CMPDI - RANCHI

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF BLASTING IN
INDIAN OPEN-PIT COAL MINES
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
BLASTING
• Ground-Transmitted Vibration
• Airblast Overpressure
• Flyrock
• Dust
• Fumes
BLASTING TERMINOLOGY
Basic Blasting Terminology
Mine Blast Cross-Section.
Blasthole Delay Sequence.
Broken Rock after Blast
 CONTROL OF GROUND
TRANSMITED VIBRATION
 Basic ground vibration
Charge Mass vs Distance model
e
 m 1.
V  k  

 D 

Where; V = peak particle velocity (mm/s)

m = charge mass per delay (kg)
D = distance from blast (m)
k = site constant (k factor)
e = site exponent or attenuation rate
 E = -1.6
k = 1400

Ideal Attenuation
Nomogram for estimating ground vibration levels

Eg. What is the maximum

charge mass per hole we can
use if there is a vibration limit
of 5 mm/s on a house 1000
metres from the blast ?

E = -1.6
k = 1400
Ideal Ground Vibration Contours
The charge mass scaling
technique described in the
previous slides, together with
time-window analysis, has been
used in Indian mines for many
years to ensure compliance with
D.G.M.S limits
An Additional Control Technique.

The combined effect of drilling and delay

pattern is not fully evaluated by the use of
charge mass scaling methods and delay
time-window analysis.
An example of this is given in the following
example of a cast blast.
Actual Ground Vibration Contours
 Wave-Front Reinforcement.
The reason for the strong directional
increase is the combined effect drilling and
delay sequence on Shear wave and
Rayleigh wave transmission, which is
illustrated in the following slides.
Wavefront Modelling.
Wavefront Reinforcement From Pre-splitting
Wavefront Reinforcement
Strong Reinforcement - Multiple Rows
Minimal Reinforcement - Multiple Rows
Ground vibration is transmitted as
•Compressive (P) Waves
•Shear (S) Waves
•Rayleigh (R) Waves
each travelling at different velocities.
S Wave Reinforcement
R Wave Reinforcement
Example of Reinforcing Pattern
 Presence of Shear Wave Reinforcement (1200 m/s)

reinforcement

reinforcement
 Presence of Rayleigh Wave Reinforcement (750 m/s)

reinforcement

reinforcement
Resulting
Ground
Vibration
Contours
 Ground Vibration Wavetrace Showing
Effect of Shear and Rayleigh Wave Reinforcement
CONTROL OF AIRBLAST
OVERPRESSURE.
 EFFECT OF AIRBLAST
• Airblast has the potential to affect larger
surrounding area than ground vibration.
• Airblast frequencies are substantially sub-audible,
even for a ‘noisy’ blast.
• The sub-audible frequencies will affect buildings,
and cause adverse reaction from people inside the
building, even though observers outside the
building will consider the blast to be ‘quiet’.
 EFFECT OF AIRBLAST.
• If not properly evaluated and controlled,
airblast can result in complaints from
people in surrounding areas, that can be
avoided if a pro-active airblast management
plan is introduced at an early stage.
• Complaints will result well below the
DGMS limit of 133 dBL.
 Factors Influencing Airblast
Overpressure.
• charge mass and distance from blast.
• geological factors
• face height and orientation
• topographic shielding
• stemming height and type
• blasthole diameter to burden ratio
• burden, spacing and sequential initiation timing
• meteorological conditions.
 Basic Air Vibration
Charge Mass vs Distance Model

a 2.
 D 
P  K 3 
 W

P = pressure (Pascal)
W = explosives charge mass (kg)
D = distance from charge (m)
K = site constant
a = site exponent
Unconfined surface charges, eg; bombing range
ELLIPTICAL AIR VIBRATION (‘EGG’) MODEL

When an explosive charge in a vertical hole is fired towards a

free vertical face, the resulting air vibration levels are greater
in front of the face than behind it due to the shielding effect
of the face.

more energy in this direction

ELLIPTICAL AIR VIBRATION
(‘EGG’) MODEL
Different Face
Orientation Results
in 8dBL Difference at
Houses

HOUSES

120
E XT R A C T IO N

dB
12
AREA

L
0d
BL
Blasts
in this HOUSES
area
must face
away from houses.
Topographic
Shielding
Effect of Stemming Height
1 metre burden reduction = 6 dBL increase
 WAVEFRONT
REINFORCEMENT
MODELLING

The Combined Effect Of Burden,

Spacing And Sequential
Initiation Timing.
Wavefront Reinforcement
Wavefront Reinforcement From Pre-splitting
 Effect of Wavefront Reinforcement

