1

A new principal formula for the determination of explosive strength in

combination with the rock mass strength
P.A. Rustan

CENTEK, Lule

SWEDEN
1

INTRODUCTION

In the 1940s Langefors developed an empirical

formula for the determination of explosive weight

2.1 Langefors weight strength formula

The old formula for the determination of the
strength of nitroglycerin explosives was given the

ABSTRACT: The goal has been to develop a simple international acceptable technical formula that can be
standardized by explosive manufacturers and consumers and to be used for the determination of explosive
strength regarding its fragmentation capability. A literature review showed that the first well accepted
technical formula used to determine the strength of an explosive was developed by the Swede Ulf Langefors
in the 1940s and that this formula could be regarded as a paradigm shift at the time when it was developed.
The formula includes two explosive properties; heat of explosion and the gas volume produced per kg of
explosive. The formula was mainly developed for dynamite explosives. The formula can, however, not be
used for ANFO and emulsion explosives. Therefore, in this paper it is proposed a new formula for
international standardization including, besides the two mentioned parameters, also the detonation velocity,
density of explosive, density of rock and P-wave velocity in rock. Also rock structure, confinement and
initiation pattern and delay times affects the fragmentation considerably. Consumers of explosives and
manufacturers will benefit from this kind of development. An analysis of the variation range of the individual
parameters in the new developed formula are shown in the paper. For the validation of the developed formula
the SHB-method (SHB= single hole blasting method) is recommended to be used, because laboratory - or half
scale fragmentation test cannot give the full answer of explosive strength.
strength based on the energy (heat of explosion) name weight strength formula and the symbol s
developed upon detonation of the explosive and the was used. The formula was derived by Ulf Langefors
gas volume produced measured at standard in the 1940s, however, the result was never
temperature and pressure (STP). The formula will be published by Langefors, but the formula was later on
shown further on in the paper. In the Swedish published by Persson et al 1994. The formula reads
Technical Journal submitted by Dyno Nobel as follows
5 Qe
1 Ve
s

Sprngnytt April 2006 in which Granlund 2006

6 Qref 6 Vref
showed by an example from the Boliden Aitik mine,
comparing a slurry explosive Reolit with an
(1)
emulsion explosive Titan. Inspite Titan has a lower
weight strength and about 50 % lower heat of
explosion but about 50 % higher gas volume per kg where s is the relative weight strength of the
of explosive the same drilling and blasting plan explosive in comparison with a reference explosive,
could be used. The amount of explosive could also at that time often LFB dynamite was used in
be reduced because Titan had a lower density. Sweden. Qe is heat of explosion for the explosive in
Granlund also stated that laboratory tests is not MJ/kg, Qref is the heat of explosion for the reference
enough to determine the strength of an explosive. explosive. Ve is the produced gas volume at STP
This paper will explain why this is not possible and (standard temperature and pressure) in m3/kg for the
suggest more parameters that have to be introduced explosive and Vref is the produced gas volume at STP
for the calculation of explosive strength to make a for the reference explosive. Very interesting would
better estimation of its real strength regarding the be to know how the weighting factors 5/6 and 1/6
fragmentation ability when blasting in rock types were derived. The heat of explosion was given much
with different acoustic impedances.
more weight than the gas volume. May be that a
change of the weighting factors could improve the
accuracy of the formula. My intuitive guess, after
2 LITERATURE STUDY
Granlund have given the examples with Reolit and
Titan in Aitik, is that that the weighting factors

2
should be changed to for each. For the calculation
of the strength of explosives this empirical formula
was of large importance when it was developed.
Several researchers, inclusive Granlund, have
verified that this formula can not be used for slurry,
ANFO and emulsion explosives because the
fragmentation capacity for these explosives is much
higher than what can be calculated by the weight
strength formula.
The energy of the explosive delivered into the
rock mass is also affected by other parameters like
blasthole diameter, confinement of the blasthole,
water content in surrounding rock mass, density of
explosive after packing into the blasthole etc.
Blasthole diameters in the 1940s in Sweden were
normally less than 52 mm compared with todays
international blasthole diameters up to 500 mm.
Granlund is discussing in his paper three
interesting parameters; heat of explosion, gas
volume and detonation velocity.

The most common used parameter is the specific

charge, defined as the mass of explosive per cubic
meter of rock or ton of rock. The use of different
strengths of explosives is normally not included at all
in the calculations. We are therefore normally
working on a very rough level in the calculation of
fragmentation.
The conclusion is that the weight strength has not
been used on an international level for calculation of
fragmentation. It is only the detonation velocity that
we can find being used in a fragmentation formula
developed from half scale fragmentation tests in
different rock types by Bergman et al 1974.
Important parameters lacking, not mentioned in
the Granlunds paper, are the density of the explosive
e, the density of the rock mass r and the sound
wave velocity in the rock mass cp. These parameters
are needed to calculate the energy transformation
from explosive to the rock mass according to the
acoustic impedance ratio Z R of two adjacent
contacting
c materials. For the contact acoustic
Z R e d of rock and explosive one obtains;
impedance
r cP

2.2 Empirical formulas for calculation of

fragmentation

(2)

Traversing a large number of literature references

and formulas used for fragmentation calculations I
found the following parameters being used in these
formulas with the most common mentioned first.

