Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

A review of the methods to incorporate the geological and geotechnical

characteristics of rock masses in blastability assessments for selective
blast design
Ebrahim F. Salmi *, Ewan J. Sellers
Hard Rock Mining, CSIRO and Mining3, QCAT, Pullenvale, QLD 4069, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Rock fragmentation by blasting is still among the most challenging of problems in geomechanical engineering.
Blastability The intent of this work is not to develop a new overall blast fragmentation model as the existing models, like
Rock mass discontinuities Swebrec (KCO), the Fragmentation-Energy Fan, or the Distribution-Free models, have proven successful. The aim
In-situ block size distribution
of the study is, however, to review the approaches that have been developed for rock mass blastability assess­
Fragmentation
Differential blasting
ment. The desire to identify the three-dimensional (3D) distribution of the blastability of a rock mass for selective
Grade engineering blast design inputs for Grade Engineering®, led to a review of blastability assessment approaches to determine
the opportunities for continuous and automated assessment. The comprehensive review of over thirty blastability
assessment approaches has shown how different geological and geotechnical parameters play various roles in the
blastability assessments. The blastability assessment approaches to fragmentation are categorised based on their
application (qualitative assessment, powder factor determination, or fragmentation prediction) or the source of
the significant parameters (small -scale tests, rock mass measurements, geotechnical ratings, pre-blast indirect
measurements, post-blast measurements, or multiple rock mass and blast measurements). Over twenty param­
eters were identified in the review, often with a high level of uncertainty associated with determining the
effective parameters. The authors then show that there are three key factors which impact on the mechanisms of
the dynamic breakage of rocks – the strength, density, and structure of the rock mass (discontinuities). The
quantification of the discontinuities is not always considered although they are vital because the intrinsic block
size distribution controls the fragmentation, governs the propagation and the attenuation of the stress waves in
the rock mass, and the extent of the damage zone. This study also reviews approaches to assess the three-
dimensional blastability distribution of rock masses linked to modern rock mass measurement and geophys­
ical surveys. A simple, rapid, and practical blastability assessment is key to advanced blast design.

1. Introduction
Selective or differential blasting is a recently developed technolog­
ical lever proposed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Optimising
Resource Extraction, known as CRCORE, to efficiently separate ore from
waste in Grade Engineering® (Carrasco et al., 2016; La Rosa, 2017). The
main goal of differential blasting is to blast the ore finely and the waste
coarsely. Therefore, differential blasting is a combination of ‘mine to
mill’ (M2M) (McKee, 2013; Scott et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2002) blasting,
to maximise the ore fines with a limited top size, and the ‘less fines’ (LF)
approaches to quarrying (Moser, 2005, 2006) which are used to maxi­
mise diggable waste fragments above a threshold sieve size. Then, early
removal of waste by sieving and sorting reduces unnecessary energy and
time-consuming mechanical comminution (Walters, 2017). For optimal
outcomes, the design of the hole spacing and explosives distribution
must be varied in three-dimensions to match the spatial variations of the
grade, and geotechnical, geological, and geo-metallurgical distribution
in the rock mass (Sellers et al., 2019; Usami et al., 2019).
The experience of the authors has been that the proper characteri­
sation of rock masses before blasting is often difficult due to production
and data constraints. Data to characterise the rock mass is scarce. This
review arose from a search for the key geological and geotechnical pa­
rameters that can be identified in a fast and continuous manner for
differential blasting in large open-pit mines. The outcomes of this review

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: efathisalmi@mining3.com (E.F. Salmi), esellers@mining3.com (E.J. Sellers).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105970
Received 13 June 2019; Received in revised form 7 December 2020; Accepted 10 December 2020
Available online 15 December 2020
0013-7952/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
paper may help to produce updated definitions of the rock mass blast­
ability, to identify the parameters that have the first-order effects in the
assessment of the blastability of rock masses, and determine those that
can be modified to easily develop the three-dimensional (3D) distribu­
tion of blastability.
The main aim of blast design is to use explosive energy to break rock
masses into sizes and shapes that can facilitate subsequent operations (e.
g., excavation, loading, hauling, crushing, and milling). Correct frag­
mentation reduces the overall costs and time of the extraction and
comminution of ores in both surface and underground mining opera­
tions (Ouchterlony, 2003; Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony, 2017a).
Blasting has also conventionally been used to excavate civil structures in
hard rocks, e.g., for road trenches, tunnels, and underground caverns
(Jimeno et al., 1995; Ouchterlony et al., 2002). Undesirable technical
and environmental issues such as excessive back-break and over-break,
overpressure, flyrock, and ground vibration arise from poor blast de­
signs or conflicting requirements, such as high intensity blasting near a
pit wall (Müller, 1997; Müller et al., 2010a; Segarra et al., 2010).
The process of rock fragmentation during blasting is complex and
involves several stages in the loading and deformation of rocks (Jimeno
et al., 1995; Nielsen and Malvik, 1999). Around 20 % to 40 % of the blast
energy is normally consumed by the pulverizing and heavily crushing of
the rocks surrounding the blast hole (Hamdi et al., 2001; Jimeno et al.,
1995; Ouchterlony et al., 2004; Sanchidrian et al., 2007; Sanchidrián
et al., 2018). Analytical models (Cunningham et al., 2007) and numer­
ical simulations (Onederra et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2012a) have shown
that crushing depends on the non-elastic distortion characteristics of the
rock during the blasthole expansion. As the explosive expands the
blasthole further, cracks appear within the rock and are driven by the
local stresses. Further from the blasthole, and in areas of limited expo­
sure to increased stress after detonation, the rock separates on weaker
discontinuities present in the rock mass, so the rock is liberated not
fractured (Chertkov, 1985, 1986).
The design of the blast and the numerous in-situ characteristics of the
rocks govern the mechanisms of the breakage and control the frag­
mentation (Bohloli et al., 2001; Hamdi et al., 2007; Ouchterlony, 2003).
Multiple terms like blastability, crushability, breakability, fracturability,
explodability, explosibility, and fragmentability are used to refer to the
geological and geotechnical characteristics of a rock mass influencing
blast outcomes (Da Gama, 1995; Jimeno et al., 1995; Kutuzov et al.,
1974; Michik and Dolgov, 1966; Rustan et al., 1983; Shapiro, 1988). The
rock mass blastability has historically been defined as a factor that
shows the resistance of rocks to blast loads. There are, however, blast­
ability assessment approaches that involve the blast design parameters,
such as the characteristics of the explosive charges or the measurement
of the outcomes. There is, therefore, no widely accepted technique
available to assess the blastability of rock masses and many efforts at
unification have been attempted (Dey and Sen, 2003; Scott, 1996;
Widzyk-Capehart and Lilly, 2002).
The definition of the rock mass blastability proposed by Ouchterlony
(2003) can help to improve the conventional abstract definition of rock
mass blastability and to eliminate the uncertainties associated with
identifying the parameters that should be considered. According to
Ouchterlony (2003), blastability is applied to link the effects of the
geological and geotechnical parameters of a rock or rock mass to the
outcomes of fragmentation prediction. For example, the average frag­
ment size, x50, is defined as:
x50 = constant (rock factor) × (geometry factor) × ⋅(explosives factor) (1)
Here, the rock factor represents the blastability of the rock mass. A
general form of Eq. 1, has also recently been proposed by (Ouchterlony
et al., 2017) and (Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony, 2017a) which can be
used to estimate the size of particles associated with each percentage
passing (p) and may be written as:
2
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
xp = (p − dependent rock factor)⋅ × (p − dependent geometry factor)
× ⋅(p − dependent explosives factor) (2)
This means that the rock mass blastability quantifies the compound
effect of the geological and geotechnical site factors on fragmentation,
either as a single representative value or as a whole size distribution. The
role of the blast designer is to change the geometry and explosives fac­
tors to obtain their desired fragmentation outcome, given the rock factor
of the blast block.
The future of blasting will include automated loading systems (Lilly,
2011; Lovitt and Wicks, 2017; Sellers et al., 2012b) and the ability to
change the explosive density and energy along the hole (Halander et al.,
2015). Therefore, blast designs should now incorporate three-
dimensional (3D) distribution of the blastability of the rock mass even
though estimating the spatial distribution might be very challenging in
practice (Rustan et al., 1983). From Eq. 1, if the blast geometry and
explosives factors can change across the blast block, this means that
there is a need to identify how the blastability varies in 3D space.
In the present paper, the factors controlling the design of blasts are
discussed first to identify the components and how the blastability as­
sessments are used: qualitatively, to determine the powder factor and for
fragmentation prediction models. The inputs into the blastability as­
sessments are then categorised based on the source of the parameters,
starting with laboratory tests (Section 3.1), average rock mass mea­
surements (Section 3.2), geotechnical ratings (Section 3.3), indirect pre-
blast (Section 3.4), and post-blast (Section 3.5) measurements, to more
complex methods based on large quantities of rock mass and blast data
(Section 3.6). The commonalities between the parameters are discussed
in Section 4.1 and the methods are compared in Section 4.2. The
incorporation of geological variability is covered in Section 4.3. Finally,
in Sections 4.4, the options for the application of automated geological
logging, geostatistics, and geophysics to determine a 3D blastability
assessment across a mining block and orebody are considered. A simple
comparison of the blastability assessment approaches for application to
develop a three-dimensional blastability distribution is also provided in
the Appendix.
2. Overview of the application of rock mass blastability
This section presents an overview to identify consistent trends in the
selection of the important input and output parameters in blast design,
and how these are related to the assessment of blastability.
2.1. Factors controlling blast outcomes
The efficiency of a blasting operation is highly dependent on the
mechanical parameters of the rock mass that govern the responses to
blast waves, the geometrical parameters of the blast design that affect
the distribution of the blast energy in space (e.g., borehole bottom and
column energy) and the time factors (e.g., delays between holes/rows)
that control the release and transmission of explosive energy to the
surrounding rock mass, in time and during the blasting (Hamdi and du
Mouza, 2000, 2005b). Similarly, Latham et al. (2006) grouped the
effective factors in rock blasting as follows:
A – Factors that are dictated by the geological and geotechnical
characteristics of the blasting site:
- The mechanical and geometrical characteristics of discontinuities (e.
g., bedding, schistosity and foliation, faults). The spacing of discon­
tinuities, orientation, and the cohesion of joints are typical examples
of such parameters.
- The strength and deformational properties of rocks (e.g., rock type,
weathering status).
- The density, porosity, and permeability of rocks.
- The presence of water in blast holes or discontinuities.
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
- The spatial variations of the geology and rock types.
B – Factors that are associated with the blast design (this category
does not depend on the inherent features and characteristics of the
blasting site):
- Blast design parameters (e.g., configuration and drilling pattern).
- Properties and detonation methods of charges and the application of
timings to control the distribution of energy into the rock mass.
Therefore, according to Latham et al. (2006), any blastability
assessment approach shall quantify the effects of the geological and
geotechnical characteristics of rocks in the blast block (first category) so
that the blast design factors (second category) can be adjusted to achieve
the desired output, based on the purpose of the blast. This is consistent
with the definition of the blastability proposed by Ouchterlony (2003)
(see the Introduction).
2.2. The applications of the assessments of blastability
The outcomes of the blastability assessment approaches can help to
identify consistent trends in the selection of the governing geological
and geotechnical parameters in different blast designs. Such detailed
information can be used to design advanced differential or selective
blasts to optimise the fragmentation of the rock based on the re­
quirements of the downstream processes (e.g., loading, mechanical
crushing, milling), to improve the efficiency of the fragmentation and to
reduce the undesirable consequences of the blasting (e.g., ground vi­
bration, overbreak, underbreak, back break, and fly rock).
Müller (1997), and Müller and Hohlfeld (1997) showed that char­
acterising the rock masses for blasting and finding the matched explo­
sive and blast design not only helps to improve the fragmentation but
can reduce the undesired consequences such as ground vibration, flyr­
ock, and back break. Similarly, Ashby (1981) performed several field
test blasts in a copper and gold mine and stated that to reduce the blast-
induced damage the first step is to improve the fragmentation by
applying proper rock mass characteristics, in the production zones.
These show that different objectives of the blast may not be indepen­
dent. The blastability can, therefore, be considered as a rock or rock
mass property, which is linked to the fragmentation. The blastability
provides unique fragmentation results for each blast set up and does not
depend on the purpose of blasting. Fitting the fragmentation to that
purpose of blast design is, however, the role of the blast design param­
eters, which was previously discussed in the second category of effective
factors by Latham et al. (2006) (see Section 2.1).
From the historical thread of the literature, three principal ap­
proaches to the application of the assessment of blastability in blast
design have been identified and are discussed here: the qualitative
assessment, the prediction based on powder factor (mass of explosive
per unit volume of rock), and the direct prediction of fragmentation
distribution.
2.2.1. Qualitative assessment
An early blastability classification was proposed by Aleksandrov
et al. (1963) which was presented in Mosinets et al. (1967). This qual­
itative assessment scheme was developed based on field inspections and
qualitative assessments of several blasting outcomes at the Kal’makyr
mine, in the former Soviet Union. Kal’makyr mine is located in the east
of Uzbekistan, in Tashkent Province, and is among the largest copper
reserves in the world. The blasts, considered in the development of this
classification, aimed at obtaining good rock breaking to achieve
continuous operation. Aleksandrov’s blastability classification is also
known as the Central Research Institute’s (CRI) classification. According
to the CRI classification, rock masses may be classified into:
Category I: Easily blasted: small blocks, strongly fractured, with
average discontinuity spacing around 0.15 m. This can be interpreted as
3
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
providing a finer fragmentation for a given specific charge or requiring a
smaller specific charge to obtain the desired fragmentation.
Category II: Medium ease of blasting: medium size blocks with
average discontinuity spacing around 0.5 m. This may also be inter­
preted as providing a medium fragmentation for a given specific charge
or requiring a medium-specific charge to obtain the desired
fragmentation.
Category III: Difficult blasting: Large blocks of rocks with average
discontinuity spacing over 0.5 m. This can also be considered as
resulting in a coarse fragmentation for a given specific charge or
requiring a considerably large specific charge to obtain the desired
fragmentation.
However, this qualitative classification suffers from a few draw­
backs, e.g., soft sedimentary rocks, like potash without discontinuities or
hard jointed igneous rocks may result in different fragmentation when
identical blast set up is used. The behaviour of rocks in blasting may not
simply be classified based on the spacing of discontinuities. The classi­
fication approach is also subjective to personal judgment and the
interpretation of the distance between discontinuities in a rock mass.
The joint network can form blocks with different sizes with a specific
particle size distribution, (PSD), which is also known as the in-situ block
size distribution (IBSD). Additionally, this approach is only applicable to
areas where rock discontinues are visible. Differentiation between the
blast-induced cracks, caused by the firing of the previous rounds of
blasting, and the natural discontinuities may also not be straightfor­
ward. In other words, the pre-conditioning of the rock mass by the
previous blast rounds should be identified and considered.
2.2.2. Quantification using powder factor and energy
Sukhanov (1947) proposed using the powder factor, q (kg/m3), as a
qualitative characterisation of the blastability of a rock mass for frag­
mentation design and developed a series of standard test conditions for
this purpose (Sukhanov, 1947; Sukhanov and Kutuzov, 1967). Rocks
were divided into sixteen classes according to the powder factor, that is
needed to achieve the desired fragmentation, and a few other blast
design factors. If the powder factor is high, the rock is more difficult to
fragment, otherwise it is easy to blast. A series of correction factors were
proposed to adjust the powder factor for non-standard conditions;
however, these have proved cumbersome to use in practice. The clas­
sification also involves considerable levels of personal interpretation.
Gokhale (2010) also reported on the work performed by researchers in
the Soviet Union, e.g., Kutuzov (1979), to improve these qualitative
categorisation schemes by including factors like the intact rock strength,
rock density, and average joint spacing, Sj-av in (m). Typical examples of
the powder factors needed to fragment the rocks for different rock types
have been tabulated in
Table 1. It is also noted that in this table we summarised the classi­
fication based on Protodyakonov’s rock strength index for a rough
comparison between the two different classifications schemes (see Sec­
tion 3.1.1).
Shapiro (1988) also used a similar approach though used the term
‘explodability’ to describe the blastability of a rock mass based on powder
factor, for underground excavation. The explodability (blastability) was
assessed based on defining a reference powder factor (qref (kg/m3) and
burden (Bref (cm)), associated with a specific (standard) condition. If the
rock mass needs a higher powder factor for fragmentation, then it has a
higher blastability. Shapiro (1988) considered a 42 mm drill hole
diameter, a hole filling coefficient, fc, of 0.75, an efficiency or utilisation
capacity of η = 0.9 for the holes in the cut, and ammonite, 6ZhV, with a
density of 850 kg/m3 as the standard (reference) conditions for esti­
mating the blastability of rocks (see Table 2).
The complexities of defining blastability in terms of a powder factor
without understanding the fragmentation outcomes are indicated by the
very different suggested powder factors for the same compressive
strength between data for surface coal mines in Turkey (Muftuoglu et al.,
1991) and the powder factors predicted by Mohamed et al. (2015) (see
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Table 1 Table 2
Protodyakonov’s rock hardness index and Sukhanov’s blastability classification Classes of rock mass blastability based on powder factor for underground
schemes (adopted from Zou, 2017). excavation (Shapiro, 1988).
Protodyakonov’s Sukhanov’s classification Typical rocks Blastability Values of blastability Blastability Values of blastability
classification class parameters class parameters

Class Hardness fp Blastability Class Powder q (kg/ B (cm) q (kg/ B (cm)

description factor m3) m3)
(kg/m3)
I 0.30 to 43.0 to VI 1.77 18.0 to
I Extremely 20 Most 1 8.3 Dense micro- 0.48 34.0 to2.23 16.0
sturdy difficult to crystalline Av = Av = Av =2.00 Av
blast quartzite 0.39 38.5 =17.0
2 6.7 Extremely II 0.48 to 34.0 to VII 2.23 to 16.0 to
durable 0.71 28.0 2.72 14.0
quartzite Av = Av = Av =2.48 Av
3 5.3 Very dense 0.60 31.0 =15.0
quartzite and III 0.71 to 28.0 to VIII 2.72 to 14.0 to
basalt 1.00 24.0 3.28 13.0
II Very sturdy 18 Very 4 4.2 Fine-grained Av = Av = Av =3.00 Av
difficult to andesite and 0.86 26.0 =13.5
blast diabase IV 1.00 to 24 to IX 3.28 to 13.0 to
15 5 3.8 Porphyritic 1.35 20.0 3.92 12.0
quartz Av = Av = Av =3.60 Av
12 6 3.0 Very fine- 1.18 22.0 =12.5
grained V 1.35 to 20.0 to X 3.92 to 12.0 to
siliceous 1.77 18.0 4.64 11.0
sandstone Av = Av = Av =4.28 Av
III Sturdy 10 Difficult to 7 2.4 Dense 1.56 19.0 =11.5
blast granite, and
hard iron ore
IIIa 8 8 2.0 Tough and rich cap rocks, in the area with a specific gravity of about 4.0 (tonne/
strong
m3). The blastability index could also successfully classify the soft friable
sandstone
and
shales with indices around 20 or less in the area (Lilly, 1986).
limestone Lilly’s blastability classification is similar to the traditional rock mass
IV Relatively 6 Relatively 9 1.5 Sandstone classification systems (e.g., RMR and Q-system) which are widely used
IVa sturdy 5 difficult to 10 1.25 Sandy shale in tunnelling and underground excavations (Barton, 1988; Bieniawski,
blast
1979). The rock mass information (presented in Table 4) is used to rate
V Moderately 4 Moderate 11 1.0 Not very
sturdy resistance rough the rocks based on their integrity and structures (Lilly, 1986; Lilly, 1992;
to blast sandstone Widzyk-Capehart and Lilly, 2002). The BI is defined as:
and
limestone BI = 0.5 (RMD + JPS + JPO + RDI + Hr ) (4)
Va 3 12 0.8 Competent
and dense where RDI is the Rock Density Index and is related to ρr the rock mass
shales density (ton/m3) by (Lilly, 1986):
VI Fairly weak 2 Fairly easy 13 0.6 Soft shale
to blast RDI = 25ρr − 50 (5)
VIa 1.5 14 0.5 Anthracite
VII Weak 1.0 Easy to 15 0.4 Dense clay The hardness parameter, Hr, incorporates the effect of strength using
blast and soft coal (Lilly, 1992):
rocks
VIIa 0.8 16 0.3 Pumice and Hr = 0.05 × σc (6)
Tuff
VIII Very loose 0.6 No blasting where σc is the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks (MPa).
soft rocks needed
It is also noteworthy that the BI factors are highly weighted towards
IX Soil 0.5
X Sand 0.3 the nature and orientation of the widely spaced joint planes. The index
attempts to account for the directional effects though the JPO factor,
though in highly jointed rock masses it can be challenging to determine
Fig. 1) and Table 3 (Gokhale, 2010). which joint set forms the major plane of weakness. A further compli­
To expand the range of parameters considered in estimating the cation is the large, discrete change in BI for a small change in the pa­
powder factor, Lilly (1986) proposed a linear relationship between the rameters of a rock mass. A typical example could be two separate jointed
powder factor needed to fragment iron ore rocks and a blastability index rock masses with identical strength and density. The joint spacing in the
(BI). The blastability index depends on the characteristics of the dis­ first one is 1.0 m while in the second it is 1.1 m. The parameter JPS
continuities in the rock mass, the strength, and the density of the intact changes sharply from 20 to 50 which consequently results in a signifi­
blocks of rocks. The powder factor, q, (kg/m3), can be estimated by: cant difference between the blastability of these two rock masses.
q = a1 × BI + b1 (3) Lilly (1992) also produced a series of design charts (e.g., see Fig. 2 an
example of these charts) for estimating the blast patterns (Burden ×
where a1 and b1 are empirical coefficients depending on the diameter of Spacing) and powder factors for various blasthole diameters. The design
the blast hole and the bench height. charts are for three different bench heights of 5 m, 8 m, and 10 m. The
Lilly’s blastability index was initially developed to classify all the blasthole diameters are also assumed to be 76 mm, 89 mm, 102 mm and
rock mass types present in the iron ore mines of the Pilbara area in 114 mm. It is also assumed that the fragmentation is predictable based
northwest Western Australia. The index has a maximum value of 100 on Kuz-Ram model (see Section 2.2.3 and Eq. 9) and %95 of materials
which reflects the characteristics of the heavily massive and hard, iron- shall pass an 800 mm grizzly. It is also assumed that blastholes are

4
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Fig. 1. Powder factor versus (a): rock compressive strength according to Muftuoglu et al.’s data, and (b): tensile strength reported by Muftuoglu et al. (1991).

