Presplitting Study PDF

THE CHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ROCK FRACTURING
BY EXPLOSIVES WITH REFERENCE TO

PRESPLIT BLASTING
by
S AMHUDI
A Thesis Submitted to
The University of New South Wales
for the degree of
Master of Engineering
December, 1991
UNIVERSITY OF N.S.W.
2h JUL 1S92
LIBRARIES
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by
another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the
award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institute of higher
learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text.
ABSTRACT
Presplitting is a controlled blasting technique, which creates a fracture

plane in the rock away from a free face on a desired break line. The technique is
designed to create an appropriate explosive energy concentration per unit area of
surface to be presplit.
An investigation was performed to examine conditions which optimise the
fracture produced between blastholes correlated with the amounts of various

explosive charges used for the purpose ofpresplitting. Experiments were conducted
in the laboratory as well as in the field. The optimum presplit fracture depth and
optimum hole spacing were determined and presplit fracture systems observed. In
order to examine the depth of the presplit fracture produced in the laboratory,
cement-mortar block models were broken up along the cracks, while in the field,
iodine crystals and a compressed air injection technique (borehole sealing rod)
were applied. Visual inspections of exposed presplitting on post production blast
sites were also performed for some tests.
In the field tests, minor cratering was generated by excessive charge size
while, on the other hand, a limited presplit fracture line or two unconnected cracks
emanating from each blasthole was produced when the charge size was insufficient
to presplit the rock to the necessary level.
Laboratory test results reveal a good correlation with the results from the
field tests. Appropriate similitude conditions to expand the results to full scale tests
can be deduced.
The significant experimental results obtained indicate that presplit fracture

systems are very sensitive to change in parameters such as hole spacing, hole
depth, charge size and hole diameter. Apart from these, the presence of joints,
fractures and weathering influences the site conditions and, consequently, the
results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the many persons
and organisations that contributed to this research. In particular, special thanks are
due to the following :
(1) the Indonesian government, and particularly the Mineral Technology

Development Centre within the Department of Mines and Energy, for
providing the opportunity for undertaking the study;
(2) the Australian government and the Australian International Development

Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) for financial support through the award of a
Colombo Plan Scholarship;
(3) Dr. G.C. Sen, supervisor, for his most helpful criticism, guidance and
suggestions during the research and the preparation of this thesis;
(4) Professor F. F. Roxborough, Head of the School of Mines, for making

available the facilities in the Department of Mining Engineering;
(5) the management of the Statebricks and Readymix for providing the facilities
to carry out the experiments in their quarries at Homebush and Prospect,
respectively;
(6) I.C.I. Australia Operations Pty. Ltd. for providing explosive materials and
(7) other members of staff of the Department of Mining Engineering who

provided assistance of one form or another.
iii
iv
Special acknowledgement is given to his wife, Endang and sons, Ihsan, Haris and
Muhammad (Anto) for their encouragement, support and patience throughout the
long period devoted to study.
Finally, of course, the author would like to express his gratitude to Allah for His
aid, care and guidance throughout the study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2 THEORIES RELATING TO ROCK BLASTING 6

2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Time Phases in the Breaking Process 8
2.2.1 T1 - Detonation 8
2.2.2 T2 - Shock and stress wave propagation 11
2.2.3 T3 - Gas pressure expansion 12
2.2.4 T4 - Mass movement 15
2.3 Fracture Mechanisms by Blasting 16
2.3.1 Mechanisms of rock breakage 16
2.3.2 Phenomena occuring around the borehole 18
2.3.3 Fracture process 19
CHAPTER 3 VARIOUS METHODS OF LIMITING A BLAST INDUCED

FRACTURE ZONE (CONTROLLED BLASTING) 29
3.1 Introduction 29
3.2 Controlled Blasting Techniques 30
3.2.1 Cushion blasting 31
3.2.2 Presplitting 32
3.2.3 Line drilling 34
3.2.4 Smooth blasting 34
v
vi
3.2.5 Fracture control blasting 36
CHAPTER 4 THE CONCEPT OF PRESPLITTING 39

4.1 Introduction 39
4.2 Theory and Mechanics of Presplitting 39
4.2.1 Theory of presplitting 39
4.2.2 Mechanics of presplitting 40
4.3 The Mechanism of Rock Presplitting Related to Quasi-static
Gas Pressure 47
4.3.1 Fracture formation 49
4.3.2 Fracture growth 52
4.3.3 Fracture termination 55
4.4 Factors Affecting Presplitting Results 56
4.4.1 Energy reduction 56
4.4.2 Hole diameter and spacing 60
4.4.3 Drilling accuracy 62
4.4.4 Site conditions 62
CHAPTER 5 MODEL TESTING AND SIMILITUDE ANALYSIS OF

PRESPLIT BLASTING 68
5.1 Introduction 68
5.2 Principles of Dimensional Analysis 70
5.2.1 Concepts of dimension 70
5.2.2 Basis of dimensional analysis and dimensional
homogeneity 71
5.2.3 General approach to model testing 74
5.3 General Concept of Similitude 75
5.3.1 Geometric similitude 75
5.3.2 Kinematic similitude 76
5.3.3 Dynamic similitude 78
5.4 Similitude Analysis of the Presplit Blast Model 78
5.5 Considerations 84
CHAPTER 6 PRESPLITTING EXPERIMENTS IN LABORATORY 86
6.1 Introduction 86
6.2 Construction of Model 87
6.3 Experimental Procedure 88
6.4 Experimental Results 94
vii
6.5 Analysis of Results 101

6.5.1 Experimental phase I 101
6.5.2 Experimental phase II 107
6.5.3 Experimental phase III 109
6.6 Conclusions 116
CHAPTER 7 PRESPLITTING EXPERIMENTS IN THE FIELD 117

7.1 Introduction 117
7.2 Experimental Procedure 119
7.3 Experimental Results 128
7.3.1 Homebush quarry experimental results 129
7.3.2 Prospect quarry experimental results 129
7.4 Analysis of Results 129
7.4.1 Homebush test series 146
7.4.2 Prospect test series 148
7.4.3 Estimation of the charge used 152
7.5 Cost Analysis 154
7.6 Conclusions 158
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 160

8.1 Conclusions 160
8.2 Recommendations 164
REFERENCES 165
APPENDIX : DETERMINATION OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

OF SAMPLES 171
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Field model illustrating blast design inputs and outputs 7

2.2 Illustration of detonation 10
2.3 Borehole pressure variation with time 10
2.4 Spherical charge configuration (a) and an expanding

spherical explosion (b) 13
2.5 Cylindrical charge (a) and section through the face during
detonation showing expanding stress wave (b) 13
2.6 The stress in a shock wave 14
2.7 Schematic of fracturing and deformation around the blasthole 20
2.8 Successive stages in the fracture process of rock by an explosive
charge under dynamic load (a, b, c) and quasi-static load (d) 22
2.9 Reflection of radial compressive wave front at a free face 26
2.10 Condition of quasi-static loading around a blasthole 26
2.11 Local stress field direction and the imposed preferred direction of
fracture propagation 28
3.1 Typical layout and loading for cushion blasting 33
3.2 Typical layout and loading for presplitting 33
3.3 Typical layout for line drilling 35
3.4 Typical layout and loading for smooth blasting 35
3.5 Suggested notch dimensions for fracture control blasting 37
3.6 Crack driven from notched hole 37
3.7 Linear shaped charge for tunnel perimeter controlled blasting 38
4.1 Relationship of compressive and tensile strains (a) and
idealized summation of tensile strains and resulting crack (b) 40
4.2 Theory of presplitting 41

ix
4.3 Four typical cases of initiation delay between charge A and B 42

4.4 Transient stress conditions around a blasthole involved in
presplitting for short delay between initiation of adjacent holes 45
4.5 Influence of field static stress and rock stratification on the
development of presplit fracture 45
4.6 The circumferential stress distribution around two adjacent
blastholes 49
4.7 The stress acting on an element under tension 50
4.8 The stress state of a shearing failure element 51
4.9 The curve of the stress concentration factor 52
4.10 The stress state of a blasthole after fracturing 52
4.11 The F value curve 54
4.12 The stress state after the fracture termination 55

4.13 Decoupling effect versus ully coupled charge 59
4.14 Published relationships between hole diameter and spacing
for presplitting 61
6.1 Typical cement-mortar blocks used and their dimensions 89
6.2 Typical blasting arrangements for experimental phase I 92
6.3 Typical blasting arrangements for experimental phase II (a)
and phase III (b) 92
6.4 Blocks broken into pieces 96
6.5 Block split in half with (J) = 14 mm, H = 11.5 cm and S = 10 cm (a)
and a presplit fracture formed (b). (Both blocks were blasted by a
No. 8 detonator/hole) 97
6.6 Presplit fracture configurations for H = 6 cm, S = 6 cm (a) and
H = 6 cm, S = 8 cm (b) and No. 6 detonator/hole 99
6.7 Presplit line not strongly developed (a) and no visible fracture
generated (b) 100
6.8 Presplit fracture obtained when a hole depth = 9 cm and
spacing = 8 cm 103
6.9 Presplit configuration for a hole depth = 9 cm and spacing = 5 cm 104
X
6.10 Presplit fracture obtained when hole depth = 9 cm and

spacing = 6 cm 105
6.11 Presplit fracture obtained when hole depth = 11 cm and
spacing = 9 cm 106
6.12 Hole spacing versus presplit fracture depth achieved 111
6.13 Hole depth versus presplit fracture depth achieved 111
6.14 Charge factor (specific charge) versus presplit fracture
depth achieved 113
6.15 Hole spacing versus crack width 113
6.16 Crack zone configuration when an unconnected presplit
fracture occurred 115
7.1 Equipment and materials used 120
7.2 Typical blasting arrangements 122
7.3 Arrangements for measuring the depth of the presplit fracture
using iodine crystals 124
7.4 Borehole sealing rod 126
7.5 Arrangement for measuring the depth of presplit fracture
using the borehole sealing rod 127
7.6 Graphic representations of presplit fracture blasted using :
an explosive charge = 90 g/hole, spacing = 50 cm (a) and
explosive charge = 70 g/hole, spacing = 45 cm (b) 132
7.7 Surface expression of blasted presplit fracture :

explosive charge = 80 g/hole, spacing = 50 cm (a) and


the graphic representation of the fracture system (b) 135
7.10 Presplitting exposed after production blast 136

7.11 Crater produced using a presplit charge = 90 g/hole
and spacing = 30 cm 139
xi
7.12 - Surface expression of presplit fracture blasted using an

explosive charge = 65 g/hole and spacing = 35 cm 139
7.14 Surface expression of blasted presplit fracture : (a) explosive charge
= 30 g/hole, spacing = 35 cm and (b) explosive charge = 30 g/hole
(10 g detonating cord and 20 g powergel), spacing = 30 cm 141
7.15 Surface expression of blasted presplit fracture : (a) detonating cord

charge = 30 g/hole (15 x 20 cm long; diameter =19 mm), spacing =
35 cm and (b) detonating cord = 30 g/hole (4 x 75 cm long; diameter
= 12 mm), spacing = 35 cm 142
7.16 Presplitting exposed after production blast showing back break
and fractured crest 143
7.17 Smooth faced boulder thrown as a part of the broken rock 143
7.18 Presplit test locations and post production blast results 144
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
5.1 Physical quantities and their dimensions 72

6.1 Properties of the cement-mortar blocks 90
6.2 Specifications of the electric detonators 90
6.3 Summarised presplit fracture results for experimental phase I 95

6.4 Summarised presplit fracture results for experimental phase II 98
6.5 Summarised presplit fracture results for experimental phase III 102
7.1 Properties of rocks obtained from Homebush and Prospect quarry 118
7.2 Properties of the explosive and detonating cord 121
7.3 Homebush quarry experimental data and summarised results 130
7.4 Prospect quarry experimental data and summarised results 137
7.5 Presplitting costs in Homebush and Prospect quarry 157
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Drilling and blasting of rock for excavation utilizes high energy explosives
loaded in drill holes to fragment and to move rock. Upon detonation, an explosive
releases large volumes of gaseous products and energy. This explosive energy is
expended in crushing and fragmenting the surrounding rock, in producing a dense,
randomly oriented radial crack pattern about the boreholes, and in producing
radially outgoing stress waves and quasi-static pressure acting on those boreholes.
At the perimeter of an excavation, however, these effects are often undesirable.
The resulting overbreak and wall damage to the remaining rock can lead to safety
problems due to rock falls and to additional costs because there may be :
- additional mucking time for the extra rock;

- extra backfill material needed to fill the overbreak;
- additional rock reinforcement needed (rock bolting, wire mesh etc.); or
- additional maintenance (i.e. scaling, fences etc.) of exposed rock walls
such as highway cuts and dams.
It is necessary to minimize these undesirable effects, so increasing attention has

been devoted to the application of presplitting.
Presplitting is normally used to establish a break line or plane in order to
prevent the shock waves from subsequent blasting from damaging the walls of an
excavation. A presplit fracture system is influenced by various parameters such as
1
2
hole diameter, hole spacing, hole length, explosive charge size, condition of
coupling, time sequence of blasting, site conditions or rock properties.
In presplit blasting, a row of holes is normally drilled first, ahead of the

main production holes. This presplit line is then detonated instantaneously before
the main production blast. From recent tests, a smaller amount of explosive
(specific charge) is needed to establish a fracture plane by presplitting than by
using other controlled blasting techniques. Although controlled blasting techniques
are similar in concept, they differ considerably in detail and existing methods are
described briefly in Chapter 3.
Several investigations have addressed the presplitting operation. This

technique was mentioned in The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting (Langefors
and Kihlstrom 1978), along with perimeter blasting, smooth blasting or
smoothing, as having its origin in Sweden in the early 1950s. In addition, this
book, first published in 1963, presented some experimental results of model tests
on presplitting using Plexiglas sheets. Paine et al. (1961) reported on the first
successful application of presplitting on a large scale at the Niagara Power Project,
New York. With this technique it has been proved possible to make a final contour
appear almost as if it was cut out of the rock with a knife and to leave the
remaining rock practically undamaged. The above authors also proposed a simple
theory for the presplitting process by assuming that the presplit fracture would
initiate at the midpoint between the blastholes due to the reinforcement of stress
waves. Furthermore, they derived simple equations for calculating the volume of
explosive charge to be placed in each hole. Mathias (1964) investigated presplit
blasting experimentally in a laboratory with models of Plexiglas and Marble.
Based on post-mortem analysis, it was concluded that decoupling and delaying the
blastholes had adverse effects on presplitting. Ludwig and Smith (1965) presented
3
an evaluation of presplitting performance compared with other controlled blasting

techniques. They stated that the amount of explosive used in presplitting is smaller
than in any of the other blasting methods. Thus, this method does the least amount
of damage to the wall rock and creates the least amount of radial cracking from
the drill hole. Aso (1966) investigated presplitting phenomena both experimentally
in a laboratory and theoretically. This study concerned the stress wave
superimposition midway between blastholes on cement-mortar blocks using strain
gages. It was observed that decoupling was in general favourable for presplitting.
Nicholls and Duvall (1966) presented presplitting rock in the presence of a static
stress field in an experiment conducted in the field. Based on instrumented shots
their study indicated that the hole spacing for good presplitting appears to be equal
to half the wave-length of the stress wave generated by the detonating charges.
This stress wave is responsible for starting the tensile fracture between adjacent
holes. Kutter (1967), recognizing the inevitable presence of a variable delay in the
initiation of adjacent charges, attempted a more realistic interpretation of the
presplitting process based on a post-mortem analysis of two-dimensional
experiments. Kutter and Fairhurst (1968) carried out a further study concerned
with physical phenomena in the fracture process of presplitting. This provided a
useful insight into presplit mechanics.
In the seventies and eighties, an effort to unravel the basic mechanism

underlying the phenomenon of dynamic fracture was made with a series of
experimental investigations utilizing high speed photography and dynamic
photoelasticity. Pedersen et al. (1974) conducted series of tests with Brittle
Polymeric models and utilized high-speed photography to examine the initiation

and propagation of cracks. These experiments were directed toward improving
controlled crack growth which would be utilized in either a presplitting or smooth
blasting operation. Konya (1980) performed an experimental investigation of the
4
presplitting operation using blocks of Plexiglas and Berera sandstone. This

investigation was to determine the conditions which optimize fracture formation
between blastholes. Simha et al. (1982) evaluated the role of stress waves in the
presplitting operation. Plexiglas models and the dynamic photoelastic technique
were used to visualize the stress waves generated by the detonation. In 1983, these
authors again addressed these issues and reported some preliminary results of a
dynamic photoelastic investigation using thick Plexiglas models to examine the
role of delays in presplitting. Barnes (1988) presented a presplitting technique
integrated into the Jacobs Ranch Mine blasting program. He claimed that this
technique has been proved to be the most viable method of reducing back break in
sub-bituminous coal mines.
The purpose of the study described in this thesis was to investigate

presplitting phenomena generated by various amounts of explosive charge. This
was accomplished by observing the depth of presplit fracture penetration, the
width of crack and the fracture system obtained both in small-scale laboratory
models and in the field. In the small-scale model experiments using cement-mortar
blocks carried out at the Mining Department Laboratory of the University of New
South Wales, presplit blasts were set up with various hole depths and spacings.
The presplit blast tests in the field were set up using the same hole depth but with
a variation in hole spacing. These tests were conducted at two different sites in
Sydney, Australia : Homebush quarry in a shale formation and CSR Prospect
quarry in a dolerite formation.
In order to provide a clear understanding, the thesis begins with the

theoretical background relating to rock blasting. Furthermore, various methods of
limiting a blast induced fracture zone (controlled blasting) and the theory and
mechanics of presplitting are also described for the purpose of defining
5
terminology and extending the theoretical background. Besides this, it is necessary

to carry out a similitude analysis of a blasting model, in order to predict how the
results of laboratory tests can be extended to a natural scale and to evaluate the
performance characteristics for the applications employed. This background is set
out in the first part of the thesis in chapters 2 to 5.
The second part of the thesis comprises experimental results and analyses
carried out in both the laboratory and in the field as presented in chapters 6 and 7.
A series of tests is described and the analysis is expanded further to estimate the
amount of explosive charge to be used. Moreover, other aspects of the costing of
the presplit experiments in each rock type are also examined.
Finally, chapter 8 presents the general conclusions and recommendations

arising from the investigations. The results of this study could be used as a basis of
how to approach the application of presplitting operations.
CHAPTER 2
THEORIES RELATING TO ROCK BLASTING
2.1 Introduction
The theory of blasting tends to be one of the most interesting, thought-

provoking, challenging and controversial topics for all explosive engineers. Any
theory may only be propounded with considerable hesitation and the theory of
blasting includes many areas of physics such as thermodynamics, shock wave-
interactions and continuum mechanics.
The majority of rock blasting theories tend to concentrate on a rock

breaking process or rock fragmentation process. In broad terms, rock breakage by
explosives involves the action of an explosive and the response of the surrounding
rock mass within the realms of energy, time and mass.
In spite of the tremendous amount of research conducted lately, no single

blasting theory has been developed or accepted that adequately explains the
mechanisms of rock breakage in all blasting conditions and material types.
Because of the various natures of field conditions encountered and the very great
number of blast design variables to select from, blast results may not always be
easily predicted, as illustrated in figure 2.1 (Atlas Powder Company 1987).
The several sections in this chapter are presented in order to attempt to

consolidate the various past and present theories that have been proposed in
relation to rock breaking and fracturing in terms of the presplitting mechanism.
6
7
CONTROLLABLE VARIABLES
- Hole Diameter - Explosive Type

- Hole Depth - Explosive Energy
- Subdrill Depth - Initiating System
- Hole Inclination - Initiating Sequence
- Collar Height - No. of Free Faces
- Stemming Height - Charge Geometry
- Bench Height - Loading Method
- Pattern - Buffer
- Burden to Spacing Ratio - Water (Some times
- Blast Size uncontrollable)
- Blasting Direction - Etc.
UNCONTROLLABLE VARIABLES
- Geology
- Material Strength & Properties
- Structural Discontinuities
- Weather Conditions
- Water (Some times controllable)
- Etc.
LOADED BLAST
Production blast
Presplitting
OUT PUTS
- Fragmentation
- Splitting
- Ground Vibrations
- Airblast
- Flyrock
- Muck Pile Displacement
- Muck Pile Profile
- Back and Side Spills
- Misfires
- Etc.
Figure 2.1 Field model illustrating blast design inputs and outputs
(Modified from Atlas Powder Company 1987)
8
2.2 Time phases in the breaking process
When explosive charges are detonated in blastholes, the sudden application

of high pressures into the surrounding rock is exerted equally in all directions
along the blast hole perimeter. The rock in that region is quickly compressed
which causes breakage and displacement of the rock.
Basically, there are four different periods of time, designed as T1 to T4, in

which breakage and displacement of rock occur during and after complete
detonation of confined charges (Atlas Powder Company 1987). These time phases
can be defined as follows:
(1) T1 - Detonation
(2) T2 - Shock and stress wave propagation
(3) T3 - Gas pressure expansion
(4) T4 - Mass movement
2.2.1 T1 - Detonation
When an explosive material is detonated by the introduction of a suitable

initiation stimulus, the thermodynamically unstable ingredients of the explosive
are rapidly converted to gaseous products at very high pressure and temperature.
The temperature, pressure, gas density and velocity of the detonation wave
produced constitute the important detonation state parameters. The term
detonation (in an explosive column) involves the passage through the column of
the front of a chemical reaction. Figure 2.2 shows an illustration of a typical
detonation process. The front is driven through the column, by the products of the
reaction, at a superacoustic velocity called the detonation velocity.
9
Detonation is the beginning phase of the fragmentation process. Upon

detonation, the ingredients of an explosive, a combination of fuels and oxidizers,
are immediately converted to high pressure and high-temperature gases in the
surrounding rock, which causes fragmentation, shattering or splitting. The
pressure just behind the detonation front at the Chapman-Jouguet plane (shown in
fig. 2.2) is called "the detonation pressure". It is a significant indicator of the
ability of an explosive to produce the desired fragmentation. The detonation
pressure initially fractures the rock immediately adjacent to the blast hole wall.
The peak detonation pressure produced by the explosion ranges from 1000 -
14000 MPa and propagates as a shock wave along the explosive column at a
velocity that varies from 2700 - 8400 m/s (Dowding 1985). This velocity, referred
to as the steady state velocity, remains fairly constant for a given explosive, but
varies from one explosive to another depending primarily on the composition,
particle and density. In addition, the steady state velocity is also affected by the
degree of confinement and the explosive diameter.
Detonation pressure, P^ is generally expressed as a function of the
velocity of detonation and density of the explosives as (Crosby and Bauer 1982):
P = (0.00987) pD218 (2.1)
where P^ = detonation pressure (bars);
p = density (g/cm3) and
D = velocity of detonation (m/s).
The pressure, behind the detonation wave front quickly drops to approximately
half of the peak value as illustrated in figure 2.3. This pressure is generally
referred to as the explosion or borehole pressure, P^ (Coates 1981).
10
Expanding „
Gases Shock/Stress Wave
in the Surrounding Media
Chapman-Jouguet
Plane
Shock Front in
the Explosive
Direction of
Detonation
Undisturbed
Explosive
Primary
Reaction
Zone
Stable By-products,
Mainly Gases
Figure 2.2 Illustration of detonation

(After Atlas Powder Company 1987)
Figure 2.3 Borehole pressure variation with time