Specific charge q (powder factor) (kg/m3 or

kg/t).
Weight of equivalent amount of TNT
corresponding to the amount of explosive
being used in the blasthole, e. g. KuzRamformula. Cunningham 1983.
Weight strength is mainly used in Langefors
equation for determination of burden and
spacing. Later on SveDeFo developed a
formula for calculation of fragmentation
where weight strength was included. It was
an expansion of the Langefors formula for
calculation of burden.
Heat of explosion Q, e. g. Bergman 1974.
Detonation velocity of the explosive, e.g.
Bergman 1974.
P-wave velocity in the rock mass, e. g.
Bergman 1974 and Rustan et al 1983. Many
more references to P-wave velocity are given
in the book Rock Blasting Terms and
Symbols, edited by Rustan 1998, under the
entry acoustic impedance.
Decoupling ratio, e.g. Bergman 1974.

where Z R is the acoustic impedance ratio

(dimensionless), e is the density of the explosive in
(kg/m3), cd is the detonation velocity of the
explosive in (m/s), r is the density of the rock mass
in (kg/m3), and finally c P is the longitudinal wave
velocity in the rock mass in (m/s). Z R should be
equal to 1 for maximum energy transformation from
explosive to the rock mass according to classical
wave transmission theory. Atchison 1964 at USBM
(United States Bureau of Mines) has shown that the
theory is applicable also for energy transmission
from the reacted explosive to the surrounding rock
mass. Some smaller deviation from this rule was
later on shown by Leinz and Thum 1970. This will
be shown further on in this paper.
From this we can learn that to quantify explosive
strength regarding fragmentation, it is needed at least
four explosive properties (heat of explosion, gas
volume per kg, density of explosive and detonation
velocity) and two rock mass properties (rock density
and P-wave velocity in the rock mass).
2.3 Heat of explosion in the Langefors weight
strength formula.
The heat of explosion used in the Langefors formula
(1) must be followed by information on how fast the
energy is released, because if the energy is released
extremely slow no fragmentation will occur at all.
An important parameter lacking in the old Langefors
formula (1) is therefore energy released per time unit
or indirectly detonation velocity. The detonation
velocity (m/s) is a unit for energy release per time

3
because 1 m of explosive detonated corresponds to a
defined quantity of explosive but because the
detonation velocity depends on the blasthole
diameter it is not easy to calculate the explosive
strength if the diameter of the blasthole is not known.
Also the confinement of the blasthole, the water
content in the rock mass will affect the detonation
velocity. From full-scale field studies we know that
the detonation velocity normally varies from one
blasthole to another in spite that the blastholes are
located in the same surrounding environment.
The conclusion from this is that the detonation
velocity is of outmost importance for the strength of
an explosive and can therefore not be neglected in an
explosive strength formula. An important task for the
explosive manufacturers has been, since 1950s, to
be able to calculate the detonation velocity
unconfined and confined (metal tubes) at different
blasthole diameters with the help of computer codes.
Let us now look on how the detonation velocity
influences the detonation- and borehole pressure
because this determines the dynamic and quasi-static
pressure on the rock mass and thereby the
fragmentation degree.
2.4 Detonation pressure
According to Atchison 1964, at USBM, the
detonation pressure is the most important factor for
the calculation of the maximum amplitude of the
vibrations in the vicinity of the explosive in the
surrounding rock mass. This zone is also called the
shock zone. The amplitude of the ground vibrations
at larger distances from the blasthole are mainly
determined by the total amount of charge in the
blasthole. When several holes are used with delays
between the blastholes, that hole that have the largest
amount of explosive will determine the maximum
amplitude of the ground vibrations. The detonation
pressure pd (MPa) is the pressure that acts in the
reaction zone of the explosive and this zone is called
the Chapman-Jouget plane. The detonation
pressure in this zone can approximately be
determined by the following formula,
1
p d e c d2 10 6
2
(3)
where e is the density of the explosive in kg/m 3 and
cd is the detonation velocity of the explosive in m/s.
The knowledge of the explosive density and
detonation velocity is therefore necessary in a
strength formula for explosives. Both these
parameters are lacking in the Langefors weight
strength formula (1).
If an explosive is packed to a too high density or
is initiated wrongly the explosive can be dead
pressed (too high density is achieved) and detonation
will not occur or the energy for initiation is not

