Z.-X. Zhang et al.

International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 143 (2021) 104797

Fig. 4. Photographs from high-speed camera. Detonation started at time 0 μs.

5
Z.-X. Zhang et al.
Fig. 4. (continued).
the time 684 μs (12 × 57 μs) after detonation began. Plainly, at the time
342 μs, from the specimens S2–S4 with partial steel stemming, certain
gases were ejected from the collars of the boreholes. At the same
moment, however, from the specimen S6 with full sand stemming, only
little (small area) gases were ejected, and from the specimens S7 and S8
with full sand stemming, almost no gases were ejected from the collars.
At the time 684 μs after detonation, from the specimens S2–S4 with
partial steel stemming, much gases were ejected from the collars and
even some gases escaped from some extending cracks in the lateral
surfaces. At the same time, however, from the specimen S6 with full sand
stemming, much less gases than those from S2–S4 were ejected from the
collar, and from the specimens S7 and S8 with sand stemming, very little
gases were ejected from the collars. In brief, gas ejection from the collars
of the specimens S2–S4 with partial steel stemming is much earlier than
that from the specimens S6–S8 with full sand stemming. To compare the
gas ejection between partial steel stemming and full sand stemming at
same specific charge or same amount of explosive charge in more detail,
we include specimens S2, S3, S4, S6 and S8 in the following analysis, but
exclude specimen S7 since it has a different amount of explosive from
other specimens. According to the above description and Fig. 4, it can be
concluded that: (1) gas ejection occurred from the collars of specimens
at the earliest time (after the initiation of detonation) from S2–S4 with
partial steel stemming, at the latest time from S8 with full sand
6
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 143 (2021) 104797
stemming, and at the time between the ejection times of S2–S4 and S8
from S6 with full sand stemming. (2) In Fig. 4 the area of the ejected
gases is the largest from the collar of each of S2–S4 with partial stem­
ming, the smallest from the collar of S8 with full sand stemming, and the
between of the area of each of S2–S4 and that of S8. These two con­
clusions are well consistent with the fragmentation results in Fig. 3,
showing that S8 yields the best fragmentation, S2–S4 does the worst
fragmentation, and S6 does a fragmentation result in the between.
4. Discussion
(1) Stemming condition
Shock wave propagation in a blasting hole was analyzed by Zhang.4
By means of that analysis, we briefly describe the shock wave propa­
gation in the blasthole of each specimen in this study, as follows. Fig. 5a
shows the diagram of shock propagation in S7, S8 and S9. As the shock
wave pI propagates to the stemming, it is partly reflected back to the
borehole as pR and partly transmitted to the stemming as pst . Assume
that the characteristic impedance of the detonation product is approxi­
mately equal to Zexp = 930 × 5300 mkg2 s and the characteristic impedance
of the sand is approximately equal to4
Zsand = 1500 × 100 mkg2 s we can find the impedance of the detonation
Z.-X. Zhang et al.
Fig. 5. Diagram of shock wave propagation in the blasting hole of each specimen (not in scale).
product is much greater than that of the sand. As a result, the reflected
wave is a rarefaction or unloading wave, resulting in that the pure
pressure in the blasting hole decreases. At the same time, the transmitted
wave, a compressive wave, propagates toward the collar. As soon as the
transmitted wave reaches the top, a free surface, of the stemming, the
transmitted wave is reflected back to the stemming and the sand will be
ejected through the collar until all of sand is thrown out.
Fig. 5b indicates the case of S6 in which an air deck was used. As the
shock wave pI travels to the air deck, its amplitude will reduce to pI− a
when it arrives at the stemming. Similar to the case in Fig. 5a, wave
reflection and transmission occur at the lower boundary of stemming.
The transmitted wave pst propagates toward the top surface of the
stemming and sand ejection begins as soon as the transmitted wave
reaches the top surface. Note that the length of stemming in S6 is shorter
than that in S7, S8 and S9. Accordingly, gas ejection from the collar
happened earlier in S6 than in S7, S8 and S9. This can be confirmed by
the photographs of S6–S8 in Fig. 4.
