Studies on the Effect of Burden on Blast Damage and the
Implementation of New Blasting Practices to Improve
Productivity at KCGMs Fimiston Mine
G F Brent1, G E Smith2 and G N Lye3
ABSTRACT
Wall control blasting practices are necessary to reduce the impact
of blasting on mine faces but can also have a significant negative
impact on mine productivity and operating costs. The
conventional practice in deep open pit mines is to use so-called
trim blasts adjacent to pit walls. To provide burden relief these
trim blasts have fewer rows than full production blasts and are
fired to a cleared free-face; hence they are termed unchoked.
This practice leads to scheduling constraints on the pit operations
and can cause ore dilution due to excessive muckpile movement.
The use of such trim blasts stems from the perception that
increased wall damage results from choked blasts. These
concerns are based on the unproven assumptions that blast
vibration levels and explosive gas penetration increase with
increased blast burden and face confinement.
This paper describes work undertaken as part of a major
investigation into wall control blasting at the KCGM Fimiston
Mine, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. It details a study to assess
damage effects due to blast burden. Borehole air pressure
measurements and borehole video camera inspections were done
behind a series of single blastholes drilled with varying burden
distances, as well as behind a dedicated trim blast and a full
production blast. It was found that the measured damage effects,
including visible rock cracking, dilation, and the limited extent
of gas penetration behind the blastholes, did not vary
significantly with burden or blast type for the cases tested. This
result was in complete agreement with detailed vibration
measurements conducted by Blair and Armstrong (2001) during
the study, which found that vibration was independent of blast
burden.
As a result of these investigations, changes to the blasting
practices at the mine were implemented. Dedicated trim blasts
and free-face blasting have been replaced by modified production
blasts and the practice of choking blasts has been introduced.
This has resulted in a significant improvement in productivity
and cost savings without compromising pit wall integrity.
INTRODUCTION
Safe operating conditions are vital in any mining environment. In
open pit mining safety on the pit floor and, to a large extent,
overall economics are dependent on the ability to maintain
integrity of the individual mining faces, which collectively form
the pit wall. In turn, mining face stability is dependent on
geotechnical issues (rock structure and intact rock strength), the
detrimental effects of blasting and excavation, and the ability to
secure the ground (scaling and possible ground support).
1. Orica Explosives Technical Centre, George Booth Drive, Kurri Kurri
NSW 2327.
2. Matrix Consultants Australia Pty Ltd, 41 Airlie St, Ashtonfield
NSW 2323.
3. MAusIMM, Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd, Fimiston
(Super Pit) Operation, Kalgoorlie WA 6430.
EXPLO 2001 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
The need to minimise blast damage by modifying practices in
the vicinity of open pit interim and final walls has long been
recognised (see for example reviews by Langefors and
Kihlstrm, 1967; Hoek and Bray, 1974). It is a field of study that
has generated many technical papers in the blasting literature and
is still a very active area of work. This is especially true of mines
that employ large diameter blastholes, as the blast damage from
these holes often leads to excessive loss of berms and concerns
over wall stability. Consequently, more cautious practices are
sought and adopted in the vicinity of walls, leading to an increase
in the production workload and inevitable increases in blasting
costs.
Higher blasting costs may be incurred through the use of
smaller diameter presplit and trim blast holes, as well as in the
use of specialised explosive products for these applications.
More effort and labour is also usually required to drill and load
wall control blasts. Blast outcomes in terms of muckpile
fragmentation and profile are often not as good as from normal
production blasting, leading to productivity losses in the
excavation of the material from these blasts.
These increased costs are generally recognised as the price that
has to be paid for blasting in what may be viewed as a transition
zone the area between well fragmented rock for excavation
and an unbroken, stable pit wall. However, in addition to these
costs, there are other, often hidden, penalties, which should be
attributed to conventional wall control blasting techniques.
Conventional wall control blasting practice in many hard rock
open pits usually involves the use of so-called trim blasts.
Although often employing the same blasthole diameters as the
production blasts, they are designed for maximum burden relief
and are distinguished by having fewer rows of blastholes than the
production blasts. They are also nearly always fired to an
unobscured, or unchoked, free face. This practice stems from the
assertions that blast vibrations and explosive gas penetration, and
hence blast damage, increase with blast confinement (for
example Du Pont, 1980; Dowding, 1996; Floyd, 1999). Despite
the apparent lack of conclusive experimental data demonstrating
such increases in vibration or gas penetration, this belief has led
to such blasting practices becoming entrenched in many
operations.
The additional penalties associated with such practices
include:
lost production time due to additional blasts (dedicated trim
blasts);
scheduling constraints, and hence lost production, due to the
need to completely excavate broken rock in front of blasts to
form a free face; and
increased ore dilution due to the increased muckpile
movement from blasts with unchoked, or unbuffered, free
faces.
KCGM OPERATION
Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) is
Australias largest gold producer and one of the top producers in
the world. It is a joint venture between Normandy Mining
183
G F BRENT, G E SMITH and G N LYE

