+3.33, +6.35, +12.7, +25.4 and +38.1 mm.
First two columns also show fragments from
second row of two holes.
4.22 Variation in average fragment size for 92

multi hole tests in cement-mortar blocks
at various spacing and burden ratios.
4.23 Two views of a fragment obtained in a 98

granite test shows two fracture mechanisms
in (a) direct tension resulting from the
scabbing action, in (b) heckle marks
indicating crack initiating and propagation
from the hole.
4.24 Two fragments shown in (a) obtained from 99

tests without and with wave trapping
experiments. Enlarged view in (b) of
area opposite the holes shows presence of
scabbing crack parallel to bench face in
test without wave trapping. In wave
trapping test scabbing crack is absent (c).
4.25 Large fragments from single hole tests in 100

cement-mortar blocks, (a) Shows a
scabbing crack parallel to the bench
face (arrow mark), (b) shows such crack
absent in wave trapping test.
- xi -
Figure Page
4.26 Variation of average fragment size for 102
single hole tests in cement-mortar blocks
with various hole diameters (4.8, 6.4 and
7.9 mm) and wave trapping tests.
4.27 Variation of fragmentation gradient for 102
single hole tests in cement-mortar blocks
with various hole diameters (4.8, 6.4 and
7.9 mm) and wave trapping tests.
4.28 Sized fragments, from single hole cement- 103
mortar (a) wave trapping tests for burdens,
WB = 20, 25, 30 and 35 mm, and (b) without
wave trapping tests for burdens, B = 20,
25, and 30 mm, placed in vertical rows.
Particles arranged in vertical rows for
small to the largest in the sizes, -3.33,
+3.33, +6.35, +12.7, +25.4, +38.1, +50.8
and +63.5 mm.
4.29 Cracks shown in various single hole tests 107
where critical burdens were experienced.
4.30 Reassembled particles from single-hole 108
tests in cement-mortar blocks.
4.31 Reassembled fragments from (a) 35 mm and 109
(b) 40 mm burden tests in granite blocks.
4.32 Reassembled fragments from 20, 30 and 50 mm 110
burden tests with low explosives. Numbers
on blocks indicate burden in mm.
4.33 Reassembled fragments (a) from test with 117
three holes at 40 mm burden and 120 mm
spacing. Enlarged views on either side
of middle hole shown in (b) and (c).
(d) Another view of particle between two
holes.
4.34 Reassembled fragments (a & b) from 118
Experiment No. 78 in which two holes were
simultaneously fired at 55 mm burden and
165 mm spacing. In (c) enlarged view
between two holes is shown.
4.35 (a) Fragments between the bench and the 121
slot as obtained from test with "joint"
in granite block.
(b) Reassembled fragments.
5.1 Mesh used for the finite element analysis. 128

Line of axi-symmetry lies on 0-Y.
xii -
Figure Page
5.2 Stress trajectories plotted for a burden 132

of 20 mm, with single hole (P = 1 GPa).





5.8 Stress trajectories plotted for 20 mm 138

burden and 100 mm spacing with multi hole
(P = 1 GPa).

burden and 100 mm spacing with multi hole
(P = 1 GPa).

burden and 100 mm spacing, with multi holes
(P = 1 GPa).

(P = 1 GPa).
5.12 Stress trajectories plotted for 60 mm burden 142

and 100 mm spacing, with multi holes
(P = 10 GPa).

(P = 10 GPa).

(P = 1 GPa).

(P = 1 GPa).
5.16 Strain-energy-density contours for 40 mm 147

burden with single hole.
6.1 Conventional blasting pattern used in 156

horizontal cut-and-fill stoping used in the
North Mine.
xiii -
Figure Page
6.2 Pattern A used by SSI Party. 156
6.3 Pattern B used by SSI Party. 159
6.4 Pattern C used by SS2 Party. 159
6.5 Pattern D used by SS3 Party. 161
6.6 Pattern E used by SS3 Party. 161
6.7 Pattern F used by ST5 Party 163
6.8 Pattern G used by ST7 Party. 163
6.9 Pattern used in extraction of sill pillar. 167
6.10 Pattern used in the quarry blasting. 169
6.11 Fragmentation results obtained from 170

blasting in quarry.
A.l Size distribution curves for a range of A-15

burdens (B), where BQb = optimum breakage
burden, X = particle size, Y = percentage
passing size, X, for single hole tests
in cement-mortar blocks (hole diameter =
4.8 mm).
A.2 Size distribution curves for a range of A-16

burdens (B), where B ^ = optimum breakage
passing size, X, for single hole tests in
cement-mortar blocks (hole diameter =6.4 mm).
A.3 Size distribution curves for a range of burdens A-17

(B), where B ^ = optimum breakage burden,
X = particle size, Y = percentage passing
size, X, for single hole tests in cement-
mortar blocks (hole diameter = 7.9 mm).

passing size, X for single hole wave trapping
tests in cement-mortar blocks (hole diameter
=6.4 mm).
- xi v -
Figure Page

burdens (B), where BQb = optimum breakage
passing size, X for single hole low explosives
tests in cement-mortar blocks.

passing size, X for single hole tests and
wave trapping tests in granite blocks
(hole diameter = 7.9 mm).

burdens (B) and spacings (S) where B ^ =
optimum breakage burden, X = particle size,
Y = percentage passing size, X for tests
with two simultaneously fired holes in
cement-mortar blocks.
A.8 Size distribution curves for tests with A-22

two burdens (B) and different filler
materials in slots in granite blocks,
where B ^ = optimum breakage burden, X =
particle size, Y = percentage passing size,
X (hole diameter = 7.9 mm).
A.9 Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 1 to A-23

7), after breakage from single hole tests
(hole diameter = 4.8 mm).
A.10 Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 11 A-24

to 16), after breakage from single hole
tests (hole diameter =6.4 mm).
A.11 Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 22 A-25

to 26), after breakage from single hole
tests (hole diameter = 7.9 mm).
A.12 Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 31 to A-26

35), after breakage from single hole tests
with wave trapping.
A.13 Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. LI, A-27

L3 and L4), after breakage from single
hole tests with low explosives.
A.14 Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 43, A-28

47, 53, 63, 55, and 65) after breakage
from single hole miscellaneous tests.
- xv
Figure Page
A.15 Granite blocks (Experiment Nos. Gl, G7, A-29

G8, G2, G3 and G4), after breakage from
single hole tests (hole diameter = 6.4
and 7.9 mm).

73, 75, 91, 92, 78), after breakage from
two hole tests.

102, 111, 112, 121 and 122), after breakage
from three holes tests.

115, 123, 104, 118 and 124), after breakage
from three holes tests and second row of two
holes tests.
A. 19 Granite blocks (Experiment Nos. J3, J4, J5, A-33

J6, J11 and J12), after breakage in jointed
granite blocks.
- xvi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Page
4.1 Properties of the Cement-Mortar 52
4.2 Properties of Granite 53
4.3 Effect of Burden Variation on Blasting 65
Results in Cement-Mortar Blocks
Results in Cement-Mortar Blocks
Results in Granite Blocks
4.6 Effect on Blasting Results of Burden and 70
Spacing Variation with Two Holes
Spacing Variation with Three Holes
Spacing Variation with Miscellaneous Multi hole
Tests
4.9 Blasting Results of Single Hole Tests on 74
Jointed Granite Blocks
6.1 Comparative Performances of SSI and SS3 164
Parties Before and After Adopting Modified
Patterns
A1 Size Analysis of Fragmented Particles from A-4
Single Hole Tests on Homogeneous Material
A2 Size Analysis of Fragmented Particles for A-5
Single Hole Tests on Cement-Mortar Blocks
Single Hole Tests on Granite Blocks
Multihole Tests on Cement-Mortar Blocks
A5 Analysis of Fragmented Particles for A-10
Multihole Tests on Cement-Mortar Blocks
Single Hole Tests on "Jointed" Granite Blocks
A7 Constants for Generalised Equation (A5) for A-34

Fragmentation Size Distribution of each
Experiment
- 1 -
1, INTRODUCTION
During the past decade the increased importance of fragmentation in
rock blasting has been realised. It is often suggested that the mine
operator should endeavour to obtain an optimum degree of fragmentation.
This is said to be achieved when the primary blasting produces a degree
of fragmentation which minimises the combined cost of drilling, blasting,
loading, hauling and crushing. Such blasting is termed "optimum
blasting".
This definition of optimum blasting is based on the concept that
increased energy expenditure is required in drilling and blasting to
obtain better fragmentation. Thus the cost of drilling and blasting is
increased, but better fragmentation lowers the cost of loading, hauling
crushing and milling (Fig. 1.1). However, if the utilisation of the
imparted explosive energy (which at present is low) can be increased, then
to some extent better fragmentation can be obtained without any additional
drilling and blasting cost, thus lowering the overall cost of a mining
operation (Fig. 1.2).
Estimates of energy requirements in the rock comminution process
indicate that a very small percentage of the total energy generated in
a blast is expended in creating new surfaces. In view of the tremendous
energies released by explosive detonations (of the order of 3 million
joules per kilogram) even a small increase in the utilisation of
explosive energy will contribute to a significant improvement in
fragmentation. There are a number of routes along which more efficient
utilisation of explosive energy can be sought. Two of them are: (i)
to obtain information about fragmentation and blast design relationships
by empirical approach from experiments in the laboratory and in field

- 2 -
OPTIMUM BLASTING
TOTAL COSTS
-DRILLING+BLASTING
UNIT
CRUSHING+MIL LING
sL LOADING +HAULING
FRAGMENTATION ->-
MAXIMUM SIZE OF ROCK
Figure 1.1. Typical costs of mining operations and

optimum blasting definition.
UNIT COST
TOTAL COSTS
-DRILLING+BLASTING
-CRUSHING+MILLING
_LOADING +HAULING
FRAGMENTATION
<- MAXIMUM SIZE OF ROCK
Figure 1.2. Effect on total costs, of improved

fragmentation, without increase in
drilling and blasting costs.
- 3 -
blasting, (ii) to better understand the process of fragmentation and to
devise means to increase the explosive energy utilisation.
The investigation presented in this thesis was undertaken by adopting
both the above routes with the aim of obtaining better fragmentation
by increased utilisation of explosive energy. The study was confined
to understanding the burden and spacing parameters as related to
fragmentation. In this regard guidance was provided by the recently
developed Wide Spacing Technique. Experimental work was carried out on
a small scale in rock or in material similar to rocks. A study of
blasting on a small scale provided only qualitative results with respect
to production scale blasts. The results obtained were used in

production blasting also.
The process of fragmentation was studied as it applied to bench blasting.

The investigation was not designed to develop a new blasting theory, but
rather to shed some new light on the roles of the stress wave and the
explosive gas pressure in breaking rock during blasting.
- 4 -
2. BLAST DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameters important in the design of multihole blasting patterns are:
the burden B, spacing S, stemming R, subdrilling J, charge length L,
bench height H and hole diameter d (Fig. 2.1).
Some other parameters required to be decided for blast design are: number
of holes, number of rows, size of blast, priming of holes, delay interval
and sequence, etc. These aspects have not been discussed here. Parameters
like stemming, subdrilling, hole depth and hole diameter have been
discussed briefly to assist in the understanding of the investigation under
taken. In the literature, factors important for fragmentation in blasting
are also grouped as - explosive parameters, charge loading parameters and
rock parameters. However, in this section attention has been mainly
confined to the burden and spacing determination as related to fragmentation.
2.1 FRAGMENTATION
Fragmentation concerns the size or size distribution of the rock obtained
after blasting. It is rather difficult to define fragmentation, since
there is no generally accepted way of measuring fragmentation. In many
cases reference is made to the average size of the resulting pieces of
broken rock and sometimes fragmentation refers to the largest pieces
resulting from a blast. A study of the fragmented mass of rock after
blasting, with photographs taken during different phases of its handling
provide the possibility of determining fragmentation graphically (Anderson,
1970). However, Brady (1971) found this to be unreliable. Noren and
Porter (1974) have developed this method further and suggest it to be
reliable. Langefors et. al. (1965) used the number of the largest
boulders (also called pops) per blast to give a relative measure of
fragmentation. In production blasting most often the number of boulders

- 5 -
li ROW i RO W
HI ROW O O
B * BURDEN H - BENCH HEIGHT

S - SPACING R * STEMMING
J * SUBDRILLING L * CHARGE LENGTH
d = HOLE DIAMETER
HOLES IN III ROW STAGGERED WITH RESPECT TO HOLES IN I

AND II ROWS
Figure 2.1. Terminology used for bench blasting

- 6 -
per unit mass of rock is considered as an index of fragmentation. Shovel
loading and crusher performances are also used as indicators of
fragmentation.
During recent years, the increased importance of fragmentation obtained
in primary blasting has been realised. MacKenzie (1966) suggested
"optimum blasting" as obtaining the proper degree of fragmentation to achieve
the lowest combined cost of drilling, blasting, loading, hauling and
crushing. Bauer (1972) showed in addition that production could be
increased from a given combination of shovels and trucks if suitable
fragmentation was obtained. With poor fragmentation even additional
loading and hauling units could not increase the production. However, the
actual size range of optimum fragmentation will depend upon the individual
requirements of any mining operation.
Many studies in relation to the variation of fragmentation have been
carried out. On a production scale, the actual size distribution is
difficult to determine and few studies have been reported. Dick et. al.
(1973) and Ash (1973) studied fragmentation on a reduced scale by
separating fragments in various size ranges. Lovely (1973) studied fragment
size analysis from a single hole. Other attempts included measuring
fragmentation in terms of 80 percent passing certain size (Bond and Whitney,
1959; Djingheuzian and Twidale, 1959). The same concept has been utilised
by Da Gama (1970a and b) in laboratory blasting where all particles could
be collected. Just and Henderson (1971) and Henderson (1971) attempted
to derive a fragmentation law from laboratory blasting. Just (1973)
related size distribution equations to blasting design parameters.
Sirotyuk (1970) measured size distribution produced in development
headings and related it to size distribution equations for comminution.
Porter (1974) utilised fragmentation to rate explosive performance and

- 7 -
used the term "Fragmentation Index".
These different approaches to describe fragmentation could be useful
in the determination or variation of the explosive energy input(e.g.
charge size) and other blast parameters. These approaches are also
useful in obtaining a quantitative measure of fragment size distribution.
However, most investigators seem to have overlooked the aspect of
fragmentation studies by which a given explosive energy can be better
utilised. It appears that methods similar to that in rock comminution
studies in mineral processing can be adopted to study energy-fragment size
relationship in blasting (Bond, 1952; Charles, 1957; Schuhmann, 1960).
In particle size distribution studies, it is known that the surface per
unit mass of particles is inversely proportional to the diameter of particle
(Dallavale, 1948). Therefore, the smaller the fragment size, the larger
the surface area. However, according to the present understanding of
optimum blasting the mass of broken rock also should be large. Therefore, $n
efficient blast should produce enough mass and large amount of new surface.
In this study the term "better fragmentation" has been used in the sense
of smaller average size with uniform fragmentation. Poor fragmentation
refers to the case when boulders requiring secondary blasting are large
in proportion.
In the conventional methods of blast design the burden is first selected
or determined and thereafter the spacing and other parameters are decided.
In general, for the selected or determined burden, the explosive charge
needed is calculated by applying scaling laws or available formulae. If
operators find difficulty in obtaining proper fragmentation then either
the burden alone is reduced or alternatively better fragmentation is

- 8 -
obtained by using stronger explosives with higher density and/or
detonation velocity, or the number of holes are increased or the burden
and spacing are reduced by using smaller hole diameter. Often, the
methods involve additional cost and frequently desired success can not be
achieved. On the other hand literature on blasting is abundant with the
claims that mere re-arrangement of the blasting pattern resulted in
better fragmentation. Most often, these methods are based on trial and
error. A systematic procedure to modify blasting patterns is lacking.
This suggests that such modifications of blasting patterns may lead to
considerable reduction of the total cost of drilling, blasting, loading,
hauling, crushing and to some extent milling. If such a procedure was
available then no additional energy expenditure will be needed to improve
fragmentation.
2.2 THE BURDEN
This is the most crucial parameter in the design of blasts. The burden
B, (Fig. 2.1), is the distance from a charge axis to the nearest free
face at the time the charge detonates. There are many relationships
available for obtaining the approximate value of the burden for various
explosive and rock combinations. Most relationships utilise either charge
volume, charge weight or hole diameter as the basic parameter, with the
burden being a function of the cube-root or square-root of the
independent variable. The cube root law is stated as:
B = K.Q1/3 (2.1)
where B is the burden (ft or m), Q is the charge weight (lb or kg) and
K is an empirical factor characteristic of the explosive and rock properties.
Ash (1968) derived relationships with charge volume or charge diameter
as the basic variable in the cube-root law.

- 9 -
Many modifications have been introduced but the basic cube-root law is
the most commonly employed formula. Amongst the modifications are those
for taking into account either the characteristics of the explosive or the
strength of the rock (Pearse, 1955; Allsman, 1960; Speath, 1960). For
example, Pearse developed the formula,
B maxv = K.d.P/T
s
where Bmax is the critical radius (maximum burden) in inches, K is a
constant based on rock characteristics, d is the cartridge diameter (or
hole diameter with proper confinement by tamping and stemming) in inches,
?s is the borehole pressure in psi and T is the ultimate tensile strength
for rock in psi. The difficulty in applying such relationships lies with
the selection of appropriate values for the properties of the explosives
and the rocks.
Livingston (1956) used crater testing with a constant weight of explosive
charge to experimentally determine the burden and the charge size
relationship. A modification by Grant (1964) utilised a constant volume
of explosive charge. In the original method, Livingston utilised the
cube-root law to derive the relationship as:
N = E.W1/3 (2.2)
In this expression, N was called the "critical depth" (critical burden)
at which rock failure just began, E was a constant termed the strain
energy factor and W was the charge weight. The first step in establishing
the characteristics of any explosive-rock combination was to ascertain E
by means of field blasting with charge weights kept constant. Since
charges placed at maximum N did not develop full craters the burden
was reduced to some distance B ^ at which the optimum crater volume

10 -
was obtained, where BQb was the distance from the centre of gravity of
the charge to the free face. The ratio of BQb to N was called the optimum
depth ratio, A , and the final expression was thus modified to the following:
A0.E.W 1/3 (2.3)
Langefors (1959) independently derived a formula relating the charge
weight Q to the burden B. The final expression for approximation was:
Q = 0.07 B2 + 0.4 B3
where the charge weight Q was in kilogram and the burden B was in metre.
Andersen (1952) and Ash (1963) offered simplified relationships between

the burden, B and diameter, d on the basis of prevalent practices. Ash
gave a formula to determine burden B in ft,
where d was in inches and k was a variable constant with an average value
of approximately 30.
Ash (1968), however, concluded that the various approaches toward determining
the appropriate burden for any given rock-explosive combination in most
instances gave approximately the same result.
Many of the relationships cited were based on experimental methods using
spherical charges breaking to one free face as in cratering. However,

there is little similarity between the cratering geometry and bench
geometry with the latter using a long cylindrical charge breaking to

two free faces. Figure 2.2. shows bench blasting with one and two holes.
11
B = BURDEN
S = SPACING
H = BENCH HEIGHT
N = SOCKET
Wf + W 4 W„ + W, + Wr
1 2 i 4 5
AVERAGE WIDTH
5
SECTION VIEW 4* ^ BREAK ANGLE
Figure 2.2. Characteristics of long cylindrical charge craters

breaking to bench geometry
Bench blasting is inherently more efficient than crater blasting because
the explosive energy is more widely distributed and a greater area of free
face is available. This has been demonstrated by small scale tests in
methyl methacrylate (perspex or plexiglass) where similar charges gave
ten times the volume in bench blasting as compared to that in a crater
blast geometry (Persson et. al., 1970). Therefore, it is essential
that the experimental methods for determining optimum burden dimension
should use long cylindrical charges breaking to two free faces.
A significant deficiency of the described methods of determining the burden

and blast parameters is in that only the volume or weight of broken
material was considered. In view of the importance of fragmentation, it
is essential that the fragmentation aspects also be considered in the
basic design of blasts.
2.3 SPACING
Spacing is usually considered in conjunction with the burden as another

very important parameter in blasting. The spacing, S (Fig. 2.1), is
defined as the distance between any two adjacent charges in the same row.
Often the spacing is selected according to the empirical relationships with
the burden. The spacing is usually selected according to a widely held
concept that because the break angle (Fig. 2.2) made by the charge to the
bench face is near 90°, spacings larger than twice the burden are not
possible (Gregory, 1973). Over the decades, in most mining operations,
spacing to burden ratios used have been between one and two (Nordberg, 1953;
Ash, 1963; Pugliese, 1972). From field tests with spherical charges
breaking to crater geometry, many workers suggested a ratio of between
one and two (Hino, 1959; Nordyke, 1961; Bauer, 1961; Teller et. al.,
1968). Langefors and Kihistrom (1963) suggested that the spacing be
13 -
kept to about 1.3 x Burden. Gregory (1973) stated that whenever operators
try to increase the spacing to more than twice the burden, they run into
problems of incomplete breakage between the holes and problems of poor
fragmentation. These views have generally been acceptable to most
operators (Fraenkel, 1957; Speath, 1960; Ash, 1961; Kochanowsky, 1961;
Ash and Pearse, 1962; Lewis and Clark, 1964). Recently, Dick et. al.
(1973) investigated the effect of spacing on fragmentation by tests on
a scale of about one-fifth to one-tenth in size of a production blast
in a limestone quarry. It was concluded that a smaller spacing to burden
ratio of one gave better fragmentation and cleaner breakage between the
holes than a larger ratio of 1.5.
In contrast to the conventional spacing to burden ratio ranging from
one to two, Langefors et. al. (1965) demonstrated from laboratory model
tests that ratios exceeding three for simultaneously fired charges in a
single row gave better fragmentation. This was achieved by reducing the
conventional burden. For model tests using multiple rows of charges
in which all charges in the same row were fired together, but rows of
holes were delayed relative to one another, Langefors et. al. also
reported good fragmentation where ratios up to as large as eight were
used. The model tests were made in 2.54 mm thick acrylic resin (lucite
or plexiglass) plates. The usefulness of these laboratory tests has
been proved in production blasting (Lambooy and Espley-Jones, 1970;
Lang and Favreau, 1972; Kihistrom, 1973; Brown, 1973; Johansson and
Persson, 1974; Johnston, 1973; Mikkelborg, 1974). These applications
were mostly in open pit mines and the ratios used varied for different
operations. Underground applications of Langefors' technique have been
few (Lindgren and Travis, 1971) and details are not available. The
- 14 -
method suggested by Langefors et. al. (1965) is known as the (Swedish)
Wide Spacing Technique. Satisfactory explanations of the success of
the method are not available.
Ash et. al. (1969) investigated the variable character of spacing by
means of models made from blocks of mortar, acrylic resin or dolomite
rock. The explosive charges used were a 2.0 g/m PETN core load of 1.2
mm diameter confined in holes on the side of the block. The burdens
used were from 6.4 mm to 19.5 mm. No consideration was given to the
size distribution or the mass of fragmented particles. Only two
burdens were used, in mortar and plexiglass models. From these tests
it was concluded that larger spacing could be used because of enhance
ment of "wave" energy in simultaneously blasted holes. However, this
conclusions is not acceptable because when the conventional burdens
(50 to 100 times the charge diameter) are used large spacingsare not
suitable. Ash et. al. also concluded that charge lengths were affecting
the spacing. However, in those tests since the same charge density
per unit length was maintained the charge amounts increased for longer
holes. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether the effect was due to
length or to increased charge.
In a more recent investigation, which was an extension of work by Dick
et. al. (1973), Ash (1973) concluded that the coarsest or blocky frag
mentation resulted whenever charges were closely spaced, fired together
and oriented in a line parallel to the most dominant jointing direction.
Bergmann et. al. (1974) used long cylindrical charges in granite blocks
and found better fragmentation for a spacing to burden ratio of two than
for a ratio of one. These investigators found no evidence of enhance-

15 -
ment of energy by simultaneous blasting and found that delayed blasting
between rows gave better fragmentation.
Thus it can be said that at present there is considerable interest in
determining the optimum spacing to burden ratios. So far no satisfactory
evidence has been presented to explain why the Wide Spacing Technique
is more successful, why different operators use different ratios of
spacing to burden and why the conventional burdens do not allow ratios
larger than two to one. If such an explanation were available it might
be possible to correct deficiencies in the blast design by applying a
principle similar to the Wide Spacing Technique.
2.4 STEMMING
The primary function of stemming, R (Fig. 2.1) is to confine the gases
produced by the explosive until they have had adequate time to fracture
and move the ground. The amount of unloaded collar required for
stemming is generally from one-half to two-thirds of the burden
dimension. This length of stemming usually maintains sufficient control
over the production of objectionable air-blast and fly-rock from the
collar zone (Ash, 1963). The effect of stemming materials has been
investigated earlier (Fogelson et. al., 1965). In underground mines in
some mining fields the availability of cheap ANFO blasting agents has led
to the complete filling of a hole with ANFO and no stemming being used.
In this case it is thought that gases have a self-confining effect and
the undetonated ANFO acts as stemming.

16 ~
2.5 SUBDRILLING
To avoid leaving a hump, bootleg or toe in bench blasting, the
blast holes are drilled below the floor (grade) level. The actual
amount of subdrilling (also called subgrade, below grade or under
drilling) depends on the burden dimension, direction of the blast-
hole relative to the open faces, and the geological structural
conditions present at the bottom. If a pronounced discontinuity,
or parting, is located at grade level, often no subdrilling is
required. Unless such a condition exists subdrilling, J (Fig. 2.1),
should be at least one-third of the value of burden, B, when the
free faces are normal to one another at the floor (Ash and Pearse,
1962; Ash, 1963; Langefors and Kihlstrom, 1963; Gustafsson, 1973)
Similar principles apply to the sockets left in underground blasting
These also appear when the burden is too large and to avoid sockets
overdrilling is often practiced to get a complete pull. White et,
al. (1975) have used sockets left from the blast as an indicator of
efficiency in stope blasting.
2.6 HOLE DEPTH
Usually the hole depth is equal to the bench height plus subdrilling
and in general, it is more than the burden dimension. In inclined
drilling the total hole length is always more than the bench hieght.
In field practice, blast holes are drilled to a depth of up to ten

17
times the burden dimension and blasting is performed most frequently
with a depth/burden ratio of 2.6 (Ash, 1963). The hole should be
sufficiently deep, because if it is too short, blasting results would
be violent and would produce overbreak. If it is too long, it would
create displacement problems leaving toes or bootlegs.
2.7 HOLE DIAMETER
The hole diameter is dependent upon so many variables that its
selection becomes a difficult problem. Some of the factors to be
considered in the determination of the hole diameter are: the
desired degree of fragmentation, the size of operation, the bench
height, the type of explosive used and the rock characteristics
(Dick and Olson, 1972). Langefors and Kihlstrom (1963) suggested
that the diameter should be between 0.5 to 1.25 percent of the
bench height.
As long as poor fragmentation does not create problems for the mine
operator, generally the larger the blast hole the more economical
drilling and blasting become. KOchanowsky (1962) showed that larger
diameter holes could be drilled with only a small increase in the
cost of drilling per metre of holes, and larger holes could be put
further apart. Hence larger holes can produce more cubic metres of
rock per metre of holes, resulting in a decrease in the drilling
cost per tonne of rock. The larger diameter holes are favourable
from the point of view of explosives performance. However, larger

- 18 ^
diameter holes are not always practicable because of fragmentation
or ground vibration problems. Over the years hole diameters used
have increased, allowing larger burdens and spacings to be used.
It is possible that some part of the explosive energy which could
be useful with smaller burdens is not effective when large burdens
are used.
Another important effect on blasting is that of structural discontin
uities like jointing, which also needs to be determined and is
discussed in Section 3.
2.8 CURRENT BLASTING PRACTICES IN OPEN PIT MINES
An analysis of current blasting practices in open pit mines was
carried out to find whether the relationships described in previous
sections were still used or not. The analysis considered five
blast parameters - hole diameter, burden, spacing, subgrade and
bench height - used in open pit mines of North America, Europe,
Africa and Australia. The details and results of the analysis are
given in Appendix I. The analysis used surveys of open pit mining
which were published in the late 1960s, except the data for
Canadian mines (Dubnie, 1964; Janelid, 1968; Michael son and Hammes?
1968; Pfleider and Weaton, 1968; Wimpfer and Severinghaus, 1968;
Aspinall, 1968). The results of analysis showed that the empirical
relations mentioned earlier were still applied. Recent updated
figures (Pfleider and Weaton, 1973; Michaelson and Buckley, 1973;
Anon, 1973) show that very little change had taken place in the
blasting practices. The significance of the use of similar relations

- 19 -
between blast parameters over the decades lies in that, in spite
of so many changes in blasting technology and fragmentation
requirements, the methods of blast parameter determination have
remained unchanged.
- 20 -
3, THE PROCESS OF FRAGMENTATION
In this section the present understanding of the process of frag
mentation by blasting is described. Attention has been mainly given
to those aspects which are relevant to most of the fragmentation in
blasting, i.e. the process taking place between the hole and the free
face.
Other aspects such as the process of detonation of an explosive charge
in a hole, the phenomena occurring around the hole, and the stress
wave generation and propagation, are briefly described in order to
better understand the subsequent phenomena.
3.1 THE PROCESS OF DETONATION OF AN EXPLOSIVE CHARGE IN A HOLE
A number of reports and monographs are available which deal with the
science of the explosive reaction and detonation processes. This
section describes in brief the process of detonation of an explosive
charge (Johansson and Persson, 1970).
When an explosive charge detonates in a hole, the detonation wave
propagates along the axis of the hole with a velocity of 2000 to 7000
m/s, or more normally between 4000 and 6000 m/s. For a hole filled with
high velocity explosive, the pressure at the front of the detonation
wave is between 0.5 and 50 GPa or more normally about 20 GPa. The
pressure on the wall is a complicated function of the position of
the initiation point and the geometry of the charge and is initially
dependent upon the transient gas motion associated with the process of
detonation. These transient over-pressures decay quickly (within about

- 21 -
2 microseconds for a 10 g charge) and a reasonable starting point for

an approximate calculation is, therefore, the pressure the gas would
have after detonation in an undeformable chamber. This equilibrium
gas pressure for nitroglycerine is 10 GPa and the temperature is
between 3000° and 4000°C.
If the hole is packed full of the explosive, a pressure of only about

half the front pressure will initially act on the hole wall due to
the acceleration of the wall. If the charge does not fill out the hole,
the gas will expand radially and upon reaching the wall will exert a
much smaller pressure. In either case the pressure will propagate out
from the hole into the rock as a shock wave with a conical front coaxial
with the hole. As a consequence of the simultaneous axial and radial
expansion of the reaction products, the wall pressure will decrease at
a rate even higher than that determined by the radial expansion of the
front.
Sadwin and Junk (1965) have shown that an explosive can be characterised
by two pressures:
(i) the detonation pressure, which is the dynamic pressure associated
with the detonation wave,
(ii) the explosion pressure, which is the pressure developed when the
explosive reacts to give the gaseous products.
Sadwin and Junk (1965) have shown that the pressure generated in water
by a cylindrical charge, when the detonation wave travels normal to
the axis, is higher from the end of the charge than the side of the
charge. The end of the charge is parallel to the detonation wave and
- 22 -
should experience the detonation pressure. The lateral pressure is
about half the end pressure and can be identified with the explosion
pressure. Ash (1973) is of the opinion that the detonation pressure is
applied only momentarily, is directed primarily along the axis of the
hole and it has negligible influence on the ability of the explosive to
break rock during typical blasting operations. Ash emphasised that only
the quasi-static explosion pressure has real significance during field

blasting.
3.2 PHENOMENA OCCURRING AROUND THE HOLE
In recent years this aspect has received considerable attention and is
understood sufficiently well as a result of work by Kutter (1967),

Persson et. al. (1970), Ito et. al. (1970). Reference here is made to
the review presented by Atchison (1968) who categorised the regions
around the explosion in terms of the phenomena that occur (Fig. 3.1).
This illustration represents a spherically symmetric picture of an
explosion with a spherical charge, or a section perpendicular to the

axis of a cylindrical charge, The rock medium is considered to be
infinite in extent so that the effects of free boundaries are not included.
There are three major divisions: (i) the explosion cavity, where the
originating process is hydrodynamic and is associated with the detonation
of the charge, (ii) the transition zone, where the pressure or stress is
rapidly reduced by processes that may include shock waves, plastic flow,
crushing, and cracking, and (iii) the seismic zone, where the stress is
low and (if free boundaries are not encountered) no fragmentation occurs.
Cratering and other studies have shown that a zone of intensely crushed
and shattered rock is often formed immediately around the charge

- 23 -
EXPLOSION
CRACKE] CAVITY —■
ZONE TRANSITION
fcZONE v ~
CRUSHED^
ZONE ///
SEISMIC
ZONE
Figure 3.1. Fragmentation zones around an explosion

in rock (after Atchison, 1968).
- 24 -
(Atchison and Tournay, 1959; Nicholls and Hooker, 1962; Atchison
and Pugliese, 1964; Olson et. al., 1973). It has been generally
reported that surrounding the crushed zone, a cracked zone is observed
which starts out with intense radial and circumferential cracks but
soon becomes a region of more widely spaced radial cracks. The
radius of this zone, already referred to as the transition zone
produced by charges, was estimated, from the studies of the strain
pulse shapes, to be about 15 times the radius of the charge (Atchison
et. al., 1964). Kutter (1967) and Kutter and Fairhurst (1971)
studied the fracture phenomena which occur in the immediate vicinity
of a charge by separate simulations of the effects of the emitted
stress wave and of the expanding pressurised gas. It was shown that
the fracture pattern generated by waves consists of a dense, radially
fractured zone, immediately around the cavity, followed by a ring of
wider spaced radial cracks. It was demonstrated that, for a given
borehole size, increasing the explosive charge beyond an optimum
amount does not increase the cracked zone but results only in additional
crushing around the cavity. Other aspects of the transition zone have
also been investigated and reported by many investigators (Short, 1961;
Langefors and Kihlstrom, 1963; Ito and Sassa, 1968; Chernyi and
Mikhalyuk, 1969; Persson et. al., 1970; Brost, 1971; Condon and
D'Andrea, 1972; Siskind and Fumanti, 1974). Persson et. al. (1970)
indicated that radial cracks first appeared due to tangential or hoop
stresses becoming tensional at a distance of three to four hole radii
from the centre. It was also postulated that in the absence of a free
face, a small number of cracks became very much longer than the others.
This number was shown to be around five. It was suggested that the
radial cracks around the hole, created by transient stress would grow
- 25 -
under the influence of a quasi-static stress field caused by the gas
pressure in the hole.
3.3 STRESS WAVE GENERATION AND PROPAGATION
The detonation of an explosive charge gives rise to a detonation wave
within the charge which, upon arrival at the charge-solid interface,
imparts a sudden and extremely violent impact on to the solid interface.
As a consequence of this violent impact a compressional disturbance
travels outward into the previously undisturbed solid medium. If the
velocity of propagation is greater than the longitudinal (i.e. "acoustic")
velocity ir> the medium, then it is known as a shock wave. It is
suggested that only near the hole would the wave travel at shock
velocity (Aso, 1966). For the major part of its travel in the seismic
zone it has the longitudinal wave velocity. Though in the literature
it is often referred to as a shock wave, hereafter it will be referred
to as the stress wave, for the above reason.
Study of the stress wave generation has been carried out for many
years under the impetus of problems of damage from underground and
surface blasts, of exploration seismology and of detecting nuclear
explosions. Theoretical studies of stress wave propagation have been
carried out by assuming a reasonable pressure input to the unfractured
zone for long cylindrical charges (Sharpe, 1942; Obert and Duvall,
1950; Plewman and Starfield, 1965). Extensive measurements of wave
propagation in the seismic zone near the explosion (20 to 500 charge
radii) have been made by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and others (Obert
and Duvall, 1950; Duvall, 1953; Nicholls and Duvall, 1966).