Table 3
Powder factor estimation based on rock strength, rock density, and joint spacing
(Gokhale, 2010).
Powder factor (kg/m3) Sj-av (m) σc (MPa) ρr (kg/m3)
Range Average

0.12–0.18 0.150 <0.1 10–30 1400–1800

0.18–0.27 0.225 0.10–0.25 20–45 1750–2350
0.27–0.38 0.320 0.20–0.50 30–65 2250–2550
0.38–0.52 0.450 0.45–0.75 50–90 2500–2800
0.52–0.68 0.600 0.70–1.00 70–120 2750–2900
0.68–0.88 0.780 0.95–1.25 110–160 2850–3000
0.88–1.10 0.990 1.20–1.50 145–205 2950–3200
1.10–1.37 1.235 1.45–1.70 195–250 3150–3400
1.37–1.68 1.525 1.65–1.90 235–300 3350–3600
1.68–2.03 1.855 >1.85 >285 >3550

Table 4
Rating factors in Lilly’s blastability index (Lilly, 1986).
Parameter Rating

Rock mass description (RMD)

Powdery or friable 10
Blocky 20
Massive 50
Joint plane spacing (JPS)
Close (<0.1 m) 10
Intermediate (0.1 m to 1.0 m) 20
Wide (>1.0 m) 50
Joint plane orientation (JPO)
Horizontal 10
Dip out of face 20
Strike normal to face 30
Dip into face 40

Fig. 2. Estimating a: burden×spacing (S×B) based on blastability index (BI),

vertical, and blasts are drilled in a triangular pattern with (S = 1.16×B),
sub-drilling is also assumed to be 8 times the blasthole diameter, and
stemming is set to burden size. Anfo was also considered as the charge
for the blastholes and it is expected that the initial sequence can provide
adequate burden relief and material movement.
Similarly, Fig. 3 also shows the application of Bickers et al. (2002)
modified BI (see Section 3.3.2 and Fig. 16) to predict the holes standoff
and linear charge concentration kg/m in the wall to limit damage from
trim blasts in an open-pit iron ore mine in Australia.
A proper characterisation of rock mass blastability is needed to use
the controllable factor in a way to minimise the undesirable conse­
quences of blasting, such as the ground vibration due to blasting or fly
rock (Müller (1997). This means that achieving a good fragmentation
and minimising the ground vibration and flyrock are not independent
objectives. High ground vibrations can be related to the blastability in
and b: powder factor for a 10 m bench height (courtesy of Lilly, 1992).
terms of the acoustic impedance of the rocks, Ir (kg/m2sec), and this is
compounded by the excessive volume of the blast generated gases (see
Figs. 13 and 4). Instead of the powder factor, an empirical parameter
known as the specific blasting effect, Sg, which is linked to the impulse
per unit blast volume (Ns/m3) was proposed, which is defined as
(Hohlfeld and Muller, 1999):
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Sg =
Qe Rv Qeh ρe Ab Rf
(7)
Ir Ar Af tb
where Qe is the total mass of the charge (kg), Rv is the ratio of the
explosive volume to the borehole volume, Qeh is the heat of the explosion
(J/kg), ρe is the density of the explosive (kg/m3), Ab is the surface under

5
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
Fig. 3. Design of trim blast based on blastability index, BI, (a): Stand-off distance, and (b): Buffer hole charge versus blastability index, BI (courtesy of Bickers
et al., 2002).
Fig. 4. Relationship between specific blasting effect, Sg, fracture frequency,
loosening and fragmentation of rocks, and ground vibration (modified from
Müller, 1997).
stress in the total blast installation (m2). Additionally, Rf denotes the
fragmentation ratio, and Ar is the remaining face surface of the total
blast installation (m2). Furthermore, Af shows the free surface of the
total blast installation (m2), and tb indicates the delay time of the total
blast installation (s).
The complete description of these parameters can be found in
(Hohlfeld and Muller, 1999; Müller, 1997; Müller and Hohlfeld, 1997).
The correlations between the specific charge effect, fracture frequency,
loosening and fragmentation of rocks, and ground vibration are shown
in Fig. 4.
As can be seen in Fig. 4, low levels of loosening and fracturing often
occur in smooth blasting which has a small specific blasting effect. By
increasing the distribution of charge, the disintegration and fragmen­
tation of the rock mass as well as the specific blasting effects increase. If
the specific blasting effects exceed a threshold, which is around 50 Ns/
m3, the risks of flyrock increase and must be considered in the blast
design. The interrelationships between blast design, site characteristics,
and the rock fragmentation, ground vibration, and flyrock could be very
complex. Interestingly enough, Müller (1997) mentioned that an in­
crease in the specific blast effect is associated with a decrease in ground
vibration. He stated that overcharged blasts with Sg > 50 Ns/m3 yield a
smaller vibration effect but impose a much higher risk of flyrock
(Müller, 1997).
2.2.3. Fragmentation size prediction
If it is possible to predict the fragmentation caused by a certain set of
controllable blast inputs as per Eq. 1, then an inversion will enable the
designer to identify the correct design for the desired blast fragmenta­
tion size or distribution. Numerous investigations were undertaken by
6
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
Protodyakonov in the former Soviet Union, over 100 years ago (1909 to
1926), to develop a quantitative approach to analyse the strengths of
rocks for different mining applications (Protodyakonov, 1962a, 1962b)
(See Section 3.1.1). Kutuzov et al. (1974) also reported on some of the
old research performed by Protodyakonov for estimating the powder
factor based on rock strength/hardness. Since Protodyakonov’s test es­
timates the amount of fines for a given impact, the approach was also
applied by Kuznetsov (1973) to estimate the mean size of the frag­
mentation generated by the firing of a blasthole. The mean fragment size
(cm) is linearly related to the rock factor, AK, and can be estimated as:
( )4/5
V
x m = AK Q1/6
e (8)
Qe
where AK is the rock mass blastability, Qe is the mass of the explosives
(kg), and V is the volume of the rock mass (m3). Fragmentation pre­
diction was developed further in the Kuz-Ram approach by including the
particle size distribution, Rx, in the form of an adapted Rosin-Rammler
(Rosin and Rammler, 1933) equation (Cunningham, 1983, 2005) so
that:
( )− 19/30 ( ( )n )
xm = AK− R q− 0.8
Q1/6
RWS
, Rx = exp − 0.693
x
(9)
e
115 xm
where AK-R is the Kuz-Ram rock factor, RWS is the relative weight
strength of the explosive with respect to ANFO (in percent). Rx is the
mass fraction retained on the screen opening x, xm was defined as the
mean fragment size (cm) and n is the uniformity index (ranging between
0.7 and 2). Notably, the Rosin-Rammler uniformity coefficient, n, de­
pends on burden B (m), spacing S (m), bench height H (m), hole diam­
eter (mm), standard deviation of drilling precision W (m), charge length
L (m), bottom (BCL) and column (CCL) charge lengths (m) and is inde­
pendent of the rock mass factor.
Later, a modified version of Lilly’s blastability factor BI (see Eq. 4)
was included by Cunningham (1987) to replace the Kuznetsov index AK
so the Kuz-Ram rock factor AK-R is 0.12BI. The model has been updated
and modified many times (e.g., by Cunningham (2005) and Gheibie
et al. (2009)). Reviews of these modifications can be found elsewhere
(Ouchterlony and Sanchidrián, 2019; Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony,
2017a). However, for this review, it is important to note that Cunning­
ham (2005) added a blastability calibration factor C(A) that varied be­
tween 0.5 and 2.0. A variation between -50 % and +100 % implies that
the index does not quantitatively predict the contribution of the rock
mass. Additionally, Cunningham (2005) modified the uniformity by a
factor to produce a more uniform fragmentation in harder rocks with AK-
R > 6. Therefore, the rock factor and the uniformity index in the Kuz-
Ram model (see Eq. 9) were amended as:
A′K− = AK− R C(A), n′ = n(B, S, H, d, W, L, BCL, CCL)(AK− R /6)0.3 (10)
R
where B, S, H, d, W, L, BCL, and CCL refer to burden (m), spacing (m),
bench height (m), hole diameter (mm), the standard deviation of drilling
precision (-), charge length (m), bottom charge length (m), and column
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
charge length (m), respectively. An alternative and convenient, blast­
ability index was developed for copper and gold mines and proved to be
valid for iron ores in Australia (Scott, 1996, 2017; Scott et al., 2006)
using a multiplicative approach where the blastability is modified by a
series of factors. The equivalent Kuz-Ram rock factor, AK-R, can be
estimated (Scott and Onederra, 2015a) as:
AK− R = 11.5 × (Strength Factor × Structure Factor × Density Factor) − 1
(11)
The strength factor, density factor, and structure factor are shown in
Fig. 5 and Eqs 16, 20, and 31.
Subsequently, a substantial number of similar models have been
presented in attempts to accurately predict the fragmentation of rocks
after blasting. In particular, Ouchterlony and his teams at the Lulea
University of Technology in Sweden and the University of Leoben in
Austria; and Sanchidrián and co-workers at the Polytechnic University
of Madrid, in Spain, have devoted considerable efforts to developing
methods for the reliable estimation of blast-induced particle size dis­
tributions. The development of the Swebrec model (also known as the
KCO model) (Ouchterlony, 2005; Ouchterlony et al., 2006), the
fragmentation-energy fan, FEF, model (Ouchterlony et al., 2017; Segarra
et al., 2018), and the distribution-free, DF, (also known as xp-Frag)
model (Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony, 2017a, 2017b) are among the
main achievements of these investigations. Further information on the
various fragmentation prediction models can also be found in relevant
reviews (Ouchterlony and Sanchidrián, 2019; Sanchidrián et al., 2012;
Sanchidrián et al., 2014). Here, the scope of this study is not to review all
the fragmentation prediction models but to identify the key geological
and geotechnical factors controlling the mechanisms of rock fragmen­
tation. The applicability of the existing blastability assessment ap­
proaches, for the development of 3D distribution of blastability models
for differential blasting input to Grade Engineering, is also investigated.
3. Blastability input factors
There are several different approaches for quantifying the rock mass
geological and geotechnical characteristics for the assessment of blast­
ability. It is complex to classify the assessment approaches by their in­
puts as many use multiple sources and tests, in both the laboratory and
Fig. 5. Diagrams for iron ore mines of (a): strength factor, fs, (b): density factor, fd, and (c): structure factor, fst (see Eqs. 16, 20, and 31) (courtesy of Scott and
Onederra, 2015a, 2015b).
7
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
field scales. Since the aim of the review is to identify the range and
suitability of the different input factors, this section considers how the
various features have been helped to assess the blastability of rocks. This
includes the laboratory testing of small-scale samples, rock mass mea­
surements, geotechnical ratings, pre-blast indirect measurements, post-
blast measurements, and the analysis of multiple blast outcomes.
3.1. Laboratory-scale testing
Many approaches assess the blastability of rocks based solely on the
laboratory-scale parameters of rock specimens and they are briefly
explained below.
3.1.1. Protodyakonov’s impact hardness/strength index
Protodyakonov and his son (Protodyakonov, 1962a, 1962b) devel­
oped a blastability assessment known as the rock sturdiness or crushing
strength method, which is often referred to as Protodyakonov’s hardness
or strength index f (which is shown by fp in this study) (Protodyakonov,
1981). The index is defined as the volume of -0.5 mm fines in a specific
container produced by a given number of blows of a known weight and
uses units of cm-3. The details of the experimental method can be found
in the relevant literature (Brook and Misra, 1970; Protodyakonov,
1962b). Protodyakonov’s strength index has been widely used in rock
mechanics and mining applications (Aldorf and Exner, 1986) and has
been applied to the assessment of the blastability of rock masses (Pro­
todyakonov, 1981; Zou, 2017).
The values of the blastability parameter AK-R vary, from 7 for rock of
medium hardness (fp = 8 to 10), though 10 for hard fissured rock (fp = 10
to 14), and up to 13 for hard and slightly fissured rock (fp = 12 to 16)
(Faddeenkov, 1974; Kuznetsov, 1973). Although some efforts were
made to explore the applications of Protodyakonov’s method during the
1970s (Brook, 1977; Brook and Misra, 1970), the method was mainly
employed in Russia, Eastern Europe, and the countries that used to be a
part of the Soviet Union. For example, Baron (1968) tried to relate the
size of the crater developed around a blast hole to fp. Additionally,
Makhin and Karchevskii (1965) showed that the specific expenditure of
explosives, which is defined as the mass (kg) of explosives needed to
generate one square meter of the new fracture surface, is directly pro­
portional to the Protodyakonov’s rock strength index. Several revised
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

applications of Protodyakonov’s rock strength index in blast design have existing discontinuities in the rock masses. Thum (1970) also pro­
also recently been proposed in (Eremenko, 2017; Zairov et al., 2018). posed a relatively similar approach, based on laboratory tests, to esti­
mate the blastability of rocks.
3.1.2. Specific surface energy index
Michik and Dolgov (1966) preferred the specific energy of rock 3.1.3. Compression strength, tensile strength, and Young’s modulus
samples after blasting, Es, as being better related to the amount of As a rough estimate, Protodyakonov’s strength index may be esti­
fracturing energy per unit area of newly formed surfaces. A calorimetric mated as (fp ~ 0.1σ c), where σ c is the compressive strength of the intact
technique was used to determine the surface energy, Es (kg.m), which rock specimens (MPa) (Aldorf and Exner, 1986; Zou, 2017). This rela­
was defined as (Michik and Dolgov, 1966): tionship was the basis for the update of the Kuz-Ram model described in
(Cunningham, 1983, 1987), who recognised that the strength, density,
Es = E b − E c (12)
and structure of the rock needed to be considered as well. The blast­
where Eb is the whole energy emitted during the blast, Ec is the pro­ ability assessment was based on the compressive strength divided by 5
portion of the explosive energy passing to the calorimeter in the form of for strong rocks (with Young’s modulus greater than 50 MPa) and
heat. It is also noted that, in these tests, Michik and Dolgov (1966) used Young’s modulus divided by 3 for weaker rocks (Cunningham, 2005).
spherical charges of PETN weighing 0.70 or 1.20 gr, and the heat The fragmentation was not necessarily linearly related to strength so
emission capacity of the PETN, was recorded to be around 6.276 MJ/kg. Scott and Onederra (2015a) proposed an approximately square root
The cylindrical rock samples prepared for the tests had 21 cm3 volume increase in the blastability with the strength factor, fs:
and a central hole was embedded in the middle of the samples for the fs = 0.0549 × σ 0.5315 (16)
c
insertion of charges.
The specific surface energy, SEs (kg.m/m2) is then defined as: where σc is the rock uniaxial compressive strength (MPa). This implies
/ that any increase in the mean fragment size reduces as the rock strength
SEs = Es Afr (13)
increases (see Eq. 11 and Fig. 5).
The surfaces area of the freshly created fragmented particles, Afr The compressive and tensile strengths of rocks are also used directly
(m2), can simply be estimated as: in blast design. For example, Mohamed et al. (2015) reported and
augmented some of the data from Dyno-Nobel (2010) (see Table 6) to
6Vfr
Afr = (14) show that the powder factor (kg/m3) for proper fragmentation depends
xm
on the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS (MPa)) of the rock.
where Vfr is the volume of the broken rocks (m3) and xm is the mean size Da Gama (1996) also stated that the tensile strength is important in
of the rock fragments (m) (Michik and Dolgov, 1966). designing a rock blast, along with other parameters. A pair of these
The specific surface energy, SEs, can be used to approximate the parameters described the explosive (detonation pressure, Pd (MPa) and
charge, Qe, (in kg) to break up a rock to a specific fragment size. The charge radius, rc (m). Two parameters also represent the rock charac­
charge can be computed as (Michik and Dolgov, 1966): teristics (dynamic tensile strength, σ td (MPa), and the attenuation factor
of wave propagation, fa (-)). Da Gama (1977) also proposed values of fa
Qe =
SEs Afr
(15) = 1.4 to 2.0 for a few different rocks. These parameters are related to the
fb Eh geometry of the blast, which is represented by the burden, B (m). For
intact and massive rocks, the rock crater radius, CR (m), and maximum
where Eh is the heat generated from the firing of a charge (MJ/kg) and fb burden, Bm (m), can be estimated from (Da Gama, 1984, 1996):
is a coefficient dependent on the blasting operation conditions as well as ( )
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
the structural features of the rock (blasting efficiency). A few examples CR =
[ 2 ] rc Pd f1
3Bm − B2 and Bm = √̅̅̅ a (17)
of the measured specific energies (Michik and Dolgov, 1966) are shown 3 σtd
in Table 5.
Da Gama (1995) studies also revealed that the velocity of the seismic
The drawback of Michik and Dolgov’s assessment technique is that it
waves Cp (m/s) in the rock mass and the cohesion (MPa) can be linked to
requires several detailed laboratory tests, which are normally expensive
the blastability factor, Fr (kWh/tonne). The relationship between the
and time-consuming, and it does not account for the effect of pre-
cohesion of a rock mass (MPa), in particular, might be a good indicator
of the rocks’ resistance to the dynamic blast loads (see Fig. 6). The
Table 5
cohesion of a rock mass can be estimated based on traditional rock mass
Specific energy, Es, of different rock types (courtesy of Michik and Dolgov, classification systems. Further information related to De Gama’s blast­
1966). ability method is given in Section 3.5.3 of this article.
Kilic et al. (2009) also investigated the effects of the physical and
Type of rock fp Mean value Number of Actual values
of SEs experiments of SEs mechanical parameters of rocks on the efficiency of blast fragmentation
and showed that the blasting efficacy is well correlated with the internal
(–) (kg.m/m2) (–) (kg.m/m2)
friction angle and the Brazilian tensile strength of the intact rock
Marble 7 to 9 15.8 1 16.3
2 15.5
3 16.4
4 16.2 Table 6
5 13.9 Classification of rock masses based on compressive strength (Adopted and
6 16.8 modified from Mohamed et al. (2015)).
Diabase 8 to 25.2 1 29.7
No Rock type Compressive strength Powder factor (kg/
10 2 22.8
(MPa) m3)
3 25.3
4 22.8 1 Very low strength 1 to 5 0.15 to 0.25
Granite 10 to 38.5 1 41.7 2 Low strength 5 to 25 0.25 to 0.35
12 2 38.5 3 Medium strength 25 to 30 0.35 to 0.50
3 39.4 4 High strength 50 to 100 0.50 to 0.80
4 34.4 5 Very high strength 100 to 250 0.80 to 1.50
Ferruginous 14 to 52.8 1 45.0 6 Extremely high >250 1.50 to 2.00
quartzite 16 2 60.6 strength

8
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
Fig. 6. Fragmentability versus cohesion in different rocks (adapted and
modified from Da Gama, 1995).
samples (Kilic et al., 2009). Goodman (1989) and Zhang (2010) showed
that the strength and deformation modulus of a discontinuous rock mass
depends on the strength and Young’s modulus of the intact rock blocks
as well as the jointing system of the rock mass.
The analysis of dynamic breakage of rocks by blasting using the
energy theory of strength proposed by Griffith (1921) was adopted by
Matorin et al. (1981) and Just (1984) to develop approaches for blast
design. According to this theory, a solid in the complex stressed state
will be broken if the strain energy (U = σε) exceeds a permitted value
which is known as the specific fracture energy, U* (U ≥ U*). If the ma­
terial represents a linear elastic behaviour (σ = Eε), the strain energy per
unit volume is defined as:
U=
Eε2 σ2
= (18)
2 2E
The specific fracture energy of the rock, which is related to the
uniaxial compressive strength, σ c is defined as:
σ 2c
U* = (19)
2E
Porter and Fairhurst (1970), however, recommended using the ten­
sile strength of rocks for the estimation of the specific fracture energy
when analysing the dynamic fragmentation of rocks.
Most recently, in the distribution-free, DF, model (Sanchidrián and
Ouchterlony, 2017a) (see Section 3.6.4 and Eq. 80), the size dependence
of the rock mass is recognised by normalising the strength using a
power-law dependent on size. The numerous statistical analyses per­
formed by Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony (2017a) on the fragmentation
data collected from over 160 blast cases showed that the specific frac­
ture energy is the best parameter that can be used to include the effect of
rock strength in the fragmentation prediction. Instead of selecting either
the strength or the modulus, the blastability is linked to the strain energy
at failure based on the models of the asteroid impact.
3.1.4. Rock density
Some ores, like those found in iron ore mines in Australia, have a
large range of densities due to their heavy ore content. Density should,
therefore, be included in the blastability assessment (Scott, 1996; Scott
et al., 2006). Their proposed density factor, fd (-) is a quadratic function
of density (see Fig. 5):
fd = 0.0371 × ρ2r − 0.0512ρr + 0.9172 (20)
where ρr is the density of rock (tonne/m3).
3.1.5. Seismic wave velocities
During the blasting process, as the shock waves fracture the rock
9
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
mass along with the network of the statistically distributed micro-and
macro-fractures, Mosinets et al. (1967) concluded that the wave prop­
agation velocity in rocks could be a good representation of the rock mass
characteristics and the ease of rock breakage by blasting (see Table 7).
Rakishev (1981) also stated that the critical fracture (crack) velocity
could be a good indicator of the blastability of a rock mass. If the fracture
velocity in a rock mass exceeds the critical fracture velocity, the rock
mass will be broken. The fracture velocity in a rock mass is controlled by
the mechanical parameters of the intact block of rocks, as well as the
characteristics of the pre-existing discontinuities. The first component of
fracture velocity, FV1 (m/sec), can be related to the limit strength of
intact rock, σ s (kN/m2), density, ρr (kg/m3), and the elastic modulus, E
(kN/m2), of the rock blocks by:
/√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
FV 1 = σ s E ρr (21)
Rakishev (1981), however, mentioned that the elastic modulus of
rocks can be estimated based on P-wave speed showing that Young’s
modulus in Eq. 21 refers to the dynamic elastic modulus of rocks. The
limit strength of the rocks, σ s, for analysing the dynamic rock breakage,
can be defined as (Rakishev, 1981):
σ s = 0.1σc + σ t (22)
where σc and σt are the uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) and tensile
strength (MPa) of rock blocks, respectively. Rakishev (1981) has not
mentioned if the tensile strength is measured from direct tensile strength
or indirect approaches like the Brazilian test. However, he reported the
compressive and tensile strength for 19 cases (see Table 10). The ana­
lyses of these data show that the ratio of tensile strength to compressive
strength varies between 1/8 to 1/12 and with an average around 1/10
which is well-matched with what has been reported in the relevant
literature (Cai, 2010; Zhang, 2016). The dynamic Young’s modulus of
rocks, Ed (MPa), is also related to the density (kg/m3), dynamic Poisson’s
ratio, νd (-), and P-wave speed, cp (km/s), of the rock mass as:
(1 + νd )(1 − 2νd ) 2
Ed = ρr c p (23)
(1 − νd )
Therefore, the fracture velocity is proportional to the ratio of the
limit strength to the compression wave speed.
The first term of the critical fracture velocity, FV1, (see Eqs. 21, and
26) is widely used in rock blast engineering for analysing the effects of
blast-induced vibration in rocks. This is, however, known as the critical
peak particle velocity, PPVc, in vibration engineering, and is defined as
(Ouchterlony, 1997; Silva et al., 2018):
σt σt 0.1σc
PPV c = = c = cp (24)
ρr c p E p E
where cp (m/sec) denotes the longitudinal P-wave velocity in the rock, E
is the elastic modulus of rocks (MPa), and σt, and σc (both in MPa) are the
tensile and the compressive strength of rocks, respectively. Therefore,
PPVc has a unit the same as Cp (m/sec).
Rock masses are regularly jointed and consist of blocks of intact rock
in between the discontinuities with various dimensions and geometries.
These blocks are bonded together by the natural infilling cement, inside
the joints. Field investigations have shown that the larger blocks often
have wider and more open discontinuities while smaller blocks have
narrower and more closed joints. Rakishev (1981) stated that the
Table 7
Blastability assessment based on longitudinal wave speed (Mosinets et al.,
1967).
Description Category Range of longitudinal wave velocity (m/sec)
Easily blasted rocks I 900 to 1800
Medium blasting rocks II 1800 to 2500
Difficult to blast III >2500
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

