Mining Technology

Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymnt21

Influence of rock blast advance direction on

boulder generation: a case study

Osvail André Quaglio , José Margarida da Silva , Edmo da Cunha Rodovalho ,

Ana Olivia Barufi Franco-Magalhães & Thaís Gontijo Pereira

To cite this article: Osvail André Quaglio , José Margarida da Silva , Edmo da Cunha
Rodovalho , Ana Olivia Barufi Franco-Magalhães & Thaís Gontijo Pereira (2020): Influence of
rock blast advance direction on boulder generation: a case study, Mining Technology, DOI:
10.1080/25726668.2020.1788885

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/25726668.2020.1788885

Published online: 12 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymnt21
MINING TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/25726668.2020.1788885

Influence of rock blast advance direction on boulder generation: a case study

Osvail André Quaglio a, José Margarida da Silva b, Edmo da Cunha Rodovalho a
,
Ana Olivia Barufi Franco-Magalhães a and Thaís Gontijo Pereira a
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Federal University of Alfenas, Poços de Caldas, Brazil; bDepartment of Mining Engineering,
Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In quarries, rock blasting is important for mining and transportation, being the first step in the Received 22 January 2020
comminution. Discontinuities present in a rock mass can interrupt the propagation of the shock Revised 23 June 2020
wave and evacuate gases, thereby reducing the efficiency of the explosives. Differences in the Accepted 24 June 2020
orientation of joint sets and the advancing direction of the mine produce different
KEYWORDS
fragmentation results. In this study, the blastability of a rock mass was evaluated as a Rock blast; boulders; joint set;
function of mining advance direction relative to the direction of the main joint set using blast direction; rock
particle size curves generated by photo-analysis. The data were analysed for each bench, and fragmentation; boulders
the optimal direction of advance was determined as the one to generate the smallest generation; WipFrag;
boulders. The particle size curves reveal optimal fragmentation when the mining direction is blastability
orthogonal to the main joint set, reducing the number of boulders by 64.40%.

Introduction
Rock blasting is often the first stage of operation in a
mine, its objective being the fragmentation of rock
masses (Scott 1996). Eventually, boulders can be
formed during blasting due to several factors, mainly
the presence of discontinuities, which impact the
action of the calculated explosive agent and decrease
project safety (Cunningham 2005). Boulders generated
during blasting in rock quarries must be reduced in size
to be compatible with loading, transporting, and crush-
ing equipment, which means higher costs and risks
related to machine, time, equipment components,
and employees. The efficiency of quarry operations is
fundamental to profitable results.
Research has been conducted on various aspects of
optimum rock fragmentation in blasting, such as
described by Cunningham (2005); Kuznetsov
(1973); and Bergmann et al. (1974). Gama (1983)
reported more than 20 factors that may affect the
blast results. These factors can be grouped into four
categories: (1) rock geotechnical parameters of rock
mass (such as density, hardness, compressibility,
joint system), (2) explosive parameters (such as den-
sity, detonation velocity), (3) technical parameters
(such as delay interval, primer strength, and
location), and (4) geometrical parameters (such as
burden, spacing, stemming).
This paper focused on blasting tests performed in a
quarry, considering the variation of the mining devel-
opment orientation direction in relation to the geome-
chanical parameters (joint system characterization)
and how the discontinuities affect the fragmentation
prediction and efficiency.
All natural rock masses contain discontinuities, such
as metamorphic and non-metamorphic foliations, frac-
tures, joints, and veins that influence the physical and
mechanical properties of a rock mass, especially in
blasting operations (Jimeno et al. 2003). Oliveira
(2006) defines discontinuity as any geological entity
that interrupts the physical continuity of a given for-
mation (Fiori 2015).
According to Scott (1996), factors influencing frag-
mentation include the orientation of discontinuities.
This parameter influences, for example, the definition
of the hole diameter and the inclination of the holes
in relation to the free bench face (Botelho 2014). Fur-
thermore, the blastability index is the fragmentation
capacity of a rock mass that is determined by the gran-
ulometric distribution of the blasted material, once the
variables of the blast plane are defined (Morais and
Gripp 2004, Hekmat et al. 2019; Gheibie et al. 2009).
Figure 1 shows mining development orientation
according to a controlled joint system orientation
and the blast quality (Jimeno et al. 2003). It can be
observed when joint dip angle is subhorizontal to the
advance direction, the blast direction is inconsequen-
tial. If joint dip angle is subvertical, the blast design is
most favourable when the blast direction is orthogonal
to the joint direction.
The propagation of shockwaves and gases acts in
such a way as to fracture the rock mass. One disconti-
nuity can divert its direction and affecting its frequency

CONTACT Osvail André Quaglio osvail.quaglio@unifal-mg.edu.br Department of Mining Engineering, Federal University of Alfenas, Rod. José Aurélio
Vilela, 11999, BR 267km 533, Postal Code 37715-400, Poços de Caldas, Minas Gerais State, Brazil
© 2020 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and The AusIMM Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Institute and The AusIMM
2 O. A. QUAGLIO ET AL.

fragments produced. Results from Nur Lyana et al.