enough. It is therefore the environmental conditions

in the field that determines how much of the energy
content of the explosive can be used for
fragmentation.
2.5 Borehole pressure
The borehole pressure pb (MPa) is about 4 times
smaller than the detonation pressure and is calculated
according to a similar formula as detonation
pressure.
1
(4)
pb ecd2106
8
where e is the explosive density in kg/m3 and cd is
the detonation velocity of the explosive in m/s. The
borehole pressure is defined as the pressure in the
blasthole at maximum expansion of the diameter of
the blasthole.
In formulas (3) and (4) it is possible to rewrite
them to the product of acoustic impedance of the
explosive (e cd ) multiplied by the detonation
velocity of the explosive cd. Therefore the explosive
density and detonation velocity is of large
importance for the blasting result and fragmentation
and therefore both these parameters must be included
in a weight strength formula.
The borehole pressure increases from zero up to
maximum pressure and thereafter the pressure
decays and is believed to be useful for fragmentation
until the blast gases have expanded about 10-20
times. After that it is believed that the influence from
blast gases on fragmentation is neglible. This is also
mentioned in the paper by Granlund and has also
been noticed by other researchers. If the surface
under the pressure versus time curve is calculated,
the maximum useful energy for fragmentation can be
calculated. The borehole pressure versus time is also
dependent on the properties of the surrounding rock
mass.
It would be very interesting if borehole pressure
and its change with time could be measured in the
field to a low cost. However, cheap measurement
devices does not exist on the market today.
If we know the pressure-time curve for a specific
blasthole, we would also know the influence of the
explosive on the rock mass or we could also say that
we have a fingerprint on how the explosive acts on
the rock mass. The shape of such a pressure-time
curve is dependent on blasthole diameter, stemming
material and length, joint frequency in the rock mass,
burden, the crushing ability of the rock in the vicinity
of the blasthole. Therefore the conclusion is that
measurements have to be undertaken for the actual
used blasthole diameter, burden and stemming that is
used in the fragmentation process. Based on this
knowledge the single hole blasting in full scale was
developed and tested in a limestone quarry on
Gotland Sweden in 1986, see Rustan and Nie 1987.

4
Explosives can therefore first be classified after
being tested in single hole blasts in full scale at that
blasthole diameter and burden that actually is going
to be used in the field.
2.6 Gas volume in Langefors weight strength
formula (1)
The gas volume produced by the explosive must
be very interesting as a strength parameter because
the larger the gas volume produced, the larger is the
pressure that will act on the blasthole wall and the
larger the fragmentation effect will be on the
surrounding rock mass. The gas volume produced is
normally calculated theoretically at standard pressure
and temperature and this volume is different from the
actual produced volume in the blasthole at higher
temperature and pressure.
The gas volume produced by an explosive in full
scale can therefore not be determined by a small
scale lab tests. It is important for the blast gases how
fast they are developed and how long the gas
pressure will stand in the blasthole. If the blast gases
are produced very slowly the gases would leak out
through joints into the atmosphere and less pressure
will be left for fragmentation.
The real produced gas volume could be
determined a little more accurate in a pond tests,
under water, because here the actual diameter of the
explosive can be used. The volume of the produced
gas under water can here be determined. The volume
of the gas bubble produced in the pond test can be
measured and the volume is representative of the
volume of blast gas produced. The confinement of
the explosive detonated under water is, however,
different to that in rock blasting and therefore these
results are not fully representative for blasting in
rock.
If the strength of Dynamex A and an ANFOexplosive are compared we will find that the strength
is about the same in spite the heat of explosion is 32
% larger for Dynamex A. The gas volume produced
at STP is 49 % larger for ANFO compared to
Dynamex A according to Brnnfors 1973, see Table
1.
Table 1. Comparison of properties between Dynamex A and
ANFO. Brnnfors 1973.

Explosive

Dynamex
ANFO

Heat of
explosion
(kJ/kg)
5125
3895

Gas volume at
STP
(l/kg)
655
975

STP = standard temperature and pressure.

The only explanation why ANFO is so strong is

that the gas volume is 49 % higher than for
Dymamex A. Therefore heat of explosion and gas
volume are both important properties regarding
explosive strength. According to my opinion
Langefors weighting factor for heat of explosion
seams to be too large and should be reduced to 2/3
for heat of explosion and 1/3 for gas volume.
Granlund 2004 makes a parallel comparison
between two explosives used in the Boliden Aitik
mine 20 years ago, Reolit, an aluminized water gel
explosive made sensitive by trotyl, and the emulsion
explosive used today Titan. If the traditional
calculations are done according to Langefors formula
for weight strength the following values are reached,
se Table 2.
Table 2. Comparison of the strength of Reolit A6, trotyl
slurry, used in the Boliden open pit Aitik mine 20 years
ago with the Titan emulsion explosive used today.
Granlund 2004.
Explo
sive

Heat
explosion
(MJ/kg)