structural features of jointed rock masses can be characterised by the Table 9

mean dimension of the natural blocks as well as by a coefficient repre­ Blastability classification based on critical fracture velocity FVcr (courtesy of
senting the properties of the infilling materials in the joints. The Rakishev, 1981).
dimensional analyses performed by Rakishev (1981) showed that the Critical fracture velocity (m/sec) Blastability Class (BC)
effects of discontinuities on the fracture velocity can be formulated as: 3.6>FVcr EB (Easily Blasted)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 3.6<FVcr<4.5 MB (Moderately Easily Blasted)
FV 2 = kd g × MIBS (25) 4.5<FVcr<5.4 DB (Difficult to Blast)
5.4<FVcr<6.3 VDB (Very Difficult to Blast)
where g is the acceleration due to gravity (m/sec2), and MIBS is the mean 6.3<FVcr EDB (Exceptionally Difficult to Blast)
in-situ block size (m).
The breakage stress, which is the stress level needed to break the rock
mass, and the fracture velocity are both directly related to the natural Table 10
structures of a rock mass. Therefore, the overall critical fracture velocity, Rock mass blastability assessment based on critical fracture velocity FVcr
FVcr (m/s), of a rock mass is defined by: (courtesy of Rakishev, 1981).
(0.1σ c + σt ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ Rock type ρr Cp σc σt IBDm FVcr BC
FV cr = FV 1 + FV 2 = + kd g × IBDm (26)
ρr c p (kg/ (m/s) (MPa) (MPa) (m) (m/ (− )
m3 ) s)
Rakishev (1981) has not mentioned how the mean dimension of
Granodiorite 2720 5200 157.0 15.7 0.70 4.88 DB
natural blocks was computed. The prediction of the in-situ block size
porphyry
distribution (IBSD) is, however, explained in Section 3.2.3. Additionally, without sign of
in Eq. 26, kd (-) is a coefficient measuring the joint opening and infilling silicification
materials with typical values shown in Table 8. Effusive 2770 5200 133.4 15.2 0.70 4.60 DB
The reason that the two components of the fracture velocity are porphyries, hard
Effusive 2740 4820 107.9 13.2 0.50 4.04 MD
additive (see Eqs. 21, 25, and 26) is that based on the theories of linear
porphyries,
elastic fracture mechanics, LEFM, the energy to break a cracked solid medium
depends on the size of the cracks (FV2) as well as the mechanical Granodiorite – 2760 4820 92.2 9.8 0.50 3.65 MD
properties of the solid (FV1) (Ouchterlony, 1982, 1983). porphyries,
strongly
The estimation of the dynamic elastic modulus is needed for the
silicified
prediction of the critical fracture velocity. Many relationships relate Ed Granodiorite – 2740 4550 71.6 8.3 0.32 3.00 EB
to the static Young’s modulus of rocks, Es (GPa) for specific rock types. porphyries,
For example, based on 152 measurements on samples of igneous and moderately
metamorphic rocks, collected from the Canadian shield, King (1983) silicified
Skarnized 2840 4250 209.9 19.6 0.66 5.52 VDB
found the following correlation between the static and dynamic elastic
limestone
modulus of rocks. Coarse grained 2820 4350 175.6 16.2 0.66 4.80 DB
limestone
Es = 1.263 × Ed − 29.5 R2 = 0.90 (27) Marmorised 2820 3830 158.9 12.3 0.50 4.48 MB
limestone
The critical fracture velocity (Rakishev, 1981) can be used to classify
Diorite-porphyries 2720 57200 107.9 10.3 0.32 3.13 EB
the rocks based on their blastability. Table 9 shows the blastability from Akzhal
classification based on the critical fracture velocity, FVcr, of a rock mass. Cherty sandstone 3060 4410 258.0 21.6 0.52 5.42 VDB
Table 10 also indicates the applications of the FVcr for a range of rocks Diorite-porphyrite 2900 4920 251.1 21.1 0.52 5.15 DB
from Sayak
across a range of blastability classes, though all would be classed as
Tuffaceous 2700 4640 243.3 20.6 0.52 5.50 VDB
“Difficult to Blast” in terms of Mosinets’ criteria in Table 7. This again sandstone
highlights that a qualitative blastability classification depends on the Diabase 2840 4210 235.4 17.7 0.52 5.36 DB
desired outcome and is of limited applicability. porphyrite
In this table, BC stands for “Blastability Class” (see Table 9). Garnet skarns 2900 5340 210.9 20.6 0.72 5.35 DB
Granodiorites 2730 4960 189.3 16.2 0.52 4.50 MD
Rakishev (1981) has not also explained how the outcomes of the
Pyroxene skarns 2900 5700 179.5 17.6 0.72 4.80 DB
blastability assessment based on the fracture velocity can be used to Mineralized skarn 3800 5900 172.6 16.7 0.72 4.17 MB
design the powder factor and to link the blastability to the fragmenta­ Massive limestone 2820 3860 145.2 12.7 0.72 4.77 DB
tion. However, it is stated that the classes of blastability are compatible White marble 2710 4800 66.7 5.9 1.10 5.54 VDB
with the standard classes proposed by (Kutuzov, 1973). The formula­
tions proposed by Kutuzov (1973) and Kutuzov et al. (1974), for
rock fragmentation by blasting. This factor shows the utilisation of the
computing the powder factor may, therefore, be used to link Rakishev
blasting energy that is used for the fracturing of the rock mass and is
(1981)’s blastability model to fragmentation (see Table 3 and Eq. 30).
linked to the rock mass properties as well as the charge characteristics.
Matorin et al. (1981) has also reported on an equation that was origi­
nally proposed by Rakishev (1979) to estimate the efficiency, η (-), of √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅)
ρe 2
8
ρr c2p σ3c V − 8 ρr c2p σ 3c
8 d
η= (28)
ρe Qe
Table 8
Typical values of joint filling and opening factor, kd, in different rock masses
(Rakishev, 1981).
where ρr is the density of the rock being broken (kg/m3), cp, is the speed
of longitudinal waves in the rock (m/sec), Vd shows the velocity of
Rock type Mean joint opening, kd
detonation of the charge (m/sec), ρe, denotes the density of the charge
δ×10− 2 (m) (− )
(kg/m3), and Qe, is the specific potential energy that is released by firing
Limestones, sandstones, porphyrites, and 1.75 0.85 the explosive charge (the heat of the explosion) (J/kg).
granodiorites,
Granodiorite-porphyries, secondary quartzites, 2.00 1.00
diorite-porphyrites 3.1.6. Anisotropic compression wave velocity
Marble 3.00 1.40 Zare (2007) and later Gokhale (2010) reported on a blastability

10
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
assessment approach, based on the laboratory testing of rock specimens
by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), to
incorporate the effects of rock anisotropy into blast design. The blast­
ability index was defined as:
( )/[( / )0.4 ( / )0.25 ]
SPR = 0.736 × AI 0.6 × ρ0.7
ce cp− av 1000 × Vd cp− av × ρ0.2
r 3.2.1. Average discontinuity spacing
(29)
where SPR is the NTNU rock blastability index and is defined as “the
amount of explosives (kg/m3) needed to break a rock mass to a certain
degree of fragmentation, where 50% of the fragments in the muck pile
have size under 250 mm (x50 = 250 mm)”. Additionally, AI denotes the
anisotropy index, cpy/cpz, in which cpy and cpz are the p-wave speed (in
m/s) parallel and perpendicular to the foliation in the dry rock speci­
mens, respectively. The average P-wave velocity (in m/s) is also defined
as: cp-av = (cpy + cpz)/2. Additionally, ρr (tonne/m3) is the dry density of
the rock, and ρce (tonne/m3) is the charging density of the explosive
(which is defined as the amount of explosives per volume unit of
blasthole), and Vd (m/sec) is the detonation velocity of explosive. It is
noted that NTNU’s blastability index was originally developed based on
blasting experience in surface blast operations with bulk and cartridge
explosives and one-inch blasthole diameters (Zare, 2007). The approach
was also used by Olsen (2009) for quarrying in Norway. Johannessen
(1991), and Zare (2007) have, however, adopted this model for the
blastability assessment in underground excavations (e.g., tunnelling).
Good, medium, and poor blastability are shown by index values of
BINTNU ≤ 0.38, 0.38< BINTNU <0.56, and BINTNU ≥0.56, respectively
(Gokhale, 2010; Zare, 2007) (see Table 11).
Zare (2007) also reported the results of numerous SPR value
assessment for samples that were tested at NTNU (see Fig. 7). In the
NTNU’s blastability assessment approach, testing is performed on small-
scale rock samples to describe the blasting characteristics of massive
schistose and foliated igneous rocks. This might be acceptable when
rocks are not jointed, like the massive granites that are often seen in
Scandinavia (Langefors and Kihlstrom, 1973; Olofsson, 1990). However,
small-scale laboratory testing will not be representative of a jointed and
heterogeneous rock mass. Additionally, the P-wave speed measurements
require specific laboratory equipment and cannot be easily performed
on a blast site.
The other issue with the NTNU’s blastability model is that it involves
the characteristics of explosives, (the velocity of detonation) in the
assessment of blastability. However, as Ouchterlony (2003) showed the
rock mass blastability should not depend on the blast design and the
choice of explosive, but should only quantify the site characteristics of
rock masses. This shows why defining a general blastability assessment
method is vital for rock blast engineering.
3.2. Typical or average rock mass measurements
The behaviour of rock masses is controlled by a combination of the
characteristics of their discontinuities (e.g., joints, beddings, faults,
schistosity, and foliation) and the intact portions in between (Zhang,
2010, 2016). Rock joints and fractures not only govern the stress wave
propagation in a rock mass, but they also control the size distribution of
the fragmented particles (Hafsaoui and Talhi, 2009; Hamdi and du
Table 11
Blastability assessment based on NTNU blastability index (Zare, 2007).
Blastability SPR Examples
class
Good 0.38 Coarse-grained homogeneous granites, syenites, and
quartz diorites, like "Swedish granite"
Medium 0.47 Gneiss
Poor 0.56 Metamorphic rocks with schistose structure, often with a
high content of mica and low compressive strength, like
mica schist in the Rana region in Norway
11
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
Mouza, 2005b; Lu, 1997). This means that blastability assessment
cannot only be linked to laboratory test results. The main blastability
approaches developed with a simple characterisation of rock masses are
briefly explained below.
As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the CRI classification proposed by
Aleksandrov et al. (1963), and explained in (Mosinets et al., 1967),
classified blastability into three categories based on average disconti­
nuities spacings of about 0.15m, about 0.5m, and greater than 0.5m.
However, the effects of the strength and density of the intact rock blocks
were not included in the blastability classification scheme. Gokhale
(2010) also reported on the work of researchers in the Soviet Union,
especially by Kutuzov (1979), to assess the blastability of rocks based on
the intact rock strength, rock density plus average joint spacing, Sj-av.
Kutuzov et al. (1974) also proposed a semi-empirical equation for esti­
mating the powder factor to achieve a good fragmentation which de­
pends on rock strength, rock density, and fracture frequency (see Eq.
30).
An estimation of the in-situ block size distribution (IBSD) is needed
to define the top size parameter, xmax, which is an important input
parameter used in the Swebrec model (also known as the KCO model)
proposed by Ouchterlony (2005). This model is widely used for pre­
dicting the particle size distribution, (PSD) of fragments in a muck-pile
(Ouchterlony, 2005; Ouchterlony et al., 2006). A simple approach for
predicting the rock mass IBSD is explained in Section 3.2.3 (See Eq. 33).
Chertkov (1985) also showed that the top size of rock fragments in a
muck pile is often a function of fracture frequency (which has often been
denoted as λ in the related literature but will be shown by ff in this
paper) (1/m), and may vary between (3/ff to 5/ff) where an average of
4/ff may provide a good estimate of this parameter.
3.2.2. Discontinuity frequency and shear strength
Dimensional analyses by Kutuzov et al. (1974) showed that the rock
mass blastability is proportional to the specific weight of the rock, rock
strength, and fracture frequency. When blasting forms a crater, the blast
loads need to overcome the gravitational forces associated with the total
weight of the crater. The resistance to cratering depends on the density
of the rock, rock strength, and size of the fragments created by loosening
the exiting blocks. Kutuzov stated that the effects of rock strength on the
powder factor needed for loosening and breakage of rocks is not as
significant as the effects of density. This might, however, be different
when blasting is used for other applications, (e.g., ring blasting in
heavily confined underground mines) (Sellers and Salmi, 2020). Kutu­
zov et al. (1974) also stated that the powder factor for the fragmentation
of a rock mass to particles with a representative size xr, (mm) may be
computed as:
( )
1 √ ̅̅̅̅( xr ) 2
q = 0.7148ρr 0.2 + 4
σt 5θ (30)
ff 500
where ff is the fracture frequency of the rock mass (1/m), σ t shows the
tensile strength of the rock (MPa), θ is the conversion coefficient of
explosives to ammonite 6ZhV; xr is the representative size of the parti­
cles in the muck pile (in mm) and is expected to be around the average
particle size, x50 (Kutuzov et al., 1974). Kutuzov’s relationship shows
that as the density and strength of the rocks increase, the powder factor
to fragment the rock to a muck pile with an average size xr, increases. If
the intensity of jointing increases, a lower powder factor is needed to
break the rock mass.
The rock mass parameters considered in Kutuzov’s blastability are
the same as the one proposed by (Scott and Onederra, 2015a). However,
the contribution of the parameters to the blastability is different. The
fracture frequency of a rock mass can be used to include the effects of
discontinuities in blast design (Scott and Onederra, 2015a). The rock
structure factor, fst, proposed by Scott and Onederra (2015a) (see Fig. 5
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Fig. 7. NTNU blastability index for different rock types (Zare, 2007).

and Eq. 11) can be estimated as:

fst = − 0.064Ln(ff ) + 0.9819 (31)

where ff (1/m) is the fracture frequency in the rock mass.

Ashby (1981) also considered the fracture frequency, ff (1/m),
discontinuity shear strength, and the density of rock masses, ρr (tonnes/
m3), to develop an approach to blast design. Ashby’s study resulted in
the development of a chart to be used for a quick and rough estimation of
the powder factors, q (kg/m3), for different jointed rock masses (see
Fig. 8).
Ashby (2020, 1981) mentioned that the powder factor design dia­
gram and the empirical formula associated with the chart were devel­
oped based on the recording and optimisation of several hundred
production blast designs at Bougainville copper mine, in Papua New
Guinea (PNG), in 1974. Powder factor was used as the design basis for all
production blasts. Production blasting was carried out using ANFO
slurry in 242 mm diameter holes. The design powder factor was chosen
to achieve maximum throw and good fragmentation. Loading tables
were prepared for the various blasthole patterns and particular care was
used measuring the burden in loading front row holes (Ashby, 2020).
The design chart was originally published in an internal manual for
production blast by Bougainville Copper Ltd and later was adapted and
published by Hoek and Bray (1981) as a suggested approach to incor­ Fig. 8. Powder factor estimations based on the characteristics of a rock mass
porate the jointed rock mass properties in production blast design. The and its discontinuities (adopted and modified from Ashby, 1981).
fracture frequency, in the site, was computed as the average count along
the length of the diamond drill core. Fracturing varied from ~10 f/m in and evaluated in a wide range of geological and geotechnical conditions.
the andesite country rock to 100 f/m in the highly mineralised andesite Ashby (1981) stated that the natural fragmentation of rocks and the in-
near the porphyry contact to 1 to 5 f/m in the intrusives (Ashby, 2020). situ block sizes in the rock mass, as well as the surface characteristics of
Since the development, Ashby’s formula and chart have been used

12
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
the blocks (the condition of rock joints), can significantly affect the
amount of explosive efforts needed to fragment a rock. These parameters
shall be considered in a blastability assessment approach. Other joint
parameters like the cohesion, friction angle, and aperture are seen as
being of lesser importance than the spacing (Reichholf and Moser, 2000;
Widzyk-Capehart and Lilly, 2002).
3.2.3. Rock masses with multiple joint sets and in-situ block size
distribution, IBSD
Computing the fracture frequency for a rock mass containing mul­
tiple joint sets might be challenging and was not discussed in (Ashby,
1981) or (Kutuzov et al., 1974). However, this subject was investigated
by the Soviet Union scholar Chertkov. Chertkov and Azovtsev (1987)
and Chertkov (1987) stated that when blasting is performed in a rock
mass with multiple joint set, the sizes of the largest natural blocks may
mainly depends on the coarsest joint set spacing (the joint set that has
the smallest fracture frequency). Considerable efforts have also been
devoted by Palmstrom to developing approaches for the in-situ char­
acterisation of jointed rock masses (Palmstrom, 2005; Palmström,
2000). The volumetric joint count, Jv, developed by Palmstrom could be
a good alternative to fracture frequency in rock masses with multiple
joint sets. Jv is defined as follow:
1 1 1 1
Jv = + + … (32)
S1 S2 S3 Sn
where S1, S2, S3, ..., and Sn are the spacings associated with each joint set.
Computing the in-situ block size distribution (IBSD) of jointed rock
masses has been the topic of numerous studies in rock mechanics engi­
neering. For example, White (1977) stated that the percentage of blocks
smaller than a given size, x (by weight or volume) can be estimated as:
[ ( 3 )]
P(x) = 100 × 1 − ff 3 exp( − ffx)
x
+
x2 x
+ 2+ 3
1
(33)
6 2ff ff ff
where x shows the three-dimensional block size (m) and ff is the fracture
frequency of the rock mass (1/m). White’s distribution function of
natural blocks was originally developed for block cave mining applica­
tions. Hardy (1993) and later Hardy et al. (1997) stated that White’s
equation generally results in acceptable outcomes when the rock quality
designation, RQD, is less than 50 %. However, for rock masses with
higher RQD values, block shapes tend to change based on size. There­
fore, the block size distribution achieved based on Eq. 33 might be
somewhat limited. The application of this equation is also limited to
rock masses that contain well developed joint networks, where core
intercept length can be estimated using a negative exponential function,
like f(x) = 100exp(-ff×x). Fig. 9 shows the application of White’s model
for predicting the IBSD against the measured IBSD from literature (Wang
et al., 2003).
Fig. 9. Predicting IBSD based on White’s semi-theoretical method (data
extracted from (Wang et al., 2003)).
13
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
It is noted that fracture frequency is direction-dependent
(Palmström, 1995). If more than one joint set with different spacing,
persistence, and dip and dip direction exists, then the computation of the
IBSD could be challenging. Sophisticated simulations, like discrete
fracture network (DFN) modelling might be needed to compute the IBSD
in such jointed rock masses (Hamdi, 2003; Rasmussen, 2020; Wang
et al., 1991). More details are given in Section 3.2.4. For simpler cases,
there are theoretical alternatives to predict the IBSD. For instance,
Stavropoulou (2014) derived a closed-form solution that can be used to
predict the block volume distribution in a rock mass containing three
joint sets with different spacings.
Da Gama (1983) also combined the IBSD with the well-known
Bond’s third comminution theory (Bond, 1952) to predict the frag­
mentation of jointed rock masses. The IBSD is estimated based on the
geometrical data of the discontinuities, e.g., the joint spacing, dip, and
strike (Da Gama, 1977).
Research conducted by (Latham and Lu, 1999; Lu, 1997; Lu and
Latham, 1996, 1998, 1999a, 1999b) led to an approach that considers
blasting as a transformation, from an in-situ block size distribution to
fragmented size distribution. The blastability is considered to be a
characteristic of the rock mass which links the transformation to the
explosive effort that is needed for fragmentation. This forms the main
framework of the energy-block-transaction (E-B-T) model (see Fig. 10).
The model involves the energy-block-transition coefficient Bi which re­
flects the role of the blastability of a rock mass in fragmentation. The
explosive energy multiplied by Bi is given by the difference between the
mean size of in-situ blocks, Xm, (m) and the corresponding parameter of
the blasted blocks, xm, (m) divided by an objective size, M, (m) char­
acterising the fineness of blocks associated with the overall trans­
formation process. Lu (1997) and Lu and Latham (1998) stated that the
prediction of the rock fragmentation model through E-B-T model could
be much more accurate than the outcomes of Bond’s comminution
theory for blasting (Bond and Whitney, 1959). Lu (1997) also developed
a blastability designation (BD) which aims at quantifying the effects of a
comprehensive range of intact rock and discontinuity properties on rock
blasting based on the rock engineering systems (RES) proposed by
(Hudson, 1992) (see Table 12 and
Latham and Lu (1999) assumed that Ef (kWh/tonne) is the frag­
mentation energy input per unit rock mass that is needed for trans­
forming a rock mass with a given in-situ block size distribution into a
muck pile with the blasted block size distribution (BBSD). The energy
that is needed for this transition is proportional to the area bounded by
the IBSD and BBSD curves (ΔA) (known as the transformation area) (see
Fig. 10). Latham and Lu (1999) have shown that:
∆A
Ef α √̅̅̅̅̅ (34)
M
where the transformation area is computed as (Lu and Latham, 1998):
Fig. 10. Schematic view of the Energy-Block-Transition model.
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Table 12 based on a few case studies presented in (Latham and Lu, 1999). As can
The main contributing parameters in the blastability index (Latham and Lu, be seen, there is very little difference between the weighting factors,
1999; Lu, 1997). indicating a close correlation. Besides, it is of interest that the structural
P Parameter Representative factor Importance Weight discontinuity factors are perceived to be of lower importance than the
No. strength parameters.
P1 Strength Uniaxial compression 1 0.1475
strength σci(MPa) or point 3.2.4. Discrete fracture networks
load index PLI (MPa) Modern geomechanics approaches have applied the discrete fracture
P2 Resistance to Tensile strength σ(tiMPA) 2 0.1344
network in rock blast engineering (Hamdi, 2003, 2008; Lu and Latham,
fracturing
P3 Sturdiness 3
Rock density ρr(t/m ) 4 0.1249 1999a; Rasmussen, 2020; Wang et al., 1992; Wang et al., 1991) to
P4 Elasticity Static Ei or dynamic 3 0.1273 quantify the rock mass. Table 13 shows a brief overview of the param­
EidYoung’s modulus (GPa) eters for the characterisation and classification of rock masses into
P5 Resistance to P-Wave velocity cp(m/s) 6 0.1208 discontinuity networks and rock matrixes for blasting (Hamdi and du
dynamic loading
P6 Hardness of rock Schmidt Hammer Rebound 5 0.1225
Mouza, 2005a; Hamdi and du Mouza, 2005b). In this, joint network
Value SHRV system, SS1 (m2/m3) represents the entire specific surface of all the pre-
P7 Deformability Poisson’s ratio υr – – existing discontinuities in one cubic meter of the rock mass, SS2 (m2/m3)
P8 Resistance to Fracture toughness KIC(MPa – – is the specific surface of the interconnected discontinuities forming
breaking m1/2)
blocks in the rock mass. The connectivity index, CIn, (%), represents the
P9 In-situ block size Mean block size MIBS (m) or 8 0.1095
distribution (IBSD) principal mean spacing fracture density as a percentage of the discontinuity surface area cor­
PMS (m) responding to the jointing network that generated the blocks in the rock
P10 The fragility of The fractal dimension of 7 0.1131 mass. High values of CIn indicate highly connected joints and numbers of
rock mass block size Df blocks. The CIn can also be extracted based on the ratio of the P-wave
P11 The integrity of The ratio of P-wave field/lab
velocity in the rock mass to laboratory samples. The parameters An and
– –
rock mass Rv or Rock Quality
Designation RQD AV also describe the anisotropy of the rock mass. Further details can be
P12 Discontinuity Joint cohesion cj(MPa) and – – found in the relevant literature (Hamdi and du Mouza, 2005a).
strength joint friction φj(degrees) Fig. 11 also shows a typical example of the discrete fracture network,
DFN, simulations performed by Hamdi to determine the IBSD of a
jointed rock mass, in a quarry (Hamdi, 2003). As can be seen, all visible
∆A α (Xm − xm ) (35)
fractures are included in the model. Then to determine the DFN, frac­
and tures that are not connected are removed. The simulation of a three-
dimensional DFN often involves complex stochastic modelling that
M=
Xm + xm
(36) could be time-consuming and needs special software. This is perhaps one
2 of the main drawbacks of the method. Further information related to the
Therefore, Eq. 34 can be written as: algorithms needed for the simulation of DFN can be found elsewhere
(Aler et al., 1996; Hamdi, 2003).
Xm − xm
Ef = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (37) The studies by Du Mouza’s team showed that the efficiency of a blast
Bi Xm +x
2
m
operation depends on the reduction of the sizes of particles and can be

And, Bi can then be defined as:

Xm − x m Table 13
Bi = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (38) Parameters in the Hamdi and Du Mouza approach (Hamdi, 2003; Hamdi and du
Ef Xm +x
2
m
Mouza, 2005a).