• The combined effect of drilling pattern and

delay sequence on airblast overpressure is
illustrated in the following example.
• This shows the effect of wavefront
reinforcement on a cast blast.
 Benefits of applying these airblast
control techniques in Indian Mines.
• The airblast level resulting in the area
surrounding the blast can be predicted and
controlled to specified levels.
• This permits the mine to be pro-active and
in control of the situation, rather than being
forced to react to complaints without
accurate knowledge.
 Benefits of using these airblast
control techniques in Indian mines.
• The techniques are based on the
identification of significant factors affecting
airblast, and the control of those factors by
methods that may be used by mine
personnel.
• Cost benefits will result from the avoidance
of expenditure on unnecessary
modifications to blasting practice.
 Benefits of using these airblast
control techniques in Indian mines.
• An example of cost savings is given by the use of
the Wavefront Reinforcement model, that may be
used for the control of both airblast and ground
transmitted vibration.
• If excessive blast vibration levels result from the
use of a reinforcing delay pattern, levels may be
reduced at no extra cost by changing the delays
used rather than reducing the scale of blasting
which will increase costs.
PLANNING.
Face Height & Orientation
Different Face
Orientation Results
in 8dBL Difference at
Houses

HOUSES

120
E XT R A C T IO N

dB
12
AREA

L
0d
BL
Blasts
in this HOUSES
area
must face
away from houses.
 FLYROCK CONTROL &
CLEARANCE DISTANCES
 FLYROCK CONTROL
• Investigations into flyrock commonly
conclude that the cause was over-charging
and/or under- confinement.
• Those responsible for blasting must have
the knowledge and experience to ensure
that flyrock does not occur.
 KNOWLEDGE &
EXPERIENCE
• The knowledge to control flyrock has been
traditionally gained by experience with a
substantial number of blasts that are well
designed and implemented.
• In most cases, this experience has been
sufficient to ensure that competent shotfirers
avoid flyrock incidents.
• However, flyrock incidents continue to occur.
 FLYROCK CONTROL
• Significant factors must be identified and
quantified to produce a blast design that is
safe and efficient.
• The blast design must be implemented by an
experienced shotfirer with careful attention to
detail.
• Effective clearance zones must be established
and implemented.
 CLEARANCE ZONES.
• The size of a clearance zone is related to the
blasting specifications, the degree of control
that is provided, and the consequences of
the flyrock causing damage and injury.
• One ‘control’ method is to have a clearance
zone so large that it will contain
uncontrolled flyrock.
• This would be in excess of 1300 metres.
 CLEARANCE DISTANCES
• A 500 metre clearance distance has been commonly
used for well controlled mine blasts.
• For blasts where the stemming column is very
effective, clearance distances may be reduced
behind the face.
• A rational method for the selection of clearance
distances, based on the identification &
quantification of significant factors will permit
optimum clearance zones to be established.
 FLYROCK CONTROL
• An example of a practical flyrock model is the
Terrock model, that simplifies what is a complex
problem in physics.
• The model combines general trajectory theory
with a simple relationship developed by Workman
et al that relates face velocity to charge mass per
metre (i.e. loading density) and either burden or
stemming height.
Model 2 - General Trajectory Theory

Maximum throw is when o = 45

5. 6.
L = horizontal throw (m)
Vo sin 2o
2
Vo 2
Vo = launch velocity (m/s)
L = Lmax = o = launch angle (degrees)
g g g = gravitational constant (9.8 m/s/s)
Model 3 - Workman and Scaled Burden Approach

Throw is a function of face velocity and scaled burden

(burden divided the square root of the explosives charge/m)
which are related as follows:
1.3 7.
 m
Vo  k  

 B 

where B  burden (m)

m  charge mass / m
k  a constant
Vo  face velocity
Model 3 - Workman and Scaled Burden Approach

Equations 6 and 7 can be combined to give

2.6 8.
k 2
 m
Lmax    
9.8  B 

From recent flyrock investigations with accurate burden, stemming

height, loading and throw distances;
k = 27 is a good approximation for many hard rock types, but it
is emphasised that the correct constant must be determined
from actual field measurement.
Stemming height may substituted for burden for cratering and gun-
barrelling situations and the actual charge mass may be substituted
if the charge length is less than 1 metre.
Graph for Determining Maximum
Flyrock Throw
 Testing and Practical Use
• The model has been extensively tested
using case histories such as the one
following.
hg
Clearance Distance Design

Step 1. Determine Lmax

a) In front of face - Face Burst

Burden conditions usually control

flyrock distances in front of the face and
Lmax is determined from.