- 26 -
3.4 EXPLOSIVE ENERGY PARTITION AND UTILISATION
When an explosive charge is detonated in a hole, its energy is released
in a very small fraction of a second in the form of gas at an extremely
high pressure and temperature. Atchison (1968) estimated that energy
of the order of 3 million joules per kilogram is released. Atchison
also makes a very important observation about the expenditure of
energy in blasting:
11___The processes occurring in the transition zone for a completely
confined explosion consume a major part of the energy released by the
detonating explosive. This continues to be true when the free
boundaries are present at normal blasting distances, as the energy
consuming processes are largely completed before the presence of the
boundaries can be communicated to the transition zone. It follows
that a major part of the fragmentation at a free face is accomplished
with a minor part of the explosive energy___
The amount of energy from an explosion in rock that enters the seismic
zone as stress wave energy has been calculated in a number of ways,
using both theoretical considerations and experimental data (Howell
and Budenstein, 1955; Fogelson et. al., 1959; O'Brien, 1960; Berg
and Cook, 1960). Results range from a few per cent of explosive energy
to almost 20 per cent. Fogelson et. al. (1959) report wave energies
of the order of 10 to 18 per cent of the total energy released for
their tests in granite. For a similar investigation with four explosive
types in salt, Nicholls and Hooker (1962) give values of 1.8 to 3.9%
of the total energy release. Langefors and Kihistrom (1963) suggest,

- 27 -
as the wave energy is distributed all around a charge, that in a
single hole blast at least two thirds of it will disappear without
affecting breakage.
The remaining fraction of blast energy is lost through escape of gases,
in the form of heat and as residual energy in explosion products.
Hagan (1973) could account for not more than 15% of the blast energy as
doing useful work, i.e. fragmenting and displacing the rock.
The estimates of energy requirements in rock comminution processes
indicate that a very small percentage, about 0.01% according to
Cheatham (1968) and about 0.03% according to Cook and Joughin (1970),
of the total energy generated in the blast is expended in creating
new surfaces. Khanukayev (1974) estimates that 0.25 to 2.0% of
explosive energy is consumed in fragmentation.
In view of such low percentage of energy consumed in the actual
fragmentation, a better understanding of the processes involved in
fragmentation may lead to a significant improvement in the efficiency
of using explosive energy in blasting.
A number of ways have been suggested by which the explosive energy
accomplishes the task of fragmentation. The main processes considered
to be involved are (i) by reflection of stress waves and the resultant
scabbing effect, (ii) by quasi-static gas pressure, and (iii) by both
reflected waves and gas pressure.

- 28 -
3.4.1 Stress Wave Reflection and the Scabbing Effect
Information about stress waves produced by explosives together with
concurrent studies of stress wave propagation in plastics (Kolsky,
1953), metals (Rinehart and Pearson, 1954) and rock cores (Hino,
1956) led to the recognition of stress wave reflection and breakage
by it as one process contributing to fracture at the free face. At
one stage, a few investigators felt it to be the predominant means
of fragmentation (Hino, 1956; Duvall and Atchison, 1957). It was
shown from field experiments that full craters could be produced by
a scabbing mechanism without the presence of any explosion gases in
the crater zone.
Reflection scabbing, also called tensile slabbing or spalling, may be
defined as the spalling of brittle materials from a free face of a
solid body by stress waves reflected within the body from the surface.
The physics of wave reflection is well understood (Duvall and Atchison,
1957; Rinehart, 1960; Lewis and Clark, 1964; Atchison, 1968;
Saluja, 1968). For waves of normal incidence, compressive waves are
reflected from a free surface (solid-air) as tensile waves. As soon
as the reflected tensile (stress) portion of the wave exceeds the
oncoming compressive wave by an amount equal to the fracture strength of
the material a scab will be formed. The number of scabs formed depends
upon the magnitude and shape of the wave. Rinehart (1960) Has given
several formulae for various wave shapes and the effects of the wave
front on the free bodies of various geometric cross-sections.

- 29 -
Objections to the Role of Reflected Stress Waves
Many workers consider that the role of reflected stress waves in
blasting is not important since the reflected stress waves, for the
conventional burdens used in field blasting (50 to 100 times the charge
radii), become too weak to cause any breakage (Noren, 1956; Langefors
and Kihistrom, 1963; Persson et. al., 1970; Porter, 1971; Harries,
1973; Bergmann et. al., 1973). Persson et. al. (1970), for example,
state that the small charges used in most bench blasting, such as 0.5
3
to 1 kg/m in granite, do not cause scabbing fractures. For stress
waves to be able to cause scabbing fractures it is suggested that the

3
charge should be much larger - for example 5 kg/m or more in granite.
Evidences from high speed photography and other methods have shown
that the period between detonation of the explosive charge and the
beginning of the movement of the bench face is between three and ten
times that taken for a stress wave to pass from the hole to the free
face and back (Wright et. al., 1953; Noren, 1956; Turuta et. al.,
1966; DuPont Research, 1971; Bergmann et. al., 1974). This
indicates that breakage is not due to stress wave reflection.
The role of stress waves has been studied either by eliminating them
by the use of wave-traps (Starfield, 1967a; Da Gama, 1970a) or by the
use of low explosives (Saluja, 1963 and Clark and Saluja, 1964). From
these tests, it was shown that rock could be fractured in the absence
of stress waves. However, Da Gama also concluded that the fragmentation
size was larger when stress waves were eliminated. These conclusions
suggest that stress waves are not essential but when they are present
they reduce fragment size. Thus it would appear that the energies
from both the sources, that is from gases and stress waves, participate
- 30 -
in fragmentation. However, recent investigators are of the opinion
that stress waves play a minor role in blasting mainly in creating radial
cracks in the transition zone (Langefors and Kihlstrom 1963; Persson
et. al., 1970; Porter, 1971; Harries, 1973; Ash, 1973; Ouchterlony,
1974). Some of them suggest that the radial cracks will grow as the
gases enter these cracks and influence the quasi-static stress field
caused by gas pressure. Others suggest that even in the absence of
penetration, cracks will grow if favourable conditions exist, and this
is the major cause of fragmentation. Brost (1971) has presented
evidence from dynamic photoelastic observations that the gas penetration
was limited to a small distance from the hole and that the cracks can
extend under the influence of the stress field generated by gas action
alone, without the penetration of gases into cracks.
3.4.2 The Role of Quasi-static Gas Pressure
Until the stress wave reflection and scabbing theory (also referred
to as the shock wave theory) was introduced, the breakage of rock by
explosives was considered to be mainly due to the gaseous products
at high pressure pushing the rock from the explosive chamber to a
free surface (see Saluja, 1963). During recent years again a number
of research workers suggest that the major part of work is carried out
by gases and indicate specific details of the mechanism.
Livingston (1956) developed formulae for the determination of the
critical depth, the optimum depth, the crater volume and the optimum
explosive weight for spherical charges. He also suggested that
blasting involved failure: from at least three sources, the shock, the
- 31
shear and the viscous damping. Recently, he has again proposed a
similar type of breakage process (Livingston, 1973). While the
formulae proposed have been useful in the design of blasts (Bauer
et. al.,1965), the suggested breakage process is complicated and has
not gained much acceptance.
According to Langefors and Kihistrom (1963), rock fragmentation results
from three distinct mechanisms: radial fracturing, scabbing and gas
pressure effects. The scabbing, however, is considered to be of
secondary importance in a blast, being exceeded by the influence of
gas pressure. It is suggested that the role of gas pressure is to
expand the radial cracks and to cause yielding of the free rock
surface by a semi-stationary process in which the stress pattern at any
moment decides the continuation of cracks. Langefors and Kihistrom do
not give any specific or quantitative details. More recent work concerning
the manner in which gas energy accomplishes the task of fragmentation is
given below in details.
Pressurised hole near a free face
If a small hole in an infinite plane of homogeneous, isotropic material
is considered with a uniformly distributed pressure inside (as in one
with the gas pressure) then the principal stress pattern can be
calculated from the principles of elasticity. The case of a uniform normal
pressure acting on the walls of a hole near the straight boundary of a
semi-infinite plate was analysed by Jeffrey (1921). Figure 3.2
represents such a geometric construction. If r is the hole radius, B
is the perpendicular distance from the hole centre to the plate edge
(considered to be similar to the burden on a blasthole), and x is any
distance along the edge from the centreline A-Y, several useful
relationships can be obtained.
- 32 -
If P is the internal pressure in a hole and a positive sense for
the stress represents tension, then the tangential stress (a^) near
the plate edge can be expressed as follows:
0 2 , 2 d2
2 x + r - B
-4P (3.1)
f 2 2 , d2x2
(x - r + B )
The above relationship shows that the maximum tensile stress at the
plate edge is at x = 0. It will be noted that as x increases, the
tensile stress decreases and starts to become compressive at the point
where x = (B^ - r^Y2.
For the stress on the boundary of the hole the following equation
results:
= P (1 + 2 tan23) (3.2)
From Figure 3.2 it can be seen that the stresses at points E and F
are identical, and the point of maximum tangential stress is at the
point M, or at the tangent to the hole of a line from point A. When
6=0 the tangential stress in tension is equal to P, while the
maximum stress value at point M is:
d2 , 2
B + r
(3.3)
t max ~2 2
B - r
It can be observed that as 6 becomes smaller, or the burden B becomes
significantly greater than the hole radius r, which is the infinite
plate condition, the tension at point M will approach P in value.
Equation 3.3 also shows that when the hole radius r is constant and
the hole burden decreases, the maximum tension on the hole boundary
increases. It may be shown that when B = /3r this tension becomes

- 33 -
Figure 3,2. Geometric relationships around a pressurised

hole in a semi-infinite plate.
- 34 -
equal to the maximum tension on the straightedge (at x = 0). In

this instance the value of each is equal to 2P.
Based on this analysis a number of criteria have been proposed for

initiation and propagation of cracks. One of those is the energy-density
criterion which has been described in detail and has been utilised in
one part of the investigation described later.
Analytical studies often assume a quasi-static state for the fracture

process in rock blasting, which obviously is not sufficient to explain
the detailed course of events. But often it does provide the essential
information. Moreover, present knowledge restricts one to adopt a
qualitative or quasi-static way to study dynamic effect.
(a) Maximum Stress Theory
On the basis of the maximum stress theory Pifer and Ko (1967) explained
cratering as a zone of tensile failure on the basis of the above
solution and it was suggested that a transitional plane where the
tensile stress equalled the tensile strength of the rock determined
the boundaries of the crater. The shape of crater was shown to be
similar but the size was found to be smaller when compared with actual
experimental results. The application of these results to bench
blasting with long cylindrical charges has not been given and doubts
are expressed about the applicability of maximum stress theory (Clark
et. al., 1969).
(b) Crack Growth Determined by the Elastic-Energy-Density Level
Porter and Fairhurst (1971) and Porter (1971) investigated the growth
- 35 -
of cracks brought about by the gas pressure in a hole. The crack

growth was assumed to be determined by the elastic-energy-density level
present in the material at the tip of a crack trajectory.
It has been suggested that crack extension will occur as long as the
potential energy of the system decreases with the extension (Griffith,
1921). When applying the Griffith criterion for large-scale crack
propagation in blasting, the energy balance equation may be written
as:
W=V+U+S+K (3.4)
where, W is the potential energy of the system (rock and explosives

in the hole),
V is the potential energy of the compressed gases,
U is the strain energy of the rock mass,
S is the surface energy (or energy/Unit crack extension)
of the cracks, and
K is the kinetic energy of the rock.
On the basis of Equation 3.4 it has been suggested that the expected crack
length increases along with the increase in the potential energy of
the system. It is also suggested that the crack which produces the
most rapid drop in potential energy with crack extension will probably
be the one that propagates. It may be, however, that the crack
represented by the steepest slope of strain-energy-density does not
extend far before becoming stable (i.e. when W increases with further
crack extension), so that another crack will extend farther, perhaps
to the free surface. It is also suggested that the criterion for
instability is then:
- 36 -
6W 6(V + U + S + K) < 0 (3.5)

6C 6C
Based on this criterion of crack growth,a number of conclusions can be
drawn.
In plane stress, the strain-energy-density (energy per unit volume)
at a given location is given by:
(3.6)
where cr^ and a^ are principal stresses, v is Poisson's ratio and E
is the modulus of elasticity of the rock. As related to the simple
laboratory pull-type tensile test, the strain energy (U^) associated
with rock failure is defined in terms of the tensile strength of rock
(T) by:
(3.7)
Assuming to be the critical strain energy level above which the
crack will extend, then the criterion for propagation can be written as
(3.8)
and fracture propagation should continue as long as the strain energy
inequality is satisfied.
Although Equation 3.8 is valid for the general case, it is desirable
to display this equation in terms of the hole pressure P. As shown in
Equations 3.1 to 3.3, the stress at a given point is dependent upon
hole pressure P. The stress values and consequently the strain energy
density were computed with P as unity. Therefore, when Uc is the

- 37 -
computed strain energy density, Equation 3.8 can be written as:
2EU P‘ + a/ - 2 v a >. T (3.9)

c 1 3
which by rearrangement becomes
U (3.10)
c
Thus according to the strain-energy-density criterion, cracks would
be expected to grow anywhere within the boundary defined by the strain-
energy contours computed by Equation 3.9.
The direction of crack extension would be along a path requiring the
least amount of work. The path will follow one of a family of principal
stress trajectories, or isostatics. This view is well supported in
fracture studies (Yoffe, 1951; Erdogan and Sih, 1963; Cotterel1,
1965 a and b; Parisau, 1967; Porter, 1971, Porter and Fairhurst, 1971).
Erodogan and Sih, stated that the crack grows in a direction normal to
the maximum stress at the tip of the crack.
Porter used an iterative process to calculate the stress trajectories
or isostatics and showed from simulated hole pressure that,crack
directions coincide with one of the stress trajectories. Porter
utilised 300 mm square, 18.8 mm thick glass plates, with a 6.4 mm
diameter hole placed at distances of 31.6 mm from one plate edge in the
centre to show the validity of theoretical studies. Oil under pressure
was used to simulate gas pressure for the experimental work. Thus the
experimental evidence given is yet to be accepted as adequate. For
example, behaviours of rock and explosives are far different from the
materials chosen for simulation in the model. Further, if radial

- 38 -
cracks are shown to be the cause of fragmentation then pie-shaped
particles should abound in the fragmented mass. However, this is not
the case. Therefore, it is necessary to find out if there are any
additional processes taking place in fragmentation.
Although the analysis in the study was for the static case, the results
should also be valid for dynamic load conditions. In this respect
support was obtained from the work of Roberts and Wells (1954), who
indicated that the stress at the tip of a crack travelling at a steady
velocity was the same whether the loading was dynamic or static.
(c) Crack Growth Determined by the Energy Gradient
Ouchterlony (1974) applied fracture mechanics to explain the influence

of gas pressure on rock blasting. According to him the fragmentation
in rock blasting was mainly a result of crack growth. The principle

of crack growth to rocks was used by Bieniawski (1967) and Hardy et. al.
(1973), and others. The principles involved are similar to those
outlined by Griffith (1921). For a brittle material the critical value
is the rate at which the strain energy U, available at the crack tip,
can be released. The crack will grow if the strain energy production
exceeds the rate at which energy is consumed in the formation of new

fracture surfaces. In linear fracture mechanics notation the criterion
for crack growth can be written as:
dU > G
clef c C3.ll)
where a denotes the crack length, -^-denotes the strain energy release
rate and Gc denotes the fracture toughness of the material. Gc is an
extension of the Griffith's surface energy concept to include, for example,

- 39 -
plasticity effects. The reverse criterion is used to determine the
crack arrest from a system of propagating cracks. However, the arrest
value of Gc is usually somewhat lower than the initiation value.
Assumptions are made about the crack system which yields a material
in plane deformation. Hence the energy release rate may be expressed
as:
dU
(a) (3.12)
da
The material is described by its Young's modulus, E, and its Poisson's
ratio, v. The stress intensity factor, denoted by Kj, is thus a
measure of the energy flow into the crack tip at a potential extension
of the crack in its own plane. Its magnitude depends on the geometry
of the crack system and on the load. It is closely related to the
stresses and the displacements near the crack tip. The Equations
3.11 and 3.12 may be combined to define a critical value of the stress
intensity factor Kj. Ouchterlony (1974) argues that the difference
between the dynamic and the static stress intensity factor values is
so small that it is reasonable to draw conclusions from a static
study about the radial crack growth from a blasthole.
On the basis of above background, it is shown by Ouchterlony that the
radial cracks have an inherent tendency towards non-uniform growth.
Consequently, the growth of all but a few of the original cracks from
a blasthole is suppressed. Further applications of the principle
were made to the determination of the length of cracks and the
maximum burden in blasting. Thus the application of linear fracture
mechanics also gives results which are acceptable.

- 40 -
Further work is needed to accept which of these processes occur, and
if they can be combined to obtain a complete picture of the events
taking place.
(d) Strain Waves
Mosinets (1966) and Harries (1973) explain fragmentation phenomena on
the basis of strain waves. It is suggested that rock around the hole
is compressed by the radial compressive strain wave, thus the rock is
put into tension and if this is above the tensile breaking strain, the
rock will crack, so generating a radial crack. Harries suggests that
the strain wave can fracture rock by two mechanisms: (a) the radial
component can cause radial cracks near the blasthole, (b) the
tangential component can cause radial cracking to distances of
approximately half the burden distance.
The presence of radial cracks near the hole are well accepted (Repin
and Panachev, 1969; Kutter and Fairhurst, 1971; Olson et. al., 1973;
Siskind and Fumanti, 1974). However, the question is whether the
strain waves are capable of propagating radial cracks to long distances.
Harries (1973) uses examples of those investigators who carried out
studies in the absence of a free face. However, possibilities do
exist where such radial cracks can generate, especially when small
burdens are used.
(e) Release of Load Fracturing
Cook et. al. (1966) portray rock fragmentation in a blast as a
combination of several mechanisms. These are: (i) shear-wave
fracturing, which takes place in the crushed zone around the hole,
- 41 -
(ii) release-wave fracturing, which takes place at the free boundary

due to spalling, and (iii) release of load fracturing, which occurs in
the region between that of the shear-wave and release wave fracturing.
A significant factor in Cook's concept is the release-of-load fracturing,
although he does not detail the mechanism responsible for rock fracture
upon unloading. This concept appears to be possible but no experiments
have been reported in which such effects have been demonstrated in
dynamic loading and unloading. Therefore, much significance can not
be given to this proposition.
(f) Fracture by Bending
A few references are made in the literature to bending or flexure as

a mechanism responsible for rock breakage during blasting. Ash (1973)
suggests that in bench blasting with long cylindrical charges, transverse
fractures should form due to the tangential stress components generated
by the highly compressed rock as it bends on being displaced outward
by the expanding gas pressure.
Adler (1963) suggested that blasting of a bench can be considered

similar in action to that of a vertical cantilever beam. Persson et. al.
(1970) considered that rock in front of a borehole formed a beam with
great resistance to bending. Bhandari et. al. (1973) suggested the
entrance of gases between beds while cratering and uplifting of
individual beds. However, further details of the bending mechanism
are lacking in most of the references. Only Ash (1973) provides a
methematical background to explain the role of flexture or bending
with long cylindrical charges. A cantilever beam model was proposed
with the thickness equal to the burden. Borehole pressure was
- 42 -
considered to act as a distributed load along the length of the
blasthole containing explosive. The bottom of segment was fixed as
for a normal cantilever beam and a distance equal to two-thirds the
burden dimension was unloaded to account for stemming. The bending
moment, shear stress, maximum flexural stress along the outside open
face, maximum shear stress at the burden centre or neutral plane and
the deflection at equal intervals along the length of the bench were
calculated.
3.5 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF REFLECTED STRESS WAVES AND QUASI-STATIC
GAS PRESSURE
From the above review it is apparent that at present stress wave
reflection and subsequent scabbing is not considered important for the
normal burden distances used in production blasting. A minor role of
the stress waves is accepted in the formation of radial cracks near
the hole. The main importance is given to role of gases.
Other effects of stress waves in fragmentation of rock have received
little attention so far. Field and Ladegaard-Pedersen (1971 a and b)
have shown the importance of stress waves even when they are weak.
Recent studies of stress wave propagation in rock bars has also
uncovered permanent microstructural damage at moderate amplitude levels
in some rocks (Goldsmith, 1967). Da Gama and Nelson (1971) suggest that
stress waves might weaken the material outside the near region of the
hole, by radial alignment of existing micro-cracks.
Saluja (1968) is of the opinion that since both stress waves and
- 43 -
gaseous pressure are inherent in the use of high explosive, the part
played by each should be determined and utilised. Kutter (1967)
suggests that around the hole, the energy in the wave is highly
concentrated and therefore, causes considerable breakage in that region.
The result is a significant change of the geometry of that boundary at
which the gas pressure will be acting. Dally et. al. (1975) found that
containment of the gas in the hole improved transmission of energy
and caused more extensive fracturing. It is therefore, evident that
neither the wave nor the gas should be neglected. Experimental evidence
on the relative importance of the stress waves and gas pressure is
limited.
3.6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR FIELD PRACTICE
The understanding of the process of fragmentation when extended to
field blasting will require some additional considerations. Many
of the investigations to understand fragmentation phenomena have been
carried out without the use of actual blast geometry. Many
experiments were conducted even in the absence of a free face and some
interpreted their results for production blasting. It is the presence
of a free face which makes possible the fracture and fragmentation
in blasting.
Many other workers studied cratering with spherical charges to explain
the rock fragmentation process and to derive blasting relationships
(Livingston, 1956; Johnson , 1962; Gnirk, 1966; Sassa et. al., 1966;
Cherry, 1967; Bhandari, 1968; D'Andrea et. al,, 1970; Clark et. al.,
1971; Bhandari et. al., 1973). However, long cylindrical charges are
- 44 -
used in field blasting and these produce a larger broken mass for a
similar amount of explosive charge compared to that produced by a
spherical charge (Persson et. al., 1970). With cylindrical charges this
crater form results because the blasthole is placed so that its axis will
be parallel to at least one long open face (Fig. 2.2). It does not matter
in what direction the long open face is oriented - the same principle
for drilling the hole will apply, e.g. horizontal holes in a burn-cut
drilling, ring drilling holes in sub-level caving, horizontal or vertical
holes in cut and fill stoping or horizontal lifter holes in strip mining,
etc. In contrast to spherical charges, in long cylindrical charges
gaseous pressure is applied radially outward to the open face along the
hole wall. Since most blasting is carried out with long cylindrical
explosive charges, any investigation of fragmentation should involve
such charges.
Practically all blasting in open pit mining and often in underground mining
involves multi hole breakage usually with delay initiation. The multi hole
charge blasting as compared to the individual charge adds to the
possibility of interaction between the effects of individual holes and
the creation of new surfaces to which successive charges can break
(Langefors et. al., 1965). However, in practice, it is difficult to say
how far this can occur. Ash et. al. (1969) suggest an enhancement of
the wave effect in simultaneous blasting whereas Bergmann et. al. (1974)
find no such evidence. An interaction of the quasi-static stress effect
between adjacent holes has been suggested by Porter and Fairhurst (1971).
In pre-splitting, quasi-static gas action has been shown to be responsible
for preferential fracture between the holes (Kutter, 1967; Brost, 1971),
Therefore, efforts are needed to understand whether any enhancement of
energy, either from gas pressure or stress waves, takes place in
fragmentation in multi hole blasting and under what conditions the

- 45 -
enhancement occurs.
The influence of charge distribution in the hole and the method of
initiation have been shown to have some effect (Starfield, 1967b;
Reinhardt and Dally, 1971). However, these studies considered only
the stress wave effect.
Most of the work reviewed here considered simplified isotropic media,
whereas in practical blasting the rock encountered contains discon
tinuities such as joints, bedding planes, fissures, etc. The
influence and difficulties created due to discontinuities have been
often mentioned (Davis, 1953; Ash, 1961; Bel land, 1966; Gnirk and
Pfleider, 1968; Kutter, 1969; Panchenko et. al., 1969; Batifoulier,
1971; Pugliese, 1973; Ash, 1973; Bhandari, 1974). Only a few of
these investigations were specifically carried out to study the
effect of discontinuities.
Gnirk (1966) and Bhandari (1974) used cratering tests to study the
effect of joints and bedding. It was shown by Gnirk that the craters
produced had a stepped profile. Bhandari showed that the stepped
profile was absent when numerous joints were present or in the presence
of a prominent bed; and the profile of a crater was governed by the
bed. Both the investigators used spherical charges only for cratering
studies.
Seinov and Chevkin (1968) studied the effect of filler material between
joints and to simulate such a situation, they carried out experiments in
which glass plates were stacked together with different filler materials
- 46 -
and cracks produced by detonators were determined. This showed that

in tests with higher impedance of filler material intense cracking
was caused and it was assumed that a similar effect occurred in
fragmentation. Rinehart (1971) provided a theoretical analysis of
stress waves in jointed media. It was suggested that stress waves
caused a disruptive effect near the joint and often considerable
attenuation of stress waves took place. In both these studies gas
pressure was excluded, hence they can not be considered satisfactory.
Recently, the increased importance of geological discontinuities has been
considered (Pugliese, 1973; Ash, 1973; Larson and Pugliese, 1974),
The investigation by Ash (1973) provides extensive details of the
effect of discontinuities. It was indicated that fractures would be
channelled along discontinuity planes and oriented toward open faces.
The investigation showed that geological discontinuities cause a rock
mass to divide into segments by providing preferred directions for
radial and flexure development. Additional information is needed to
explain the fragmentation process in the presence of geological
discontinuities, e.g. the effect of filler material in joints.
- 47 -
4. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
Small scale experimental studies carried out in the laboratory on bench
shaped rock or rock-like blocks using long cylindrical explosive charges
are described in this section.
The aim of the experimental work was to study the variation in
fragmentation with the burden and spacing; to understand why the
variation occurred; to clarify the process of fragmentation occurring
in bench blasting; to utilise the understanding of the fragmentation
process in determining the optimum values for the burden and spacing
in the design of blasts; and to develop the methods of utilising
explosive energy efficiently.
First, the effect of variation in burden on fragmentation was studied
using single hole charges in cement-mortar and granite blocks. Single
hole tests defining the roles of stress wave and gas energies were also
performed. The relationships between the burden, spacing and
fragmentation were deduced and further tests were performed extending
the results to two or three holes. Variation in fragmentation was
also studied by introducing joints in granite blocks.
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS
From a review of the literature, it became apparent that most of the
investigators had not used long cylindrical charges to study the
burden and spacing relationship and the process of fragmentation.
For the present study the technique of small scale blasting using
long cylindrical charges in the bench shaped blocks was chosen.

- 48 -
The validity of using small scale tests for studying blasting
phenomena has been shown by many investigators (Langefors, 1959;
Broberg, 1960; Johnson, 1962; Saluja, 1963; Fogelson et. al. ,
1965; Aso, 1966; Michik and Dolgov, 1967; Ash et. al., 1969;
Field and Ladegaard-Pedersen, 1971a; Just and Henderson, 1971;
Bergmann et. al., 1973 and 1974). The results obtained from small
scale tests are qualitative with respect to the production scale
blasting, because of the inability to provide the required rock and
explosive characteristics to meet similitude requirements (Martin
and Murphy, 1963; Gnirk, 1966; Da Gama, 1970c). Small scale tests
provide quantitative data amongst themselves. Tests on reduced scale
of production blasts, such as those by Dick et. al. (1973) and Ash
(1973), do not allow inherent deficiency in the production blasts to
be corrected. Small scale blasting allows studies of cracks and
fragments obtained from blasts and it is possible to reassemble
fragmented particles.
In order to obtain reliable quantitative results in various tests,
it was essential to use rock with physically consistent properties.
However, most rocks are heterogeneous with flaws on both macro and
micro scales. Also the block sizes needed had to be large enough to
eliminate the effect of free faces other than the one involved in
blasting. It was difficult to get a large number of rock blocks of
the size used with consistent properties. Therefore, the majority
of tests were carried out on cement-mortar blocks and the results
were verified on granite blocks for single hole tests. Cement-mortar

- 49 -
blocks had been used earlier by other investigators for blasting
studies (Johnson and Fischer, 1963; Fogelson et. al., 1965; Aso,
1966; Ash et. al., 1969; Henderson, 1971). Pomeroy (1972) showed
many similarities between the fracture mechanics of cement-mortar
(concrete) and brittle rocks. Granite was used as a typical hard rock
available in joint-free condition. The granite used was obtained from
the quarries of Monier Granite Ltd., sold under the trade name of Sienna
Brown Monier Granite. Granite had also been used earlier by Persson
et. al., (1969) and Bergmann et. al. (1973 and 1974) for blasting
studies. In one set of tests to simulate jointed granite, a slot was
cut in each of the blocks between the hole and the face (parallel to
the free face), and was filled with different materials.
Cement-mortar was obtained by mixing sand and regular Portland cement,
in the ratio 2:1 by mass, with the required amount of water to obtain
a 75 mm slump. This cement-mortar mix was specially prepared for
casting the blocks and was supplied by the local Readymix Concrete
plant. A sieve analysis of the sand used in the mix showed the
majority of particles to be in the range of +0.152 mm to -2.41 mm,
with the largest grain size being less than 9 mm. A number of blocks
were cast in two different large moulds. One large mould allowed the
casting of 30 blocks of size 300 mm x 300 mm x 300 mm, or 15 blocks
of size 600 mm x 300 mm x 300 mm. Another mould allowed the casting
of 21 blocks of size 450 mm x 450 mm x 250 mm (Fig. 4.1). To obtain
a suitable bench geometry, wooden blocks of the required bench dimensions
were placed in the mould before casting. Thus cement-mortar blocks
were cast and obtained in bench shapes. Geometries of some of the
test blocks are given in Figure 4.2 (a) to (d). The block sizes were
50
Figure 4.1. Casting of cement-mortar blocks

51
CJ
-M
*i—
C.
i-
Cn
©
JCZ
|*- ^
a»
e:
•«~
iy>
E
i-* E
fti a
4—J •!—
i_
o cu
E &-
» nj
4->
C O')
Q> c:
E o
0J
O </)
sz
a> a>
•— E
O **-
x: -o
o T> 3 **-
-O 4-4
'—■■ c:
•i—
o
« • r~-j
u.
O'! rs JT
o »T—
O i *
T a--
4-> 4->
C *r—
rs CD £T
C E fO
a; i-
L u a>
ro
> a> a>
r~ f—
<4 o o
o .JC xz
«/) <u a>
c
■V—• CTi CT>
e c
4~J
£ c-o
te
O
a> -t; -o
o
04
nr
<D
S~
~
CD
•r~
IL
- 52 -
easy to handle and after the blast allowed the study of broken
fragments and cracks caused in the block.
After mixing, the cement-mortar was poured into the mould and vibrated,
and then the blocks were allowed to settle for 24 hours. After this
initial settling, the blocks were cured for seven days at 100% relative
humidity. Thereafter, each batch of blocks was left under similar
room-temperature and humidity conditions for at least 60 days before
the test. Test cylinders of 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height were
cast at the time of pouring the cement and cured in a temperature
controlled water bath for 28 days and compressive strength tests were
carried out to check that the mix was of consistent properties.
To obtain the properties of cement-mortar, cores were taken from the
blocks. Table 4.1 gives the properties of the cement-mortar. Young's
modulus and Poisson's ratio are calculated dynamic values.
Goldsmith (B67) had shown the presence of micro-damage in rock bars,
from stress waves even when they had low amplitude. Therefore, only
one test was performed in each of the cement-mortar block and in the
majority of the granite blocks.
TABLE 4.1 PROPERTIES OF THE CEMENT-MORTAR
Number
of Mean Standard
Property Tests Value Deviation
Compressive Strength, MPa 9 49.6 6.20

Tensile Strength
(Brazilian Test), MPa 6 3.24 0.45
Density, kg/m 8 2,120 10.0
Longitudinal wave velocity,
m/s 6 3,312 20.0
Young's modulus, GPa 6 16.55 0.36
Poisson's ratio 6 0.29 0.03
- 53 -
The granite used was medium-grained which contained mi crocline
(-35%) plagioclase (-25%), quartz (~30%) with small grains of biotite
and muscovite. Table 4.2. gives the properties of the granite, as
obtained from cores taken from one of the blocks. Young's modulus
and Poisson's ratio are calculated dynamic values. Only two of all
the blocks of granite used contained some very large crystals. The
results obtained from the tests performed on them are included in the
analysis of results. All the granite blocks were cut in the required
bench shape from one large section of granite. The size of granite
blocks was 300 mm x 300 mm x 230 mm (Fig. 4.2). The blocks were small
and hence influence of faces other than the one involved in blasting
was also noticed.
TABLE 4.2 PROPERTIES OF THE GRANITE
Number
of Mean Standard
Property Tests Value Deviation
Compressive strength, MPa 8 172.4 10.0

Tensile strength
(Brazilian Test), MPa 6 4.48 0.2
Density, kg/m^ 6 2,410 20
Longitudinal wave velocity, 6 4,858 200
m/s
Young's modulus, GPa 6 56.54 1.2
Poisson's ratio 6 0.34 0.02
To study the effect of "joint" in granite block, role of scabbing cracks
and also filler material in the joint, a 2 mm thick slot was cut in
homogeneous granite blocks. The slot was at a distance of 15 mm from
the face,and parallel to the face, between the hole and the free face
as shown in Figure 4.2 (d). The slots were either filled with plaster
of Paris or cement paste or were left without any filler. The blocks
- 54 -
with fillers were left for 60 days before tests were conducted. For
eight of 16 tests on "jointed" granite blocks the blocks used in
previous tests were reused but this time a different face was used.
The blocks were randomly chosen for these later tests, thus results
obtained did not have bias due to the effect of previous blasts.
Single hole or multi holes were drilled at the desired locations
primarily with respect to the bench face in each block using a masonry
drill bit. The diameter of the hole used depended on the type of
experiment. The hole diameters used were 4.8, 6.4 and 7.9 mm; the
majority of tests on cement-mortar were performed with 6.4 mm diameter
holes because it was considered that 4.8 mm diameter produced full
coupling, and the resultant blast was too strong for the size of the
blocks. Most of the tests on granite blocks were performed with a 7.9
mm hole diameter for the same reason, i.e. by decoupling the intensity
of blast was reduced; even then the sides of the block affected the
results to some extent.
The depths of the holes in all the tests were kept equal to the bench
height, i.e. no subdrilling was provided. All the holes were vertical
and flat bottomed.
All the multi hole tests were carried out on cement-mortar blocks.
The majority of multi hole tests were with one row of two or three holes.
In four tests, after the results of first row of three hole test were
analysed, two holes in a second row were drilled for which previously
broken face became the free face. Thus the second row of holes in
effect were blasted after a very large delay with respect to holes of
the first row.