Limited and Homestake Gold of Australia Ltd, and is located
adjacent to the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Western Australia,
see Figure 1.
Rock mass properties
The predominant host rock for the gold mineralisation is the
Golden Mile Dolerite (GMD). This occurs in a tight synclinal
structure surrounded by basalt, which can also be mineralised
along the contact area. Mineralisation is focused along faults
(lodes) within the dolerite and there are over 850 lodes that have
been stoped during the hundred years of underground mining on
the Golden Mile. Approximately 70 per cent of the ore occurs in
GMD and 30 per cent in the Paringa Basalt (PB). RQDs in the
GMD and PB are routinely 90 to 100 per cent. Average material
properties for are given in Table 1. The work described here
occurred predominantly within the GMD.

FIG 1 - Location map and aerial view looking northward showing
the Fimiston open pit operations in relation to the
city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder.
The focus of its mining activity is remnant pillar
mineralisation within Kalgoorlies famous Golden Mile. Ore
reserves for the Fimiston Mine, known as the Super Pit, as at
30 June 2000 were 175.1 Mt containing 11 959 million ounces of
gold and represent a mine life of greater than 15 years. In
calendar year 2000 the pit produced 715 164 ounces.
The final pit is expected to be 3.7 km long, 1.5 km wide and
greater than 600 m deep. It should be appreciated that both in-pit
and near-pit exploration drilling programs are continuing and
there is potential for both pit expansion and co-development of
underground mining.
Blast design
In 1995 the KCGM geotechnical team initiated a review of blast
practices with a view to improving slope stability, particularly in
the vicinity of old stopes. At this time the operation had no wall
control blasting program in place. Unmodified production
blasting was carried out against pit walls with the result that
berm width and toe positions were difficult to maintain. Pit
designs regularly had to be adjusted in order to maintain safe
operating conditions.
Based on the text book premise that burden relief was the key
to minimising blast damage, four row trim blasts were
introduced. The high RQD nature of the rock mass also inspired
the introduction of pre-splits. The 25 metre width of the trim
blasts was largely determined on the practicality of blasthole rigs
being able to negotiate old underground workings routinely
encountered on benches.
Mine production viewed the trim blasts as a necessary evil.
They presented scheduling difficulties and were perceived to
cause dilution and to generally have lower productivity (flatter
muckpile). In reality the dilution could largely be controlled if
ore/waste contacts were taken into account when establishing
blast boundaries; and a comparison of dig rates often had trim
blasts as the most productive. The trim blast reserve also
provided ease of access to production blasts without the need to
provide ramps. The major drawback was thus the constraints
imposed on mine scheduling.
The wall control blasting practices that were initially
introduced consisted of:
A presplit comprising 89 mm holes on a 1.2 m spacing, using
a decoupled explosive. The presplit was inclined with a
stand-off distance of 0.8 m to the toe of the back row
blastholes. This was fired in advance of the trim blast.
A trim blast of vertical 165 mm production holes charged
with heavy ANFO. The pattern was basically as for the
production blasting at the time, ie 5.2 m burden and 5.8 m
spacing. The blast was fired with 17 ms on the control row
and 100 ms on the echelon. The results were visually
spectacular, see Figure 2.
Production blasts were also free-faced, usually limited to eight
to ten rows and were fired with 25 ms on the control row and
100 ms on the echelon. The better directional firing with the 17
ms delays was adopted in the production blasts and remains the
practice today. The benches were 10 m high and 1.3 m of subdrill
was used on production holes.