(Pd = detonation pressure and Pb = explosive or borehole pressure)
(After Coates 1981)
11
2.2.2 T2 - Shock and stress wave propagation
Following detonation of an explosive charge shock waves and stress waves

are produced in the surrounding medium. Stress waves represent the basis of the
explosive process taking place in explosive charges and the surrounding media. As
was implied previously, the zone created by the detonated explosive, which
consists of explosive gases in a state of high pressure and temperature, is called the
detonation wave and represents a shock wave propagating from the explosive. In
this shock wave, the mass particles are compressed and moving (Henrych 1979).
In the second phase (T2), which immediately follows detonation or is in

conjunction with the detonation of the T1 phase, the shock and stress waves are
propagated throughout the rock mass. Any stress is generally accompanied by a
deformation. A deformation is represented by a movement of the mass particles.
The stress and shock waves are, therefore, also deformation (strain) waves which
result in a disturbance. This disturbance, which is emitted pressure waves
transmitted through the rock mass, results, in part, from the rapidly expanding
high-pressure gas impacting on the borehole wall.
The stress wave propagation geometry is not only dependent on the shape
of the explosive charge but also on the other factors, such as the location of the
initiation point, detonation velocity, shock wave velocity in the rock. If a spherical
charge (with a length to diameter ratio of less than or equal to 6 : 1) is fired, then
the disturbance is propagated in the form of an expanding sphere (fig. 2.4). If a
cylindrical charge (with a length to diameter ratio of greater than 6 : 1) is fired,

then the disturbance is propagated in the form of an expanding cylinder. This
assumes that the detonation velocity is much greater than the rock's elastic wave
velocity. However, in bench blasting, in the typical bottom-primed cylindrical
12
shothole normally encountered, the strain waves originally formed near the point
of initiation are continuing and propagating into the surrounding medium while
detonation is still progressing within the explosive column. Thus, strain wave
propagation adjacent to the shothole is neither perfectly spherical nor cylindrical
but may be close to the form shown in figure 2.5 (Atlas Powder company 1987).
The lateral pressure in a shock wave next to the borehole wall will rise
quickly to its peak and then falls rapidly (fig. 2.6). This implies a change from
compression to tension (Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978). Further, the rapid fall is
due to cavity expansion of the borehole and increased gas cooling.
As the stress wave front proceeds outwards, it tends to compress the rock
mass at the wave front through a volume change. Another component, referred to
as the tangential or hoop stress, exists at right angles to this compressive front.
Tensile failures at right angles to the direction of propagation can be caused by
high tangential stress. When the compressive wave travelling through the rock
mass encounters a free face, it is immediately converted to a tensile stress wave
that starts at the free face and travels back through the rock mass towards the
borehole. As a result, some spalling at a free face or on the top of the bench
occurs, provided the burden is small enough and the intensity of the reflected
tensile stress wave is large enough, although no significant mass movement will
occur.
2.2.3 T3 - Gas pressure expansion
In the third phase, during or after stress wave propagation, the high
pressure and temperature gases create a stress field around the borehole that can
expand the original borehole and extend radial cracks. In this phase some
O T
(a) L Spherical charge
1
KJ L/D < 6/1
D
I = zone of explosive gases
II = zone of compressed
medium
(b)
Gas front
Shock wave
front
Figure 2.4 Spherical charge configuration (a) and an expanding

spherical explosion (b). (Adapted from Henrych 1979)
(a) Cylindrical charge

L/D > 6/1
Bench Top
Detonation Front in
Face the Explosive Column
Bench Bottom
High-Pressure
Stress Wave
Transmitted
through the Rock
Figure 2.5 Cylindrical charge (a) and section through the face during
detonation showing expanding stress wave (b)
(After Atlas Powder Company 1987)
14
Tht prtssurt in (ht drillholt

'\s ^.Btfort rtfltclion (r —• oo)
KAHtr rt/ltction (r — co)
Figure 2.6 The Stress in a shock wave (r0 = radius of the borehole)
(a) = the tangential stress of the wave before reflection
(b) = the radial stress of the wave
(After Langefors andKihlstrom 1978)
15
researchers believe that the fracture network throughout the rock mass is
completed, while others believe that the major fracturing process is just beginning.
The gases travelling within the rock mass will always take the path of least
resistance. They will first migrate into existing cracks, joints, faults,
discontinuities or seams of materials that exhibit low cohesion or bonding. If a
discontinuity or seam between the borehole and free face is sufficiently large, the
high pressure gases will immediately vent to the atmosphere, thus rapidly reducing
the total confinement pressures which will result in reduced displacement of

broken and fragmented material.
The confinement times of gas pressures within a rock mass depend on

many factors, such as the amount and type of explosive, rock material type and
structure, fracture network, stemming and burden. Chiappetta et al. (1983)
observed that gas confinement times before the onset of movement can vary from
a few milliseconds to ten milliseconds. Recently, confinement times have been
measured to range from 5 - 110 ms for a variety of rock materials, explosives and
burden (Atlas Powder Company 1987).
2.2.4 T4 - Mass movement
The fourth and last phase of the breaking process is mass movement of
material. Under the influence of the pressure of the gases from the explosive, the
primary radial cracks expand, the free rock surface in front of the drill hole yields
and is moved forward. This is achieved through compressional and tensile stress
waves, gas pressurization or a combination of both.
16
When the frontal surface moves forward, the pressure is unloaded and the
tension increases in the primary cracks which tend to increase obliquely forward.
If the burden (the distance between the explosive charge and the free face of the
material to be blasted) is not too great, several of these cracks expand to the
exposed surface and thus complete loosening of the rock takes place. The burden
is consequently tom off and the maximum effect per drill hole and quantity of
explosive charges is attained provided it is possible for the burden to move

forward freely when the charge detonates. On the other hand, if the charges, in one
row formation with the spacing of the holes comparatively close, are fired so far
from the free faces that no burden can be said to exist, splitting or bending are
obtained. In this case no significant mass movement will occur.
2.3 Fracture mechanisms by blasting
2.3.1 Mechanisms of rock breakage
A number of authors have postulated varying rock breakage mechanisms.

Many different opinions, however, have been expressed. According to blasting
theory both the past and present, there are at least five modes of rock breakage
mechanisms that may be identified in blasting operations. These include tensile
reflected waves, compressional stress waves, gas pressure, flexural rupture and
nuclei/stress wave flaw. From the early 1950s to the 1980s, the authors cited
below have introduced the above five modes to explain breakage mechanisms.
These theoretical and experimental studies on rock breakage mechanisms are as
follows :
17
- Tensile reflected waves were postulated by Obert and Duvall (1950),
Hino (1956), Duval and Atchison (1957), Rinehart (1958), Starfield

(1966), Johansson and Persson (1974) and Lang and Favreau (1972).
- Compressional stress waves were postulated by Porter and Fairhurst
(1970), Persson et al. (1970), Kutter and Fairhurst (1971), Field and
Ladegaard-Pederson (1971), Lang and Favreau (1972), Hagan and Just
(1974) and Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978).
- Gas pressure was considered by Porter and Fairhurst (1970), Kutter and
Fairhurst (1971), Field and Ladegaard-Pederson (1971), Johansson and

Persson (1974), Lang and Favreau (1972) and Langefors and
Kihlstrom (1978).
- Flexural rupture was studied by Ash (1985).
- Nuclei stress wave/flaw was studied by Lang and Favreau (1972),
Winzer et al. (1983), Margolin and Adams (1983) and McHugh (1983).
Many qualitative but few meaningful investigations have been conducted

into rock breakage using explosives employed in a wide variety of blasting
operations. What it is important to know is whether rock breakage mechanisms are
the same for one, two or three faces, for spherical or cylindrical geometries of
explosives of different properties, and for rocks of various strength and geologic
structure.
The degree and type of breakage mechanism by explosives depend on

many factors, such as the number of free faces, burden, rock properties and
geometry, loading density and physical properties of the explosive and the degree
of existing fractures. From a review of the postulated rock blasting theories it can
be generally summarized that rock breakage in blasting may involve the following
processes (Clark 1987):
18
(1) crushing of the rock immediately around the borehole;

(2) initial close-in radial fracturing due to the tangential stress in the out
going stress wave
(3) propagation of existing fractures;
(4) secondary radial fractures formed at the surface, travelling inward,
due to enhanced tangential stress accompanying free surface
displacement;
(5) joining of inward travelling fractures with initially created outward
radial fractures;
(6) extension of the radial fractures by reflected radial tensile strain at
oblique angles to the surface;
(7) tensile separation and shear of rock at planes of weakness in the rock;
(8) separation of the rock due to reflected radial tensile strain (slabbing);
(9) fracture and acceleration of fragments by strain energy release and
(10) further fracture and acceleration of broken rock by late expanding
gases.
As discussed in section 2.2, time phases in the breaking process are more
or less as separate isolated events. However, in a real blasting operation for the
rock breaking processes mentioned above, more than one event may occur at the
same time.
2.3.2 Phenomena occurring around the borehole
When an explosive charge detonates in a borehole, the explosive pressure

or borehole pressure dissipates more slowly than the detonation or shock
pressures, and it supplies much of the energy needed to move the rock. This
detonation pressure crushes and initially fractures the rock immediately adjacent to
19
the borehole wall and the sustained explosive or borehole pressure extends the
blast-fractured zone. A schematic diagram delineating the regions around the
borehole of this process is shown in figure 2.7.
Basically, the regions around a borehole exploded by an explosive charge

can be divided into three major zones (Atchison 1968):
(1) the explosion cavity zone,

(2) the transition zone and
(3) the elastic zone.
In the first zone, which lies in the immediate vicinity of the explosive
charge, the originating process is a hydrodynamic one associated with the
detonation of the charge. This zone is called the hydrodynamic zone, because the
elastic rigidity of the rock is insignificant compared to the developed stresses, and
the rock behaves much like a fluid. The second zone, which lies between the
hydrodynamic and the elastic zone is called the transition zone. In this zone the
pressure or stress is rapidly reduced by a process that may include shock waves,
crushing and fracturing. Finally, the third zone is the elastic zone or seismic zone.
In this zone the stress wave propagates through the rock in an elastic manner
because the strength of the applied stress is below the elastic limit of the material.
Therefore, if a free face is not encountered, no fracturing or permanent
deformation occurs.
2.3.3 Fracture process
The preceding discussion was concerned with the phenomena occurring in

an explosion process around a blasthole. The Rock around a blasthole in the period
20
Figure 2.7 Schematic of fracturing and deformation around the blasthole

(After DuPont 1977)
21
during and following the passage of a detonation wave along an explosive charge
is subjected to the following three phases of loading :
(1) dynamic loading, during detonation of the explosive charge and

generation and propagation of the body wave in the rock mass;
(2) quasi-static loading, under the residual blasthole pressure applied by
the detonation product gases and
(3) release of loading, during the period of rock displacement and
relaxation of the transient stress field (Kutter and Fairhurst, 1971).
Figure 2.8 shows the successive stages in the fracture process associated
with these intervals of loading.
(1) Dynamic loading
In dynamic loading, it is recognised that the region in the rock around a

blasthole can be divided into three major zones of material response to the impulse
loading and high intensity stress wave.
If an explosive charge is detonated in a blasthole, it generates a shock wave

in the surrounding rock. In this affected area called the shock zone, the rock
behaves mechanically as a viscous solid. The passage of the stress wave causes the
rock to be crushed around the borehole. This zone is encircled by the fracture zone
to several times the borehole diameter and the intensity of the wave is reduced by
viscous losses. The blast fracture zone may be as much as 40 times the blasthole
diameter in weaker sedimentary rocks (Dowding 1985). The attenuation process
also results in a reduction of the wave propagation velocity to the acoustic
velocity.
22
(d)
expanded blast hole
Figure 2.8 Successive stages in the fracture process of rock by an explosive

charge under dynamic load (a, b, c) and quasi-static load (d)
(After Kutter and Fairhurst 1971)
23
The domain immediately outside the shock zone can be called the
transitional non-linear zone. This zone is characterised by the rock behaving as a
non-linear elastic solid, subjected to a large strain. New fractures are initiated and
propagated in the radially compressive stress field, by seismic wave interaction
with the crack population. This results in a severally cracked annulus which is
developed in the radial direction. The fracture phenomena in this zone ranges from
the crushing of the rock through plastic deformation and finally to partial
fracturing as the strength of the rock becomes significant. The response of the rock
outside the innermost part of this zone takes the form of oscillatory stress
transients having both radial and tangential components. The radial stress is
generally compressive. As the stress wave travels towards the outermost portion of
the transition zone the tangential stress predominates in the fracturing process and
produces radial cracking because of the development of tangential tensile hoop
stresses. Since the tensile strength of rock is very much less than its compressive
strength, these transient hoop stresses radially give rise to radial fractures which
move outwards from the borehole.
When the radial compressive wave travelling through the rock mass strikes
a free face, nearly all the energy is reflected back as a tensile wave. The relevant
geometry is shown in figure 2.9. The rock is then pulled apart by the reflected
tensile strain pulse and damage at the free face may occur in the form of slabbing
or spalling. Reflection slabbing or spalling may occur not only when the explosive
charge is close enough to the free face that the magnitude of the reflected tension
is greater than the tensile strength of the rock at a point between the explosive
charge and the face or behind the borehole, but also at existing planes of weakness
in the rock within a certain distance of the free face (Clark 1987).
24
(2) Quasi-static loading
As the dynamic stress wave propagates away from the borehole the
dynamic loading phase is complete when the radial wave propagated to the free
face is reflected, and propagates back past the plane of the blasthole. After the
passage of the dynamic stress wave, sustained gas pressure in the blasthole
increases the borehole diameter, and generates a quasi-static stress field around the
blasthole. An increase of the radius of the crushed zone also results since the static
strength of the rock is much lower than the dynamic strength. More importantly,
in the fracturing process, the extension of existing cracks and the possible creation
of new radial cracks due to the elastic hoop stresses may also occur. Besides this,
gas may also stream into the fractures formed by dynamic loading, to cause
fracture extension by pneumatic wedging.
An idea of the action of the gases in partially pressurized cracks may be

obtained by considering the stress distribution around a pressurised hole and by
examining three limiting cases : (1) the pressurized uncracked hole, (2) the
possible occurrence of quasi-static loading in the presence of radial cracks, with
gas pressure just acting in the hole only and (3) the quasi-static loading with full
gas pressure acting in the hole and in the radial cracks. (In the following
discussion, the effect of field stresses on the quasi-static stress distribution is
neglected.)
For case (1), the simplest case of quasi-static loading involves a

pressurised hole of expanded radius, a, subject to internal pressure, p0, as shown
in figure 2.10a. If the region around the hole boundary is uncracked, the state of
stress at any interior point, or radius co-ordinate, r, then is given by (Brady and
Brown 1985) :
25
<V = Poa2/r2> <*90 = -Poa2/r2’ °re = 0 (2.2)
and the hole boundary stresses are :
®rr ~ Po> ^90 — " Po (2.3)
where = radial stress,

a00 = tangential stress and
= shear stress.
If the state of stress represented by equation 2.3 cannot generate fractures at the
hole boundary, similarly the parameters represented by equation 2.2 cannot form
fractures in the body of the medium. This proposes that the pattern of cracks
produced during the dynamic phase may be important in providing centres from
which crack propagation may continue under gas pressure.
Case (2) can be illustrated as shown in figure 2.10b. The presence of radial
cracks means that no circumferential tensile stress can be sustained in the cracked
zone. At any point, r, within the cracked zone of radius, rc, the state of stress is
defined by :
= Poa/r• °ee = 0 (2.4)
and at the perimeter of the cracked zone by :
°/r = Po a,rc ■ = -Poalrc (2.5)

26
Free face
Reflected
wave Gas expansion
fracture
Source of
blasthole — Stress wave front
Figure 2.9 Reflection of radial compressive wave front at a free face

(Adapted from Kutter and Fairhurst 1971)
(a)
cracked zone
Figure 2.10 Condition of quasi-static loading around a blasthole

(After Brady and Brown. 1985)
27
Equation 2.5 implies that existing radial cracks around a hole may extend, so long
as the state of stress at the boundary of the cracked zone satisfies the macroscopic
failure criterion for the medium.
For case (3), if the volume of the cracks is negligible, the state of stress at
the boundary of the cracked zone is given by :
Grr = Po> °ee = ~ Po (2.6)
In practice, the degree of diffusion of gas into the fractures is likely to lie
somewhere between the second and the third cases, described by equations 2.5 and
2.6. In any event, the existence of circumferential tensile stress around the
blasthole provides a satisfactory environment for radial fracture propagation.
(3) Release of loading
It has been postulated that the elapsed time between charge detonation and
the beginning of mass motion of the burden may exeed 10 times the phase of
loading. At that stage, the burden is rapidly thrown with a velocity of about 10 -
20 m/s. Disintregation of the rock mass occurs during the process of displacement.
It has been proposed that impulse release of the applied load may lead to over-
relaxation of the displacing rock, generating tensile stresses in the rock mass.
The previous discussion was concerned with blasting in a medium at low
states of stress. In presplit blasting, as in underground mines, the state of stress at a

blast site may be high. In such a situation, as illustrated in figure 2.11, where the
local maximum principal stress is parallel to the free face, crack generation and
28
propagation occur preferentially parallel to the free face while crack propagation
perpendicular to the free face is hindered.
Local major
principal stress
direction
Blasthole
Preferred
direction
of fracture
propagation
Free face
Figure 2.11 Local stress field direction and the imposed

preferred direction of fracture propagation
(Adapted from Brady and Brown 1985)
CHAPTER 3
VARIOUS METHODS OF LIMITING A BLAST INDUCED
FRACTURE ZONE (CONTROLLED BLASTING)
3.1 Introduction
Ever since explosives were first applied to break rock, attempts have been
made to harness the explosive energy in such a way that this energy is not only
used to fragment and displace the rock, but also to create a fracture plane to
control overbreak beyond the excavation limits. For example, in the large-scale
open pit operations of recent years, there has been an increased use of more
powerful explosives which has played an important part in reducing mining costs.
This measure has also resulted, however, in an increased energy concentration in
the blast area which can result in severe overbreak problems for final excavation
walls. Controlled blasting techniques can be used when it is desirable to preserve
the natural strength in the final high wall of any surface mining operation, as well
as in dams, highway cuts or mine development. Because overbreak and wall
damage at the perimeter of an excavation can lead to safety problems and
additional costs, it is very important to leave the remaining rock in good condition,
to avoid rock falls or rock slides and to prevent excessive maintenance work. Thus
the major benefits of controlled blasting can be categorised as follows.
(1) The stability of rock adjacent to the blasted area is relatively unaffected and
preserved.
(2) In underground mining operation, ore dilution can be prevented from
unwanted hanging or footwall rock.
(3) In surface mining operation, the extent of adverse effects of blasting on
29
30
highwall stability is minimised.

(4) In tunnelling, overbreak is substantially reduced which in turn may represent a
great economic advantage by reducing the volume of concrete required for

void filling.
(5) The safety aspects of the mine are improved by reduced the probability of
rock fragments dislodging. Hence, there are fewer accidents to mine workers
as well as less disruption to production activities.
Various methods of limiting the blast-induced fracture zone (controlled

blasting techniques) are used to control overbreak and wall damage. The essence
of these special techniques is to minimize stress and fracturing of the rock beyond
the theoretical limit by the reduction of the explosive charges.
3.2 Controlled blasting techniques
Controlled blasting techniques, also referred to as perimeter control

blasting techniques, is a term that describes all the techniques to reduce damage to
unfragmented rock. Presplitting is one of the five major controlled blasting
techniques. The others are cushion blasting, line drilling, smooth blasting and
fracture control blasting. All of these techniques are used to minimize overbreak
and wall damage beyond the designed boundaries of main excavation areas. These
techniques basically involve the creation of a fracture plane in the rock between a
series of adjacent holes. Furthermore, these techniques are designed to create a
low energy concentration per unit area of wall blasted.

31
Although these methods have several descriptive names associated with

them and are similar in concept, they differ considerably in detail depending on
the application. For the purpose of clarifying terminology, the principal types of
controlled blasting techniques will be briefly described as follows:
(1) cushion blasting

(2) presplitting
(3) line drilling
(4) smooth blasting
(5) fracture control blasting.
The first three techniques mentioned are primarily used in open cut rock
excavation. Smooth blasting is generally used in underground excavation, and
fracture control blasting has application both underground and in open cut work.
3.2.1 Cushion blasting
Cushion blasting involves a splitting action along the planned excavation

limits. A single row of boreholes is drilled along the neat excavation line, loaded
with light, well-distributed charges and detonated after the main production blast
and subsequent excavation. The aim is to slash or trim excess material from the
walls and to improve their stability.
A typical layout for cushion blasting is shown in figure 3.1 and some
guidelines for spacing, burden and hole loading have been given by DuPont
(1977). To promote shearing between holes without back break, the spacing
should be less than the burden as indicated. Unloaded intermediate guide holes are
32
often required for good results in weathered or fractured rock or blasting around a
comer or curved sections.
Cushion blasting is applicable in surface mining where the object is to trim

the excess material from the final highwall to improve stability. This technique
gives similar results to presplitting. In competent rock, the exposed pit wall
surface after blasting is clean and smooth and the backs of the boreholes are
visible (Calder 1977).
3.2.2 Presplitting
Presplitting is the most successful and widely adopted controlled blasting

method, and creates a plane of shear in the rock on the desired line of break.
Presplitting, or preshearing, as indicated by its name, is different from other
conventional controlled blasting techniques, in that a single row of boreholes is
fired before the adjacent production blasting is performed. The single row of
closely spaced boreholes is drilled on the planned excavation limit and loaded with
lightly, well distributed charges and fired simultaneously. This is believed to
create an open fracture to dissipate the expanding gases from the production blast.
The advantage is that the presplit protects the rock behind it from damage by the
main blast. The aim of presplitting is to split and to create a narrow fracture zone
between the holes to which the subsequent production holes can break. Figure 3.2
shows a typical layout and loading for presplitting. Presplit hole diameters
typically range from 5 to 10 cm and spacings are about 10 - 12 times the hole
diameter (Simha et al. 1982).
The advantage of presplitting over cushion blasting in that it is not

necessary to excavate the primary blast area, then return for the additional step of
33
PRIMA CORD
OOWN LINE
2' TO 3't
UNLOADED T
COLLAR I
STEMMING
FULL DEPTH
LIGHT,
WELL DISTRIBUTED
COLUMN CHARGE
FIRST - ROW - IN HOLE
v (burden:
GENERALLY GREATER
AT BOTTOM
CUSHION BLAST HOLE

BOTTOM CHARGE -
2' TO 3' TIMES
COLUMN CHARGE/FT
PROPOSED LOADS AND PATTERNS
Hole Diameter Spacing Burden Explosive Charge

(cm) (m) (m) (kg/m)
5.0 - 6.5 0.9 1.2 0.12 - 0.37
7.5 - 9.0 1.2 1.5 0.19 - 0.75
10.0-11.5 1.5 1.8 0.37 - 1.12
12.5 - 14.0 1.8 2.0 1.12 - 1.50
15.0 -17.0 2.0 2.7 1.50 - 2.25
Figure 3.1 Typical layout and loading for cushion blasting

(After McKown 1984)
UNLOADED ffj
COLLAR^
STEMMING
LIGHT,
WELL DISTRIBUTED
COLUMN CHARGE EXCAVATED
AREA
FIRST-ROW-IN HOLE
(LIGHTER LOADING, CLOSER
SPACING AND BURDEN THAN
PRODUCTION HOLE)
PRESPLIT holes
BOTTOM CHARGE = 2 TO 3
TIMES COLUMN CHARGE/FT
PROPOSED LOADS AND SPACING
Hole Diameter Spacing Explosive Charge