Fig. 5c demonstrates the case of S1 and S2. As the shock wave pI
propagates to the position where the lower end of the steel rod is
located, the shock is separated into two portions. (1) One portion travels
to the steel rod. This portion is partly reflected back to the borehole as pR
and partly transmitted to the stemming as pst . (2) The second portion
goes into the gap between the steel rod and the borehole wall. Because
the plastic tape was partly filled the gap, the tape could not fully seal the
hole and not prevent the gases from escaping out of the hole. As a result,
gas ejection from the gap must occur very early when detonation starts.
As a simplest estimation, about one third of the detonation gases might
escape from the gap since the gap area is about one third of the cross-
section area of the borehole, if the tape is neglected. On the other
hand, because the characteristic impedance of the detonation product is
smaller than that of the steel, the reflected wave from the steel has the
same sign as the initial shock wave, i.e. the shock wave pressure is
increased in the borehole. Unfortunately, this increase in the shock wave
might be smaller than the decrease in the wave due to the gas escape
from the gap. This case is very complicated, and a further study is
needed.
Fig. 5d shows the case of S3, S4 and S5. It can be inferred that the air
deck does not play any significant role in rock fragmentation in this case
since the difference in fragmentation is nearly nothing between S1 and
S2 without air deck and S3, S4 and S5 with air deck. That is to say, air
deck does not play any role in rock fragmentation in these small-scale
model blasts. A possible reason is that the sizes of the boreholes, air
decks and explosive charges are very small in this study. Accordingly,
7
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 143 (2021) 104797
the role of the air deck could not be realized. Therefore, it is better to use
larger rock specimens than those in this study or full scale blasts to study
air deck technique.
Due to the limited conditions in this study, a full steel stemming was
not realized. Accordingly, any conclusion regarding the effect of stem­
ming materials on rock fragmentation cannot be drawn from this study.
(2) Full stemming
The experimental results in Fig. 3 show that all specimens with full
stemming yield better (finer) fragmentation than all specimens with
partial stemming. The main reason is that full stemming can seal the
blasthole and postpone gas ejection from the collar, making more gases
kept in the blasthole for fragmentation, compared with partial stem­
ming. For example, as shown in Fig. 4, at the time 342 μs after the
initiation of detonation, gas ejection from the collars either did not start
yet or just began in the specimens with full stemming. However, at the
same time, 342 μs, much gas was already ejected from the collars of the
specimens with partial stemming. Therefore, full stemming is necessary
to achieve desirable fragmentation.
In model blasting, however, it is not easy to realize a full stemming
using a solid material since detonator wires must go out of the blasthole
and a gap (or a smaller hole) must be left for the wires. To solve the
problem, a wireless detonator is needed. If so, accurately drilled blast­
hole and accurate manufacture to the solid stem are necessary. Alter­
natively, full-scale blasting are to be used to study the effect of stemming
material and stemming condition on rock fragmentation.
(3) Material loss
Previous studies have demonstrated that fine particles are extremely
important for evaluating fragmentation results since they consume
much energy.13,26,42,52 To reduce material loss in model blasting, each
specimen was enclosed in one square meter of area by a wooden box
during blasting.13,42 In this study, a steel box with the same size as the
wood box was used to enclose each specimen during blasting in the
explosion chamber. Because the front side of the box was partially open
for high-speed photographing during blasting, some particles including
visible fragments and invisible dust flew out. Even though the floor of
the chamber was covered by plastic papers and cleaned after each blast
test, material loss still existed and even was high for some specimens. In
order to reduce such material loss in model blasting, a large and
tightly-sealed protection bag should completely enclose the steel or
Z.-X. Zhang et al.
wood box over the floor of the explosion chamber, and the front side
toward the camera should be covered by a bullet-proof glass if possible.
In addition, more careful measures should be taken as the blast particles
are collected to reduce the losses of dust-form particles.