TABLE 1
Material properties for KCGM principal rock types.

Rock type Mean UCS Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Mean density Standard deviation
(MPa) UCS (MPa) Youngs Modulus Youngs Modulus (kg/m3) 3
Density (kg/m )
(GPa) (GPa)
GMD 103 45 67 11 2920 150
PB 87 33 54 10 2860 -

184 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001 EXPLO 2001

 STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF BURDEN ON BLAST DAMAGE

FIG 2 - Results of four-row trim blast using 17 ms on control row and 100 ms on echelon.

Between 1995 and 1999 the above blast designs were

maintained and Orica Explosives (then ICI Explosives)
undertook various tightly controlled field studies to demonstrate Blasthole at Blasthole at Blasthole at
the effectiveness of, and to optimise, pre-splits and trim blasts. It 2 Burdens 1 Burden 0.5 Burden
was during the course of these investigations that the variable Free face
burden studies were carried out with the aim of determining the
2.6
relationship between blast damage and burden. As will be 5.2 2.6
described below, the trials demonstrated that free-faced blasts 2.6
were not necessary. 10.4
5.2 7.8
2.6 5.2 7.8 10.4
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
10.4
The work reported here documents a detailed study of 5.2 7.8
monitoring behind a set of single blastholes confined with 15.6
10.4
varying burdens as well as behind a conventional trim blast and a
15.6
production blast. The single blastholes were drilled on nominal
burdens corresponding to one half, one and two normal 2.9 2.9
15.6
production blast burdens. The overall objective of this work was
2.9 2.9
to investigate the blast damage dependence on burden and blast
configuration. Measurement included the use of borehole 2.9 2.9
pressure monitoring, borehole video camera inspections and
vibration monitoring behind the various blast configurations.
FIG 3 - Schematic layout of monitoring holes behind single blastholes of
Single hole blasts varying burden. (Not shown is the duplicate set of such holes.)