- 55 -
The hole diameters used were below the critical diameters for
commercial blasting agents. Therefore, Penta Erythritol Tetra Nitrate
(PETN) explosive was used. The PETN explosive did not meet the
requirements of similtude analysis for blasting agents. This was the
main reason why the results of experimental studies were only qualitative
with respect to the production scale blasting.
A detonating cord containing PETN core was used as the long cylindrical
explosive charge in the hole. The cord had 5.3 g/m PETN and an outer
covering of plastic. The cord had the following specifications:
Density of PETN core 1.35 g/cm^
Velocity of detonation
(calculated) 6875 m/s
Detonation pressure
(calculated) 10.5 GPa
Heat of explosion 1465 Cals/g
Detonating cord, detonators and other initiators used are shown in
Figure 4.3. A few tests were also performed with detonating cords
which had 7.4 g/m and 10.6 g/m PETN charges.
Testing by manufacturers showed that the measured velocities of
detonation of all the cords were between 6800-7000 m/s. Extensive
testing showed no variation in velocity of detonation over a range of
charge densities used in a few tests. Gun powder was used as a low
explosive charge in some tests.

- 56 -
Figure 4.3. Two protective chambers, detonating cord,

detonators and fuse head used in experiments.
(1) Chamber for single hole tests. (2) Chamber
for multihole tests. (3) Detonating cord.
(4) No. 6 electric detonator. (5) Mild
initiating detonator. (6) Fuse head.
- 57 -
In most experiments an electric detonator (No. 6) was used to initiate
detonating cords. The detonator did not take part in fragmentation.
In some experiments a DuPont mild initiating electric detonator with

_2
open-end receptor was used. These initiators had only 7.8 x 10 g charge.
Considerable difficulties were experienced in initiating the gun powder
charge in the hole. Success was achieved by using electric fuse heads
(commonly used in electric detonators) to initiate the gun powder. The
fuse head was set at the collar of the hole by cement, a small stone
block was placed on the hole mouth and the fuse head was fired by impulse
of an exploder, which in turn initiated gun powder charge.
For single hole tests, the required length of detonating cord was cut
equal to hole depth plus 75 mm, put inside the hole and a No. 6 electric
detonator was taped to the side of the cord remaining outside the hole
(Fig. 4.4). Similar methods had been used by earlier investigators
(Ash et. al., 1969 and Henderson, 1971). Thus the cord filled the
full length of the hole and no stemming was provided. This method was
adopted here because of lack of availability of detonators with a very
low charge and also because another variable would be introduced if
the charge was initiated inside the hole. One advantage of the method
adopted was that the cracks in the burden zone - between the hole and
the bench face, could be studied. Thus the method adopted, simulated
a situation in which hole is completely filled with explosives, which
in many mining operations has become a common practice with the
availability of cheaper ANFO explosives. It is thought that gases
produced act as self-stemming material and undetonated explosive
charge acts as stemming. Later on, mild initiating detonators became
available and were used to initiate the cord within the hole for a few
tests.
- 58 -
Figure 4.4. A single hole test in cement-mortar block with

detonating cord in the hole and a No. 6 electric
detonator taped to the protruding cord.
- 59 -
To prevent damage to the block by the detonator a small but strong
steel chamber was used. The chamber for single hole tests had a base
plate with a hole in the centre (Fig. 4.3). For multi hole tests
another protective chamber was used which had a slot in the base plate.
The base plates in each case made only point contacts with the surface
of the block.
For multi hole tests two or three detonating cords protruded outside
the hole, which were coupled together and an electric detonator (No. 6)
was taped as shown in Figure 4.5. The cord lengths were kept equal
for each of the two or three holes, thus simultaneous initiation
between the holes was achieved.
To eliminate the reflected stress waves and subsequent scabbing
breakage, in some tests a plate of a material with the same impedance
(density x wave velocity) was attached to the free face (Fig. 4.6).
For cement-mortar wave-trapping tests a 450 mm x 76 mm and 20 mm thick
plate was cut from a cement-mortar block and then glued on to a wooden
piece of same size to hold the plate together after the test. For
some granite tests, a wave trap was cut to the size of 300 mm x 76 mm
and 20 mm thick from one of the granite blocks and was glued to a
wooden piece of same size. The respective plate was then attached to
the bench face by smearing a thin film of grease over the two cement-
mortar or granite surfaces to be joined. It has been suggested that
it gave a junction which allowed the compressive stress wave to pass
out of the block but the junction being weak in tension failed when the
tensile reflection waves tried to cross back from the plate. Thus no
scabbing could occur. This method to trap stress waves had been used
- 60 -
Figure 4.5. A test in cement-mortar block with

detonating cords in two holes and a No.
6 electric detonator taped to two cords
coupled together.
- 61 -
CEMENT-
MORTAR
WAVE
TRAP
K’ ’ *"*”* 4 5 0‘----—■•j
(a)
figure 4.6. Plate attached to the bench face for wave

trapping experiment, (a) cement-mortar
(b) granite
- 62 -
by other investigators (Starfield, 1967a; Da Gama, 1970a; Field and

Ladegaard-Pedersen, 1971a).
Before the tests, two faces of each bench involved in fragmentation were
painted with different colour paints and a grid was marked by coloured
lines at regular intervals of 20 mm. After the blasts, the cracks
could be studied, the origin of large fragments could be easily
identified and the re-assembly of fragments was possible.
Each blast was conducted within a large canvas collecting chamber

(2.0 m x 1.5 m x 1.0 m), enabling the collection of fragments after each
blast. The canvas chamber provided a non-rigid surface and prevented
secondary fragmentation on impact with the canvas.
The method of each experiment was to place the block and cord(s) as
shown in Figure 4.4 or Figure 4.5, place the protective chamber on
the block, make connections to the cable and the exploder, cover the
block and explosives with the large canvas collecting chamber and
then fire the charge with an exploder. After allowing the dust to
settle, the fragments were collected and analysed by sieving. In many
cases fragments were reassembled or separately studied after sieving.
From the sieve analysis masses retained on various sieve sizes were
determined. Sieve sizes used were 3.33, 6.35, 12.70, 25.40, 38.10,
50.86, 63.50 mm. From the retained masses of particles, average
fragment sizes and total masses for each of the test were calculated.*
* Appendix II gives the details of the methods adopted for the

calculations of average fragment size, fragmentation gradient and new
surface created.
- 63 -
From the sieve analysis fragmentation gradient and total new surface
created were also calculated. These two were adopted as quantitative
measures of fragmentation, along with the total mass broken and
average fragment size. It would be shown later that none of them alone
is a suitable measure of fragmentation.
For each test the average width of breakage was measured. To obtain
the average width of bench crater, measurements were made on the bench
crater at five equal intervals and the value was averaged (Fig. 2.2),
The socket left after the test was calculated by finding the difference
between the bench height and the length of clear broken hole. For
multi hole tests the mean value of the sockets was obtained.
The sections which follow describe the details of the experiments and
the results in terms of the following:
(i) mass of fragmented rock
(11) average fragment size
(111) average width of breakage
(iv) average socket
(v) fragmentation gradient
(vi) new surface area created.
In Appendix II, cumulative percentage passing from sieve analysis of
fragmented particles, size distribution curves for tests and photographs
of blocks after tests are given. Constants for linear regression of
fragment size distribution curves of each test are given in Table A7.
The linear regression and plotting was carried out by using 9100
Hewlett-Packard calculator and 9125 Hewlett-Packard plotter.

- 64 -
4.2 SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON HOMOGENEOUS MATERIALS
Single hole tests were carried out on cement-mortar blocks and on
granite blocks to study the effect of variation of burden on
fragmentation and the utilisation of explosive energy.
4.2.1 Single Hole Tests on Cement-Mortar Blocks
First the variation of burden was studied on bench-shaped cement-
mortar blocks using 5.3 g/m detonating cord, and 76 mm long hole. The
effect of burden variation was studied by using three different hole
diameters. Larger diameters provided increased decoupling between the
explosive charge and hole walls. To ensure that the results obtained
were not influenced by experimental conditions miscellaneous tests
were performed in which either charge densities were increased or the
charge length was varied. It became obvious that tests were needed
to define the role of stress waves and gas energies. To eliminate
reflected stress waves the variation of burden was studied by wave
trapping tests. Tests with low explosives were performed to determine
the fragmentation variation due to change in the burden under gas
action alone. The tests performed can be grouped as below:
(a) Burden variation - 4.8 mm hole diameter
(b) Burden variation - 6.4 mm hole diameter
(c) Burden variation - 7.9 mm hole diameter
(d) Burden variation - 6.4 mm hole diameter with wave-trapping.
Details of these experiments and the results obtained are given in
Table 4.3.
(0) Burden variation - 6.4 mm hole diameter, low explosive tests

- 65 -
CD
jyC CMN'tHCOCTiOOLfiOM'tNCDNrHCOLn CD CO O O CO
CD corvcono'^cooj^-cD'd-LncM'^corHCM CVI CVI CO CO rH
O
05 OOOi-ti—IOOOOOOOOOOOO 00000
4-
E
13
OO
oo
CD ONNOUOLncOO(MCOrO«j-OUOOCOH H LO ouo
o O cricriLfiODHLnLncDLnrocors'^coNrO't CD LO *=d- C\J
o 05
4- i—1 «—h «—1 t—h <—1 ( ) CD >—I r—t t—i CD CD CD r-H CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
2 S-
CD 3
do Z CO
<c
I—
dc
O +->
CD
co o o LninoiDOONco^- C'-OO OCOLfl
h- o CO CO i—I CVI CXI 1—I CO rH rt CO i—I C\J CVI CO
o Q O
LU CO
21 LU LU
LU
CJ 2:
4- CD
CD O CD DC DC
cn 03 CDCOONCM-stCDNO'd-CMOOOOÔLniC OOJ HNCO
re _e COLnOCMLOLCIVCDÎ-CyiCMLOMLOCDCriHONimDCOCMO
s- +-> 03 r-H r-1 C\| C\J C\J CM «—1 HHWNWHHHCVJ r-H CV] CV] CVI CVJ
CD -O CD LU LU
> V- E
< 3 CQ
E
o
•I— 00 IS)
4->
n3 N/ V
OO 4-> -E> oO'taicjiMHOwoooLncoLnivojm nhôolo
<c E E HCVJCOCOLONCDi-lCMCOLnrsCOM^-LOCOU CM LO IV CD CD
CD CD
E *r- ooooooocdooooooooo<c OOOOO =3;
DVO
n3 n3 DC DC
E E
U_ CD CD O
+->
CD E 'd-OiH-sJ-COCDCOCO^tCOCOCO'tCOOUOLn cm co lo o m
CD CD NCOCDHCONLnOHlfiOUvCOLnrvCMrH CD CO 1—1 CM LD
rC E
S- CD CD HOrvCOOlCOCMOMOOUvCOCOCDOOCMCOE HO cococo >-
(D (O N CVI CVI CVI CVI CD LO iHCMCOLnCOCM^tCOCO CO CD CO CO CO
> E -i-
< U. CD
2C 2^
o o
-a
CD
4->
4- E
O CD COOOOmCMHCDCOHCTKDNLnCDOOOO't co 'to co
E CMCTiCOOUOCD^-LncOLnCMNCO't'tNO O O LO CVI o
co CD-yc COCOLnCOOlOOCDrHCM^LDIVLnCO^t'^-COl CO LO LO LO CO
CO 03 CD
(O S- O
:s: lu oc
e
CD
+->
0) OOCOCOCOCOCOOD't't't't't'tCnCDCDCDCTl't't't't't't
CD E
1— 03 t't't'ttt'tLOLOLOLOLOCONIvNIVIVCOLOLOLOCDLO
O *r*
m q
E ******
CD
-o OLOOLOOLOOOLOOLOOLOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOO
4
E CMCMCOCO't'tLOCMCMCOCO't'tCMCOCO't'tCMCMCOCOt-
trap p in g
3
CQ
+->
E
CD
35.1
Wave
E
•r- E (MCO'tlOLOrvrHCMCOtLOLDCMCOfLOCD'HCMCO'tLO
t- CD r-H t—1 *—I 1—I t—t i—1 CVI CM CM CM C\J CO CO CO CO CO
CD JQ
Q- E
X 3
LU 20
- 66 -
(f) Burden variation - 6.4 mm hole diameter, miscellaneous tests.
Table 4.4.
4.2.2 Single Hole Tests on Granite Blocks
Tests on bench-shaped granite blocks were carried out to ascertain
whether the results from cement-mortar tests were comparable to those
from rocks. Results were already available from cement-mortar blocks
with single-holes, hence the number of tests carried out on granite
blocks was small. Additional tests were carried out in which the bench
height was increased, but the charge length was kept the same (76 mm)
as in other granite tests and the charge was initiated inside the
hole by using DuPont mild initiating detonator. These detonators were
used to overcome the objections that most often charges are not
primed outside the hole as was done in the rest of the experimental work.
The tests were performed with 5.3 g/m detonating cord and can be grouped
as follows:
(a) Burden variation - 6.4 mm hole diameter
(c) Burden variation - 7.9 mm hole diameter withwave-trapping
(d) Burden variation - 7.9 mm diameter with inside initiation.
Table 4.5.
4.3 MULTIHOLE TESTS ON CEMENT-MORTAR BLOCKS
Multi hole experiments were performed to study the combined effect of burden
57
CM
E
cn
o CO oo r-H CO r-H OO CD CM CM CM O
(1) oo CD o o o 00 CO OO CD O CM CO
. • • . • • • • • • •
. ° X
1 fO o o T—i oo oo 0 0 r—l O 1—1 r—l r—l
co 4- «—i
co S- i
as =3 O
oo «-h
CM
EFFECT OF BURDEN VARIATION ON BLASTING RESULTS IN CEMENT-MORTAR BLOCKS
E
CL) 00 o CM 0 0 O O CD CD CM
o x CM o CD 1—1 CD r>- LO CD CO CM
C harge d e n s ity 1 0 .6 -g /m
as • . . . • • • • • • . •
d e n s ity 7 .4 -g /m
4- r-H o T---1 rH OO CM O i—i r—l 1—H CM r—1 CM
S- i
CD 13 o
X CO i—1
+->
CD
E CM 3- CD 00 CO CD CD CM 00 CM i—H
O E *—1 LO CM t—H t—H
o
oo
Charge
4-
<D O CD
cn cn ^1- "3- CM 00 o 0 00 CO I"-. O
as jc as E o O o D- CD CM CO CM CM LO 3- CO
S- +->-*: E CM OO oo rH CM CM t-H CM CM r-H CM CM
CD T3 as
> •<- CD 1LI1 41
=
#
< 3 S-
CQ
CJ3
<
e
o
+J
03 C
■M H-> LO 11 [ CD o CO 3" OO r-H OO CD CM 00 00
E E *3" LO CD «—1 co l"~. CM 3" CO r-H CO CM
CD CD . rv . . • . . . . . * . .
E •>— o o o o O O O O 0 O O O
OVO
CQ
03 03
s- s_
Li- C£5
+->
CD E o CD oo CD LO 00 CD CO D- 00 CO CO
CD CD c= oo CM 1—1 3" 3" LO CD CD LO 3-
E I< • • • . • • • • . .
S_ cn
CD = CM
c—>
O O CD O OO rH O CO T----1
CD 03 N OO *3- LO CM LO LO CM OO CO \—t CO CO
> *i—
ZZZ
■SC Li- CO
-o
CD
4->
mm
4- e cn
O CD rH 00 CO OO CO CD —1
1 O 0 r—l CD CD
E CO CD o r^. CO 0 r-«. CM t—1 3" T—1 rH
co CD.*: oo o CD 00 CO
h e ig h t -115
r^. 3* 00 CO I"'- r-»

CO 03 O rH i—H
(D S- O
u- c£
s-
CD
4 .4
4->
CD *3" ■3- 3- 3- 3" CD 3- 3" 3" 3" 3" 3-
(DEE .
C harge le n g th and bench
. . . • . • • • •
03 E
TABLE
■— LO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO
O
m q
g
E II II 11
pow der - 2 .5
+ + + + * * * =#= =te =H=

CD
T3 E o LO o O o o LO O 0 0 O 0 0
E CM CM oo LO oo LO 3" 00 3" 3" CO ■3- 3-
zs
CQ
4->
E
CD r-H rH r—H
E . • •
*—1 CM
Gun
•i— S- oo 3" oo CO 00 LO LO CO LO LO
S- CD _ 1 _l —J _1 >3- *3- 3" LO LO LO CO CO CO
CD -Q
Q- E
X 13
UJ
68
05
.x CM CM O o o 00 r-H O I"*.
CD 0 00 O CO 00 stf- ^3- r*v 00 00 co
1 U <d 0000
CO 4—
CO E
fO 3
cs: co
QJ «si- o o co CM I''. CO 00 co
oo O r». CM Cf CM Ifl O Ol O
rd
o 4-
o £ E
<D 3
oo
4->
2: CD
<
cd ^
O E
E
O
'v}*
O
CO
CD o
CO
LU LU
4- CD
s: z:
CD O O ad
O rd o co LD o o O CM 00
r=> (Or ^ E co i"- cm CO o CT> o LD CO CM 00
u~>
LU
S- +J o E
CD -a CD
1—f CM \—f CM CM CM
Cd > *r- E
<3CQ
CD
2:
1—1
I—
oo E
o
< CO
4->
rd
+-> +-> CT 00 CO 00 LO 0 LO ^4 O 0 CM
E E O rH CO 0 0 CO 0 CO LO 00 1—1 CO
CD CD • • • • • • • • • •
E *r- O O 0 <c 0 0 0 <c 0 O 0 0 O
ovo
rd rd Cd DC
E E
U_ CD 0 0
ad
< ■P
> CD E LO CT> CM ^4 LO r^. 'Ot- CO LO
O CD
10 E
LO CM CO LO CM 00 LO CM CO CO
LU E CH CD CM >- CTi LO LO LO LO
Q (DON LO LO CM LO CM
q; > E -r— _J
=D <C LL. O0
CQ
U_ O O
inside in itia tio n
o *a
CD
+->
o 4- E
LU O CD CM CO LO LO O CO CM LO
Ll_ E CO CO LO LO *—I O LO 1—I CO
U. CO OUi co lo r—. CM lo r"» "vi” r—. r''» cm
LU woo
(O S- o
Z u. q;
LD
e
LU CD
—I 4->
CQ CD D-Li-î-âi0505cnoi0505aicri
• ••••••••••••
<
and
CD E
1— rd
O -r-
LOLOLOLor-'.r^.r^r'^r^r'v.r-vr^.r"'.
=C Q
mm
=4= =4=
Bench height 100
E
CD
-a e O O
CO
O
<3-
LO o O O LO o O O O O
E E CM LO CM CO LO CM CO >vj- CM CO
trapping
3
CQ
4->
e
CD
Wave
E 1—1 CM CO t—I
•r- E 00 CTi CM CO <v}- LO CM CM CM r-H
E CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD _Q
Q- E
X 3
LU ^
- 69 -
and spacing variation on the fragmentation. The experiments were
carried out on cement-mortar blocks using 6.4 mm hole diameter and
5.3 g/m detonating cord. First, a number of tests were carried out
in which two holes were simultaneously fired. Then tests were carried
out in which three holes were simultaneously fired. In both types of
tests holes were in a single row at various burdens and spacings. Four
experiments were carried out with bench heights of either 92 or 104 mm
and in which initiation of the explosive charge was within the holes.
The object of these variations was similar to that in single hole tests.
In another four tests (Nos. 104, 116, 118 and 124), a second row of two
holes was fired in previously fired blocks. The holes in second rows were
drilled after the recording of results of the previous four tests (Nos.
103, 112, 115 and 123). Two holes were located with the same burden
and spacing as in the previous tests. However, the holes in the second
row were displaced and a staggered or en-echelon drill pattern was adopted.
These can also be considered to show the influence of large delay between
rows. Multi hole tests performed can be grouped as follows:
(a) Burden and spacing variation with two simultaneously fired holes
(b) Burden and spacing variation with three simultaneously fired holes
(c) Burden and spacing variation with two simultaneously fired holes -
miscellaneous.
Tables 4.6 to 4.8 give details and results of multiholes tests as in
the above groups (a), (b) and (c) respectively.
4.4 SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON "JOINTED" GRANITE BLOCKS
To compare fragmentation results between homogeneous rocks and jointed
rocks, single hole tests were carried out on granite blocks with
- 70 -
cn
-V
(\UON^-HCOHNHHlOHONLn
2.75
4.65
4.17
CU
I OfC 03CTlCDt\CnCMNOCDLnCDt\>^-CDC\l
to 4-
lO03 S-13 rHOcoro^-^coLncncn^-<^coco?t
EFFECT ON BLASTING RESULTS OF BURDEN AND SPACING VARIATION WITH TWO HOLES
oo
1.55
1.95
2.80
cu ocMOLnONcoHOifi^-ifloroH
fO CJ HCOLncoimncONaiMouococor-1
4- CO'^-^-<^-'vt-«^-CO«d-CO'^-LOCOC\JC\JCO
^ S-
CU Z3
^ oo
cu
cn +->
12
27
22
03 CU
S- <tLOOO'>|-COOCONLncDrHOMOO
<D O
> O
ear OO
4-
O) O cn
aj
394
324
428
cn 03 '^-OCO'^-I—lOONOOLfiCOLOOOMO
os jc 4-> 03
03NLncococ33criHocri03000'tH
IHCMCMOOCMMCVJOOCOCMMCMCOCOOO
ajs-> T3 CU
*r- s-
< 3 CQ
£Z
O
+->
03
0.35
0.80
0.47
+-> +-> OOOOMCDOJCOlDCDMOCOCONH
C C C\J i—I C\J CVI CVI C\J C\J C\J CXI CVI C\J C\J OO OO CO
CU CU
E -r-
cmD 0000000000 0*00 0 0
O3 03
S- S-
Ll_ CD
+->
54.23
64.23
49.18
CU C (OOONCOHNOlOCONHOOCMLf)
cn CU COOOChKLnNCONOKOOCMCO'^-CO
03 E E
s- cn cu E rHNNOlOOrHOJ^HCMCXJCOrHCMCOCO
CU 03 N CvJHHrHOJC\ICVJCMCMrHrH«t«t^-'!j-
> S- -I-
<U- oo
-a
cu
+->
4- C
1409
1490
1985
o cu OMCD030NHdCOCOCDCONNOi
E cr C\l!Mi-HL00300rv|\(MC\l(\JC\lrHCnCD
OO CT3-X C0000000003030cn00 03 c00sicoc0
m 03 U
03 i- O
li_ oc
r^-oooococoooiôooooOLO
1.80
3.00
4.00
03 tocooococoootoocouooLor^.
C
•I—
o
cu iHCMrocooom^-^-^LnLOrHCMMN
o03 T3
TABLE 4.6
s-
Q. Z3
oo CQ
c03
•r—
O E OOOOOOOÔOOOOOOOOLO
03 E lT3NC33CyiOOC\lCXI'^Lf)COÔOOHCOOUO
CL
oo
oCU
-a e OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLO
s- E COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO^^-^j->vi-^-LOLO
33
CQ
4->
ccu
E
•I- s- HHCViOjrooo^-^LnLncoOHMcocoNCX)
s- cu
CU -Q
rvooNoorvcONOOcorvcocncncnrN03NN
Q- E
X =3
lu
- 71 -
cn|
.x
CD CO CO LO CO o CO CO CM
4 .2 4
1 o X CO o CO d* d- LO o O 00
03 • • • • • • • • •
CO 4- tH CM d“ CM d- d- CO CO CO
co E |
EFFECT ON BLASTING RESULTS OF BURDEN AND SPACING VARIATION WITH THREE HOLES
03 Z O
s: oo r“H
OJ
E
f CD 00 O LO LO LO CM o d- o
2 .7 4
o X CM CO CO d" CM CD co
03 • • • • • • • • •
4- r—1 LO LO •d- d- d* LO d- d- CM
S e 1
CD Z o
2: OO t-H
CD
CD -P
03 CD
o o
14
E -X E LO LO co CO CD LO O
CD C_> E r—1 T“H r—H CM
> o
■< CO
4- CD
CD O or
cd CO CO CO o
352
CD CO LO CO
fC -E -X LD O o 'd- rH cd i"- co
E -P rc CM CO co co 'd' CO 'd" co
CD “O CD
> T- E
<3 CO
e
o
-p
03
•P 4-> o 'd- CO r->. CO CD LD
0 .3 4
E E I—I CM CM CM CM CM CO
CD CD
E •<- o
DVO
rd o3
E E
Lu CD
+->
CD E CM r-- CO CD CM o CD
5 3 .5 0
CD CD CO CO o CO r^. CO CO 00 CO
03 E
S- CD CD CM CO o CM CO
CD (O N CM CM CM CM CM
> E T-
C Li_ oo
T3
CD
-P
4- E
1548
O CD CD CO CO CO f-v. r^. CO CO
E CO CM -d- o co f-H CM LO
CO CD -X LO 1^. LO o o OO CM CM
CO 03 O r—H i—i t—H x—( rH
03 E O
s: u_ CiL
-p
<d
E o o O O o CO o o o
2 .2 5
CD o LO O O o CO o o LO
E e
•I— CD
o -D
03 E
CL z
00 CO
4 .7
CD
E
•I—
o E o o o o o o o o o
TABLE
O O
<d E CO CD CM CO CD o CM LO CO CD CM
CL
00
E
CD
■O E o o O o o o o o o o o
E E CM CM CM CO CO CO CO CO *d" d-
Z
CO
-p
E
CD
E
•i- E CM CO «d- CM co
E CD O O r—I CM CM
CD JO
Q- E
X z
uj 2:
- 72 -
CM
EFFECT ON BLASTING RESULTS OF BURDEN AND SPACING VARIATION WITH MISCELLANEOUS MULTIHOLE TESTS
E
O'
_X
CD I-1 CO >5j- CO CO r'- I"-- oo
O X o CO o i—H o *3- CO r-^
1 A3 • • . . • • • •
LO 4- r-H CO o o «3- CM CO r-H
second row
CO S- 1 r-H r-H
A3 =3 O
oo i-H
CM
tz
CD *3* o LO CM co *3" r-H
O X CO o t-H 05 LO CO o
A3 . . • • • • • •
4- «—1 CO CO •vj- CO CO CM
S S- 1
CD Z5 O
f ir in g in
^ CO r-H
N ot d e te rm in e d
CD
054->
A3 CD
S- -X E o CO r-* o LO LO
CD O E r-H 1—1 r-H i-H CM
> O
<C CO
D e la ye d
4- CD
CD O 05
05 A3 03 LO CM CO
A3 _£Z -X E 1^ CO CO 05 II II II II
S- 4-5 A3 E CM CM CM CM
CD "O CD
> T- S-
<3CQ
=
#
C
o
+->
fO
4-5
sz sz
CD CD
E •«-
05 "O
A3 fO
S- S-
Lx. CD
4->
CD SZ
05 Cl) CO
A3 E
S- 05 CD E CO
CD A3 N E
> S- •!-
<C Lx. IS)
-o
CD
4-5
4- SZ
O CD 05 00 r-H 00 LO P-- 03 r-H r-H
E ^3“ <3- 05 LO i—1 03 r^
CO 05 -X 05 co 05 CO 00 CO O CO
CO A3 O r-H r-H r-H
(B S- O
L)_ CC
CO o o o o o o
CO o LO o o o o
CO <=3- CM CO CO LO CO
= 104 mm
= 92 mm
4 .8
h e ig h t
h e ig h t
TABLE
4-5
c
Bench
Bench
CD
J«. r^- CO cr> r^. "3- 'd-

S- CD 00 00 co 05 o CM
CD -0
Q- E
X o
LxJ ^ * +
- 73 -
simulated jointing. One slot in each block was cut parallel to the
face at 15 mm (Fig. 4.2 d) and filled with either plaster of Paris,
cement paste or was left open and thus called "air" filled. The slot
position was chosen to be similar to a blasting situation in which the
hole axis paralleled to the jointing direction. The filler materials
chosen had different impedance values hence allowed the interpretation
of the role of stress wave scabbing.
To obtain more information from a small number, tests were conducted
as a factorial series. Three factors were considered - two burdens,
two hole diameters and three fillers. The burdens chosen were 30 and
40 mm, the hole diameters were 6.4 and 7.9 mm. To form pastes, equal
mass of water was added separately to plaster of Paris and cement.
The slots in the blocks were filled with the paste and the blocks were
left for 60 days before the tests were carried out. Tests were carried
out by using 5.3 g/m detonating cord in 76 mm long holes with outside
initiation. The details and results of the experiments are given in Table
4.9. The results of four experiments on homogeneous granite are also
repeated there to give an extended comparison of the blasting effects.
4.5 ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Analysis of the experimental results of various tests is presented in
this section.
4.5.1 Single Hole Tests on Cement-Mortar Blocks
Figures 4.7 to 4.10 show variation of mass of broken material, average
sizes of fragments, fragmentation gradients and new surface areas created

- 74 -
+->
CD
aiowo^-nooonOrHco^tLDcO'tH
CJ i—I CO «—I CM i—I r—I
o
OO
4—
JOINTED GRANITE BLOCKS
O CD
CD CO
CH-SQ 03 HocoNcoHOCTuDcoHooimnroLn
03 4-> -X S OOTNMCO'tCM'B-CDinncONCDHOCO
S.-D B E CM rH rH CM T“H rH rH rH rH i“H i—H !“i t—t T—H rH r-H r“H
CD • i— CD
> 3: S-
C CQ
e
o
+->
03 LnOCOCONCMCONOHHinCMCOOÔ
+-> +-> CO<s|-HCOCVJCMHCM<B-<tCMCM>B-COCMHCM
C C
CD CD ooooooooooooooooo
E *r-
OVU
03 03
S- S-
cem ent
U_ CD
ON
4-4
BLASTING RESULTS OF SINGLE HOLE TESTS
CD C 'Tt' CO OT CM LO LO CM CO CO HCOOONOOCOCM
CO CD ^j-cx)CMco«d-cocxDr^r^ COCOOrHOO^COO
=
ns E
S- 03 CD E CMLD'B-CMCDIMOCOCO nnoioiocooio
C
CD 03 N E (tLOHUTHHCMCMCO CO CM «—I CM CO i—I t—I CM
> S- *r-
<UlM
-O
CD
4-4
4— Q
O CD LnOCOLOHCOCOCOLOOOOOOO^ o co o 03
E COiHCO't^tCMLOÎ-OHLOLO m CO CM N
CO 03.X ioNLnrvrvNNNOcricx)NrH OlONOO
to 03 CJ
03 S- O
u_ a;
S-
CD
s- s- s- s-
Q- •<— CL Q. Q_
Q-O C O Q-O <C CL Q-O O C C
4-4
c:
•I— cococotocotocococotocococo
o OOOOCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD
HQ
4 .9
s-
CD
TABLE
4-> OOCTT^-^J'OOCTtOTOOCJOaoOO^^J'^j-'d"^!"'^"
CD E
E E NNCDCDNNrsNNNIMLDCDCDCOCDCO
03
O *r—
DC O
P la s te r o f P a ris
C.
CD
"O E ooooooooooooooooo
S- E CO^CO^-COCOCOCO^-'^j-’^-CO^j-'^-COCO'd-
Q
CQ
4-4
c
CD
E O f—I CM CO
•I- s~ CO^-NOOHCMCO>!tLniDNCOC3THHHH
5- CD CD CD CD LDOOOOOOOOOOOOO
CD -Q
Q- E
X =5 Q-
LxJ ZZ Q-
- 75 -
r r ooo
r\ /\/"\
i
750 V A \ - zs * * /J *—
s?
<\ 1
cm LU
tvl
\\
X h*4 .‘—4
r—I 00 CO
Io
-
\
i—
sr
*5
o£.
----------------
LU
3T
t
as
LU
CT>
DJ 0
<50 0
01
\ an
CD
•50 2
r-
O 50 <r
S
< u.. a: I—
c
u_
a; u_ A / / \ u_
o
CO O LU
u3
oo
oO
r / / \
CO
<
a:
Z 0-5 '
<
^ 2 50 Y F S V r
----------------- * m---------------- a LU
1
2 5 <5 . .25 U.
r--"A
G
0 0
20 25 30 35 40
BURDEN (B),mm
Figure 4.7. Variation of measured mass, M; average fragment
size, FS; fragmentation gradient, 6; and new
surface, NS, created for single hole tests in cement-
mortar blocks (hole diameter - 4.8 mm).
10 00 “I 1*0
i
UJ
rvl 2T
UJ
^—4 J--4
05 o
1~- <c
c2.
Z1
LU
CD
se:
St 500 o *5 0 o
s
(JL.
s~
<
r-
Ui
55
<
UJ
T
cc
X 2 50
LU
>• <
or
< ♦2 5 u-
Figure 4.8, Variation of measured mass, M; average fragment

size, FS-, fragmentation gradient, G; and new
surface, NS; created for single hole tests in
cement-mortar blocks (hole diameter - 6.4 mm).
- 76 -
FRAGMENTATION GRADIENT
MASS OF FRAGMENTS
BURDEN (B),ram
4.9. Variation of measured mass, M; average fragment size,

?
FS; fragmentation gradient, G; and new surface, NS;

created for single hole tests in cement-mortar blocks •
(hole diameter - 7.9 ran).
i oo
FRAGMENTATION GRADIENT
LU
MASS OF FRAGMENTS, g
K!
f—
Z
UJ
- 40
LU
e>
s
UJ
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
BURDEN
Figure 4.10. Variation of measured mass, M; average fragment size,

FS; fragmentation gradient, G; and new surface, NS;
created for single hole wave trapping tests in cement-
mortar blocks (hole diameter - 6.4 mm).
- 77 -
for various single hole tests in cement-mortar blocks for different
burdens. Figure 4.11 shows fragments obtained from single hole cement-
mortar tests with 4.8 mm hole diameter and as retained on various sieve
sizes. These results showed that the same mass and type of explosive
produced considerably different mass and type of fragmentation for
various burdens. The variation of hole diameter or wave trapping also
affected the blasting results. The following general conclusions were
drawn from the results. Results of tests with 4.8 mm hole diameter have
been used for illustrations. The effect of the variation of hole
diameter and of wave trapping will be discussed in Section 4.6.
(i) Mass
The total mass of broken material increased with the increase in burden
until it attained a maximum; thereafter, the mass broken reduced until
no rock was broken. The burden, where the maximum mass of rock was
broken, was termed the optimum breakage burden (B^). This was similar
to the "optimum burden" obtained in the application of Livingston^ crater
theory (Livingston, 1956) for crater blasting.
In the test series of experiment Nos. 1 to 7, the optimum breakage
burden (B^) was at 40 mm. For larger burdens the mass of broken
material decreased. At very small burdens, i.e. at 20 and 25 mm, the
masses of rock broken were respectively 31.8 and 41.7 percent of the
maximum broken mass. The effect of variation of burdens remained
approximately the same for tests in which hole diameters were increased,
(Fig. 4.8 and Fig. 4.9) or in which stress waves were trapped. For the
same burden, the larger hole diameters mostly produced smaller mass of
rock (Fig. 4.12).