Further details related to the E-B-T model can be found in the rele­ Rock mass Parameters Description
component
vant literature (Latham and Lu, 1999; Lu, 1997; Lu and Latham, 1998).
Lu and Latham’s studies indicated that the IBSD can be defined by Discontinuity SS1 (m2/ The specific surface of discontinuities forming
network m3) the Discrete fracture network, DFN, for:
the mean in-situ block size (MIBS) or the principal mean spacing (PMS),
SS2 (m2/
assuming that the rock mass and the blasted muck pile follows the m3) • All discontinuities in the rock mass and
Schuhmann (Schuhmann Jr., 1960) particle size distributions (Lu and • Well-connected discontinuities
Latham, 1996; Lu and Latham, 1999b). They also argued that the N1 Fractal dimensions corresponding to:
blastability can be related to the fractal dimension of the in-situ block N2
• all discontinuities in the structures and
size Df = 3 – nf, where nf is the Schuhmann uniformity factor. They also
• well connected discontinuities forming the
noted that for a given mean IBSD, rock strength, and blast design, a rock DFN
with a lower Df (i.e., is more uniform) is easier to fragment. The Kuz- (All calculated before and after connectivity
Ram rock mass parameter AK-R, (see Section 2.2.3 and Eq. 9) can also analysis.)
NCIn (%) Non-connectivity index of simulated
be related by the energy-block-transaction (E-B-T) model to the blast­
discontinuities
ability designation, BD, such that: xci (m) and Characteristic size and shape index of in-situ
∑
n n rock mass
AK− R = 13 × BD with BD = w j Rj (39) An and AV Anisotropy parameter and the norm of
J=1 anisotropy vector
Rock matrix CIn (%) Continuity index extracted from the ultrasonic
where Rj is the jth rating value and is weighted by wj (Latham and Lu, test
ρr (kg/m3) Rock density
1999) and parameter Bi in the E-B-T model can be linked to the blast­ Erd (MPa) Rock dynamic Young’s modulus
ability designation as: (Bi = 10/BD). All of the parameters in this σc (MPa) Compressive strength of rocks
blastability assessment method are shown in Table 12, with their σt (kPa) Uniaxial tensile strength of rocks
determined importance and suggested weighting factors. Es (N/m) Specific fracture energy (estimated from the
wedge splitting test)
It is noted that the weightings, in Table 12, have been computed

14
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
Fig. 11. Typical discrete fracture network modelling for the prediction of IBSD.
(Data related to Nordkalk Quarry, Bench 2, Reef Limestone) (Data collected
from Hamdi (2003)).
related to the transformation of the IBSD to the BBSD (Aler et al., 1996;
Hamdi et al., 2007). This is consistent with the blastability assessment
and the E-B-T model proposed by (Lu and Latham, 1998) (see Section
3.2.3 and Fig. 10). The most accurate approach for the estimation of the
IBSD is to perform a three-dimensional (3D) simulation of the discrete
fracture network, DFN. BBSD may also be measured by sieving.
Fig. 12. FI versus Powder Factor at Reocin open-pit mine (Adapted and modified from Aler and Du Mouza, 1996).
15
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
Alternatively, the fragmentation can be estimated based on image
analysis techniques (Kemeny et al., 1993; Sanchidrián et al., 2006) or
through a fragmentation prediction model, like Kuz-Ram (Cunningham,
2005), or Swebrec (Ouchterlony, 2005). Extra care should be taken
while applying image analysis as considerable errors may occur, espe­
cially in the prediction of fines (Sanchidrián et al., 2009).
Aler and Du Mouza (1996) also introduced a factor named ‘frag­
mentation index’, FI, to estimate the efficiency of rock fragmentation in
blasting, which is defined as:
FI = Xc /xc (40)
where Xc and xc show the characteristic sizes for the IBSD and the BBSD,
respectively in (mm) (Aler et al., 1996). FI accounts for the effects of
rock mass characteristics on the efficiency of rock fragmentation and
shows the reduction ratio applied on blocks by blasting. Aler et al.
(1996) showed that FI improves as the powder factor increase (see
Fig. 12). The fragmentation index, FI, can be used to compare the results
of different blasting operations. Such analyses may, however, be limited
to the interpretation of the role of blast parameters other than the in-situ
rock mass structures (Aler et al., 1996).
Muck piles with different BBSD curves may have similar character­
istic sizes, xc. Therefore, to differentiate between such cases and to
complement the fragmentation ratio, FI, Aler et al. (1996) proposed
another factor which is named ‘fragmentation quality factor, FQF’ and is
defined as:
FQF = ni /nb (41)
where ni and nb are the shape indexes for the IBSD and BBSD curves
based on Roslin-Rammler distribution, respectively. An FQF smaller
than 1.0 shows a more efficient fragmentation of large blocks and a less
efficient fragmentation of small blocks. However, an FQF larger than 1.0
may imply the opposite. If FQF is equal to 1.0, this means that all blocks
in a rock mass experience a uniform fragmentation (Aler et al., 1996).
Aler’s studies indicated that the fragmentation quality factor, FQF,
decrease for a specific rock mass as the powder factor increase. This
shows that using a larger amount of explosives, to some extent, may help
to effectively break the large blocks of rocks rather than the small
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
particles (Aler and Du Mouza, 1996; Aler et al., 1996).
Hamdi and du Mouza (2000) also proposed an approach to assess the
efficiency of a blast operation based on the Rosin-Rammler block size
distribution for the in-situ rock mass and the rock fragments in the muck
pile (see Fig. 10). The following expression was proposed to assess the
efficiency of a blast (Hamdi and du Mouza, 2000):
[ ( )/ ( ) ]
1 1
η = 1− χ Г Г (42)
nb ni
where Г is the Gumma function and Xm, xm, ni, and nb are the charac­
teristic sizes and the shape indexes of the in-situ block size distribution
(IBSD) and the PSD of the muck pile (BBSD), respectively, and parameter
χ is defined as:
χ=
xm ni
× (43)
Xm nb
3.2.5. Acoustic impedance
The acoustic impedance of rocks is another useful parameter that
often is applied for analysing the blastability of rocks and is defined as
(Telford et al., 1990):
Ir = ρr C p (44)
where ρr (kg/m3) is the density of the rock and Cp (m/s) denotes the
speed of longitudinal waves, which is a useful parameter to approximate
the mechanical properties of the rock mass and to describe the nature of
the elastic stress wave propagation in the medium.
Mosinets et al. (1967) used the outcomes of real scale bench
instrumentation testing performed in a few mines to assess the proced­
ure for rock breakage and to relate the proposed classification of rock
mass blastability to the mechanisms of wave propagation. The speed of
sound in a rock mass was found to depend on the silicification of the
rocks. In particular, this is critical in rock masses with medium to large-
sized blocks. Acoustic logging in rocks may also be used to identify the
weak and fault zones and regions which are prone to instability, outline
the ore bodies in which the physical and mechanical properties of the
ore differ from the waste rock, and estimate the mechanical properties of
the rock mass (Mosinets et al., 1967; Sassa, 1993).
Müller also adopted the acoustic impedance of rocks as a useful
parameter for the classification of rocks and rock masses for several
different applications, in civil and mining engineering (Müller et al.,
2008; Müller et al., 2010b; Müller and Pipping, 2013). These studies
indicated that a combination of the in-situ block size assessment, which
is done based on the visual spacing of discontinuities, and the acoustic
impedance of rock samples can help to classify different rocks for
blasting and excavations. A summary of Müller’s works can be seen in
Tables 14, 15, and Fig. 13.
Müller also performed numerous studies to improve the
Table 14
Classification of rocks based on the frequency of discontinuities (Müller et al.,
2010b).
Class Description of discontinuities Average joint spacing
(m)
1 Vey massive and monolithic rock mass (not >20
fissured)
2 Almost massive rock mass 6.3 to 20
3 Relatively massive rock mass 2.0 to 6.3
4 Jointed with a very low frequency of 0.63 to 2.0
discontinuities
5 Jointed with a low frequency of discontinuities 0.2 to 0.63
6 Jointed with a moderate frequency of 0.063 to 0.2
discontinuities
Start of transition to very loose rock mass
7 Fractured with a large frequency of cracks 0.02 to 0.063
8 Fractured with a very large frequency of cracks 0.0063 to 0.02
Border of heavily loose rocks and soils
16
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
fragmentation of rock and to reduce the adverse consequences of the
blasting, such as ground vibration and fly rock (Müller, 1997). Müller’s
research resulted in the development of a blastability assessment tech­
nique based on the acoustic impedance of the rock masses and the in-situ
block size distribution (IBSD) (Müller, 1997). According to this
approach, rocks can be classified into ranges based on their blastability
(see Fig. 14). Interestingly, this figure highlights that there is not
necessarily a monotonic relationship between the inputs and the out­
comes of a rock’s blastability. Therefore, simple approaches, like Alek­
sandrov’s classification, which is purely based on the qualitative
description of rock structures, (see Section 2.2.1) may not be able to well
classify the rock masses based on their blastability.
Müller (1997) also showed that the selection and adaptation of ex­
plosives for different rock blasting (e.g., production blasting, cast
blasting, controlled blasting) can be done based on the acoustic
impedance, the blast gas volume, and the heat of detonation. For
example, a more jointed rock mass has smaller in-situ blocks and has a
smaller acoustic impedance, and therefore requires explosives with a
large gas volume. Rocks that are not highly discontinuous absorb and
dissipate much less energy from the blasting in comparison to heavily
jointed and porous rocks. Porous and heterogeneous rock masses are
also very sensitive to blast-induced vibrations.
Khanukaev (1962) also performed numerous field tests in the former
Soviet Union to develop an approach to assess the blastability of rock
masses. These studies showed that the discontinuities in a rock mass play
a dominant role in its blastability. Khanukaev stated that the wave
impedance of a rock, Ir, can reflect its integrity for blasting applications.
Khanukaev’s blastability classification is shown in Table 16. In this
table, Sj-av is the average spacing of the discontinuities, Aj is the joints
area in 1 m3 of rock, fp is the Protodyakonov’s rock hardness index, ρr is
the rock density, and IBS is the in-situ block size.
Rustan and co-workers also devoted considerable efforts to devel­
oping practical and accurate approaches to estimating the blastability of
rocks based on their acoustic impedance. Numerous model tests were
performed on laboratory-scale samples of Swedish and Indian hard rocks
and rock-like materials (e.g., concrete) (Kou and Rustan, 1993; Kou and
Rustan, 1992; Rustan, 2010; Rustan and Kumar, 1999; Rustan and Nie,
1992; Rustan et al., 1983; Rustan, 1992) to identify the mechanisms of
dynamic rock fragmentation during blasting. Relations were proposed
(Rustan et al., 2010), based on the outcomes of their model studies, to
relate the acoustic impedance of rock materials, Ir (kg/m2s), to the
critical burden, Bc, in (mm) (Eq. 45), the slope of the size distribution
curves (also known as the uniformity index in the Rosin-Rammler (RR)
distribution) (n) (Rosin and Rammler, 1933) (see Eq. 46), the mean
fragment size, k50 (mm) (Eqs. 47 and 48) and the angle of breakage φ (o)
(Eq. 49) as follows:
BC = 68.5 − 1.69 × 10− 6 × Ir (45)
( )
n = 0.54 × exp 33 × 10− 9 × Ir (46)
5.18 × 10− 3 × Ir0.588
k50 = (47)
q2.14
( )0.5 ( )0.7 /
S Lb ( 0.4 )
k50 = 0.01Ir0.6 B0.2 Vd q (48)
B Lc
( )
ϕ = 131 + 6.98 × 10− 3 × Cp + 0.58 − 3 × 10− 4 × cp × B (49)
where Cp is the P-wave velocity in (m/s), and q is the specific charge
(powder factor) in (kg/m3). Vd is the detonation velocity (m/sec), and Lb
and Lc are the blasthole and charge length in (m), respectively. Rustan’s
formulas were able to describe the blast fragmentation of blue-grey and
steel-grey haematites quite well (e.g., R = 0.96 in predicting the critical
burden). These rocks from the Bailadila Mine in India are apparently
among the most difficult rocks to blast in the world because these types
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Table 15
Classification of rocks based on acoustic impedance and strength (Müller and Pipping, 2013).
A quantitative description of strength Qualitative description of strength

Acoustic impedance Compressive strength Porosity Water absorption Crushing Sound

×106 (kg/m2sec) MPa (%) (%)

Extreme acoustically hard >15 Extreme strong >260 <0.38 <0.36 Very hard Very high
Very acoustically hard 12–15 Very strong 160 to 260 0.38 to 1.0 0.36 to 1.0 Hard Light to high
Acoustically hard 9–12 Strong 60 to 160 1.0 to 2.2 1.0 to 2.0 Moderate Deep to light
Moderately acoustically hard 6–9 With medium strength 30 to 60 2.2 to 5.0 2.0 to 5.0 Good Steamed to deep
Low acoustic hardness 3–6 With low strength 10 to 30 5.0 to 10.0 5.0 to 8.0 Light Dull to steamed
Very low acoustic hardness 2–3 With very low strength 1 to 10 10.0 to 11.6 8.0 to 10 Very easy Extremely dull
Extreme low acoustic hardness <2 With extreme low strength <1 >11.6 >10 Loose stone -

Fig. 13. Müller’s classification chart for rock excavation and blasting (adapted and modified from (Müller and Pipping, 2013)).

of rocks are very porous and absorb considerable energy before breakage
(Rustan and Kumar, 1999).

3.3. Geotechnical ratings

Fig. 14. Rock mass blastability classification (modified from Müller, 1997).
Rock mass classification systems are very mature and have widely
been used in the design of surface and underground structures in rocks.
The rock quality designation (RQD), rock mass rating (RMR), Q-system,
the geological strength index (GSI), and rock mass index, (RMi) are
perhaps the most well-known rock mass classification systems used in
everyday rock engineering designs (Barton et al., 1974; Bieniawski,
1989; Deere et al., 1969; Hoek, 2007; Palmström, 1995). Instead of
devising their approaches, others have modified the standard rock mass
classification systems for blasting purposes. A few of the main studies
are briefly explained below.

3.3.1. Rock quality designation (RQD)

Jimeno et al. (1995) reported on the outcomes of research originally
performed by Borquez (1981) to relate the blastability of a rock mass to
the RQD (%), proposed by Deere et al. (1969). The RQD (%) was
modified to consider alteration effects as ERQD = CFjs × RQD where CFjs
is the joint strength correction factor and is a function of the joint

17
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Table 16
Khanukaev’s blastability classes (adopted and modified from Zou, 2017).
Fracturing Sj-av Hardness Aj fp ρr Ir IBS q Blastability
class

(–) (m) (–) (m2/ (–) (tonne/ (tonne/m3×km/ >0.30 >0.7m >1.0 (kg/m3) (–)
m3) m3) sec) m m

Extremely fissured <0.1 Weak 33 to 9 <8 <2.5 <5 <10 ≈0 0 <0.35 Easy
Very fissured 0.1 to Moderate 9 to 6 8 to 12 2.5 to 2.6 5 to 8 <70 <30 <5 0.35 to Moderate
0.5 sturdy 0.45
Moderate fissured 0.5 to Sturdy 6 to 2 12 to 2.6 to 2.7 8 to 12 <90 <70 <40 0.45 to Difficult
1.0 16 0.65
Slightly fissured 1.0 to Very sturdy 2 16 to 2.7 to 3.0 12 to 15 100 <90 <70 0.65 to Very difficult
1.5 18 0.90
Very slightly >1.5 Extremely ≥18 > 3.0 > 15 - - 100 ≥0.90 Extreme
fissured sturdy difficult

Fig. 15. Estimating Borquez blastability factor based on equivalent rock quality designation, ERQD.

tightness and infilling materials (Jimeno et al., 1995) (see Fig. 15). The And for cases where 6<ff<16 the correlation is linear:
Borquez blastability factor (BF) is estimated by:
RQD = 110.4 − 3.68 × ff (52)
BF = 1.96 + 0.27 × Ln(ERQD) (50)
Vali and Arpa (2013) have also proposed a linear relationship be­
where ERQD is the equivalent rock quality designation (see Table 17). tween the RQD and fracture frequency based on field investigations of
Borquez (1981) then used the theoretical model proposed by Pearse monzonite porphyry formations in Ok Tedi open-pit copper, gold, and
(1955) to define a critical burden based on the tensile strength of the silver mine, in Papua New Guinea. The relationship is valid for 2<ff<10.
rock, the explosive detonation pressure, the diameter of the charge, and RQD = 105.9 − 3.0845 × ff (53)
the blastability factor, BF. Further details related to the Pearse model
can be found in (Afrouz et al., 1988; Jimeno et al., 1995). Jimeno et al. (1995) also reported on the outcomes of a study that
Pells et al. (2017) showed that the application of RQD has significant related the powder factor, needed for achieving a good fragmentation in
limitations and it is preferable to use alternatives, such as fracture fre­ bench blasting, to the rock mass mechanical parameters and the blast
quency. The RQD and fracture frequency, ff, are related. For example, design using the rock geotechnical and design (RG&D) factor (Page,
Hudson and Priest (1979) suggested that: 1985) which was defined as:
√̅̅̅̅̅ /
RQD = 100(0.1 × ff + 1) × exp( − 0.1ff ) (51) RG&D Factor = ρr × tan(φ + i) × σ c × (Db /100)2 Jv where Jv
/
= (115 − RQD) 3.3 (54)

Table 17
Estimation of the joint strength correction factor. where ρr (tonne/m3) is the rock density, Db (mm) is the blasthole
diameter, φ is the internal friction angle of the joints, and i is the
Class Joint strength Correction factor
abrasiveness angle of the joints. Jv also denotes the volumetric joint
1 Strong 1.0 count (Palmström, 1995) (see Section 3.2.3) and can be computed based
2 Medium 0.9
on Eq. 32. Powder factor is linearly related to the RG&D factor. This
3 Weak 0.8
Very Weak 0.7 approach includes the effect of blasthole diameter (mm), which controls

18
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
the spatial distribution of the explosives, in the prediction of the powder
factor. Similar to (Scott and Onederra, 2015a), blastability depends on
the square root of the rock strength, σc (MPa) (see Eqs. 11, 16, 20, and 31
and Fig. 5).
3.3.2. Geological strength index (GSI)
Bickers et al. (2002) added the geological descriptive charts devel­
oped for Hoek’s geological strength index (GSI) (Hoek et al., 1995;
Marinos and Hoek, 2000) to Lilly’s blastability index (BI) (see Eq. 4) to
improve the characterisation of the structures of rock masses. Lilly’s BI
was modified by combining the rock mass description and the joint
plane spacing parameters into a single rating. The selection of the rock
mass structure and the joint plane spacing in Fig. 16 leads to a modifi­
cation in the way the BI is calculated.
Another alternative for estimation of Lilly’s BI (see Eq. 4) for weak
and poor rocks, including disintegrated, laminated, and sheared rocks, is
the blastability quality system (BQS). Rock formations with intermedi­
ate spacing (Chatziangelou and Christaras, 2015), wide spacing (Chat­
ziangelou and Christaras, 2016), and close spacing (Chatziangelou and
Christaras, 2017) of discontinuities have been considered in the devel­
opment of this system for geological engineers. The outcomes were
summarised as charts (see Fig. 17) which can be used for a quick
blastability assessment of a rock mass based on the GSI and RMR, the
strike, the surface conditions of the discontinuities, and the Mohr
hardness of the intact rock instead of the original factors in Eq. 4. The
BQS has been developed for assessing the blastability of rock masses in
civil engineering tunnels and trenches, at shallow depths, in which the
rock masses are normally heavily weathered and weak. In weak, foli­
ated, and schistose rocks a concern is the effects of blasting on the sur­
rounding rocks (Sellers et al., 2018). The schistosity causes significant
overbreak and is worsened by the need to supply additional blast energy
due to damping and absorption by the weak rocks. The performance of
such blasting operations may not, therefore, be comparable with blast­
ing for hard rock mining.
Christaras and Chatziangelou (2014) mentioned that the BQS clas­
sification system can be used for a quick assessment of the blastability of
rocks (see Table 18). Since the BQS provides an alternative method to
estimate the blastability index, BI, then the Kuz-Ram rock factor can be
estimated as (AK-R = 0.12×BI) (Widzyk-Capehart and Lilly, 2002).
Fig. 16. Estimation of blastability index, BI, based on the geological strength index (GSI)’s descriptive chart (adapted and modified from Bickers et al., 2002).
19
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
3.4. Indirect, pre-blast measurements
Activities such as drilling that occurs before blasting can provide
useful input about the rock mass before the blast. If they are based on the
blast hole drill rig data, then the blasthole’s pattern has already been
determined and there is limited scope to alter the fragmentation out­
comes, except by varying the explosive type and density and, to some
extent, the blast hole stemming. However, the information can help with
predicting the effects of the fragmentation on the downstream processes,
such as in crushing and milling. Some related approaches are summar­
ised below.
3.4.1. Specific drilling energy
The concept of specific drilling energy was primarily developed by
(Teale, 1965). For rotary drilling the drilling work is done by the thrust
force, F, (in N) and torque, T, (N-m). Assuming that the rotation speed is
ω (round/min), and the area of the hole is, Ab (m2), the penetration rate
is PR (m/min), the specific energy, SDE, which is defined as the energy
to drill 1m of the hole or 1m3 of the rock mass, is computed as (Teale,
1965):
( ) ( ) ( )
F 2π ω×T
SDE = + × (55)
Ab Ab PR
The penetration rate increases as the thrust load (weight) on the bit
and the rotation speed increases. It also decreases with increasing rock
mass strength. Since torque, T, is not always measured, Kelessidis (2011)
proposed the following relationship to estimate it based on the thrust
force, F, the bit geometry (diameter, Dbi), and the friction coefficient, μ.
μFDbi
T= (56)
3
Several scholars have tried to use the drilling specific energy for blast
design (Segui and Higgins, 2002; Smith, 2002). For example, Ouch­
terlony (2003) reported on an approach that was originally proposed by
Raina et al. (2003) to directly predict the Kuz-Ram rock factor, AK-R (see
Section 2.2.3) based on the MWD data. According to this approach:
( )
PR 2
DI = d (57)
Fω b
where PR is the drill bit penetration rate (m/h), F is the pull-down
pressure on a bit (klbf), ω is the rpm of the drill bit (rev/min), and db
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Fig. 17. Contours of blastability index, BI, for weak rocks with closely spaced discontinuities (courtesy of Christaras and Chatziangelou, 2014).

Table 18 Table 19
Classes of rock blastability based on BQS. Blastability assessment based on specific drilling energy (adopted from Mosinets
Class Description BI range
et al., 1967).
Description Category SDE (kWh/
1 Very difficult to blast BI<8
m)
2 Difficult to blast 8<BI<13
3 Moderate to blast 13<BI<20 Easily blasted rocks, small blocks, strongly fractured I <1.0
4 Easy blast 20<BI<40 Medium blasting rocks, average size blocks, moderately II 1.0 to 1.4
5 Very easy to blast BI>40 fractured
Difficult to blast, difficult to-crush, sparsely fractured III 1.4>
rock
is the blasthole diameter (inch). The rock factor is computed as:

AK− R = 6.6942DI 0.4852
Significant efforts have also recently been made by Schunesson and
his team at the Lulea University of Technology, in Sweden (Manzoor
et al., 2019, 2020; van Eldert et al., 2019), and by Sanchidrián and his
team at Polytechnic University of Madrid, in Spain, (Navarro et al.,
2018; Navarro et al., 2019; Navarro Miguel, 2018) to put MWD data into
practice for rock mass characterisation for blast design, in both surface
and underground mining as well as civil engineering excavations. De­
tails of the approaches used for rock mass characterisation based on
MWD are, however, beyond the scope of this paper.
Mosinets et al. (1967) also indicated that the specific drilling energy
can be correlated to some of the rock mass mechanical parameters, such
(58) as the strength and P-wave speed (see Fig. 18), and can be used for the
assessment of the blastability of rocks (see Table 19). Mosinets et al.
(1967) stated that cutter-type drills were used for these tests and the
specific drilling energy was computed with the aid of self-recording
current and voltage meters connected in the motor circuit. Unfortu­
nately, no information about the size of the drill bits was mentioned.
3.4.2. Rock quality index (RQI)
Little (1976), and later Leighton (1982), developed the concept of a
rock quality index (RQI) to provide rock engineers with a blastability
assessment approach and to estimate the powder factor for open-pit
mining based on the MWD in rotary drills. The RQI (kN-min/m) was
defined as:

Fig. 18. (a): Specific drilling energy, per 1 meter of borehole, versus wave speed, Cp, and (b): Specific drilling energy per 1 m3 of rock versus wave speed, Cp (adopted
from Mosinets et al., 1967).