Blast and monitoring set-up
A series of single blastholes of diameter 165 mm were charged
with a heavy ANFO formulation to simulate standard production
blastholes. The blastholes were drilled on a bench at nominal
distances from the face corresponding to one half, one and two
burdens. The normal production blast burden distance was 5.2 m.
Duplicate sets of blastholes were located at each nominal burden
distance, namely 2.6 m, 5.2 m and 10.4 m from the free face.
The technique of borehole pressure monitoring behind blasts
has been reported previously (for example Brent and Smith 1996
and 1999; Ouchterlony 1995; Ouchterlony et al 1996; Le Juge et
al 1994). The methodology used in this work was the same as
that reported in Brent and Smith (1996), with an array of holes
for monitoring the pressure drilled behind each blasthole. Sets of
five pressure monitoring holes (102 mm diameter) were drilled
on identical staggered patterns as shown schematically in Figure
3. This pattern was chosen to ensure that no two monitoring
holes were within 3 m of each other and also to ensure that a
region of width corresponding to the normal trim and production
blast spacing, (ie 5.8 m), was monitored behind each hole. It was
considered that this pattern would sample a representative region
of the rock mass behind each blasthole, enabling conclusions to
be drawn about the possible damage effects which may be
expected behind each blasthole in a full production or trim blast.
All holes were vertical. The blastholes were backfilled to a
depth of 10.2 m, while the monitoring holes were at depths in the
range 10.2 m to 10.5 m. The six blastholes monitored were
loaded with the same heavy ANFO formulation. While the goal
was to achieve equal masses of explosives in each hole, in reality
the masses varied somewhat. However, all masses were within a
17 kg range and at least one hole at each burden distance had
explosive masses of 140 kg, enabling direct comparison without
any influence of explosive mass. The blastholes were stemmed
with imported aggregate. They were bottom primed with a 400 g
primer, which was pulled up 0.5 m into the explosive while
loading. They were also each loaded with two co-axial cables for
velocity of detonation (VoD) monitoring. The primers were
initiated by nonelectric delay detonators. Table 2 summarises the
loading details and measured VoDs from each blasthole.
Each monitoring hole was viewed by a borehole video camera
prior to the blasts. Pressure transducers were then placed in the
monitoring holes, which were subsequently sealed with a gasbag
at a depth of 2.2 m from the surface. The sealed holes were
monitored to check for any pressure variation before the
blastholes were fired. No variations were found. The transducer
cables were led back to the multi-channel pressure recorder,
which was triggered by a break wire connected to the in-hole
primer.

EXPLO 2001 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001 185

G F BRENT, G E SMITH and G N LYE

TABLE 2
Explosive loading details and measured VoDs for single hole trials.

Blasthole no Stemming length Explosive column Calculated explosive Cable 1 VoD Cable 2 VoD
(m) length (m) mass (kg) (km/s) (km/s)
1 (0.5 Burden) 4.3 5.9 150 5.3 5.1
2 (2 Burdens) 4.7 5.5 140 5.5 5.4
3 (2 Burdens) 5.0 5.2 130 5.2 5.3
4 (1 Burden) 4.9 5.3 140 5.3 5.5
5 (0.5 Burden) 4.7 5.5 140 5.1 5.2
6 (1 Burden) 4.7 5.5 140 5.0 5.2
Mean std. deviation 4.7 0.2 5.5 0.2 140 5.9 5.3 0.15

After the blast, the monitoring holes were cleared for borehole
video camera viewing by piercing the gasbags and retrieving
them. Generally, the two holes closest to the blasthole could not
Free face Hole position
be recovered as they were either covered by debris or too badly
damaged. A detailed program of vibration monitoring using
arrays of accelerometers was done behind each of these holes
and is reported separately by Blair and Armstrong (2001).
High-speed cinematography of the single hole blasts to view
blast performance was also carried out.

Blast performance
The single hole blasts drilled at one burden and one half a burden
all broke out to the free faces. As expected, the holes drilled at
two burdens did not break out at the free faces and formed only
surface craters, which were roughly circular. Figure 4 shows Free face
post-blast views of one set of holes. From the high-speed films of
the blasts, the blast outcomes appeared similar with no unusual Hole position
stemming or surface ejection. The VoD traces confirmed that
explosive performance in each hole was similar, with a mean of
5.3 km/s and a standard deviation of 0.15 km/s, as shown in
Table 2. Slight differences between results from the two cables
within each hole are attributable to variations in cable tension
and some twisting, while differences between holes may also be
attributed to slight variations in explosive density and hole
dimensions.