Reolit
A6 slurry
Titan
emulsion

of

Gas
volume
(l/kg) at
STP

4,520

638

3,20

908

Den
sity
(kg/
m3)
145
0
125
0

The blasthole diameter, used at that time, was 250

mm and the blast plan was 7,5 m burden and 9,5 m
spacing. If the bulk strength of Reolit A6 is set to
1,00 the calculated strength of Titan would only be
0,89. If the explosives were going to be used in the
same blast plan this would not be possible. More
holes would be needed if Titan was going to be used
and the cost for drilling and blasting would increase.
Field tests showed however that Titan could be used
in the ordinary blast plan, and also, due to different
explosive densities lower specific charge was
achieved with Titan. The specific charge for Titan
was only 86 % of Reolit A6 slurry. The conclusion is
that Langefors formula (1) is not applicable for
explosives developed after the formula was
developed.
Besides heat of explosion and gas volume in the
Langefors weight strength formula (1) also
detonation velocity and explosive density must be
included. There are therefore four explosive
parameters we must include in the new proposed
formula. There is however no simple interrelation
between these four parameters. If that would be the
case, it would be possible to exclude some
parameters. General we could, however, say that an
increase of any of this parameters will increase the
weight strength but there are upper limits as shown
earlier for the density (dead pressing of explosive).

2.7 Conclusion
The relation between heat of explosion, gas volume,
detonation velocity and explosive density and the
blast result in the form of fragmentation has to be
examined in different rock types with different
acoustic impedances. Single hole blasting in full
scale (SHB-FS) is recommended for that purpose,
see section 3.2 in this paper. A final weight strength
formula must therefore include all the four
mentioned parameters.
3. THE BASIC MECHANISM OF ROCK
BLASTING
At rock blasting we have three important parts
regarding the ability to fragment rock.
I)

II)

III)

The properties of the explosive and how

these properties influence the detonation
pressure. This determines the amplitude
of the shock wave in the crushing zone
close to the explosive and the borehole
pressure
that
determines
the
fragmentation process and throw of the
detached material.
The effectiveness of the energy
transformation from the explosive to the
rock mass is important for ground
vibrations and fragmentation.
The rock mass reaction on the shock
wave in the near field zone and the
outgoing pressure wave in the
surrounding rock massive.

3.1 Definition of the result parameters of interest in

rock blasting
According to my opinion it is not possible to
classify explosives after a simple numerical scale.
One reason is that there are several different result
parameters when blasting in rock.
Here some are mentioned;
1)
2)
3)
4)

5)

Fragmentation and its dependency on

burden.
Ground vibrations and its dependency
on burden.
Air pressure waves and its dependency
on burden.
Throw. Maximum throw and the
movement of the gravity point for the
round and how this depends on the
burden.
Composition of blast gases and its
dependency on blasthole diameter,

6)
7)
8)
9)

stemming, water content in the rock

mass and confinement etc.
Backbreak and its dependency on
burden.
Angle of breakage and its dependency
on burden.
Breakage at the bottom of the bench
and its dependency on burden.
Critical burden.

For a certain blast, it is important to determine

which of the parameters are the most important. A
property of an explosive good for some result
parameter could be bad for other result parameters.
To believe that small scale tests could give us the full
answer are in many cases not possible and the earlier
mentioned single hole blasting method in lab scale,
SHB-LS, was therefore used to compare with the
results from single hole blasting in full scale SHBFS, see Rustan and Vutukuri 1983 and Rustan and
Nie 1987. The latter method is described more in
detail in the following. Many result parameters were
found similar in model and full scale.
3.2 Single hole blasting in full scale, SHB-FS
In full scale blasting tests with multiple blastholes is
complicated because many parameters can be varied
like burden, spacing, delay times etc and this will
affect the fragmentation. It is therefore necessary to
have a simple standardized test method and therefore
single hole blasting with only a variation of burden
was selected as the test method. Normally the tests
should be made in a vertical bench face and blasted
to a smooth surface. These kinds of tests were first
performed at the Storugns limestone quarry in 1986
on Gotland. The quarry belonged to Nordkalk AB.
The earlier mentioned result parameters 1 to 9, but
not blast gas volume were measured at blasting with
ANFO-explosive in 95 mm diameter holes.
The result was very useful for understanding the
working ability of an explosive in rock and to
explain for the blaster in the field the blasting
process and how it is affected by the size of the
burden. The idea was that the explosive
manufacturers in collaboration with the customers
should test the explosives with this method and use it
as a routine test method. The logical consequences of
such a change in test method implies that personal
working in the lab should go out in the field and do
more tests there instead of working in the lab. This
would have vitalized the whole civil explosive
manufacturing industry. Known single hole blasting
tests in full scale were so far undertaken by Nitro
Nobel in Sweden, by Mohanty 1998 in Canada and
by Bilgin 1994 in Turkey.
The start to use SHB-FS test could be regarded as
a paradigm shift in the history of development of
explosives, because this test method would be the