20
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
RQI = F/PR = Ft/d (59)
where F is the applied weight (Thrust Force) on the bit (kN), PR is the
penetration rate (m/min), t is drilling time (min), and d is hole depth
(m). Data collected at a range of mines (Le Bel, 1984; Leighton, 1982;
Muftuoglu et al., 1991) are plotted in Fig. 19 and they show that,
although relatively good correlations have been observed between the
powder factor and the RQI for each site, it was not possible to fit a curve
on all of the series of data collected from the different sites. In other
words, there is no unique relationship between the powder factor and
the RQI.
3.4.3. Specific drilling
Tamrock (1978) indicated that a precise blastability assessment
should include the rock solidity, tenacity, and homogeneity, seismic
velocities, and the breaking characteristics of the rock mass. Solidity
shows the strength and integrity of a rock mass. It also considers the
structure and texture of the rock mass. Tenacity, however, refers to a
rock’s toughness and describes its response to breakage or deforma­
tional loads. Breaking characteristics also refer to those mechanical
properties of rocks that are controlling the fracture propagation and
fragmentation. A blastability assessment based on the specific drilling
(SD) was proposed by (Tamrock, 1978) in which the burden can be
directly related to the charge energy and, inversely, to the blastability of
the rocks. SD (m/m3) is the drilled hole volume or drilled hole length per
volume unit of rock and is defined as (Jimeno et al., 1995):
H
+ Sd
(60)
cosβ
SD = B
× S ×H
cosβ
where H denotes the bench height (m), and Sd is the sub-drilling (m). S
and B are also the spacing and burden in meters, respectively. Addi­
tionally, β denotes the blasthole inclination in degrees (o). A few dia­
grams were developed by Tamrock Inc for convenient application by
drill and blast engineers in sites, as shown in Fig. 20.
As can be seen the curves in Fig. 20 are almost parallel and can be
described by a mathematical relationship like (SD = c1 + c2×Db+ c3×D2b )
where c1, c2, and c3 are empirical coefficients and Db is the blasthole
diameter (mm). The analysis shows that coefficients c2 and c3 are con­
stant and almost identical for all curves (see Fig. 20). The coefficient, c1
depends on the rock mass blastability but not on the hole diameter, Db,
and it has the same units as SD. The rock mass blastability may, there­
fore, be solely described based on the coefficient, c1.
Fig. 19. Correlations between RQI and powder factor at Afton and Greenhills
Mines in Canada, and a few open cast coal mines in Turkey (data extracted from
Leighton, 1982; Le Bel, 1984; Muftuoglu et al., 1991).
21
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
3.5. Post-blast measurements
Many researchers have suggested that blast test results in the labo­
ratory or field are a way of predicting outcomes and they are summar­
ised in this section. Unfortunately, such approaches lack predictability
and usefulness in mining applications because a series of field tests are
usually needed for calibrations which are often costly and time-
consuming to perform and process. Sometimes the tests are performed
in much simpler geometries and smaller sizes. Extrapolating the out­
comes of such tests to large scale blasting (e.g., in open-pit metal mining)
that often is performed in heavily heterogeneous and anisotropic rock
masses might be questionable. Such simplified approaches may work in
a quarry environment with a consistent rock mass, though they would
require excessive pre-blast trials in an open-pit mine with multiple
blastability zones.
3.5.1. Maximum burden
An early rock mass blastability factor, C, was proposed by Fraenkel
(1952) as:
50Bmax
C= (61)
L0.33 × L0.33 × D0.33
b c b
where Lb and Lc are the length of the blasthole and charge, respectively.
Db denotes the diameter of the blasthole. This requires an estimate of
Bmax. The rock constant expresses how much explosive is necessary to
detach a homogeneous rock. Extreme values of the rock constant are 0.2
kg/m3 (easy blasted) and 1,0 kg/m3 (difficult to blast). The standard
value of this parameter is C = 0.40 (Rustan et al., 2010). As an alter­
native to measurements, Langefors and Kihlstrom (1973) proposed the
following relation to calculate the maximum burden for desirable
fragmentation:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ρe × Se
Bmax = 0.958Db (62)
Cb × CLK × BS
where Db is the blasthole diameter (m), ρe (kg/m3) and Se (-) are the
density and the weight strength of the charge, respectively. S (m) and B
(m) denote the spacing and burden of the blast pattern, and Cb is a factor
(-) indicating the constraining effect of the material surrounding an
explosive charge. The confinement of a charge depends on the strength
and density of the surrounding material; the number, orientation, shape,
and other characteristics of the free faces to the gravity field; the dis­
tance from the charge to the free faces; the static or confining stress field
working on the material; the material properties surrounding the free
faces, (e.g. air, water or buffered rock); and the amount of rock being
broken by the blast. There is no general system for the quantification of
confinement (Rustan et al., 2010). CLK (kg/m3) is a rock constant known
as the Langefors and Kihlstrom’s blastability factor. When the Bmax is
between 1.4 and 15.0 m, the modified blastability factor is CLK_m = CLK
+0.05 and when the Bmax is less than 1.4 m, the modified blastability is
estimated as CLK_m = CLK +0.07/B. The Langford and Kihlström formula
can only be used for borehole diameters in the range ~30 to 75 mm in
diameter because for larger blasthole diameters the relationship be­
tween burden and blasthole diameter is non-linear (Rustan et al., 2010).
Analytical investigations performed by Kou and Rustan (1992) showed
that when blasting gelatin is used, the blastability factor, CLK, in Eq. 62
can be estimated as:
σ2c
CLK = (63)
2Er × η × Qe
where Qe (kJ/kg) is the detonation heat of the explosive, and η (-) is the
energy transformation efficiency which can be defined as the ratio be­
tween the energy for the breakage plus the throw of the rock prism and
the chemical energy of the explosive. Since σc and Er indicate the
strength and Young’s modulus of rocks in (MPa), respectively (Kou and
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Fig. 20. Estimating rock mass blastability based on specific drilling and drill hole diameter (adopted and modified from Tamrock, 1978).

Rustan, 1992), this measure of rock strength is similar to the strain en­
ergy measure employed by Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony (2017a) in the
distribution-free (also known as Xp-Frag) model (see Section 3.6.4).

3.5.2. Cratering (chambering) ratio

Globa (1972) proposed the term ‘explosibility’ as a synonym of rock
mass blastability to assess the effects of the physical and mechanical
parameters of rock masses on the fragmentation outcomes in a few
potash mines in the former Soviet Union. Potash deposits often consist of
different ore types. However, most of them have low strength (fp less
than 5.0) and high plasticity index (PI up to 4.5). Globa (1972)’s
research was performed in working faces at Kaluga, Novo-Golynskii, and
Golynskii potash mines, and in a few different ore types, such as syl­
vinite, kyanite, kyanite-langbeinite, and argillaceous sylvinite. For each
test, a single blasthole, with 1.5 m depth, was drilled, loaded, and
detonated on the floor of the selected underground rooms. The weight of
Fig. 21. Cratering ratio, Rc, versus plasticity index, PI (adopted and modified
the charge was 0.6 kg and the length of the stemming and the charge
from Globa, 1972).
were identical and around 0.75 m. Additionally, AP-5ZhB ammonite was
used as the charge for the tests. A combination of sand and clay was also
Zou, 2017 also reported on a similar rock mass blastability classifi­
used as the stemming for the blastholes. To achieve a good estimation of
cation that was developed, in Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony, 2017a, at
the blastability of rocks, ten to fifteen single tests were conducted in
the Northeastern University, in China. The crater test was considered as
each ore type (Globa, 1972).
a criterion to explain the energy consumption in rock fragmentation. A
A cratering ratio, Rc, was defined as the ratio of the volume of the
considerable proportion of the explosive energy is absorbed by rocks and
crater generated by the firing of a blasthole to the initial volume of the
is consumed for the breakage of rocks. The acoustic impedance was also
blasthole (Globa, 1972). The blastability of the rock mass is defined
selected as a useful parameter to characterise the rocks because of the
based on the cratering ratio (see Table 20).
effect of discontinuities on the blast wave propagation. A combination of
For plastic rocks, such as Potash, Globa (1972) related the value of
cratering tests and acoustic impedance analyses was, therefore, pro­
the cratering ratio to the plasticity index (PI) (see Fig. 21) which is
posed for the assessment of rock blastability. The model was calibrated
estimated, based on a specifically designed penetration test, to account
based on the data collected from the site and laboratories for 63 different
for the loss of the explosion energy from the over-crushing of the rocks in
rocks in 13 mines. The index of rock blastability, N, was defined as:
the vicinity of the charge. Further details related to the test for esti­
( )
mating the PI of rocks can be found in (Shreiner et al., 1967). N = 67.22 − 38.44Ln(Vc ) + 2.03Ln ρr Cp + K (64)

where Vc is the volume of rock in blasting crater tests (m3), ρr is the

Table 20 density of the rock (tonne/m3), Cp is the speed of P-waves in (m/sec),
Rock mass blastability classification based on cratering ratio, Rc. and K is an index depending on the rock fragmentation results and is
Rock class/ Cratering Specific consumption of explosive (kg/ computed as:
category ratio tonne) ( )
K 7.42
I UP to 3.0 0.35 K = Ln 4.75 1 1.89 (65)
II 3.0 to 5.0 0.40 K2 × K3
III 5.0 to 7.0 0.45
IV Above 7.0 0.50 where K1 (%) is the proportion of large rock fragments (>300 mm), K2

22
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Table 21
Classes of rock blastability (Adopted and modified from Zou, 2017).
Class N Blastability Examples of rock types

1 1- <29 Very easy Phyllite, fractured sandstone, argillite, and

1 fractured dolomite
1- 29 to
2 38
2 2- 38 to Easy Breccia, green mudstone, and beige dolomite
1 46
2- 46 to
2 53
3 3- 53 to Moderate Actinolite quartzite, lamprophyre, marble,
1 60 and gray dolomite
3- 60 to
2 68
4 4- 68 to Difficult Magnetite quartzite, dark green amphibolite,
1 74 and gneiss
4- 74 to Fig. 22. Fragmentation energy versus fragmentation ratio (F0.5
r ) (adopted and
2 81 modified from Da Gama, 1996).
5 5- 81 Very Skarn, granite, and light-colored sandstone
1 to86 difficult
jointed rocks for Grade Engineering where the objective is to intensively
5- >86
2 blast the ore to generate fine particles while barren gangue materials are
just loosened enough for excavation (Usami et al., 2019). Fig. 22 shows
that there is no unique relationship between the fragmentation energy
(%) is the proportion of small rock fragments (<50 mm) and K3 (%) is and the De Gama’s fragmentability (blastability) factor across various
the average pass rate. Rocks are classified into five classes according to rock types.
their blastability index value, N. These classes are tabulated in Table 21.

3.5.3. Da Gama’s blastability/fragmentability factor
Bond’s comminution theory (Bond and Wang, 1950) was applied to
blasting by Bond and Whitney (1959) to compute the amount of
explosive needed to fragment a rock mass to a specific size. Da Gama
(1995) later combined Griffith (1924) crack theory and Bond’s
comminution law and proposed a new equation for assessing the blast­
ability of a jointed rock mass:
( )0.5
Xmax xmax
We = Const or Fr = (66)
xmax Xmax
where We is the explosive energy consumed per tonne of rocks (kWh/
tonne), and Xmax and xmax are the largest particle sizes in the rock mass
(m) and the muck pile (m), respectively. Previously, in Section 3.2.3 it
was shown that the IBSD can be estimated based on the fracture fre­
quency of the rock mass. The approaches proposed by White (1977),
Chertkov (1985), Stavropoulou (2014), and the modified Azarkovich
and Pokrovskii (1991)’s model that was explained in (Sellers and Salmi,
2020) can be used for this purpose. Based on statistical analyses of
jointed rock masse, Chertkov (1985) proposed using (Xmax = 5/ff) as an
approach to provide an estimate of the sizes of large blocks. Interestingly
enough, based on several field experiences, (Scott, 2017) and (Scott,
2018) suggested using the same value for predicting the x80, to calibrate
the Swebrec function. This parameter is indicative of the large natural
particle sizes generated by the blasting of a jointed rock mass.
In Eq. 66, Fr is also known as the fragmentation ratio (Da Gama,
1995). Da Gama’s equation may, therefore, be written as (Da Gama,
1995):
CDG =
We
(67)
(Fr )0.5
According to Da Gama (1995), the slopes of the lines (shown in
Fig. 22) indicate the average values of CDG (Da Gama’s coefficient) for
different rock types including basalt, granite, and limestone (kWh/
tonne).
When Fr = 1, CDG equals We, so the CDG indicates the amount of
explosive energy that is needed to just loosen a jointed rock mass
without fracturing the intact blocks. This may be useful for situations
where it is important not to break the remaining rock mass after blasting
ie. to reduce overbreak. An application could be differential blasting in
3.6. Multiple rock mass and blast measurements
More blastability assessment methods are appearing that fit data
from multiple measurements of both the properties of rock masses and
their blasted muck piles. Typical examples of such approaches are
explained in this section. These can be limited in scope to the data used
in the fits.
3.6.1. Data analytics
Data analytics is becoming popular though it requires a range of test
blasts to train the system or derive correlations. Qu et al. (2002)
developed an analytics approach to design the blast patterns for the
Shuichang surface mines in Bejing in China. It was assumed that the
blasting design parameters (e.g., burden, B (m), spacing, S (m), blasthole
depth, Lb (m), and powder factor, q (kg/tonne)) all depend on the ex­
plosive’s detonation characteristics which are based on the detonation
velocity, Vd, (m/sec) and the density of the explosive charges, ρe, (tonne/
m3) which define the explosive strength factor, fe, as well as the rock
mass blastability, fr. such that:
( ) ( )β
fe = a1 ρe Vd2 and fr = a2 ρr σ αc Log a3 Sj− av (68)
where a1, a2, a3, α and β are constants which can be determined from
regression analyses, σc is the compressive strength of rocks (kPa), and Sj-
av denotes the average joint spacing (cm) of the geological discontinu­
ities (Qu et al., 2002). Therefore, the rock mass blastability is defined as
a function of the rock’s density, the strength of intact blocks, and the
spacing of its natural discontinuities. The blast design parameters,
including the burden, B (m), spacing, S (m), blasthole length, Lb (m),
specific charge, q (kg/tonne), and sub-drilling, Sd (m), can be estimated
as follows (Qu et al., 2002), and which are then related to the blasthole
crater surface area at the top of the bench, SAc:
( )
SAc = c1 fee1 × fre2 Deb3 (69)
B=
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(70)
(SAc /Rs− B )
S = SAc /B (71)
( )
Sd = c2 SAc × fee1 × fre2 (72)

23
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Lb = (Ht − Hb ) + SD (73)
( )
q = c3 fe × fre4 ρr (74)

where Db is the blasthole diameter (mm), Ht (m) is the top elevation

blasthole, Hb (m) is the desired elevation of the excavation after loading
based on the pit design, Sd (m) is the sub-drilling, ρr (tonne/m3) is the
rock density, RS-B is the ratio of the spacing to the burden (-) (suggested
to be around 1.15). Besides, e1, e2, e3, e4, c1, c2, and c3 are all constants
that can be determined from regression analysis (Qu et al., 2002). The
main challenge with this method is that the results are site-dependent,
and many blasts are needed for calibrations.

3.6.2. Three-in-one classification

Lin (1996), and later Zou (2017), described a rock mass classification
system which is known as the ‘three-in-one comprehensive classification
system, as it can be separately used for the assessment of rock’s stability,
drillability, and blastability. This method involves three main families of
rock parameters. The first group of parameters contains the strength of
the rock and may include parameters like the point load strength or rock
uniaxial compressive strength. The second category of parameters in­
cludes the rock’s structures, represented by the sonic velocity of the rock
mass and the average spacing of its joint sets. The final class of param­
eters contains stress factors such as the unit weight, depth, and stress
ratio. The classification method uses an index which is defined as
follows:
S = 135.6 + 10.2Is(50) + 3.3a + 21.5Cp
where Is(50) shows the point load strength of the rock in (MPa), Cp is the
P-wave velocity in (km/s), and a is the impact penetrant-specific work
(IPSW) (J/cm3) and is defined as:
a = Wt /V
where Wt is the total impact work of 480 freely falling of the drill
hammer, and V is the rock volume to be broken after 480 impacts (cm3)
(Zou (2017). Data collected from different working sites were processed
through data analysis, clustering, and statistical analyses. The S index
(shown in Eq. 75), in conjunction with Table 22, are used to analyse the
blastability of rocks.
3.6.3. The fragmentation -energy fan model
The fragmentation-energy fan (FEF) model identifies that the loga­
rithm of percentile fragment sizes, xP, for any percent passing P, plotted
as a function of the logarithm of the specific charge q (i.e., the powder
factor in kg/m3) forms a set of straight lines on an xP) versus log(q)
diagram that tends to converge at a common focal point (xo,qo) (Ouch­
terlony et al., 2017; Segarra et al., 2018) (see Fig. 23). For a single rock
mass i.e. independent of blastability, the fragmentation energy fan can
be fitted to blast results and used to accurately predict the fragmentation
outcomes (Segarra et al., 2018).
The mathematical form of the energy-fan model can be written as:
A
xp =
qαp
where xp is percentile or size value for which P percent of material passes
Fig. 23. Schematic view of the fragmentation–energy fan model (Ouchterlony
et al., 2017).
(m or mm), q is the specific charge or powder factor (kg/m3), αp shows
the P-dependent exponent of q in the energy-fan equation. Furthermore,
Ouchterlony et al. (2017) mentioned that A is a numerical prefactor and
should be a rock mass factor, like the one in Kuz-Ram model (AK-R) (see
Section 2.2.3 and Eq. 9). The analyses performed by Ouchterlony and co-
workers, however, show that this parameter is not constant for all per­
centage passing and might be better to be replaced by Ap which shows
the P-dependency of the rock factor.
The energy-fan equation may also be generalised as (Ouchterlony
(75) et al., 2017):
xp Ap
= (78)
B qαp
where
(76) A
Ap = (79)
(Bβ )αp
where B is the burden (m, or mm) and β is a coefficient. Then A is ex­
pected to be a rock mass constant and may be considered as a parameter
representing the blastability of the rock mass.
3.6.4. The distribution-free (xp-Frag) blast model
The distribution-free (DF) blast model proposed by Sanchidrián and
Ouchterlony (2017a, 2017b) (also known as xp-Frag) is one of the most
recent fragmentation prediction models developed which is based on
comprehensive research and data collection. The model proposes an
efficient semi-analytical approach to quantifying the effects of the
geotechnical parameters and structures of rock masses on their frag­
mentation. The distribution-free model may be considered as a com­
plement to the energy-fan to allow users to estimate the input
parameters for the implementation of the model.
The dimensional analysis from asteroid impact models was used to
develop a prediction equation for the fragment size, xp, for an arbitrary
percentage value, p, which is defined (Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony,
2017a) as:
(77) ( )κ ( )λκ
xp [ [( / ) ] ] σ R
= k min sj Lj , as + ao jo k2h ft (Π t ) (80)
Lc qe Lc

where q (kg/m3) is the powder factor, Lc (m) is the characteristic size of

Table 22 the blast, R (m) is the characteristic size of the rock mass (usually
Three-in-one comprehensive classification of the rock mass. R = 1),k is a fragment shape factor, k2 is a bench shape factor, ft(Π t) is a
Class Index S Stability Drillability Blastability function for the effects of delay timing, and h, κ, and λ are constants
found by fitting to multiple test data. The strength of the rock mass is
I > 550 Very stable Most difficult Most difficult
II 550 to 450 Stable Difficult Difficult represented by the limiting strain energy density:
III 450 to 350 Moderately stable Moderate Moderate /
IV 350 to 250 Unstable Easy Easy σ = σ2c (2Er ) (81)
V < 250 Very unstable Very easy Very easy

24
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

where σ c and Er are the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) in (MPa)
and Young’s modulus of the rock (GPa), respectively. The influence of
the discontinuities is incorporated by introducing a spacing term, Js, and
an orientation term, Jo, which are added to form a joint correction
factor, JF:
( / ) Whilst the magnitude of the correlations may be specific to the rock
JF = Js + Jo = min sj Lj , as + ao jo (82)
where Js is a non-dimensional ratio defined as (sj /Lj), in which sj (m) is
the mean discontinuity spacing and Lj (m) is a characteristic length,
capped by a limiting value as (m) for large joint spacings. Additionally,
Jo is the normalised Lilly (1986)’s joint orientation index weighted by
the fitted parameter ao. The model is calibrated by nonlinear fitting to
169 bench blasts in 14 different sites for which the blast design data and
the size distributions of the muck pile (obtained by sieving) were
available. The error of prediction was below 25 % at any percentile, i.e.,
half to one-third of the errors expected with previous models
(Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony, 2017a).
4. Analyses, comparisons, and discussion
4.1. Common factors in blastability assessment
The definition of the blastability is a means to quantify the site
characteristics, including the geological and geotechnical properties of
rocks (Ouchterlony, 2003). Most of the blastability assessment ap­
proaches reviewed in Section 3 are based on the geotechnical testing of a
rock mass (e.g., dynamic/static compressive and tensile strength, dy­
namic/static deformation modulus, and fracture toughness) with some
measure of the quantification of structural discontinuity (e.g., spacing,
fracture frequency, and block size). A qualitative comparison of blast­
ability assessments has been prepared in the Appendix.
To quantify the correlations between the blastability parameters, the
rock engineering system (RES) was used by (Latham and Lu, 1999).
Table 23 shows their correlations, highlighted to identify highly
correlated parameters. Two main clusters appear, one indicating a range
of parameters representing the strength of the rock mass (solid box) and
a second representing the rock’s structure (dashed box). Notably, the
fractal dimension of the in-situ blocks, Df, and the rock quality desig­
nation (RQD) are each correlated with both strength and structure
(dotted box).
used, it is well known that the Young’s modulus of rocks is around 300 to
500 times the compressive strength, which itself is 8 to 15 times the
tensile strength (Deere and Millar, 1966; Hoek and Diederichs, 2006;
Zhang, 2016). These relations may not be linear giving rise to asym­
metry in the correlation matrix. In many of the blastability approaches
considered in Section 3, the acoustic impedance of the rocks was shown
to be a useful parameter for quantifying the blastability of rock masses.
Bearing in mind that acoustic impedance is defined as Irm = ρr×Cp, and
Cp ≈ sqrt (Em/ρr), then Irm ≈ sqrt (Em×ρr). If the density is approximately
constant, as it is in a quarry, then Irm and Cp will provide the same
blastability relationship, however, in a copper or iron ore mine with a
wide range of densities (Scott and Onederra, 2015b; Scott et al., 2006),
there will be a different relationship.
These correlations indicate that some measure of strength, density,
and structure of rock masses are the key factors controlling the blast­
ability. As shown in Section 3, these require laboratory testing and field
observations and a 3D blastability assessment method could be simpler
and easier to use in practice by removing multiple, correlated parame­
ters. For example, Jackson and Sellers (2017) considered that if a rock’s
structure and strength are independent then the blast design should be
tailored to the downstream requirements depending on the combination
of the relative strength, structure, and consistency. Furthermore, they
suggested that a relative blastability between the rock inside and outside
a blast area should be considered for the prediction of over and under
breaks.
4.2. Comparisons
To better comprehend the performance of different blastability
assessment approaches, a few of the main blastability assessments

Table 23
The rock engineering system interaction matrix for blastability assessment (high correlations have been coloured green and low are red) (data from Lu and
Latham, 1999a).