Borehole pressure monitoring

Data was successfully obtained from the monitoring holes except
from those behind blasthole 1 due to a recorder malfunction, and Free face
from the nearest monitoring holes (at 2.6 m) behind blastholes 2
and 4 (see Table 2). The latter indicated damage to the
Hole position
transducers before a full trace was recorded. An example of a
pressure-time trace obtained from behind one blasthole is shown
in Figure 5.
Such traces are similar to those observed in earlier work (Brent
and Smith, 1996; 1999). It is clear that the dominant feature was
a negative pressure similar to those recorded elsewhere (Brent
and Smith, 1996; 1999; Ouchterlony, 1995; LeJuge et al, 1994).
These negative pressures have been attributed to the formation of
new voids communicating with the monitoring holes due to the
opening of new or existing cracks, fissures or joint planes, FIG 4 - Photographs of one set of the single blastholes after firing,
leading to an overall dilation of the rock mass. The new voidage showing the free face and the approximate location of the blastholes.
is believed to give rise to the rapid underpressures, which (Top: blasthole at 2.6 m from the free face, Centre: blasthole at 5.2 m
subsequently recover to atmospheric pressure. A secondary from the free face and Bottom: blasthole at 10.2 m from the free face).
underpressure is often observed (occurring at about 0.25 s in
Figure 5). This feature has yet to be explained. While the
possibility of some gas ingress within these negative phases It was found that that only one hole recorded an overall
cannot be excluded, it is clear that the negative phases dominate positive pressure indicative of significant pressurised gases
in most cases and the overall pressure does not rise above entering the hole. The positive pressure occurred subsequent to
ambient. an initial negative pressure, as has been seen in previous studies

186 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001 EXPLO 2001

 STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF BURDEN ON BLAST DAMAGE

10.0

0.0

-10.0

Pressure (kPa) -20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-50.0

-60.0

-70.0

-80.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Time (s)
FIG 5 - Borehole pressure trace from a monitoring hole located 5.2 m behind one of the single blastholes.

60.0

40.0

20.0
Pressure (kPa)

0.0

-20.0

-40.0

-60.0

-80.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Time (s)
FIG 6 - The only trace that showed a positive pressure, from the hole located at 2.6 m behind blasthole 3. Note the initial underpressure.

(LeJuge et al, 1994; Ouchterlony et al, 1996; Brent and Smith, 60

1996) where some gas penetration has been observed. This is Single Hole 2 Burdens
consistent with rapid initial rock damage and dilation followed 40 Single Hole 1 Burden
Single Hole 0.5 Burden
by later gas ingress. This was the closest monitoring hole (2.6 m) 20
to blasthole 3, which was confined by two burdens. The trace
Peak pressure (kPa)

obtained from this hole is shown in Figure 6, which indicates 0

possible damage to the transducer after the gas ingress. (The -20
corresponding monitoring location for the other blasthole
-40
confined by two burdens also indicated damage to the transducer
after a similar initial underpressure - a full trace showing a peak -60
was not obtained hence no data is plotted for this point.) The
-80
peak pressures recorded in the monitoring holes behind all the
single blastholes are summarised in Figure 7. -100
The visual inspections of the monitoring holes with the 0 5 10 15 20
borehole video camera were not successful in identifying cracks Distance behind blastholes (m)
either before or after firing the holes, largely because dust tended
to fall down the holes and cover the borehole inner surfaces. It FIG 7 - Summarised peak pressures measured in the monitoring holes
must be noted, however, that no large open cracks were present. behind the single blastholes of varying burden.

EXPLO 2001 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001 187

G F BRENT, G E SMITH and G N LYE

Trim blast and production blast

0
Blast and monitoring set-up

Peak pressure (kPa)

-20
A similar program of monitoring was conducted behind both a
dedicated trim blast and a section of a production blast. Both
blasts utilised 165 mm blastholes, which were drilled to the same -40
depth and on the same pattern in the region monitored. All
blastholes were nominally 11.3 m deep, including 1.3 m of bench -60
Production
subdrill, and were charged with 190 kg of the same heavy ANFO Trim
explosive. Borehole pressure monitoring and borehole video -80
camera inspections were done in a similar manner to that
described earlier in 102 mm diameter holes drilled on staggered -100
patterns behind the blasts. In addition, triaxial accelerometer 5 10 15 20
arrays were mounted on solid rock surfaces close behind the
Distance to nearest blasthole (m)
blasts to monitor vibration levels. Figure 8 schematically shows
the monitoring set-ups behind these blasts.
FIG 9 - Summarised peak pressures recorded behind the trim and
production blasts.
Back row of trim blast