6
only possible way to classify explosives in its used
blasthole diameter, confinement, saturation of rock
mass and geometry used at blasting. The cost for
testing of explosives would increase but in the long
run the method would give the best answers to what
we are seeking for.
The explosive manufacturers should therefore, in
collaboration with blasting research institutes, take
part in SHB-FS tests. The explosive data gained in
testing of explosive properties in the lab can only be
used for a rough relative indication of the strength of
explosives and cannot be used in sail against
customers regarding the result parameters 1 to 9.
3.3 Single hole blasting test in lab, SHB-LS
At Lule University of technology single hole
blasting tests were undertaken already in 1983 in
diamond cut blocks with the size 100x 300x300 mm,
see Rustan and Vutukuri 1983. The blastholes were
drilled perpendicular to the blocks (blasthole length
100 mm) so the geometry was more like slab
blasting than bench blasting where we have a
confined bottom. Detonating cord was used as an
explosive and the burden was varied up to and over
the critical burden. Tests were originally made in six
different rock and rock like materials and the result
from blasting in Storugns limestone was very similar
to that later on found in SHB-FS tests in Storugns
limestone quarry on Gotland in Sweden. The
following
parameters of the blocks were
determined: compressive strength, tensile strength,
fracture toughness, shear strength, P-wave velocity,
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. The tested
materials were four Swedish rock types Kallax
gabbro, jeby granite, Storugns limestone, Henry
quartzite and two artificial materials Siporex (a light
concrete similar in structure to a volcanic tuff) and
magnetite concrete. The fragmentation was best be
correlated to the acoustic impedance of the rock
mass where the acoustic impedance is the product of
sound velocity (P-wave velocity) in the rock mass cp
(m/s) multiplied by the rock density r (kg/m3). The
sound velocity
in
material can be

E
1 a specific
c

determined
p
by the following derived formula,
r (1 )(1 2 )
(5)
where E is the Youngs modulus of the rock in (Pa)
and is Poissons ratio dimensionless, and r is the
density of the rock mass in kg/m3. Therefore all the
three parameters given in formula (5) are important
parameters at rock blasting.
The P-wave velocity cp is roughly a measure of
the strength of the rock mass, because the velocity is
affected not only by the intact rock properties but
also the joint frequency and their conditions in the
rock mass. The fact that the density of rock is
important in rock blasting is very natural because it

is needed more energy to move something with high

density than a lower density.
At rock blasting in Swedish bed rock, the rock
density is normally not varying much and therefore
mainly the variation in P-wave velocity is
determining the blastability of the rock. It is relative
simple to determine the sound velocity in the field.
Rock with joints has a lower P-wave velocity than a
rock mass with few joints.
The model tests have also given a base data to
develop unique empirical formulas, e.g. of how the
critical burden Be (mm) depends on the acoustic
impedance of the rock I (kg/m2s) and how the
tangent of the angle of the size distribution curve n
for the rock material in a double logarithmic sieve
analysis diagram (Accumulated material passing
versus square mesh size) depends on the rock mass
acoustic impedance I (kg/m2s) etc.
Bc 68,5 1,69 10 6 I

n 0,54e 3310

(6)
(7)

5,18 10 3 I 0,588
k50
q 2,14

(8)

131 6,98 103 c p (0,580 3 104 c p ) B

(9)
B c is the critical burden in (mm) and I is
The acoustic impedance in (kg/m2s), n is the
fragmentation gradient (dimensionless), k50 is the
mean fragment size in (mm), is the angle of
breakage in degrees, cp is the P-wave velocity in
(m/s) and B is the burden in (mm).
The importance of the acoustic impedance ratio
explosive/rock has also been shown in model tests by
Leinz and Thum 1970, see Figure 1.
As explosive, a mixture of PETN and wax was
used in the lab tests. The properties of the rock
material were varied according to Figure 1, from a
low strength rock like marl to a high strength rock
like basalt. A small deviation from the acoustic
impedance theory could here be observed because
the energy transfer increased even if the impedance
ratio explosive/rock is less than 1, see left diagram in
Figure 1.

Rock types tested: 1) Basalt, 2) Limestone, 3 Grauwecke,

4) Granite 1, 5) Granite 2, 6) Sandstone, 7) Tuff
and 8) Marl.
Figure 1. Left diagram: The amount of energy in % (range
20-70 %) transferred from the explosive to rock
versus the acoustic impedance ratio for
explosive/rock (range 0-6). Right diagram: The
amount of energy in % (range 20-70 %)
transferred from the explosive to rock versus the
dynamic E-modulus (range 0-1200x103
kp/cm2) . The two diagrams are based on
cylindrical test samples and with a linear charge
placed in the centre of the cylinder. Leinz and
Thum 1970.