(2016) suggest that the existing discontinuities in a
blast site depend on the strike direction and other
properties such as spacing, aperture, and the condition
of the aperture which affect the size of fragments pro-
duced. Other geological conditions, such as rock
strength and bedding thickness, also contribute to the
boulder problem.
Oliveira (2006) described the influence of two
hypothetical joint sets in blasting scenario (Figure 2).
The highlighted portion in Figure 2 represents an iso-
lated block from the rock mass by the action of the A
and B joint sets. In a rock blast, this block may not
be fragmented by the explosion and may generate a
boulder.
Moura et al. (2014) presented positives results from
a tin mine for which the bench advance is orthogonal
to the discontinuity plane, thus reducing the P80
from 616 mm to 304 mm, and reducing drilling and
blast costs by 3%.

Materials and methods

Seven rock blasts were performed in a diabase quarry in
2018 and 2019, and the results were compared in terms
Figure 1. Mining development orientation with respect to the
joint system direction (Jimeno et al. 2003).
of the joint set orientation to define the optimal mining
direction so as to reduce the size of the blocks, prefer-
ably no larger than the primary crusher dimensions. In
and velocity, generating rock blocks larger than the this study, a rock mass greater than 640 mm in size is
required particle range (Wu et al. 1998; Hamdi and considered a boulder.
du Mouza 2005). In the mining area, strike-dip measurements were
obtained before blasting on different benches according
to methods for the quantitative description of joint sets
Geological setting in rock masses recommended by the International
The study area is located in the São Paulo State in the Society for Rock Mechanics Commission on Standard-
central eastern part of the Paraná Sedimentary Basin ization of laboratory and field tests. The methodology
(Zalán et al. 1990). Sedimentary rocks that compose
the geological setting in the area vary in age from Car-
boniferous to Permian (Itararé Group, Tatuí Group,
and Irati Formation), Upper Cretaceous including the
basaltic lava flows, and diabase dykes and sills intruded
into the sedimentary rocks (Mio and Gandolfi 1995).
According to Bacci (2000), the rock mass is represented
by diabase sills that originated from intrusions in the
permocarbon sediments present in the Paraná Basin
and is strongly diaclased, with subvertical to subhori-
zontal principal fracture directions. In the study area,
rock blocks larger than the desired size range and the
presence of weak planes are commonly observed.

Effect of geological condition on degree of

fragmentation
It is accepted by several authors (such as Hagan 1995;
Nur Lyana et al. 2016; Kulula et al. 2017) that geologi- Figure 2. A block isolated by the discontinuities (joint set)
cal parameters can directly affect the size of the (modified from Oliveira 2006).
 MINING TECHNOLOGY 3