2.6 8a.
k2
 m
L max    
g  B 
Flyrock from a face is most likely to be projected perpendicular to
the face and least likely to be projected parallel to the face. Flyrock is
most likely to be projected into the quadrant shown.
Clearance Distance Design

Step 1. Determine Lmax

a) Behind Face - CRATERING

If the stemming height to hole diameter

ratio is too small, flyrock can be
projected in any direction from a crater
at the hole collar a distance determined
from;
2.6 8b.
k 2
 m
Lmax    
g  SH 
Clearance Distance Design

Step 1. Determine Lmax

a) Behind Face - GUN BARRELLING

If the stemming length is adequate to

prevent cratering, flyrock can result
from gunbarrelling - the ejection of
stemming material and loose rocks in
the collar require a distance determined
from;
θ  drill hole angle
2.6 8c.
2
 m L  maximum throw m 
k
Lmax     Sin o m  charge mass per metre kg/m m 
g  SH  B  burden m 
SH  stemming height m 
g  gravitational constant
If the stemming height is sufficient to prevent cratering (ie. Greater than about 20
hole diameters), the clearance distance behind the face is based on the gun-
barrelling distance.
If cratering is a possibility, the other formulae must be used.
A simple construction gives the following shape
 Determination of Clearance
Distances and Danger Zones.
• Clearance distances are determined using
flyock distances calculated from the
Terrock model, and appropriate factors of
safety for equipment and personnel.
• For equipment we commonly multiply the
flyrock distance a factor of 2, and for
personnel a factor of 4.
An example of the clearance distance design.
 Benefits of using the flyrock model
in Indian Open-Pit Coal Mines
• The above example shows that it as safe to
remain 220 metres behind the face as it is to
remain 800 metres in front of the face.
• This shows that the specification of a 500
metre Danger Zone may be insufficient in
front of the face, and more than necessary
behind the face.
 Benefits of using the flyrock model
in Indian Open-Pit Coal Mines
• The Terrock flyrock model greatly simplifies a
complex problem in physics, but works because it
provides a conservative assessment of flyock
distances
• The model evaluates the effect on Danger Zones
of three significant factors that can be readily
measured in the field (loading density, and either
burden or stemming height.)
 Evaluation of the Effects of
Meteorology on Airblast Levels
• Requires that temperature and wind speed, and
wind direction be known at levels above the
ground.
• Experience to date has shown at distances up to 20
km (12.4 miles) from mine sites, it is desirable to
know details of temperature and wind velocity at
levels up to 900 metres (3000 feet), although data
up to lesser levels are often sufficient.
 Meteorological data above the
ground can be obtained from:
• Measurement equipment attached to:
-Free flights balloons
-Tethered balloons
Surface mounted equipment such as:
-SODAR (to measure wind velocity)
-RASS (to measure temperature)
 Meteorological data can also be
obtained from the use of a suitable
meteorological prediction model.
• A model for use by the Australian coal
mining industry has resulted from an
ACARP (Australian Coal Association
Research Program) project.
 The Current Situation
• Sounding Equipment (SODAR and RASS) have
been installed in the Hunter Valley coalfield.
• A finer-resolution assessment and predictive
model to assess meteorological conditions has
been developed by Holmes Air Sciences as the
outcome of ACARP Project C.12036
• A effect atmospheric refraction model has been
developed by Terrock (based on a U.S. Ballistics
Research Laboratory) model to determine the
effects of the meteorological conditions on airblast
levels.
 The Terrock Atmospheric
Refraction Model
Uses meteorological data from the ACARP
model, and blast data, to determine the airblast
overpressure levels that will result in the area
surrounding the blast.
Outputs include:
• Increases in airblast levels
• The combined effect of blast emission and
meteorological conditions.
Real-time Assessment
and Prediction
 Practical use of the Atmospheric
Refraction Model by Hunter Valley
Coal Mines
 Dust and Fumes.
• The meteorological data that is required for
the EnvMet atmospheric model may also be
used for models that evaluate the effect of
meteorology on dust and blasting fumes.
 Concluding Comments
• Advanced technology and models are
available that make the evaluation of blast
effects such as ground vibration, airblast
and flyrock a practical reality.
• Real-time systems for the prediction and
assessment of the effects of meteorology on
airblast levels permit improved control in
the area surrounding a mine.
 Concluding Comments
• The real-time systems described provide
more accurate meteorological data that may
be used for the prediction and assessment of
environmental effects such as noise, dust,
and gaseous emissions, as well as airblast
overpressure.
Actual Attenuation with variable ground conditions
and wavefront reinforcement