4.

IMPORTANT PARAMETERS FOR EXPLOSIVE STRENGTH

In the following the parameters important for the

explosive strength regarding its fragmentation ability
in rock will be analysed. The weathering of the rock
type and joint conditions is very important for the
real outcome of fragmentation in the field. We might
introduce a new term for the combined effect of
explosive strength and rock strength, and to
distinguish it from weight strength, I suggest it is
called the effective weight strength of the explosive.
The parameters needed in such formula are analysed
regarding its possible variation as follows.
4.1 Analysis of explosives parameter variation
1. Velocity of detonation, may vary from about
1000 8000 m/s a variation of 800%.
Wetterholm 1959.
2. Gas volume, may vary from about 420 to 975
l/kg a variation of 232%.
3. Heat of explosion, or energy may vary from
about 2650 to 5125 kJ/kg a variation of
193%.
4. Density of explosive, may vary from about
900 1500 kg/m3 a variation of 167%.
There is a tendency that when the heat of
explosion decreases for an explosive, the gas volume
will increase. If there is a good correlation between
these two parameters it should be possible to
eliminate one of the parameters. When studying 12
different explosives given by Persson (Table 4:12)
1993 and a variation of the relative heat of explosion
ratio from 0,8 to 1,35 or 169 % and a variation of gas
volume ratio was found from 0,7 to 1,05 or 150 %
the correlation between the two parameters was not
enough for an elimination of one of the parameters.

Normally there is also a tendency that a higher

explosive density is associated with a higher heat of
explosion or influence of rock mass measured as a
strain energy factor see Persson (Table 4:11) 1993. A
correlation was found, based on 21 values, but the
scatter was too large to eliminate one of the two
parameters.
Another hypothesis was that the detonation
velocity can be correlated with heat of explosion. By
using the 21 explosives data given by Persson et al
(Table 4.14) 1993 we can conclude that this is not
possible because of too large scatter.
A good relation was however found between heat
of explosion and the density of explosive for 13
explosives according to Persson (Table 4:14) 1993
and if this is valid for most used explosives it would
be possible to eliminate one of the six parameters in
formula 10 shown on next page.
4.2 Rock parameter variation
1. Low acoustic impedance range is defined
from 0 to 5 x106 kg/m2s. The lowest value
found so far is 1,12 x106 kg/m2s and this
value was measured in light weight concrete
which in its structure is like a soft volcanic
lava. Most rock types in Sweden will be in
the medium acoustic range or 10 x106 kg/m2s
to 15 x106 kg/m2s and this makes a variation
of 50 %. The highest value found so far is
21,6x106 kg/m2s for Divrigi hematite in
Turkey. This makes a total variation range of
1929 %. See Rustan 1998.
2. Rock mass density in situ could vary from
800 to 4900 kg/m3 or 613 %.
3. P-wave velocity (sound wave velocity) could
vary in rock from 1000 - 5000 m/s, a
variation of 500 %.
With these enormous variations in parameter
values it is fully clear that a weight strength
definition of explosive strength by Langefors is not
enough to make a prognosis of fragmentation. It
must be combined with the rock properties given
above.
I would therefore suggest the following principal
formula for calculation of the resulting effect of
explosive in the rock mass. Let us call this the
effective weight strength.
The following principal
seff

formula
.
Qis
Vgsuggested
e cd
seff
r cp
(10)
V
Where Q is explosive heat in (MJ/kg), g is the gas
3
volume produced (m /kg) at STP, e is the density
of the explosive in (kg/m3), cd is the detonation
velocity of the explosive in (m/s), r is the density of

8
the rock mass in (kg/m3), and finally cP is the
longitudinal wave velocity in the rock mass in (m/s).
The exponents must be determined from field tests
by multiple regression analysis. The effective weight
strength is the combined effect of explosive and rock
properties under the high stress interaction by
blasting. The numerical value should e.g. be used in
formulas for the calculation of mean fragment size
k50 and the fragmentation gradient n (the slope of the
fragmentation curve in a double logarithmic sieve
analysis diagram. (Amount of material passing
versus the square mesh size of the sieve).
Totally there are therefore needed 6 parameters to
describe the effective weight strength in rock
fragmentation, instead of the two parameters defined
by Langefors given in formula (1), namely heat of
explosion and gas volume,
Rock blasting is not a precise science because in
the field, it is difficult to make tests where the
parameters are kept constant. The most difficult
parameter to control is the detonation velocity, and
especially when water sensitive explosives are used.
For comparison of the fragmentation effect of
different explosives, a common used water resistant
explosive must be used as a reference explosive and
I would therefore suggest ANFO as a reference
explosive. It can be found all over the world, but it
has to be charged carefully into watertight plastic
sleeve to avoid damage of the explosive by water.
A test procedure for single hole blasting is
suggested in Appendix 1.
5. THE USE OF COMPUTER CODES TO
DETERMINE EXPLOSIVE STRENGTH
The derivation of computer codes for calculation
of explosive strength is based on chemical and
physical laws. Normally the models are, however,
not tested if they are correct for a large number of
explosives and rock masses and in a large amount of
different blasthole diameters. The codes are normally
used to calculate the detonation velocity and how it
varies with the blasthole diameter and different
confinement for a certain explosive. The work with
computer codes, is according to my opinion, lacking
a clear research strategy. For example the blasting
process needs to be described by different sub
models and each sub model has to be tested
according its accuracy. First after this have been
done, the sub models can be combined to model the
the explosive action.
In the formulas used today, the rock mass is
regarded as a compressible media but close to the
blasthole wall it is a plastic crushing zone of the
rock. This zone will act as a damping zone on the
shock waves and this has to be modelled if the final
result should be correct. Such work is now