(cm) (m) (kg/m)
3.8 - 4.5 0.30 - 0.45 0.12 - 0.37
5.0 - 6.4 0.45 - 0.60 0.12 - 0.37
7.6 - 8.9 0.45 - 0.90 0.19 - 0.75
10 0.60 - 1.20 0.37 - 1.12
Figure 3.2 Typical layout and loading for presplitting

(After McKown 1984)
34
blasting. However, because the presplit charges are fired before the production
round, it is not possible to observe the results until after the production blast has
been completed, as it is with cushion blasting (McKown 1984). Also, because of
the excessive confinement and the need to ensure breakage between holes, spacing
is generally closer than with cushion blasting, thus slightly increasing drilling
costs.
3.2.3 Line drilling
In line drilling, a single row of closely spaced, unloaded, small diameter

holes is drilled along a neat excavation line, as shown in figure 3.3. Hole
diameters are generally 5 - 7 cm and spacing is 2 - 4 times the hole diameter. The
line of drill holes provides a plane of weakness to which the primary blast can
break and, to some extent, reflects the shock waves created by the blast reducing
the shattering and stressing in the finished wall.
Although line drilling produces an accurate delineation of the excavation

outline, it is very limited in application due to the very high drilling costs
occasioned by the close spacing required for the technique.
3.2.4 Smooth Blasting
Smooth blasting is sometimes referred to as contour blasting, perimeter

blasting or sculpture blasting. It is the most widely accepted method for
controlling overbreak in underground headings and stopes.
Smooth blasting involves perimeter holes drilled at close spacing, loaded

with light, well distributed charges and fired after the main excavation is removed.
2 TO 4 TIMES
HOLE DIA
EXCAVATED
AREA
PRODUCTION
HOLE
FIRST-ROW-IN HOLE
50% OF PRODUCTION LOAD
(WELL DISTRIBUTED)
UNLOADED LINE DRILL HOLE
Figure 3.3 Typical layout for line drilling

(After Me Kown 1984)
typical
SMOOTH
BLASTING
PERIMETER HOLES
HOLE
FIRST-ROW-IN
HOLE 0 25 TO
0 5 LB
BOTTOM
CHARGE
COLUMN
CHARGE
SMALL
DIAMETER
CARTRIDGES
2'- 3'
UNLOADED
COLLAR
STEMMING
(SAND BAGS.
WATER BAGS,
PLUGS)
PROPOSED LOADS AND SPACINCS
Hole Diameter Spacing Burden Explosive Charge

(cm) (m) (m) (kg/m)
3.80 - 4.45 0.60 0.90 0.18-0.37

5 0.75 1.00 0.18-0.37
Figure 3.4 Typical layout and loading for smooth blasting

(After Me Kown 1984)
36
By shooting instantaneously, or with minimum delay between the holes, a splitting

action is obtained which gives smooth walls with minimum damage. Figure 3.4
shows a typical smooth blasting layout and typical loading as recommended by
DuPont (1977).
3.2.5 Fracture control blasting
Fracture control blasting is an alternative to pre and post-splitting. There

are two main factors that are unique to this technique. Firstly, it utilizes a notched
or grooved borehole to initiate fractures at the desired location and, secondly, it
employs a very carefully selected charge so as to provide control over borehole
pressure (Foumey et al. 1984).
The suggested dimensions of the notching tool are shown in figure 3.5.
Figure 3.6 shows a crack driven from a notched hole in a granite block. The light
charges utilised to drive the crack result in less damage to the remaining rock, and
less vibration from perimeter hole delays. In addition, the wider spacing which can
be utilised can save on drilling costs. However, notching the drill holes is a
separate additional step after drilling. This system has been further refined by
using shaped linear charges in normal blastholes (see fig. 3.7).
37
3MP$5S$
* v>:u.
SM
%0.6 cm |
■HHlpgi
Figure 3.5 Suggested notch dimensions for fracture control blasting
(After Foumey et al. 1984)
Figure 3.6 Crack driven from notched hole

(After McKown 1984)
38
1 - Outer tube
2 - Separator to obtain stand-off distance
3 - Inner tube
4 - Air gap
5 - Explosives
6 - Metal "V" shaped runner
Figure 3.7 Linear shaped charge for tunnel perimeter controlled blasting
(After Sen 1991)
CHAPTER 4
THE CONCEPT OF PRESPLITTING
4.1 Introduction
Since presplitting was first used in engineering practice, many

investigators have contributed to our understanding of the presplit blasting
phenomenon. Various theories and hypotheses have been presented to explain the
phenomenon and, in the following sections, some discussions of the theory and
mechanics of presplitting are described. The mechanisms of presplitting could be
done further to the relation of the quasi-static gas pressure. Finally, factors
affecting presplitting results considered.
4.2 Theory and mechanics of presplitting
4.2.1 Theory of presplitting
Presplit blasts are detonated with an infinite burden and thus involve a
much greater confinement than normal blasts. In the method, a continuous fracture
which will form the final surface of an excavation is generated in the absence of a
local free face. Thus, presplit charges are placed far from the free face and the
concept of optimum burden (the distance between the explosive charge and the
free face of the material to be blasted) is of no relevance.
39
40
As discussed in section 2.3, and illustrated in figure 4.1a, the radial pulse
produced by an explosion is accompanied by a tangential tensile strain. This
tensile strain, together with accumulated gas pressure, is responsible for rock
cracking beyond the crushed zone as shown in figures 2.7 and 2.8. The addition of
strain pulses from two holes detonated simultaneously, illustrated in figure 4.1b,
must also be considered.
The theory of presplitting is that when two explosive charges are detonated
simultaneously in adjacent holes, the collison of the shock waves between the
holes places the area in tension and causes cracking that gives a split zone between
the holes (DuPont 1977). This is illustrated in figure 4.2.
►----- < Compressive
Tensile
(a)
Time
0 + 0.05 ms
0 + 0.10 ms
0 +- 0.15 ms
(b)
Figure 4.1 Relationship of compressive and tensile strains (a) and idealized
summation of tensile strains and resulting crack (b)
(After Dowding 1985)
41
Figure 4.2 Theory of presplitting

(After DuPont 1977)
4.2.2 Mechanics of presplitting
An understanding of the mechanics of presplitting is necessary to assure its

successful implementation. Kutter and Fairhurst (1968) have provided a useful
insight into presplit mechanics by considering fracture development along the
centre-line between adjacent holes to be the result of interaction of the detonation
in one blasthole with the local stress field produced by explosive action in an
adjacent hole.
The timing of the presplit blast is critical. Maximum tensile stress is

produced in the rock between adjacent holes only if the explosive charges are
initiated simultaneously. The wide range of delays as they may occur in the
presplitting process are represented by four typical cases in figure 4.3 (Kutter
1967):
42
^777m>
■ / / , -
7/ .
CASE I
CASE 2
j Dynamic
Quasi-static
xi;
- - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ ►
CASE 3
Dynamic
Quasi-static
Dynamic CASE 4
Quasi-static
Figure 4.3 Four typical cases of initiation delay between charge A and B.
The sketches refer to the time of initiation of charge B.
(After Kutter 1967)
43
(1) The delay is so long that the pressure of the first borehole has
decreased to a negligible value before the second charge is initiated.
(2) The wave of the first shot has already passed over the second hole
before the second charge is initiated, but the quasi-static stresses from
the expansion of the first cavity are still active.
(3) The charge in the second hole is initiated when the wave from the first
one passes over it.
(4) Simultaneous initiation.
Kutter and Fairhurst (1968) demonstrated that fracture development does

not occur when there is a very long delay between the initiation of adjacent holes,
i.e. the charges initiate independently. In the following discussion, two blastholes,
A and B, are considered, with hole A initiated prior to hole B. The rock medium is
stress free.
Take the case where hole B is initiated as the stress wave emitted from hole
A passes over it, as illustrated in figure 4.4a. The transient local stress field around
hole B is effectively uniaxial, has a magnitude of p^, and is oriented parallel to the
centre-line of the holes. Since the wave length of the pulse is relatively long with
respect to hole diameter, from the transient stress concentrations around hole B,
the boundary stress at positions / and II can be estimated by the following (Brady
and Brown 1985) :
aee ~ 'Pd (4.1)
and that at positions III and IV by :
a99 - 3 Pd (4.2)
44
Emission of stress wave by detonation of hole B, and superposition on the

transient boundary stresses, results in tensile stresses which are greatest at point /
and //, and least at points III and IV. Therefore, at points I and II (in the centre line
direction) the radial cracks are preferentially initiated. The effect of gas pressure
in B is to promote the development of the initially longest cracks, i.e. those in the
centre-line direction.
A second feasible method for presplitting involves the initiation of hole B
while quasi-static pressure operates in hole A. Suppose gas pressure in hole A

produces a local biaxial stress field for hole B defined by components p1 and p2,
oriented as illustrated in figure 4.4b, and approximated by:
P2 = -Pi (4.3)
At points / and II on the hole boundary, the circumferential stress component is
approximated by:
°ee ~ ~ 4 Pi (4.4)
and at points III and IV by :
aee = 4 Pi (4.5)
Thus, emission of the stress wave on detonation of hole B and superposition of the
transient boundary stress imposed by hole A generates the highest tensile stress at
points I and II. At these points, radial cracks, therefore, initiate preferentially.
Again, the effect of gas pressure in hole B is to promote the development of the
initially longest cracks, i. e. those in the centre-line direction.

45
(a) (b)
Pi
•4
Pd
Figure 4.4 Transient stress conditions around a blasthole involved in

presplitting for short delay between initiation of adjacent holes
(After Brady and Brown 1985)
Kp (K < 1)
1 1 I i r i
microcracks in plane
of stratification
p^Xr^lonotj *<-<*< ')

cracj^'initiitipnrand'
propagationdue to
m
— — .i -n *r-»v;»f x. jjtliaaji |
crack pattern exploiting

natural fabric
■VvVr :>>.
I 1 f I 1 I
Figure 4.5 Influence of field static stress and rock stratification
on the development of presplit fracture
(After Brady and Brown 1985)
46
The previously discussion was concerned with presplit blasting mechanics

in isotropic rock with low field stress. In underground blasting, high in-situ stress
and stratified or jointed rock may be involved.
Figure 4.5a shows a set of presplit holes oriented with their centre-line
direction perpendicular to the major principal field stress. At points c, d, e and /
the static boundary stresses are maximum, and at points g, h, i and j they are
minimum. When either hole initiates, the longest initial cracks will form in the
direction parallel to the major principal field stress, and they will propagate
preferentially in that direction under gas pressure. Figure 4.5b shows a set of
presplit holes oriented such that the centre-line direction is parallel to the direction
of the major principal field stress. Crack propagation will be initiated
preferentially at points g, h, i and j, and gas pressure will promote preferential
crack development along the centre-line. The effect of the minor principal stress,
however, is to hinder crack development. If the absolute value of Kp is high
relative to the gas pressure developed in the blast hole, crack propagation will be
prevented. It may be concluded that presplit blasting will show directionally
dependent results in a stressed medium, reflecting the orientation of adjacent holes
relative to the field stress, and that the process becomes less effective as the field
stresses increase. In practice, presplit blasting may be successful in near surface
development work, but even at moderate depth, it may be completely ineffective.
Hence, in underground situations, the presplitting method is not practiced.
Figure 4.5c shows a single blasthole drilled in a plane of stratified rock, the
prefered direction of crack development is parallel to the stratification, exploiting
the natural microstructure as guide cracks. In this case, presplit fractures may
develop in any anisotropic rock parallel to the dominant fabric element. Fracture
47
development perpendicular to the fabric element may be difficult or practically

imposible.
4.3 The mechanism of rock presplitting

related to quasi-static gas pressure
The release of energy and its transfer to the rock body from an explosive
charge detonating in a borehole is a complex process. As discussed previously,
there are at least two aspects of the process which occur during the detonation of
an explosive charge in a borehole, i.e. the dynamic and quasi-static components of
energy release.
The dynamic component comprises initially a plastic headwave, decaying

rapidly to form a radially expanding compression wave. This process is affected
by the relative impedances of the explosive and the rock and the degree of
coupling of the explosive charge in the borehole. (Impedance is the density of a
material and the sonic velocity through that material.) The initially high energy of
the wave is dissipated by local crushing at the borehole periphery and / or limited
radial cracking parallel to the direction of maximum compression.
The quasi-static component is generated by sustained gas pressure in the

blasthole which increases the borehole sidewall area. The effect of this quasi-static
gas pressure is to induce compressive radial, and more importantly, tangential
stresses around the borehole which effectively open the existing limited length
cracks produced by the dynamic wave. This results in two effects (Worsey et al.
1981):
48
(1) the opening of surface cracks on or near the borehole circumference

will induce tensile stresses at the tips of the cracks, creating conditions
for crack extension and
(2) gases resulting from detonation migrating into the opened cracks will
cause further crack extension.
The quasi-static gas pressure is known to last longer than the dynamic
component and is relative stable. According to the authors mentioned above it is
the dominant mechanism in presplitting.
Many investigators have suggested that stress waves initially produce

radial cracks around the blasthole and then high gas pressure penetrates into the
cracks causing them to extent further (Johansson and Persson 1974; Langefors and
Kihlstrom 1978; and Ouchterlony 1983). In ideal presplitting, however, only one
crack appears connecting the adjacent blastholes and no other radial cracks are
present. Consequently, a continuous fracture plane occurs throughout presplit
holes. Ludwig and Smith (1965) state that presplit fractures studied in Plexiglass
showed that the fractures begin from the holes themselves and progress toward the
centre points between the adjacent holes. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose
that quasi-static pressure may play an important role in the mechanism of rock
presplitting by forming a preferential crack.
In presplitting, the detonation process may be divided into three stages, i.e.
fracture formation, growth and termination (Sen and Ding, 1991) and these are
discussed below.
49
4.3.1 Fracture formation
The fracture process is generally initiated from the blasthole and its
mechanism can be described as follows.
(1) The location of the fracture initiation
If two blastholes, A and B, are considered, with hole A detonated prior to

hole B by a very short time interval or at the same time, then at a particular time
the circumferential stress distribution around these holes will be as shown in
figure 4.6.
S = spacing
r0 = radius of borehole
Figure 4.6 The circumferential stress distribution around

two adjacent blastholes (After Sen and Ding 1991)
The quasi-static stress field produced by these two holes will interact, and
may be represented by a linear combination of the two stress distributions. Figure
4.6 illustrates that at points C, D, E and F the strongest tensile stress always
occurs. Since rocks are weaker in tension than in compression, fracturing begins at
these points.
50
(2) Mechanical prerequisites for fracturing
Figure 4.7 shows the state of stress of an element at point C. The state of
stress at that point is given by :
a0 > S, (4.6)
where gq = tensile stress at point C and

St = tensile resistant strength of the rock.
V *+ <Jr
Figure 4.7 The stresses acting on an element under tension

(After Sen and Ding 1991)
At this stage, the shear fracture which intersects the line connecting the centres of
two blastholes should not accur. Based on the Mohr's circle criterion, the limiting
condition prior to shear failure can be expressed by :
xct» < aao tan(p + C (4.7)
where x^ = shearing stress on the shearing failure plane,
°ao = ensile stress on the failure plane,
Oo = angle between the normal line of the shearing failure plane
and the maximum main stress (fig. 4.8),

51
(p = angle of internal friction and
C = cohesive force in the rock.
G, G,r
X«o
Figure 4.8 The stress state of a shearing failure element

Furthermore, based on stress analysis and the relationship between the stress circle
and the criterion for shear failure, the condition for no shearing failure is given by
<*r (1 ~ sin (p) - aQ (1 + sin (p)

<C (4.8)
2 cos <p
where Gr = p
°e = f-P (f= the stress concentration factor shown in figure 4.9 and
p = blasthole pressure).
By substituting or = p and g0 = f.p in equations 4.6 and 4.8, the mechanical
prerequisite for presplitting may be expressed as follows :
ICcoscp
(4.9)
l + /+/sin^-sin<p
52
8 10 12 14 16 18 S/rt
Figure 4.9 The curve of the stress concentration factor

4.3.2 Fracture growth
After fracture has been initiated, further development is dependent on the

sustained action of the gas pressure.
(1) The growth direction of the fracture
Before the gas penetrates into the fracture, the apparent fracturing will be
as shown in figure 4.10.
r0
Figure 4.10 The stress state of a blasthole after fracturing

53
In the stress state shown in figure 4.10, the tensile fracture will occur at the tip of
the crack under the action of the pressure p. The crack will develop in the
direction at which the strain energy density factor exceeds the minimum value,
that is (based on the criterion of the strain energy density factor):
ds_
=o (4.10)
de
d2s
>o (4.11)
de2
where s = the strain energy density and

0 = the angle between the crack growth direction and the crack itself.
The strain energy density factor can be expressed as follows :
s — —h (3 — 4 v ~ cos #)(l + cos 6)

4/i (4.12)
where = the stress strength factor at the tip of the crack,
p = the elastic shear modulus of the rock and

v = Poisson's ratio of the rock.
Based on the relationship between equations 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12, the following
expression is obtained:
{cos 1(l-2v) (4.13)
= ^[cos20-(l - 2/i)e°s 0] (4.14)

54
When 0 = 0, ^s/Se2 is larger than zero. This implies that the crack will grow
along the line connecting the centres of two blast holes.
(2) The criterion for crack growth
For the stress state as shown in figure 4.10, the stress strength factor, Kl%
can be calculated by :
î = ^-p-V7r(ro + a) (4.15)
where p = blasthole pressure,

rQ = the radius of the blasthole,
a = the crack length and

F = correction coefficient (obtained from figure 4.11).
1.0 1.5 20 25 20 (73 + cl)/t0
Figure 4.11 The F value curve (After Sen and Ding 1991)
When Kj is equal to or larger than the fracture toughness of the rock in the state of
plane strain (Klc), the fracture will extend further, and presplitting will occur. The
criterion of crack growth is expressed as follows :
Kl = F-p-y[rtj~+a)>Klc (4.16)
55
Equation 4.16 indicates that if the fracture has been formed, it will develop further
if Kj is equal to or larger than KIC.
4.33 Fracture termination
When the quasi-static gas pressure drops off, the fracturing process will
eventually cease. By making an assumption that the pressure is pt and the
corresponding fracture length is / at the time of the fracturing termination, the
stress state near the blasthole at that time is illustrated in figure 4.12.
Figure 4.12 The stress state after the fracture termination

Since the length of the crack is greater than the radius of the borehole, the
correction coefficient F tends to unity. The stress strength factor at the tip of the
crack can be expressed as follows :
(4.17)
The criterion for the termination of the crack is given by the expression below :
0- 2 - p, -J Mr,, + /)< Kk (4.18)

56
Equation 4.18 implies that when the stress state near the blasthole satisfies the
above relation fracturing will terminate.
The Author's experimental results, which are described in chapter 7, have

been used by Sen and Ding (1991) in order to substantiate the above phenomena.
In summary, in order to produce a presplit fracture connecting the adjacent

holes, the quasi-static gas pressure generated by an explosive charge should be
strong enough to produce a tensile fracture in the hole wall.
4.4 Factors affecting presplitting results
The following three fundamental variables exert the predominant

influences on the results of presplit blasting :
(1) energy reduction,

(2) hole diameter and spacing and
(3) site conditions.
4.4.1 Energy reduction
Presplitting is one of the best approaches for controlling blast effects so

that the inherent strength of the rock of the pit wall is not destroyed. This
technique is designed to load holes in such a way that, for a particular rock type
and hole spacing, it creates a low explosive energy concentration per unit wall area
blasted at the perimeter of the pit. Besides this, the energy concentration of the
main production blast must also be controlled to avoid damaging the final pit wall.
57
In addition, the technique of presplit blasting is also designed to load holes in such
a way that, for a particular rock type and spacing, the borehole pressure will split
the rock yet not exceed its in-situ dynamic compressive strength and cause
fracturing around the borehole. Because most explosives produce borehole
pressures greater than 690 MPa yet most rocks are not stronger than 410 MPa
(Calder 1977), borehole pressure must be lowered. A low energy concentration
can be obtained by decoupling explosive charges, decking charges or using less
powerful explosives.
Reduction of borehole pressure to achieve low energy concentration is the

most important factor in the presplitting method. If the borehole pressure is not
reduced below the in-situ strength of the rock, overbreak and loose face rock will
occur. In the following section, borehole pressure in relation to decoupling charge
will be briefly discussed.
In general, borehole pressure is the peak pressure exerted by expanding

gases for a given explosive type. The amount of pressure exerted on a borehole
depends primarily on the explosive density, p, and its detonation velocity, D. The
borehole pressure at the periphery of the explosive for a coupled charge, Pc (in
bars), can be obtained from equation 2.1 and is given by :
PcjmmpD2
8
(4.i9)
Borehole pressure can be reduced either by decoupling and or by decking

the charge. The detonation of an explosive charge in a borehole of larger diameter
than the charge is known as decoupling. Decoupling can be defined as the ratio of
the volume of the borehole to the volume of the explosive charge. A borehole can
be further decoupled by separating the explosive charges. This method of
58
separation is called decking and is expressed as the percentage of the borehole

occupied by the explosive column.
The amount of borehole pressure for a decoupled charge, P^ (in bars),
can then be calculated as follows (Crosby and Bauer 1982):
(4.20)
where <J)C = explosive charge diameter (cm) and

<J>h = borehole diameter (cm).
Adequate decoupling in presplit holes is the first requirement for presplit

line loading in order to avoid extensive crushing or damage. An air space around
an explosive charge is the best way of achieving this. Figure 4.13 shows a good
example of decoupling in air and water in relation to fully coupled holes (Day
1982). For four configurations of cylindrical charge of the same explosive, the
figure compares pressure transmited in the rock mass 91 cm away :
(1) 15.25 cm diameter explosive in a 15.25 cm hole;

(2) 5 cm diameter explosive in a 5 cm hole;
(3) 5 cm diameter explosive in a 15.25 cm hole (air decoupled) and
(4) 5 cm diameter explosive in a 15.25 cm hole (water decoupled).
The 15.25 cm diameter explosive charge is shown with an arbitrary stress
level of 1.0 at a point 91 cm from the centre of the hole. By comparing all
measured stress levels relative to the 15.25 cm diameter explosive charge in a
15.25 cm diameter hole, a number of important points are immediately evident.
The two greatest stress levels were achieved by a fully coupled explosive charge.
On
»n
T“ O O
o ^ «
in
o in
CM
6 o
o
in
6
6 o
m
CM
in
6
O
CM
6 o
in
6
o
in CM
m
6
o
E
gure 4.13 Decoupling effect versus fully coupled charges

(After Day 1982)
60
Water decoupling followed next, and air decoupling produced the smallest stress
level. Thus, an air-decoupled explosive charge is the best way of achieving a
reduction in borehole pressure and consequently the peak stress level within the
rock mass.
4.4.2 Hole diameter and spacing
Variation in hole diameter results in variation of rupture radius. Calder

(1977) states that when the coupling ratio is kept constant, doubling the hole
diameter doubles the rupture radius. This implies that with small diameter
boreholes less damage to the final pit wall will occur than with larger boreholes.
Using small diameter boreholes also means using smaller hole spacings, and this
creates a better wall surface.
The spacing has no effect on borehole pressure, but it does have an

influence on back-break and loose face rock. By reducing the spacing between the
holes, the risk of a shock wave and expanding gas being transmitted into the final
pit wall is also reduced. Of course, when the borehole pressure is lowered in a
blast, the spacing must also be reduced accordingly to maintain the same powder
factor (specific charge). Frequently, when blasting up to a row of presplit holes it
is necessary to also use a lower powder factor, in addition to reducing the spacing.
If the spacing is too great, a protrusion may be left on the wall between each pair
of holes.
Figure 4.14 shows a graph of published hole spacing used in presplitting as

a function of hole diameter. For a decoupling ratio producing a constant bore
pressure in a given rock type, hole spacing is proportional to the borehole diameter
(Crosby and Bauer 1982). Ratios of spacings : hole diameter ranging from 8 : 1 to
61
14 : 1 are included in figure 4.14. Published references generally show a linear

relationship between hole diameter and hole spacing.
According to Bamess (1988), hole spacing can be determined by the

following equation :
where S = hole spacing (cm),

<}>/, = borehole diameter (cm),
Pbdc - decoupled borehole pressure (from equation 4.20) and
T = dynamic tensile strength of the rock (Mpa).
----- langefors kihistrOm

I ICI
cn a.pont
CD GUSTAFSSON
I—| HOLMBERG and persson
« PIT SLOPE MANUAL FOP A OEGREE OF
DECOUPLING SUCH THAT THE PRESSURE
IN THE BOREHOLE matches THE rock COMPSESSrvE 5TKIHGT*
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S'A TENSILE STRENGTH
EFFECT OF CHANGING THE DECOUPLING
8 1 9 l
RATO AND GOING TO HIGHER / * 1
BOREHOLE PRESSURES IN GRANITE /
/
/ ■0 I 10 l II 1
«2 I 12 I 13 !
/
14 I 14 1 13 1
10 ft
J________J------------1------------ I------------ L.
O I 2 3
MOLE spacing , s
Figure 4.14 Published relationships between hole diameter and

spacing for presplitting (After Crosby and Bauer 1982)
62
3.53 Drilling accuracy
Accurate drilling is very important in presplit blasting. If presplit holes are

inaccurately drilled, a scallop or back-break at the toe can result. Inaccurate
drilling is especially undesirable when large diameter blastholes are being used.
Correct hole alignment is also very important in ensuring that presplit

holes lie in the same plane. The inclination of blastholes reduces weight effects
and extends the effect area for strain wave fracturing in the region near grade
level. In addition, drilling accuracy becomes even important when blasting up to a
joint or fault plane. A deviation of more than 10 - 15 cm can adversely affect the
results.
3.5.4 Site conditions
Another important factor which influences the results of presplit blasting is

site conditions. Basically, these conditions may be devided into (1) properties of
the rock and (2) properties of the rock mass.
(1) Rock properties
Rock properties contribute significantly to the degree of success achieved

by presplit blasting. To find the required energy level for optimum presplit
blasting and to select explosives that best match the properties of the rock
material, it is necessary to know and define the intact rock strength and in-situ
dynamic rock strength.