78
Figure 4.11. Sized fragments for single hole cement-mortar

tests for 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 mm
burdens placed in vertical rows (hole diameter
4.8 mm). Particles arranged in vertical rows
for small to the largest in the sizes, -3.33,
+3.33, +6.35, +12.7, +25.4, +38.1, +50.8 and
+63.5 mm.
- 79
1000
MASS 0F FRAGMENTS
BURDEN
Figure 4.12. Variation of measured mass of fragmented material
for single hole tests in cement-mortar blocks
(hole diameter * 4.8, 6.4 and 7.9 mm and wave
trapping tests).
10m
x kg
MASS SURFACE,
BURDEN (B) ,mm

Figure 4.13. Variation of mass-surface of fragmented material
for single hole tests in cement-mortar blocks
(hole diameter * 4.8, 6.4 and 7.9 mm and wave
trapping tests).
- 80 -
The results of low explosive tests (Table 4.4) showed that the mass
of broken rock was small at 20 mm burden and increased with the burden
though at 25 mm no breakage occurred. In that test* all the gases
escaped from the hole probably because of inadequate stemming. Among
tests with increased bench heights or charge density variation, 30 mm
burdens produced smaller rock mass compared to larger burdens.
(ii) Fragmentation
From Figures4.7 to 4.11 the following conclusions can be drawn.
The size distribution of fragments at small burdens (20 mm and 25 mm)
lacked uniformity and the percentage of fine fragments was high. The
size distribution of fragments was more uniform at burdens 60-70%
of the optimum breakage burden and large fragments were absent for those
burdens. Coarse fragments constituted a high percentage for optimum
breakage burden and burdens larger than optimum breakage burdens. For
those burdens the percentages of fine fragments were low. The above
pattern is also indicated in the values of the fragmentation gradient
and average fragment size. Both values were small for smaller burdens
and increased with the increase in the burden. The new surface area
created was found to be large for small burdens and reduced with the
increase in the burden. Figure 4.7 shows that the optimum breakage
burden,i.e. 40 mm, produced larger average fragment size and fragmentation
gradient. In other words, from the fragmentation point of view, optimum
breakage burden was not suitable. Large new surface for smaller burdens
also indicated better fragmentation. According to present understanding
a test which created larger mass and small sized fragments can be
considered as optimum fragmentation burden (B ^).* Therefore, to determine
* Determination of optimum fragmentation burden value is discussed further
in Section 4.6.1 .
- 81
the value of optimum fragmentation burden, (BQf), a plot of mass-surface
(i.e. mass multiplied by the new surface) against burden was obtained
(Fig. 4.13). For a 4.8 mm hole diameter test series, 35 mm produced
such a value and can be termed the optimum fragmentation burden, (BQf)
for that particular test series. Thus the optimum fragmentation burden
(Bq^) was smaller than the optimum breakage burden, (BQb).
(iii) The Width of Breakage
Tables 4.3 and 4.4. and Figure 4.14 show that the width of breakage was
small for smaller burdens (i.e, 20 and 25 mm), increased to a maximum
with the increase in the burden and thereafter, decreased for the
largest burdens. Thus the break angles produced were of the order of
150°-160° upto optimum breakage burden and thereafter decreased with
the increase in the burden. At very large burdens they decreased to
almost 90°.
(iv) Socket
Complete breakage in the front to the bottom of the hole took place with
small burdens, but large sockets were left with larger burdens (e.g.
Fig. A9). For the low explosives tests, much variation of sockets left
was not observed.
4.5.2 Single Hole Tests on Granite Blocks
The results from the tests on granite blocks showed similar trends with
the variation of burden, as observed from cement-mortar tests. These
tests showed that smaller burden produced smaller average fragment size,
fragmentation gradient and mass. The new surface produced was greater for
smaller burden tests. The values of optimum burden (breakage and frag-
82 -
Figure 4 14, Variation in width of breakage for different

burdens from single hole tests on cement-mortar
blocks (hole diameter = 4.8 mm). Numbers on each
block indicate burden in cm.
- 83 -
mentation) were not determined because of the small number of tests.
The variation in the widths of breakage, though indicated similarity
with the cement-mortar tests, were not very reliable because of the
influence of side faces of the block. This influence was on account
of the small size of the block.
4.5.3 Multihole Tests on Cement-Mortar Blocks
In tests with single holes (diameter =6.4 mm), the optimum breakage
burden (B ^) was 40 mm and the optimum fragmentation burden was 30 mm.
Therefore, those burdens were mainly compared in multi hole tests.
Figures 4.15 to 4.19 show variations in mass, the average fragment size,
the fragmentation gradient, the new surface area and mass-surface with
two and three hole tests at various burdens and spacings. The variation
in fragment size distribution is also shown pictorially in Figures 4.20
and 4.21. From these results, the following conclusions were drawn:
(i) Mass
The smallest burden (20 mm) tests produced the smallest mass of broken
rock compared to that for 30 mm and 40 mm burdens. 30 mm burden produced
smaller mass of rock compared to that produced from larger burdens. The
mass of rock broken for 30 mm burden was small for the smallest spacing
to burden ratio of 1.6, It attained a maximum value for a ratio between
3.3 to 4.0 and thereafter, did not increase. This maximum value was of
the same order as the mass broken for 40 mm burden at smaller spacing to
burden ratios of 1.5 and 2.0. For the burden of 40 mm, the mass of
broken rock was found to increase with the increase in spacing.
(ii) Fragmentation
The fragmentation produced was better with smaller burdens and poor
34
Figure 4.15. Variation in mass of rock produced for multi hole tests in cement-mortar blocks.
<-D
<3:
Q_
GO
THREE HOLES
z:
UJ sr zr
UJ UJ
o
cr o
C£ o
CC
ID
CO
O =0
CQ CO
O O o
CM « it
• ^ 0
HOLES
zr z:
UJ UJ
o
a: Q
DC
ZD
CD
ZO
CO
1
TWO
o o
CO *3
\
\
o
'.n
o o O o
o o a o
CN wi o
CN
6 ‘S S V u
co
o
TWO holes th r ee h o les
O
O
O
o
- 85 -
‘3Z I S°1N3*W9 VHd 3 9 V M 3 A V

i
LD
oo
Figure 4.16. a.
Variation in average fragment size of particles for multihole tests in cement-mortar blocks.
n %- > •»>
O
E !i V, e fc h E ‘J C ii E M i'
ll
-
86
-
cu
go
CD
<—>
<c
►—<
ZD
Figure 4.17. Variation in fragmentation gradient for various tests at d iffe re n t burdens and spacings in two or
three simultaneously fire d holes in cement-mortar blocks.
TWO HOt.ES T H Rt E HOLES
7 30 mm BURDEN • 20 mm BURDEN
A 40 mm BURDEN A 30 mm BURDEN
■ 40 mm BURDEN
87
F ig u r e 4 .1 8 . V a r i a t i o n I n n ew s u r f a c e a r e a c r e a t e d f o r m u lti h o l e t e s t s in c e m e n t- m o r ta r b l o c k s .
O
O
ui 6»
X
01
- 83 -
‘3 3 y d h n S* S S V H
V)
*
CD
CL.
o
<c
zr
CO
Figure 4.19* Variation in mass surface for various te s ts at d iffe r e n t burdens and spacings in two or three
simultaneously fired holes in cement-mortar blocks.
89
B-20 S'60 B-20 S-90 B-30 5-60 B~30 S~90 B~40 S~60 B~40 S-90
Figure 4.20. Sized fragments placed in vertical rows for

tests with 20, 30 and 40 mm burdens (B) with
60 and 90 mm spacings (S) in tests with three
simultaneously fired holes in cement-mortar
blocks. Particles arranged in vertical rows
for small to the largest sizes, -3.33, +3.33,
+6.35, +12.7, +25.4, +38.1, +50.8 and +63.5 mm.
90
Figure 4.21. Sized fragments placed in vertical rows for

tests with 30 mm burden (B) and various spacings
(S) with three simultaneously fired holes in
cement-mortar blocks. Particles arranged in
vertical rows for small to the largest sizes
are, -3.33, +3.33, +6.35, +12.7, +25.4, and
+38.1 mm. First two columns also show fragments
from second row of two holes.
- 91 -
for 40 mm burden. Only a few tests were performed for 20 mm burden at
various spacings, which showed that upto a spacing to burden ratio of
six, the average fragment size and the fragmentation gradient values
were the lowest compared to that produced for tests with larger burdens.
The results showed that the fragmentation gradient and the average
fragment size were always lower for 30 mm burden at any spacing than
that for 40 mm and larger burdens. The values of new surface area created
for tests at 40 mm were lower than that for smaller burdens. Figures
4.20 and 4.21 show that the fragmentation obtained for burden of 40 mm
and various spacings was poor. Tests for 30 mm burden at various spacings
produced larger mass-surface than that for 40 mm burden at various
spacings. Figure 4.22 shows that for the burden of 40 mm the smallest
fragment size was obtained at the spacing to burden ratio between 1.5
to 2, whereas for 30 mm burden even large ratio upto 5.3, the frag
mentation was small compared to any spacings with 40 mm burden.
Test blocks (Appendix II) showed that individual hole breakage occurred
at 150 mm spacing for 30 mm burden and at 120 mm spacing for 20 mm
burden. Even though individual hole breakages occurred, the frag
mentation did not deteriorate. For a burden of 30 mm individual hole
breakage did not appear to take place upto a spacing of 120 mm.
Tests with increased bench heights and inside initiation also showed
that the average fragment size was smaller for 30 mm burden than that
for 40 mm burden. The average fragment size and the fragmentation
gradient were lower for tests with both 92 mm and 104 mm bench heights
than those for corresponding burden and spacing tests with 76 mm bench
height and inside initiation.

- 9
? -
v a ria tio n in average fragment size fo r m u ltih o le te s ts in cement-mortar blocks a t various spacing
«o
•o
* n
- -*i
CJ3
2C z:
t—iLU
O CD
< DC
=>
HO LES
a_
co CQ
2T zr: 2r
UJ LU LU
Q a o
ac or a;
zd
CD DO CO
THREE
o o o
CM fO
ra tio s .
» 9|
H O LES
2T 2T
and burden
UJ LU
o O
or a;
r? ^3
CD CD
TW O
o <+-
o
<r>
b* x.
Figure 4.22.
o O o o o
cc> N 'O v>
wui ‘ 32 IS lN3W9Vaj 39VH3AV
- 93 -
The analysis of test results in which the second row of holes were
fired, showed that in those tests too the burden chiefly controlled the
fragmentation irrespective of spacings. For the burden of 20 mm, the
average fragment size and the fragmentation gradient were the smallest
and for the burden of 40 mm both values were the largest. In these
tests, except the one with 30 mm burden and 150 mm spacing, the
fragment sizes and the fragmentation gradients were smaller compared
to that for two or three hole tests in single row at similar burden
and spacing distances.
(iii) Socket
The smallest sockets were left for 20 mm burden and various spacing tests.
For the burden of 40 mm the mean socket sizes were much larger. This
showed that,as in single hole tests the burden controlled the socket
sizes left after the blasts in multi hole tests too. In the second row
tests the socket and toes increased for all the burdens compared to
that for previous single row tests.
The advantage of en-echelon pattern became apparent from blocks

after the tests (Appendix II). For 20 mm burden unbroken rock left
after the first test was too much which was fragmented and removed by
staggerred holes in the second row.
4.5.4 Tests on "Jointed" Granite Blocks
In all the tests on "jointed" granite blocks it was observed that all
the material between the free face and the slot was broken along with
other breakage. The broken rock contained two large pieces of rock
from the outermost part of the block in plate shape. These two large
pieces were considered to be overbreaks. Thus for the analysis of
- 94 -
results, the overbreaks were excluded. Because of this exclusion new
surface area and mass-surface were not calculated.
Since the test series was designed as factorial series, statistical
analysis of variance was carried out. Various combinations of results
were made and by squares and sum of squares, F-ratios for various
combinations were obtained. In blasting similar procedure has been used
by other investigators (Dick et. al., 1973; Ash, 1973). From the
analysis the following conclusions were made:
(i) Mass
When only "jointed" blocks were considered, the effect of burden was
found to be significant at the 1% level on the mass of broken material
but no effect of the hole diameter was observed upto 5% level of
significance. Fillers also did not have significant effect on the mass
of broken material at 5% level.
(ii) Fragmentation
When average fragment size was considered, the hole diameter did not
have any significant effect upto 5% level nor any effect of type of
filler was observed upto 5% level. The effect of burden was found to
be significant at the 1% level. Compared to tests without joints,
the effects of joints on average fragment size was significant at the
5% level.
When the fragmentation gradient was considered, it showed that the hole
diameter did not have any significant effect upto 5% level, but the
joint and the burden both individually had significant effect at 1% level.
- 95 -
The type of filler also had significant effect at 1% level on the
fragmentation gradient.
4.6 DISCUSSIONS
Utilisation of explosive energy, burden and spacing relationships and
the process of rock fragmentation are discussed in this section.
4.6.1 Efficient Utilisation of Explosive Energy
It was stated earlier that efficient utilisation of explosive energy
from a given drilling and blasting system would ideally provide maximum
or near maximum rock breakage, small size fragments and proper dis
placement of the muckpile. In the present investigation energy
expenditure for the displacement was not considered.
Conventionally, most operations aimed at obtaining maximum breakage
from the given explosive energy. Since it is recognised now that
smaller fragment size reduces subsequent costs, the effort should be
to obtain sufficient broken mass as well as small fragment size. Ideal
fragment size will depend upon the conditions of individual operation.
Only a few operations will have advantage in obtaining large fragment
size, avoiding small and especially very fine fragments.
Difficulties concerning measure of fragmentation were pointed out
earlier. In this investigation, it was possible to analyse
fragmentation by sieving. From the size analysis average fragment size
and fragmentation gradient could be calculated. However, neither of
these indicators provide full information about fragmentation. Many
investigations in comminution of rock concerning energy-size
relationship have been carried out (Bond, 1952; Charles, 1957;

- 96 -
Schuhmann, 1960). Similar principles can be developed to provide
quantitative measure of fragmentation. The surface area per unit mass
is inversely proportional to the diameter of fragment (Dallavale, 1948).
Therefore, larger amount of new surface area indicates smaller fragment size.
Analysis of single hole test results showed that at the smallest burden*
the new surface created was large but the mass obtained was small.
The concept of optimum fragmentation as given by MacKenzie (1966) when
extended to include new surface area as a measure of fragmentation,
suggests that obtaining enough mass along with greater new surface is
essential for blasting. Therefore, a product of mass and new surface
(mass-surface) should provide an index of energy utilisation. With
small scale blasting it was possible to calculate new surface area as
suggested by Heywood and Pryor (1946) but at present it is difficult
to say how new surface area can be calculated for production blasting.
In single hole tests on cement-mortar blocks the value of mass-surface
at the optimum breakage burden , B^, was less than that at any smaller
burden. The burden providing maximum value of mass-surface was termed
as the optimum fragmentation burden, Bq^. If the value of mass-surface
produced at the optimum breakage burden, BQb, is taken as the standard,
then for the burden of 35 mm in test series with 4.8 mm hole diameter,
the explosive energy was 21.6% better utilised. All the other burdens
gave lower values of mass-surface than the burden of 35 mm and thus
can be considered less efficient.
To understand why the variation in fragmentation occurred and how the
energy was utilised, first the large fragments were studied and fragments
obtained were reassembled. The fracture surfaces of large particles
showed that two distinct fracture mechanisms participated in the

- 97 -
fragmentation (Fig. 4.23). One fracture surface parallel to the bench
face was rough and had a bubbly appearance showing that fracture due
to direct tension had occurred. Reflected stress waves and subsequent
scabbing cause fracture by direct tension. On the other hand, the
fragment surface containing the hole mark had fracture surface with
heckle marks (Lutton, 1971). The origin of fracture appeared to be
near the hole. The latter surface, therefore, indicated that the
fracture started near the hole wall and progressed towards free surface
and was not a result of stress wave action. Thus in the latter instance
the breakage boundaries were determined by gaseous action.
4.6.2 The Importance of Stress Waves and Scabbing in Fragmentation
The large fragments obtained in single hole tests for optimum breakage
burden and larger burdens appeared to originate from the area of the
bench opposite the hole. The large fragments in single hole tests both
in cement-mortar and in granite showed that in each fragment a crack
parallel to the bench face was present (Figs. 4.24 and 4.25). The crack
parallel to the face is generally accepted as due to the scabbing action
of reflected stress waves (Saluja, 1963 and 1968). Multiple scabbing
in these large fragments was not noticed. From the above evidence, it
was concluded that in large fragments, the stress wave reflection and
scabbing actions were weak. Conversely, if the stress waves and
scabbing action were stronger then the large fragments would be absent.
At small burdens a smaller average fragment size was obtained, therefore,
it is suggested that reflected stress waves and scabbing action helped
to reduce the size of fragments for the reduced burdens.
For the burdens used in production blasting, it is stated that the
reflected stress waves are weak and hence do not play any significant
98
Figure 4.23. Two views of a fragment obtained in a granite

test shows two fracture mechanisms in (a) direct
tension resulting from the scabbing action, in
(b) heckle marks indicating crack initiating
and propagation from the hole.
99
Figure 4.24. Two fragments shown in (a) obtained from tests without
and with wave trapping experiments. Enlarged view in (b)
of area opposite the holes shows presence of scabbing crack
parallel to bench face in test without wave trapping. In
wave trapping test scabbing crack is absent (c).
- 100
(b)
Figure 4.25, Large fragments from single hole tests in

cement-mortar blocks, (a) Shows a scabbing
crack parallel to the bench face (arrow mark),
(b) shows such crack absent in wave trapping
test.
101
role in fragmentation (Persson et. al., 1970; Hagan, 1973). Therefore,
if the role of the stress waves and scabbing can be increased in
production blasting, considerable improvement in the fragmentation and
a reduction in large fragments (boulders) might be achieved.
Tests designed to show the role of stress waves by increasing the
stress waves would involve an increase in the role of gas energy or
will preclude the part played by the gas energy. Therefore, indirect
tests were carried out to show the role of the stress waves by reducing
or eliminating the stress wave reflection and scabbing. If it can be
shown that by reducing or eliminating reflected stress waves the
fragment size or distribution is affected then the role of stress waves
in the process of fragmentation can be accepted. The following types
of experiments were performed:
(i) The single hole tests with different hole diameters in cement-mortar
blocks were described in Section 4.2.1. For the same diameter
explosive charge, increased hole diameter produced decoupling. With
unconfined cylindrical charges increase in decoupling has been
shown to reduce both the amplitude and the duration of stress
waves (Hass and Rinehart, 1965). With confined explosive charges
a similar effect has been shown by Atchison et. al., (1964) and
Fogelson et. al., (1965). Table 4.3 and Figures 4.26 and 4.27 show
that the increase in hole diameter produced coarser fragments
and for a given burden both the average fragment size and
fragmentation gradient increased. The new surface created for
a given burden reduced with the increase in decoupling. An
exception to this was between 6.4 mm and 7.9 mm hole diameter
tests for small burdens. Similarly, it can be seen from results
obtained from tests on granite blocks (Table 4.5) that a larger

102 -
W6.4 £
Figure 4.26. Variation of average fragment size for single hole

tests in cement-mortar blocks with various hole
diameters (4.8, 6.4 and 7.9 mm) and wave trapping
tests.
W 6*4
6.4
16 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
BURDEN (B), mm
Figure 4.27. Variation of fragmentation gradient for single

hole tests in cement'mortar blocks with various
hole diameters (4.8, 6,4 and 7.9 mm) and wave
trapping tests.
103 -
’■WPPW"' 1^
• • • •# ]• •
!m ^ 0 0
& W
4
% V 4St *
0 * w
-4JW
I jj£\.
&
X
WB-20 WB-25 WB-30 WB-35 ▼ B-25 B-30
Figure 4.28. Sized fragments, from single hole cement-mortar

(a) wave trapping tests for burdens, WB = 20, 25,
30 and 35 mm, and (b) without wave trapping tests
for burdens, B = 20, 25 and 30 mm, placed in
vertical rows. Particles arranged in vertical
rows for small to the largest in the sizes, -3.33,
+3.33, +6.35, +12.7, +25.4, +38.1, +50.8 and +63.5 mm.
104 -
hole diameter, i.e. greater decoupling produced coarser frag

mentation and a larger average fragment size, The percentage of
fine particles in each case reduced with the increase in hole
diameter. In tests with the "jointed" granite the diameter of the
hole did not cause significant difference. This was probably due
to dominant influence of the "joint". It could be said from the
other single hole tests that one reason for the coarser size of
fragmentation with increased hole diameter(and thus the decoupled
charges)was the reduction in the role of stress waves.
(ii) Wave trapping experiments were described in Sections 4,2,1 and

4.2.2. The addition of wave trap to the vertical bench face
reduced the percentage of fine material and increased the average
size of fragments for any given burden both in the cement-mortar
and granite tests (Tables 4.3 and 4.5, Figs. 4.26 to 4.28),
Similarly, the fragmentation gradient increased in wave trapping
tests compared to tests without the wave trapping at the same
burden and hole diameter. The large fragment when studied showed
that the scabbing crack was absent with wave trapping test CFig.
4.24 and 4.25). Therefore, it is suggested that in absence of
scabbing the fragment size obtained was coarser. Conversely, if
the role of stress waves was increased, fragment size would be
smaller, and thus the stress waves would be better utilised in
the fragmentation of rock and in creating more mass-surface per
unit of explosives.
4.6.3 The Role of Gas Energy
In both the above experiments of decoupling and wave trapping, along

with the reduction or elimination of the stress waves, the gas energy
105 -
participating in the process of fragmentation was also reduced, A
number of formulae are available which relate peak hole pressure and
decoupling (Bergmann et. al,, 1973), which indicate that with the
increase in the volume of hole in the decoupling tests, the gases acted
at a lower pressure. Though, in the tests some volume was occupied
by the cloth tape (which was used to centralise cord in the hole),
even then large space remained unfilled and therefore, gas pressure
was lowered. Therefore, doubt was raised whether variation in
fragmentation in decoupling tests was due to the reduction of stress
wave energy alone or due to the reduction in gas pressure as well.
Similarly in tests with wave traps in addition to the elimination of
reflected stress waves, the gas energy was also expended in moving the
wave trap. It is doubtful whether the stress waves generated in the
wave trapping tests were capable of moving a 30 mm x 7.6 mm x 20 mm
plate. Perhaps after initial separation due to the stress waves the
actual movement of the plate occurred by the deformation of the rock,
between the hole and the face, by the effect of gas pressure. Therefore,
again it is doubtful whether the change in fragmentation in the wave
trapping tests was entirely due to absence of reflected stress waves.
To clarify the role of gases further tests were carried out using gun
powder in the long cylindrical holes in cement-mortar blocks (Section
4.2.1).
With low explosives,e.g. gun powder the entire work of "fracture" is
considered to be by gas action (Saluja, 1963; Clark and Saluja, 1964).
From the tests it was observed that the smallest burden (20 mm) produced
the smallest mass, average fragment size and fragmentation gradient
(Table 4.4). Thus the gas energy was able to produce smaller fragment
size for small burden tests suggesting that the gas energy was better
utilised at smaller burdens.
106 -
Tests with detonating cord at critical burdens showed that radiating

cracks originated near the walls and progressed to the bench face
(Fig. 4.29). In addition, fragmented particles from a few single
hole tests were reassembled (Fig. 4.30 to 4.32). These reassembled
particles showed the paths along which fractures had propagated.
In these reassembled blocks radiating cracks from the holes, which

had progressed upto the bench face, were present. These cracks were
not the same radial cracks as other investigators suggest (Kutter, 1967;
D'Andrea et. al., 1970; Persson et. al., 1970; Olson et. al., 1973;
Siskind & Fumanti,1974; Harries, 1973; Bergmann et. al., 1974).
According to these investigators radial cracks were distributed equally
all around the hole. In fact, these investigators mostly considered
radial cracks around the hole in the cracked zone near the hole and
in the absence of a free face. To distinguish between radial cracks
near the hole, which do not propagate farther and those cracks which
reach the free face, the latter hereafter will be referred as radiating
cracks. The cracks observed in Figures 4.29 to 4.32 appear to radiate
from the holes as suggested by Porter (1971) and Porter and Fairhurst
(1971) for a hole under gas pressure in the presence of a free face.
These investigators suggested that the cracks originated on the hole
wall. As shown in Equation 3.2, the maximum stress occurs at a point
E (Fig. 3.2), and therefore, preferential location for origin of the
crack is located at E. These reassembled particles and blocks suggested
that postulations of Porter and Fairhurst were correct.*
* The paths of cracks and applicability of Porter's work is further

discussed in Section 5.
107 -
Figure 4.29. Cracks shown in various single hole tests

where critical burdens were experienced.
108 -
Figure 4.30. Reassembled particles from single-hole tests

in cement-mortar blocks.
109 -
Figure 4.31. Reassembled fragments from (a) 35 mm and

(b) 40 mm burden tests in granite blocks.
110 -
Figure 4.32* Reassembled fragments from 20, 30 and 50 mm

burden tests with low explosives. Numbers on
on blocks indicate burden in mm.
Ill
For critical burdens only two cracks originated from the hole and
other radial cracks were absent. Reassembled particles from tests
in granite blocks (Fig. 4.31) and from three burdens with low explosives
(Fig. 4.32) showed that for similar conditions, the number of cracks
originating were more for the smaller burdens and reduced with the
increase in the burden. For critical burden tests only two cracks
originated and extended (Fig. 4.29). In single hole tests these
radiating cracks governed the width of bench craters. Porter (1971)
also postulated that at critical and also small burden the width of
breakage was smaller and the maximum width occurred somewhere between
these extreme burdens. Table 4.3 and Figure 4.14 shows that such
a variation in width existed in the single hole tests. The width
when related to the angle of breakage indicated the angle would be
less at critical burden than that at the burden where maximum width
occurred. With critical burden the probable break angle (which
would have occurred if breakage had taken place) approached 90° and
for burdens smaller than the critical, the break angles were about
150°-160°.
The reassembled particles showed that the branching of the radiating
cracks followed a regular pattern. It is shown in Section 5 that the
radiating cracks and their branching followed two principal stress
directions. It is also shown that the branching had preferred direction
towards the free face. If radiating cracks alone were produced as
suggested by Porter (1971) and Harries (1973) then pie shaped particles
would have been present. The branching of the radiating cracks was
the reason why conical pie shaped particles were not found in great
numbers in production blasting.

- 112 -
In many tests, such as those shown in Figures 4.24, 4.25, 4.30 to 4.32
an almost perpendicular crack from the bench face towards the face was
observed. Except in wave trapping tests this crack did not appear to
have originated from the hole. The analysis presented in Section 3.4.2
showed that stress at a point on the hole wall nearest the face was
minimum, therefore, radiating crack will not originate at that point.
In many large fragments such cracks seem to have terminated at the
scabbing crack (Fig. 4.25). This suggested that the scabbing crack was
formed before the perpendicular crack. This crack also suggested that
the deformation of bench face had taken place and the whole bench face
was bent outward. In fragments where scabbing was absent (Fig. 4.24 and
4.25) the perpendicular crack propagated upto the hole. Thus bending
of the bench face under gas pressure was apparent. In such bending, the
bench face behaved as a beam, the gas pressure acted on the wall of the
hole along the axis. The rock at the bench bottom provided the resistance
to bending. In such cases complete breakage at the bottom of the face was
not possible. This resistance lead to formation of sockets. With small
burden, the gas pressure was able to overcome the resistance and in tests
with larger burdens excessive resistance lead to the formation of sockets.
Tables 4.3 to 4.5 for single hole tests results show that sockets left
were small at small burden (20 mm and 25 mm) and increased with the burden.
4.6.4 The Relative Roles of Stress Waves and Gas Energies
From the above experiments it is difficult to give a quantitative role

to the stress waves and to the role of gases, or to explain their action.
Considering previous discussions, it can be said that radiating cracks
and their branching is important at all burdens. At small burdens
stress waves also play an important part. Further, consideration to
the role of stress waves is given below:
113 -
Compared to high explosive tests, the low explosives tests produced
small percentage of the finest particles (say -3.33 mm size). For
low explosives even in tests at the smallest burden (20 mm), the average
fragment size was much larger compared to the smallest burden for the
high explosive tests (Table 4.3 and 4.4). Even in wave trapping
experiments, similar observations could be made. Thus it is suggested
that in the absence of stress waves the finer fragments were reduced.
The results of tests with different filler materials in tests on
"jointed" granite blocks produced significantly different (at 1% level)
fragmentation gradient. Compared to cement and plaster of Paris as
filler materials, "air" as filler produced considerably greater
percentage of finer particles. Significant difference between percentage
of fine particles for cement and plaster of Paris tests was not observed
though the impedance of cement was two times that of plaster of Paris.
It appears that only when stress waves were unable to cross the joint
and the joint plane acted as burden, the reflected waves were able to
cause fine fragmentation.
The joint plane (slot) was also positioned parallel to the bench face
to roughly simulate a scabbing crack. In each test with the simulated
joint, the average fragment size and fragmentation gradient were
smaller than for the tests without the joint. This also suggests some
role of the stress waves. Scabbing occurs before the gas energy is
able to cause fracture and fragmentation. Therefore, in a blast if
scabbing is allowed to take place, even solid rock would then behave
as if it was jointed and thus smaller fragment size would be obtained.
The role of stress waves in producing microstructural damage is known
even when scabbing does not occur (Goldsmith, 1967). The weakening of
- 114 -
material will help cracks growing under the gas action. One possible
reason for the branching of propagating radiating cracks can be
ascribed to these microcracks and thus smaller fragments can be
expected.
Considering the properties of cement-mortar and granite blocks, the

difference in fragmentation at lower burden appears to be large.
Granite which had higher impedance (density x wave velocity) produced
greater amount of fine fragments and in all the tests larger amounts
of new surfaces were created.
Thus all the above observations indicate that stress waves have an
important effect on fragmentation. It appears that even at small
burdens the role of stress waves in itself is minor but indirectly they
help by scabbing, by weakening of rock and thus help subsequent
fragmentation by gas action. Tests with low explosives and wave trap
showed that gases themselves were capable of producing smaller average
fragment size at small burdens. These all indicate that stress waves
though not essential but if present, help in achieving better
fragmentation.
It appears that the gas energy is mainly responsible for fragmentation.