performed by ITASCA, Ouchterlony pers. com.

2006.
At the Fragblast 8 Symposium in Santiago in
Chile, the last news regarding the development of
computer codes for explosive calculations Vixen
Detonation Code was presented. The code was
developed by Dyno Nobel in cooperation with
African Explosive Limited, see Cunningham 2006.
The model is calculating the detonation velocity and
its dependency of blasthole diameter and
confinement and the borehole pressure variation with
time and these parameters are used to calculate
fragmentation of the rock mass by a PFC3D material
model of the rock mass (A three dimensional particle
flow model of the rock mass).
Cunningham is of the opinion that the code can
characterize a large group of explosives and that it is
today a powerful and practical working tool.
Numerical modelling will be the future but for the
sake of understanding rock blasting in a pedagogic
way we must include the relevant parameters as
shown in formula (10).
6. CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to classify the strength of an

explosive in lab- or half scale because the
strength is dependent of many other factors at
the use of the explosive like blasthole
diameter, confinement of blasthole, packing
degree of explosive, density of rock, P-wave
velocity of rock and water content in the rock
mass.
It is also not possible to rank explosives after
some scale regarding the explosive influence
in rock because there are so many different
result parameters at blasting that might be of
interest. You have to know what result
parameter is the most important.
A new principal formula has been suggested
in the paper for the calculation of the
effective weight strength which here is
defined as the combined effect of explosive
and rock mass strength. The formula needs 6
parameters and to the already suggested and
used parameters by Langefors explosion heat
and gas volume
the following four
parameters has to be added; detonation
velocity, explosive density, rock density and
P-wave velocity. It would be fine if the
detonation velocity and its dependency of the
blasthole diameter could be included in the
formula.
It exists a relation between heat of explosion
and explosive density and it might be perhaps

possible in the future to eliminate one of

these two parameters.
P-wave velocity can be calculated if Young`s
modulus Poinsson`s ratio and the rock
density are known.
Resources should be focused on finding
accurate and simple methods to measure
borehole pressure during long time in full
scale.
The
knowledge
gained
by
measurement of borehole pressure should be
used to develop more accurate models to
calculate borehole pressure and its
dependency on time.
More SHB-FS (single hole blasting tests in
full scale) must be done under controlled
conditions and with those hole diameters
which are interesting in full scale blasts.
These tests have to be undertaken with
different explosives and extreme variations of
heat of explosion and explosive gas volume,
detonation velocity, explosive density, rock
density, and P-wave velocity in different rock
types and with extreme variation of rock
acoustic impedance. Thereby a data bank is
achieved over different explosives and its
influence on surrounding rock mass. The
result from these test blasts can later on be
used for development of a new effective
weight strength formula and more precise
computer codes.
The new effective weight strength formula
will be a powerful and pedagogic tool to
learn students which are the most important
parameters for calculating the effective
weight strength in full scale blasting.

Appendix 1
SUGGESTED METHOD FOR TESTING NEW
EXPLOSIVES BY SINGLE HOLE BLASTING IN
FULL SCALE (SHB-FS)
Goal: The purpose of single hole explosive
strength blasting is to find primarily the rock mass
fragmentation properties and how it depends on the
combination of explosive and rock properties.
For the sake of comparison between different
explosives and rock types it is necessary to do the
test in a manner that is standardized. New explosives
should at least be tested in the typical rock types
where they are going to be used but testing in rock
masses with a large variation of acoustic impedances
is preferred because of the full understanding of how
the rock mass acoustic impedance influences the