63
(a) Intact rock strength
It has been found that the following physical and mechanical properties of
rock influence its reaction to explosive energy (Lang and Favreau 1972);
(1) compressive strength, ac ;

(2) tensile strength, a,;
(3) Young's modulus of elasticity, E\

(4) Poisson's ratio, \);
(5) longitudinal wave velocity, Vp and

(6) density, p.
The first two properties are "ultimate strengths" which relate to the largest
stress level that the rock can stand before failure. On the other hand, (3), (4) and
(5) are "elastic properties" and relate to the resistance to shape changes that the
rock can tolerate before and after breakage while (6) relates mainly to inertial
effects.
The influence of physical properties can be separated into that of the

ultimate strengths and that of the elastic properties, each is having a separate
effect. Dealing first with ultimate strengths, if the values of these properties are
high, it would indicate that a high stress level is required for failure to be
achieved. Therefore, at constant energy level, the material with a high value of
compressive strength, ac, or tensile strength, ct, would be harder to break than the
rock with a lower level of these values. Dealing next with the elastic properties, if
Young's modulus, E, is very high, then the explosive gases will find it difficult to
compress and stretch the surrounding rock. Young's modulus is a measure of the
brittleness of a rock or its susceptibility to back-break. The influence of Poisson's
64
ratio, \), is somewhat less evident, but blasting results can also be related to it.
Poisson's ratio has to do with the ratio of lateral to longitudinal strain when
longitudinal stress is applied. If x> is large, a material, when deformed in one
direction, tends to compensate for this by an opposite lateral deformation. This

process may be indicated to store energy. Thus Poisson's ratio indicates how the
material stores energy and releases potential energy. If x> is high, it means that the
rock stores energy more readily than one with a low value. On the other hand,
rocks which have a higher longitudinal wave velocity are observed to be stronger.
Rocks which are weakened by weathering or fracturing due to dense jointing or

previous blasting have a lower longitudinal velocity.
The intact rock strength is concerned with the strength of intact rock
samples measured in the laboratory rather than that of large, jointed rock masses.
Intact tensile and compressive strengths are an indication of how easily cracks can
be generated during blasting. Tensile strength, ot, is more relevant than
compressive strength, ac. The terms commonly used for indicating how easily a
rock will break during blasting are "hard", "medium" and "soft". As a rough guide,
according to the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) test, these can be classified
(Anon 1983) as follows.
Hard rocks which have a UCS in excess of 230 MPa.

Medium rocks which have a UCS from 100 - 230 MPa.
Soft rocks which have a UCS of up to 100 MPa.
Generally, the harder the rock the slower the penetration rate in drilling,
and to some extent, the greater the amount of explosive required to ensure
effective breaking. However, certain rock types, such as Micaceous Schists, are
physically weak and easily drilled but do not blast well owing to high porosity and
65
a tendency to plastic response rather than brittle fracture. In softer rock types less
drilling and explosive are required to achieve the required degree of breaking (in
the context of rock excavation).
(b) In-situ dynamic rock strength
The most important rock property required to achieve a degree of success

in presplit blasting is in-situ dynamic rock strength. Dynamic rock strength refers
to the strength of the rock when it is subjected to a changing load such as ground
shock waves. In-situ rock strength refers to the rock strength as measured in-situ
rather than in the laboratory. The in-situ dynamic rock strength is a function of the
amount of weathering and the effect of jointing and ground water inherent in the
rock. By making in-situ measurements, the effects of weathering or any observed
structure on the rock strength can be evaluated.
Testing of in-situ dynamic rock strength consists of determining the

dynamic compressive strength and dynamic tensile strength of the rock mass.
Usually, wall damage, crushing or radial cracking around the blasthole results
when the borehole pressure exceeds the in-situ dynamic compressive strength of
the rock mass. Dynamic tensile strength is used mainly in presplitting calculations.
(2) Properties of rock mass
This is concerned with the in-situ geological rock properties rather than
with rock strength. Local geology has a significant influence on blast results. The
presence of jointing, weathering or fracturing in the rock mass may create results
entirely different from those obtained in a more homogeneous phase of the same
rock.
66
Jointing can refer to any plane discontinuities in the rock mass, be they
bedding planes, faults or interfaces. The manner in which energy is transmitted
and radiating cracks develop around a blasthole is greatly affected by pre-existing
joints. Some energy is lost at every interface and crack growth is less affected
where the joint is tightly closed. Three aspects of joint condition could be
considered as affecting presplit blasting results, i.e. continuity, aperture (amount
of separation) and the degree of weathering of the walls of the joint. Open (say,
aperture greater than 1 mm) continous joints which intersect a presplit hole can
result in the venting of explosive gases unless the hole is fully stemmed. Tight or
infilled joints result in less back-break than open joints. Overbreak can also result
from breakage back into the wall along the joint. Weathered joint walls are more
susceptible to cracking with resulting wall damage.
A major cause of poor breaking is lack of consistency in rock conditions

due to weathering. Typically, hard formations are interspersed with earthy fill and
cavities which prevent the transmission of explosive energy or cause rapid
pressure drop in the blastholes as expansion takes place in soft bands resulting in
impaired breaking in the hard bands. Where face rock has been weakened by
weathering, vibration from nearby blasting operations (production blasts) can
loosen face rock on presplit surfaces.
Extensive back-break often results when heavily fractured or jointed rock

is blasted using the same powder factor (specific charge) that gave good results in
competent rock. Back-break and loose face rock on a presplit surface can also
occur in intensely fractured rock.
67
In short, damage to pit walls at the site of presplitting (back-break, loose

face rock, crest fracture) is caused when the rock mass may be weakened by
jointing, weathering, natural fracturing or fracturing due to previous blasting.
CHAPTER 5
MODEL TESTING AND SIMILITUDE ANALYSIS OF
PRESPLIT BLASTING
5.1 Introduction
The use of model testing, which can investigate the scope of a problem, has
become a very common and useful process in research. Rock blast modelling,
performed with either natural or artificial rock, may be used to simulate a complex
field prototype in the design of a blasting technique.
Many experiments on model-scale blasting have been carried out, mainly for
cratering studies. Model studies are performed in order to avoid costly mistakes and
to obtain information that will aid in the design of the prototype (Langhaar 1951).
Amongst other advantages, the technique reduces the costs of obtaining results due
to speed and to the possibility of employing special techniques that can only be
performed on the laboratory scale.
The principles which underlie the interpretation of test results on models

comprise the theory of similitude. The term similitude is used to imply physical
similarity between two systems, or an equivalent relation. The theory of similitude
includes a consideration of the conditions under which the behaviour of two separate
entities or systems will be similar, and techniques of accurately predicting results of
one from observations on the other (Murphy 1950). All similitude and model studies
should be based upon a dimensional analysis, which uses the mathematical
68
69
background, so that the results obtained can be applied to the prototype with
confidence. Dimensional analysis may be used to obtain the general (ideal) form of
the equations determining the relationship between a model and its prototype.
The word model denotes a variety of concepts. It is used to mean some piece
of equipment using a process equivalent to some other, which usually serves an
illustration (Szucs 1980). In this context the word model means a physical model.
The terms model and prototype are best described and defined as given by Murphy
(1950, p. 57) : A model is a device which is so related to a physical system that
observations on the model may be used to predict accurately the performance of the
physical system in the desired respect. The physical system for which the predictions
are to be made is called the prototype. The terms dimensional analysis (American)
and similitude theory (British) are synonymous.
The principal objectives of the theory of similitude are to establish those

relationships necessary to permit reliable predictions to be made from observations
on models and to establish the type of relationships existing among the variables
involved in any physical phenomenon in order that the most pertinent data may be
secured systematically (Murphy 1950).
This thesis presents a theoretical study oriented toward testing physical

models. The similitude analysis may permit some conclusions to be drawn from the
models so as to design an actual presplit blasting method.
Because of the nature of experimentation with explosives, the use of the

principles of similitude in future rock fracture and fragmentation studies will be
70
predictably greater.
5.2 Principles of dimensional analysis
5.2.1 Concepts of dimensions
Dimensions serve a mathematical purpose. They are the qualitative concept

or idea of the characteristic measured by a given unit (Kline 1965). To be precise,
length is an example of a dimension, and the unit employed to make the qualitative
idea of length quantitative may be an inch, a meter or a mile. Szucs (1980) stated
that dimensions are a set of criteria defining a set of physical variables. In addition,
the expression of the derived units of measurement in terms of the fundamental units
is called its dimension.
The fundamental dimensions of a physical system are written as mass, length

and time and are denoted by M, L and T. In an engineering system, the primary
quantities are often written as force, length and time and are denoted by F, L and T.
The dimensions of other physical quantities follow closely from their definitions,
and when discussing measurements a fixed system of units must be used. For
example, area has the dimensions of L , velocity has the dimensions of LIT or LT ,
acceleration has the dimensions of LT . Force, in the physical system, has the
dimensions of MLT but, in the engineering system, it is F. Thus mass, length and
time have been taken as primary quantities, and secondary quantities have been
expressed in terms of these primary quantities.

71
The dimensions of various physical quantities are summarised in table 5.1,

assuming that the primary quantities are either mass, length and time or force, length
and time.
Physical quantities are either dimensional or non-dimensional

(dimensionless). In practice, typical illustrations of dimensional quantities include
length, time and force. Strain, Poisson's ratio and angles are examples of non
dimensional quantities. If a quantity is dimensionless, this is indicated by the symbol
1 rather than 0. The use of 1 rather than 0 for quantities having no dimensions
permits an algebraic handling of units in functional relations. For example, the
definition of strain is the change in length per unit length, or £ = AL/L. If both AL
and L are measured in meters, the units divide out giving 1, not 0.
5.2.2 Basis of dimensional analysis and dimensional homogeneity
The theory of similitude, upon which model testing and analysis is based,
may be developed by dimensional analysis. Dimensional analysis is also called the
method of dimensions. Based on this method, the dimensions of physical quantities
are manipulated algebraically and the results can be interpreted to provide a great
deal of information about the physical process involved in the situation considered.
Dimensional analysis as a powerful analytical tool is based on the following

two axioms. Firstly, absolute numerical equality of quantities may exist only when
the quantities have the same dimensions. Secondly, the ratio of magnitudes of two
like quantities is independent of the units used in their measurements, provided the
same units are used for both quantities.
72
Table 5.1 Physical quantities and their dimensions

(After Obert and Duvall 1967)
Dimensions Dimensions
Quantity Symbol for M, L, T for F, L, T
(Mass system) (Force system)
Length 1 L L
Area A L2 L2
Volume V L3 L3
Time t T T
Mass m M FL'1T2
Velocity V LT'1 LT'1
Acceleration a LT'2 LT'2
Force, Load F MLT'2 F
Mass density P ML'3 fl4t2
Specific weight or unit weight Y or pg ml-2t-2 FL'3
Angle M 1 1
Angular velocity CO T"1 T’1

rp-2 rp-2
Angular acceleration d
Pressure or stress p, a, x ml''t2 FL"2t
Work or energy T, W ML2T'2 FL
Momentum mv MLT'1 FT
Power P ML2T'3 FLT'1
Moment or force M ML2T'2 FL
Moment of inertia of an area I L4 L4
Moment of inertia of a mass I ML2 FLT2
Modulus of elasticity E ml''t'2 FL'2
Strain e, y 1 1
Poisson's ratio V 1 1
Modulus of rigidity G ml''t'2 FL'2

Bulk modulus K ML'V2 FL'2
73
From these two axioms equations can be classified on a dimensional basis as

either homogeneous, restricted homogeneous or nonhomogeneous. If all of the terms
in an equation can be reduced to the same basic quantities, i.e. have the same
dimensions, the equation is said to be homogeneous, for example :
s = 112 g t2. (5.1)
If all the term in a given equation reduce to the same dimensions and it
contains one or more dimensional constants, the equation is said to be restricted
homogeneous, for example :
.$ = 16.112. (5.2)
It can be seen that the coefficient 16.1 in equation 5.2 is numerically equal to 1/2 g
in equation 5.1 if g - 32.2 ft/sec. Hence, equation 5.1 is valid in the Imperial
system, but is not valid in the metric system.
If an equation contains more than two terms and the dimensions or basic
quantities to which each term reduces are not identical, the equation is said to be
nonhomogeneous. For example, the equation :
s + v = mat2 (5.3)
is nonhomogeneous because some of the terms have the dimension L, while other
terms have the dimensions LTl.
L + LT1 = (L T2) T2 + (L T2) T (5.3a)

L + LT'1 = L + LT'1 (5.3b)
74
Thus a homogeneous equation is valid in all consistent systems of units, and a

restricted homogeneous equation is valid in only one consistent system of units. A
nonhomogeneous equation may be valid but it is of little use.
5.23 General approach to model testing
In order to carry out a model study, it is necessary to scale not only the
geometrical factors but also all the other independent parameters involved. This is
achieved by the application of Buckingham's theorem which states that a complete
equation can be reduced to a functional relationship between a complete set of
independent dimensionless products. (A complete equation is dimensionally

homogeneous and contains all the variables which appear in the analytical solution of
the problem.)
Assume the variables involved in the problem are given by Qlt Q2, . . . , Qn
where Qj is the dependent variable and Q2, Q3,... ,Qn are the independent variables,
then Qj can be expressed by the following complete equation :
Qi = f(Q2> Q3> • • • > Qn) (5.4)
This equation can be reduced, using an argument based on the principle of

dimensional homogeneity, to :
nj = V (n2, n3,..., nnJ (5.5)
where is a dimensionless form of Q1 and t^, n3, ... , 7in_k are the remaining
75
dimensionless products, and k is the number of individual term equating the

dimensional power. In general k is equal to the number of fundamental dimension
involved in the problem (Hobbs 1966).
The applicability of equation 5.5 to model testing can readily be seen for if the
dimensionless products ^ 713 , . . . , 7tn.k have the same value for the model and the
prototype then Ttj has the same value for the model and the prototype.
5.3 General concept of similitude
5.3.1 Geometric similitude
If the parts of a model have the same shapes as the corresponding parts of the
prototype, the two systems are said to be geometrically similar. Generally, there is a
point to point correspondence between a model and its prototype. Two points that
correspond to each other are termed homologous. Parts of the model and the
prototype are said to be homologous if they are comprised of homologous points.
Models are capable of predicting prototype responses because they are homologous
but do not have identical states of time, location and force. Because we recognize
different locations, time and forces as being homologous in corresponding systems, a
model system can be used to predict prototype response.
Regarding the general concept of similitude, let us consider two systems one
of which is called the prototype and the other the model. They have space reference
frames (.x, y, z) and (x\ y' z') which respectively serve to designate points in the
76
prototype and in the model. The two systems are related in such a way that
homologous points and homologous times are defined :
x' = Kxx, y’ = Ky y, z' = Kzz, t' = Ktt (5.6)
The constants Kx,, Ky and Kz are the scale factors for the length in the x, y and z
directions. The constant Kt is called the time scale factor. If Kx-Ky-Kz- KL the
model is said to be geometrically similar to the prototype. Most models are

geometrically similar (Baker et al. 1978).
The general concept of similitude may be defined in terms of two abstract

scalar functions f(x, y, z, t) and/ (x\ y', z', t’) as follows (Langhaar 1951, p.68) :
The function / is similar to the function f, provided that the ratio /if is a constant,
when the functions are evaluated for homologous points and homologous times. The
constant ratio, fIf - Kf, is called the scale factor for the function f
Similarly, the constant KL is called the geometric scale factor. While, a scale
factor K without a subscript usually denotes the length scale factor KL.
5.3.2 Kinematic similitude
Basically, the concepts of the similitude method are closely related to

geometric similarity. Besides this, however, other types of similarity, such as
kinematic and dynamic, also exist.
Kinematics is the theory of space-time relationships and the expression

kinematic similarity, between the prototype and the model, implies similitude in
77
motion, particularly for waves. In order for kinematic similarity to prevail it is

necessary that homologous particles lie at homologous points at homologous times.
Equation 5.6 expresses the definition of homologous points and homologous times.
If kinematic similarity exists, corresponding components of velocity or

acceleration are similar. In fact, the scale factors of these quantities are easily derived.
By equation 5.6 the relationship between the velocities of homologous particles with
similar motion is:
u' = (KJKt) u, v'=(KJKt)z., w' = (KJKJ w (5.7)
Accordingly, the scale factors for u, v and w are respectively :
KJKV KylKt, Kz/Kt (5.8)
Consideration of the second derivatives likewise leads to the conclusion that the scale
factors for the x, y and z components of acceleration are, respectively :
KJK2, Ky!Kt2, Kz/Kt2 (5.9)
If attention is directed to geometrically similar systems, then Kx = Ky = Kz =

Kl = length scale factor. Then by equation 5.8, the velocity scale factor, Kv, can be
expressed as follows:
KV = KL/Kt (5.10)
The acceleration scale factor, Ka, can be expressed as :
Ka = KJK, = KL/Kt2 (5.11)

78
5.33 Dynamic similitude
Two systems, the model and prototype, are said to be dynamically similar if
homologous parts of the systems experience similar net forces. For example, consider
two systems with similar mass distribution m - Km m, where m and m are the masses
of homologous parts and Km is a constant scale factor.
By Newton's equation, the total force on a particle of the model with mass rri
is :
F'x = m' a’x, F'y = m'a'y> F'z = m'a'z (5.12)
If kinematic similarity exists, equation 5.9 yields :
F'JFX = (KJCJ/K?, F'JFy = (KJCy)!K?, F'JFZ = (KJCJIK? (5.13)
If the systems are kinematically similar and if the mass distribution are similar, then
dynamic similarity exists. And if the systems are also geometrically similar, then
equation 5.13 yields :
KpîKJCJ/Kf (5.14)
Where KF is the scale factor for the total force components on homologous particles.
5.4 Similitude analysis of the presplit blast model
Dimensional analysis can be used for the model study based on the assumption
that the detonation and propagation phenomena can be expressed in terms of a set of
influential variables included in dimensionally homogeneous equations according to

79
the hydrodynamic theory. These variables can be the same ones that belong to the
differential equations governing the referred phenomena (daGama 1970). Moreover,
another aspect of defining how rock fractures occur as a result of induced dynamic
stresses is assumed to follow the following two complementary criteria depending on
which of their critical conditions are exceeded first. The criteria are as follows.
(1) The tensile strength of the rock. Fractures occur at any point when the existing
principal stresses exceed the ability of the rock to resist that tension.
(2) The maximum strain energy of distortion. Failure in shear will occur when at any
point of the rock the distortional strain energy exceeds the critical characteristic
value of the material.
If the existing pressures in the medium are sufficiently high then the model
acts like a compressible fluid, without shear resistance, and the hydrodynamic
relationship (Brinkley and Kirkwood 1967) valid for the propagation of shock waves
from explosive charges can be applied :
(5.15)
where p = the shock front pressure (compressive stress) in excess of the

pressure p0 of the undisturbed medium,
R = the radial coordinate of the shock front,
v = the reduced Lagrande energy time integral with the general

expression :
x the reduced time variable,
K(R) the shock wave energy at R per unit area of initial generating surface
that is given by :
80
dK/dR = -p0Rhp (R),
p0 = the density of the undisturbed medium,
h = the specific enthalpy increment of the medium after changing the

pressure from p0 to p,
M(p) = the function :
M(p) = —---- ------ -------- •

p„U2 2(1+ g)-G
U = the velocity of the shock front in the direction of its normal,
G = the function :
f _ jj \2
PqU
G(p) = 1-
c the sound velocity in the medium,
p the density of the disturbed medium,
8 the function:
N(p) = the function :
N(p) = / P) 2(1 pQ / p)G

2(1 +g)-G
§(p,D) = the function :
-1
<Kp,d) = j Pn 2(l-g) + G V2
p 2(1 -g)-GDl-U1
D the detonation velocity of the explosive.