σci σti ρr Ei cp SHRV υr KIC MIBS Df RQD (cj , φj)

σci 1 0.65 0.7 0.85 0.65 0.55 0.4 0.75 0.5 0.55 0.3 0.4

σti 0.75 1 0.4 0.45 0.65 0.5 0.4 0.65 0.6 0.45 0.5 0.5

ρr 0.9 0.75 1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.45 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2

Ei 0.8 0.5 0.7 1 0.6 0.6 0.55 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.15

cp 0.45 0.65 0.7 0.45 1 0.5 0.25 0.45 0.45 0.4 0.25 0.45

SHRV 0.7 0.5 0.75 0.4 0.5 1 0.25 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.45 0.4

υr 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.65 0.25 0.45 1 0.5 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.15

KIC 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.5 0.35 1 0.4 0.25 0.2 0.3

MIBS 0.25 0.3 0.25 0.5 0.35 0.25 0.3 0.4 1 0.8 0.65 0.45

Df 0.65 0.6 0.3 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.4 0.55 0.65 1 0.8 0.2

RQD 0.45 0.45 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.45 0.2 0.15 0.5 0.55 1 0.25

(cj , φj) 0.25 0.65 0.1 0.3 0.45 0.25 0.15 0.5 0.55 0.25 0.3 1

25
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

100 MPa (Brent et al., 2002). To account for the effects of uncertainties
in rock strength on the outcomes of fragmentation, the authors have
performed a Monte Carlo simulation. The outcomes of the analyses are
shown in Fig. 25. This figure indicates the frequency of the mean frag­
ment size (xm, or k50) for 5000 random simulations achieved from the
above-mentioned models.
As can be seen in Fig. 25, the mean/median fragment size, xm, or k50,
has a normal distribution with a mean around 162 to 164 mm for
Rustan’s approaches (see Eqs. 47 and 48), about 201 mm for the inte­
grated Swebrec and Scott’s model, and approximately around 123 mm
for the DF model. Both Rustan’s approach and the distribution-free (DF)
model underestimate the mean particle size which is close to 200 mm
(see the curve of the measured data in Fig. 24). However, the integrated
KCO and Scott’s approach has provided a very good estimation of this
parameter (xm = 201 mm).
Fig. 24. Particle size distribution estimated based on the integrated KCO and
Scott’s approach, Rustan’s approach, and the distribution-free model against
4.3. Incorporation of geological variabilities
the measured data.

Rock masses are inherently heterogeneous (Jimeno et al., 1995),

explained in the paper are used on data from a published case study. The
often bedded, jointed, or schistose and foliated (Hohlfeld and Muller,
geotechnical properties of the rocks and the blast design parameters
1999) which leads to anisotropic behaviors (Ghosh and Daemen, 1993;
were extracted from the relevant studies (Brent et al., 2002; Kanchibotla
Hohlfeld and Muller, 1999). These result in micro-and macro-scale
et al., 1998). The same data are directly fed into each approach or,
heterogeneities in rocks (Hohlfeld and Muller, 1999), especially in
where needed, used to estimate the required input parameters. Fig. 24
mines where mineralisation and alterations vary considerably (Yildirim
compares the prediction of the particle size distribution of rock frag­
et al., 2014). Other factors such as the water content can affect the blast
ments (BBSD) achieved from the blastability assessments used in
outcomes, though they are seldom considered (Bohloli and Hovén,
Rustan’s approach (see Section 3.2.5), the integrated KCO, and Scott’s
2007).
blastability model (see Eqs. 11, 16, 20, and 31 and Fig. 5), and the
Most blastability models provide only a minimal explanation of how
distribution-free model (see Section 3.6.4), against the measured frag­
the structural discontinuities should be quantified, and this can lead to
mentation data at the Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine Pty Ltd
differences in interpretation (Scott et al., 2006, 2009). Ambiguous
(KCGM) Fimiston Mine. It is also noted that the predictions are different
phrases such as the ‘spacing’ or ‘orientation’ of ‘principal discontinu­
and depend on the quality of the data used in the calculations and
ities’, ‘principal planes of weakness’, and ‘fracture frequency’ are
calibrations.
seldom clarified in the blastability assessment approaches (Ashby, 1981;
The geotechnical studies in the KCGM mine site showed that the rock
Lilly, 1986). For example, in geological logging (e.g., (Palmstrom,
strength varies between (50 MPa to 150 MPa) with a mean of around
1996)) ‘discontinuities’ can be natural or induced, and yet ‘spacing’ only

Fig. 25. Outcomes of Monte Carlo simulation for the prediction of the mean particle size (Cases A, and B: Rustan’s formulations, Case C: Integrated KCO and Scott’s
approach, and Case D: the distribution-free model).

26
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
refers to the perpendicular distance between the natural joints. The
‘principal joint’ will depend on the blast design and will be difficult to
identify in highly structured rock masses. The term ‘fracture frequency’
(e.g., Scott et al., 2006) implies the spacing between the induced dis­
continuities, though it probably includes any discontinuity and will also
depend on the drill hole direction. The move to quantification using the
in-situ block size distribution (IBSD) better expresses the potential for
the rock mass to break into parts already created by geological factors
and previously induced blast damage.
Further confusion can arise as a ‘discontinuous joint’ is defined to be
not continuous through the rock mass (e.g., (Palmstrom, 1996)), and it
lacks persistence. Persistence is not included in any of the blastability
models, except those that involved sophisticated discrete fracture
network modellings (e.g., (Hamdi, 2003)) and would be best repre­
sented as an equivalent rock mass strength (Zhang, 2010). The first
linkage of strength to scale in blastability was suggested by (Sanchidrián
and Ouchterlony, 2017a, 2017b). Further consideration of the strength
scale and variability is needed for differential blasting approaches in
mines with rapidly varying lithology and alteration (e.g., (Walters,
2017)).
To highlight the need to consider the variability of strength within
blastability, Fig. 26 shows the box and jitter chart for a copper-gold
mine, fourteen quarries with sieved fragmentation data (Sanchidrián
and Ouchterlony, 2017a, 2017b), and a single rock type from an anon­
ymous, multi-metal underground mine. The data shows the significant
variability within a mine, between operations, and even within a single
rock type. The high percentage of low strength values in the charts of the
two mine data sets relates to premature test failures on pre-existing
joints or discontinuities. Geotechnical design approaches select
average values or uses probabilistic methods (Young, 1984; Young and
Hoerger, 1988) because a lower strength reduces risk. In blastability
assessments, if only point or average values are used, it may be prudent
to select higher values as being more representative of the rock being
broken at small time scales and close to the blasthole, as mentioned in
the introduction.
4.4. Towards a 3-dimensional, distributed blastability
To advance blasting design, blastability measures need to be devel­
oped that are continuous and represent the three-dimensional spatial
distribution of the rock mass and any variations in the rock mass me­
chanical parameters. Ores, in particular, have chaotic and random
spatial distributions, in the rock masses, that are usually averaged using
geostatistical methods (Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989). Geo-metallurgy
has evolved to take the available data from the geological database to
predict process plant throughput and the variabilities (Yildirim et al.,
Fig. 26. Uniaxial compressive strength from A: data from quarries (Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony, 2017a, 2017b), B: a single rock type in an underground multi­
metallic mine (Jackson and Sellers, 2017), and C: an anonymous copper-gold mine.
27
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
2014). Similarly, blastability assessment measures need to evolve from
using point samples from laboratory or field tests. To apply a 3D blast­
ability approach, the dynamic spatial distribution of energy and stress
waves needs to be considered before the blast design (Kleine, 1991), and
the mine needs to be flexible enough to modify the blast design pa­
rameters or explosive properties between, or even along, the blast holes.
4.4.1. Geostatistical methods
The second aim of this literature review was to identify options for
the 3D distribution of blastability to help blast engineers to improve the
rock fragmentation, based on the constraints dictated by the down­
stream processes. Incorporating a 3D distribution of blastability has
previously been proposed. For example, Scott et al. (2006) suggested the
use of geotechnical or blastability domains to define regions of similar
blast design. To derive a finer resolution, Jackson et al. (2014) prepared
a block model of blastability for a gold mine (see Fig. 27 and Table 24).
Seven lithology zones were used to domain the rock strength, the
number of fractures per drill run of the exploration drill hole was con­
verted to fractures per meter, and 66,000 density measurements were
allocated by lithology. The drill hole data was interpolated to each block
by the inverse weighted distance (IWD) method. ‘Mine to Mill’ blast
design changes to bench geometry, blast patterns, timing, and quality
control, guided by the blastability distribution, led to a 46 % improve­
ment above the design mill capacity on average for hard ores (Gaunt
et al., 2015). In a separate study, geostatistical sequential indicator
simulation has also been used to predict the spatial variability of Lilly’s
blastability index (Shim et al., 2009).
The review has shown that there are many correlated parameters and
that these parameters are being averaged in complex blastability index
formulae. As Cunningham (2005) noted, the fragmentation prediction,
based on the conventional Kuz-Ram model (see Eq. 9 and Section 2.2.3),
still requires a large calibration factor of between -50% and 100%.
Integrating the Swebrec fragmentation model (Ouchterlony, 2005) with
the blastability assessment proposed by Scott and Onederra (2015a),
utilising the fragmentation energy-fan (Ouchterlony et al., 2017) or the
distribution-free model (Sanchidrián and Ouchterlony, 2017a) are,
therefore, recommended as they can provide much better predictions of
the fragmentation (see Sections 3.6.3 and 3.6.4). Perhaps it would be
best practice to calibrate the blastability directly from the geological
databases or large-scale geophysical surveys? Options for these ap­
proaches are considered in the following sections.
4.4.2. Observational methods
Numerous studies have recently been undertaken in engineering
geology to find methods for the automated characterisation of rock
masses based on different remote sensing methods. Buyer et al. (2020),
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Fig. 27. A section of a blastability block model, BI, and the associated powder factor, pF, for a gold mine (Jackson et al., 2014).

mentioned data analytics and remote sensing methods with geophysical

Table 24
techniques to provide a direct, three-dimensional, view of the rock mass.
Main data types within the drilling database for blastability assessment (Jackson
The fusion and integration of data that is coming from different sources
et al., 2014).
of information with different dimensions is a challenging task (Green­
Data table Key data types
wood et al., 2017). Methods such as self-organizing maps (SOMs) (Fraser
Collars Easting, northing, relative level, length et al., 2012) can be used to identify the best correlations of inputs for the
Survey Depth, azimuth, dip reconstruction of the pseudo-lithological classifications of 3D geophys­
Lithology Lithology, weathering, texture, and deformation
ical data, and are options for building 3D blastability measures. Details
Alteration Supergene type, mode, intensity, alteration type, mode, and
intensity related to the applications of machine learning, ML, techniques for the
Assays Au, Ag, Zn with selected intervals assayed for a wide range of assessment of blastability are, however, out of the scope of this study
multi elements and can be found elsewhere (Azimi et al., 2010; Feng, 1995; Jose Martin
Point load Core-size, calliper, IS(50) (MPa) failure on new or pre-existing
Gonzalez, 2007).
structure, fracture type, estimated uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS) The application of different geophysical techniques for the charac­
Geotechnical Rock quality designation (RQD), number of joint sets, strength, terisation of rock masses, such as ground-penetrating radar (GPR),
data and fracture frequency borehole micro-seismic surveys (BMS), and electrical resistivity to­
Structure Structural types, orientation, and roughness mography (ERT), are explained in the relevant literature (Busato et al.,
Veining Type and intensity
2016; Chen et al., 2018). Geophysical techniques have previously been
Mineralisation Oxide and sulfide minerals and quality
used to characterise rock masses before the design of rock blasts
(Budetta et al., 2001), and measuring damage after the blast (Singer
for example, utilised digital surface mapping techniques (e.g., photo­ et al., 2010). While the strength of a rock is correlated to the P-wave
grammetry) to characterize rock masses and to identify the natural block speed in the rock mass (Zhang, 2016), the seismic parameters like the S-
sizes and shapes in a quarry in Styria, Austria. Li et al. (2019) recently wave speed or seismic Q may be the key to providing useful information
showed that employing non-contact measuring techniques such as related to the integrity of a rock mass by the quantification of the rock
photogrammetry and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) for the auto­ structures (Barton, 2007; Sassa, 1993). The combined attenuation and
mated characterisation of discontinuous rock masses can replace tradi­ velocity data from seismic spectroscopy can also be used for character­
tional mapping techniques for identifying the discontinuity parameters ising the condition of a rock mass (Young et al. (1985); Young et al.
in a drill and blast tunnel. Other automated characterisations of the (1979). Cross-hole acoustic measurement of the wave propagation ve­
discontinuity properties of rock masses (e.g., joint persistence, trace locities and seismic Q, which represent attenuation in the rock mass,
length, orientation, spacing) have also been reported recently (Bolkas have already been used to improve the blast design (McKenzie et al.,
et al., 2018; Riquelme et al., 2015; Vöge et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2018; 1983; McKenzie et al., 1982). However, to the best of the authors’
Zhang et al., 2019). However, they cannot solely be used for the knowledge, none of these previous studies have directly linked the
assessment of distributed rock mass blastability because of the time and outcomes of geophysical tests to the blastability of rock masses.
expense required to obtain and analyse data and the limited exposure of
the subsequent benches in a working mine (Shang et al., 2018). In other 5. Conclusion
words, the above-mentioned approaches could be disruptive for large
scale mining operations and the surface observations are not enough to This study has provided a comprehensive review of the majority of
characterise the blastability of the whole bench volume. the existing blastability assessment techniques. The main geological and
geotechnical parameters considered in each method have been dis­
4.4.3. Geophysical methods cussed and summarised. More than 30 blastability assessment methods
An alternative approach is to fuse the data obtained from the above- were also grouped based on their input parameters.

28
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

The review found over 20 parameters that can be included in blast­
ability. The most common geotechnical parameters contributing to the
mechanisms of fragmentation included laboratory test data such as
Young’s modulus, density, compressional wave velocity, tensile and
compressive strength, as well as the rock mass parameters like the
number, frequency, and mechanical characteristics of the joints or
blocks. It is suggested that it is neither simple nor practical to include all
of the effective intact rock and rock mass parameters in a blastability
model and that many of these are correlated. Values in the laboratory
may not represent field values and must be calibrated or extrapolated to
field conditions.
The outcomes of the study showed that the strength and density of
the rock mass, and a statistical measure of the in-situ block distribution,
are the three factors controlling the behaviour of the rock masses in
blasting. Therefore, a blastability assessment technique should contain a
representation of the highest strength of the intact blocks of rock, the
density of the rock, and the spatial distribution of the potential block
volumes.
Finally, the question arises as to how to use all of this information?
From a research perspective, there is a need to identify the strength and
structural characteristics of a rock mass that are measurable using
simplified geophysics procedures to provide a three-dimensional rock
mass block model. From the blaster’s perspective, an outcomes
approach to design is needed, firstly to identify the desired fragmenta­
tion distribution and the geotechnical parameters that will maximise the
downstream value. The distribution will differ based on the blasting
objective, for example: to maximise the fines in the ‘Mine to Mill’
concept; to minimise the fines for quarry blasting; to increase the lump
to fine ratio in iron ores; to generate a maximum yield of large fragments
for Armour and Riprap production; to remove overburden for strip
mining, and to maximise the difference in fragmentation distributions
between ore and waste in differential blasting. This may not be possible
without significant blast changes and other mining options such as
blending.
The question then becomes to select the latest, and simplest, frag­
mentation prediction models, and these are mentioned though detailed
elsewhere (Ouchterlony and Sanchidrián, 2019). For example,
combining the Swebrec size distribution with Scott’s blastability
assessment approach can provide a simple method for the prediction of
rock fragmentation with only three parameters. Currently, the choice of
the model defines the blastability assessment.
It is strongly suggested that future assessments predict the 3D dis­
tribution of blastability across a mine using geostatistics or geophysics
instead of applying the conventional point estimation approaches. A
summary table on the applicability of different blastability assessment
approaches for the development of three-dimensional blastability as an
input to differential blasting was also completed (see the Appendix).
This ranking assessment showed that combined approaches are the way
forward for the design of differential blasting in heavily heterogeneous
ores. Finally, it is important to identify the design that minimises the
differences between the desired and predicted blast outcomes. Regions
that can be blasted using simple changes to blasting parameters, such as
the burden, spacing, and explosive type, should be addressed first. Then,
by exception, change the blasting processes to more complicated options
available to blasting engineers (blast design details are out of the scope
of this study). The authors have identified the potential for newer ap­
proaches like the energy-fan model and the distribution-free model to be
adapted for the design of selective fragmentation for Grade Engineering.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None
Acknowledgments
The financial support provided by CSIRO, and Mining3 during this
study is highly appreciated. We greatly acknowledge CRCORE for
funding projects where the findings of this study could be applied and
tested. The authors would also like to thank Doctor Andrew Scott,
former Director of JKMRC, Professor Gideon Chitombo, from the Sus­
tainable Minerals Institute of the University of Queensland and Mining3,
and Doctor Andrew Kettle from CSIRO and Mining3 for their kind
technical advice. The invaluable critical comments and suggestions of
the anonymous reviewers and the editor of this paper are also greatly
appreciated.

Appendix A. Ranking of the assessments for Suitability for the development of 3D blastiability distribution

Approach Provides a Criteria Ranking Reference

quantitative
Accounts Considers the Incorporates Can be Easy to Penitential for Sum (No=1,
estimation of
for the effect of the role of used apply and integration Partially=2,
rock
effect of structures on rock density before does not with modern Yes=3)
fragmentation
rock fragmentation in blasting the blast need geophysical
strength (directly/ design special and geological
(directly or indirectly) equipment technologies
indirectly)

Tamrock’s No Partially No No No No No 8 (Tamrock, 1978)

blastability
assessment
The specific Partially Yes No No Yes No No 12 (Michik and
surface energy Dolgov, 1966)
index
The central No No Partially No Yes Yes No 12 (Aleksandrov
research et al., 1963)
institute’s (CRI)
classification
Langefors and Partially Yes No No Yes No No 12 (Langefors and
Kihlstrom’s rock Kihlstrom, 1973)
factor
Rock quality index Partially Partially Partially No Partially Partially No 12 (Little, 1976)
Sukhanov’s Partially Partially No No Yes Yes No 13 (Sukhanov and
classification Kutuzov, 1967)
No Yes Partially Yes Partially No No 13 (Zou, 2017)
(continued on next page)

29
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

(continued )
Approach Provides a Criteria Ranking Reference
quantitative
Accounts Considers the Incorporates Can be Easy to Penitential for Sum (No=1,
estimation of
for the effect of the role of used apply and integration Partially=2,
rock
effect of structures on rock density before does not with modern Yes=3)
fragmentation
rock fragmentation in blasting the blast need geophysical
strength (directly/ design special and geological
(directly or indirectly) equipment technologies
indirectly)

Chinese cratering
model
Chinese three in No Yes Partially No Yes No Partially 13 (Zou, 2017)
one model
Blastability No Partially Partially No Yes Yes No 13 (Christaras and
quality system Chatziangelou,
(BQS) 2014)
Powder factor Partially Yes No No Yes Yes No 14 (Shapiro, 1988)
estimation for
underground
excavation
Protodyakonov’s Partially Yes No No Yes Yes No 14 (Protodyakonov,
strength index 1962a, 1962b)
Cratering test Partially Yes Yes Yes No No No 14 (Globa, 1972)
NTNU’s Partially Yes No Yes Yes No No 14 (Zare, 2007)
blastability
Kuz-Ram model Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No 15 (Cunningham,
1983; Kuznetsov,
1973)
Rock compressive Partially Yes No No Yes Yes Partially 15 (Mohamed et al.,
and tensile 2015)
strength
Rock quality Partially Partially Yes No Yes Yes No 15 (Borquez, 1981)
designation
(RQD)
Combined Lilly’s Partially Yes Yes No Yes Partially No 15 (Page, 1985)
blastability
index and GSI
Acoustic No Yes Partially Yes Yes No Partially 15 (Müller and
impedance Pipping, 2013)
assessment
Lu and Latham’s Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Partially 16 (Latham and Lu,
blastability 1999; Lu, 1997)
Da Gama’s Index Yes Partially Yes No Yes Yes No 16 (Da Gama, 1995)
Critical fracture Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes No Partially 17 (Rakishev, 1981)
velocity index
Qu’s blastability Partially Yes Yes Yes No Partially Yes 17 (Qu et al., 2002)
model
Mosinets’ No Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially Partially 17 (Mosinets et al.,
blastability and 1967)
acoustic
impedance
Ashby’s design Partially No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 18 (Ashby, 1981)
charts
Khanukaev’s Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 18 (Khanukaev,
classification 1962)
Hamdi’s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Partially 18 (Hamdi, 2003;
Classification Hamdi and du
System Mouza, 2005a,
2005b
Rustan’s model Yes Yes Partially Yes Yes No Yes 18 (Rustan et al.,
1983)
Lilly’s blastability Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially 19 (Lilly, 1986)
index
Distribution-free Yes Yes Yes Partially Yes Yes Yes 20 (Sanchidrian and
model Ouchterlony,
2017)
Fragmentation Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially Partially Yes 19 (Ouchterlony
energy-fan et al., 2017)
model
Kutuzov’s model Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially Partially 18 (Kutuzov et al.,
1974)
Scott’s blastability Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 21 (Scott and
approach Onederra, 2015a,
2015b)

A.1. List of parameters and symbols used in the review paper

30
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

Parameter Description Unit

a impact penetrant-specific work J/cm3

A Kuz-Ram rock type factor in the FEF model (–)
Ab Area of the hole m2
Afr Area of fractures m2
AI Anisotropy index (–)
Aj Joints area in 1 m3 of rock m2/m3
AK-R Kuz-Ram rock factor (–)
An& Av Anisotropy parameters in Hamdi’s model (–)
Ap P-dependent rock factor (–)
Ar Face surface of the total blast installation m2
B Burden m
Bc Critical burden m
BBSD Blasted block size distribution (–)
BCL Bottom charge length m
BD Lu and Latham’s blastability designation (–)
BI Lilly’s blastability index (–)
Bi Lu and Latham’s blastability index linked to the E-B-C model (–)
Bm The maximum burden in De Gama’s model m
Bmax Maximum burden m
BQS blastability quality system (–)
C Rock cohesion MPa
Cb Constraint factor (–)
CCL Column charge length m
CDG De Gama’s Fragmentation factor kwh/kg
CF Fraenkel’s rock factor (–)
CIn Connectivity index %
cis Site constants in Qu’s blastability approach (–)
CLK Langefors and Kihlstrom’s rock factor (–)
CLK_m Langefors and Kihlstrom’s modified rock factor (–)
cp P-wave velocity km/Sec or m/Sec
Cp-av Average P-wave speed in anisotropic rocks m/Sec
Cpy P-wave speed parallel to foliation m/sec
Cpz P-wave speed perpendicular to foliation m/sec
CR Crater radius mm
Db Drill bit diameter m
Df The fractal dimension of IBSD (–)
DFN Discrete fracture network (–)
Eb Entire blast energy kg.m/m2
Ec Blast energy absorbed by the calorimeter kg.m/m2
Ed The dynamic Young’s modulus of rocks MPa
Ef Fragmentation energy in Lu and Latham’s model Kwh/tonne
eis Site constants in Qu’s blastability approach (–)
ERQD Equivalent rock quality designation (–)
Es Surface energy of rock fractures kg.m/m2
Es Static Young’s modulus of rocks MPa
F Thrust force N
fa Attenuation factor (–)
fd The density factor is Scott’s blastability model (–)
fe Explosive factor in Qu’s approach (–)
ff Fracture frequency 1/m
FI Fragmentation index’ (–)
fp Protodyakonov’s strength index (–)
FQF Fragmentation quality factor (–)
Fr De Gama’s fragmantability index kWh/tonne
Fr De-Gama’s fragmentability factor (–)
fr Rock factor in Qu’s approach (–)
fst Scott’s structure factor (–)
ft(Π t) Delay time function in the DF model (–)
FV1 The first term of the critical fracture velocity associated with solids m/sec
FV2 The second term of the critical fracture velocity associated with fractures m/sec
g Acceleration due to gravity m/sec2
H $ Hb Bench height m
h, κ, and λ P-dependent factors in the DF model (–)
Hr Hardness parameter in Lilly’s approach (–)
i The roughness of joint surfaces Degree
IBSD In-situ block size distribution m
Ir Acoustic impedance of rocks kg/(Sec.m2)
Is(50)&PLSI Point load strength index MPa
Jo Joint orientation factor in the DF model (–)
JPO Joint plane orientation in Lilly’s model (–)
JPS Joint plane spacing in Lilly’s model (–)
Js Joint spacing factor in the DF model (–)
Jv Volumetric joint count 1/m3
K Chinese fragmentation index (–)
k Fragmentation shape factor (–)
K1 The fraction of fragments larger than 300 mm %
(continued on next page)