fragmentation of the rock mass. The term rock mass

is used here instead of rock type because the
weathering of a certain rock type may change the
fragmentation properties completely. Sometimes
suitable rock masses for a wide acoustic impedance
range may not be found in the own country and
therefore international cooperation may be necessary
for testing in wished rock masses.
Performance:
1) The actual hole diameter that is needed in the
open pit or quarry should be used. The single
blasthole must be vertical and if necessary sub
drilling should be used and the length noted.
(In some quarries sub drilling is not needed
because a weakness plane may be at the
bottom of the bench). The actual blasthole
diameter must be measured, because nominal
diameters could be changed by the wear of the
bit. Total amount of explosive and primer
charged must be measured and noted.
2) The blasthole must be charged by only one
kind of explosive, the tested explosive, or the
reference explosive (ANFO). The letter
explosive has been chosen because it can be
manufactured on site all around the world. A
plastic sleeve (important) must be used inside
the blasthole to avoid excessive explosives
penetrating into surrounding caves or open
cracks in the rock mass.
3) The stemming length should preferably be that
one actually being used in the pit or quarry.
Stemming length in different rock types may
vary dependent on the strength of rock mass
from 12 to 30 times the blasthole diameter,
see Rustan et al 1998. Stemming length and
type of stemming should be noted and
presented. Coarse material > 15 mm should be
used as stemming because it is more effective.
The size distribution of the stemming material
should be presented.
4) Initiation should be made at the bottom of the
blasthole and the primer strength and weight in
kg should be noted and presented in the result.
The following measurements should be done:
1. Rock mass properties must be recorded
according to the RMR or Q-system. This will
include mapping of the rock structure on the
vertical bench face and also on the top of the
bench if it is cleaned before blasting.
2. Measurement of fragmentation by sieving or
manual digital analysis. The boulders must
be measured by hand.
3. Measurement of broken volume and angle of
breakage and calculation of the real specific
charge.
4. Measurement of weight of explosive used in
in the bottom, column of the blasthole and
the primer. The column charge must have the

10

5.
6.
7.

8.

same explosive as the bottom charge,

because only one explosive can be tested in
one blast.
Measurement of back break, crater diameter
and volume of crater at the top of the
blasthole.
Measurement of maximum throw length and
direction and the gravity point of the rock
pile after blasting.
Measurement
of
ground
vibrations,
preferable at half the bench height, behind
the blast in vertical boreholes at four
different distances e.g. 5, 10, 20 and 40 m
behind the blasthole. Measurements inside
the rock is to prefer compared to on the top
surface because of more reliable data will be
gathered.
If possible high speed video of the blast
should be made to study the throw of the
rock mass.

REFERENCES
Atchison, C. et al 1964. Comparative studies of explosives in
limestone. USBM RI 6395.
Bilgin, H. A. and Paamehmetolu 1994. Optimum burden
determination and fragmentation evaluation by full scale slab
blasting. Fourth International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna, July 5-8 1993, pp. 337344.
Brnnfors, Sten (ed.) 1973. Bergsprngningsteknik. Esselte
Studium, Stockholm. (In Swedish).
Cunningham, Claude, Braithwaite, Martin and Parker, Ian
2006. Vixen Detonation Codes: Energy input for the High

Stress Blasting Model (HSBM). Eight International

Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 7-11 May,
Santiago, Chile.
Granlund, Lars 2006. Viktstyrka, Energi, Gasvolym och VOD
pass?! (Weight strength, gas volume and VOD pass?!
Sprngnytt nr 1, April 2006, rgng 20. (In Swedish).
Leinz, W. und Thum, W. 1970. Ermittlung und Beurleitung der
Sprengarbeit von Gestein auf der Grundlage des spezifischen
Sprengenergieaufwandes. Westdeutscher Verlag, Kln und
Opladen. Forschungsbericht des Landes NordrheinWestfahlen, Nr 2118.
Ouchterlony, Finn 2006. Pers. comm., Oct 2006 and Dec 2008.
Persson, Per-Anders, Holmberg, Roger, Lee, Jaimin Lee, (eds)
1994. Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering. CRC Press,
540 pp.
Rustan, Agne and Vutukuri, V. S. 1983. The influence from
specific charge, geometric scale and physical properties of
homogenous rock on fragmentation. First International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. 22-26 Aug
1983 in Lule, pp. 115-142.
Rustan, Agne, and Nie Shu Lin 1987. New method to test Rock
Breaking Properties of explosives in Full Scale. Second
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Keystone, Colorado, August 23-28 1987, pp. 36-47.
Rustan, Agne, ed. 1998. Rock Blasting Terms and Symbols. A
dictionary of symbols and terminology in rock blasting and
related areas like drilling, mining and rock mechanics. Editor
in chief: Agne Rustan. A.A. Balkema 1998.
Wetterholm, Allan 1959. Manual on Rock Blasting. Chapter
16:01 page 14. Explosives, Charging, Firing. Editor K. H.
Fraenkel. Atlas Copco AB, Stockholm and Sanvikens
Jernverks AB, Sandviken. Vol 3 of three Vol. Esselte AB,
Stockholm. First published in 1952 and continuously
expanded to 3 Volumes. Vol. 3.