81
Based on these expressions, and with the idea that the pressure p0 in the
undisturbed medium is negligible, compared to the amount of pressure developed by

the detonation, selected defining variables of the propagation state are R, p, K, U, D
and p.
This, however, is not the complete situation because the rock characteristic as
a solid becomes of importance after a certain distance to the point of detonation. The
important variables to control the behaviour of rock fracture and slabbing are the
tensile strength of the rock, Gt (maximum principal stress), Young's modulus, E and
Poisson's ratio, x> (Langefors and Kihlstrom 1978).
L is used instead of R to represent the linear dimension, a,- instead of p,
defined as the initial stress that the wave carries when it starts to propagate through
the rock, and W the energy associated with the wave, which is a function of the
distance or of the time, because these two variables are connected by the value of U.
Therefore, the whole phenomenon is based on 9 variables, i.e. L, U, D, p, a,-, W, ot,
E, and D.
With this, a similitude analysis for the blasting situation starts by the
settlement of the respective model laws. In terms of Buckingham's theorem, this
entails the determination of a group of dimensionless products from those variables
which have the same value both in the model and prototype (daGama 1970). These
will be the primary conditions for complete similitude.
Referring to geometric similitude, the ratios of homologous distances in the

model and in the prototype are equal, meaning that there are homologous distances
82
for the linear dimensions of the jointing points with the property of obeying a defined
point to point correspondence. In a presplit blasting pattern this means that all linear
dimensions will be related by a certain distance scale factor KL. With d the diameter
of holes, S the spacing and H the depth of the charge, the relationship is :
dp = dm (5.16)
Sp - Sm (5.17)
Hp = KLHm (5.18)
where the subscripts p and m refer to the prototype and the model, respectively.
Referring to kinematic similitude, the components of velocity and acceleration

are similar and this problem can be expressed as :
Up = (KL/Kt) Um (5.19)
Dp = (KJKt) Dm (5.20)
where Kt is the time scale factor and U and D the specified variables.
Referring to dynamic similitude, both the model and prototype are

dynamically similar if the homologous parts of each sustain similar forces, i.e. the
ratio of homologous forces is constant. This ratio will be :
Fp = (KJCJIK? Fm (5.21)
where Km is the mass scale factor. In the same way the stresses a,-, ot and the Young's
modulus, E are related by :

83
(5.22)
(5.23)
(5.24)
Consequently the energy transported in the stress wave is :
W
f,m (5.25)
Poisson's ratio, D, as a non dimensional quantity, must have the same value in the
prototype and in the model, namely :
m (5.26)
On the other hand, the accurate similitude between prototypes and models of
model blasting require the maintenance of the same dimensionless parameters n. The
expression of the influential variables as a function of the fundamental dimensions for

this problem (the mass Af, the length L and the time T), known as the dimensional
equation, is :
j p | = ML3
|d| = |t/| = LT1 (5.27)
| Oil = hi = |E| = ML-lT-2

\w\ = ml2t-2
84
Using these equations, the mutual relationships can be obtained by using them
as fundamental (L, p and U):
L = L
M = pL3 (5.27)
T = LU-1
and then :
D = U..........
II
c:N> .9
°i= pu2.....
ii
e,=pU2.....
II
CS
E (5.29)
E = pU2......
pU2
W = pL3U2 7T ~ W
...... 5 pl?U
v=v............
II
The above equations are the six dimensional products that must be
simultaneously maintained, during all representative studies on model tests about
presplit blasting.
5.5 Considerations
A major difficulty that arises in model blasting is the need to simulate a

constitutive effect, since rock is a more complex medium than most other construction
material. Nevertheless, an occasion can occur when a phenomenon must be simulated.
85
Basically, similitude analysis can be used for model blasting when appropriate
parameters are introduced. Two types of problems arise from the similitude analysis
of presplit blasting operations: the doubtful representability of the theoretical
predictions and the complete fulfilment of the required conditions for an accurate
simulation.
If the first problem can be simply overlooked (Johnson 1962 and Nicholls
1964), the second leads to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to find a group
of circumstances and materials that can satisfy those prerequisites. However, an

example with the assumption that by relaxing some of the conditions, useful results
can be still obtained, seems to justify the validity of this analysis.
Some of the variables have been referred whereas others have not been
considered because of their small influence on the overall system. An example is the
stress pulse, whose magnitude, shape and duration appears to control the number and
thickness of the rock slabs obtained after the blast. For this, only the magnitude a, has
been adopted as an influential variable, since both the shape and pulse duration are
irrelevant to a simulation. Moreover, influences such as the ones due to rock structure
and heterogenities (like joints, fracturing and bedding planes) cannot be overlooked.
Although further work is necessary to define the limitations, and with the
important limitations considered directly or indirectly in the previous analysis, it is
reasonable to conclude that the simulation of blasting phenomena is justified.
CHAPTER 6
PRESPLITTING EXPERIMENTS IN THE LABORATORY
6.1 Introduction
Presplit fracture tests on cement-mortar blocks were conducted in the

Mining Department at the University of New South Wales using either No. 6, or
No. 8 or No. 8* (star) electric detonators in each hole as described in this chapter.
The detonators functioned as the explosive charge for this work.
A series of tests was designed and carried out to examine the presplit
fractures produced in the blocks in order to correlate the extent of fracturing with
the amount of explosive charge on a laboratory scale. This included the
examination of the maximum depth of penetration of the detonation products into
any cracks developed to determine the amount of split and the optimum spacing
between presplit holes. The presplit fracture system was also studied.
Experimental work should ideally be conducted full-scale (in the field),

since site conditions and rock properties of both a physical and geological nature
have a dominating influence on the results of blasting. However, the use of model-
scale blasting for studying blasting phenomena has been advocated by
investigators as having a number of advantages. It may provide reliable
information about blasting mechanisms and give valuable data applicable to full-
scale operations. Small-scale blasting allows the study of cracks utilising
detonation products. In addition, a difficulty encountered in the study of rock
blasting in the field is the large variation from one shot to another. Furthermore,
86
87
full scale rock experiments are very expensive and difficult to compare when
performed at different places (Langefors 1959).
Several investigators have used cement-mortar blocks or similar rock-like

materials as a model material for studying blasting phenomena, for example
Johnson 1962, Fischer et al. 1970, Bhandari 1975 and Rustan et al. 1983. A
number of model tests on presplitting has been done by several investigators and
includes the use of cement-mortar blocks (Aso 1966), Plexiglass (Langefors 1959,
Mathias 1964, Kutter 1967, Konya 1980 and Simha et al. 1983); in glass and
Lucite plates (Kutter and Fairhurst 1968) and in Homolit (Pederson et al. 1974).
Cement-mortar was chosen as a model material because (1) it is a rock-like

material that is quite homogeneous and isotropic having a high ratio of
compressive strength to tensile strength (of the order of 10 to 1); (2) it is low in
cost and can be prepared in any size and (3) careful control in mixing and curing is
possible, thus assuring reasonable uniformity.
6.2 Construction of model
The cement-mortar was made by mixing regular Portland cement, dry fine
sand and ordinary tap water. The proportioning of the mortar mixtures, more
commonly referred to as mix design, was cement : sand in the ratio of 1 : 3, and
water/cement ratio of 0.65 (both by mass). The water/cement ratio of 0.65 was
chosen because it gave sufficient strength and also for a workable mix. A sieve
analysis of the sand used in the mix showed the majority of particles to be in the
range from 106 |im to 850 |im, with the largest grain size being less than 2 mm.
88
The mortar, a mixture of cement, sand and water, was agitated in an

electric concrete mixer. After the mortar was sufficiently mixed it was poured into
a wooden mould which could be taken apart and re-asembled for a new block to
be cast. After pouring the mortar mix, it was then vibrated and tamped manually
in order to ensure uniformity and compaction. The mortar blocks were covered by
plastic sheets and kept undisturbed in the mould for at least 24 hours. After initial
setting and hardening, the mortar blocks were taken out of the mould and left at
room temperature for at least 90 days before testing. The blocks formed were 380
mm long, 300 mm wide and 250 mm high (fig. 6.1). This block size was
undoubtedly large enough to eliminate the effect of burden (free faces) for presplit
line blast, while being of a size which made handling possible.
To obtain the physical properties of the cement-mortar blocks, cores were

taken from the blocks. Properties were determined in static and dynamic testing,
and the values are shown in table 6.1. Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio and
Modulus of rigidity were determined by dynamic testing (see appendix).
6.3 Experimental procedure
The presplit fracture experiments were generally conducted in the

laboratory. As a precaution, however, the first two tests were conducted outdoors
due to initial concern about the amount of noise or fragments which might have
been generated.
Table 6.2 shows the approximate base charge weights (Sen 1990),
diameters, lengths and charge lengths of the detonators used.
89
380 mm
Figure 6.1 Typical cement-mortar blocks and their dimensions

90
Table 6.1 Properties of the cement-mortar blocks

(Number of samples tested = 9)
Properties Mean value Standard deviation
Compressive strength, oc (MPa) 22.24 4.35
Tensile strength (Brazilian test), Ot (MPa) 2.55 0.51
Density, p (kg/m3) 2043 18.37
Longitudinal wave velocity, Vp (m/s) 3677 282.09
Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s) 2378 296.55

Young's modulus, E (GPa) 26.34 -
Poisson's ratio, v 0.14 -
Modulus of rigidity, G (GPa) 11.55 -
Table 6.2 Specifications of the electric detonators
Specification D e t o n a tor
No.6 No.8 No.8*
Diameter, mm 6.5 6.5 7.5
Length, mm 30 37 56
Base charge (approx.), g 0.22 0.45 0.88
Base charge length (approx.), mm 10 17 27

91
Various experimental parameters such as hole depth, hole spacing and hole
diameter were established and a series of tests was prepared by drilling rows of
either 2 holes or 3 holes. During these initial tests, trial and error methods were
applied. Basically, the presplit fracture experiments can be divided into three
phases.
Phase I This consisted of two boreholes per block using No. 8 or No. 8*
detonator in each hole. The hole diameters were 8 mm and 14 mm. The
hole spacing ranged from 6 to 15 cm and the depths from 9 cm to
13 cm. The arrangements for this phase are shown in figure 6.2 and the
results in table 6.3.
Phase II This consisted of two boreholes using a No. 6 detonator in each hole.
Each test was each set up with the same amount of charge. Hole
diameter was fixed 8 mm and the hole spacing and depth were varied.
The hole spacings were 5, 6,7, 8 and 9 cm and the hole depths were 6,
7, 8, 9 and 10 cm. The arrangements for this phase are shown in figure
6.3 (a) and the results in table 6.4.
Phase III This consisted of three boreholes using a No. 6 detonator in each hole.
These tests were also each set up with the same amount of the charge
per hole. Hole diameter was 8 mm, the same as for the experimental
phase II, and the hole spacing and depth were again varied. The hole
spacings were 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 cm and the hole depths were 7, 8, 9, 10
and 11 cm. The arrangements for this phase are shown in figure 6.3 (b)
and the results in table 6.5.

92
I
r4> = 8 & 14 mm 1B
6
O O o
u. o
CO
-»-------------380 mm----------
Leg wires
Detonators
Figure 6.2 Typical blasting arrangements for experimental phase I
1, 2, B and A = theoretical area bounded 1, 3, C and A = theoretical area bounded

by holes 1 and 2 by holes 1 and 3
Figure 6.3 Typical blasting arrangements for experimental

phase II (a) and phase III (b)
93
The boreholes were drilled with masonry bits. After the holes had been
drilled, compressed air was used to clean out cutting dust. A detonator was than
inserted to the bottom of each hole and any stemming then applied. When No. 8
and No. 8* detonators were inserted in 14 mm diameter hole of each detonator
was wrapped in a sponge in order to centralise it. Part of the borehole was
occupied by the sponge and insulation tape was used to fasten it to the detonator.
The wrapped detonator was then inserted to the bottom of the hole. The circuit
was connected in series, connections made to the protruding leg wires via lead
wires to a power source (exploder), the circuit tested and then fired. For each test,
a rug and wooden box were placed over the block before firing in order to reduce
noise and to contain any fly-rock.
After blasting and allowing gases and dust to dissipate, the boreholes and
induced fractures were cleaned with compressed air in order to remove any dust or
sand from inside them. They were then filled with a black ink in water solution
(50% to prevent rapid drying) in order to indicate the penetration of the detonation
effects (the depth of the presplit fractures produced). Finally, after the ink was dry,
the blocks were split along the plane of the cracks using a hammer and chisel in
order to check the depth of the presplit fracture system based on observing the
black stain on the presplit face so produced. The presplit fracture systems on the
surface of the blocks had also been examined before the samples were broken up.
For each test, the following data were recorded: detonator (charge type),
hole diameter, hole depth, hole spacing, crack width, presplit fracture depth and
details of fracture systems.

94
6.4 Experimental results
A series of tests was employed to study fundamental presplitting

phenomena. These include the maximum presplit fracture depth reached by the
detonation products, the optimum hole spacing and fracture systems including
crack widths.
In the following section, the experimental results obtained from tests

carried out in each of the three phases are presented. Subsequently, selected
configurations and photographs of the presplit fractures are also given.
The terms charge factor (specific charge) and concentration of charge will
be used in all of the experimental data and results. The term charge factor is
defined as the total weight of explosive charge detonated in a blast divided by the
area of material or rock face that is split, expressed in kg/m2. Concentration of
charge is defined as the quantity of explosive charge per unit hole depth,
expressed in kg/m.
For a series of tests in experimental phase I, the results obtained are

presented in table 6.3. Photographs relating to some of these results are shown in
figures 6.4 and 6.5.
For experimental phase II, the presplit fracture results obtained are
presented in table 6.4. Crack configurations and photographs relating to some of

these results are shown in figures 6.6 and 6.7.
95
Table 6.3 Summarised presplit fracture results for experimental phase I

(No. of holes = 2)
Deto- Theoretical Specific Concen

No. H (cm) S (cm) <}) (mm) nator area bounded charge tration Results
per by holes 1-2 xlO-3 of charge
hole (cm2) (g/cm2) (g/cm)
1 9 6 8 No.8 54 16.70 0.050 The block was broken in

5 parts.

3 pieces.

3 pieces.
4 11 8 8 No.8* 88 20 0.080 The block was broken in

4 pieces-
5 11 9 8 No.8* 99 17.77 0.080 The block was broken in

4 pieces.
6 11.5 10 14 No.8 115 7.83 0.039 The block was split in half.
Crack width = 8 mm.
7 11 11 14 No.8 121 7.44 0.041 A presplit fracture was

developed. Crack width
= 2 mm and the presplit
depth = 20 cm.
8 12 12 14 No.8 144 6.25 O.037 A presplit fracture was well

developed which had a
crack width of 0.3 mm.
The presplit depth = 12 cm.
9 12 15 14 No.8* 180 9.80 0.073 The block was broken in

4 pieces.
10 13 12 14 No.8* 156 11.28 0.068 The block was almost split

in half. Crack width=5mm.
Note : H = the hole depth

S = the hole spacing
<|> = the hole diameter
96
Figure 6.4 Blcocks broken into pieces

97
(b)
<j) = the hole diameter

H = the hole depth
S = the hole spacing
Figure *6.5 Block split in half with <j) =14 mm, H = 11.5 cm
and S = 10 cm (a) and a presplit fracture formed (b).
(Both blocks were blasted by a No.8 detonator/hole)
98
Table 6.4 Summarised presplit fracture results for experimental phase II

(No. of holes = 2, § = 8 mm and No.6 detonator per hole)
Theoretical Specific Concen R e s u 1 t s

No. H (cm) S (cm) area bounded charge tration Crack Presplit Presplit
by holes 1 - 2 xl0-3 of charge width fracture depth
(cm2) (g/cm2) (g/cm) (mm) depth, (cm) reached, (%)
1 6 5 30 14.70 0.037 0.4 6.0 100
2 6 6 36 12.22 0.037 0.3 6.0 100
3 6 7 42 10.47 0.037 0.3 5.0 83.3
4 6 8 48 9.17 0.037 0.2 5.0 83.3
5 6 9 54 8.15 0.037 0.1 - -
6 7 5 35 12.57 0.031 0.5 7.0 100
7 7 6 42 10.48 0.031 0.2 5.5 78.6
8 7 7 49 8.98 0.031 0.1 - -
9 8 5 40 11 0.027 0.1 - -
10 8 6 48 9.17 0.027 0.1 - -
11 9 5 45 9.80 0.024 0.1 - -
12 9 6 54 8.15 0.024 0.1 - -
13 10 5 50 8.80 0.022 -*) - -
14 10 6 60 7.33 0.022 -*) - -
Note : *) = no visible fracture generated

99
Top view
A presplit fracture was developed
along the line. Crack width = 0.3 mm.
30 c
The presplit fracture depth = 6 cm.
38 cm
(a)
16 cm-—»}*-6
Cross-sectional view
showing the depth of the
presplit fracture produced.
Crushing = 2 cm3
// ////A The black stain occuring on

V/7/A/a the presplit face produced
Top view
0.2 mm A hair-like presplit fracture was
consistently developed. Crack width
= 0.2 mm and its depth = 5 cm.
(b)
15 cm 15 cm
Cross-sectional view
showing the depth of the
presplit fracture (= 5 cm).
Crushing = 2 cm3
Figure 6.6 Presplit configurations for H = 6 cm, S = 6 cm (a)

and H = 6 cm, S = 8 cm (b) and No.6 detonator/hole
100
Figure 6.7 Presplit line not strongly developed (a) and

no visible fracture generated (b)
101
For experimental phase III, the presplit fracture results obtained are
presented in table 6.5. Some of the experimental results are shown in figures 6.8,
6.9, 6.10 and 6.11.
6.5 Analysis of results
An analysis of the experimental results of various tests is presented in this

section.
6.5.1 Experimental phase I
In experimental phase I, a no. 8 detonator (base charge approximately =

0.45 g) was used in each 8 mm diameter hole. This resulted in the blocks being
broken into pieces. The broken systems were mainly split in the plane of the
shotholes. This phenomenon occurred with hole depths of 9 cm to 11 cm and
spacings of 6 cm to 9 cm. By considering charge factors or specific charges (see
table 6.3) the presplit charge energy is shown to be too high, particularly when
using No. 8* (star) detonators.
Subsequently the same detonator types as above were used with in larger
borehole diameter (14 mm), i.e. a decoupling technique was applied. The purpose
of these tests was to investigate the effects of decoupling upon the fracture pattern
between the adjacent holes. The results show that the blocks were not broken into
pieces but split in half. This was most noticeable when a hole depth of 12 cm,
spacing of 12 cm and a No.8 detonator were used. Here, presplit fractures were
very well developed (see fig. 6.5b). The crack width was 0.3 mm and the depth
of the presplit fracture was 12 cm, the same as the hole depth. This result indicated
102
Table 6.5 Summarised presplit fracture results for experimental phase III
(No. of holes = 3, (j) = 8 mm and No.6 detonator per hole)
Theoretical Specific Concen R e suit s

No. H (cm) S (cm) area bounded charge tration Crack Presplit Presplit
by holes 1 - 3 xl0-3 of charge width fracture depth
(cm2) (g/cm2) (g/cm) (mm) depth, (cm) reached (%)
1 7 5 70 9.43 0.031 1.0 7-13 142
2 7 6 84 7.86 0.031 0.5 6.5 92.8
3 7 7 98 6.73 0.031 0.4 6.5 92.8
4 7 8 112 5.89 0.031 0.4 6.5 92.8
5 7 9 126 5.24 0.031 0.2 3.5 50
6 8 5 80 8.25 0.027 1.0 8.0 100
7 8 6 96 6.87 0.027 0.5 8.0 100
8 8 7 112 5.89 0.027 0.5 7.5 93.7
9 8 8 128 5.15 0.027 0.4 6.0 75
10 8 9 144 4.58 0.027 0.2 6.0 75
11 9 5 90 7.33 0.024 1.0 10 111
12 9 6 108 6.11 0.024 0.3 8.5 94.4
13 9 7 126 5.24 0.024 0.3 8.0 88.9
14 9 8 144 4.58 0.024 0.3 7.0 77.8
15 9 9 162 4.07 0.024 0.2 3.0 33.3
16 10 5 100 6.60 0.022 0.4 9.2 92
17 10 6 120 5.50 0.022 0.4 7.8 78
18 10 7 140 4.71 0.022 0.2 3.5 35
19 10 8 160 4.12 0.022 0.2 0.9 11.2
20 10 9 180 3.47 0.022 0.1 - -
21 11 5 110 6.0 0.02 0.4 8.3 75.4
22 11 6 132 5.0 0.02 0.4 7.0 63.6
23 11 7 154 4.28 0.02 0.2 1.5 13.6
24 11 8 176 3.75 0.02 0.1 - -
25 11 9 198 3.33 0.02 0.1 - -

103
(b)
Sectional view : after the block was broken up (split),

showing the depth of presplit fracture produced
Figure 6.8 Presplit fracture obtained when hole depth = 9 cm

and spacing = 8 cm
104
Top view
Crack width = 1 mm
4 = 8 mm
38 cm
14 cm 14 cm
Cross-sectional view showing the depth of

presplit fracture produced
The black stain occuring on

yyy7/y//y the presplit face produced
Figure 6.9 Presplit configuration for hole depth = 9 cm

and spacing = 5 cm
105
Top view : before the block was broken up
Sectional view : after the block was broken up (split)

and spacing = 6 cm
106
Sectional view : after the block was broken up (split)

and spacing = 9 cm
107
that an improvement in performance was produced by the decoupling technique.

In addition, using the decoupling technique, the resulting split face showed
evidence that the bottoms of the boreholes had not been excessively crushed.
When this technique was not applied, i.e. with hole diameters = 8 mm, crater
systems at the bottom of the boreholes had been generated.
As discussed in chapter 4, by decoupling the charge the borehole pressure

can be reduced. In the absence of any stemming it was assumed that much less
than the peak pressure would act on the hole walls. Pentaerythritol tetranitrate
(PETN) comprised the base charge of the detonators and had a density of
1.76 g/cm3 (Mathias 1964) and a detonation velocity of approximately 6900 m/s
(ICI 1988). From these values, the borehole pressure can be calculated by using
equation 4.20. The value of borehole pressure with a hole diameter of 8 mm was
computed to be 4858.8 MPa and with a hole diameter of 14 mm, 1142.1 MPa.
Thus with a larger hole diameter (14 mm) the borehole pressure was reduced by
76 % and there were associated energy losses.
6.5.2 Experimental phase II
In experimental phase II, the charge wight was reduced and a broken
system was not produced. As can be seen from table 6.4, a presplit fracture was
completely developed with a hole depth of 6 cm and spacings of 5 cm to 6 cm.
A presplit fracture was also developed with a hole depth of 7 cm and a spacing of
5 cm. Using a closer hole spacing the presplit fracture produced was more
pronounced, but with a wider spacing a presplit fracture could not be produced. In
addition, with the wider spacing radial fracturing occurred and the presplit fracture
plane was not connected between holes. When hole spacing was 8 cm (10 times
the hole diameter), a hair-like presplit fracture was consistently developed
108
between the holes, but the depth of the presplit fracture was not the same as the
hole depth, reaching only 5 cm or 83 %.
As the hole depth and spacing were increased, the charge factor was
consequendy decreased. Beyond a hole depth of 7 cm a presplit fracture was not
developed. As can be seen from figure 6.7a, a presplit fracture was not in evidence
with a hole depth of 8 cm and spacing of 5 cm. The fracture system only occurred
on the surface. With a greater hole depth no visible fracture occurred (fig. 6.7b).
The surfaces of these holes still showed the drill marks and were unfractured after
the block was blasted.
If a comparison is made between two and three hole configurations,

although the same depth, spacing and charge size (No.6 detonator per hole) were
used, the presplit fractures produced were not the same. For example, with a hole
depth of 8 cm and spacing of 6 cm, in two holes a presplit fracture was not
produced, but in three holes, a satisfactory presplit fracture was produced. This
phenomenon indicates that there is no reinforcement of the fracturing mechanism
in two holes. On the other hand, reinforcement of the fracturing mechanism occurs
in three hole configurations. This reinforcement is believed to be increased tensile
stresses midway between holes. With increasing tensile stresses, the growth of a
presplit fracture was increased. Besides this, the presplit fracture was also formed
as a result of gas pressure and affected by stress wave interaction. In addition, it is
considered that there was greater mutual effect of gas energy in three holes, and
more mutual interaction of blast waves as they were superimposed.
109
6.5.3 Experimental phase III
The purpose of this test series was to investigate the optimum spacing
between holes, optimum presplit fracture depth reached by the detonation products
and fracture systems for a given charge size. From these tests, it was intended to
establish which method produced the best presplit fracture.
(1) Hole spacings and hole depth
An attempt was made to optimise the spacing and presplit fracture depth
reached for a given charge size. The optimum spacing and depth could be deduced
from the best result obtained in terms of the presplit fracture produced.
The optimum hole spacing is defined as the maximum spacing for a given
charge which results in the production of a continuous presplit fracture plane
joining the shotholes and which extends to at least the same depth as the shotholes.
The optimum hole spacing obtained is established as the best results. Production
of the fracture plane should not be associated with back-break or crest fracture.
In 3-hole configurations using variable spacings of 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 cm and

hole depths of 7 , 8, 9, 10 and 11 cm for each of these spacings the best result
could be deduced. From these set of tests, it was observed which hole spacing and
depth are the optimum. The results of less than optimum, optimum and greater
than optimum hole spacing are shown in figures 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11.
The relationships between hole spacing (related to depth) and presplit

fracture depth achieved are indicated in figure 6.12 which shows that with hole
spacings of 5 - 6 cm and hole depths of 7 - 8 cm, the depth achieved was more
110
than 100 %, i.e. the presplit fracture depth produced was below the theoretical
hole depth. As the spacing was increased, the depth of presplit fracture decreased
rapidly and became nonexistent when the hole spacing was around 9 cm. This
indicates that presplit fracture depth is notably sensitive to change in hole spacing
for a given charge.
Using the same charge but with a spacing of 8 - 9 cm and hole depth of 10
-11 cm, the presplit fracture produced was not completely satisfactory. The
percentage of depth which the presplit fracture depth achieved ranged from about
12 % to 0 %. The optimum spacing and presplit fracture depth occurred with hole
spacings of 6 - 8 cm and hole depths of 8- 9 cm. Assuming that an indicator of the
best result is presplit fracture depth reaching around 95 % of hole depth, then this
criterion was achieved with the spacings of 7 - 8 cm. Here the hole spacing was
about 8 to 10 times the hole diameter.
Figure 6.13 shows the relationships between hole depth (related to spacing)
and presplit fracture depth achieved (related to hole depth). As the hole depth was
increased, the depth of the presplit fracture produced decreased sharply and this
was also the result with increasing the spacing. An increase in both hole spacing
and depth has a significantly adverse effect on the propagation of presplit fracture
depth. Here the optimum hole depth occurred at about 8-9 cm. These values were
obtained with hole spacings of about 7 - 8 cm. This spacing/hole depth ratio was
about 0.8 - 0.9.
Thus, using 95% presplit fracture depth as an indicator of the best result,
the optimum hole spacing was approx. 7-8 cm and the optimum hole depth
approx. 8 - 9 cm where spacings are approx. 8-10 times the hole diameter, and
hole depths are approx. 0.8 - 0.9 times the spacing.