31
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

(continued )
Parameter Description Unit

K2 The fraction of fragments smaller than 50 mm %

k50 Mean/average fragment size cm
kd Joint opening and filling empirical coefficient (–)
KIC Fracture toughness MPa m1/2
L & Lc Charge length m
Lb Blasthole length m
LC Characteristic size in the DF model m
M Average of xm and Xm m
MIBS mean in-situ block dimension m
n Uniformity index in the Rosin-Rammler type distributions (–)
N Chinese blastability number (–)
NCIn Non-connectivity index (%)
nf Uniformity factor in Schuhmann distibution (–)
P(x)IBSD The PSD of in-situ blocks %
Pd detonation pressure MPa
PPVc Critical peak particle velocity mm/Sec
PR Penetration rate m/min
q Powder factor kg/m3
Qe Total mass of charge per blasthole Kg
Qeh The heat generated by the firing of a charge (Specific potential energy of charge) MJ/kg
R The characteristic size of a rock mass m
rc Charge radius mm
RDI Rock density index in Lilly’s model (–)
Rf Fragmentation ratio (–)
RG&D Rock geotechnical and design factor (–)
Rj Ratings based on rock engineering system,RES, in Lu and Latham’s model (–)
RMD Rock mass description (–)
RMi Rock mass index (–)
RMR Rock mass rating (–)
RQD Rock quality designation (–)
Rv The ratio of the explosive volume to the borehole volume (–)
RWS Relative weight strength (–)
S Spacing m
SD Specific drilling m/m3
Sd Sub-drilling m
SDE specific drilling energy N/m2
Se Weight strength of the charge (–)
SEs Specific surface energy kg.m/m2
Sg Specific blasting effect Ns/m3
SHRV Schmidt Hammer Rebound Value (–)
Si The spacing of different joint sets m
Sj-av Average joint spacing m
SPR NTNU Rock blastability index (kg/m3)
SS1 The specific surface of pre-existing discontinuities m2
SS2 The specific surface of interconnected discontinuities m2/m3
T Drilling torque N-m
t Drilling time min
tb Delay time Sec
U Strain energy MPa
U* Specific fracture energy MPa
UCS Uniaxial Compressive Strength MPa
V Rock volume to be broken after 480 impacts for drilling cm3
Vc The volume of fragmented rock in blasting crater m3
Vd Detonation velocity m/sec
Vfr The volume of fragmented rock m3
We Work index of rocks in Bond’s theory kWh/tonne
wj The weighting of different parameters in Lu and Latham’s model (–)
Wt Total impact work of 480 freely falling of the drill hammer J
xm mean fragment size cm
Xm Mean block size of IBSD m
xm Mean fragment size of BBSD m
Xmax Top fragment size in the IBSD m
xmax Top fragment size in the BBSD m
xp Percentile or size value for which P percent of material passes m or mm
xr The representative particle size of the muck pile mm
αp The P-dependent exponent of q in the FEF model (–)
β Blasthole inclination degrees
ΔA The transformation area in Lu and Latham’s model (–)
ε Strain m/m
η The efficiency of blast fragmentation (–)
μ Friction coefficient (–)
νd Dynamic Poisson’s ratio (–)
ρce Charging density of explosive tonne/m3
ρe Density of explosives Kg/m3
ρr Rock density tonne/m3
σci& σc & UCS Compressive strength of rock specimens MPa
(continued on next page)

32
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970

(continued )
Parameter Description Unit

σs The limit strength of rocks MPa

σt Rock tensile strength MPa
σtd Dynamic tensile strength MPa
ϕ Friction angle of discontinuities Degree
ϕb Burden angle of breakage Degree
ω Rotation speed in drilling round/min
Г Gumma function (–)

References Budetta, P., De Riso, R., De Luca, C., 2001. Correlations between jointing and seismic
velocities in highly fractured rock masses. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 60, 185–192.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s100640100097.
Afrouz, A., Hassani, F., Ucar, R., 1988. An investigation into blasting design for mining
Busato, L., Boaga, J., Peruzzo, L., Himi, M., Cola, S., Bersan, S., Cassiani, G., 2016.
excavations. Min. Sci. Technol. 7, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9031(88)
Combined geophysical surveys for the characterization of a reconstructed river
90952-8.
embankment. Eng. Geol. 211, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Aldorf, J., Exner, K., 1986. Mine Openings: Stability and Support. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
enggeo.2016.06.023.
Oxford, New York, Tokyo.
Buyer, A., Aichinger, S., Schubert, W., 2020. Applying photogrammetry and semi-
Aleksandrov, N.N., Azarkovich, A.E., Ignatev, N.N., 1963. On blasting of rocks with
automated joint mapping for rock mass characterization. Eng. Geol. 264, 105332.
continuous acting equipment (in Russian). Gorn Zh. 9.
Cai, M., 2010. Practical Estimates of Tensile Strength and Hoek–Brown Strength
Aler, J., Du Mouza, J., 1996. Measuring fragmentation efficiency of mine blasts. In:
Parameter mi of Brittle Rocks. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 43, 167–184. https://doi.org/
Franklin, J.A., Katsabani, P.D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fragblast-5 Workshop on
10.1007/s00603-009-0053-1.
Measurement of Blast Fragmentation Balkema, Rotterdam, Montreal, Quebec,
Carrasco, C., Keeney, L., Walters, S.G., 2016. Development of a novel methodology to
Canada, pp. 257–263.
characterise preferential grade by size deportment and its operational significance.
Aler, J., du Mouza, J., Arnould, M., 1996. Measurement of the fragmentation efficiency
Miner. Eng. 91, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2015.08.013.
of rock mass blasting and its mining applications. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 33,
Chatziangelou, M., Christaras, B., 2015. A geological classification of rock mass quality
125–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(95)00054-2.
and blast ability for intermediate spaced formations. International Journal of
Ashby, J.P., 1981. Production blasting and development of open pit slopes. In: The Third
Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT) 4, 52–61.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Stability in Surface Mining. Ashby
Chatziangelou, M., Christaras, B., 2016. A geological classification of rock mass quality
Consultants Ltd, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 1–23.
and blast ability for widely spaced formations. Journal of Geological Resource and
Ashby, J.P., 2020. Rock Mass Blastability Assessment and the Ashby’s Powder Factor -
Engineering 4, 160–174.
Fracture Frequency Charts (Personal Communication) (Unpublished).
Chatziangelou, M., Christaras, B., 2017. A new development of BQS (Blastability Quality
Azarkovich, A.E., Pokrovskii, G.I., 1991. Prediction of the particle-size distribution in
System) for closely spaced formations. Journal of Geological Resource and
blast-filled dams. Hydrotech. Constr. 25, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Engineering 1, 24–37.
BF01435693.
Chen, G., Zhu, J., Qiang, M., Gong, W., 2018. Three-dimensional site characterization
Azimi, Y., Osanloo, M., Aakbarpour-Shirazi, M., Bazzazi, A.A., 2010. Prediction of the
with borehole data–a case study of Suzhou area. Eng. Geol. 234, 65–82. https://doi.
blastability designation of rock masses using fuzzy sets. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.12.019.
47, 1126–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.016.
Chertkov, V.Y., 1985. Chip development during multiple crack formation in a brittle
Baron, L.I., 1968. The precision and reliability of the volume characteristics of individual
rock. J. Mining Sci. (Soviet Mining) 21, 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/
rock fractures. J. Min. Sci. 4, 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02501347.
BF02499795.
Barton, N., 1988. Rock mass classification and tunnel reinforcement selection using the
Chertkov, V.Y., 1986. Model of fragment formation for short-delay detonation of a series
Q-system. In: Kirkaldie, L. (Ed.), Rock Classification Systems for Engineering
of elongated charges in fissured rock. J. Min. Sci. 22, 447–455. https://doi.org/
Purposes. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 59–88.
10.1007/BF02515655.
Barton, N., 2007. Rock Quality, Seismic Velocity, Attenuation and Anisotropy. Taylor
Chertkov, V.Y., 1987. Influence of natural anisotropy of crack distribution on fragment
and Francis Group, CRC Press, London, Leiden, New York, Philadelphia, Singapore.
formation in blasting of brittle rocks. Soviet Mining 23, 412–419. https://doi.org/
Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the
10.1007/BF02506430.
design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 6, 189–236.
Chertkov, V.Y., Azovtsev, S.N., 1987. Consideration of the effect of the mechanical
Bickers, C.F., Dunbar, C.T., Lejuge, G.E., Walker, P.A., 2002. Wall control blasting
properties of rock, type of explosives, and charge construction on the gradation of
practices at BHP Billiton iron ore Mt Whaleback. Fragblast 6, 359–380. https://doi.
blasted rock. Soviet Mining 23, 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02499780.
org/10.1076/frag.6.3.359.14054.
Christaras, B., Chatziangelou, M., 2014. Blastability quality system (BQS) for using it, in
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1979. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering applications.
bedrock excavation. Struct. Eng. Mech. 51, 823–845. https://doi.org/10.12989/
In: The 4th ISRM Congress. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock
sem.2014.51.5.823.
Engineering, Montreux, Switzerland, pp. 41–48.
Cunningham, C., 1983. The Kuz-Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley.
blasting. In: Holmberg, R., Rustan, A. (Eds.), The First International Symposium on
Bohloli, B., Hovén, E., 2007. A laboratory and full-scale study on the fragmentation
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden,
behavior of rocks. Eng. Geol. 89, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pp. 439–453.
enggeo.2006.05.010.
Cunningham, C., 1987. Fragmentation Estimations and the Kuz-Ram Model-Four Years
Bohloli, B., Gustafson, G., Ronge, B., 2001. A laboratory study on reducing the quantity
on. Proc. 2nd. Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, pp. 475–487.
of rock fines at failure: application to rock blasting and crushing. Bull. Eng. Geol.
Cunningham, C.V.B., 2005. The Kuz-Ram fragmentation model - 20 years on. In: Al, R.H.
Environ. 60, 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100640100102.
E. (Ed.), Brighton Conference Proceedings. European Federation of Explosive
Bolkas, D., Vazaios, I., Peidou, A., Vlachopoulos, N., 2018. Detection of rock
Engineers, pp. 201–210.
discontinuity traces using terrestrial LiDAR data and space-frequency transforms.
Cunningham, C.V.B., Sellers, E.J., Szendrei, T., 2007. Cavity expansion energy applied to
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 36, 1745–1765.
rock blasting. In: Moser, P. (Ed.), 2007 European Federation of Explosives Engineers,
Bond, F.C., 1952. Third theory of comminution. Min. Eng. 4, 484–494.
Vienna, Austria, pp. 27–38.
Bond, F.C., Wang, J.T., 1950. A new theory of comminution. Trans. AIME Mining Eng.
Da Gama, C.D., 1977. Computer model for block size analysis of jointed rock masses. In:
187, 871–878.
The 15th APCOM Symposium, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 305–315.
Bond, F.C., Whitney, B.B., 1959. The work index in blasting. In: The 3rd U.S. Symposium
Da Gama, D., 1983. Use of comminution theory to predict fragmentation of jointed rock
on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association, Golden,
masses subjected to blasting. In: Rustan, A., Holmberg, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Colorado.
First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. Lulea University
Borquez, G.V., 1981. Estimating drilling and blasting costs-An analysis and prediction
of Technology, Lulea, Sweden, pp. 565–579.
model. Eng. Min. J. 182, 83–89.
Da Gama, C.D., 1984. Microcomputer simulation of rock blasting to predict
Brent, G., Smith, G., Lye, G., 2002. Studies on the effect of burden on blast damage and
fragmentation. In: The 25th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American
the implementation of new blasting practices to improve productivity at KCGMs
Rock Mechanics Association, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 1018–1030.
Fimiston Mine. Fragblast 6, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1076/frag.6.2.189.8665.
Da Gama, C.D., 1995. A model for rock mass fragmentation by blasting. In: The 8th ISRM
Brook, N., 1977. The use of irregular specimens for rock strength tests. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Congress. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 73–76.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 14, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(77)
Da Gama, C.D., 1996. The concept of rock mass fragmentability. In: Franklin, J.A.,
90948-2.
Katsabanis, T.P.D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fragblast- The 5 Workshop on
Brook, N., Misra, B., 1970. A critical analysis of the stamp mill method of determining
Measurement of Blast Fragmentation. Balkema, Rotterdam, Montreal, Quebec,
Protodyakonov rock strength and the development of a method of determining a
Canada, pp. 209–214.
Rock Impact Hardness Number. In: The 12th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics
Deere, D.U., Millar, R.P., 1966. Engineering Classification and Index Properties for Intact
(USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association, Rolla, Missouri, US, pp. 151–165.
Rock. Research and Technology Division, Air Force Weapons Laboratory.