applied to each study area was carried out in two stages.
The first stage considered the rock mass characteriz-
ation such as strike and dip orientation, aperture, spa-
cing, roughness, persistence, fill material, and
weathering of discontinuities. Data were measured
and classified according to visual inspection and com-
pass measurements for a length of up to 800 m of the
scanline. Strike-dip data were analysed using a Schmidt
contour diagram on a polar equal-area net. Joint
rosettes were plotted to determine which sets of joints
could influence on block fragmentation.
Based on the results obtained in the first stage, the
second stage considered block fragmentation and blast-
ing design so as to investigate the fragmentation size
distribution considering the geological conditions. A
Kuz-Ram fragmentation model (Kuznetsov 1973; Cun-
ningham 1983; Cunningham 1987) was applied, which
is based on empirically derived equations that predict
the mean fragment size from the powder factor, rock
factor and explosive parameters. Different scenarios
for blasting design were considered to predict fragmen-
tation curves including top size and quantity of fine
particles.
In the quarry, the primary crusher is a jaw type
model (Furlan JC 1200 with 1200 × 800 mm opening).
In this study, all blocks which the larger dimensions
greater than 80% of the smallest dimension of the pri-
mary crusher were considered boulders; blocks whose
largest dimension exceeded 640 mm were considered
boulders.
According to the geological results from the first
stage of this research, the strike direction of the main
joint set is N285 and subvertical. The strike directions
of the faces of the mining slopes were varied in relation
to the main joint set. With respect to the main strike
direction, seven blasts were executed (Figure 3):
Bench 1 – one blast with bench-face angle at 34°
from the strike direction of the main joint set, Bench
2 – three blasts with bench-face angle at 30° from the
main joint set, Bench 3 – one blast with bench-face
angle at 15° from the main joint set, and Bench 4 –
two blasts with bench-face angle parallel to the main
Table 1. Bench-face directions in relation to the discontinuity
plane.
Bench Obstructed Relative orientation to joint set
Blast number holes (°)
1 1 0 34
2 2 2 30
3 2 4 30
4 2 0 30
5 3 0 15
6 4 0 0
7 4 3 0
joint set. Table 1 shows the face direction of the blasts
relative to the orientation of the main joint set. In some
of the blasts performed, there were obstructed holes
where it was not possible to fully charge with explo-
sives. Benches 3 and 4 come from a change in the direc-
tion of bench 2.
Blasts were performed in such a way as not to dras-
tically alter the blast design to allow comparison
between them (Table 2).
For the particle size and fragmentation efficiency
analysis, a Nikon 7100 camera and WipWare WipFrag
software were used. Prior to image acquisition, 20 cm
Styrofoam balls were placed in strategic positions on
the material stack for scale. For each assay, the photo-
graphs were taken in three separate sessions, consisting
of (1) a photoshoot of rock fragments immediately
after the blast, for with the stack containing 100% of
the material, with images taken of the upper portion
of the stack, (2) a photoshoot after charging approxi-
mately half of the fragment stack to analyse the middle
portion of the stack, and (3) a photoshoot with about
10% of material left to load. This three-step evaluation
is a better sampling protocol because material behav-
iour may vary as a function of the height of the stack,
and so we considered the upper, middle, and lower
portions of the stack.
The photoshoots were conducted according to the
software manufacturer’s recommendations. Of the
images taken, the best ones were selected for software
evaluation. Five images were selected from each of
the three photoshoots. After processing individual
images, the data were compiled to generate a single
curve representative of each blasted stack (Nur Lyana
et al. 2016). The particle size photo-analyses and distri-
bution curves were considered as the real curves.

Table 2. Blast parameters.

Parameter Symbol Unit Value
Burden B m 3.20
Spacing S m 5.00
Hole diameter D mm 76.20
explosive charge length L m 10.57
Bench height H m 11.30
Stemming T m 1.40
Sub-drilling s m 0.50
Hole inclination α ° 10.00
Hole depth Pf m 11.47
Powder factor k kg/m3 0.415
Figure 3. Bench-face directions in relation to the main joint set.
4 O. A. QUAGLIO ET AL.

Figure 4. Granulometric curve of image 1, (A) with half stack of the blast 6 and (B) the combined images curve of Blast 6, in
WipFrag.

Figure 4 shows the granulometric curve of the Results and discussion

image 1, with a half stack for blast 6 (Figure 4(A)),
The images analysed resulted in graphs of particle size
and the combined images curve of Blast 6 (Figure 4
curves for each blast which were then compared to
(B)) in the WipFrag.
evaluate the best Grain size distribution, as a function
The software generated *.xls extension data files of
of the lower generation of boulders generated. Figure 6
the passing percentages in a specific series of screens
shows the particle size curves for blasts 1–7.
defined in the software algorithm. This data was pro-
From Figure 6 it is possible to observe that the best
cessed using Microsoft Excel and plotted as a scatter-
fragmentation was produced in blast 6, with an
plot. Figure 5 shows the combined particle size curve
advance direction orthogonal to the main joint set.
of all images from blast 6.
Blast 7, also with an advance direction orthogonal to
The granulometric curves of the seven blasts were
the main joint set, presented coarser grain size. How-
grouped in a single graph for comparative analysis of
ever, in blast 7, there were 3 obstructed holes for
the granulometric results obtained for each direction of
which there was no explosive loading, which explains
the bench face, relative to the main discontinuity plane.
the increase in the average size compared to blast 6.
The cumulative percent passing curve and the cumulat-
Table 3 shows the percentage of blocks passing
ive percent retained curve values (considered here as
through 100, 310, 560, 640, 920, 1000, and 1330 mm
the 640 mm sieve) were analysed and compared. Blocks
sieves. The block size values, in relation to the dimen-
larger than this size were considered boulders. The best
sions of the primary crusher, point to a larger amount
blast direction was defined as the one that produced
of through material in the blasts 5 and 6 in relation to
rock fragments of ideal size for the crushing equipment.
blast 7, being slightly larger in blast 6. The cumulative

Figure 5. WipFrag particle size curve for blast 6. Figure 6. Granulometric curves of blasts 1–7.
 MINING TECHNOLOGY 5

Table 3. Sieve series and percent passing in the seven blasts.