For a given material, hole diameter, type and quantity of explosive,
the number of radiating cracks will depend on the stress pattern which
in turn will be controlled by the burden. At small burden the number
of cracks originating from a hole will be large, but only a few of them
will be able to reach the face because some of them will reach the face
before the others and release the gas pressure. At very large burdens
(near critical burden) the stress pattern will be such that only a
few cracks will be able to originate from the hole and propagate upto
115
the face. Only at intermediate burdens (near optimum fragmentation
burden) more cracks would be able to initiate and propagate upto the
face as sufficient time would then be available and the energy
imparted will be sufficient to initiate and propagate a number of
cracks. In addition to the radiating cracks, the effect of crack
branching also need to be considered. It has been shown in brittle
fracture studies that after reaching certain critical velocity, cracks
bifurcate (CottereU 1965b). At small burden since the energy was
imparted to a smaller mass, the energy available per unit mass was
larger and therefore, a large number of cracks bifurcated. In contrast,
at large burdens, the branching of cracks was not observed, indicating
that either the cracks did not have sufficient energy or they did not
attain the critical velocity of propagation. Further branching of prop
agating radiating cracks could also be expected due to microstructural
cracks.
In addition to the effect of gas energy, the role of stress waves in
scabbing, and microstructural damage is very important. These effects
are more pronounced at small burdens and therefore, cause smaller fragment
size.
4.6.5 The Burden and Spacing Relationships
It was observed from the tests with two or three simultaneously fired
holes that better fragmentation was obtained with smaller burdens
compared to that for optimum breakage burden. By extending the
reasoning used in discussing the single hole test results to the case
of multi hole tests, it may be stated that at small burdens better
fragmentation was obtained on account of better energy utilisation.
At small burdens the stress waves were better utilised in creating scabbing
116 -
cracks and microstructural damage in the rock mass. The micro-
structural damage caused flaws in the rock mass and radiating cracks
growing under the gas action bifurcated on meeting these flaws.
Also gas action alone was able to generate and propagate a large
number of radiating cracks.
In multihole tests mutual effect of gas energy also occurred. Figure
4.33 shows a large particle obtained from a three hole test at 40 mm
burden and 120 mm spacing. This explains why for optimum breakage
burden a spacing to burden ratio less than two is needed. 40 mm burden
was optimum breakage burden for single hole tests and according to
conventional practice the spacing should be less than 80 mm. However,
the spacing was greater, thus the radial cracks from each hole did not
assist each other in reaching the face. If spacing was closer, then
the radial cracks from each hole would have had a mutually assisting
effect and slightly better fragmentation would have been obtained.
At spacing to burden ratio of 1.5 for optimum breakage burden indeed
the fragmentation was better (Experiment No. 121).
Reassembled pieces of the block, from tests with two holes at 55 mm burden
and 165 mm spacing showed still less number of radiating cracks
(Fig. 4.34). It showed that cracks between the holes joined but did
not propagate to the face. Thus all the rock was broken mainly as
two large pieces. It is suggested that for this burden even if
spacing was close (between one and two times the burden) the
fragmentation would have been very coarse.
In this reassembly, it can be seen that there was a crack almost
perpendicular from the bench which ran towards the radiating cracks
which joined together. As was shown in single hole tests this crack
117 -
Figure 4.33. Reassembled fragments (a) from test with three holes at
40 mm burden and 120 mm spacing. Enlarged views on either
side of middle hole shown in (b) and (c). (d) Another
view of particle between two holes.
118 -
Figure 4.34. Reassembled fragments (a & b) from Experiment

No. 78 in which two holes were simultaneously
fired at 55 mm burden and 165 mm spacing. In
(c) enlarged view between two holes is shown,
119 -
shows that deformation of bench face took place resulting in bending
of the bench face. The bending appeared to be maximum on the bench face
in the middle of two holes. Similar cracks, though very faint, from
the bench face could also be observed opposite each of two holes.
The crack on the bench face in the middle of two holes clearly indicated
that a mutual effect in simultaneously blasted holes existed although
it was very weak for such large spacing and burden.
With optimum fragmentation burden and smaller burdens it was found that
no large fragments were present and reassembly of fragmented particles
was difficult. This was to be expected because the number of radiating
cracks as well as their branching would be greater. In addition, the
scabbing cracks and microstructural damage due to stress waves would
help in reducing the size of the fragments. The combined result of
all these effects could be expected to produce smaller size of frag
mentation and large fragments would be absent.
For optimum fragmentation burden, i.e. 30 mm burden it appeared that
mutual assistance effect occurred upto spacing to burden ratios from
3.3 to 4.0. This was concluded on the basis of the mass of broken
material as well as mass-surface of the broken material. For a spacing
to burden ratio of two the enhancement did not appear to be useful since
the total mass of broken material was less than with three single hole
tests for this burden. With the increase in spacing for 30 mm burden
in the three hole tests the mass and mass-surface produced increased
upto a spacing to burden ratio of 4.0, but not thereafter. With
further increase in spacing individual hole breakage occurred. Even
where individual hole breakage occurred, the size of fragments was
small.
120 -
With delay between rows and a staggerred pattern of holes also

fragmentation obtained was better. Improvements in fragmentation with
millisecond delays is well established in industry (Du Pont Research,
1971).
Thus it is suggested that the reduced burden and increased spacing

allowed radiating cracks and their branching to develop fully. By
proper delay between holes similar effect of full development of
radiating cracks can be achieved. By either of two methods better
fragmentation can be obtained.
4.6.6 Effect of "Joint"
The most significant property of "joints" of the type used in experiments

was their inability to transmit tensile stress. Thus the tensile strength
of such a joint can be considered as very small in comparison with that
of the intact rock. The fragmentation of the rock in the burden zone
thus resulted in fragments which contained the joint plane and the
bench face (Fig. 4.35). The radiating cracks appeared to cut
transversely through the joints. It appears (Fig. 4.35b) that the
transverse cracks radiated from the hole.
Further, the joint walls represented surface from which stress waves
got reflected, and therefore, interrupted in their passage through the
rock mass. Consequently, a stress wave in jointed rock suffered greater
attenuation than a similar wave in a solid rock. This attenuation
was particularly likely to occur when the joints were filled with air
or plaster of Paris. In those tests joints were oriented in such a way
that the compressive stress waves were transmitted approximately at
right angles, the surface of joint might have caused reflection of
121 -
(b)
Figure 4. 35, (a) Fragments between the bench and the slot
as obtained from test with "joint" in
granite block.
(b) Reassembled fragments.
122 -
stress waves, resulting in multiple scabbing. It appears that this

was the reason why larger percentage of finer fragments was obtained
in tests with air-filled "joints" than in tests with cement filled
joints. The attenuation of the stress waves might have been so much
that it failed to reach free surface and hence scabbing cracks near
the surface remained absent.
123 -
5, ANALYTICAL STUDIES BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
The experimental investigations described in Section 4 indicated that
the gas energy alone was capable of causing the greater part of the
fragmentation and also controlled the breakage boundaries. The
investigation was therefore extended to the study of the stress
distribution in rock due to gaseous pressure in a hole by using the
finite element method. The object was to predict the extent of
breakage, the crack directions and to compare the results with those
available from the experimental studies. The work also examined the
spacing and burden relationship.
5.1 THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
The finite element methods have been used in studies of rock blasting
by some investigators (Sassa et. al., 1966; Da Gama, 1970a and d; Ito
et. al., 1970; Porter, 1971; Ash, 1973). Only Porter (1971) and Ash
(1973) investigated the role of gaseous pressure in a hole. The
work described in this section adopted principles developed by Porter
(1971). Porter had used the method for the study of single hole under
gas pressure. To simulate blasting action for his experimental work
Porter used glass plate (25.4 mm thick) and oil under pressure. In the
following study the results of stress analysis were compared with the
laboratory experimental studies. The various cases analysed were selected
to show the crack directions and the breakage boundaries in cement-mortar
tests. A study of the variation of burden and spacing was also carried
out.
Because of the limited capacity and speed of presently available

- 124 -
computers, the solution of practical problems by the finite element
methods are generally restricted to two-dimensional configurations.
In the application of the finite element method, a number of
assumptions are made concerning some conditions of rock mass. The
method adopted assumed that rock was an isotropic and linearly elastic
medium. In this study the modelling was for cement-mortar blocks
only, which was considered as an isotropic and elastic medium.
Insufficient information regarding the mechanical properties may also
lead to some errors in the results. On account of the above assumptions
and limitations the results would not be completely correct. However,
the method provided sufficiently accurate results for stress analysis.
The magnitude of the problem to be solved was such that any other
method would be extremely slow, tedious and probably no more accurate
than a finite element analysis.
The basic principles of the finite element method as applicable to
rock mechanics are well described in the literature (Zienkiewicz, 1971;
Desai and Abel, 1972) and therefore are described here in brief.
The fundamental principle of a finite element model is that it is
constructed as a mesh of "finite elements" across the section of
medium under consideration. These elements, connected at pin jointed
nodes, represent the true behaviour of the medium, provided that two
principles are followed: (a) the individual elements deform in such
a manner as not to interfere with neighbouring elements, and (b) the
elements are small enough so that stress variations over them can be
neglected.
125 -
In the method, the two dimensional body is subdivided into triangular
or quadrilateral finite elements by a straight line mesh superimposed
on the X-Y plane (The triangular elements were adopted in the model
used). The body is assumed to be "cut" along the mesh-lines and the
elements to be pin jointed at the nodal points (corresponding in this
instance with apices of the triangles).
The forces acting on the body, are replaced by a statically equivalent
system of forces acting at the nodal points. In this study, the loads
due to the gas pressure acting on the walls of the holes, were replaced
by a statically equivalent system of forces acting at the nodal points.
Ensuring equilibrium at each node, a series of simultaneous equations
express the relationships between the applied nodal forces, the stiffness
matrix of the structure and the resulting nodal displacements. These
linear equations are solved for the nodal displacements and then the
stresses in all elements are calculated from the nodal displacements
through a stress transformation matrix. The stiffness properties of
the elements are found from the force displacement relationship and
requirements of the compatibility and equilibrium. Since the total
nodal force is due to all elements connected at that node, the overall
stiffness matrix of the structure is obtained by the effects of
individual elements.
A comprehensive finite element programme was available on the University
of New South Wales I.B.M. 360/50 computer and acknowledgement for
its availability is given to the School of Mining Engineering, where
it was made available and was supervised by Dr. S. Budavari. This
programme was an extension by Budavari from the programme published

126 -
by Zienkiewicz (1971). It consists of a control main programme and
several subroutines written in Fortran IV. Using the finite element
concept, the programme can be applied to the plane strain and stress
solution of linear elastic problems in two dimensions. This particular
programme was designed to handle a maximum number in the vicinity of
1,000 to 1,200 elements. Other restrictions were on account of the
number of nodal points and bandwidth. Modifications were required to
accommodate the necessary bandwidth for the mesh constructed for the
present studies. This programme had been used earlier (Hebblewhite, 1973;
Budavari, 1974), hence further details of the programme are not given.
The programme operated in the FPS units only. The results were later
converted to the International System (SI).
The output of the programme consisted of the reprinted input data, and
the calculated stress components and node displacements. Stresses were
described by two normal and one shear stress components. The major
and minor principal stress components of the same state were also
calculated and presented. The principal stresses were oriented by
the angle calculated. This angle was measured in a clockwise direction

from the Y-axis to the stress component with maximum stress value.
5.2 MODELLING THE ROCK MASS IN THE CHARGE DIAMETER PLANE
To analyse the effects of the variation of burden and the relationship
between burden and spacing the rock mass in bench blasting was considered
as a plate model in which pressure was applied on the hole walls as in
blasting. Because the hole pressure acting against the surrounding rock
would be uniformly distributed over the full length of the hole, the
stresses generated would be similar, except possibly in the immediate
127 -
vicinities of the open face at the collar and at the very bottom of
the charge. Thus it was assumed that a plane stress condition would
be present for all practical purposes of this study in the planes of
charge diameter.
The grid used for this study is given in Figure 5.1. The dimensions
were similar to that for cement-mortar blocks used for multi hole tests.
The model was considered to be axisymmetric through the centre of
hole 2, hence only a half-block was analysed. Since the fundamental
assumption was that stresses and strains were constant over each element,
it followed that close to the holes large stress gradients were
expected, therefore, the mesh was constructed sufficiently fine close to
the holes to be capable of describing these gradients. Further away
in the body increasingly larger triangles were considered adequate to
model the effects of remote boundary conditions. To provide the
approximate condition of a semi-infinite block, boundaries were fixed.
Only the free face was not fixed and allowed to move in both XX and
YY directions.
The element properties needed were Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio,
which were taken the same as those for cement-mortar blocks for the
experimental work (Table 4.1).
The same mesh was used for both single and multihole models. Therefore,
from the beginning a second hole was included in the mesh. For elements
within the hole(s) material properties of gas were needed. Consequently

2
very small non-zero value for Young's modulus, viz. 0.345 N/m and the
largest practical Poisson's ratio less than 0.50, viz. 0.45, were assigned
FREE SURFACE
128
o
Figure 5.1. Mesh used for the fin ite element analysis. Line of axi-symmetry lie s on 0-Y.
129 -
to the elements within the hole(s). When analysing the case of single
hole the material properties of cement-mortar as for the rest of the
block were assigned to the elements in the hole 1, as if no such hole
existed. For multi hole analysis both holes were loaded with equal
pressure. The hole diameter was kept the same as used for spacing
tests in cement-mortar blocks, i.e. 6.4 mm. Because of the triangular
elements the hole was not exactly circular. This assumption was not
considered to cause large inaccuracy.
The burden was varied for single hole as well as for two hole cases.
The mesh included the largest burden considered (70 mm) and was
divided in such a manner that from the same mesh other burdens (20, 30,
40, 50 and 60 mm) could also be considered. To run the programme for
burdens smaller than 70 mm all that was required was not to include
the element and nodal cards for the burdens larger than that being
considered. Thus very little change in mesh and consequently card
punching was required for the analysis of various cases. For each
analysis for a given burden the necessary changes in control cards
and boundary conditions were needed.
Mostly 100 mm spacing was analysed. For the analysis of different
spacing, only near the Hole 1 cards were replaced to accommodate the
change in nodal numbers and element numbers, and the rest of the cards
did not need any change.
The gas pressure in the hole was required to be determined. In the
experimental technique used in Section 4, it was not possible to
measure actual pressure acting on the hole walls at the time of

130 -
fragmentation. The calculated detonation pressure (theoretical) for
the 5.3 g/m detonating cord was 17.5 GPa. To arrive at actual hole
pressure, the available information in the literature was used.
Reference here is made to Bergmann et. al. (1973) in which an empirical
formula was used for determining the peak borehole pressure,
-0.95
Pdet x R
where P = peak hole pressure, P^ ^ = detonation pressure, R = decoupling
ratio = Effective hole volume

Explosive volume
Thus for P^ ^ = 17.5 GPa, hole diameter = 6.4 mm, hole length = 76 mm
3 3
and explosive density = 1.35 x 10 kg/m , the value of peak hole pressure
was P = 2.3 GPa. In the absence of any stemming it was assumed that much
less than the peak pressure would act on the hole walls. Therefore,
1 GPa was assumed for calculations. Additionally, a pressure of 10 GPa
was assumed to simulate a much stronger explosive.
5.3 ANALYTICAL MODELS OF BURDEN VARIATIONS
For the study, first the burden variation was investigated and then
the variations of the spacing and burden ratios for multi hole models
were investigated. In all the models hole diameter was constant at
6.4 mm. The specific situations considered were as below:
(a) Single-hole Model
(i to iv) Burden = 20, 30, 40 and 50 mm, P = 1 GPa
(v & vi) Burden = 60 and 70 mm, P = 10 GPa

131 -
(B) Multihole Model
(i to iv) Burden = 20, 30, 40 and 50 mm, spacing = 100 mm, P = 1 GPa
(_v to vi) Burden = 60 and 70 mm, spacing = 100 mm, P = 10 GPa

(vii & viii) Burden = 50 mm and 70 mm,spacing = 60 mm, P = 1 GPa
From each case of burden variation and spacing/burden ratio variation the
computations provided principal stresses and their directions for each
element. From these values the principal stress directions were plotted
separately for each case studied by using a Hewlett-Packard 9100
calculator tied with a Hewlett-Packard 9125 plotter. From the plotted
directions at the centroid of each element, curves were constructed to
represent one of the isostatics (stress trajectories). The isostatics
are families of two orthogonal curves: one a family of circles concentric
with the hole in single hole models, and the other a family of lines
radiating from the hole. Although the principal stress values and
their directions were available for the entire mesh considered, only
the values for the region near the hole were plotted. This was done
to give the greatest possible attention to the critical area being
studied. The region has been indicated in Figure 5.1 by heavy lines.
Figures 5.2 to 5.15 consists of plots to show in a concise way the desired
comparisons. In the plots larger arms of crosses give the direction of
maximum principal stresses. The points where crosses were plotted,
represented the centroid of each element, and because the same mesh
was used for each problem, the coordinates of the plotted points for
each case were identical.
132 -
-4- -f./ -f-
4-
,
/
^ ^ /
; / **/**> res
4- ^ / Q_
CD
-+- ?f- ^ ^
'•it V,//'
i i i I r>s.
II
"4- *7^* / Q_
*4- '4* / /
i ; / / v* ^
4*/ 4< O
-4- r+- /-x / x. / $ / .c:
cn
4-
i-f.;
f+- / V ^ /,
,x /
c
i -4 -f-£v 7 "V x:
+->
'~4 / / 7“ /x E
E
^'^//V-K
I ' J. -
I Hr- 4? ✓
O
CM
X
O
■ I /
4 t* ,4 x
-
x x'1
c
CD
X5
s-
/ 13
-+-; ff-/ /x' _Q
I.;// ' a
! -v-1 r+f i x / / / o
S-
-4 |-fc-: x' x / / 4~
\ ■’ i ! I j / //X -O
'-+-; hM /x/ / CD
+->
i 1 i / / •
4/
/ Nc V
+J
o
,11.// / Z7^ ^
I CO
' ’ IX1#X /I CD
•i—
V4; U4 44'X / o
S-
+->
CJ
lit; yx CD
•i—)
fCS
S-
4->
CO
CO
x > v.'.ii'';/// /. xx CD
S~
+->
C/0
\^\ V \v V‘/l/
\ \ \ VV 411II* /k X'
CM
LO
CD
S-
13
CD
s
N
133 -
H—! H- "ttK /
•H- :-f -fr /
; ; ' / /
|-f -*/
'“-f- ^
; : / ^ /
GPa).
■H- ^ 7^ /
' / / /Sk
= 1
f ^
with single hole (P

F R E E SURFACE
-rb-
i i« "'f- ' y<' /
1,1 /; /<sj
>V
-ff- : -y-j •*. /
-K- I ■+} ■>- . "I1- / /
; i i i ; / "A/-*.
-tf- ! -ff ff-; -f-/
i / / a
H-
mm,
/ >-
/
/
/
-fr i i
; /-*/X
burden of 30
-fH-; ;**♦ /
'~+'[~*T: J /X
t- i -*-' 4- /
-*- l-ff ,'^/_ L
! 1 ; / /
a
~H- ! -f-/
Stress tra je c to rie s plotted for
-it-!++// *+/
1 i j i > y >
-V4- -+- ! /-*-/ /
\ J
! -+1. i / /
, , , ,11! i j -x/>c
, \—1 —Vf 1—ff i j t+-i /
rV \ -V ', -4- i!7+- / **v _/
-V'\ ''-V !! rf~/ "Tf- / /
\*\^.\l't-/ /</
tC X-YVfX ft-ff'/ "X / .

j'n O^vX'vA'^li
* 11**i ; // /
\ w\'v ' U / >C
^V;-Xa>\VC />
\
Figure 5.3.
\
i
imi&j
I-
134 -
r<~ w
. ( "■+- '-f- ^ 1
H- i *-f- -f-
x
~h ~t+- ~f~ < Y-/ Y-~
~f- , Y- ,Y- Y- ,
i 1 ‘ ! Y- Y-
GPa).
■+-1 -f~; Y- ,Y- <
y- y~ r+r y- x ,
= 1
, i i ‘ / / x
Y- r+~ r+- Y- Y- ‘
Y-1 Y-1 Y- < Y- / '
with single hole (P

! / 1 / ■
-H Y-r i Y-» Y/ /
F R E E SU R FA C E
Y- I Y- i ~ff~ I Y- ; Y"" /
,' -f-' ff- ! -*-/ *+*/
-H ^ ^ ' /
. , / ' ; /
i ~+f "■H r#^ /

H- , -fj -'f- / /
' i -^ ! i > / ^
mm,
t+- i H- ! -H
of 40
!-4 1 H-j’ Y+H-; it ^ /
-*i i1 I /
1 I T- , / ' /r*
ljt /
a burden
-rf- '!+' 1 "H i “+T t!k /
-K »-H -tw ■*+-; ;it/ / /
■ . i , ; . ; /
*-+"1 \—H -rV-1. tH! i “+-/ / /
Hr Ur \-H \-+f i-+t /-K' /

i \ \ v \ » \ I | { 1 • / YjT
^ -V\ Vt' \ V+* 'Y*r / Y4- /
-A^ \--VT ' -^“i I t~~(— l /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ i ! ':! /XX ,
\X \ Af \ A" \ '-4—; 1 ,-f- / /
X \X VV\ -At 1 ;Y /
-v\ \ >, \ \ \ ; /; /X
XvX ■ X\ '-V'lY-r ; y- /
-y --X X '' YH' YY /
L V '' '' vv-'v ' Via1 '* U/
, '' 'N \ \ v \ \ v v ‘ / '<,! /1 / / / ^
—r— V N \w;\\ *7";: / X X-'"

igure 5.4.
+L.
-*-i
135 -
-r ■ —1
i /
J—I——+- ; ~h -f- .
-+- ' I t 4
- - / -f- ^+- ~f- '
' / ' ' ; !
-f- /-f- -f.
H-r h-i -+- ^ 4-/
i'll j i ^ n3
-+f H-| 4- -f- -f- ' / / Cl,
CD
-4- -f- i-f-1 *4- 4K / T---I
'll,1 1 / / ^
-4-1
i i -f-
r • i H-1
11 “-H i “4-_i / ._f / / o_
II
-+■ -h •*- 4 ^
*!f. >f» aj
4 '■-4 _,4 > 4 > o
-ff ~f -+- ~K ~+-
/ // ^
with single
-|L _fj -fl -f.
i | ' ; 4-4 4
, 4/
1 ' ~+~-
i~h~ I
1-4- 1 j j-4— H— -j(— ,-+7 i
-4- -4- -f- -ft- -H -+- / -+~
4C
50 mm,
-4-1 V | -+-
■' —It H-
-4-
H-
TI I 4
rh! ,4
/
/,
I I I I l / /
-44
of
l—I —Vt T-V'
-+-1 •+■«, 4 ■4r i 4_/ / /
l r
a burden
/
-4r ') -V 1 j/" -4r -4-: j -+- i ~+- / / /

/*■*
V uri J+- 44- -47 1-4+ /
\ ' ' 1 1 : | /
l Jr1 jjt ' -4r Jr -4* / -f- / . /
■W- ''V, V\ -V\ -V^ 1 rl-l -+-' /
^ V \ v \ \ 11,/// / **.
Vi .4' 4 .
vX\v*\ W+-, ;,
\x\ \\4 ;w/ .'X x

\+4i • r4 / /
f "4 '!; t^'' > ,• v-
-.4. '/H
Figure 5.5.
i
136 -
r-~ ~rr^~ '

/ ~-f- ' ~~b ^b/ ~~b / /
H~i -h rb H- <-b >-b f-b /
i i / "■/-
+ rh i-b i -bj -b / -b /
i
r ^ /
fC
Q-
“T" “"f"- / / C£5
-t-i -+-' -H *+r /
-r- 1 —H—I -+-
I _i I
IH"
. —I— _
-t-1 _j_J ~+r *4
-+- Tf- r-f- ,
I i i < j cu
“T“ l+~ ' / o
wu-F ■+1 "*[ t ^ / x
with single
<
u<
05 -iV- V-+- -+-! -4 -+- ,4-;
3 -t
wu ~i~ ~+~ /
05u< ~K -+” —V^ 1 —H JT~ l"T7 /
4- 1 -h 4* i+" I-*-1 _+r / 4- /
1 l . 1 , i •*+- 1 i i
60 mm,
-+- '-+-\ -4 V 4- '-tj1
Ii 1 \ \ . 1 i 4- i i i -
of
i 1-4" \ -4T-V -r\r —4" i! _i_j i~H i
4r f \f. 4 tV i XtX'
a burden
4; iV \ -Ar\ -4r i-4
TX \-V \Vv -4 4- |X+r '
\ \ \ \ \ ' 1 i1 ; ^
, y\ X X \ -4 i ,4- i b 1 / Stress tra je c to rie s plotted for
4- \ X \ X \ -V "4" V -+4r] ++-[ T+- /
\ \ \ -\ ' \ \ ^ i III/
X , X s X 4 \ -4" '-V-1 T+T r+- / ;
/ i
/\ N.S
X\X \ V \ \ \ \'li-+-■l/lrrt-/'
/ /
,4'yXXX^ '4X4\'t4/ /
■/■ 4 4/1 P*r i b /N
x
f/ /. >yX'X \4^1 bv ./
x X
if b - *x4 ^&b
x/ / v
±...T '4\ xKvuft-;; /
'' X
igure 5.6.
i-
137 -
7 ' ,r ; 7“"7----------- 7------- r 7

• ■ . H— / H-t H-r pH H— / —f- /
H- ' H- ! H- / Hr H- r-H H-
/, /
/* /
*-f+
10 GPa).
H--f-
Hp -f*
HpH- /
i I +*-
=
+ i + r+-i h-
with single hole (P

-+- Hr Hr 1-+- 7-
i i
H~ i H- Hr Hr . /
F R E E SU R FA C E
Hr H“* Hr i H- 1 Hr H— /
i i ii ;
Hp Hr ■H" ' Hr Hr H- Hr Hr
p r- i-p p H
P Hr
- pi
p
ip'ip
p p
p -+fi -+-h ~i/ -
i \ ' i t P
-H- uri A'i ,Jr\ p' . ■ , i.
70 mm,
r^ ^ i 4
-v-' _*-\ -V Jy- -v- ■ i+i /
of
Pu- X
v' \ p \ *n.
V X v> p L- \ -r* Hr
; • ;■ ; , /
a burden
-74
P>X\ X> x\ p p p1 P, -+-/
Aw' A A P\ p •+■ •+■ ■
7+-P
A 'A A'
X\ X p \ P P -Tf-
\
X \ \ \ \ \ \ v | j ' I /
/ yxx. x^ xA'ri ip ■•+-,
7 X'NX\X
X \ ' \ v*\
\ v p\
' P 7+7' r^t
III
U I .11 '. / P >S ,
f A X x x \p \ \-r 1 Ip/
4 7 , ypxyp\V7pip/V/ 'z'’
f P \ \\\\ \ \\W ! // / 4.x
f A >A
•f XPXPP /Vs,
iF ' >>?SS^!
PX'P\'X\VA. p P /7 I A
f
Figure 5.7.
1
-
138 -
-- r ~r ~—"7----------------- /vr
-jH •+-/ ^ / i
H-r /-*• /**. ^ / j n3
D-
O
4-/ 4- •**' ^
,4f />■; / /
' i / / ; /v. •*. i
l"4r / rft / / i
-+- I r+-/ ^ / >»
J-i-i !+/-*-/ *4/ /!
A :T r
fc >
i'-+-! '-+- 4- Si
/ / i
: .C
+4_-'.1 1Hr:
1_1 4
_L_
- ^- /' ! +->
> \ l \ ‘; < / / V*! CD

x \ Xi -t- ' "tm /, CZ
•i—
o
V^\ir ;> A V/ 1 fd
O-
X \ v-Vr ; V./. / i co
rf / X/ E
E
\ O
o
X5c
rd
c:
<D
-a
, - § \ s-
Z5
/ H\- \ X \ JQ
<*^\ \ | E
E
///,'' / 't
X / '/,.... 1 ' . \X
N X
x ,i O
C\J
\ ' I
s-
x Ai o
M-
-rhfl y- -+- \—I— I ■a
a>
X I
4r /-+-■ -H ~"1
+j
s->
o
:.r+r
,-4- 4- COa;
/X! 5 •i—
s-
-V;'V 4- /4. / * o
I 5
o
-4->
\-4t' V-H -4 O
aj
\\i> ■, i / 74 V.
» -*4rr.'. H~ i ~4 ' rdS-
•i-)
4->
74
■“h' /•’ „■£ | COCO
O)
xVx !4-/^/' j s-
4->
X • -+-. '4. ./ . | C/0
~'4\ ,sv-i Sc " : 00
bQsX. 14. Av ; LO
<D
s-
13
c
Pi
+ ! cn
- 139 -
"T / / 7 ’>—/VNr-'
-t- Tt- ; -i-, / ; ;
res
Q.
7 /■J,
CD
■H~I Hr- ff-< -#-/ '' / I

II
! ' .j ; / / ^ x- ! Q_
i —hH- i -f- tK / / / !
> Hv r-H ~fr /'"f- / 1 O
XT
_L' ja ;/ - / A
A -4H 1 -Tf- -f-; / /
' . . 11 • ;' / X
!-»- -'A / / /! +->
F R E E SURFACE
A \A \ 4r; -Mr/ A/ /
CD
C
A.^ 'A! *+->' 'A/
xj^\
•i—
^ X X \ li-
^ ^ // // .ax j <J
fC
Q.
xi
00
XAva A1"'AC'x - '

EE
' \ -SVA< Ij. !!j7 // ,'V .--'"V ! O
o
-O
M^SlS^rl c
as
cr
O)
-O
s-
- /y ./ « \ o\'>f 2) 3
X)
\\ \ . EE
/ / / •/ > 1
/
1 \ A A ' '! O
-■ ,W oX/ 4- \ \ \ \ ; CO
S-
*/ A// X A A, \ \. o
4-
/ / - / ; i ; \ W
- / -tjc ' -*-■ -*- • -O
M1 O)
4->
/A /•*-/ 7+~ +J
O
A /-f- ; -h- -H -+- j CO

<D
i * aa! | *r-
S-
Hr i-X 1—Vr 7-; /'! o
/ ! 2
O
-M
A\ A A A; / , <_>
CU
7^ .Ok i •r~)
as
; AT \ i 4V- -+~~; ; S-
4->
X \ >f\ A ! CO
CO
A\X\'A -74 ;,A /V . O)
s-
+->
to
17 . -*+' A-V' ''' CD
LO
O)
s~
3
CD
r
- 140 -
GPa).1
; H-- i H- "4- ,'*4-
i . . 4—■ ,< *4- : *4<
-
-4- -4- i —H
(P
4-
spacing, with m ultiholes

, , 1 ' i ; ' ;
,+ ►+- -4 4- i -+■ :
,-h- 4- 1 •-* -+-; -fr- / -
\-K4lL4- /
\ ' \ \ V \ I , ; 'Tk V.
'-Jr -Jr \ -f- , , /
">T W' -Jr, -rf- /'T^. / /
\ \ ,x
X / X ,sX \ 4r' •+#-; 7iy
* \X xvr. i,-t 4*/ /
FREE SURFACE
\ \ ' 1 ! 1 ■< , / X X
mm
burden and 100
w-llilX5
ie"''X' ',v °-^v x /
mm
l-V✓ \ .-V’SI .
/ X
/
/ /
/
4-
II
>x
x, '
40
: V V/X ^ jrf- \, \ ,
tra je c to rie s plotted for
X/ ,-X. T'A/ ~Jr "Jr \ '

\
\
/ / / i i I » ' V
sv v./ ■> r*- ~h \ \'
"4-
/ ! *4-! 4- 4-
I 4~ H- \
/
-H -4 1
~T<-
yr X -V Hr -4 ■+*- / .
X x ^14 -f ; / /
\ \ V l , iw
/
-Jr \-4 -+-
/ X.
x\ ' X\
\ x -Jr -+f1 / ^/ //vV 4
Figure 5.10. Stress
'A- >N \ . \ v' I / / ✓ ,

> .XvX \--4 *■*- / r
* J;/xV
.+ X />' X-XX
V <
K4 +
- 141 -
GPa).
-+-T 4-T' ~h ‘ :-h i ^p—-qi
-h
= 1
\*r -+-\
(P
\ -V" •*4- ~H

'-v- -Ar \^r -A- 1 -4- -?f-
\\ \ ' '
r-f- -V* -Ar -Ar^ -4- —h- rf-
•V\ X -V, -Jr', -+- Hf ,~+-
-ax’ ✓At' -v* —At h-*
K
\ \ \
V
\
Ai
, -4-
/ , ^
X ^ / '/ X + >• /
y ./) x x x- -y '%./
X Vv/' x\-4-:,Sk /
\ s \ s V \ , < /X X
mm
-.-/„ ;/xy. x\ v+-; v./
f __y y-:Xo, y., f*r/ \x' *
burden and 100

44
/
x ''x -' •' 6'.
x?v /-x - x
-4
^ ^
mm
yyyxyrxx
"v < /f / '
•V.XX/ x 1
i 1 ' '
i ~f~ -t-; -+-
/ / / / / * - , X-X
Jr
50
X~ !~+i Hr- !-f- -fr

, V -X- > -+- -+- ;-+- -ff .
4x\-t x t
/ . x \y x' + •+-: -+-/
/-^
,XV x -X* \ —I "-fp /
/ '\'v '■ ■ \ ; ■ ^ x.
./X yx X- -+- ,~+- /
4 X . X >, x \y -+- y x
4 / yv X y X X -4 /V
Tf / / X. \x X x x
Figure 5.11.
\
y yyx
+
142 -
(P = 10 GPa).
/ A
-i■4- H- Hr -4- i H-
-+| _v-| Jv- -+-;-++ -f-
I l 1
—h| -V' Hr i Hr 1 -+■*
’ 1 A-
-H i -4+

-f- H H H iH-
1 v \ | i
Hr Hr\ Hr \ 'rH i Hr +f- / / /
-+-\^ r \r Hi -h- *-/ /'
v,. v v Wi ih ~r/W /
yr yv \ -V" i -4- f-A / /
v s \ \ V \ ‘ I I / /*NL^/*SL
FREE SURFACE
V X X -Y \4 '»-+- H«- / / /
S.
''W \x \r ; fi ry
x, x r x, V'> H i ~f-I i A / x -'
X. Xv xv V \x \ T+r; »*■/
mm
X'Xx
burden and 100

-•■...........................- ■"■■ -
Vi
mm
A- A-.. A\'' VX;X /?& / 4-' § X \ " C.
, VA-rX-'''X'/X/
^yX'V / /// ; ■
n*-, ~f- Jfr
v. \x X
\ \ ' 60
£X/'X/^'/'^ -+V ^ \ '
i \ x^,77 / / ‘ > i » i \
r ; I i i i ;
I A- |X I "+- i ~h ! —H" H- -+r I /
I /
\ i r ^ r: -t ■+■ i ; / A/^
-f . "-Z V V' H ; A- -f- ; ^ ' '
i X. ■ x' \A 'X X ■+■ i' /' 7/ .
1 :
A- -w- //' x
*'
/
/'
,
XXV Xrr
\\\ N \ » .
-f-,' X-' /
Mf A X AAX XA\V
Figure 5.12.
- 143 -
10 GPa).
■-T- —
[ |4-I -V I -4 -V- [ -+- I -¥■ 4- H-/ '
H-; Vr\ -rV- i -v- X X1 V
(P
'Hf'> V\ V-V VI -H -h! ~h

1 X \X
\ \
X\ JT' Y* \-*r 4- V '
\
\ \ *+■/#-
. X\ J?\ ** X W 4“ ■+•'/ /
m-\X\Xv ^1+^ -H «+-
\ \ \ N \ V \ '
X X V'\ 'A'1 A' \X ',-+-! -+- /-ft7
X 'X v*\' X -Jr \ 4r 4- (Hr /
.yvA\/' ''x N x \Xi -f- /
/C **\ x;X 'x; \ V 7*r /'f-
F R E E SU R FA C E
XXVs *VX> xx x. \x' fk'.v

*XX\;X\XXht,;V7 4
mm
----- /_ \ \ \ V \ ' h l/ / -
XX4 V burden and 100

70 mm
II. I 1 V
++ H yv- Vf-
—I— i —V1
7r- 1 -+-1 H- —h-
/.; i 4-t-!
\ *
14 14' /X' k->' 4- I I

i ! "K
4T T > Xx X x X !-+- -t- ; ■+-
-+- / ,.
■4
r '' 'f
-J *■X\
v \ x\ X
\ \> -V"
l * , —t- x-
i '/ /
-T-+- ,-f ,/ X\X \x ;-+- -+-'
4 4TV /XX \X \ •A' -+•; ^ ,.
'T—' ^ ' y ' , p. ' /
++
-I
Figure 5.13.
.. i
V -i
144 -
GPa).
"T'T----- ------- j------------7---------- 7- -r<—,
Hr ^ Th ^ *+* J i
-4- -hi /*V- 4
(P = 1
, “+-/ ~+- /*i- ,
iHr ~f- ''■+- H- -tS- /
1 ' ' TV TV

i'—f- -4- J-+--
+1
i i 1 4- Hr
I ^/ ^ / ' 'nL'IJ
-j -+} +- Hr -M H*/ /
"t i+- ;pf- ^ / /
-+- V ]H- rf- H- / /
FREE SURFACE
~H > "t- i~ > /'