Ill
— Hole depth = 7 cm-f— Hole depth = 8 cm

Hole depth = 9 cm -B- Hole depth = 10 cm
-X- Hole depth = 11 cm
Hole spacing (cm)
Figure 6.12 Hole spacing versus presplit fracture depth achieved
— Spacing - 5 cm —I— Spadng - 6 cm

^ Spacing = 7 cm —B- Spacing - 8 cm
-X- Spacing -9 cm
Hole depth (cm)
Figure 6.13 Hole depth versus presplit fracture depth achieved

112
(2) Charge size
If charge size is constant, with an increase of hole depth the concentration

of charge is decreased. By increasing both hole spacing and depth, the charge
factor (specific charge) is decreased considerably. The relationships between
charge factor and presplit fracture depth achieved for the experiments are shown
in figure 6.14 which shows that as the charge factor was increased, the presplit
fracture depth reached decreased sharply. From these phenomena, an optimum
charge size or optimum charge factor can be deduced.
The optimum charge factor (specific charge) size is defined as the

minimum value of the charge factor which can still produce a presplit fracture
with the optimum hole spacing obtained. Using a 95 % depth reached with the
optimum hole spacing of about 7-8 cm, the optimum value of the charge factor
was about 6 x 10'2 g/cm2 or 0.06 kg/m2.
(3) Fracture systems
It has already been established that the presplit fracture systems are
dependent primarily on various parameters, such as hole spacing, hole depth and
charge size and these are shown in figures 6.8 to 6.11.
If hole spacing and depth are shorter (hole spacings of 5 - 7 cm and hole
depths of 7 - 8 cm), the presplit fracture systems between the holes are straighter
and more pronounced. Moreover, the crack width is also widened. However,
additional fracture systems were observed in one of the experiments. At a hole
spacing of about 8 cm and a hole depth about 9 - 10 cm, irregular fracture systems
consistently developed between the holes. In these systems, a non straight line and
113
" Spacing ■ 5 cm H— Spacing * 6 cm

140 — Spacing = 7 cm -B- spacing - 8 cm
Spacing = 9 cm
120 —
100 —
80 —
40 —
20 —
Charge factor (xlO-3 g/cm2)
Figure 6.14 Charge factor (specific charge) versus

presplit fracture depth achieved
‘ Hole depth = 7 cm I Hole depth ■= 8 cm

" Hole depth = 9 cm O Hole depth * 10 cm
* Hole depth = 11 cm
Crack width (mm)
Hole spacing (cm)
Figure 6.15 Hole spacing versus crack width

114
smaller crack width occurred. This line was both slightly zig-zaged and bent in
shape. These fracture systems are believed to be caused by wider spacing.
At a hole spacing of 9 cm, hair-line fractures and some continuous curved

cracks consistently developed between the holes with a hole depth of under 10 cm.
With a hole depth of 11 cm, there was no presplit fracture plane generated. Here,
unconnected fracture systems were formed and radial fractures emanated from
each hole. These phenomena are caused by wider spacing and deeper hole depth.
There might be less tensile stresses due to strain energy and gas pressure acting in
these conditions.
The relationships between hole spacing (related to depth) and crack width
are shown in figure 6.15. As the hole spacing was increased, the width of cracking
decreased sharply.
For a successful presplit result, the fracture line should be in a straight line
lingking all the blastholes. In some experiments presplit fracture propagated
further away from both ends of the shotholes to a length of about 12 cm. However,
this configuration did not split the block. Moreover, there should be no other
fracture systems other than the main fracture plane. In this system it is believed
that the presplit fracture line is produced without the influence of any free face
parallel to it. This presplit line is not affected by reflected waves from any free
face.
Analysis of the fractured product of detonation revealed an interesting

phenomenon. At the bottom of the boreholes where detonation was initiated, a
crushed zone was formed around the borehole at the point where the charge was
positioned in the hole. In each of the boreholes, the crushed zone occupied 2 cm3
115
(fig. 6.16). This crushed zone is believed to be the result of a complex fracturing
mechanism resulting from dynamic loading in the medium. The phenomenon
resulted from the high compressive stress intensity of the explosive generated
shock waves near the hole. This area is known as the hydrodynamic zone in which
the explosive charge stresses exceed several fold the compressive strength of the
material (mortar block). Consequently, the block was intensely crushed at the
bottom of the boreholes.
Another interesting feature was a crack zone formed in a V-shape within
the split area when a presplit was not completely developed, as shown in figure
6.16. The direction of the crack zone up to the surface had an angle of breakage of
approximately 40° if a presplit line was not connected completely. This
phenomenon implies that the shock wave is not intense enough to form a
connected crack. However, the angle of breakage can then get larger dependent on
charge size and depth of the borehole as well as spacing. Finally, when the angle
becames 180° complete splitting occurs, forming a U-shape at the bottom.
Figure 6.16 Crack zone configuration when an unconnected

presplit fracture occurred
116
6.6 Conclusions
From the results obtained from presplitting phenomena studied in the

laboratory, conclusions can be drawn as follows.
(1) Presplit fracture systems are very sensitive to change in parameters such as
hole spacing, hole depth, charge size and hole diameter.
(2) Increasing spacing and hole depth resulted in smaller crack widths and less
pronounced presplit fractures.
(3) If the hole spacing is greater than the optimum, a non straight line presplit
fracture occurred with the fracture being zig-zagged.
(4) If the spacing is much greater than the optimum, a presplit fracture system
cannot be developed and radial fractures occur.
(5) A V-shaped crack zone occurred at the bottom of the holes when a presplit
fracture was not completely developed. This angle of breakage is about 40°
and it increases with reduced hole spacing and hole depth.
(6) Optimum results were obtained when hole spacings were about 8-10 times
the hole diameter, and charge factors (specific charge) = 0.06 kg/cm2.
(7) The effects of decoupling, i.e. the increase in ratio of hole diameter to the
charge diameter, reduce significantly the magnitude of the borehole pressure

and, consequently, also tend to reduce overbreak or damage around the
blasthole.
CHAPTER 7
PRESPLITTING EXPERIMENTS IN THE FIELD
7.1 Introduction
A large number of presplit fracture experiments are described in this

chapter. These were conducted at two sites: Homebush quarry, in a shale
formation, and CSR Prospect quarry, in a dolerite formation. The physical
properties of these rock types were determine by standard laboratory tests (see
appendix) and them properties are listed in table 7.1. In some experiments, various
charges of an emulsion explosive, Powergel Magnum 3151, produced by ICI,
were used in each hole, without any stemming. As an alternative, detonating cord
(Redcord 10 g/m core, also produced by ICI) was used as an explosive charge.
The explosive charges were connected with a continuous line of detonating cord
initiated by a No. 8 detonator to obtain instantaneous detonation. Boreholes of
diameter 30 mm and hole depth 100 cm were used in all of the experiments, but
spacings were varied as required.
A series of tests was carried out to study the presplit fracture produced in
the field and correlated with the amount of explosive charge used in a full scale
blast. The maximum presplit depth produced, optimum spacing between presplit
holes and presplit fracture system (crack width) were observed. The main
objective of this study was to investigate the maximum presplit fracture depth
produced by the detonation of the various explosive charges and the maximum
hole spacing for a given charge size that would still result in prespliting.
117
118
Table 7.1 Properties of rocks obtained from Homebush and Prospect quarries
(After Mensah 1989)
Homebush Prospect
(Shale) (Dolerite)
Compressive strength, ctc (MPa) 66,90 72.14

Number of samples tested 8 6
Standard deviation 11.60 8.60
Tensile strength, Gt (MPa) 6.25 7.69

Density, p (kg/m3) 2700 2838

Longitudinal wave velocity, Vp (m/s) 2063 5608

Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s) 1038 2807

Young's modulus, E (GPa) 0.79 5.90
Modulus of rigidity, G (GPa) 0.59 2.20
Bulk modulus, K (GPa) 0.78 5.80
Poisson's ratio, \) 0.33 0.32

119
7.2 Experimental procedure
The experimental procedure used in both quarries was basically the same
except for the number of blastholes and the initiation method. In the Homebush
quarry, every test consisted of a row of 8 holes and the shot was initiated by a
No.8 plain detonator fired with safety fuse (electric firing is prohabited because of
high tension wires in the vicinity of the quarry). In CSR Prospect quarry the tests
each consisted of 5 holes in a row and the shot was initiated by a No. 8 electric
detonator. Figure 7.1 shows the equipment and materials used in these
experiments.
The tests were located at least 10 m from a free face, in order to avoid the
effects of reflected waves on the production of presplit fractures joining the
shotholes. Consequently, the presplit charges were sufficiently far from the free
faces that infinite burden can be said to have existed. In order to expose the
experimental results, some of the presplit tests were set up 1 m behind the last row
of a planned production blast.
Boreholes of 30 mm diameter and 100 cm deep were drilled along a

straight line using a compressed air operated hand-held percussive drill (jack
hammer). The hole to hole spacing varied from 30 cm to 50 cm. An explosive
charge of Powergel Magnum 3151 ranging from 30 g to 120 g per hole, and 25
mm in diameter, was inserted to the bottom of the borehole without stemming. An
alternative employed in some of the presplit fracture experiments conducted in
Prospect quarry consisted of bundles of cut detonating cord ranging from 30 g to
50 g per hole. The properties of the explosive and the detonating cord are shown
in table 7.2 (ICI 1988). The arrangements of the experiments can be seen in figure
7.2 and the results are presented in tables 7.3 and 7.4.
120
Figure 7.1 Equipment and materials used

(a) Compressor, jack hammer, drill rod and borehole sealing rod
(b) Explosives and bundles of detonating cord
121
Table 7.2 Properties of the explosive and detonating cord
Property Powergel Detonating

Magnum 3151 Cord
Density (g/cm3) 1.27 1.76

Velocity of detonation (m/s) 5100 6900
Diameter (mm) 25 4.5 (external)
Nominal core load (g/m PETN) - 10
Each charge was assembled by attaching the explosive cartridge or

detonating cord bundle to a detonating cord downline. At the collar of each hole
the detonating cord downline was tied to the detonating cord trunkline by a
double-wrap half hitch to connect together the charges in all of the blastholes. For
some of the experiments carried out in Homebush quarry, the detonating cord
trunkline was covered by sand before the shotholes were initiated in order to
minimise noise.
After blasting and allowing the gases to dissipate, the following data were
recorded for each test: explosive charge, hole spacing, hole diameter before firing,
depth of presplit fracture produced and crack width.
Although presplitting results cannot be directly observed until the

production blast is complete, an attempt was made to measure the depth of the
resulting presplit fracture. For this, two methods were developed based on the use
of (a) iodine crystals and (b) a borehole sealing rod. For the first half of the series
of experiments, while the borehole sealing rod was being prepared, iodine crystals
were used. Iodine (I2) vaporises slowly at room temperature (25°c) but when
heated it becomes more volatile and so is completely vaporised giving off a violet
122
* Spacing*
(a) O O O O O O O O
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
pSpacing>
(b) 0 O O O O
1 2 3 4 5
Detonator Detonating cord trunkline

to next hole
(c) - 1)
Detonating cord-
downline
100 cm
Explosive
(Powergel)
Detonating cord
30 mm
Figure 7.2 Typical blasting arrangements

(a) Plan view showing a row of 8 holes (used in Homebush quarry)
(b) Plan view showing a row of 5 holes (used in Prospect quarry)
(c) Vertical section showing charge configurations for :
1) Explosive (Powergel), 2) Detonating cord and Powergel and
3) Detonating cord
123
coloured vapour. When this vapour comes into contact with a starch solution a
blue colour is produced. The method of measuring the depth of presplit fracture
was based on the principle that when the iodine was vaporised in the bottom of the
hole it diffused into the fractures in the rock which extended to the adjacent holes.
The procedure for measuring the depth of presplit fractures using the iodine
crystals was as follows.
(1) After blasting, iodine crystals (approximately 7 g) were placed at the

bottom of alternate boreholes (see fig. 7.3). To warm the borehole a
fuse igniter was inserted and burned before the iodine crystals were
introduced, resulting in their being vaporised.
(2) After placing the iodine crystals, the borehole was then sealed as
quickly as possible with a rubber seal and dough-like clay. The iodine
crystals vaporised and came out via the fractures in the rock which
connected the holes.
(3) Pieces of starched paper on wooden sticks were inserted into the drill
holes on each side of the borehole containing the iodine. If the
starched paper became blue, it indicated that there was a continuous
presplit fracture connection between the drill holes. The depth of
presplit fractures could be identified and measured based on the
position of the seal in the drill hole. Furthermore, it could be detected
by the blue contact point on the strached paper.
(4) This procedure was repeated again in another hole.
Note : The position of the rubber seal was first put into the deepest part of
the section tested, then it was gradually pulled up if there was no
indication that a presplit fracture was connected to the adjacent
holes at that horizon.
124
Stick laminated with

starched paper
//Presplit face
T)ough-like clay/
Rubber seal
Vapour
Unfractured rock
Iodine crystals
Figure 7.3 Arrangement for measuring the depth of a presplit fracture

using iodine crystals
125
In the second half of the series of experiments, a borehole sealing rod

together with a compressed air injection technique was used to measure the depth
of presplit fracture. This method was based on the principle that when compressed
air is injected into a borehole sealed with an expandable rubber collar, the air will
be released via the fractures in the rock which connect the holes and thence
through the holes or fractures up to the surface.
The borehole sealing rod basically consistes of a hollow steel rod

connected to an expandable rubber collar which sealed the borehole. The tube was
also connected at its top end to a regulator and pressure gauge. This apparatus is
shown in figure 7.1a and diagrammatically in figure 7.4.
The measuring procedure was as follows.
(1) The borehole sealing rod was connected to an air line from a
compressor and inserted into the section of the borehole to be
examined.
(2) The rubber was expanded by twisting the rod until it pressed against
the sides of the borehole and formed an airtight seal.
(3) Air was then injected so that it diffused through the fractures in the
rock which connected the holes. The air emerged at the surface either
via holes adjacent to the hole measured or via presplit fractures.
Figure 7.5 shows the arrangement of the measurement.
Note : If there were no fractures or the fractures did not connect with
adjacent holes, the pressure in the hole measured by the pressure
gauge became high. If there were fractures which connected the
adjacent holes, the pressure gauge showed a lower reading or dropped
to zero.
Compressed air inlet
1300
Figure 7.4 Borehole sealing rod

(All dimensions in mm)
127
Compressed air in
---- Borehole sealing rod

Air out
Êxpandable;/
grubber seal </ Presplit face
Unfractured rock
Figure 7.5 Arrangement for measuring the depth of a presplit fracture

using the borehole sealing rod
128
(4) The depth of the presplit fracture in the section measured could be
identified and measured from a knowledge of the position of seal.
(5) After the depth of the presplit fracture was determined, the sealing
rubber was released and reset at another depth along the length of the
borehole within the section measured.
(6) The compressed air injection procedure was then repeated in an
adjacent hole to identify and measure other parts of the presplit plane.
7.3 Experimental results
In this section, the experimental results obtained at both quarries are

presented. They include the determination of the presplit fracture depth reached
and crack widths or fracture systems correlated to the hole spacing from given
charge size. From all of the tests, selected configurations and photographs are
presented. Photographs of exposed presplitting on sites of production blasts are
also presented.
The terms charge factor (specific charge) and concentration of charge are
used here as in the previous chapter. For the sake of special emphasis, since, in
presplitting, the yield of material blasted is the area of wall face split, so the term
charge factor (specific charge) is defined as the total weight of explosive charge
detonated in a blast divided by the area of material or rock face split, expressed in
kg/m^. This factor is used as a guideline for estimating the efficiency of blast
design, and is the most practical value in cost analysis. Concentration of charge is
defined as the total weight of explosive charge divided by the hole depth (in these
experiments = 1 m), expressed in kg/m.

129
7.3.1 Homebush quarry experimental results
Table 7.3 presents a summary of experimental results obtained at

Homebush quarry and figure 7.6 shows graphical representations of some of the
presplit fracture results. A few typical surface profiles of the presplit fracture
systems are shown in figures 7.7 to 7.9. A photograph of exposed presplitting a
post production blast surface is presented in figure 7.10. In this figure, three
exposed presplit faces are shown.
7.3.2 Prospect quarry experimental results
Table 7.4 presents a summary of experimental results obtained at Prospect

quarry. A crater produced using a 120 g/hole charge is shown in figure 7.11 and
surface expressions of some of the presplit fracture tests are shown in figures 7.12
to 7.15. The results of the presplit tests after production blast exposure are shown
in figure 7.16. A smooth clean presplit face is not evident. However, a smooth
clean faced boulder thrown as a part of the broken rock is an indication that
presplitting had occurred and is shown in figure 7.17.
7.4 Analysis of results
The results obtained by using various charge sizes and hole spacings with
the same hole depth were analysed. The purpose of the various hole spacings was
to determine the comparative presplit fracture between closely spaced holes and
widely spaced holes for a given charge size. The presplit fracture system appeared
to be c -ndent on the geometry of the hole spacings. The experimental results
showed that a wider era ’: and straighter presplit fracture line were associated with
130
Table 7.3 Homebush quarry experimental data and summarised results

(Hole diameter = 30 mm, hole depth = 100 cm and No. of holes = 8)
Charge Theoretical Charge Concen

No. mass Spacing area bounded factor tration of Results
per hole by holes 1 - 8 charge
(g) (cm) (m2) (kg/m2) (kg/m2)
1 60 30 2.10 0.228 0.060 A presplit fracture was formed.
Crack width = 0.5 cm. Tree radial
fracture system (20 cm long) ema
nated from both ends of boreholes.
2 80 40 2.80 0.228 0.080 Partial preaplit, for radial cracks
and a crater system at one side were
developed. Crack width = 5 cm.
3 90 45 3.15 0.228 0.090 A presplit and crater were formed.
A curved shape occurred at the 4th
hole. Crack width = 4 cm.
4 90 50 3.50 0.206 0.090 A presplit was formed with three ra
radial cracks and a crater at one side
of the shotholes. Crack width = 4cm.
5 80 50 3.50 0.183 0.050 A presplit and slabbing were deve
loped. Crack width = 2 cm. Two
radial fractures at the first hole
occured.
6 90 55 3.85 0.187 0.090 A presplit, two radial cracks and a
crater at the 8th hole were
developed. Crack width = 2 cm.
7 70 50 3.50 1.60 0.060 A presplit fracture line was deve
loped with two radial cracks. Crack
width =1.5 cm. A curved shape
occurred at this system.
8 60 50 3.50 0.137 0.060 No presplit was formed. Individual
parallel fractures emanated from
each hole, but connection did not
occur.
9 65 50 3.50 0.148 0.065 Partial presplit with discontinuous
limited fracturing was developed.
Crack width = 0.3 cm. Spalling
occurred at the 8th hole.

131
Table 7.3 (Continued)

10 70 40 2.80 0.200 0.070 A presplit fracture line was deve
loped throughout all the shotholes.
Crack width = 15 cm. Presplit
depth = 85 - 90 cm.
11 70 45 3.15 0.180 0.070 A continuous presplit fracture line
was developed. Crack width=0.5cm.
Presplit fracture depth = 50-70 cm.
12 70 35 2.45 0.228 0.070 A presplit was formed and the frac
ture system propagated further away
from both ends of the shotholes to a
length of 30 cm. Crack width = 1 cm
and the presplit depth = 95 cm.
13 75 40 2.80 0.214 0.075 A presplit was developed from hole
no.2 - no.8 and minor slabbing.
Crack width = 0.8 cm and the
presplit depth = 90 cm.
14 80 45 3.15 0.203 0.080 A Presplit was also developed from
hole no.2 - no.8. Crack width=0.5cm
and the presplit depth = 85 - 90 cm.
15 70 30 2.10 0.270 0.070 A presplit was formed with a small
degree of spalling. Crack width =
1.5 cm. Presplit depth = 95 - 100cm.
16 80 40 2.80 0.228 0.080 A presplit was formed. Crack width
= 0.5 cm. Presplit depth = 90 cm.