(4) Sizes of blastholes
Table 1 indicates that there are small errors in the lengths and di­
ameters of the blastholes caused by the drilling operation. The diameters
of the blastholes vary from 16.5 mm to 17.1 mm, while the lengths do
from 205 mm to 213 mm. Take all specimens with partial stemming into
consideration, first we exclude specimens S3, S4 and S5 that have nearly
equal diameter and length of blasthole, then we compare S1 with S2. We
note that S1 has a borehole with a diameter of 17.0 mm and a length of
205 mm, while S2 does a borehole with a diameter of 16.5 mm and a
length of 210 mm. In addition, we notice that the fragmentation results
from both specimens are close to each other, as shown in Fig. 3. Since
several parameters such as borehole diameter, borehole length, and
stemming length are involved in the two specimens, it is not possible to
draw a conclusion whether or not the errors in the diameters and lengths
of the blastholes have a marked impact on rock fragmentation in the
model blasting. To answer this question, more experiments are neces­
sary. Of course, it is better to drill the blasthole in a model with as high
accuracy as possible.
(5) Applications
In practical blasts, steel stemming is not allowed or not recom­
mended due to safety consideration. In laboratory experiments, the
advantage of steel (or another metal or similar strong solid) stemming is
that the steel can be easily recovered and fragment sieving result is not
affected by the steel stemming. The disadvantage of steel stemming is
that it is difficult to realize a full steel stemming, as discussed previously.
As shown in Fig. 4, gas ejection from the collar is much earlier in
specimens S2, S3 and S4 with partial steel stemming than in specimens
S6, S7 and S8 with full sand stemming, resulting in the worse frag­
mentation in S2, S3 and S4 than in S6, S7 and S8. This result indicates
that in practical blasts, any type of partial stemming using various
plastic plugs, waste cloth or textile, paper and wood should be replaced
by full stemming, since the partial stemming cannot seal the collars of
blastholes tightly. If the collars can be tightly sealed by stemming, the
length of the stemming should be long enough to assure that gases
cannot escape out of the collars before the burden rock is destroyed.4
The last issue to mention is the possible collision between the rock
fragments and the steel box during blasting in this study. This collision
might exist in each blast but the effect of this collision on fragmentation
result of each blast could be almost same due to equal specific charge
(except for S7) and same boundary conditions.
5. Conclusions
Based on the laboratory model blasts in this study, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
Blasts with full sand stemming yields better (finer) fragmentation
than the blasts with partial steel stemming at a constant specific charge.
Gas ejection from a blasting hole occurs much earlier in the blasts
with partial steel stemming than in the blasts with full sand stemming.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by K. H. Renlund Foundation in Finland.
The second author is grateful to China Scholarship Council (CSC) for its
8
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 143 (2021) 104797
support to his study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2021.104797.
References
1 Langefors U, Kihlström B. The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting. third ed. Stockholm:
AWE/GEBERS; 1978.
2 Ouchterlony F, Nyberg U, Olsson M, Bergqvist I, Granlund L, Grind H. Where does
the explosive energy in rock blasting rounds go? Sci Technol Energetic Mater. 2004;65
(2):54–63.
3 Sanchidrián JA, Pablo S, López LM. Energy components in rock blasting. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 2007;44:130–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.05.002.
4 Zhang ZX. Rock Fracture and Blasting: Theory and Applications. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann/Elsevier; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-01408-6.
5 Dally JW, Fourney WL, Holloway DC. Influence of containment of the borehole
pressures on explosive induced fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1975;12:5–12.
https://doi.org/10.21236/ad0770545.
6 Fourney WL, Barker DB, Holloway DC. Model studies of explosive well stimulation
techniques. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1981;18(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0148-9062(81)90737-3.
7 Hagan TN. The influence of controllable blast parameters on fragmentation and
mining costs. In: Proc. 1st Symp. On Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå, Sweden.
1983:31–51.
8 Brinkmann JR. An experimental study of the effects of shock and gas penetration in
blasting. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. On Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. Australia. 1990:
55–66.