H-j -4- -j- *4- /h» /
4- I-+- H- ;H*/ /
I I I ; TC TV/
... -4- H- !-+- !“+-/ / /
mm
-+- \-V- \ Hr -4- H- / TV /
burden and 60
i \ \ > J / / 'TV
-V- w»r * H; Hr 4*~, TV / /
Hr \ Hr V H- i TV / / /
\ \ \ v i I / / X'TV
\HC Hr H-, TV; / /
v'\*\ ^ \ 'Aft ^ ,' 'TV •*.
mm
X x*\X \ -+- /-f-,7 40
r.;.\;A\ \ \ ; i /// ^v X Stress tra je c to rie s plotted for
4 l,^V\ rX/ TV HZ'S X ^

j-f' ’V/ TV Vr\ \ ^
__l—' v / . \ „*r_v-
,4 X “H- ;H- -V- \ \
+ * +' / 1" V
U ''x'XX-'X"''
" i'4;j;4V. \ / / X
/X/ ,
igure 5.14.
-rf /X "yX\ H- TV /
If**''' .v
__---- 4
145 -
GPa).
1 ' ' "'"V 1 H“ *t+" TT- ,
1
1 -f H-' -+t
i i i i 1 /
(P =
4- 1 Hh
I____ I
f-HI -i -+r
■ t
Hr
~I
H-
Li
•+-
I
•4- 1 1
I M i
! -h *4-i ! i ' '
spacing, w ith m u ltih o le s

H-1 -+r r+t 1 -4 *+- 4- ' '
r+-
4- 1-p i-+r Hr 4- /
r t+- \-V\ Ur» I-+* -+j -I- 4- 1
4- i-r\ -V' -v- »-tn 4- 4- ,4-/ /
\ \ \ \ ' \ l I 1 1 /
tV" -Jr \-V- V+~' 4- -H- l-h, /
-H -*• iJr W \-*T r^, -H -f- , -4 /
FREE SURFACE
-Jr\ X Vv Vv\ -+i 4-/ -+- /

\ -4 X ■*” '»V \-*r \-+- 4- '-f / , .
\ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i i ; / '*-/
4- i 4-/
mm
W \ .Jr \ .Jr\ -*\
>c' Xx ^ 44*4 ^ »-v-; -r+f ; 'f- / /
\ \J l
burden and 60
itt* / >.
vXx NX'- Xn X v-x\

->v\v\, &/*> ,,//
'
: ,/
/ A^rr;.^ tv /V
mm
~4j^ / NXs Xx for >/ • y
^ kva\a n^n\\<tVK71v 4 v/
70
Stress tra je c to rie s p lo tte d fo r
4 4 ■ 4- -4 V-V4-
■•+?-ft44^Xsrr-it-^4 !
\
4444 ■$
Figure 5.15.
4 4 4 4 4 4fy V;
-I
146 -
The fracture criterion applied was as given in Equation 3.10 and cracks
would be expected to grow anywhere within the boundary defined by the
strain-energy contours computed by Equation 3.9. To calculate the
critical strain-energy-density (Uc) level from Equation 3.10, value
of tensile strength (T) and Young's modulus were obtained from Table
4.1, which indicated that for a value of Uc less than 2,19 x lO"1^
m 2 N -1 fracture would not occur.
From the values of stresses in the various elements for a given model
the strain-energy-density was calculated for each element, From these
values the strain-energy-density contours were plotted. Figure 5,16
give computed strain-energy-density contours for the case of 40 mm
burden.
5.4 DISCUSSIONS
A comparison between the experimental results in which fragmented particles

were reassembled or those blocks in which only cracks formed and the
stress trajectories plots from the finite element analysis showed the
following:
5.4.1 Crack Directions
The directions of the radiating cracks in single hole experiments

(Figures 4.29 and 4.30) seemed to follow some of those stress trajectories
(Figures 5.2 to 5.5), which ran rowards the free face. Cracks were
expected in the region where strain-energy-density was above the critical
strain-energy-density. Radiating cracks were not present corresponding to
all the stress trajectories. Perhaps there were some stress raisers present
SURF
o
i
o
147 -
o
l
r-
i
i
i
l
l
i
oooooooooo
\*>ooooo
mcNinK^moooNrÔ
Figure 5.16. Strain-energy-density contours for 40mm burden with single h o le.U n its in
148 -
in the hole or initial stress waves might have caused some radial
cracks near the hole (in the cracked zone). It is believed that
some stress trajectories were influenced by the presence of stress
raisers or those radial cracks and, therefore, only few of them
originated from the hole walls. Those radiating cracks which were
directed towards the free surface were likely to be simultaneously
extended, but depending on the burden, some of them would be terminated
short of the surface.
In tests with the critical burden only two main radiating cracks were
formed, originating from the hole wall. This can be explained by that
if a single crack were to develop from the hole walls on the either
side of the line of symmetry, it would originate from the point of
maximum tensile stress on the hole walls. It was previously shown
in Section 3.6.1 that this maximum tensile value occurred at a point
where the tangent from a point on the free face nearest the hole,
touched the hole walls.
For burdens smaller than the critical, several cracks propagated from
the hole walls. Indeed the smaller the burden, the number of cracks
originating and extending appeared to increase. This can be explained
on the basis of strain-energy-density at points along the free face.
At a distance of 5 mm from a point on the free face which was nearest
to the hole, the strain-energy-density was maximum with the smallest
burden. The strain-energy-density decreased as the distance along the
free face increased. The rate of fall in the strain-energy-density was
maximum with the smallest burden (20 mm). Thus the strain-energy-density
149 -
was distributed in a much smaller volume of rock, with the smaller
burden, which in other words meant that strain-energy-density per
unit volume was maximum for the smallest burden. Therefore, larger
number of cracks originated and extended from the hole for the smallest
burden. For critical burden the strain-energy-density per unit volume
was low, therefore, fewer cracks originated.
In the case of a burden considerably smaller than the critical, the
craters were quite wide and shallow (Fig. Al). This was because those
trajectories which originated on the hole nearest the free surface
(along which it was shown that cracks propagate) intersected the surface
out to approximately one burden distance; and those trajectories which
originated deeper on the hole wall did not intersect the surface, but
ran parallel to it, creating a wide crater with shallow lips near the
edges. The wide shallow craters could be mistaken for a crater formed
by spalling action, while the deeper crater had a characteristic shape,
governed by the limiting cracks that defined the crater walls.
With multi hole model the stress trajectories shown in Figure 5.9 were
comparable with radiating cracks from two holes in Figure 4.33. These
also showed that radiating cracks followed the principal stress
trajectories.
In Figures 4.29 to 4.31, besides the radiating cracks, there appeared
to be another set of cracks which branched from the radiating cracks
and ran towards the free face or met another radiating crack. With
the smaller burdens branching of radiating cracks was more than for
larger burdens and with the critical burden such branching was absent.
150 -
These observations explained that at the smaller burdens the increase

in number of radiating cracks as well as increase in branching cracks,
aided the reduction in fragment size, In order to understand why the
branching of cracks occurred, further consideration of brittle fracture
mechanics and the bending hypothesis were needed.
As to why the path of radiating cracks followed the principal stress

trajectories, needs reference to fracture studies. Erdogan and Sih
(1963) had shown that ideally cracks would grow in a direction normal
to the maximum principal stress at the tip of a crack. Cotterell (1966 )
stated that in a real solid the fracture would deviate from the ideal
path under the influence of flaws and microscopic anisotropy. It was
suggested that two classes of fractures existed. Class I fractures
when deviated from the ideal path had a tendency to return to the
original path. Class II fractures had the tendency to continue the
deviation from the ideal path and never return to the original directions.
It was also suggested by Cotterell (1965b) that at high velocity of
crack growth the branching fractures occurred. For a crack travelling
at high velocity there were two directions of maximum stress - (i) on
account of state of stress and (ii) due to velocity effect of the crack
a maximum stress existed at the tip of the crack. These statements have
support in the work of Schardin (1959) who indicated that the fracture
velocity attained a maximum depending on the material and after reaching
this constant maximum velocity bifurcation or branching of cracks occurred.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that at small burdens the larger

strain-energy-density supply lead to very high velocity of cracks and
these cracks bifurcated. The more the branching or bifurcation the
151 -
smaller was the fragment size. At critical burden perhaps the strain-
energy-density was just sufficient to propagate a crack on either side
and at a low velocity, therefore, no bifurcation occurred. Similarly
at burdens smaller than the critical (say, optimum breakage burden,
B b) the strain-energy-density and the velocity of fracture were not
high and less branching occurred, consequently larger fragments were
produced.
5.4.2 Extent of Fracture
To examine the extent of cracks and limits of fractures, it is

appropriate to examine the strain-energy-density contours for each case.
It was stated in Section 3.6.1 that the crack extension should continue
as long as the strain-energy-density level was above the critical
strain-energy-density (Uc) for the given material. A series of
strain-energy-density contours for 40 mm burden in single hole are shown
in Figure 5.16. The extent to which cracks propagated was given by
Equations 3.9 and 3.10 and for the experimental conditions it was
established that as long as strain-energy-density was more than 2.9 x
10 -12 m 2 N -1 the cracks would propagate. For single hole tests in
cement-mortar blocks with 6.4 mm hole diameter and 5.3 g/m detonating
cord the experimental results can be compared. For this comparison
the average width of crater as given in Table 4.3 cannot be used.
Since in the two-dimensional analysis by the finite element method
the restriction because of resistance due to the bench floor was not
accounted for, hence, to compare a similar situation in experimental
work, the width of bench crater at the crest (W^ in Figure 2,2) was
considered. For single-hole test with 6,4 mm hole diameter the following
comparison can be made:
- 152 -
Expected width of crater Actual width of crater (W^)

Burden from analytical studies from experimental studies1
mm mm mm
20 200 185
25 - 225
30 300 280
35 - 300
40 360 360
45 - 370
50 390
Considering that the analytical work was basically qualitative, the

agreement appears to be reasonably acceptable. For the smallest
burden there appears to be disagreement between the expected and actual
widths. In actual experimental situation this difference might have
arisen due to the effect of scabbing. It was shown previously in
Section 4.6.4 that scabbing cracks appeared before the radiating cracks
propagated under gas action. Therefore, it can be expected that stress
distribution will change due to scabbing action; which may also release
some gaseous energy. These effects may lead to a much smaller width of
breakage. There may be another reason that for the 20 mm burden, at
a distance of 110 mm along the face the strain-energy-density decreased
to 3.8 x 10 -12 m 2 N -1 and thereafter increased and then again it
decreased to less than the critical strain energy. It is probable that
the first fall in strain-energy-density governed the extent of crack
growth. Moreover, the value of strain-energy-density depends upon the
gas pressure assumed as well as the tensile strength determined;
(Equation 3.9) both of which affect the value of critical strain-
energy-densi ty. Some deviation of gas pressure and tensile strength
from actual values, might also be reason of slight disagreement.
153 -
6. APPLICATIONS IN PRODUCTION BLASTING
The work presented in the previous sections was concerned with the
fracture and fragmentation of rock on a small scale in the laboratory
or with analytical studies by the finite element method. Unless its
usefulness can be demonstrated in practical blasting, its value will
be limited.
In this section application of the results in three different production
blasting situations is described. This work was carried out as a part
of the investigations for this thesis. The first application is
described in detail and shows how blasting patterns were modified
systematically to improve fragmentation in cut and fill stopes of a
lead-zinc mine. The second application was in the extraction of a
shrinkage stope ore bridge (sill pillar) in the same lead-zinc mine.
The third application was in a quarry.
The studies described in the previous sections showed that, to obtain
optimum fragmentation, conventionally selected burdens need to be
reduced. By reducing the burden, both the stress wave and gas energies
were better utilised and the efficiency of explosive energy was
increased. With optimum fragmentation burden, spacings more than twice
the burden could be used. A staggered pattern of holes gave better
results. Too much reduction in the burden gave a deceptively high
spacing to burden ratio. The principle of reduced burden and increased
spacing was originally proposed by Langefors et. al. (1965). Recently
a number of open pit operations have adopted this principle with improved
results (Lambooy and Espley-Jones, 1970; Lang and Favreau, 1972;
Kihlstrom, 1973; Brown, 1973; Johnston, 1973; Mikkelborg, 1974).
However, in underground mines applications have been a few (Lindgren and
Travis, 1971) and details are not available.

154 -
6.1 APPLICATION IN CUT AND FILL STOPING
This work was carried out in the North Mine which belongs to The
North Broken Hill Limited. From this mine lead-zinc ore is extracted
by underground mining methods. Lead occurs mainly in the mineral
galena and zinc in marmatite or iron-rich sphalerite. The orebodies
occur within a suite of rocks characterised by some or all of the
minerals, quartz, feldspar, garnet and minor iron sulphide disseminations,
The country rock is comprised of gneisses with interbedded quartzite
beds. The orebody width extends up to 90 metres and is steeply
inclined or vertical. Testing for the uniaxial compressive strength
of the ore gave a mean value of 100 MPa from 10 tests with standard
deviation of 10.5 MPa. Nine tests on country rock gave a mean value
of uniaxial compressive strength of 200 MPa with a standard deviation
of 12.5 MPa. The specific gravity from eight tests each for ore and
country rock was determined as 3.4 and 2.63 with standard deviations
of 0.02 and 0.01 respectively.
The first attempt to modify blasting patterns was in horizontal cut
and fill stopes (flat back without timber). These stopes known locally
as "open stopes", form the main ore extraction method. Details of
stoping have been given earlier by Stephenson (1968). During 1973-74,
of the total mine production of about 455,300 tonnes, open stopes were
used for 61.27% of ore extraction.
On 27 Level where the initial experimental work was carried out,
regular pillar and stopes across the orebody are formed. The stopes
are 10.2 m wide and pillars are 6.3 m wide in the Southern orebody.
On 28 Level the modifications were carried out both in the Southern

155 -
and the Northern orebodies, where stope development was in progress.
In the open stopes, after the initial stope preparation and filling,
1.8 m slices are taken and filled repetitively. Two miners work in
each shift, they drill and charge holes in each shift. After
blasting, separate Wagner loader parties load the broken ore and
haul it to the ore pass. 22 kW electric scrapers are used in some
open stopes.
6.1.1 Conventional Drilling and Blasting Method
Horizontal holes up to a depth of 3.0 m are drilled using air-leg
mounted drill machines from the broken ore heap. Hexagonal drill
steels of 3200 mm x 31 mm dimensions are used. Ammonium Nitrate Fuel
Oil (ANFO) explosives or Exactex cartridges are used in back holes
and ANFO is used for stoping holes. Millisecond star series detonators
encased in one cartridge of AN60 gelignite are used for priming.
AN60 gelignite is supplied as 22 mm x 200 mm cartridges. ANFO is
supplied in pre-mixed prill form. The average consumption of
explosive for 12 month period in 1973-74 for all stoping operations
in the mine was 0.20 kg/tonne. The detonators are connected in series
and fired electrically with 100V power, at the end of each shift.
The number and type of delays in a blast vary for drilling parties,
who choose delays according to their own preference.
On the 27 Level four parties of two miners per shift are employed.
Two parties, SSI and SS3, participated in the investigation.
Conventionally the mining parties drilled 20-22 holes per blast for
a 1.8 m thick slice. A typical pattern used is shown in Figure 6.1.
For stoping holes the parties spaced holes at 1.1 m for a burden of
- 156 -
DIMENSIONS
IN 1.4 -*f* 1.3
METRES
BACK ROLES
STORING
HOLES
---------- 10.6 —
PILLAR LINE
Figure 6.1. Conventional blasting pattern used

in horizontal cut-and-fill sloping
used in the North Mine.
DIMENSIONS
IN 1.6-*j* 1.4 -*j*- 1.4-'►j*1.4 i. 4 •*{♦ l.. 4 “4*-1.6 —
METRES
PATTERN A
Figure 6.2. Pattern A used by SSI Party.

157 -
1.1 m. For back holes the burdens were kept at 0.7 m and the spacings
were 1.3 m. For all the rows, holes were also placed near the pillar lines
in order to obtain a clean break. Miners used at least 9 holes in the back
row and often more. The mining parties in these stopes spent about 2 or 3
shifts per fortnight on secondary blasting. On the 28 Level similar burden
and spacing were kept though the width of the stope or the thickness of
the slice were varied.
On the 27 Level experimental patterns covered stopes varying from an average
grade (lead-zinc combined) of 11% (in No. 8 stope) up to 21% (in No. 15 stope),
The ground in lower grade areas tended to be of a "blocky" nature.
6.1.2 Experimental Blasting Patterns
Firstly on the 27 Level only the SSI party adopted new patterns. After
their patterns were established the SS3 party adopted new patterns on the
27 Level, the ST5 party used new patterns in the Southern orebody on the
28 Level, and the ST7 party adopted these patterns in the Northern ore-
body, also on the 28 Level. The procedures of modification of blasting
patterns for the different parties are described below:
(i) SSI Party
Trials commenced in the last week of January, 1974. Five ends were
drilled according to Pattern A and fired in No. 8 Stope (Fig. 6.2).
Compared to a conventional pattern the main change was that the burden
was reduced, thus holes were in three rows instead of two. The
spacing between the holes was also increased to keep the hole
numbers and explosive consumption the same as in the conventional

158 -
pattern. Stoping holes were staggered with respect to those in the
other row. Holes in the back row were closer compared to stoping holes
so as to obtain a clean roof after blast. While broken ore was being
loaded qualitative observation showed improvements in fragmentation.
The party resumed work in No. 15 Stope with Pattern B (Fig. 6.3).
for a 10.6 m wide stope in high grade ore. Results were similar to
those obtained in No. 8 Stope and a reduction in the number of
boulders was observed. Large stones still appeared to be coming from
the brow and central area of the slices fired. This was thought to
be due to large spacing (2.6 m) for the burdens in the bottom and
middle rows. Therefore, modifications were made so that the burden
was equal for all the rows and the spacing was also slightly reduced and
Pattern C (Fig. 6.4) was introduced. The reduction in spacing was
achieved by moving away the holes of the middle row located near the
pillar line. The single hole experiments in the laboratory had shown
that, with reduced burdens break angles made were near 150°-160°.
Hence if the holes were away from the pillar line, a clean break should
still be obtained. In Pattern C there were six holes in the bottom row
and only five holes in the middle row. In this way a staggering effect
was achieved between rows of stoping holes.
However, for back holes the staggering effect was not always achieved.
Pattern C resulted in further improvement in fragmentation and
reduced secondary blasting. Patterns B and C both had 19 holes each
and often miners added one or two additional holes in the back
corners to retain the shape of the stope. Though the exact
dimensions were given in various patterns miners were allowed to make

155 -
DIMENSIONS
IN —•
METRES 0.4 0.4
PATTERN B
Figure 6.3. Pattern B used by SSI Party.
DIMENSIONS
IN . 5 —4*1 ■ 5 1.5'
otB’T 1 •3 -t*1 •3
METRES
—' . i
PATTERN C
------- 10.5 ------------
Figure 6.4. Pattern C used by SS2 Party.

160 -
adjustments whenever needed. It was suggested that the same delay
be used in one row of holes. Later on the miners used delay
detonators according to their preference.
From the above successful patterns it was established that the burden
should not exceed 0.6 m and for this burden the spacing should be
less than 2.15 m. Some difficulties were experienced in "blocky"
ore where comparatively more boulders appeared.
(ii) SS3 Party
Once the new patterns used by SSI party were successfully established
then a further reduction in the burden was made. For this purpose
SS3 party adopted new patterns. SSI and SS3 parties worked in
similar stope areas. SSI party was allowed to continue with Pattern
C so that a comparison between the results of two patterns could be
made.
SS3 party was given Pattern D (Fig. 6.5) which had 0.45 m burden
and four rows of holes. In this pattern spacing was 2.4 m. All
the holes were moved away from the pillar lines. Spacings between
back holes were reduced considerably. However, after some blasts
miners felt that the corners were not breaking properly. Hence one
hole in the back row was increased and rearrangements of holes were
made in other rows and Pattern E (Fig. 6.6) was suggested to SS3 party.
This pattern has been in use since April, 1974 and appears to be
more successful than Pattern C used by SSI party. Pattern E was
found to be equally successful in "blocky" ore. This suggests
that patterns with reduced burdens are able to overcome problems
caused by blocky and jointed rock.

- 161 -
DIMENSIONS
IN
METRES
- 2.4- 2.4 —
■--------------------io. e-------------------------
PATTERN D
Figure 6,5. Pattern D used by SS3 Party,
DIMENSIONS
IN
METRES
PATTERN
Figure 6.6. Pattern E used by SS3 Party,

162 -
(iii) ST5 Party
On the 28 Level in No. 15 Stope of the Southern orebody a 3.7 m
thick slice with a stope width approximately 6 m was being mined.
On learning about the success of SSI party with the reduced burden
and increased spacing, ST5 party adopted Pattern F (Fig. 6.7). In
this pattern holes were staggered with respect to holes in the
adjacent row. The party found that the pattern gave better
fragmentation compared to the conventional pattern.
(iv) ST7 Party
For the Northern orebody on the 28 Level a new pattern was proposed
and tried by ST7 party for a 6.4 m wide stope. The new Pattern G
(Fig. 6.8) contained 21 holes for 3.0 m thick slice. Initially,
difficulties were experienced and corners required refiring.
Therefore, one additional hole in each corner was added. After this
modification results were very satisfactory and some blasts did not
produce any boulders needing secondary blasting.
6.1.3 Evaluation of Results
The evaluation of blasting results needs to be carried out over a
long period of time to enable variations in ground conditions and
drilling crew performances to be covered. Commonly explosive
consumed per tonne of rock broken, number of boulders (needing
secondary blasting) per thousand tonnes of production, loader
performance, etc. are used to compare blasting results. The number
of boulders (pops) per thousand tonnes can be considered as a good
indicator of fragmentation. Individual party performances need to

163 -
DIMENSIONS IN METRES
1.4 -*r~1.4~
-4 o
“ 2.0
12.0
Figure 6.7. Pattern F used by STS Party.
DIMENSIONS IN METRES
— 1.6 —
Figure 6 8- Pattern G used by ST? Party.

164 -
be considered because efficiences of different parties vary.
Table 6.1 sets out the production achieved, explosive used (for
primary and secondary blasting) and the number of boulders produced
per tonne before and after the introduction of new patterns for SSI
and SS3 parties. For SS3 party data for conventional patterns is
for shorter period because the party worked elsewhere prior to
September, 1973. On the 28 Level the development work was inter
mittent and in various rock locations hence no comparative quantitative
figures for ST5 and ST7 parties are given.
TABLE 6.1
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCES OF SSI AND SS3 PARTIES BEFORE AND AFTER
ADOPTING MODIFIED PATTERNS
CONVENTIONAL PATTERN MODIFIED PATTERN

SSI Party SS3 Party SSI Party SS3 Party
Jan . 27, 1973 Sept. 22, 1973 Feb. 23, 1974 April 20, 1974
to to to to
Period Feb . 2, 1974 April, 6, 1974 Dec. 14, 1974 Dec. 14, 1974
Production
(tonnes) 52588 28753 47145 40142
Explosives
Consumption
(kg) 6931 3575 5173 3926
Boulders
(Pops) 3745 1616 2123 1425
Performance
(i) Explosives
Consumption
kg/tonne 0.132 0.124 0.111 0.097
(ii) Pops/
Thousand Tonnes 71.72 56.20 45.03 35.50
It can be seen that from Table 6.1 there was a reduction of about 40
percent in the secondary blasting requirements for SSI party.
Explosive consumption per tonne was reduced by 11 percent. The
production per fortnight also increased. The increase can be expected

165 -
even on account of reduced secondary blasting work needed.
Similarly Table 6.1 shows that for the SS3 party the explosive
consumption was reduced by 22 percent and secondary blasting was reduced
by 37 percent. Additional benefits included reduced drilling and improved
efficiency in ore handling.
In conclusion, it can be stated that for a 1.8 m thick slice for similar
hole diameter and explosive consumption as in the conventional pattern,
a 0.45 m burden with a spacing of 2.4 m and staggered holes gave better
fragmentation. Reduced burdens also allowed holes to be drilled away
from the pillar line. Problems created by jointed rocks could be over
come with reduced burden. The patterns given could be maintained with
close tolerances despite variations in ground conditions. The miners
felt that it was easy to drill these patterns because they were symmetrical
from the centre line. Though dimensions are given in the various patterns,
miners themselves made minor adjustments. Miners have continued to use
these patterns since early 1974, which is in itself an indication that
these patterns gave better results.
6.2 APPLICATION IN SHRINKAGE STOPING
The North Mine in Broken Hill extracted an orebridge (sill pillar) of a
shrinkage stope. After a shrinkage stope on 24 Level had been worked out
it was decided to extract the orebridge by the bench blasting technique.
The thickness of the bridge varied from 7.5 m to 11m. The width of the
bridge also varied along the length of the stope. Three slots of 1,8 m
x 1.8 m dimensions were made in the orebridge and to which rows of holes
were blasted. It was planned to drill 58 mm diameter holes and which
were inclined at 70° to the vertical with a burden of 0.6 m and spacing
166 -
of 2.4 m. A spacing to burden ratio of 4 was selected on the basis

of the Wide Spacing Technique (Langefors et. al. 1965). The burden
was chosen without any trial as no previous experience in this type of
blasting existed. The width of the bridge dictated the number of holes
in each row. In this longitudinal stope, the holes along the footwall
and hanging wall were located 1.5 m inside the ore-rock contact.
Originally 485 holes were to be drilled.
At this stage the author suggested that the explosives consumption

(0.4 kg/tonne) was much more than the average (0.2 kg/tonne), for
stoping in the mine. Till then blasting of the orebridge had not been
carried out and hence, fragmentation had not been assessed. It was
suggested by the author that two changes in the patterns be introduced:
(i) the burden be increased from 0.6 m to 0.75 m, (ii) the holes in the
alternate rows be staggered. The number of holes for each row were
restricted due to stope width and hence the spacing was still kept at
2.4 m and thus the spacing to burden ratio was reduced. The second
half of the bridge was drilled according to these suggestions (Fig. 6.9).
Thus total holes required reduced by about 60 holes in the second half
of the bridge. This also reduced the explosive consumption. When both
halves were blasted no adverse effect of increased burden was found.
Though no quantitative data could be obtained, this example shows that
one should not increase the spacing to burden ratio by excessive reduction
of the burden. It is advisable that the burdens be reduced gradually.
6.3 APPLICATION IN A QUARRY
In this application, the principle of reduced burden and increased spacing

was adopted in a quarry located near a residential area of Broken Hill.
Production of gneiss from this quarry is used for a concrete mixing plant
RL579
-
167
-
extraction of sill p illar

168 -
and for road metal. In the quarry 75 mm diameter holes were drilled in
a bench of approximately 15 m height with no subdrilling. The bench
height varied in various parts of the quarry. Before 1973, a square
drilling pattern was used with burden and spacing both at 2.4 m. The
explosive used was ANFO which was primed with gelignite. The average
explosive consumption for primary blasting in 1972 was 0.27 kg/tonne.
A typical pattern adopted is shown in Figure 6.10. Delays between
holes were used to obtain a stepped-V pattern.
In early 1973, at the suggestion of the author, the principle of

reduced burden and increased spacing was adopted to overcome the
problem of excessive secondary blasting. The first pattern adopted used
a 1.8 m burden and 3.35 m spacing. The holes in one row used the same
delay. The fragmentation improved and reduced the number of boulders
needing secondary blasting. However, the experimental blast created
noise and air-blast complaints, and the throw of broken rock was
considered to be excessive. Therefore, another pattern with 2.15 m
burden and 2.75 m spacing with staggered holes in a stepped-V pattern
was adopted. Thus, compared to the conventional pattern, the burden
was indirectly reduced CBauer, 1974),
By adopting the latter pattern, the quarry in 1973 reduced secondary

blasting by 30 percent compared to that in 1972 and increased production
by 10 percent, without any additional cost of drilling and blasting.
Figure 6.11 shows fragmentation in the quarry. This example showed
that the location of quarry placed limitations on the use of the principle
of direct reduction of the burden and increased spacing.
169
-
Figure 6.10 Pattern used in the quarry blasting

170 -
Figure 6.11. Fragmentation results obtained from blasting

in quarry.
171 -
6.4 IMPLICATIONS IN PRODUCTION BLASTING
Examples of applications of reduced burden and increased spacing are
available in the literature and have been referred to earlier. The
application in Section 6.1 used the same principle together with
additional knowledge gained from experimental work to modify blasting
patterns. In other production blasting situations by gradual reduction
of burden and proportionate increase in spacing and by using staggered
holes, blasting patterns can be modified systematically. Thus the trial
and error method can be eliminated to a great extent.
Where it is not possible to supervise and conduct blasting experiments,
as a first approximation the burdens obtained from empirical formulae
(Section 2) can be reduced by about 25 percent. By proportionate increase
in spacing, blasting patterns can be modified to obtain better frag
mentation from a given drilling and blasting system. From the
experimental results and their applications in production blasting
the following modifications are suggested to the use of Livingston's
crater theory (Livingston, 1956). The application of Livingston's
crater theory as suggested by Bauer C1961) is still the most scientific
method for the design of a blast. Though Bauer's method has limitations
(Section 2.2) it appears to be a sound one, considering that it works
irrespective of the identifiable mechanism of rock fracture and frag
mentation and is a simple measure of rock breakage. It is also useful
in comparing different explosives. In view of the knowledge gained
regarding fragmentation, if certain modifications are made to Bauer's
method, a suitable procedure for the design of bench blasts can be
obtained. The modifications needed are that the long cylindrical charges
breaking to bench geometry be used and the burden be determined for
optimum fragmentation. The method can also be extended to determine

172 -
spacing. The modified procedure can be as follows:
It would be necessary to conduct a series of bench crater tests in the
rock to be blasted. This will involve detonation of a constant mass of
explosive charges in holes, at different burdens in a bench. Charges
will break to bench geometry, as shown in single hole tests of the
experimental work described in Section 4. Preferably, the same
explosive and hole diameter as in production blasting should be used.
In some cases this may create problems of excessive throw and assessment
of fragmentation may be difficult.
The burden at which the charge is placed will determine whether a crater
is obtained or not. If the charge is placed too deep, the explosion is
likely to be completely confined. As the burden is reduced, there will
be a point where the rock will just start to fail at the bench face by
cracking or spalling. This burden may be referred to as the critical
burden (Bc) for the particular type and quantity of explosive in a given
rock. At all burdens less than the critical, craters will result. After
the charge has been fired, craters if obtained, should be carefully
excavated and cleaned. Then the crater volume can be computed. Also
the fragmentation is to be assessed. Although photographic methods
and a point count technique (Anderson, 1970) have been tried, there is
presently no satisfactory method for obtaining an accurate size analysis
of muck-pile other than a complete screen analysis. Dick et. al. (1973),
Lovely (1973) and Ash (1973) collected fragments and screen analysed them.
Alternatively, the number of boulders as used by Persson et. al. (1969)
can be used as an indicator of fragmentation. One of these methods or mass-
surface can be adopted as a measure of fragmentation.

173 -
As in the original application of Livingston's crater theory the change
in mass or volume broken for a certain increase in burden can be plotted.
Similarly the change in fragmentation versus increase in burden can be
plotted. From these, the optimum burdens (i) for maximum mass broken
and Cii) for suitable fragmentation can be obtained. The experimental
work in the laboratory described in Section 4 has already shown that the
optimum breakage burden is larger than the optimum fragmentation burden.
Once the optimum fragmentation burden has been determined, further tests
can be performed with various spacings between holes, to determine the
most suitable spacing.
In this way the two most important design parameters of blast - the burden
and spacing can be determined. Some of these modifications were suggested
earlier by Vutukuri and Bhandari (1973). Recently Livingston (1973)
has independently patented a similar procedure, which requires optimum
burden determination first with a spherical charge and then relates it to
a long cylindrical charge, to control fragmentation by "autogenous blasting".
It may be stated that the method used for the modification of blasting
patterns as is shown in Section 6.1 is much less tedious than the modified
application of Livingston's theory, which will require much more time and
expenditure.
Applications of the results of fragmentation studies are also possible
in situations other than bench blasting. For example, in ring drilling,
if the burden is reduced and the number of holes in each ring are reduced,
an improvement in fragmentation can be expected. In tunnel blasting or
in development of a stope, a similar reduction in the effective burden
can be expected to improve performance.

174 -
After some additional work it should also be possible to obtain suitable
design parameters from the analytical approach adopted in Section 5.
Perhaps a combination of two approaches - experimental work by the
modification of Bauer's method and the analytical approach will be

initially needed. Once the initial parameters are established, an
analytical approach may provide design parameters for a given mining
operation to take into account variation in rock conditions.
The suggestions given in Section 6.4 require further work before their
usefulness may be proven.

175 -
7, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The objective of this investigation has been a thorough study of burden

and spacing relationships in the design of blasting patterns and of rock
fragmentation by long cylindrical explosive charges. Some of the
aspects investigated, of course, have been understood for many years;
others have been subject of much speculation without proof. The
significance of the work carried out rests in the fact that it is based
on experimental observations and is supported by applications in
production blasting. Knowledge gained should be useful in augmenting
present theoretical and experimental information on the blast designs
and in utilising explosive energy efficiently.
The investigation was divided in three major sections: (i) Experimental

studies (ii) Analytical studies and (iii) Production blasting applications,
The experimental work permitted quantitative studies to be made of the

effects of the important blasting variables on the results, particularly
on fragmentation. However, a major limitation was in the type of
explosive that could be used and therefore the results obtained were
qualitative with respect to the production scale blasts. This study
was simplified from the general field situation by first using
homogeneous and isotropic material. Attempt was later made to understand
the effect of discontinuity (joint) and filler material in them.
In the finite element stress analysis simplification was achieved by

assuming a homogeneous, isotropic and linearly elastic material. A
further simplification resulted from a two-dimensional stress study
of the phenomena under quasi-static gas pressure only. Comparisons
176 -
between the results of experimental and analytical studies were made.
Applications in production blasting resulted in evolving a systematic
procedure for the modification of blasting patterns to obtain better
utilisation of explosive energy. The general principles developed
were based on the (Swedish) Wide Space Technique, As a consequence
of this study, the principle of reduced burden can be applied in many
other blasting situations such as in tunnel blasting, ring drilling,
etc.
7.1 SIGNIFICANT RESULTS OBTAINED FROM STUDY
To relate results of study to production blasting, small burdens refer to
20 and 25 mm burdens used in the tests and large burdens refer to
optimum breakage burden (40 mm and 45 mm) and still larger burdens.
(A) The following conclusions were drawn from the single hole
experiments.
(i) The total mass of the broken material increased with the
increasing burdens and attained a maximum at a burden termed
as optimum breakage burden (B^). Thereafter, the masses
reduced until no rock was broken at a critical burden.
(ii) The percentage of fine fragments was greater at burdens
smaller than that with larger burdens. The average
fragment size and the fragmentation gradient were smaller
for the smaller burdens. The new surface created was least
for the large burdens. The burden giving the maximum value
of a product of mass and new surface (mass-surface) was

177 -
termed as optimum fragmentation burden, (B^). The
fragment size distribution obtained was uniform at such a
burden. The optimum fragmentation burden, (BQ^) was smaller
than the optimum breakage burden (B^). The fragment size
was coarser for optimum breakage burdens. Thus indicating
that the energy utilisation was more efficient for optimum
fragmentation burden (BQ^).
(iii) The break angles made by the broken rock were always large,
being about 150°-160°, except for very large burdens when
they decreased to near 90°. The widths of breakage were
small at smaller burdens and maximum width was obtained at
a burden smaller than the critical burden.
Civ) At the bottom of the hole, complete breakage did not take
place for large burdens. The breakage was cleaner for
burdens smaller than the optimum breakage burden. Sockets
left for small burdens were small and were maximum for the
largest burden.
(v) Increase in hole diameter and thus increased decoupling
produced increased average fragment size and reduced new
surface area.
(vi) Increased bench height produced similar effect of large
burden of increasing average fragment size and of reducing
new surface area.