132
40 cm
Crater
(radius = 30 cm)
Crack width = 0.5 cm

-45 cm-
■O---------O
7 8
Figure 7.6 Graphic representation of presplit fracture blasted using:

an explosive charge = 90 g/hole, spacing = 50 cm (a) and
explosive charge = 70 g/hole, spacing = 45 cm (b)
133
(a)
Figure 7.7 Surface expression of blasted presplit fracture:

134

explosive charge = 70 g/hole, spacing = 35 cm (a)
135
:'S , ■ ' .
pm mmr* fPSH
®£^4,SH
llpPh^M' r: •
'' A !■
IIA .'fs^^sSB
*5* .rfcifi ’ vi v *:‘k "-cV
^j*-50 cm-*j^
O—

the graphic representation of the fracture system (b)
136
Figure 7.10 Presplitting exposed after a production blast

Left : the explosive charge = 80 g/hole, spacing = 40 cm
Middle : the explosive charge = 90 g/hole, spacing = 50 cm
Right : the explosive charge = 90 g/hole, spacing = 45 cm
137
Table 7.4 Prospect quarry experimental data and summarised results

(Hole diameter = 30 cm, hole depth = 100 cm and No. of holes = 5)
Charge Theoretical Charge Concen

No. mass Spacing area bounded factor tration of Results
per hole by holes 1 - 5 charge
(g) (cm) (m2) (kg/m2) (kg/m2)
1 120 30 1.20 0.500 0.120 A crater was produced throughout
all the shotholes.
2 80 30 1.20 0.270 0.080 Slabbing and minor cratering was
produced.
3 65 35 1.40 0.232 0.065 A presplit was formed at the middle
with slabbing. The slabbing depth
was 15 cm. Crack width = 2 cm.
Craters were produced at both ends
of shotholes.
4 55 35 1.40 0.196 0.055 A presplit was formed with a small
degree of slabbing. The slabbing
depth was 15 cm and the crack width
was 0.5 cm.
5 60 + 5D 30 1.20 0.271 0.065 A presplit was formed with slabbing
throughout the shotholes.
Crack width = 1 cm.
6 50D 30 1.20 0.210 0.050 A presplit was formed with slabbing
throughout the shotholes.
7 30+10D 30 1.20 0.170 0.040 A presplit was formed with minor
slabbing. Crack width = 1 cm.
8 10+30D 30 1.20 0.170 0.040 A presplit fracture line was formed
throughout the shotholes. Crack
width = 0.5 cm. The depth of
presplit fracture = 85 cm.
9 30 30 1.20 0.125 0.030 A presplit was formed with small
degree of spalling. Crack width
= 0.5cm. Presplit depth = 85 cm.

138
Table 7.4 (Continued)

10 30 35 1.40 ..0.107 0.030 A presplit was formed with a smaller
crack. Crack width = 0.2 cm.
Presplit fracture depth = 60 cm.
11 30*) 35 1.40 0.107 0.030 A presplit was formed with minor
spalling. Crack width = 0.2 cm.
Presplit depth = 75 cm.
12 30D*) 35 1.40 0.107 0.030 A presplit fracture was formed.
Crack width = 0.2 cm. Presplit
depth=65cm.
13 30D*) 35 1.40 0.107 0.030 A presplit fracture was formed.
Crack width = 0.2 cm. Presplit
depth=70cm.
14 30D**) 35 1.40 0.107 0.030 A hair line presplit fracture was
formed. Crack width =0.1 cm.
Presplit depth = 65 cm.
15 30D**) 35 1.40 0.107 0.030 The same as above, but the presplit
depth was 60 cm.
16 30D**) 35 1.40 0.107 0.030 A presplit was formed. Crack
width=0.1 cm.The depth =60 cm.
17 70 35 1.40 0.250 0.070 A presplit line was formed. Crack
width =0.6 cm. Presplit depth
= 90-95 cm.
18 90 35 1.40 0.320 0.090 A presplit line was formed with
slabbing throughout the shotoles.
Crack width = 2 cm.
19 70 40 1.60 0.220 0.070 A presplit line was formed. The line
was zig-zagged in shape. Crack
width=0.3cm. Presplit depth=85cm.
Note : D = Detonating cord (50D = 10 x 50 cm long)

*) = 15 x 20 cm long with diameter = 19 mm
**) = 4 x 75 cm long with diameter =12 mm
139
Figuine 7.11 Crater produced using a presplit charge = 90 g/hole

and spacing = 30 cm
Figure 7.12 Surface expression of presplit fracture blasted using

an explosive charge = 65 g/hole and spacing = 35 cm
140

141

(a) explosive charge = 30 g/hole, spacing = 35 cm
(b) explosive charge = 30 g (10 g det.cord and 20 g powergel)
spacing = 30 cm
142

(a) Detonating cord charge = 30 g/hole (15 x 20 cm long,
diameter =19 mm), spacing = 35 cm and
(b) Detonaring cord charge= 30 g/hole (4 x 75 cm long,
diameter = 12 mm), spacing = 35 cm
143
Figure 7.16 Presplitting exposed after production blast

showing back break and fractured crests
Figure 7.17 Smooth faced boulder thrown as a part of the broken ro:k
144
Presplit
Free face
*-l m
Production blast
Post production blast results

(New free face)
Figure 7.18 Presplit test locations and post production blast results
145
the smallest hole spacing used. In addition, the deepest presplit produced was, of
course, associated with the largest crack. Wider cracks and continuous presplit
fracture planes were associated with a hole spacing of about 30 - 35 cm.
Continuous fracturing was limited to hole spacings of about 45 - 50 cm. Here,
between the holes, two adjacent fractures had the tendency to curve towards each
other or to have an elliptical shape. They were either connected or intersected the
adjacent holes. If a presplit fracture line was not generated an unconnected
fracture occurred. Moreover, a series of unconnected two cracks emanated from
each hole.
The hole spacings used establish the basic energy density of an explosive
charge within the rock and the energy distribution. Variations in spacing and
charge depth and their ratio to each other can actually control and they also affect
the apportioning of the available energy to enhance or reduce crack propagation. If
holes are more closely spaced, it is believed that both expanding gases and the
interaction of stress waves may have more effect on the enhancement of crack
propagation and are responsible for the creation of presplit fracture planes. In
addition, the preferred direction of crack propagation is along the line of the
boreholes and this direction will be that in which cracks can be most easily opened
and into which the high pressure detonation gases can most easily penetrate. The
greatest tendency for crack opening will occur where tangential tensile stress
zones overlap adjacent pressurised holes.
Generally, in these experiments, if a presplit fracture line was generated

then all presplit fracture systems were propagated further away from both ends of
the shotholes to a length of about 0.5-2 times the hole spacing. Where cracks
from adjacent holes intersected, a continuous presplit fracture was formed and
subsequently widened. Further crack extension is probably due to the release of
146
gas pressure and the strain wave associated with sustained gas pressure causing a
mass movement of the rock which will induce further fracturing and extending of
existing structural weakness planes in the rock.
7.4.1 Homebush test series
In the Homebush quarry experiments, a presplit charge of less than 70

g/hole generated a limited presplit fracture line. Using such a charge, a
discontinuous presplit fracture with a narrower crack width occurred when the
spacing was about 50 cm. When a charge weight of 60 g/hole with a spacing of
50 cm was used, no presplit fracture line was formed, and two unconnected cracks
emanated from each hole (see fig. 7.9). This implies that the fracture system is
initiated from each hole, but cracks from neighbouring boreholes are not
intersected to form a continuous presplit fracture line. Hence, the charge sizes used
in these tests can be said to be insufficient to presplit the rock to the required
extent.
Further experiments were carried out using a presplit charge of 70 g/hole

with a hole spacing of 35 cm. This was found to generate a presplit fracture plane
through the shotholes. The crack width was about 1 cm and the depth of the
presplit fracture was about 95 cm. Various type of undesired damage, such as
slabbing, radial fracturing or minor cratering at one side of the shothole line
occurred a great deal with this charge size. This phenomenon was probably not
only due to the increased charge size, but also to the difference in the hardness of
the rock along the blast line. It was also noted that some cracks already existed
before any blasting had occurred.
147
Figure 7.10 shows a photograph of exposed presplitting on a post

production blast face. The production blast used a hole diameter of 76 mm,
spacing and burden of 2 m, hole depth of 12 m and an explosive charge (AMEX,
produced by ICI) of 2.9 kg/m. In this figure, three exposed smooth clean presplit
faces are shown. It can also be seen that in the presplitting tests the faces are
smoother than those produced by an uncontrolled production blast. This figure
shows that the depth of the presplit fracture runs from the bottom of the hole to the
ground surface. The charge sizes used, from left to right, were 80, 90 and 90 g
with spacings 40, 50 and 45 cm respectively. These results indicate that the
presplitting tests can be said to be successful using these charge sizes. However,
these amounts of explosive charge are found to be too high, since radial cracking,
local cratering and curved fracture shape occurred in spite of the use of wider
spacings.
From consideration of these phenomena, an adequate presplitting charge

for use with 30 mm diameter holes can be shown to be 70 g/hole with a spacing of
35 cm. This is in general agreement with the experimental results for presplit
fractures without any considerable damage or radial fractures. In this arrangement,
a charge factor of 0.228 kg/m2 or concentration of charge of 0.07 kg/m can be said
to be appropriate for presplitting this rock type. This can produce a presplit
fracture with a depth of about 95 cm (95% depth of hole reached ). Using a
presplit charge of about 80 - 90 g/hole (i.e. 0.08 - 0.09 kg/m) evidence of over
chargeing was apparent.
148
7.4.2 Prospect test series
In the Prospect quarry experiments, a presplit charge of 80 g/hole (i.e. a

charge concentration of 0.08 kg/m) detonated with a hole spacing of 30 cm
generated slabbing through the shotholes and a small degree of crater formation at
one side of the borehole line. When 120 g/hole (0.12 kg/m) was used a bigger
crater system was produced. However when the charge size was reduced to 40 - 50
g/hole, the desired continuous fracture system was not created. These phenomena
were believed to be due to the tests being located on a weak part of the structure.
This weakness of structure occurred only in the top one third of the boreholes and
could be detected during drilling of the boreholes.
It can be expected that, below the top one third section of the hole, a
presplit fracture line could be propagated along the line, especially using a presplit
charge of 0.08 kg/m, since the rock in that part was very well competent. The
crack produced could be identified by mucking out the broken material. In
addition, it could be shown that slabbing, spalling or cratering only occurs in the
top one third of the hole. There was no a continuous presplit line since the rock
was weakened by weathering, intense fracturing due to dense jointing,
incompetent and very brittle. But below the top one third of the hole depth, the
rock was very hard and competent. This also could be detected when drilling of
the boreholes was being done. The top part (about 35 cm) was quickly and easily
penetrated, but the part below this it was very difficult to penetrate with the drill
bit and the drilling time was much longer.
Slabbing or spalling at the free face or surface near a blast occurs when the
stress due to the reflected ground shock wave exceeds the in situ dynamic tensile
strength of the rock mass (Calder 1977). In these tests, slabbing and spalling
149
probably occur due to the presence of jointing, highly dense fracturing and
weathering of the top part of the rock. These natural or structural features can
weaken the rock, so that such damage resulted from the experiments. Rock
properties, therefore, contribute significantly to the success of presplitting.
Damage such as back break and radial cracking around the boreholes results when
the ground stress from an explosive charge exceeds the in situ dynamic
compressive strength of the rock mass. This occurs when heavily fractured or
jointed rock is blasted using the amount of charge which was found to give good
results in a competent rock.
When a test of a presplit charge of 30 g/hole (0.03 kg/m) with spacings of

30 and 35 cm, was carried out at the same location as for the above tests, a limited
degree of presplit fracture was generated with minor spalling and zig-zag fracture
systems occurred between the shotholes. This resulted from the existence of
structural weakness planes. However, when a test was located where the surface of
the rock was freshly exposed, a continuous presplit fracture line was generated
along the shotholes with a smaller crack width than occurred when the tests were
conducted in weaker structures, even though a higher charge size (up to 70 g/hole)
was used. When using a presplit charge of 90 g/hole with a spacing of 35 cm, a
presplit fracture line was generated with associated slabbing. After the broken rock
was excavated, the presplit fracture system could be observed (see fig. 7.13a ).
The presplit fracture line was propagated along the shotholes with a greater crack
width (2 cm). However, the depth of the presplit fracture plane could not be
measured because the boreholes were filled by broken rock.
A presplit charge of 70 g/hole (i.e. concentration of charge = 0.07 kg/m)

with a hole spacing of 35 cm generated a presplit fracture line through all of the
shotholes. The crack width was 0.6 cm and the depth of the presplit fracture plane
150
was 90 - 95 cm (90 - 95% depth of hole reached). When this charge size was used
with a wider spacing (40 cm), a presplit fracture line was also generated.
However, the fracture system was zig-zagged in shape with a smaller crack width
(0.3 cm) and a lesser presplit fracture depth of about 85 cm (85% depth reached).
For the selection of an adequate presplitting charge, it is believed that a

charge concentration of 0.07 kg/m or a charge factor of 0.25 kg/m2 with spacing
of 35 cm would be satisfactory. A charge concentration of 0.09 kg/m or a charge
factor of 0.32 kg/m2 (spacing = 35 cm) appears to be too high since slabbing was
generated through all of the shotholes when this charge concentration was used.
When detonating cord was used as an explosive charge, greater spalling

and wider cracks resulted. The charge size was 30 g/hole, which was the same
amount as the powergel used. This may indicate that detonating cord is more
powerful than powergel. Also, the column of the detonating cord charge was
longer than that of the powergel charge, so that the observed behaviour was
probably due to the longer charge column and the distribution of the energy over
the entire length of the shot hole up to the surface.
The performance of detonating cord was studied by using the same amount
of charge size of 30 g/hole in two configurations, 20 cm long by 19 mm diameter
and 75 cm long by 12 mm diameter. Each was tested three times to ensure
satisfactory repeatability. Basically, using the same charge size (30 g/hole) and the
same hole spacing (35 mm), all of the tests gave similar results. However, when
using a 20 cm long by 19 mm diameter charge, a presplit fracture produced was
more pronounced and had a crack width greater than that obtained using a 75 cm
long by 12 mm diameter charge (a hair line presplit fracture was formed with a
charge diameter of 12 mm). This was probably due to different borehole pressures
151
being generated. Using a diameter of 19 mm, the borehole pressure produced is

higher than that obtained using a diameter of 12 mm as calculated by
equation 4.20.
Figure 7.16 shows a photograph of presplitting tests on a post production

blast exposure. Figure 7.18 shows the position of these experiments, where the
pattern used was an attempt to obtain presplitting after a production blast had been
performed. The production blast had a hole diameter of 76 mm, spacing and
burden of 2.25 m, hole depth of 18 m and an explosive charge (AMEX, produced
by ICI) of 3.8 kg/m. The results of these experiments were observed to be back
breaks and fracture crests. The crest fractures were developed beyond the presplit
line and smooth clean presplit surface was thus not evident. This was probably due
to the development of excessive break back. A smooth clean faced boulder which
had been thrown together as part of the broken rock is taken as evidence that
presplitting had occurred (see fig. 7.17).
In general, back break, fracture crests and loose face rock were generated
in this set of presplit tests. This occurred due to the intense fracturing, jointing and
weathering in the top section of the rock. In addition, the results were probably
also due to the excessive specific charge of the production blast. This was also a
feature of the experiments, since cratering and slabbing were associated with the
blasts. Thus, a fracture crest beyond the presplit line was generated.
152
7.4.2 Estimation of the charge used
In order to be able to predict an approximate value for charging, it is

necessary to estimate the amount of the explosive charge to be used in each hole.
From a knowledge of the explosive and rock properties, this can be obtained by
using the criteria discussed in section 4.3.
After first calculating the pressure generated at the periphery of the

explosive charge, Pc, the quasi-static gas pressure, p, can be calculated using the
following equation :
rpAv,k(A Y
p=Pk
UJ (7.1)
where pk = the critical pressure generated by the detonating explosive

(generally about 200 MPa),
Pc = the pressure at the periphery of the explosive charge (MPa), which
can be calculated using equation 4.19 (the explosive used had a
density, p, of 1.27 g/cm3 and velocity of detonation, D, of 5100 m/s,
hence, Pc = 4075.4 MPa),
v = the gas expansion co-efficient without any heat exchange
(generally its value is about 1.4),
k = the equivalent entropy co-efficient of the explosive, typically 2,
p = the density of the explosive (g/cm3), typically 1.27 g/cm3,
and where :
(1 / A)jai1H (7.2)
where A = the volume density of explosive in a borehole (kg/m3),
Q = the mass of explosive (kg),

d = the diameter of the borehole (m), typically 0.03 m and
H = the depth of the borehole (m), typically 1 m.
153
For presplitting to occur, the stress change between and at a point

equidistant from the holes has to exceed the static stress field plus the dynamic
tensile strength of the rock. In addition, the quasi-static gas pressure generated by
the explosive charge must be strong enough to produce a tensile fracture in the
hole wall along a line which connects the centres of neighbouring holes. The
prerequisites for a successful presplit are given in equation 4.9 and can then be
expressed as per the following (Sen and Ding 1991):
r „ \v/k \v
_____2C cos (p
7id2i 1 + / + /sin<p-sin<p
The amount of the explosive charge to be used in each hole can now be estimated
by using the above relationship.
In the Homebush quarry experiments the rock type had a static tensile
strength of 6.27 MPa, cohesive strength of 12.50 MPa and an internal angle of
friction, <p, of 45°. If the dynamic tensile strength, St, can be assumed to be 10
times the static tensile strength (Lama and Vutukuri 1978), then St = 62,7 MPa.
The dynamic cohesive strength, C, may be assumed to be 125 MPa. Using the
above relationship, with / = 1.5 (from fig. 4.9), the estimated amount of the
explosive charge to be used, Q, is greater than 66 g and less than 87 g. It can be
seen from table 7.3 that the estimated explosive charge of greater than 66 g/hole
and less than 87 g/hole is closely similar to the amount of the explosive charge
used in the experiments. In the Homebush quarry, good presplitting was generated
by an explosive charge of 70 g/hole, which lies within the above estimation.
In the Prospect quarry experiments, the rock type had a tensile strength of
7.69 MPa, cohesive strength of 14.20 MPa and an internal angle of friction, <p, of
43°. This implies a dynamic tensile strength, St = 76,9 MPa and dynamic cohesive
154
strength, C - 142 MPa. The estimated amount of the explosive charge (with / =
1.5 obtained from fig. 4.9) is to be used, Q, is greater thian 74 g and less than 98 g.
It can be seen from table 6.4 that the estimated amountt of the explosive charge of
greater than 74 g/hole and less than 98 g/hole is also srimilar to the amount of the
explosive charge used in the experiments.
7.5 Cost analysis
The costing of the presplit experiments has been examined. The cost
analysis presented in this section is an assumption basted on the costs involved in
the presplitting experiments at Homebush and Prospe;ct quarries. Costs for two
different rock types and two different charge types are presented for the purposes
of comparison.
Presplitting costs are expressed in terms of dollars per unit area of wall
face split ($/m2). The presplitting cost analysis is based on explosives and
initiation devices, drilling and labour costs.
(1) Costs of xplosives and initiation devices
According to ICI (1990), the costs of explosives and initiation devices used
(effective price in April 1990) are as follows.
1) Powergel Magnum 3151 (25 x 200 mm, 210 sticks in 25 kg/case)

= $ 136.00/25 = $ 5.44/kg
2) No.8 plain detonators =$ 40.00/100 =$ 0.40 each
3) No.8 electric detonators (3.6 m lead wires) = $ 177..00/100 = $ 1.77 each
4) Detonating cord (Redcord, 10 g/m core) = $ 462.00)/700m = $ 0.66/m

155
5) Safety fuse = $120.0/250m = $ 0.48/m

6) Fuse igniters (2 min) = $ 143.00/100 = $ 1.43 each
The cost of the exploder, tester, detonator crimper, detonating cord cutter and shot
firing cable are not taken into account as they were used in all of the tests and are
not regarded as expendable items.
The explosive cost used is based on the minimum charge factor (specific
charge) required that gave the optimum result (90% - 100% depth reached) related
to hole spacing. The quantities of explosive used and relevant costs are as follows.
1) in Homebush quarry
- The specific charge = 0.228 kg/m2 (70 g/hole, S = 35 cm - split area=2.45 m2).
The explosive cost = 0.228 kg/m2 x $ 5.44/kg = $ 1.24/m2.
- Detonating cord used as down line and trunk line = {(1.2 m/hole x 8 hole) +
2.8 m} = 12.4 m. This cost = 12.4 m x $ 0.66/m = $ 8.18.
Thus, the detonating cord cost per split area = $8.18/2.45m2 = $3.34/m2.
- Detonator cost per split area = $ 0.40/2.45m2 = $ 0.16/m2.
- The length of safety fuse used per shot was 1.25 m.
The safety fuse cost per split area = (1.25 m x $ 0.48/m)/2.45 m2 = $ 0.24/m2.
- Half of fuse igniter was used per shot.
The fuse igniter cost per split area = 1/2 x $ 1.43/2.45 m2 = $ 0.29/m2.
b) in Prospect quarry
- The specific charge = 0.25 kg/m2 (split area =1.4 m2).
The explosive cost = 0.25 kg/m2 x $ 5.44/kg = $ 1.36/m2.

- Detonating cord used as down line and trunk line = {(1.2 m/hole x 5 holes) +
1.75 m) = 7.75 m. This cost = 7.75 m x $ 0.66/m = $ 5.11.