5.6m 10
Pre-Blast Cracks-Trim Blast
7.4m Pre-Blast Cracks -Production Blast
8 Post-Blast Cracks-Trim Blast
9.6m Post-Blast Cracks-Production Blast
No. of visible cracks

6
5.8 m
4

Back row of production blast

2

0
5 10 15 20 25
10 m
Distance from blasthole (m)
15m
20m
FIG 10 - Number of cracks clearly visible with the borehole video camera
5.8 m 3m inspections before and after the trim and production blasts.

Pressure monitoring holes
Video inspection holes
Accelerometer array
FIG 8 - Schematic layout of monitoring behind the trim blast (top)
and the production blast (bottom).
Borehole pressure monitoring
The borehole pressure monitoring for these blasts resulted in
similar underpressures being recorded, with a similar form to that
shown previously. The peak pressures measured in the
monitoring holes behind both blasts are summarised in Figure 9.
Borehole video camera inspections revealed the formation of
new visible cracks or discontinuities in the walls of the
monitoring holes after the blasts. The number of cracks visible
with the camera both before and after the blasts is summarised in
Figure 10. The sampled area behind the production blast had a
larger number of pre-existing cracks and also a correspondingly
larger number of post-blast cracks, however the number of new
cracks formed for each blast type is not widely dissimilar.
Although the data is sparse, there is a decrease in the number of
new cracks with distance behind the blasts.
The vibration monitors recorded vector peak particle
accelerations in excess of 40 m/s2 behind both blasts and vector
peak particle velocities of approximately 250 mm/s (11 m behind
the trim blast) and 150 mm/s (23 m behind the production blast).
These monitors were located behind the furthest pressure
monitoring holes, hence the actual levels at the monitoring holes,
particularly those much closer to the blastholes, would be
expected to be considerably higher. Blair and Armstrong (2001)
report similar vibration levels behind another trim blast in this
pit, both from a predictive model and direct measurement.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The negative peak pressures recorded in the monitoring holes
and the decrease in their magnitude with distance have been
observed in similar studies before. These effects are attributed to
the formation of new voids (cracks) and the overall rock mass
dilation behind the blasts (Brent and Smith, 1996; 1999;
Ouchterlony, 1995; LeJuge et al, 1994). The measurement of
these differential pressures may be likened to strain
measurements using extensometers that detect the extent of
dynamic dilation.
The borehole video camera records for the trim and production
blasts confirmed the formation of new visible cracks after these
blasts. The vibration records from these blasts, as well as from
the single hole blasts (Blair and Armstrong, 2001), showed

188 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001 EXPLO 2001

 STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF BURDEN ON BLAST DAMAGE

vibration levels of the order of hundreds of mm/s in the vicinity

of the monitoring holes. Such vibration levels have been P roduction Bla s t
associated with extensive damage in most rock types (for Trim Bla s t
10
example, see review by Singh, 1993). S ingle Hole 2 Burde ns
S ingle Hole 1 Burde n
There was a lack of significant gas pressurisation, with the S ingle Hole 0.5 Burde n
exception of one record from a hole located 2.6 m from a single All Da ta

hole
blasthole that had a confinement of twice the normal burden (see 1

/V
Figure 7). These results show that blast type or burden did not
significantly affect gas penetration beyond this distance.