9 Schmidt MFC, Worsey PN. Use of hydraulic coupling for powder factor reduction in
secondary blasting. In: Holmberg R, ed. Proc. 1st World Conf. On Explosives & Blasting
Technique. Rotterdam: Balkema; 2000.
10 Lownds CM. Measured shock pressures in the splitting of dimension stone. In:
Holmberg R, ed. Proc. 1st World Conf on Explosives & Blasting Technique. Rotterdam:
Balkema; 2000:241–246.
11 Mencacci S, Farnfield R. The measurement and analysis of near-field pressure
transients in production blasting. In: Holmberg R, ed. Explosives and Blasting
Technique. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger; 2003:467–473.
12 Kojovic T. Influences of aggregate stemming in blasting on the SAG mill
performance. Miner Eng. 2005;18:1398–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mineng.2005.02.012.
13 Zhang ZX, Hou DF, Guo Z, He Z. Laboratory experiment of stemming impact on rock
fragmentation by a high explosive. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2020;97:103257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103257.
14 Zhang ZX. Increasing ore extraction by changing detonator positions in LKAB
Malmberget mine. Int J Blast Fragm. 2005;9(1):29–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13855140500082600.
15 Zhang ZX. Effect of double-primer placement on rock fracture and ore recovery. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci. 2014;71:208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2014.03.020.
16 Zhang ZX. Impact of blasting on resource recovery, mining profit, safety, and the
environment. Blasting and Fragmentation. 2014;8:101–112.
17 Brunton ID, Fraser SJ, Hodgkinson JH, Stewart PC. Parameters influencing full scale
sublevel caving material recovery at the Ridgeway gold mine. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci. 2010;47:647–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.12.011.
18 Zhang ZX, Wimmer M. A case study of dividing a single blast into two parts in
sublevel caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2018;104:84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijrmms.2018.02.002.
19 Field JE, Ladegaard-Pedersen A. The importance of the reflected stress wave in rock
blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1971;8:213–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-
9062(71)90020-9.
20 Bergman OR, Riggle JW, Wu FC. Model rock blasting-effect of explosives properties
and other variables on blasting results. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1973;10:585–612.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(73)90007-7.
21 Fourney WL, Dally JW, Holloway DC. Stress wave propagation from inclined line
charges near a bench face. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1974;11:393–401. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0148-9062(74)91110-3.
22 Fourney WL, Dick RD, Wang XJ, Wei Y. Fragmentation mechanism in crater blasting.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1993;30(4):413–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062
(93)91723-v.
23 Rustan A. Controlled Fragmentation and Contours in Rock Blasting-Ttheoretical and
Technical Approaches. 170D. Luleå University of Technology; 1995. Doctoral Thesis.
24 Nie S, Deng J, Ouchterlony F. Expansion work of an emulsion explosive in blast hole–
measurement and simulation. SveBeFo Report. 2000;48 (in Swedish).
25 Nie S, Olsson M. Study of Fracture Mechanism by Measuring Pressure History in Blast
Holes and Crack Lengths in Rock. Stockholm: Bergsprängningskommitten; 2001:
240–248.
26 Moser P, Grasedieck A. Rock specific breakage energy functions derived from lab
scale blast experiments. International Society of Explosives Engineers. 2004;2.
27 Fourney WL, Bihr S, Leiste U. Borehole pressures in an air decked situation. Int J Rock
Blast Fragm. 2006;10(1):47–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13855140600858198.
Z.-X. Zhang et al.
28 Katsabanis P, Tawadrous A, Braun C, Kennedy C. Timing effects on the fragmentation
of small scale blocks of granodiorite. Int J Rock Blast Fragm. 2006;10(1):83–93.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13855140600858339.
29 Tilert D, Svedbjörk G, Ouchterlony F, Nilsson B, Temun A, Mattsson L. Measurement
of explosively induced movement and spalling of granite model blocks. Int J Impact
Eng. 2007;34:1936–1952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.11.006.