178 -
(vii) In tests with optimum breakage burden, (BQb) and larger

burdens the large fragments originated from the area of the
bench opposite the hole. These fragments had cracks parallel
to the bench face, thus showing that the stress wave
reflection and consequent scabbing was weak.
(viii) From the tests with low explosives and wave trap it was
found that the elimination or reduction of stress waves
produced coarser fragmentation, conversely it indicated that
the reflected stress waves helped in reducing fragment size.
Therefore, to reduce large fragments, stress waves should be
allowed to participate effectively. In production blasting
burdens conventionally chosen to obtain maximum breakage
only do not allow stress waves to participate effectively,
Also for the large burdens used in production blasting
the reflected stress waves become weak and are not considered
important. Therefore, burdens smaller than optimum breakage
burdens should be used in production blasting which will allow
efficient utilisation of stress wave energy.
(ix) Gas energy itself was capable of producing smaller fragment

size at the small burdens. At small burdens, even with low
explosives large number of radiating cracks propagated towards
the bench face. With the increase in the burden the number
of cracks radiating reduced. At smaller burdens branching
of cracks occurred which was absent at critical burdens. The
gas energy appeared to control breakage boundaries.
179 -
(B) Multi hole experiments indicated the following:
(i) The smallest burden produced smaller mass of broken rock.
The mass of broken material was small for the optimum
fragmentation burden and the smallest spacing to burden ratio
of 1.66. For the same burden it attained a maximum value
between spacing to burden ratio of 3.3 to 4 which was a
value nearly that obtained for spacing to burden ratio of 1.5
to 2 for optimum breakage burden.
(ii) The fragmentation obtained was better with optimum fragmentation
burden and very poor for optimum breakage burden. Fragment
size as obtained at the spacing to burden ratio of 2 for
optimum breakage burden (B was small. However, even with
large spacing to burden ratio up to 5.3 for optimum frag
mentation burden, (B^) the fragmentation obtained was smaller
in size than that for optimum breakage burden tests at any
spacings.
(iii) Large spacing tests showed that individual hole breakage
occurred after a spacing to burden ratio of 5 with optimum
fragmentation burden tests. Even though individual hole
breakages occurred, the fragmentation did not deteriorate.
It indicated that even though the burden was reduced, by
large spacing enough mass could be obtained with good
fragmentation.
180 -
(iv) The tests in which the second row of holes were fired
indicated that a staggered pattern and delayed blasting
produced better fragmentation than that for two or three
hole tests in single row at similar burden and spacing
distances.
(C) Statistical analysis of variance in a factorially designed

experiment in which two burdens, two hole diameters and simulated
jointing with three fillers namely air, plaster of Paris and
cement were used, indicated that the burden had significant effect
at 1% level on mass and average fragment size. The type of
filler material and hole diameter had no significant effect up
to 5% level on the mass of broken material produced. The type
of filler had significant effect at 1% level on the fragmentation
gradient. Air as filler material produced larger amounts of fine
particles compared to that for cement and plaster of Paris.
Compared to rock without joints, jointed rock always produced
smaller fragmentation size and also produced undesirable
overbreakage.
(D) Analytical studies showed that the radiating cracks followed

directions of stress trajectories both in single hole and multi -
hole tests. The branching of radiating cracks also depended on
some of the stress trajectories. Cracks corresponding to all
the stress trajectories were not present. Only where stress was
maximum on the hole walls cracks originated. Propagation of
cracks occurred in the region where strain-energy-density exceeded
the critical value of strain-energy-density criterion. Directions
181 -
of radiating cracks were influenced by the positioning of the
second hole. Mutual enhancement of the utilisation of explosive
energy occurred till the spacing between holes became large,
and thereafter individual hole breakage occurred. It was suggested
that the microstructural damage by stress waves helped in
branching of radiating cracks propagating under gas action. Extent
of breakage could be determined by stress analysis in single
hole cases. Only at very small burden the actual breakage was
found to be smaller than the predicted width of breakage,
(E) Generalised results of the experimental and analytical studies
were successfully employed in production blasting. From tests
in cut and fill stoping, a method of systematic modification
of blasting patterns was developed. In shrinkage stopes, it was
shown that burden should not be reduced excessively. Gradual
reduction in burden is needed with corresponding increase in
spacing. Tests in a quarry indicated that direct reduction of
the burden caused noise and air-blast problems, therefore, indirect
reduction in the burden was utilised. Modifications to the
application of Livingston's crater theory were suggested so as
to incorporate the use of long cylindrical charges and frag
mentation aspects.
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Although this study provided answers to some questions regarding
blasting of rock, the subject is still far from being completely
understood. Further work is needed to completely identify the
various ways in which explosive energy accomplishes the task of frag
mentation. Though this study has indicated the importance of stress

182 -
waves in blasting, further work is needed to appreciate fully the

manner in which stress waves participate, The importance of
the development of radiating cracks by gas energy is established and
should be utilised in designing full scale blasts by analytical means.
The concept of mass-surface introduced in this study should have

important applications in future research work and in understanding
better utilisation of explosive energy. Attempts are needed to relate
it with other rock communition studies.
Another recommendation is in respect of developing the suggested

method of modifying the application of Livingston's crater theory.
Only full scale tests will indicate the usefulness of this suggestion,
It is possible to reduce the number of experiments involved by
statistical determination of burden and spacing simultaneously, In
the present study first the optimum fragmentation burden was determined
and then optimum spacing was determined. A factorially designed
experiment may provide optimum value for both burden and spacing,
The influence of joints in rock blasting is a major aspect which

remains to be investigated. This needs to be done in both the
laboratory as well as in field blasting situations.
183 -
REFERENCES
ADLER, L., Failure in Geologic Material Containing Planes of Weakness,
Trans. Soc. Min. Engr. A.I.M.E., Vol. 226 (1963) pp 88-94.
ALLSMAN, P.L., Analysis of Explosive Action in Breaking Rock, Trans.
Soc. Min. Engr. A.I.M.E., Vol. 217 (1960) pp 468-478.
ANDERSEN, 0., Blast Hole Burden Design - Introducing a Formula, Proc.
Australas. Inst. Min. Metal!., Nos. 166-167 (1952) pp 115-130.
ANDERSON, B.D., A Simple Technique to Determine the Size Distribution
of Nuclear Crater Fallback and Ejecta, Proc. Symp. on Engineering With
Nuclear Explosives, Las Vegas (1970) pp 1726-1745.
ANON., Operating and Cost Data - Open Pit Mines, Can. Min. J. Ref.
Manual & Buyer's Guide (1973) pp 28-33.
ASH, R.L., Drill Pattern and Initiation - Timing Relationships of
Multiple-Hole Blasting, Quart. Colo. Sch. Min. , Vol. 56 (1961)
pp 309-324.
ASH, R.L. and PEARSE, G.E., Velocity, Hole Depth Related to Blasting
Results, Min. Engng.,Vol. 14, No. 9 (1962) pp 71-76.
ASH, R.L., The Mechanics of Rock Breakage, Part I through IV, Pit
Quarry, Vol. 56, No. 2 through 5, (1963) pp 98-100; 112; 118-123;
126-131; 109-111, 114-118.
ASH, R.L., The Design of Blasting Rounds, In Surface Mining, Ed. E.P.
Pfleider, A.I.M.E., New York (1968) pp 373-397.
ASH, R.L., KONYA, C.J. and ROLLINS, R.R., Enhancement Effects from
Simultaneously Fired Explosive Charges, Trans. Soc. Min. Engr. A.I.M.E.,
Vol. 244 (1969) pp 427-435.

- 184 -
ASH, R.L., The Influence of Geological Discontinuities on Rock Blasting,
Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Minnesota (1973) 289 p.
ASPINALL, T.O., Survey of Australian Open Cut Practices - 1968, Aust.
Min., Vol. 60, No. 12 (1968) pp 46-59.
ASO, K., Phenomena Involved in Pre-Splitting by Blasting, Ph.D. Thesis
Stanford Univ. (1966) 177 p.
ATCHISON, T.C. and TOURNAY, W.E., Comparative Studies of Explosives in
Granite, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 5509 (1959) 28 p.
ATCHISON, T.C., DUVALL, W.I. and PUGLIESE, J.M., Effect of Decoupling
on Explosion Generated Strain Pulses in Rock, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 6333
(1964) 49 p.
ATCHISON, T.C. and PUGLIESE, J.M., Comparative Studies of Explosives in
Limestone, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 6395 (1964) 25 p.
ATCHISON, T.C., Fragmentation Principles, In Surface Mining, Ed. E.P.
Pfleider, A.I.M.E., New York (1968) pp 355-372.
BATIFOULIER, R., Constations Pratiques sur les Effects de l'Explosif
en Fonction du Materiau Recontre, Rev. 1'Indust. Minerale-Mines,
Special No. (1971) pp 767-780.
BAUER, A., Application of the Livingston Theory, Quart. Colo. Sch.
Min., Vol. 56, No. 1 (1961) pp 171-182.
BAUER, A., HARRIS, G.R., LANG, L., PRESIOSI, P. and SELLECK, D.J., How
IOC Puts Crater Research to Work, Engng. Min. J., Vol. 166, No. 9 (1965)
pp 117-121.
BAUER, A., Current Drilling and Blasting Practices in Open Pit Mines,
Min. Cong. J., Vol. 58, No. 3 (1972) pp 20-27.

185 -
BAUER, A., Trends and Developments in Open Cast Drilling and Blasting,
J. Min. Met. & Fuels, Vol. XXII (1974) pp 298-306.
BELLAND, J.M., Structure as a Control in Rock Fragmentation, Can.
Inst. Min. Metal 1. Bull., Vol. 59 (1966) pp 323-327.
BERG, J.W.Jr. and COOK, K.L., Energies, Magnitudes, and Amplitudes
of Seismic Waves from Quarry Blasts at Promontory and Lakeside, Utah,
Seis. Soc. Bull., Vol. 51 (1960) pp 389-400.
BERGMANN, O.R., RIGGLE, J.W. and WU. F.C., Model Rock Blasting - Effect
of Explosives Properties and their Variables on Blasting Results, Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 10 (1973) pp 585-612.
BERGMANN, O.R., RIGGLE, J.W. and WU, F.C., Model Rock Blasting
Measures Effect of Delays and Hole Patterns on Rock Fragmentation,
Engng. Min. J., Vol. 175 (1974) pp 124-127.
BHANDARI, S., Some Aspects of Open Pit Blast Design, M.Sc. Thesis,
Banaras Hindu University (1968) 89 p.
BHANDARI, S., SALUJA, S.S. and VUTUKURI, V.S., Breakage of Non-
homogeneous Rocks by Explosives, Conf. Stress and Strain in Engng.,
Brisbane (1973) pp 241-245.
BHANDARI, S., Blasting in Non-homogeneous Rocks, Aust. Min., Vol. 66,
No. 5 (1974) pp 42-48.
BIENIAWSKI, Z.T., Mechanism of Brittle Fracture of Rock, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci.,Vol. 4 (1967) pp 395-430.
BOND, F.C., The Third Theory of Comminution, Trans.A.I.M.E. Mining Engng.,
Vol. 193 (1952) pp 484-494.

186 -
BOND, F.C. and WHITNEY, B.B., The Work Index in Blasting, Quart.
Colo. Sch. Min., Vol. 54, No. 3 (1959) pp 77-82.
BRADY, B.H., Blasting Research at Mount Isa Mines Limited, Rock
Breaking Seminar, Univ. Queensland, (1971) pp 77-96.
BROBERG, K.B., Some Aspects of the Mechanism of Scabbing, Int. Symp.
Stress Wave Propagation in Materials, Interscience Publication,
New York (1960) pp 229-246.
BROST, F.B., Dynamic Photoelasticity Applied to the Study of Blasting
Phenomena, Rock Breaking Seminar, Univ. Queensland, (1971) pp 105-136.
BROWN, I.R., Open Cut Drilling and Blasting Practice at H.I. Pty. Ltd.,
Workshop Course on Drilling and Blasting, Aust. Min. Found., Adelaide
(1973) 11 p.
BUDAVARI, S., Rock Mechanics Aspects of the Design of Underground Mine
Workings, Aust. Min., Vol. 66, No. 10 (1974) pp 15-27.
CHARLES, R.J., Energy-size Reduction Relationships in Comminution, Trans.
Soc. Min. Engr. A.I.M.E., Vol. 208 (1957) pp 80-88.
CHEATHAM, J.B., Rock Breakage by Crushing, Blasting and Drilling,
Engng. Geol., Vol. 2 (1968) pp 293-314.
CHERNYI, G.I. and MIKHALYUK, A.V., Development of Radial Cracks During
Blasting of Compressible Rocks, Sov. Min. Sci., Vol. 5 (1969) pp 271-276.
CHERRY, J.T., Computer Calculations of Explosion Produced Craters,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 4 (1967) pp 1-22.
CLARK, G.B., BROWN, J.W., HASS, C.J. and SUMMERS, D.A., Rock Properties
Related to Rapid Excavation, Univ. Missouri-Rolla (1969) 342 p.

187
CLARK, L.D. and SALUJA, S.S., Blasting Mechanics, Trans. Soc. Min.
Engr. A.I.M.E., Vol. 229 (1964) pp 78-90.
CLARK, L.D., JONES, R.J. and HOWELL, R.C., Blasting Mechanics - Part
III, Trans. Soc. Min. Engr. A.I.M.E., Vol. 250 (1971) pp 349-354.
CONDON, J.L. and D'ANDREA, D.V., High Speed Photography Studies of
Laboratory Cratering in Tennessee Marble Plates, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I.
7613 (1972) 18 p.
COOK, M.A., COOK, V.A., CLAY, R.B., KEYES, R.J. and UDY, L.L.,
Behaviour of Rock During Blasting, Trans. Soc. Min. Engr. A.I.M.E.,
Vol. 235 (1966) 383 p.
COOK, N.G.W. and JOUGHIN, N.C., Rock Fragmentation by Mechanical,
Chemical and Thermal Methods, Proc. 6th Int. Min. Cong., Madrid (1970)
5 p.
COTTERELL, B., On Brittle Fracture Paths, Int. J. Fract. Mech., Vol.
1, No. 2 (1965a) pp 96-103.
COTTERELL, B., Velocity Effects in Fracture Propagation, Appl. Mater.
Res., Vol. 4 (1965b) pp 227-232.
COTTERELL, B., Notes on the Paths and Stability of Cracks, Int. J.
Fract. Mech., Vol. 2 (1966 ) pp 526-533.
D'ANDREA, D.V., FISCHER, R.L. and HENDRICKSON, A.D., Crater Scaling
in Granite for Small Charges, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 7409 (1970) 28 p.
DA GAMA, C.D., Laboratory Studies of Comminution in Rock Blasting,
M,S. Thesis, Univ. Minnesota (1970a) 179 p.
DA GAMA, C.D., Size Distribution General Law of Fragments Resulting
from Rock Blasting, Journees d1Etudes sur le Mecanism de 1'Abbaltage

188 -
des Roches a 1'Explosif, Fountainebleau, (1970b) 13 p.
DA GAMA, C.D., Similitude Conditions in Models for Studies of Bench
Blasting, Proc. 2nd Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Belgrade, Vol. Ill
(1970c) pp 105-112.
DA GAMA, C.D., Computer Calculations of Stresses and Rock Failure
Analysis in some Blasting Situations, Tecnica, No. 393 (1970d) pp
349-366.
DA GAMA, C.D., and NELSON, C.R., The Formation of Radial Cracks in
Rock Blasting Analysed in Terms of Modified Griffith's Theory, Proc.
12th Symp. Rock Mech., A.I.M.E., New York (1971) pp 517-528.
DALLAVALE, J.M., Micrometries: The Technology of Fine Materials,
Pitman, New York (1948) 555 p.
DALLY, J.W., FOURNEY, W.L., HOLLOWAY, D.C., Influence of Containment
of the Bore Hole Pressures on Explosive Induced Fractures, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 12 (1975) pp 5-12.
DAVIS, V.C., Taconite Fragmentation, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 4918 (1953)
34 p.
DESAI, C.S. and ABEL, J.F., Introduction to the Finite Element Method,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1972) 477 p.
DICK, R.A. and OLSON, J.J., Choosing the Proper Borehole Size for
Bench Blasting, Min. Engng., Vol. 24, No. 3 (1972) pp 41-45.
DICK, R.A., FLETCHER, L.R. and D'ANDREA, D.V., A Study of Fragmentation
from Bench Blasting in Limestone on a Reduced Scale, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I.
7704 (1973) 24 p.
189 -
DJINGHEUZIAN, L.E. and TWIDALE, M.A., An Attempt to Correlate
Grinding Work Index Values with Underground Drilling and Blasting
Data, Quart. Colo. Sch. Min., Vol. 54, No. 3 (1959) pp 77-82.
DUPONT RESEARCH, Facts About Delay Blasting From DuPont Research,
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. (Inc.)., Wilmington (1971) 11 p.
DUBNIE, A., Open Pit Mining Practice in Canada, Mineral Survey 4,
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa (1964) 93 p.
DUVALL, W.I., Strain-Wave Shapes in Rock Near Explosions, Geophys.
Vol. 18, No. 2 (1953) pp 310-323.
DUVALL, W.I. and ATCHISON, T.C., Rock Breakage by Explosives, U.S.
Bu. Min. R.I. 5356 (1957) 52 p.
ERDOGAN, F. and SIH, G.C., On the Crack Extension in Plates under
Plane Loading and Transverse Shear, Trans. ASME, J. Basic Engng., Vol.
85 (1963) pp 519-527.
FIELD, J.E. and LADEGAARD-PEDERSEN, A., The Importance of the
Reflected Stress Wave in Rock Blasting, Int. J. Rock Mech., Min.
Sci., Vol. 8 (1971a) pp 213-226.
FIELD, J.E. and LADEGAARD-PEDERSEN, A., Fragmentation Process in Rock
Blasting, Proc. 3rd European Symo. on Comminution. Cannes (1971b), 40 p.
FOGELSON, D.E., D'ANDREA, D.V. and FISCHER, R.L., Effects of
Decoupling and Stemming on Explosion Generated Pulses in Mortar:
A Laboratory Study, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 6679 (1965) 18 p.
FOGELSON, D.E., DUVALL, W.I. and ATCHISON, T.C., Strain-Energy in
Explosion-Generated Strain Pulses, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 5514 (1959)
17 p.
190 -
FRAENKEL, K.H., Basic Information on Rock Blasting Questions,
Manual on Rock Blasting, Vol. 1, Atlas Copco AB Stockholm and
Sandvikens, Jernverks AB, Sandvikens (1957) pp 6:02-1-45.
GNIRK, P.F., An Investigation of Some Aspects of Contained Explosion
Phenomena, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Minnesota (1966) 166 p.
GNIRK, P.F. and PFLEIDER, E.P., On the Correlation Between Explosive
Crater Formation and Rock Properties, Proc. 9th Symp. Rock Mech.,
A.I.M.E., New York (1968) pp 321-345.
GOLDSMITH, W., Pulse Propagation in Rocks, Proc. 8th Symp. Rock Mech.,
A.I.M.E., New York (1967) pp 528-537.
GRANT, C.H., Simplified Explanation of Crater Methods, Engng. Min.
J.,Vol. 165, No. 11 (1964) pp 86-89.
GREGORY, C.E., Explosives for North American Engineers, Trans Tech.
Publications, Clausthal (1973) 273 p.
GRIFFITH, A.A., The Phenomena of Rupture and Flow in Solids, Phil.
Trans. Royal Soc. London, Series A, Vol. 221 (1921) pp 163-198.
GUSTAFSSON, R., Swedish Blasting Technique, SPI, Gothenburg, (1973)
328 p.
HAGAN, T.N., Rock Breakage by Explosives, National Symp. Rock Frag.,
Adelaide (1973) pp 1-17.
HARDY, M.P., HUDSON, J.A. and FAIRHURST, C., The Failure of Rock
Beams, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 10 (1973) pp 53-82.
HARRIES, G., A Mathematical Model of Cratering and Blasting, National
Symp. Rock Frag., Adelaide (1973) pp 41-54.

191 -
HASS, C.J. and RINEHART, J.S., Coupling between Unconfined Cylindrical
Explosive Charges and Rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 2 (1965)
pp 13-24.
HEBBLEWHITE, B., Use of Finite Element Method in Dimensioning Pillars
and Stopes at the King Island Scheelite Mines, B.E. Thesis, Univ. N.S.W.
(1973) 87 p.
HENDERSON, D.S., Model Studies of Fragmentation by Concentrated and
Linear Explosive Charges, M. Eng. Sc. Thesis, Univ. Queensland (1971)
187 p.
HEYWOOD, H., and PRYOR, E.J., Applications of Sizing Analysis to Mill
Practice, Trans. Inst. Min. Metall., Vol. 55 (1946) pp 405-426.
HINO, K., Fragmentation of Rock Through Blasting and Shock Wave
Theory of Blasting, Quart. Colo. Sch. Min., Vol. 51, No. 3 (1956)
pp 191-209.
HINO, K., Theory and Practice of Blasting, Nippon Kayaku Co.,
Yamaguchi-Ken (1959) 189 p.
HOWELL, B.F. and BUDENSTEIN, D., Energy Distribution in Explosion-
Generated Seismic Pulses, Geophys., Vol. 20, No. 1 (1955) pp 33-52.
ITO, I. and SASSA, K., On the Mechanism of Breakage by Smooth
Blasting, J. Min. Met. Inst. Japan, Vol. 84, No. 964 (1968) pp 1059-1066.
ITO, I., SASSA, K., TANIMOTO, C. and KATSUYAMA, N., Rock Breakage by
Smooth Blasting, Proc. 2nd Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Belgrade, Vol.
3 (1970) pp 53-58.
JANELID, I., European and West African Operations, In Surface Mining,
Ed. E.P. Pfleider, A.I.M.E., New York (1968) pp 969-982.

192 -
JEFFREY, G.B., Plane Stress and Plane Strain in Bipolar Co-ordinates
Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., London, Series A, Vol. 221 (1921) pp 265-293.
JOHANSSON, C.H. and PERSSON, P.A., Detonics of High Explosives, Academic
Press, Oxford (1970) 330 p.
JOHANSSON, C.H. and PERSSON, P.A., Fragmentation Systems, Proc. 3rd
Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Denver, Vol. IB (1974) pp 1557-1566.
JOHNSON, J.B.,Small Scale Blasting in Mortar, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 6012
(1962) 22 p.
JOHNSON, J.B. and FISCHER, R.L., Effects of Mechanical Properties on
Cratering: A Laboratory Study, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 6188 (1963) 24 p.
JOHNSTON, S.G., Blasting Advances at Hamersley Iron, Min. Mag.,Vol.
129 (1973) pp 120-121.
JUST, G.D. and HENDERSON, D.S., Model Studies of Fragmentation by
Explosives, Proc. 1st Aust.-New Zealand Conf. Geomech., Melbourne,
Vol. 1 (1971) pp 238-245.
JUST, G.D., The Application of Size Distribution Equations to Rock
Breakage by Explosives, National Symp. Rock Frag.»Adelaide (1973)
pp 18-23.
KHANUKAYEV, A.N., Some Aspects of Theory and Practice of Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Proc. 3rd Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech.,
Belgrade, Vol. IB (1974) pp 1707-1711.
KIHLSTROM, B., The Swedish Wide Space-Blasting Technique, National
Symp. Rock Frag., Adel aide,Special Addresses and Discussions, (1973)
pp 8-14.
193 -
KOCHANOWSKY, B.J., Theory and Practice of Inclined Drilling for
Surface Mining, Quart. Colo. Sch. Min., Vol. 56, No. 1 (1961) pp 291-308.
KOCHANOWSKY, B.J., Some Factors Influencing Blasting Efficiency,
Int. Symp. Min. Res., Pergomon Press, New York (1962) pp 157-162.
KOLSKY, H., Stress Waves in Solids, Dover Publications, Inc. New York,
(1953) 213 p.
KUTTER, H.K., The Interaction Between Stress Wave and Gas Pressure in
the Fracture Process of an Underground Explosion in Rock, with
Particular Application to Pre-Splitting, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Minnesota
(1967) 171 p.
KUTTER, H.K., Considerations on Blasting in Jointed Rock, Quarry
Man. J. Vol. 53, No. 4 (1969) pp 146-152.
KUTTER, H.K. and FAIRHURST, C., On the Fracture Process in Blasting,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 8 (1971) pp 181-202.
LAMB00Y, P. and ESPLEY-JONES, R.C., Practical Considerations of Blasting
in Open Cast Mines and Discussions, Symp. Planning Open Pit Mines,
Johannesburg (1970) pp 227-234, 342.
LANG, L.C. and FAVREAU, R.F., A Modern Approach to Open Pit Blast
Design and Analysis, Can. Inst. Min. Metal!. Bull., Vol. 65, No. 722
(1972) pp 37-45.
LANGEFORS, U., Calculations of Charge and Scale Model Trials, Quart.
Colo. Sch. Min., Vol. 54, No. 3 (1959) pp 219-249.
LANGEFORS, U. and KIHLSTROM, B., The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting,
John Wiley and Sons, New York (1963) 405 p.

194 -
LANGEFORS, U., SJOLIN, T. and PEDERSEN, A., Fragmentation in Rock
Blasting, Proc. 7th Symp. Rock Mech., Penn. State Univ., Vol. I
(1965) pp 1-21.
LARSON, W.C. and PUGLIESE, J.M., Effects of Jointing and Bedding
Separation on Limestone Breakage at a Reduced Scale, U.S. Bu. Min.
R.I. 7863,(1974) 13 p.
LAROCQUE, G.E. and FAVREAU, R.F., Blasting Research at the Mines
Branch, Proc. 12th Symp. Rock Mech., A.I.M.E., New York (1971) pp 341-
358.
LEWIS, R.S. and CLARK, G.B., Elements of Mining, 3rd Edition, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, (1964) 768 p.
LINDGREN, G. and TRAVIS, P., Mechanisation at Renstrom, Min. Mag.,
Vol. 125 (1971) pp 188-197.
LIVINGSTON, C.W., Fundamental Concepts of Rock Failure, Quart. Col.
Sch. Min., Vol. 51, No. 3 (1956) pp 1-11.
LIVINGSTON, C.W., Control Blasting, U.S. Patent No. 3735704, (1973)
70 p.
LOVELY, B.C., A Study of the Sizing Analysis of Rock Particles Fragmented
by a Small Explosive Blast, National Symp. Rock Frag., Adelaide (1973)
pp 24-30.
LUTTON, R.J., Tensile Fracture Mechanics from Fracture Surface Morphology,
Proc. 12th Symp. Rock Mech., A.I.M.E., New York (1971) pp 561-572.
MARTIN, C.W. and MURPHY, G., Prediction of Fractures Due to Explosives,
Engng. Mech. Div., A.S.C.E., Vol. 89 (1963) pp 133-150.

195 -
MACKENZIE, A.S., Cost of Explosives - Do You Evaluate it Properly?
Min. Cong. J., Vol. 52, No. 5 (1966) pp 32-41.
MICHAELSON, S.D. and HAMMES, J.K., Copper Ore Mining, In Surface
Mining, Ed. E.P. Pfleider, A.I.M.E., New York (1968) pp 874-896.
MICHAELSON, S.D. and BUCKLEY, R.E., Open Pit Copper Mining, In SME
Mining Engineering Handbook, Ed. A.B. Cummins, and I.A. Given, A.I.M.E.,
New York (1973) pp 17:89-107.
MICHIK, Yu. M. and DOLGOV, K.A., Specific Surface Energy: A New Index
of Rock Crushability and its Application to Blasting Calculations,
Sov. Min. Sci., Vol. 3 (1967) pp 186-188.
MICHIK, Yu. M. and DOLGOV, K.A., Experimental Determination of the
Energy Expended on Elastic and Plastic Deformation during Fragmentation
of Rock by Blasting, Sov. Min. Sci., Vol. 5 (1969) pp 309-311.
MIKKELBORG, E., Swedish Boffin Explodes Old Pattern, Can. Min. J.,
Vol. 95, No. 12 (1974) pp 31-36.
MOSINETS, U.N., Mechanism of Rock Breaking by Blasting in Relation
to its Fracturing and Elastic Constants, Sov. Min. Sci., Vol. 2 (1966)
pp 492-499.
NICHOLLS, H.R. and HOOKER, V.E., Comparative Studies of Explosives in
Salt, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 6041 (1962) 26 p.
NICHOLLS, H.R. and DUVALL, W.I., Effect of Charge Diameter on Explosive
Performance, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 6806 (1966) 22 p.
NORDBERG, 8., Millisecond Delay Blasting, Rock Prod., Vol. 56 (1953)
pp 134-146.
196 -
NORDYKE, M.D., Nuclear Craters and Preliminary Theory of the Mechanics
of Explosive Crater Formation, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 66 (1961) pp 3439-
3459.
NOREN, C.H., Blasting Experiments in Granite Rock, Quart. Colo. Sch.
Min., Vol. 51, No. 3 (1956) pp 211-229.
NOREN, C.H., and PORTER, D.D., A Comparison of Theoretical Explosive
Energy and Energy Measured Underwater with Measured Rock Fragmentation,
Proc. 3rd Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Denver Vol. IIB (1974) pp 1371-
1376.
OBERT, L., Brittle Fracture of Rock, In Fracture: An Advanced Treatise,
Vol. VII, Ed. H. Liebowitz, Academic Press, New York (1972) pp 93-155.
OBERT, L. and DUVALL, W.I., Generation and Propagation of Strain Waves
in Rock - Part I, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 4683 (1950) 39 p.
O'BRIEN, P.N.S., Seismic Energy from Explosions, Geophys. J., Vol. 3,
No. 1 (1960) pp 29-44.
OLSON, J.J., WILLARD, R.J., FOGELSON, D.E. and HJELMSTAD, K.E., Rock
Damage from Small Charge Blasting in Granite, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 7751
(1973) 44 p.
s
OUCHTERLONY, F., Fracture Mechanics Applied to Rock Blasting, Proc.
3rd Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Denver Vol. 11B (1974) pp 1377-1383.
PANCHENKO, D.F., KARPINSKII, A.V., BLAGODARENKO, Yu. L., GALIMULINI,
A.T. and TURUTA, A.N., Breakage of Fissured Rock by Blasting, Sov. Min.
Sci., Vol. 5 (1969) pp 266-271.

197
PARIS , W.G., Written Contribution on the Brittle Fracture of Rocks,
PEARSE, G.E., Rock Blasting - Some Aspects on the Theory and Practice,
Min. Quarry Engng., Vol. 21, No. 1 (1955) pp 25-30.
PERSSON, P.A., LADEGAARD-PEDERSEN, A., and KHILSTROM, B., The
Influence of Borehole Diameter on Rock Blasting Capacity of an
Extended Explosive Charge, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 6
(1969) pp 277-284.
PERSSON, P.A., LUNDBORG, N. and JOHANSSON, C.H., The Basic Mechanisms
in Rock Blasting, Proc. 2nd Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Belgrade,
Vol. Ill (1970) pp 19-33.
PFLEIDER, E.P. and WEATON, G.F., Ferrous (Iron) Ore Mining, In SME
Mining Engineering Handbook, Ed. A.B. Cummins and I.A. Given, A.I.M.E.,
New York (1973) pp 17-70-89.
PFLEIDER, E.P. and WEATON, G.F., Iron Ore Mining, In Surface Mining,
Ed. E.P. Pfleider, A.I.M.E., New York (1968) pp 373-397.
PLEWMAN , R.P. and STARFIELD, A.M., The Effects of Finite Velocities
of Detonation and Propagation on the Strain Pulses Induced in Rock
by Linear Charges, J.S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metal 1., Vol. 66, No. 3 (1965)
pp 77-96.
PIFER, D.A. and K0, K.C., Detonation Pressure as a Rock Breaking
Parameter, Trends in Engng., Vol. 19 (Oct. 1967) pp 23-26.
POMEROY, C.D., Some Similarities and Differences between the fracture

it
mechanics of concrete and brittle rocks. Veroffentlichungen des Inst.
Bodenmech. Felsmech., Univ. Fredriciana, Karlsruhe, Vol. 55 (1972)
pp 163-175.
198 -
PORTER, D.D., A Role of the Borehole Pressure in Blasting: The
Formation of Cracks, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Minnesota (1971) 158 p.
PORTER, D.D. and FAIRHURST, C., A Study of Crack Propagation Produced
by Sustained Borehole Pressure in Blasting, 12th Symp. Rock Mech.,
A.I.M.E., New York (1971) pp 497-515.
PORTER, D.D., Use of Rock Fragmentation to Evaluate Explosives for
Blasting, Min. Cong. J., Vol. 60, No. 1 (1974) pp 41-43.
PUGLIESE, J.M., Designing Blast Patterns Using Empirical Formulas,
U.S. Bu. Min. I.C. 8550 (1972) 33 p.
PUGLIESE, J.M., Some Geological Structural Influences in Quarrying
Limestone and Dolomite, Engineering Geology Case History No. 9,
Geological Factors in Rapid Excavation, Ed. H. Pincus. The
Geological Society of America (1973) pp 11-16.
REINHARDT, H.W. and DALLY, J.W., Dynamic Photoclastic Investigation
of Stress Wave Interaction with a Bench Face, Trans. Soc. Min. Engr.
A.I.M.E., Vol. 250 (1971) pp 35-42.
REPIN, N.Y. and PANACHEV, I.A., A method of Determining the Depth
of the Zone of Fracture of the Solid Rock During Blasting
Operations, Sov. Min. Sci., Vol.5 (1969) pp 92-94.
RINEHART, J.S., On Fractures Caused by Explosions and Impacts, Quart.
Colo. Sch. Min., Vol. 55, No. 4 (1960) 155 p.
RINEHART, J.S., Fractures and Strains Generated in Jointed and Layered
Masses by Explosions, Rev. I1Indus. Minerale-Mines, Special No. (1971)
pp 146-151.
199 -
RINEHART, J.S. and PEARSON, J., Explosive Working of Metals, Pergamon
Press, New York (1954)
ROBERTS, J.S. and WELLS, A.A., The Velocity of Brittle Fracture,
Engng., Vol. 178 (1954) pp 820-821.
SADWIN, L.D. and JUNK, N.M., Measurement of Lateral Pressure Generated
from Cylindrical Explosive Charges, U.S. Bureau Min. R.I. 6701 (1965)
8 p.
SALUJA, S.S., Study of the Mechanism of Rock Failure Under the
Action of Explosives, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Wisconsin (B63) 175 p.
SALUJA, S.S., Mechanism of Rock Failure Under the Action of Explosives,
SASSA, K., LAROCQUE, G.E., COATES, D.F. and DARLING, J.A., The
Analysis of Stress for the Prediction of Crater Boundaries, Can.
Dept. Energy Min. Res., Mines Branch Research Report R192 (1966) 70 p.
SCHARDIN, H., Velocity Effects in Fracture, In Fracture, Ed. B.L.
Averbach, M.I.T. (1959) pp 297-330.
SCHUHMANN,R., Energy Input and Size Distribution in Comminution, Trans.
Soc. Min. Engng. A.I.M.E., Vol. 217 (1960) pp 22-25.
SEINOV, N.P. and CHEVKIN, A.I., Effect of Fissure on Fragmentation of
a Medium By Blasting, Sov. Min. Sci., Vol. 5 (1968) pp 254-259.
SHARPE, J.A., The Production of Elastic Waves by Explosion Pressure,
Geophys., Vol. 7, No. 2 (1942) pp 144-154.
SHORT, N.M., Fracturing of Rock Salt by a Contained High Explosives,
Quart. Colo. Sch. Min., Vol. 56, No. 1 (1961) pp 221-257.