ne w
V
In consideration of the positive pressure result, it may be taken 0.1
as an indication that gas penetration was somewhat enhanced by
the increased burden confinement. However, it is clear that
positive gas pressurisation did not extend to 5.2 m behind this, or
indeed any other, blasthole. This implies that any such increased 0.01
gas penetration would be limited to a region close to the 0 0.5 1 1.5
0.5
blastholes (ie within less than 5.2 m) and would not extend S ca le d dis ta nce (m/kg )
deeply into the 10 m wide berms. However, it is apparent from
the measured underpressures that dilation extended significantly
FIG 11 - New volume in each monitoring hole calculated from the
further than gas penetration.
measured underpressures plotted against conventional scaled distance.
The data from the single holes at various burdens, shown in
Figure 7, and from the trim and production blast, shown in
Figure 9, appear to follow a similar trend in the magnitude of the
measured negative pressures for each case of confining burden or
blast type. The new volume created within each monitoring hole 2000
during the active dilation phase may be calculated from the peak All da ta
1000
underpressures assuming a rapid adiabatic expansion of the air in Burde n=5.2 m
Burde n=10.4 m
the holes as described by Brent and Smith (1999). VP PV (mm/s )
Burde n=2.6 m
This new volume formed during the dilation phase has been
proposed as a relative indicator of rock damage at the monitoring
hole locations (Brent and Smith, 1999). This is based on the
assumption that increased dilation or expansion of the 100
monitoring hole volume is related to increased voidage or
rupturing (cracking) processes within the rock mass surrounding
the monitoring hole. Such rupturing may be at random
20
orientations within the rock mass and may preferentially occur at
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
interfaces such as free faces, inclusions, or joints, or at weak
points within the rock mass, or may be part of large cracks that S ca le d dis ta nce (m/kg
0.5
)
originate at nearby blastholes. Although the expansion is
transient and the measured pressures recover to ambient, such
rupture processes are irreversible and damage remains. Hence the FIG 12 - Measured vibration levels (vector peak particle velocities)
relative magnitude of the new volume created during expansion behind the single blastholes of varying burden.
is used here as an indicator of the overall extent of dilation and
rupturing at the monitoring hole location. This is plotted against
the conventional scaled distance in Figure 11. As may be is consistent with this, since the rock dilation (hence damage)
expected from this type of measurement there is much scatter in detected by the borehole pressure technique may be expected to
the data, however it has been fitted with a power curve of the relate to vibration levels in the near field, and it was also found
same form as is usually used for blast vibration data, namely: to be independent of blasthole burden over the range tested.
In summary, the following conclusions were drawn from the
Vnew/Vhole = a (scaled distance)-b trials, in conjunction with the comprehensive studies on vibration
where by Blair and Armstrong (2001):
Vnew = new volume created at peak dilation (m3) there was no dependence of vibration levels on blasthole
burden, or blast type;
Vhole = original monitoring hole volume (m3)
positive pressurisation by gases did not extend to 5.2 m or
scaled distance = distance (m) [charge mass (kg)]-0.5 beyond, regardless of blasthole burden or blast type;
a,b = constants found by regression rock dilation, as indicated by monitoring hole
A formal statistical analysis of the data was conducted underpressures, extended much further than the gas and
following the methods outlined by Draper and Smith (1981). It similarly showed no dependence on blasthole burden or blast
was found that the all the data (linearised by using logarithms), is type;
best fit by a single line and hence treated as a single data set. The new crack formation visible with a borehole camera under
test was conducted at the 0.01 significance level. the trial conditions occurred to a similar extent behind the
The conclusion for this data set concurs with the findings of production and trim blast, and could not be discerned behind
Blair and Armstrong (2001). Their vibration data for the single the single hole blasts regardless of burden, and
hole trials is shown in Figure 12. By applying various statistical the apparent scaled distance dependence both of vibration
techniques to their data, including those of Draper and Smith and rock dilation, measured from borehole underpressures,
(1981), they found no significant difference between the data sets indicated the importance of explosive charge masses in
for the three cases of burden, clearly demonstrating that the damage control.
vibration was independent of burden in these cases. Our finding