Thus, the detonating cord cost per split area = $ 5.11/1.4 m2 = $ 3.65/m2.
156
- Detonator cost = $ 1.77/1.4 m2 = $ 1.26/m2.
(2) Drilling costs
The cost of the compressor and jack hammer used are not taken into
account as they are not regarded as expendable items.
- The cost of integral drill steels = $ 117.69 each.
During the experiments, two integral drill steels were used for 35 tests.
Assuming the life of drill rod is equal to 35 tests, drilling for each experimental
cost = (2 x $ 117.69)/35 = $ 6.72.
Hence, integral drill steel cost per split area in :
a) Homebush quarry = $ 6.72/2.45 m2 = $ 2.74/m2.
b) Prospect quarry =$ 6.72/1.40 m2 = $ 4.80/m2.
- Fuel cost
The cost of fuel (diesel) = $ 0.63/1. Compressor's fuel consumption = 4.8 1/h.
In Homebush quarry, the drilling time = 18 minutes per hole. Drilling time for
each experiment = 18 min./hole x 8 holes = 2.40 hours.
In Homebush quarry, the drilling time = 33 minutes per hole. Drilling time for
each experiment = 33 min./hole x 5 holes = 2.75 hours.
Hence, fuel cost per split area in :
a) Homebush quarry = (4.8 1/h x 2.40 h x $ 0.63/1) / 2.45 m2 = $ 2.96/m2.

b) Prospect quarry = (4.8 1/h x 2.75 h x $ 0.63/1) / 1.40 m2 = $ 5.94/m2.
(3) Labour cost
The labour cost = $ 11.45/h. Time for preparing and charging and firing
each blast = 45 min. = 0.75 hour. Hence, the labour cost per split area in :
157
a) Homebush quarry = {(2.4 h + 0.75 h) x $11.45/h}/2.45 m2 = $14.72/m2.

b) Prospect quarry = {(2.75 h + 0.75 h) x $ 11.45/h}/1.4 m2 = $ 28.62/m2.
The costs of presplitting experiments carried out both in Homebush and

Prospect quarries are summarised in table 7.5.
Table 7.5 Presplitting costs in Homebush and Prospect quarry
Cost Homebush Prospect

($/m2) ($/m2)
1. Explosives and initiation devices :

- Explosives (Powergel magnum 3151) 1.24 1.36
- Detonating cord (down line and trunk line) 3.34 3.65
- Detonators 0.16 1.26
- Safety fuse 0.24 -
- Fuse igniters 0.29 -
2. Drilling :
- Integral drill steels 2.74 4.80
- Fuel 2.96 5.94
3. Labour 14.72 28.62
Total costs 25.69 45.63
In Prospect quarry, detonating cord was used as an explosive charge for
some tests. Using a charge of 50 g/hole and spacing of 30 cm or a charge factor of

0.208 kg/m2, a presplit was formed. Based on this charge, the estimated cost can
be calculated as follows.
Detonating cord specification was lOg/m core (1 kg = 100 m); so, the detonating
cord charge of 0.208 kg/m2 = 20.8 m/m2. This cost = 20.8 m/m2 x $ 0.66/m =
158
$ 13.73/m2. Hence, in Prospect quarry, the cost of presplitting using a detonating

cord as the explosive charge = $ 45.63/m2 - $ 1.36/m2 + $ 13.73/m2 =$ 58.00/m2.
As can be seen from table 7.5, presplitting costs in Prospect quarry are
much higher than in Homebush quarry. Costs are increased due to increased
drilling time, which also influences the labour cost, since the rock type is harder
than in Homebush. Labour costs at Prospect are twice than in Homebush quarry.
Drilling and labour costs were the biggest expense in the presplitting experiments.
Comparing the economics of the use of both types of charge, when a

detonating cord is employed as the explosive charge, presplitting costs are much
higher than when using powergel. The cost is up to 21% higher, and explosives
can be seen to cost less than detonating cord for the purposes studied.
7.6 Conclusions
An experimental investigation was conducted in the field to evaluate the

amount of explosive charge required to generate of presplitting. From the
experimental results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) The degree of success of a presplit blast depends to a large extent on rock
properties, such as insitu compressive and tensile strengths and structural
features. The presence of joints, fractures and weathering also influences the
site results.
(2) Damage such as backbreak, crest fractures and loose face rock are caused by
the explosive charge for either the presplit or production blasts being
159
excessive. Moreover, rock weakened by weathering, fracturing or jointing, can

also exhibit these effects.
(3) Detonating cord used as an explosive charge either alone or together with
powergel is more powerful than powergel itself. However, if detonating cord
is used as the explosive charge, presplitting costs are much higher than if
using powergel.
(4) Drilling costs are the biggest expense in presplitting operations.
(5) In Homebush quarry, with a charge factor of 0.228 kg/m2 or concentration of

charge of 0.07 kg/m, a hole spacing of 35 cm and a hole diameter of 30 mm,
adequate presplitting occurs. In Prospect quarry, with a charge factor of
0.25 kg/m2 or charge concentration of 0.08 kg/m and with the same hole
spacing and hole diameter as for Homebush quarry, a successful also
presplitting occurs.
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An experimental investigation was conducted to study presplitting

phenomena. Experiments to determine the effects of changes in various
presplitting parameters, such as charge size, hole spacing and hole depth, formed a
major part of the study. The main objective of the study was to investigate the
conditions which optimise the fracture produced between blastholes for the
purpose of presplitting.
Significant conclusions which have been drawn regarding the effects of

changes in these various parameters, based upon results obtained in both the
laboratory and in the field, have been presented in the last section of each of the
two chapters dealing with these experiments (chapters 6 and 7). A summary of the
general conclusions reached regarding this study and some recommendations are
presented in this chapter.
8.1 Conclusions
A survey on the fundamental theories of rock blasting was first undertaken,

in order to understand the mechanics of rock breakage under the effect of
explosive detonation. The four phases of the breaking process namely detonation,
shock and stress wave propagation, gas pressure expansion and mass movement
were described. Furthermore, the fracture processes associated with the intervals
of loading, i.e. dynamic loading, quasi-static loading and release of loading, were
160
161
also described so that their effects on presplit fractures could be closely related to
the study.
After describing various methods of limiting the blast induced fracture

zone (controlled blasting techniques), special emphasis was given to the theory
and mechanics of presplitting underlining the role of the dynamic and quasi-static
gas pressure components as the mechanisms of presplitting. Presplitting is
primarily caused by the interaction of the tangential tensile stresses induced in the
rock by quasi-static pressure components from adjacent blastholes. Factors
affecting presplitting results, i.e. energy reduction (such as decoupling), hole
diameter and spacing and site conditions, were examined in order to obtain a
broad view of the large number of variables that control the phenomenon.
In view of the necessity of extrapolating the laboratory blast results to

large-scale operations, a chapter was devoted to model testing and similitude
analysis of the problem. The theory of similitude comprises a consideration of the
conditions under which the behaviour of two separate entities will be similar and
the techniques of accurately predicting results on the one from observations on the
other. Similitude conditions are established in terms of a system analysis
considering all the inter-related blasting operations. Influential variables were
defined and six dimensionless parameters were determined, as the set of quantities
to be maintained in both the model and prototype. Because of the difficulty of
completely satisfying the set of similitude conditions, especially when rock
anisotropy and heterogeneity are predominate, it is necessary to assume that an
approximate fulfilment of prerequisites will achieve useful results.
After the chapters that establish the theoretical background to this study,
the experimental results derived from test procedures both in the laboratory and in
162
the field were described. A study of presplitting on a small-scale model (in the
laboratory) provides only qualitative results with respect to large-scale blasts
because of the inability to provide the stipulated rock and explosive characteristics
to meet similitude requirements. However, the results obtained can be used to
design large-scale presplit blast operations. Tests conducted in cement-mortar
blocks indicate that the breakage mechanisms are similar with those associated
with tests conducted in the field.
General conclusions drawn from both the laboratory and field experimental
results are as follows.
(1) As the hole spacing is decreased, a wider crack, straighter fracture line and
deeper presplit fracture is produced. On the other hand, where the spacin is
increased, a smaller crack width, zig-zagged or curved shape and shallower
presplit fracture is in evinced. In the laboratory experiments, the optimum hole
spacing is about 10 times the hole diameter, whereas in the field experiments
the optimum spacing is approximately 11 times the hole diameter.
(2) The significant experimental results obtained reveal that presplit fracture
systems are dependent primarily upon parameters such as hole spacing, charge
size, hole depth and hole diameter. Site conditions influenced by the presence
of joints, fractures and weathering often control the presplit fracture results.
(3) A presplit fracture can be developed in a straight line between the holes
provided there is sufficiently close spacing which permits the gas expansion
fractures to join.
(4) In a shale formation, successful presplitting occurs using a charge factor

= 0.228 kg/m2 3or4 concentration of charge = 0.07 kg/m, whereas a dolerite
formation needs a charge factor = 0.250 kg/m2 or concentration of charge
163
= 0.08 kg/m. In these configurations, a hole spacing of 35 cm and a hole

diameter of 30 mm are applicable.
(5) Costings of the presplit experiments reveal that drilling costs associated with
labour costs are the biggest expense in presplitting operations.
8.2 Recommendations
Based upon the knowledge and results gained from this study, the
following recommendations are made.
(1) When presplitting is being carried out, it is very important to determine the
appropriate spacing for a given hole diameter and charge weight in the type of
rock concerned. Conventional presplit loading and hole spacing is satisfactory
for massive and homogeneous formations but if fractured or weathered rock
conditions are encountered, and final pit-wall-control is deemed important,
closer hole spacing and very light loading, along with good drilling accuracy,
are required.
(2) Overcharging the production blast causes overbreak beyond the perimeter line
with resulting various types of unwanted damage to the final pit-wall. To
avoid this, it is recommended that the energy concentration of the main
production blast, especially the last row of the planned production blast which
is very close to the presplit line, must be carefully controlled so that it does not
damage the final pit wall.
(3) Cement mortar blocks and rock may behave quite differently under the effect
of explosive detonations. Consequently, cement-mortar blocks, although useful
164
for certain generalised qualitative tests, cannot be reliably used to establish any
quantitative relationships between the various parameters for production
presplitting operations.
(4) The effect of joints, fractures and weathering in rock blasting is a major aspect
which remains to be investigated. Such research seems to be required in both
the laboratory and in field blasting operations.
(5) Further work is needed to completely identify the various modes in which
explosive energy accomplishes the task of presplitting operations.
REFERENCES
Anon (1983). Geology and Fragmentation. Explosive Today, AECI Explosives

and Chemical Ltd, Series 2, No.34, 4th Quarter.
Ash, R.L. (1985). Flexural Rupture as a Rock Breakage Mechanism in Blasting.

Fragmentation by Blasting, 1st ed., Society for Experimental Mechanics,
USA, pp. 24 - 29.
Aso, K. (1966). Phenomena Involved in Pre-Splitting by Blasting. Ph.D. Thesis,

Department of Mineral Engineering, Stanford University.
Atchison, T.C. (1968). Fragmentation Principles. In Surface Mining, Ed. Pfleider,

E.P., AIME, New York, pp. 355 - 372.
Atlas Powder Company (1987). Explosives and Rock Blasting. Field Technical
Operations, Dallas, Texas.
Baker, W.E., Westine, P.S. and Dodge, F.T. (1978). Similarity Methods in
Engineering Dynamics. Hayden Book Company, New Jersey.
Bamess, J.J. (1988). Presplitting Technique with Large Diameter Blastholes in

Western Coal. Proc. of the 4th Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique, Society of Explosives Engineers, Jan - Feb., 1988,
pp. 218 - 229.
Bhandari, S. (1975). Studies on Rock Fragmentation in Blasting. Ph.D. Thesis,

University of New South Wales, 201 p.
Brady, B.H.G. and Brown, E.T. (1985). Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining
George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, p. 433 - 458.
Brinkley, S.R. and Kirkwood, J.G. (1967). Theory of the Propagation of Shock
Waves from Infinite Cylinders of Explosive. In Shock and Detonation
Waves, Gordon and Breach. New York.
Calder, P. (1977). Pit Slope Manual Chapter 7 - Perimeter Blasting. Canada

Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, CANMET Report 77-14, 82p.
Chiappetta, R.F., Bauer, A., Dailey, P.J. and Burchell, S.L. (1983). The Use of
High-speed Motion Picture Photography in Blast Evaluation and Design.
Proceeding of the 9th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique. Society of Explosives Engineers, Jan - Feb, 1983, pp.258 - 309
165
166
Clark, G.B. (1987). Principles of Rock Fragmentation. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, pp. 454 - 499.
Coates, D.F. (1981). Rock Mechanics Principles. CANMET, Monograph 874-

Revised. Canada, p. 8-18 - 19.
Crosby, W.A. and Bauer, A. (1982). Wall Control Blasting in Open Pits. Mining
Engineering, February, 1982, pp. 155 - 158.
daGama, C.D. (1970). Similitude Conditions in Models for Studies of Bench

Blasting. Proc. of the Second Congress of the Int. Soc. for Rock
Mechanics, Vol. Ill, September, Beograd, pp. 105 - 112.
Day, P.R. (1982). Controlled Blasting to Minimize Overbreak with Big Boreholes
Underground. Proc. of the 8th Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique, Society of Explosives Engineers, New Orleans, pp. 264 - 274.
Dowding, C.H. (1985). Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, p. 227 - 263.
DuPont, E.I. (1977). Blasters' Handbook. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.),
Wilmington, 494 p.
Duvall, W.I. and Atchison, T.C. (1957). Rock Breakage by Explosives. USBM-
RI5356
Field, J.E. and Ladegaard-Pederson, A. (1971). The Importance of the Reflected

Stress Wave in Rock Blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 8,
Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 213 - 226.
Fischer, R.L., DAndrea, D.V. and Fogelson, D.E. (1970). Effect of Explosive
Properties on Free-surface Displacement Pulses and Crater Dimensions.
U.S. Bureau of Mines - RI 7407.
Foumey, W. L., Barker, D. B. and Holloway, D. C. (1984). Fracture Control

Blasting. Proc. of the 10th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique, Society of Explosives Engineers, Orlando, Florida, Jan - Feb,
1984, pp. 182- 194.
Hagan, T.N. and Just, G.D. (1974). Rock Breakage by Explosives - Theory,
Practice and Optimisation. Proc. of the 3rd Cong, of the Int. Soc. for Rock
Mechanics, Denver, CO., pp. 1349 - 1357.
Henrych, J. (1979). The Dynamics of Explosion and Its Use. Elsevier Scientific
Co., New York, p. 42 - 161.
167
Hino, U. (1956). Fragmentation of Rock Through Blasting and Shock Wave

Theory of Blasting. Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, Vol.51,
No.3, pp. 189-209.
Hobbs, D.W. (1966). Scale Model Studies of Strata Movement Around Mine
Roadsways. Apparatus, Technique and Some Preliminary Results. Int.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol.3, Pergamon Press,
New York, pp. 101 - 127.
ICI Explosives Division (1988). Blasting Explosives and Accessories. I C I

Australia Operations Pty. Ltd.
ICI Explosives Division. (1990). New South Wales Price List. ICI Australia
Operations Pty Ltd.
Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W. (1979). Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. Third
edition, Chapman and Hall, London.
Johansson, C.H. and Persson, P.A. (1974). Fragmentation Systems. Proceedings

of the 3rd Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Sep., 1974, Vol I-B, Denver, CO., pp. 1557 - 1566.
Johnson, J.B. (1962). Small-scale Blasting in Mortar. U.S. Bureau of Mines-

RI 6012.
Kline, S.J. (1965). Similitude and Approximation Theory. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York.
Konya, C.J. (1980). Presplit Blasting : Theory and Practice. Annual Meeting of
Society of Mining Engineers, AIME, Las Vegas, February, 1980, 8 p.
Kutter, H.K. (1967). The Interaction Between Stress Wave and Gas Pressure in
the Fracture Process of an Underground Explosion in Rock. With
Particular Application to Presplitting. Ph. D. Thesis, University of
Minnesota, 234 p.
Kutter, H.K. and Fairhurst, C. (1968). The Role of Stress Wave and Gas Pressure
in Presplitting. In Status of Practical Rock Mechanics, Proceedings 9th
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, American Inst. Min. Metall. Petrolm.
Engrs, New York, pp. 265 - 284.
Kutter, H.K. and Fairhurst, C. (1971). On the Fracture Process in Blasting. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 8, Pergamon Press, Great Britain,
pp. 181 - 202.
Lama, R.D. and Vutukuri, V.S. (1978). Handbook on Mechanical Properties of

Rocks - Testing Techniques and Results. Vol. II, Trans Tech Publications,
Germany, p. 302.
168
Lang, L.C. and Favreau, R.F. (1972). A Modern Approach to Open Pit Blast
Design and Analysis. CIM Bulletin, June, 1974, pp. 37 - 45.
Langefors, U. (1959). Calculation of Charge and Scale Model Trials. Quarterly of

the Colorado School of Mines, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 219 - 249.
Langefors, U. and Kihlstrom, B. (1978). The modern Technique of Rock Blasting.

3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Langhaar, H.L. (1951). Dimensional Analysis and Theory of Models. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Ludwig, J.J. and Smith, A.K. (1965). Evolution of Presplitting and Controlled
Blasting. Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 51, No. 10, October, pp. 66-71.
Margolin, L.G. and Adams, T.F. (1983). Numerical Simulation of Fracture. First
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Vol. 1,
Lulea University of Technology, August, 1983, pp. 347 - 360.
Mathias, A.J., (1964). Pre-split Blasting. M.S. Thesis, T-1009, Colorado School
of Mines.
McHugh, S. (1983). Computational Simulation of Dynamically Induced Fracture

and Fragmentation. First Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Vol.l, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, August, 1983,
pp. 407 - 418.
McKown, A.F. (1984). Some Aspects of Design and Evaluation of Perimeter

Control Blasting in Fractured and Weathered Rock. Proceedings of the
10th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Society of
Explosives Engineers, Orlando, Florida, Jan - Feb, 1984, pp. 120 - 151.
Mensah, J. (1989). An Investigation Into the Methods of Secondary Blasting With

Reference to Optimal Explosive Consumption. M.E. Thesis, UNSW.
Murphy, G. (1950). Similitude in Engineering. The Ronald Press Co., New York.
Nicholls, H. R. (1964). A Case Study of the Validity of Scaling Laws for

Explosion-Generated Motion. USBM RI 6472.
Nicholls, H.R. and Duvall, W.I. (1966). Presplitting Rock in the Presence of a
Static Stress Field. USBM RI 6843.
Obert, L. andDuvall, W.I. (1950). Generation and Propagation of Strain Waves

in Rock. Part I, USBM - RI 4683.
169
Obert, L. and Duvall, W.I. (1967). Rock Mechanics and the Design of Structures
in Rock. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Ouchterlony, F. (1983). Analysis of Cracks Related to Rock Fragmentation. In

Rock Fracture Mechanics, Technical University of Vienna, New York,
pp. 31 - 67.
Paine, S.R., Holmes, D.K. and Clark, H.E. (1961). Controlling Overbreak by
Presplitting. Proceedings of International Symposium on Mining Research,
University of Missouri, Pergamon Press, pp. 179 - 209.
Pederson, A. L., Foumey, W. L. and Dally, J. W. (1974). Investigation of

Presplitting and Smooth Blasting Techniques in Construction Blasting.
Report to the National Science Foundation, University of Maryland.
Persson, P.A., Lundborg, N. and Johansson, C.H. (1970). The Basic Mechanism in
Rock Blasting. Proc. of the 2nd Cong, of the Int. Soc. for Rock Mechanics,
Vol. 4, Beograd, pp. 19 - 33.
Porter, D.D. and Fairhurst, C. (1970). A Study of Crack Propagations Produced

by the Sustained Borehole Pressure in Blasting. Proc. of the 12th Symp.
on Rock Mechanics, November, 1970, University of Missouri, Rolla,
pp. 497 - 515.
Rinehart, J.S. (1958). Fracturing Under Impulse Loading. University of Missoury,

Rolla, School of Mines and Met. Bulletin, Tech., Ser., 95, 46.
Rustan, A., Vutukuri, V.S. and Naarttijarvi, T. (1983). The Influence from
Specific Charge, Geometric Scale and Physical Properties of
Homogeneous Rock on Fragmentation. First Int. Symp. on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, August, 1983, Lulea, Sweden, pp. 115 - 142.
Sen, G.C. (1990). Lecture Note in Excavation Engineering. Department of Mining

Engineering, UNSW.
Sen, G.C. (1991). Controlled Blasting. Mining and the Environment Conference,
Bandung, Indonesia.
Sen, G.C. and Ding, D. (1991). An Investigation Into the Influence of Quasi-static
Pressure on the Mechanism of Presplitting Rock. Explosives Engineering
(U.K.), 1991 (to be published).
Simha, K.R.Y., Holloway, D.C. and Foumey, W.L. (1982). Presplitting and
Stress Waves : A Dynamic Photoelastic Evaluation. Proc. 23rd Symp. on
Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, California, pp. 523 - 529.
170
Simha, K.R.Y., Holloway, D.C. and Fourney, W.L. (1983). Dynamic Photoelastic
Studies on Delayed Presplit Blasting. First Int. Symp. on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea,
Sweden, pp. 97 - 113.
Starfield, A.M. (1966). Strain Wave Energy in Rock Blasting. Proceedings of the
8th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, September, 1966, University of
Minnesota, pp. 538 - 548.
Szucs, E. (1980). Similitude and Modelling. Vol 1, Elsevier Scientific Publishing

Company, New York.
Winzer, S.R., Anderson, D.A. and Ritter, A.P. (1983). Rock Fragmentation by
Explosives. First Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Vol. 1,
Lulea University of Technology, August, 1983, Sweden, pp. 225 - 249.
Worsey, P.N., Farmer, I.W. and Matheson, G.D. (1981). The Mechanics of
Presplitting in Discontinuous Rock. Proceedings of the 22nd U. S. Symp.
on Rock Mechanics, MIT, June - July, 1981, pp 218 - 223.
APPENDIX
DETERMINATION OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
OF SAMPLE
Cement-mortar and rock properties were determined in the Rock

Mechanics laboratory of the Department of Mining Engineering, University of
New South Wales. Standard apparatus were used for uniaxial compression and
tensile tests. The following list included the equipment used in the determination
of P-wave and S-wave velocities :
(1) pulse generator with oscilloscope trigger

(2) pulsing and sensing heads containing piezo electric crystals
(3) oscilloscope
By knowing the length of the sample and the travel time, the propagation velocity
can be calculated.
(1) The dynamic values of Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio and shear modulus
were calculated using the following equations (Jaeger and Cook 1979):
3(Vp/V',)2-4
E = V/p
(Vp/Vs)2-l
(yp!Vsf- 2
v = M2
(VpIVs)2-l
G = pVs2
where E = dynamic Young's modulus of elasticity (Pa),

X) = Poisson's ratio,
G = shear modulus or modulus of rigidity (Pa),
171
172
p = sample bulk density (Kg/m3),
Vs = shear wave (S-wave) velocity (m/s) and

Vp - longitudinal (P-wave) velocity (m/s).
(2) The equation used to calculate the compressive and tensile strengths of the
materials were as follows (Obert and Duvall 1967):
F
<7= —
A
IF
o. =-------
' nDL
where F = failure load (N),

A = cross-sectional area of the sample (m2),
a = compressive strength of the material (Pa),
<3t - tensile strength of the material (Pa),
D - sample diameter (m) and

L = sample length (m).

Presplitting Study PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Presplitting Study PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presplitting Study PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ROCK FRACTURING

BY EXPLOSIVES WITH REFERENCE TO

Presplitting is a controlled blasting technique, which creates a fracture

fracture produced between blastholes correlated with the amounts of various

The significant experimental results obtained indicate that presplit fracture

(1) the Indonesian government, and particularly the Mineral Technology

(2) the Australian government and the Australian International Development

(4) Professor F. F. Roxborough, Head of the School of Mines, for making

(7) other members of staff of the Department of Mining Engineering who

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES xii

CHAPTER 2 THEORIES RELATING TO ROCK BLASTING 6

CHAPTER 3 VARIOUS METHODS OF LIMITING A BLAST INDUCED

3.2.5 Fracture control blasting 36

CHAPTER 4 THE CONCEPT OF PRESPLITTING 39

CHAPTER 5 MODEL TESTING AND SIMILITUDE ANALYSIS OF

CHAPTER 6 PRESPLITTING EXPERIMENTS IN LABORATORY 86

6.5 Analysis of Results 101

CHAPTER 7 PRESPLITTING EXPERIMENTS IN THE FIELD 117

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 160

APPENDIX : DETERMINATION OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

2.1 Field model illustrating blast design inputs and outputs 7

2.4 Spherical charge configuration (a) and an expanding

4.2 Theory of presplitting 41

4.3 Four typical cases of initiation delay between charge A and B 42

4.12 The stress state after the fracture termination 55

6.10 Presplit fracture obtained when hole depth = 9 cm and

7.7 Surface expression of blasted presplit fracture :

7.8 Surface expression of blasted presplit fracture :

7.9 Surface expression of blasted presplit fracture :

7.10 Presplitting exposed after production blast 136

7.12 - Surface expression of presplit fracture blasted using an

7.15 Surface expression of blasted presplit fracture : (a) detonating cord

5.1 Physical quantities and their dimensions 72

6.3 Summarised presplit fracture results for experimental phase I 95

- additional mucking time for the extra rock;

It is necessary to minimize these undesirable effects, so increasing attention has

Presplitting is normally used to establish a break line or plane in order to

In presplit blasting, a row of holes is normally drilled first, ahead of the

Several investigations have addressed the presplitting operation. This

an evaluation of presplitting performance compared with other controlled blasting

In the seventies and eighties, an effort to unravel the basic mechanism

Polymeric models and utilized high-speed photography to examine the initiation

presplitting operation using blocks of Plexiglas and Berera sandstone. This

The purpose of the study described in this thesis was to investigate

In order to provide a clear understanding, the thesis begins with the

terminology and extending the theoretical background. Besides this, it is necessary

Finally, chapter 8 presents the general conclusions and recommendations

THEORIES RELATING TO ROCK BLASTING

The theory of blasting tends to be one of the most interesting, thought-

The majority of rock blasting theories tend to concentrate on a rock

In spite of the tremendous amount of research conducted lately, no single

The several sections in this chapter are presented in order to attempt to

- Hole Diameter - Explosive Type

2.2 Time phases in the breaking process

When explosive charges are detonated in blastholes, the sudden application

Basically, there are four different periods of time, designed as T1 to T4, in

When an explosive material is detonated by the introduction of a suitable