30 Johansson D, Ouchterlony F. Shock wave interactions in rock blasting—the use of
short delays to improve fragmentation in model-scale. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2013;46:
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-012-0249-7.
31 Onederra IA, Furtney JK, Sellers E, Iverson S. Modelling blast induced damage from a
fully coupled explosive charge. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2013;58:73–84. https://doi.
org/10.1201/b13759-35.
32 Sun C. Damage Zone Prediction for Rock Blasting. PhD Thesis. Department of Mining
Engineering, The University of Utah; 2013.
33 Katsabanis P, Omidi O, Rielo O, Ross P. Examination of timing requirements for
optimization of fragmentation using small scale grout specimens. Blasting and
Fragmentation. 2014;8(1):35–53.
34 Fourney WL. The role of stress waves and fracture mechanics in fragmentation.
Blasting and Fragmentation. 2015;9(2):83–106.
35 Liu F, Guo Z, Lv H, Cheng Z. Test and analysis of blast wave in mortar test block. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci. 2018;108:80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.06.003.
36 Chi LY, Zhang ZX, Aalberg A, Yang J, Li CC. Fracture processes in granite blocks
under blast loading. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2019;52:853–868. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00603-018-1620-0.
37 Chi LY, Zhang ZX, Yang J, Li CC, Aalberg A. Measurement of shock pressure and
shock-wave attenuation near a blast hole in rock. Int J Impact Eng. 2019;125:27–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.11.002.
38 Chi LY, Zhang ZX, Aalberg A, Li CC. Experimental investigation of blast-induced
fractures in rock cylinders. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2019;52(8):2569–2584. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00603-019-01749-0.
39 He C, Yang J, Yu Q. Laboratory study on the dynamic response of rock under blast
loading with active confining pressure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2018;102:101–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.01.011.
40 Yang R, Ding C, Yang L, Lei Z, Zheng C. Study of decoupled charge blasting based on
high-speed digital image correlation method. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2019;83:
51–59.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 143 (2021) 104797
41 Mao X, Ma Y, Liu X. Deformation characteristics and electrical resistivity response of
soft coal under blast loading. Geotech Geol Eng. 2020;38:1205–1216. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10706-019-01082-x.
42 Zhang ZX, Hou DF, Guo Z, He Z, Zhang Q. Experimental study of surface constraint
effect on rock fragmentation by blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2020;128:104278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104278.
43 Song J, Kim K. Micromechanical modelling of the dynamic fracture process during
rock blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 1996;33:387–394. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0148-9062(95)00072-0.
44 Yang R, Bawden WF, Katsabanis PD. A new constitutive model for blast damage. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 1996;33:245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-
9062(95)00064-x.
45 Donzé FV, Bouchez J, Magnier SA. Modeling fractures in rock blasting. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 1997;34:1153–1163. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1365-1609(97)80068-
8.
46 Ma GW, An XM. Numerical simulation of blasting-induced rock fractures. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 2008;45:966–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.12.002.
47 Cho SH, Nakamura Y, Mohanty B, Yang HS, Kaneko K. Numerical study of fracture
plane control in laboratory-scale blasting. Eng Fract Mech. 2008;75(13):3966–3984.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.02.007.
48 Yi C, Sjöberg J, Johansson D. Numerical modelling for blast-induced fragmentation
in sublevel caving mines. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2017;68:167–173. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.05.030.
49 Drover C, Villaescusa E, Onederra I. Face destressing blast design for hard rock
tunnelling at great depth. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2018;80:257–268. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.021.
50 Hu XD, Zhao GF, Deng XF, et al. Application of the four-dimensional lattice spring
model for blasting wave propagation around the underground rock cavern. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol. 2018;82:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2018.08.006.
51 Kubota N. Propellants and Explosives. second ed. Veinhein: Wiley-VCH; 2007.
52 Sadrai S, Meech JA, Ghomshei M, Sassani F, Tromans D. Influence of impact velocity
on fragmentation and the energy efficiency of comminution. Int J Impact Eng. 2006;
33:723–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.09.063.