EXPLO 2001 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001 189

G F BRENT, G E SMITH and G N LYE
These conclusions indicated that blast configurations with
increased burdens, or apparent burdens (due to choking), would
not result in increased vibration levels or increased penetration
by explosive gases. Hence no significant increase in damage to
the pit walls was anticipated and choked blasting, or the use of
larger blasts with more rows of blastholes, would be acceptable.
It was recommended that the mine trial the use of production
blasts, with modified charge masses in the back rows, in
preference to smaller dedicated free face trim blasts. Further, it
was recommended that the general practice of choking blasts
would not be detrimental to the pit walls.
As a result, dedicated free face trim blasts have been
eliminated. KCGM now carries out modified production blasts,
(following pre-splitting), against all walls with the direction of
firing being along the wall strike (following the main lode trend).
The number of rows in production blasts is now only constrained
by production requirements and site-specific issues. The
elimination of conventional dedicated trim blasts and the
introduction of choke blasting has had no quantifiable
detrimental effect on the pit wall stability.
However, caution should be exercised in generalising all these
conclusions to other mine sites and conditions without prior
measurement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank personnel from KCGM Fimiston Mine, Roche
Mining (contractor on site until end 1999) and Orica Limited for
their cooperation and assistance during this work, in particular
Ian Brunton, Dane Blair, Les Armstrong, Dave Kay and Sahul
Rafiudeen. KCGM and Orica Limited are thanked for permission
to publish this paper. It is recognised that the establishment of a
strict experimental protocol was key to the success of the blast
improvement program which lead to the implemented solutions.
REFERENCES
Blair, D P and Armstrong, L W, 2001. The influence of burden on blast
vibration, paper submitted to Fragblast - Int J for Blasting and
Fragmentation (Balkema: Rotterdam).
190 Hunter Valley, NSW, 28 - 31 October 2001
Brent, G F and Smith, G E, 1996. Borehole pressure measurements
behind blast limits as an aid to determining the extent of rock
damage, in Proceedings Fifth International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting - Fragblast 5 (Ed: B Mohanty) pp
103-112 (Balkema: Rotterdam).
Brent, G F and Smith, G E, 1999. The detection of blast damage by
borehole pressure measurement, in Proceedings Sixth International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting - Fragblast 6, pp
9-13 (South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Johannesburg).
Dowding, C H, 1996. Construction Vibrations, p 494 (Prentice Hall: New
Jersey).
Draper, N R and Smith, H, 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, second
edition, pp 241-246 (Wiley: New York).
Du Pont, 1980. Blasters Handbook, pp 423-434 (E I du Pont de
Nemours & Co: Delaware).
Floyd, J L, 1999. Explosive energy relief - The key to controlling
overbreak, in Proceedings Explo 99 (Ed: C Workman-Davies) pp
147-154 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Hoek, E and Bray J, 1974. Rock Slope Engineering, pp 234-240
(Institution of Mining and Metallurgy: London).
Langefors, U and Kihlstrm, B, 1967. The Modern Technique of Rock
Blasting, pp 296-321 (John Wiley and Sons Inc: New York.)
LeJuge, G E, Lubber, E, Sandy, D A and McKenzie, C K, 1994. Blast
damage mechanisms in open cut mining, in Proceedings Open Pit
Blasting Workshop 94, pp 96-103 (Curtin University: Perth).
Ouchterlony, F, 1995. Review of rock blasting and explosives
engineering research at SveBeFo, in Proceedings Explo 95, pp
133-146 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Ouchterlony, F, Nie, S, Nyberg, U and Deng, J, 1996. Monitoring of large
open cut rounds by VOD, PPV and gas pressure measurements, in
Proceedings Fifth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting - Fragblast 5 (Ed: B Mohanty) pp 167-176 (Balkema:
Rotterdam).
Singh, S P, 1993. Prediction and determination of explosive induced
damage, in Proceedings Fourth International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting - Fragblast 4 (Ed: H P Rossmanith) pp
183-192 (Balkema: Rotterdam).
EXPLO 2001