Module 11: Rock Blasting

LECTURE 37

11.3 OPTIMIZED AND CONTROL BLASTING

Performance of an blasting may be evaluated on the basis of,
• Velocity of detonation
• Near field vibration monitoring
• Muck pile surveying
• Fragmentation measurement
• High speed photography
• Gas penetration measurement

The blast fragmentation has serious effect and the cost of drilling and hauling. A correct
fragmentation would optimize the cost and change the overall economics. There are various
other factors which governs the optimum result of the blasting,
• Type, weight and distribution of explosives
• Nature of rock
• Bench height, burden, spacing, subdrill depth and stemming
• Blast hole diameter
• Initiation sequence for detonation of explosives
• Powder factor

Effect of fragmentation on the cost of drilling-blasting and loading- hauling is shown in the
figure 11.9. As can be seen, for finer fragmentation cost of drilling and blasting would
increase but at the same time the loading and hauling would come down probability due to
better packing and easiness in carrying the muck piles. Finer fragmentation requires more
number of drill holes to be blasted with relatively large quantity of explosives.
312
 Module 11: Rock Blasting

Figure 11.9: Effect of fragmentation on the cost of drilling, blasting, loading and hauling

11.3.1 Powder factor

The POWDER FACTOR (PF) is a relationship between how much rock is broken and how
much explosive is used to break it. It can serve a variety of purposes, such as an indicator of
how hard the rock is, or the cost of the explosives needed, or even as a guide to planning a
shot. Powder factor can be expressed as a quantity of rock broken by a unit weight of
explosives. Or, alternatively, it can be the amount of explosives required to break a unit
measure of rock.

Weight of exp losives(Kgs)

PF =
Volume of rock (m 3 )

313
 Module 11: Rock Blasting

Figure 11.10: Relationship of boulder size, powder factor and Burden

314
 Module 11: Rock Blasting

11.3.2 BENCH BLASTING

The following are some of the factors that should be considered in the selection of the bench
height:
a) Optimum blast hole diameter increases with bench height. In general, an increase in
blast hole diameter results in a decrease in drilling costs.
b) For vertical blast holes and sloping bench face, the front row toe burden may become
excessive as the bench height increases. Where small diameter blast holes are drilled
in high benches, blast holes may need to be angled, at least in the front row.
c) Drilling accuracy becomes more critical in higher benches. Where precise alignment
of holes on the final face is required, the maximum bench height is normally limited
to 8 or 9m.
d) The blast is most efficient when the shock wave is reflected in tension from a free
face so that the rock is broken and displaced to form a well-fragmented muck pile.
This efficiency depends to a large extent on having the correct burden. Too small a
burden will allow the radial cracks to extend to the free face resulting in venting of the
explosion gases with consequent loss of efficiency and the generation of flyrock and
air blast problems.
e) Too large a burden, where the shock wave is not reflected from the free face, will
choke the blast resulting in poor fragmentation and a general loss of efficiency.

315
 Module 11: Rock Blasting

Figure 11.11: Different terms in the bench blasting

The relationship between the bench height H and the burden B

The relationship between the bench height H and the burden B can be expressed in terms of
the “stiffness ratio,” H/B. If this ratio is low such that the burden is about equal to the bench
height, then the blast will be highly confined resulting in severe backbreak, airblast, flyrock
and vibration. In contrast, if the H/B >~ 4, there is little confinement and the explosive gases
will be vented at the free face also resulting in airblast and flyrock. It is found that a stiffness
ratio of 3–4 produces good results.

316
 Module 11: Rock Blasting

Figure 11.12: Definition of blast hole spacing (s) and burden (B) a) Burden and spacing
for a square blasting b) Burden and spacing for a echelon blasting pattern c) effect face
angle on front row burden

Figure 11.13: Rock breakage at the bottom of a blast hole with the use of sub drilling

317
 Module 11: Rock Blasting

Figure 11.14: Typical blast hole patterns used in production blasting a) Square pattern
with burden/spacing ratio 1:1 b) Staggered pattern with burden/spacing ratio 1:1.15 c)
Easer holes (E) to assist movement of front row burden

318
 Module 11: Rock Blasting

Figure 11.15: Typical detonation sequence a) Square "row by row" detonation sequence
b) Square V detonation sequence c) Hole by hole detonation

319