33
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
Deere, D.U., Coon, R.F., Merritt, A.H., 1969. Engineering Classification of In-situ Rock.
DTIC Document.
Dey, K., Sen, P., 2003. Concept of blastability - An update. Ind. Mining Eng. J. 42, 24–31.
http://dspace.nitrkl.ac.in/dspace/bitstream/2080/403/1/kdy2.pdf.
Dyno-Nobel, 2010. Blasting and Explosives Quick Reference Guide. Dyno Nobel Group.
Eremenko, A.A., 2017. Blast design for improved performance and reduced surface
vibration—A case study. In: Wesseloo, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics
(ACG), Perth, Western Australia, pp. 961–974.
Faddeenkov, N.N., 1974. Applicability of the Rozin-Rammler law to the analysis of the
grain-size composition of a heap of blasted rock. Soviet Mining 10, 685–688. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF02501037.
Feng, X., 1995. A neural network approach to comprehensive classification of rock
stability, blastability and drillability. Int. J. Surf. Mining Reclam. 9, 57–62. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09208119508964719.
Fraenkel, K., 1952. Factors influencing blasting results. In: Manual on Rock Blasting, 1.
Atlas Diesel SJ Sweden, p. 15.
Fraser, S.J., Wilson, G.A., Cox, L.H., Ĉuma, M., Zhdanov, M.S., Vallée, M.A., 2012. Self-
organizing maps for pseudo-lithological classification of 3D airborne
electromagnetic, gravity gradiometry and magnetic inversions. In: ASEG Extended
Abstracts 2012. Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (ASEG), pp. 1–4.
Gaunt, J., Symonds, D., McNamara, G., Adiyansyah, B., Kennelly, L., Sellers, E.J.,
Kanchibotla, S.S., 2015. Optimisation of drill and blast for mill throughput
improvement at Ben Houayxai mine. In: The 11th International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting - FRAGBLAST, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 307–314.
Gheibie, S., Aghababaei, H., Hoseinie, S., Pourrahimian, Y., 2009. Modified Kuz—Ram
fragmentation model and its use at the Sungun copper mine. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 46, 967–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.003.
Ghosh, A., Daemen, J.J.K., 1993. Fractal characteristics of rock discontinuities. Eng.
Geol. 34, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(93)90039-F.
Globa, V.M., 1972. Explosibility criterion of potash ores. J. Min. Sci. 8, 232–234. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF02497552.
Gokhale, B.V., 2010. Rotary Drilling and Blasting in Large Surface Mines. CRC Press.
Goodman, R.E., 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics, Second edition. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore.
Greenwood, W.W., Zekkos, D., Lynch, J., Clark, M.K., 2017. Data fusion of digital
imagery and seismic surface waves for a rock road cut in Hawaii. In: The 3rd
International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering - PBD-III, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1–7.
Griffith, A.A., 1921. VI. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. In: Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, Containing Papers of a
Mathematical or Physical Character, 221, pp. 163–198.
Griffith, A., 1924. The theory of rupture. In: Biezeno, C.B., Burgers, J.M. (Eds.), The First
International Congress of Applied Mechanics, Delft, pp. 55–63.
Hafsaoui, A., Talhi, K., 2009. Influence of joint direction and position of explosive charge
on fragmentation. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 34, 125–132.
Halander, J.B., Kome, C.L., Nelson, C.L., Bruner, J., 2015. Systems for Delivering
Explosives and Methods Related Thereto. Google Patents.
Hamdi, E., 2003. Contribution to the Study of the Rock Mass-explosive Energy
Interaction to Control Rock Fragmentation by Blasting (in French). PhD. Mines Paris
Tech.
Hamdi, E., 2008. A fractal description of simulated 3D discontinuity networks. Rock
Mech. Rock. Eng. 41, 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-006-0098-3.
Hamdi, E., du Mouza, J., 2000. New parameter for the assessment of blasting efficiency.
FRAGBLAST – Int. J. Blast. Frag. 4, 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1076/
frag.4.3.238.7387.
Hamdi, E., du Mouza, J., 2005a. The in situ rock mass characterization and its
contribution to the blast comminution control. In: Holmberg, R. (Ed.), Brighton
Conference Proceedings 2005. European Federation of Explosives Engineers,
pp. 179–188.
Hamdi, E., du Mouza, J., 2005b. A methodology for rock mass characterisation and
classification to improve blast results. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 42, 177–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.07.005.
Hamdi, E., Du Mouza, J., Fleurisson, J.A., 2001. Evaluation of the part of blasting energy
used for rock mass fragmentation. FRAGBLAST – Int. J. Blast. Frag. 5, 180–193.
https://doi.org/10.1076/frag.5.3.180.7386.
Hamdi, E., Romdhane, N.B., du Mouza, J., Le Cleach, J.M., 2007. Fragmentation energy
in rock blasting. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 26, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-
007-9153-4.
Hardy, A.J., 1993. Fragment Size Distribution of In situ Rock Masses from Drill Core. MSc
Thesis. The University of Arizona.
Hardy, A., Ryan, T., Kemeny, J., 1997. Block size distribution of in situ rock masses using
digital image processing of drill core. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34, 303–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-9062(96)00058-7.
Hoek, E., 2007. Practical Rock Engineering. Rocscience, Toronto, Canada.
Hoek, E., Bray, J.D., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering. CRC Press.
Hoek, E., Diederichs, M., 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 43, 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.06.005.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F., 1995. Support of Underground Excavations in Hard
Rock. CRC Press.
Hohlfeld, T.H., Muller, B., 1999. Modeling of blasts in rock masses with varying goals. In:
The 6th International Symposium for Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Marsgaltown, South Africa, pp. 221–227.
Hudson, J.A., 1992. Rock Engineering Systems. Theory and Practice. Ellis Horwood Ltd.
34
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
Hudson, J.A., Priest, S.D., 1979. Discontinuities and rock mass geometry. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 16, 339–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062
(79)90001-9.
Isaaks, E.H., Srivastava, R.M., 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford
University Press.
Jackson, J., Sellers, E.J., 2017. Blasting related indices as the key to underground
blasting improvements in a challenging rock mass. In: Proceedings of the 13th
AusIMM Underground Operators’ Conference 2017. The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, pp. 23–32.
Jackson, J., Gaunt, J., Astorga, M., 2014. Predicting mill ore feed variability using
integrated geotechnical/geometallurgical models. In: Orebody Modelling and
Strategic Mine Planning Conference. The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy (AusIMM), Perth, WA, Australia, pp. 165–176.
Jimeno, C.L., Jimeno, E.L., Carcedo, F.J.A., 1995. Drilling and Blasting of Rock. A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannessen, O., 1991. Rock Caverns. Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU).
Jose Martin Gonzalez, J.E., 2007. Application of Pattern Recognition Techniques to
Monitoring While-drilling on a Rotary Electric Blast Hole Drill at an Open-pit Coal
Mine. Master of Science (Engineering). Queen’s University.
Just, G.G., 1984. Incremental explosive energy distribution in blasting design. Int. J. Min.
Eng. 2, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00880876.
Kanchibotla, S., Morrell, S., Valery, W., O’Loughlin, P., 1998. Exploring the effect of blast
design on SAG mill throughput at KCGM. In: Mine to Mill Conference. Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 153–158.
Kelessidis, V.C., 2011. Rock drillability prediction from in situ determined unconfined
compressive strength of rock. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 111, 429–436. http
://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2225-62532011
000600010.
Kemeny, J.M., Devgan, A., Hagaman, R.M., Wu, X., 1993. Analysis of rock fragmentation
using digital image processing. J. Geotech. Eng. 119, 1144–1160. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:7(1144).
Khanukaev, A.N., 1962. Stress Wave Energy in Rock Blasting (In Russian).
Gosgortekhizdat, Moscow.
Kilic, A.M., Yasar, E., Erdogan, Y., Gamage, R.P., 2009. Influence of rock mass properties
on blasting efficiency. Sci. Res. Essays 4, 1213–1224.
King, M.S., 1983. Static and dynamic elastic properties of rocks from the Canadian
shield. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 20, 237–241. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0148-9062(83)90004-9.
Kleine, T.H., 1991. A mathematical model of rock breakage by blasting. In: 7th ISRM
Congress. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Aachen,
Germany, pp. 1597–1601.
Kou, S.Q., Rustan, A., 1992. Burden related to blasthole diameter in rock blasting. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 29, 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-
9062(92)91612-9.
Kou, S., Rustan, A., 1993. Computerized design and result prediction of bench blasting.
In: Rossmanith, H.P. (Ed.), International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vienna, Austria, pp. 263–271.
Kutuzov, B.N., 1973. Blasting and Mechanical Fracturing of Rocks (In Russian). Nedra,
Moscow.
Kutuzov, B.N., 1979. Explosives and Mechanical Destruction of Rocks (in Russian).
Nedra, Moscow.
Kutuzov, B.N., Rubtsov, V.K., Noskov, V.F., Tairbekova, A.G., Zaxarov, V.N.,
Kudryavtseva, A.M., 1974. Investigation of the Dependence of the Explodability of
Rocks on their Physical Properties During Crushing Explosions. Foreign Technology
Division Air Force Systems Command, pp. 1–9.
Kuznetsov, V.M., 1973. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock.
Soviet Mining 9, 144–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02506177.
Langefors, U., Kihlstrom, B., 1973. The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto.
Latham, J.P., Lu, P., 1999. Development of an assessment system for the blastability of
rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
9062(98)00175-2.
Latham, J.P., Van Meulen, J., Dupray, S., 2006. Prediction of fragmentation and yield
curves with reference to armourstone production. Eng. Geol. 87, 60–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.05.005.
Le Bel, J.R.G., 1984. An Investigation to Evaluate the Relationship Between Rock Quality
Index (RQI) and Powder Factor For Surface Mining. Master of Applied Science.
University of British Columbia.
Leighton, J.C., 1982. Development of a Correlation Between Rotary Drill Performance
and Controlled Blasting Powder Factors. Master of Applied Science. University of
British Columbia.
Li, X., Chen, Z., Chen, J., Zhu, H., 4 September 2019. Automatic characterization of rock
mass discontinuities using 3D point clouds. Eng. Geol. 259, 1–17, 105131.
Lilly, P.A., 1986. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability. In:
Proceedings of the Large Open Pit Mining Conference. The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 89–92.
Lilly, P.A., 1992. The use of the blastability index in the design of blasts for open pit
mines. In: Szwedzicki, T., Baird, G.R., Little, T.N. (Eds.), Proceedings Western
Australian Conference on Mining Geomechanics. Western Australian School of
Mines, Curtin University of Technolog, Kalgoorlie, pp. 421–426.
Lilly, P.A., 2011. The Future Mine: Trends and Advances in Technology. CSIRO.
Lin, Y.-M., 1996. Rock Classification: Theory and Practice. Metallurgical Industry Press,
Beijing.
Little, T.E., 1976. Evaluation of a Rock Quality Index Based on Rotary Drill Performance.
B.A. Sc. Thesis. University of British Columbia.
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
Lovitt, L., Wicks, B., 2017. A New Era of Blast Initiation Systems Reducing Safety Risks,
Costs and Enabling Automation. EFEE World Conference on Explosives. European
Federation of Explosives Engineers, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lu, P., 1997. The Characterisation and Analysis of In-situ and Blasted Block Size
Distributions and the Blastability of Rock Masses. Doctor of Philosophy. Queen Mary
and Westfield College University of London.
Lu, P., Latham, J.P., 1996. In-situ block size distribution prediction with special reference
to discontinuities with fractal spacing distributions. In: Barla, G. (Ed.), The ISRM
International Symposium - EUROCK 96. International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Turin - Italy.
Lu, P., Latham, J.P., 1998. A model for the transition of block sizes during fragmentation
blasting of rock masses. Fragblast - Int. J. Blast. Frag. 2, 341–368. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13855149809408781.
Lu, P., Latham, J.P., 1999a. Developments in the assessment of in-situ block size
distributions of rock masses. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 32, 29–49. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s006030050042.
Lu, P., Latham, J.P., 1999b. Investigation into the relationship between fractal dimension
and the blastability of rock masses. In: Fragblast. South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy South Africa, pp. 191–198.
Makhin, P.A., Karchevskii, V.K., 1965. New theory of rock fracturing by blasting. Soviet
Mining 1, 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02501958.
Manzoor, S., Liaghat, S., Gustafson, A., Johansson, D., Schunnesson, H., 2019. Rock mass
characterization using MWD data and photogrammetry. In: Mining goes Digital:
Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium’Application of Computers and
Operations Research in the Mineral Industry’(APCOM 2019), June 4-6, 2019. CRC
Press, Wroclaw, Poland, p. 217.
Manzoor, S., Liaghat, S., Gustafson, A., Johansson, D., Schunnesson, H., 2020.
Establishing relationships between structural data from close-range terrestrial digital
photogrammetry and measurement while drilling data. Eng. Geol. 267, 105480.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105480.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2000. GSI: a geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength
estimation. In: International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
- GeoEng 2000 Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1422–1442.
Matorin, A., Vetluzhskikh, V., Vais, A., 1981. Selection of the type of explosive for
specific mining-geological conditions. Soviet Mining 17, 129–132. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF02498407.
McKee, D.J., 2013. Understanding Mine to Mill. The Cooperative Research Centre for
Optimising Resource Extraction (CRC ORE).
McKenzie, C.K., Stacey, G.P., Gladwin, M.T., 1982. Ultrasonic characteristics of a rock
mass. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 19, 25–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0148-9062(82)90707-0.
McKenzie, C., Dawes, J., Hickey, S., Shields, J., 1983. Instrumentation in a program of
blast design optimisation. IFAC Proc. 16, 725–733.
Michik, Y.M., Dolgov, K.A., 1966. Specific surface energy: A new index for rock
crushability and its application to blasting calculations. J. Min. Sci. 186–188.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497286.
Mohamed, F., Hafsaoui, A., Talhi, K., Menacer, K., 2015. Study of the Powder Factor in
Surface Bench Blasting. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 15, 892–899. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.proeps.2015.08.142.
Moser, P., 2005. Less Fines in aggregate and industrial minerals production - Results of
an European research project. In: Holmberg, R. (Ed.), The 3rd EFEE World
Conference of Explosives and Blasting. EFEE, Brighton, United Kingdom,
pp. 567–574.
Moser, P., 2006. Energy controlled blasting. In: Proceedings of the 15 th International
Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES), Torino, Italy,
pp. 1027–1033.
Mosinets, V., Podoinitsyn, E., Soldatov, A., Tangaev, I., Toktosunov, É., 1967. Classifying
rocks according to difficulty of blasting. Soviet Mining 3, 21–26.
Muftuoglu, Y., Amehmetoglu, A., Karpuz, C., 1991. Correlation of powder factor with
physical rock properties and rotary drill performance in Turkish surface coal mines.
In: Wittke, W. (Ed.), The 7th ISRM Congress. International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Aachen, Germany, pp. 1049–1051.
Müller, B., 1997. Adapting blasting technologies to the characteristics of rock masses in
order to improve blasting results and reduce blasting vibrations. In: Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting - Fragblast, 1, pp. 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13855149709408403.
Müller, B., Hohlfeld, T.H., 1997. New possibilities of reducing blasting vibrations with an
improved prognosis. Rock Fragmentation by Blasting - Fragblast 1, 379–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13855149709408404.
Müller, B., Pipping, U., 2013. Presenting a practicable geotechnical classifications of
rocks and in-situ rock masses based on examples from tunnel constructions practice
(Vorstellung von praktikablen geotechnischen Klassifikationen der Festgesteine und
Festgebirge an Beispielen aus der Praxis des Fels-und Tunnelbaues) (In German). In:
19. Tagung für Ingenieurgeologie, Conference of Engineering Geology and the
Forum for Young Engineering Geologists, pp. 67–73.
Müller, B., Hausmann, J., Niedzwiedz, H., 2008. A proposal for uniform geotechnical
classifications of rocks and in-situ rock masses for civinl engineering construction
and mining (Vorschläge für einheitliche, geotechnische Klassifikationen von
Festgesteinen und Festgebirgen für das Bauwesen sowie den Bergbau) (In German).
In: Proc. 2. Fachtagung Geotechnik, HTW Dresden, pp. 91–127.
Müller, B., Hausmann, J., Niedzwiedz, H., 2010a. Prediction and minimization of
vibrations during production blasts. In: Spathis, Noy (Eds.), Vibrations from
Blasting–Spathis & Noy. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 47–55.
Müller, B., Hausmann, J., Niedzwiedz, H., Hamberger, M., 2010b. Stability assessment of
rock slopes and designing possible rock protection measures for unstable areas (In
German). Felsbaumagazin 12–25.
35
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
Navarro Miguel, J., 2018. The Uses of Measurement While Drilling for Rock Mass
Characterisation and Damage Assessment in Blasting. PhD. Polytechnic University of
Madrid.
Navarro, J., Sanchidrián, J., Segarra, P., Castedo, R., Costamagna, E., López, L., 2018.
Detection of potential overbreak zones in tunnel blasting from MWD data. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 82, 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.08.060.
Navarro, J., Schunnesson, H., Ghosh, R., Segarra, P., Johansson, D., Sanchidrián, J.Á.,
2019. Application of drill-monitoring for chargeability assessment in sublevel
caving. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 119, 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2019.03.026.
Nielsen, K., Malvik, T., 1999. Grindability enhancement by blast-induced microcracks.
Powder Technol. 105, 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-5910(99)00117-5.
Olofsson, S.O., 1990. Applied Explosive Techniology for Construction and Mining,
Second edition. Applex, Arla, Sweden.
Olsen, V., 2009. Rock Quarrying: Prediction Models and Blasting Safety. PhD. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
Onederra, I., Chitombo, G., Cundall, P., Furtney, J., 2009. Towards a complete validation
of the lattice scheme in the Hybrid Stress Blasting Model (HSBM). In: Fragblast 9.
Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
pp. 343–351.
Ouchterlony, F., 1982. Review of fracture toughness testing of rock. SM Arch. 7,
131–211.
Ouchterlony, F., 1983. Analysis of cracks related to rock fragmentation. In:
Rossmanith, H.P. (Ed.), Rock Fracture Mechanics. Springer Vienna, Vienna,
pp. 31–67.
Ouchterlony, F., 1997. Prediction of crack lengths in rock after caution blasting with zero
inter-hole delay. Fragblast - Int. J. Blast. Frag. 1, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13855149709408407.
Ouchterlony, F., 2003. Influence of Blasting on the Size Distribution and Properties of
Muckpile Fragments, A State-of-the-art Review.
Ouchterlony, F., 2005. The Swebrec© Function: Linking Fragmentation by Blasting and
crushing. Mining Technology (Transactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy), 114, pp. A29–A44. https://doi.org/10.1179/037178405X44539.
Ouchterlony, F., Sanchidrián, J.A., 2019. A review of development of better prediction
equations for blast fragmentation. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 11, 1094–1109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.03.001.
Ouchterlony, F., Olsson, M., Bergqvist, I., 2002. Towards new Swedish recommendations
for cautious perimeter blasting. Fragblast 6, 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1076/
frag.6.2.235.8666.
Ouchterlony, F., Nyberg, U., Olsson, M., Bergqvist, I., Granlund, L., Grind, H., 2004.
Where does the explosive energy in rock blasting round go? Sci. Technol. Energ.
Mater. 66, 54–63.
Ouchterlony, F., Olsson, M., Nyberg, U., Andersson, P., Gustavsson, L., 2006.
Constructing the fragment size distribution of a bench blasting round, using the new
Swebrec function. The. In: 8th Conference of Rock Fragmentation by Blasting
(Fragblast-8), Santiago, Chile, pp. 332–344.
Ouchterlony, F., Sanchidrián, J.A., Moser, P., 2017. Percentile fragment size predictions
for blasted rock and the fragmentation–energy fan. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 50,
751–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-1094-x.
Page, C.H., 1985. Blasting and comminution - Unpublished Report. Robertson and
Kirsten Ltd, Steffen.
Palmström, A., 1995. RMi – A Rock Mass Characterization System for Rock Engineering
Purposes. PhD. The University of Oslo.
Palmstrom, A., 1996. Engineering geology and rock engineering applied in design of
norwegian tunnels. In: The Conference on Tunnel for the Third Millennium,
Prievidza, Slovakia, pp. 1–16.
Palmström, A., 2000. Block size and block size distribution. In: Reliablity of Classification
Systems - GeoEng2000 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1–12.
Palmstrom, A., 2005. Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock
quality designation (RQD). Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 20, 362–377. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2005.01.005.
Pearse, G.E., 1955. Rock blasting—some aspects on the theory and practice. Mine Quarry
Eng. 21, 29.
Pells, P., Bieniawski, Z., Hencher, S., Pells, S., 2017. Rock quality designation (RQD):
time to rest in peace. Can. Geotech. J. 54, 825–834. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-
2016-0012.
Porter, D.D., Fairhurst, C., 1970. A study of crack propagation produced by the sustained
borehole pressure in blasting. In: The 12th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics
(USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association.
Protodyakonov, M.M., 1962a. Mechanical properties and drillability of rocks. In:
Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Rock Mechanics. University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN, US, pp. 103–118.
Protodyakonov, M.M., 1962b. Methods of studying the strength of rocks, used in the
USSR. In: Mining Research. Elsevier, pp. 649–668.
Protodyakonov, M.M., 1981. Professor M. M. Protodyakonov’s Strength Coefficient of
Rocks. Foreign Technology Division, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, US,
pp. 1–37. FTD-ID(RS)T-1293-81.
Qu, S., Hao, S., Chen, G., Li, B., Bian, G., 2002. The BLAST-CODE model–A computer-
aided bench blast design and simulation system. Fragblast 6, 85–103. https://doi.
org/10.1076/frag.6.1.85.8852.
Raina, A.K., Ramulu, M., Choudhury, P.B., Dudhankar, A., Chakraborty, A.K., 2003.
Fragmentation prediction in different rock masses characterised by drilling index. In:
Wang, X. (Ed.), International Journal on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting - FragBlast.
Met Industry Press, Beijing, China, pp. 117–121.
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
Rakishev, B.R., 1979. Computing the costs of blasting for fragmenting a rock mass and
displacing the broken muckpile (In Russian). Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Gornyi Zh
1.
Rakishev, B.R., 1981. A new characteristic of the blastability of rock in quarries. Soviet
Mining 17, 248–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497198.
Rasmussen, L.L., 2020. UnBlocksgen: A Python library for 3D rock mass generation and
analysis. SoftwareX 12, 100571–100577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
softx.2020.100577.
Reichholf, G., Moser, P., 2000. The influence of rock and rock parameters on the blasting
results in terms of fragmentation. In: Explosives and Blasting Technique Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 171–178.
Riquelme, A.J., Abellán, A., Tomás, R., 2015. Discontinuity spacing analysis in rock
masses using 3D point clouds. Eng. Geol. 195, 185–195.
La Rosa, D., 2017. The development of a new geometrical blast fragmentation model and
its application to Grade Engineering. In: Holmberg (Ed.), The 2017 European
Federation of Explosives Engineers. Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 105–120.
Rosin, P., Rammler, E., 1933. The laws governing the fineness of powdered coal. J. Inst.
Fuel 7, 29–36.
Rustan, R.A., 1992. Burden, spacing and borehole diameter at rock blasting. Int. J. Surf.
Min. Reclam. Environ. 6, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/09208119208944329.
Rustan, A., 2010. A new principal formula for the determination of explosive strength in
combination with the rock mass strength. In: Sanchidrian, J.A. (Ed.), Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Fragblast. CRC Press, Granada Spain, pp. 155–164.
Rustan, A., Kumar, R., 1999. Lab. scale single hole blastability test in blue-grey and steel-
grey hematite from Bailadila Mine, India. In: Rock Fragmentation by Blasting:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting–
FRAGBLAST South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, p. 61.
Rustan, A., Nie, S.L., 1992. New method to test the rock breaking properties of explosives
in full scale. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ. 6, 191–200. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09208119208944336.
Rustan, A., Vutukuri, V.S., Naarttijärvi, T., 1983. The influence from specific charge,
geometric scale and physical properties of homogenous rock on fragmentation. In:
Holmberg, R., Rustan, A. (Eds.), International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting: 23/08/1983-26/08/1983. Luleå University of Technology, pp. 115–142.
Rustan, A., Cunningham, C., Fourney, W., Simha, K.R.Y., Spathis, A.T., 2010. Mining and
Rock Construction Technology Desk Reference - Rock Mechanics, Drilling and
Blasting. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, London, New York, Leiden.
Sanchidrián, J.A., Ouchterlony, F., 2017a. A distribution-free description of
fragmentation by blasting based on dimensional analysis. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 50,
781–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-1131-9.
Sanchidrián, J.A., Ouchterlony, F., 2017b. Xp-frag, a distribution-free model to predict
blast fragmentation. In: The 43rd Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technology International Society of Explosive Engineering (ISEE), pp. 265–280.
Sanchidrián, J., Segarra, P., López, L., 2006. A practical procedure for the measurement
of fragmentation by blasting by image analysis. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 39, 359–382.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-005-0073-4.
Sanchidrian, J.A., Segarra, P., Lopez, L.M., 2007. Energy components in rock blasting.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2006.05.002.
Sanchidrián, J., Segarra, P., Ouchterlony, F., López, L., 2009. On the accuracy of
fragment size measurement by image analysis in combination with some distribution
functions. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 42, 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-007-
0161-8.
Sanchidrián, J.A., Ouchterlony, F., Moser, P., Segarra, P., López, L.M., 2012.
Performance of some distributions to describe rock fragmentation data. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 53, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.04.001.
Sanchidrián, J.A., Ouchterlony, F., Segarra, P., Moser, P., 2014. Size distribution
functions for rock fragments. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 71, 381–394. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.08.007.
Sanchidrián, J.A., Segarra, P., López, L.M., 2018. Energy efficiency in rock blasting. In:
Awuah-Offei, K. (Ed.), Energy Efficiency in the Minerals Industry. Springer,
pp. 87–118.
Sassa, K., 1993. Geophysical Testing for Rock Engineering - Principles, Practice and
Projects. In: Hudson, J.A., Brown, E.T., Fairhurst, C., Hoek, E. (Eds.), Comprehensive
Rock Engineering. Pergamon Press, pp. 635–650.
Schuhmann Jr., R., 1960. Energy input and size distribution in comminution. Trans.
AIME 217, 22–25.
Scott, A., 1996. Blastability and blast design. In: Mohanty, B. (Ed.), Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting. A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
pp. 27–36.
Scott, A., 2017. Personal Communication on the Prediction of Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting.
Scott, A., 2018. Personal Communication on the Effects of Fragmentation on the
Performance of Dump/Heap Leaching of Copper Ores.
Scott, A., Onederra, I., 2015a. Characterising the blasting properties of iron ore. In: Iron
Ore Conference, Perth, WA, Australia, pp. 481–490.
Scott, A., Onederra, I.A., 2015b. Characterising rock mass properties for fragmentation
modelling. In: The 11th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Sydney, NSW, pp. 149–160.
Scott, A., Morrell, S., Clark, D., 2002. Tracking and quantifying value from ‘mine to mill’
improvement. In: Proccedings of the Value Tracking Symposium, Brisbane,
Australia.
Scott, A., Onederra, I.A., Chitombo, G.P., 2006. The suitability of conventional geological
and geotechnical data for blast design. In: The 8th International Symposia on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting – Fragblast 8. Editec SA, Santiago, Chile, pp. 232–238.
36
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
Scott, A., Cocker, A., Djordjevic, N., Higgins, M., La Rosa, D., Sarma, K.S., Wedmaier, R.,
2009. Open Pit Blast Design - Analysis and Optimisation. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre, The University of Queensland.
Segarra, P., Domingo, J., López, L., Sanchidrián, J., Ortega, M., 2010. Prediction of near
field overpressure from quarry blasting. Appl. Acoust. 71, 1169–1176. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.07.008.
Segarra, P., Sanchidrián, J.A., Navarro, J., Castedo, R., 2018. The fragmentation energy-
fan model in quarry blasts. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 51, 2175–2190. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00603-018-1470-9.
Segui, J.B., Higgins, M., 2002. Blast design using measurement while drilling parameters.
Fragblast 6, 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1076/frag.6.3.287.14052.
Sellers, E.J., Salmi, E.F., 2020. Breaking New Ground: Challenges and Opportunities for
Maximising Value from Underground Blasting - Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Underground Mining Technology. Australian Centre for
Geomechanics (ACG), Perth, WA, Australia, pp. 1–30.
Sellers, E., Furtney, J., Onederra, I., Chitombo, G., 2012a. Improved understanding of
explosive-rock interactions using the hybrid stress blasting model. J. South. Afr. Inst.
Min. Metall. 112, 721–728. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext
&pid=S2225-62532012000800009.
Sellers, E., Kotze, M., Valentim, L., Muller, M., 2012b. Improved blast results from the
implementation of a business intelligence system. In: Newsletter of the European
Federation of Explosives Engineers (EFEE), A Selected Paper from the Lisbon
Conference, p. 13.
Sellers, E., Kennelly, L., Withers, B., Monro, K., Reid, D., 2018. Design and
implementation improvements for wall control blasting in an anisotropic rock mass
at the Phu Kham Copper-Gold Operation. In: Schunnesson, H., Johansson, D. (Eds.),
The 12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. Lulea
University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden, pp. 797–809.
Sellers, E.J., Salmi, E.F., Usami, K., Greyvensteyn, I., Mousavi, A., 2019. Detailed rock
mass characterization – A prerequisite for successful differential blast design. In:
Shimizu, N., Yasuhara, H. (Eds.), YSRM2019 - The 5th ISRM Young Scholars’
Symposium on Rock Mechanics and REIF2019 - International Symposium on Rock
Engineering for Innovative Future - An ISRM Specialized Conference. ISRM,
Okinawa, Japan.
Shang, J., West, L., Hencher, S., Zhao, Z., 2018. Geological discontinuity persistence:
implications and quantification. Eng. Geol. 241, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2018.05.010.
Shapiro, V.Y., 1988. Rock classification according to explodability in the advance of
workings. Soviet Mining 24, 250–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497242.
Shim, H.-J., Ryu, D.-W., Chung, S.-K., Synn, J.-H., Song, J.-J., 2009. Optimized blasting
design for large-scale quarrying based on a 3-D spatial distribution of rock factor. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46, 326–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2008.07.006.
Shreiner, L.A., Baydyuk, B.V., Pavlova, N.N., 1967. Deformational properties of rock as
applied to petroleum geology and deep hole drilling. In: The 7th World Petroleum
Congress. World Petroleum Congress, Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 27–39.
Silva, J., Worsey, T., Lusk, B., 2018. Practical assessment of rock damage due to blasting.
Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2018.11.003.
Smith, B., 2002. Improvements in blast fragmentation using measurement while drilling
parameters. Fragblast 6, 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1076/frag.6.3.301.14055.
Singer, J.A., Link, C.A., Iverson, S.R., 2009. High resolution seismic refraction
tomography for determining depth of blast induced damage in a mine wall. Blasting
and Fragmentation Journal 3 (2), 115–140.
Stavropoulou, M., 2014. Discontinuity frequency and block volume distribution in rock
masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 65, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2013.11.003.
Sukhanov, A.F., 1947. On a Unified Classification of Rocks (In Russian).
Sukhanov, A.F., Kutuzov, B.N., 1967. Rock Breaking (In Russian). Nedra, Moscow,
Russia.
Tamrock, 1978. Handbook of Surface Drilling and Blasting. Tamrock Incorporated.
Teale, R., 1965. The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. International. J. Rock
Mech. Mining Sci. Geomech. Abstr. Elsevier 57–73.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., 1990. Applied Geophysics. Cambridge
University Press.
Thum, W., 1970. Determination and Assessment of the Blastability of Rocks Based on the
Specific Blasting Energy Expenditure (in German). PhD. RWTH Aachen University.
Usami, K., Salmi, E.F., Sellers, E.J., 2019. Genetic algorithm to optimise rock
fragmentation in selective blasting for grade engineering. In: The 26th International
Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey. IMCET, Belek, Antalya, Turkey,
pp. 359–372.
Vali, B., Arpa, G., 2013. Finding the relationship between RQD and fracture frequency in
the different Ok tedilithologies. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 6, 403–410.
van Eldert, J., Schunnesson, H., Johansson, D., Saiang, D., 2019. Application of
measurement while drilling technology to predict rock mass quality and rock
support for tunnelling. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00603-019-01979-2.
Vöge, M., Lato, M.J., Diederichs, M.S., 2013. Automated rockmass discontinuity mapping
from 3-dimensional surface data. Eng. Geol. 164, 155–162.
Walters, S., 2017. Driving productivity by increasing feed quality as well as quantity
through application of innovative Grade Engineering® technologies. In: Tenth
International Mining Geology Conference 2017, Hobart, Australia.
Wang, H., Latham, J.P., Poole, A.B., 1991. Predictions of block size distribution for
quarrying. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 24, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.
QJEG.1991.024.01.10.
E.F. Salmi and E.J. Sellers
Wang, H., Latham, J.-P., Matheson, G., 1992. Design of fragmentation blasting in surface
rock excavation. In: Rock Characterization: ISRM Symposium, Eurock’92, Chester,
UK, 14–17 September 1992. Thomas Telford Publishing, pp. 233–238.
Wang, L., Yamashita, S., Sugimoto, F., Pan, C., Tan, G., 2003. A methodology for
predicting the in situ size and shape distribution of rock blocks. Rock Mech. Rock.
Eng. 36, 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-002-0039-8.
White, D.H., 1977. Predicting Fragmentation Characteristics of a Block Caving Orebody.
MSc. The University of Arizona.
Widzyk-Capehart, E., Lilly, P.A., 2002. A review of general considerations for assessing
rock mass blastability and fragmentation. Fragblast 6, 151–168. https://doi.org/
10.1076/frag.6.2.151.8667.
Yildirim, B.G., Bradshaw, D., Powell, M., Evans, C., Clark, A., 2014. Development of an
effective and practical process alteration index, PAI, for predicting metallurgical
responses of Cu porphyries. Miner. Eng. 69, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mineng.2014.07.009.
Young, D.S., 1984. Probabilistic analysis of blasting impact on open pit stability. In: The
25th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics
Association, Evanston, Illinois, US, pp. 1031–1041.
Young, D.S., Hoerger, S.F., 1988. Geostatistics applications to rock mechanics. In: The
29th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics
Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, pp. 271–282.
37
Engineering Geology 281 (2021) 105970
Young, R.P., Coffey, J.R., Hill, J.J., 1979. The application of spectral analysis to rock
quality evaluation for mapping purposes. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 19, 268–274.
Young, R., Hill, J., Bryan, I., Middleton, R., 1985. Seismic spectroscopy in fracture
characterization. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 18, 459–479.
Zairov, S., Ravshanova, M., Karimov, S., 2018. Intensification of technological processes
in drilling and blasting operations during open-cut mining in Kyzylkum region. In:
Mining of Mineral Deposits.
Zare, S., 2007. Prediction Model and Simulation Tool for Time and Cost of Drill and Blast
Tunnelling. Doctoral Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU).
Zhang, L., 2010. Estimating the strength of jointed rock masses. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng.
43, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-009-0065-x.
Zhang, L., 2016. Engineering Properties of Rocks. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Zhang, P., Du, K., Tannant, D.D., Zhu, H., Zheng, W., 2018. Automated method for
extracting and analysing the rock discontinuities from point clouds based on digital
surface model of rock mass. Eng. Geol. 239, 109–118.
Zhang, P., Zhao, Q., Tannant, D.D., Ji, T., Zhu, H., 2019. 3D mapping of discontinuity
traces using fusion of point cloud and image data. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 78,
2789–2801.
Zou, D., 2017. Theory and Technology of Rock Excavation for Civil Engineering.
Springer.