- 200 -
SIROTYUK, G.N., A Method of Calculating the Fragment Size Composition
of Blasted Rock From the Given Oversize Fragment Composition, Sov.
Min. Sci. , Vol. 6 (1970) pp 59-64.
SISKIND, D.E. and FUMANTI, R.R., Blast-Produced Fractures in Lithonia
Granite, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 7901 (1974) 38 p.
SPEATH, G.L., Formula for Propert Blasthole Spacing, Engng. News-Record,
Vol. 218, No. 3 (1960) p 53.
STARFIELD, A.M., Strain Wave Theory in Rock Blasting, Proc. 8th
Symp. Rock Mech., A.I.M.E., New York (1967a) pp 538-548.
STARFIELD, A.M., The Value of Theory in Blasting Design, 28th Ann. Univ.
Minnesota Min. Symp. (1967b) pp 197-202.
STEPHENSON, J.O., Open Stoping at North Broken Hill Limited, Broken
Hill Mines - 1968, Monograph 3, Australas. Inst. Min. Metal 1., Melbourne,
(1968) pp 239-242.
TELLER, E., TALLEY, W.K., HIGGINS, G.H., JOHNSON, G.W., The Constructive
Uses of Nuclear Explosives, McGraw Hill, New York (1968) p 147.
TURuTA, N.U., GALIMULLIN, A.T. and PANCHENKO, D.F., Time Relations in
Shotfiring, Sov. Min. Sci., Vol. 3 (1966) pp 32-36.
VUTUKURI, V.S. and BHANDARI, S., Some Aspects of Design of Open Pit
Blasts, National Symp. Rock Frag., Adelaide (1973) pp 55-61.
WHITE, A.J.A., J0UGHIN, N.C. and COOK, N.G.W., Improvements in Stope
Drilling and Blasting for Deep Gold Mines, J.S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metal!.,
Vol. 76, No. 1 (1975) pp 139-150.

- 201 -
WIMPFER, S.P. and SEVERINGHAUS, N., Application and Economics -
Industrial Minerals, In Surface Mining, Ed. E.P. Pfleider, A.I.M.E.,
New York (1968) pp 849-873.
WRIGHT, F.D., BURGH, E.E. and BROWN, B.C., Blasting Research at the
Bureau of Mines Oil-Shale Mine, U.S. Bu. Min. R.I. 4956 (1953) 23 p.
YOFFE, E.H., The Moving Griffith Crack, Phil. Mag., Vol. 42, 7th
Series (1951) pp 739-750.
ZIENKIEWICZ, O.C., The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science,
McGraw-Hill, London (1971)
Publications resulting from the work presented in this thesis:
BHANDARI, S., and VUTUKURI, V.S., Rock Fragmentation with Longitudinal
Charges, Proc. 3rd Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Denver Vol. II B (1974)
pp 1337-1342.
BHANDARI, S., Improved Fragmentation by Reduced Burden and More Spacing
in Blasting, Min. Mag., Vol. 132 (1975) pp 187-195.
BHANDARI, S., BUDAVARI, S. and VUTUKURI, V.S., A Laboratory Study of the
Effect of Burden and Spacing Parameters on Rock Fragmentation in Blasting,
Annual Conf. Australas. Inst. Min. Metal 1., Adelaide (1975) pp 561-570.
BHANDARI, S. Burden and Spacing Relationships in the Design of Blasting
Patterns, Preprint 16th Symp. Rock Mech., (1975) pp 210-220.

- A-l -
APPENDIX I CURRENT BLASTING PRACTICES IN OPEN PIT MINES
A number of surveys of blasting practices in open pit mines became
available in the late 1960s (Dubnie, 1964; Janelid, 1968; Michaelson
and Hammes, 1968; Pfleider and Weaton, 1968; Wimpfer and Severinghaus,
1968, AspinalT, 1968). The location of mines were in North and South
America, Europe, Africa and Australia. The rocks broken included
limestone, coal and ores of copper, iron, nickel, antimony as well as
various types of over-burdens. The analyses considered the following
parameters - hole diameter, the burden, spacing, subgrade, bench height
and hole depth but did not consider the type or amount of explosive or
its initiation method.
Data from more than 100 operations were available. Many operations
provided two or three drilling patterns or hole diameters. Each was
included in the analysis. Hole diameters varied between 48 to 381 mm.
Burdens were between 1.22 to 12.8 m, spacings were between 1.22 to 17.74
mi, bench heights were kept from 1.22 m to 24,08 m, subdrilling varied
between 0.61 to 4.57 m and hole depths varied from 1.22 to 38.56 m.
The method of least squares was used to obtain the line of best fit.
The following relations and correlation coefficients were obtained.
(i) It was observed that the burdens used were proportional to
hole diameters according to the following relationship;
B = 0.024d + 0.85
where B is the burden in metres and d is the hole diameter in
millimetres. The correlation coefficient for the given relationship
was 0.80.
- A-2 -
(ii) The spacing between the holes, used were somewhat greater than
burden according to the following relationship:
S = 0.9B + 0.91
where S is the spacing in metres. The correlation coefficient for the
expression was 0.86. The correlation coefficient for the relationship
between spacing S and the hole diameter d was 0.82.
(iii) The amount of subdrilling provided was related to bench height
by the following relationship:
J = 0.136 H + 0.60
where J is the subdrilling in metres and H is the height in metres.
The correlation coefficient was 0.84.
(iv) The burden and subgrade drilling were related by a relationship:
J = 0.11 B + 1.1
The correlation coefficient was poor at 0.29.
All other correlation coefficients were poor and below 0.80.

- A-3 -
APPENDIX II SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FRAGMENTS

AND BLOCKS AFTER TESTS
Tables A1 to A6 show cumulative percentages passing various sieve sizes

for each of the tests. Actual masses retained on various sieves have
not been given as those can be deduced from the cumulative percentages.
For quantification of fragmentation three measures were adopted which
can be obtained from the particle size distributions. The measures
were (i) average fragment size, (ii) mass-surface and (iii) fragmen
tation gradient. To obtain mass-surface the value of new surface area
produced was needed. The product of new surface and mass retained on
each of the sieve sizes for each of the test gave mass-surface value.
The following methods were adopted for the various calculations.
(i) Average Fragment Size
Average fragment size for each test was obtained as the arithmatic mean
size of the particle masses as retained on the various sieve sizes. If
nip m2, m3 ... are particle masses retained on n^, n^ ... sieve sizes
then the average fragment size can be expressed by . The value
of average fragment size obtained however gives undue weightage to the
coarser sizes.
(ii) New Surface Area
For regular shaped particles such as a sphere, surface area can be

easily obtained by geometrical relationships (Dallavale, 1948).
Problems were faced regarding obtaining new surface area for the size
- A4 -
TABLE A1 - SIZE ANALYSIS OF FRAGMENTED PARTICLES

FROM SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON HOMOGENEOUS MATERIAL
(a) Burden Variation - 4.8 mm hole diameter
CUMULATIVE PERCEN'fAGE PASSING

Expt.
S’1 ^>"'\No.
mm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- 3.33 17.48 13.59 5.95 4.90 1.93 1.01 1.70

+ 3.33 29.14 24.36 10.60 8.64 3.11 1.46 2.62
+ 6.35 44.17 35.13 17.29 15.12 5.79 1.90 3.70
+12.70 63.19 61.03 25.4 40.87 13.09 3.37 7.09
+25.40 67.48 86.41 36.99 71.80 18.88 8.31 10.48
+38.10 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 23.60 8.31 10.48
+50.86 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 25.48 24.96
+63.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
__ rilMIJl ATTVF PER '.FNTAGF 5ASS TNG

Size>^ Ex?to.
mm 11 12 13 14 15 16
- 3.33 36.54 14.56 6.97 2.38 1.41 1.54

+ 3.33 57.05 27.97 11.73 3.68 2.31 2.39
+ 6.35 82.05 44.83 19.79 7.14 3.60 3.76
+12.70 87.18 83.91 37.69 15.15 11.46 8.89
+25.40 100.00 100.00 58.60 28.15 20.47 11.97
+38.10 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 25.87 11.97
+50.86 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 25.87 11.97
+63.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
- A5
TABLE A2 - SIZE ANALYSIS OF FRAGMENTED PARTICLES FOR

SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON CEMENT-MORTAR BLOCKS (cont'd)
(e) Burden Variation - 6.4 mm hole diameter
(i) low explosives (ii) miscellaneous
CU MULATIV E PERCEN'fAGE PASSING

'size7\ExPt •
on LI L2 L3 L4 43 47 46.1
- 3.33 3.67 N 2.13 1.19 11.25 1.60 1.43

0
+ 3.33 6.29 3.76 2.38 20.69 2.85 2.42
+ 6.35 13.38 7.52 4.17 46.18 4.75 5.06
B
+12.70 34.11 R 13.41 10.12 66.49 10.76 9.68
E
+25.40 48.28 40.23 17.06 85.64 17.52 17.02
A
+38.10 99.99 K 71.56 24.20 91.46 22.33 31.24
A
+50.80 99.99 100.01 44.44 100.00 26.63 31.24
G
+63.50 99.99 E 100.001 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
(f) Burden Variation - miscellaneous
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE PASSING

Size ^ ExPt-
Jlze’ ^ No.
mm 53 55 55.1 63 65 65.1
- 3.33 11.05 3.29 4.43 30.50 4.45 8.07

+ 3.33 21.29 5.97 7.55 47.72 7.51 10.85
+ 6.35 37.19 11.58 15.42 71.56 14.46 19.06
+12.70 67.11 28.29 35.91 87.98 32.12 36.38
+25.40 82.21 63.66 65.25 100.00 57.85 57.44
+38.10 100.00 78.90 81.64 100.00 82.05 84.01
+50.80 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00
+63.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00
- A6
(c) Burden Variation - 7.9 mm hole diameter
mm 22 23 24 25 26
- 3.33 8.88 2.68 1.89 1.32 N

0
+ 3.33 14.04 4.24 2.94 1.65
+ 6.35 31.23 9.15 4.82 2.31 B
+12.70 62.75 22.77 7.75 6.61 R
E
+25.40 73.64 44.64 7.75 6.61 A
+38.10 73.64 44.64 7.75 15.22 K
A
+50.86 100.00 44.64 31.39 23.17 G
+63.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 E
(d) Burden Variation - 6.4 mm hole diameter
CUMULAT IVE PERCENTAGE PASSING

c>\ Expt.
Slz®>\No.
31 32 33 34 35 36
- 3.33 7.57 1.99 1.07 1.45 0.33 N

0
+ 3.33 12.83 3.38 1.83 2.10 0.66
+ 6.35 22.70 5.37 2.59 3.39 0.99
B
+12.70 32.90 13.32 6.26 6.13 0.99 R
E
1 +25.40 42.11 17.69 6.26 14.19 7.96
A
+38.10 100.00 17.69 6.26 14.19 7.96 K
A
+50.86 100.00 17.69 31.03 14.19 7.96
G
+63.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 E
- A7 -

SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON GRANITE BLOCKS
(a) Burden Variation - 6.4 mm and 7.9 mm hole diameter
Expt. CUMU LATIVE P ERCENTAGE PASSING

Si zeT\^ [\|Q
mm '
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G7 G8
- 3.33 36.75 42.23 4.51 2.39 N 15.78 4.30

0
+ 3.33 51.51 59.76 7.22 2.95 27.27 6.45
+ 6.35 63.56 77.29 11.28 3.51 51.63 13.70
B
+12.70 75.31 88.45 22.71 4.07 R 84.73 23.50
E
+25.40 100.01 100.00 30.83 7.59 100.00 23.50
A
+38.10 100.01 100.00 50.08 7.59 K 100.00 38.67
A
+50.80 100.01 100.00 100.00 7.59 100.00 38.67
G
+63.50 100.01 100.00 100.00 99.99 E 100.00 100.01
(b) Burden Variation - Wave trapping and miscellaneous
Expt. Cumulative percentage passing

Snze,-\ |\|0
mm
G9 Gil G12 G21 G22 G23
- 3.33 N 42.66 6.54 5.69 2.52 1.26

0 9.91 4.11 1.82
+ 3.33 59.09 11.23
+ 6.35 79.72 16.54 17.83 4.91 2.66
B
+12.70 R 100.00 27.53 42.09 8.36 5.47
E 81.20 28.01 9.26
+25.40 100.00 73.09
A
+38.10 K 100.00 100.00 100.00 80.47 9.26
A 100.00 99.99 9.26
+50.80 100.00 100.00
G
+63.50 E 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 99.99
- A8 -

MULTIHOLE TESTS ON CEMENT-MORTAR BLOCKS
(a) Burden and Spacing Variation - Two Simultaneously Fired Holes

S?z^ Expt'
sizers^ Nq_
mm 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
- 3.33 14.03 11.15 8.10 7.33 10.67 5.04 2.78

+ 3.33 22.09 25.77 17.03 14.54 21.71 8.40 4.54
+ 6.35 35.32 42.13 32.46 25.26 36.72 15.19 7.38
+12.70 60.48 71.62 49.17 52.76 70.59 27.02 15.54
+25.40 83.38 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 41.48 21.00
+38.10 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.39 31.02
+50.80 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.39 47.56
+63.50 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.01
(b) Burden and Spacing Variation - Two Simultaneously Fired Holes (cont'd)
<=
JLATIVE PERCENTAGE PASSING

3
o
Expt.
Size,\
No.
mm 78 81 82 83 84 85 86
- 3.33 1.26 16.30 12.92 12.06 9.67 9.50 14.47

+ 3.33 1.97 28.22 22.47 21.34 17.48 17.82 23.93
+ 6.35 2.98 43.79 37.72 39.27 34.21 29.38 43.19
+12.70 5.90 71.28 68.45 62.00 64.76 60.05 69.97
+25.40 7.76 90.99 86.15 81.00 79.65 85.10 87.03
+38.10 13.65 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99
+50.80 13.65 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99
+63.50 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99
- A9
(c) Burden and Spacing Variation - Two Simultaneously Fired Holes (cont'd)
Expt. CUM JLATIVE PERCENTA(BE PASSI

1
Size>^ No.
mm
87 88 89 90 91 92 93
- 3.33 18.57 15.06 19.84 6.11 5.09 3.79 4.03

+ 3.33 31.86 26.02 34.57 9.96 7.97 6.51 6.78
+ 6.35 53.17 43.99 59.02 16.60 14.54 11.09 11.48
+12.70 86.61 74.71 85.27 35.98 27.19 22.83 21.14
+25.40 100.01 99.99 100.00 54.61 43.13 39.08 36.58
+38.10 100.01 99.99 100.00 58.68 60.39 43.95 42.15
+50.80 100.01 99.99 100.00 58.68 70.58 51.18 50.81
+63.50 100.01 99.99 100.00 100.01 100.00 100.00 100.00
(d) Burden and Spacing Variation - Two Simultaneously Fired Holes (cont'd)
Expt. CUMU _ATIVE P ERCENTAG E PASSING

Size,\ No.
mm 97 104 116 118 124
- 3.33 8.46 12.36 11.73 6.07 3.91

+ 3.33 15.11 24.97 22.32 12.89 7.59
+ 6.35 26.71 51.41 41.78 24.37 16.74
+12.70 46.59 90.33 68.53 48.65 31.03
+25.40 67.80 100.00 100.00 73.30 45.03
+38.10 88.10 100.00 100.00 100.01 63.18
+50.80 88.10 100.00 100.00 100.01 100.01
+63.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.01 100.01
- A10 -
TABLE A5 - ANALYSIS OF FRAGMENTED PARTICLES FOR

MULTIHOLE TESTS ON CEMENT-MORTAR BLOCKS
(a) Burden and Spacing Variation - Three Simultaneously Fired Holes
Expt. CUMULAr[VE PERCENTAGE PASSING

Size>v. No.
101 102 103 111 112 113
- 3.33 33.77 24.45 29.30 10.92 8.97 9.04

+ 3.33 55.97 38.46 48.16 19.36 16.88 17.85
+ 6.35 76.49 60.71 70.50 31.23 31.63 34.04
+12.70 88.06 83.24 91.38 56.80 57.86 64.74
+25.40 100.00 100.00 99.99 81.13 72.61 86.55
+38.10 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00
+50.80 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00
+63.50 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00
.
(b) Burden and Spacing Variation - Three Simultaneously Fired Holes (cont'd)

c.\ Expt.
mm 122 123
114 115 121
- 3.33 8.23 7.80 4.03 3.68 1.85

+ 3.33 15.56 15.44 7.00 6.59 3.20
+ 6.35 29.33 30.49 12.17 11.24 6.25
+12.70 62.09 55.65 25.40 21.90 10.65
+25.40 82.30 76.43 30.28 28.42 16.75
+38.10 99.99 99.99 34.67 28.42 23.50
+50.80 99.99 99.99 39.91 38.24 23.50
+63.50 99.99 99.99 99.99 100.00 100.00
- All -

SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON "JOINTED" GRANITE BLOCKS
(a) Burden, Hole Diameter and Filler Variation
' . Expt. CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE PASSING

Size>^ [\j0
mm "
J8 J9 J10 Jll J12 J13
- 3.33 12.30 4.18 5.09 17.17 20.83 13.99

+ 3.33 18.04 6.06 8.31 27.26 28.75 24.80
+ 6.35 28.01 11.01 15.27 47.97 38.61 36.18
+12.70 66.81 30.91 29.91 89.04 63.75 59.05
+25.40 100.01 66.78 61.17 100.01 84.58 93.52
+38.10 100.01 88.98 87.23 100.01 100.00 100.00
+50.80 100.01 100.00 100.00 100.01 100.00 100.00
+63.50 100.01 100.00 100.00 100.01 100.00 100.00
(b) Burden, Hole Diameter and Filler Variation (cont'd)
CUMULATIVE PERC ENTAGE PASSING

S izp'
ilze’\ ExPt-
No.
mm J2
J1 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7
- 3.33 10.93 12.45 19.79 7.94 3.68 3.59 11.64

+ 3.33 17.81 23.42 36.96 15.21 6.37 6.31 18.90
+ 6.35 29.01 36.66 52.56 30.28 13.24 12.85 27.66
+12.70 73.68 78.98 90.70 52.28 30.95 25.27 43.67
+25.40 100.00 91.15 100.01 57.74 51.45 51.63 60.49
+38.10 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 82.59 81.26 100.01
+50.80 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 82.59 81.26 100.01
+63.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.01
- A-12 -
range of particles produced in the tests because of irregular shapes
of particles in a fragmented mass. Observation of any fragmented rock
mass after blasting shows a great variety of shapes, ranging from
elongated particles to thin flakes, with a proportion of approximately
equidimensional particles. In other rock communition studies similar
problem was faced and to overcome that problem Heywood and Pryor (1946)
calculated surface areas for cube, oblong and plate shaped particles of
various sizes of an aggregate of rock mass. They also calculated surface
areas for the average aggregate containing all three shapes in equal
proportion. It was reasonable to assume that fragmented particles after
blasting had such an aggregate. Hence, Heywood and Pryor's calculations
for average aggregate were used for obtaining value of surface area of
fragments. Heywood and Pryor's calculated tables provide values in
square centimetre per gram at unity specific gravity. However, in
the present study the surface areas were calculated for the known
specific gravity.
To obtain the new surface created in each test, the initial surface area
of the broken part of the bench face was subtracted from the calculated
surface area of the fragments. The initial surface area was calculated
from the width of breakage, burden and bench height.
(iii) Fragmentation Gradient
The method developed by Just and Henderson (1971) and Henderson (1971)
to study size distribution of fragments from blasting was adopted with
modifications for the present study. The original method for plotting
size distribution curves used logarithmic scales on both axes, thus
obtaining a straight line relationship between the cumulative percent

- A-13 -
passing (Y) and the size ratio (x). The size ratio is the ratio between
the sieve size (x) and the optimum charge depth, (D) for the mass of
explosive detonated. In the plot log £n Y was the ordinate and log
(x) the abcissa. Henderson (1971) used sieve sizes such that the
lines, corresponding to the size distributions obtained from different
depth ratios passed through the same point lying on the log (x) = 0.
Log x = 0 corresponded to the situation when the size of the particle
equalled the optimum depth. The equation to each of the line in the
graphical representation was of the form:
log in Y = G log (x) + 0*^8 Âl)
where G = fragmentation gradient,
0.68 = value of log £n Y at log (x) = 0
The fragmentation gradient was defined as the slope of the size
distribution line when log £n Y was plotted against log (x). Converting
Equation (Al) to the following form:
log &n Y = G log (x~)+ log 4.8 CA2)
That is, £n Y = 4.8 (x)G CA3)

= e4.8(x)G
and Y (A4)
However, in the tests performed as described in Section 3, often the
particle size was as large as the height of the bench (76 mm) and the
optimum breakage burden was less (about 30-40 mm), hence all the lines
did not pass through log >T = 0. Therefore, a more generalised equation
could be written for Equation (A2) as
log &n Y = G log (x) + log k (A5)
where log k is intercept on Y-axis, Therefore:

- A-14 -
«,n Y = k 00G CA6)
and Y = ek^G (A7)
The significance of the value of fragmentation gradient (G) remained
essentially the same as in Henderson's method. It defined qualitatively
the change produced on fragmentation by the change in burden. A very
low fragmentation gradient (nearer to zero) described a situation
occurring where the proportion of fine material in the product was
large and the size of the largest particle was comparatively small, A
large fragmentation gradient (nearer to one) described the situation
occurring where the proportion of large particles in the broken material
was greater with a smaller amount of fine material. In an ideal
situation where the particles were equally distributed and were in
smaller sizes, the fragmentation gradient had a middle value,
In Figures A1 to A8 size distribution curves for many of the tests are
given for the purpose of illustration. Table A7 gives constants for
fragmentation distribution for each of the experiments.
Figures A9 to A19 show many blocks after the tests to compare breakages
obtained.
(Y%)
CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING, - A-15 -
/ / /
SIZE RATIO (-£-)

t> ,
ob
Figure A. 1, Size distribution curves for a range of burdens (B),
where B ^ - optimum breakage burden, X = particle size
V ~ percentage passing size, X, for single hole tests
in cement-mortar blocks (hole diameter =4.8 mm).
- A-16 -
V5 2.0
SIZE RATIO (—-•)
Figure A,2, Size distribution curves for a range of burdens (B),

where B ^ = optimum breakage burden, X = particle
size, Y * percentage passing size, X, for single
hole tests in cement-mortar blocks (hole diameter =
6,4 nun).
- A-17 -
(U)
CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING
size: ratio (■—)
Figure A.3« Size distribution curves for a range of burdens, {B),

where 8 ^ - optimum breakage burden, X * particle
size, Y * percentage passing size, X for single
diameter « 7.9 mm).
- A-18 -
1 00-0
50-0
25-0
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE PASSING (Y%)
1*5 2-0
SIZE RATIO [j£-)
Figure A,4. Size distribution curves for a range of burdens

(B), where B . ~ optimum breakage burden, X =
particle size, Y « percentage passing size, X
for single hole wave trapping tests in cement-
mortar blocks (bole diameter - 6,4 mm).
- A-19 -
CUMULATIVE PERCENT
SIZE RATIO -)
Bob
Figure A.5P Size distribution curves for d range of burdens

(B)* where B ^ = optimum breakage burden, X ~
particle size, Y ~ percentage passing size, X
for single hole low explosives tests in cement-
mortar blocks.
~ A20 -
10 0-0
5 0.0
2 5-0
(n)
cumulative percent passing
10-0
5-0
2-5
-025 .05 1.0 1-5 2-0
SIZE RATIO (--}

Bob
Figure A. 6, size distribution curves for a range of burdens
(B), where = optimum breakage burden, X =
particle size, Y » percentage passing si2e, X
for single hole tests and wave trapping tests
in granite blocks (hole diameter = 7.9 mm).
- A-21 -
) oo.o
5 0-0 -
25.0
7/ /
CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING (Y%)
10-0
12 sJ
SIZE RATIO {—)

bob
Figure A,7, Size distribution curves for a range of burdens (8)
and spaclngs {$) where 8,..,, - optimum breakage burden,
X - particle size, Y - percentage passing size, X
for tests with two simultaneously fired holes in
c erne n t - mo r tar* b 1 o c k s.
- A-22 -
JMULATIVF PERCENT PASSING (YX)
o 5*0
1-5 2*0
SIZE RATIO (»£-)
ob
Figure A. 3. Size distribution curves for tests with two
burdens (B) and different filler materials in
slots in granite blocks, where B ^ = optimum
breakage burden, X - particle size, Y *
percentage passing size, X (hole diameter ® 7,9 mm).
- A-23 -
- A-24 -
igure A.10.Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 11 to 16) after breakage from single hole tests (hole diameter = 6.4 mm).
cm
CM
A-25
Figure A. 11. Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 22 to 26), a fte r breakage from single hole te sts (hole diameter = 7 .9 mm).
CO
A-26
Figure A 12. Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 31 to 35), a fte r breakage from single hole te sts with wave trapping.
A-2 7
Figure A . 13. Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. L I, L3 and 9

L 4 ) a fte r breakage from s in g le hole te s ts
w ith low explosives.
A-28
Figure A14. Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 43, 47, 53, 63, 55 and 65) a fte r breakage from single hole
miscellaneous te sts.
- A-29
Figure A15. Granite blocks (Experiment Nos. Gl, G7, G8, G2, G3 and G4), after breakage from single hole tests
(hole diameter = 6.4 mm and 7.9 mm).
A-30
Figure A16. Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 72, 73, 75, 91, 92, 78), a fte r breakage from two
hole te s ts .
A-31
breakage from three holes tests.

A-32-
Figure A.18. Cement-mortar blocks (Experiment Nos. 103, 115, 123, 104, 118 and 124), after breakage from
three holes tests and second row of two holes tests.
- A-33 -
Figure A.19. S
Granite blocks (Experiment Nos. J3, J4 J5, J6, J 11 and J12), after breakage in jointed
granite tests.
- A-34 -
TABLE A7 CONSTANTS FOR GENERALISED EQUATION (A5)

FOR FRAGMENTATION SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF EACH EXPERIMENT
Experiment Correlation Intercept

Number Coefficient Gradient on Y-axis
g
1 0.985 0.160 0.645
2 0.993 0.204 0.651
3 0.998 0.344 0.632
4 0.998 0.391 0.635
5 0.989 0.595 0.504
6 0.922 0.723 0.304
7 0.990 0.619 0.424
11 0.950 0.095 0.674
12 0.988 0.219 0.682
13 0.998 0.304 0.625
14 0.996 0.578 0.569
15 0.983 0.754 0.455
16 0.969 0.630 0.395
22 0.980 0.251 0.632
23 0.987 0.472 0.543
24 0.951 0.517 0.401
25 0.993 0.845 0.365
31 0.984 0.269 0.610
32 0.972 0.513 0.454
33 0.914 0.763 0.344
34 0.983 0.704 0.393
35 0.715 0.951 0.269
LI 0.989 0.437 0.607
L3 0.994 0.594 0.564
L4 0.954 0.895 0.463
43 0.986 0.164 0.643

- A-35 -

9
47 0.982 0.638 0.460
46.1 0.980 0.731 0.467
53 0.976 0.211 0.641
55 0.988 0.432 0.583
55.1 0.995 0.387 0.612
63 0.976 0.119 0.675
65 0.997 0.384 0.606
65.1 0.999 0.278 0.612
G1 0.987 0.092 0.662
G2 0.976 0.081 0.669
G3 0.995 0.354 0.565
G4 0.886 0.395 0.324
G7 0.977 0.180 0.656
G8 0.982 0.326 0.537
Gil 0.992 0.100 0.687
G12 0.989 0.318 0.619
G21 0.998 0.361 0.640
G22 0.976 0.537 0.529
G23 0.973 0.799 0.335
J1 0.997 0.273 0.675
J2 0.984 0.221 0.661
J3 0.992 0.160 0.644
J4 0.984 0.273 0.639
J5 0.990 0.404 0.586
J6 0.992 0.408 0.582
J7 0.994 0.214 0.628
J8 0.996 0.253 0.666
J9 0.996 0.422 0.605

- A-36 -

9
J10 0.998 0.358 0.608
Jll 0.993 0.204 0.687
J12 0.989 0.144 0.638
J13 0.993 0.202 0.653
71 0.998 0.204 0.649
72 0.984 0.203 0.660
73 0.995 0.255 0.648
74 0.995 0.279 0.651
75 0.988 0.217 0.659
76 0.992 0.308 0.566
77 0.991 0.468 0.511
78 0.975 0.804 0.364
81 0.989 0.181 0.658
82 0.991 0.219 0.659
83 0.989 0.221 0.655
84 0.988 0.257 0.655
85 0.993 0.260 0.652
86 0.989 0.199 0.657
87 0.989 0.186 0.679
88 0.995 0.214 0.676
89 0.982 0.176 0.681
90 0.991 0.285 0.585
91 0.998 0.326 0.577
92 0.993 0.369 0.553
93 0.995 0.354 0.549
97 0.988 0.241 0.618
101 0.957 0.104 0.674
102 0.989 0.148 0.675

- A-37 -

9
103 0.973 0.124 0.677
104 0.977 0.249 0.694
111 0.995 0.236 0.648
112 0.989 0.263 0.649
113 0.986 0.269 0.658
114 0.990 0.284 0.654
115 0.988 0.287 0.651
116 0.989 0.249 0.679
118 0.988 0.330 0.646
121 0.984 0.336 0.541
122 0.981 0.348 0.530
123 0.979 0.554 0.465
124 0.977 0.387 0.597

3bhandari 006947794

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3bhandari 006947794

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in rock fragmentation in blasting

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/57051 in https://

A Thesis Submitted to The University of New South Wales,

for the Degree of

71649 24. MAY 73

An investigation into the fragmentation of rocks by explosives was

From the tests using single hole on homogeneous materials it was

A study of the fragmented particles and cracks suggested that, at

Changes in blasting patterns were carried out in a quarry and in an

LIST OF TABLES xvi

2.2 THE BURDEN 8

2.6 HOLE DEPTH 16

2.7 HOLE DIAMETER 17

2.8 CURRENT PRACTICES IN OPEN PIT MINES 18

3. THE PROCESS OF FRAGMENTATION 20

3.2 PHENOMENA OCCURRING AROUND THE HOLE 22

3.3 STRESS WAVE GENERATION AND PROPAGATION 25

3.4 EXPLOSIVE ENERGY PARTITION AND

3.4.1 Stress Wave Reflection and the

3.4.2 The Role of Quasi-static Gas

3.5 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF REFLECTED STRESS

3.6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR FIELD PRACTICE 43

4.1 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS 47

4.2 SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON HOMOGENEOUS MATERIALS 64

4.2.1 Single Hole Tests on Cement-

4.2.2 Single Hole Tests on Granite

4.3 MULTIHOLE TESTS ON CEMENT-MORTAR BLOCKS 66

4.4 SINGLE HOLE TESTS ON "JOINTED" GRANITE

4.5 ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 73

4.5.1 Single Hole Tests on Cement-

4.5.2 Single Hole Tests on Granite

4.5.3 Multihole Tests on Cement-

4.5.4 Tests on "Jointed" Granite

4.6.1 Efficient Utilisation of Explosive

4.6.2 The Importance of Stress Waves

4.6.3 The Role of Gas Energy 104

4.6.4 The Relative Roles of Stress

4.6.5 The Burden and Spacing Relationships 115

4.6.6 Effect of "Joint" 120

5. ANALYTICAL STUDIES BY THE FINITE ELEMENT FETHOD 123

5.2 MODELLING THE ROCK MASS IN THE CHARGE

5.3 ANALYTICAL MODELS OF BURDEN VARIATIONS 130

5.4 DISCUSSIONS 146

5.4.1 Crack Directions 146

5.4.2 Extent of Fracture 151

6. APPLICATIONS IN PRODUCTIONBLASTING 153

6.1.1 Conventional Drilling and Blasting

6.1.2 Experimental Blasting Patterns 157

6.1.3 Evaluation of Results 162

6.2 APPLICATION IN SHRINKAGE STOPING 165

6.3 APPLICATION IN A QUARRY 166

6.4 IMPLICATIONS IN PRODUCTION BLASTING 171

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECQfENDATIONS 175

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 181

APPENDIX II SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FRAGMENTS

organisations who contributed to the completion of this study. In

particular, special thanks are due to the following:

- Professor S. Budavari, Mr. V.S. Vutukuri and Dr. A.K. Bhattacharya,

thesis supervisors, for their most helpful criticism, guidance and

continued assistance throughout the course of the study;

encouragement, beneficial suggestions and personal support;

- The University of New South Wales for providing financial support

- I.C.I. Australia Limited (Nobel Group), for providing necessary