Post-blast material passing through sieve (%)
Blast Bench 100 mm 310 mm 560 mm 640 mm 920 mm 1000 mm 1330 mm
1 1 7.82 54.20 76.60 82.08 94.33 100.00 100.00
2 2 2.64 36.20 63.70 71.73 90.50 94.70 100.00
3 2 3.67 39.60 71.00 82.46 94.00 96.00 100.00
4 2 12.30 61.80 82.60 89.56 100.00 100.00 100.00
5 3 6.03 53.40 87.00 91.75 100.00 100.00 100.00
6 4 18.17 71.92 89.42 93.62 96.97 97.37 100.00
7 4 5.31 46.10 73.40 78.73 93.28 93.90 95.80

Table 4. Percentage of boulders in each blast and compared to
blast 6.
Boulders retained in 640 mm sieve Boulders in relation to blast
Blast (%)
1 17.92
2 28.27
3 17.54
4 10.44
5 8.25
6 6.38
7 21.27
percent of material retained in sieve 640 mm, corre-
sponds to the percentage of boulders generated in
each blast.
Table 4 shows the cumulative percent retained, i.e.
percentage of boulders generated and the comparison
with blast 6 boulders. In terms of rework, blast 2 and
blast 5 had 433% and 129% boulders, respectively; con-
sequently, costs will be higher in relation to blast 6.
When evaluating holes in the same bench, the same
comparison can be applied for blasts 2, 3, and 4,
because all of them have a bench-face inclination of
31° in relation to the main joint set. The blasts 2 and
3 had two and four obstructed holes, respectively, with-
out explosive charges. In blast 4, all holes were fully
charged. Figure 7(A), shows that, for blasts 2 and 3,
the fragmentation was coarser than in blast 4, produ-
cing 271% e 168% more boulders, respectively. Figure
7(B) shows the granulometric curves for blasts with
no obstructed holes.
6
Table 5 shows the accumulated percentages for the
2.81
640 mm sieve (limit of rock size in the primary crusher
4.43 (D80)) for blasts with no obstructed holes. All rock
2.75 blocks larger than 640 mm are considered boulders.
1.64
1.29 Blast 6 on bench 4, with a bench-face parallel to the
1.00 joint set plan, shows the least quantity of boulders
3.33
(6.38%), and the worst situation is in bench 1, with
an angle of 34° in relation to the joint set plan
(17.92%). This represents 64.40 fewer boulders in
blast 6 in relation to the blast 1. The more orthogonal
the advance mine direction is to the joint set plan, the
fewer boulders generated. It is presented here that
benches 1, 2 and 3 generate 180.88%, 63.64% and
29.31% more boulders than bench 4, respectively, and
consequently, have proportionally higher rework costs.
The influence of rock mass properties is important
to understand to optimize blast fragmentation in
mining activities. Akbari et al (2015), in a study per-
formed in iron ore mines in Iran, found that the size
of blasted rocks increased as the angle between the
advance direction and the orientation of the joint set
decreased. Also, Nur Lyana et al (2016) observed that
geological conditions, in terms of the main joint sets
as well as discontinuity length, strength of intact
material, spacing, weathering, separation and infill are
important factors contributing to the fragmentation

Figure 7. (A) Comparison between blast 2, 3 (obstructed holes) and 4 (non-obstructed hole). (B) Granulometric curves in blasts 1, 4,
5 and 6, with no obstructed holes.
6 O. A. QUAGLIO ET AL.
Table 5. Cumulative percentage of boulders retained in
640 mm sieve, in blasts with no obstructed holes.
Cumulative per Percent of Reduction in
Orientation cent of boulders boulders
relative to retained in sieve compared to
Blast joint set (°) 640 mm (%) blast 6
1 34 17.92 180.88
4 30 10.44 63.64
5 15 8.25 29.31
6 0 6.38 0 64.40
index. In this paper, results demonstrate that optimal
fragmentation is obtained when blasting direction is
orthogonal to the main joint set.
Conclusions
The experimental blasts with no obstructed holes and
bench faces at 34°, 30° e 15° relative to the main joint
set plan, generated 180.88%, 63.64% and 29.31%
more boulders, respectively, than when parallel to the
face-bench. More boulders mean higher costs and
risks associated with the mine operations, as well as
the disposal of material and additional labour for
rework. The discontinuities influence the outcome of
blast plans. The more parallel to the face of the work-
bench is the joint set plan, the better the fragmentation
quality, especially when dealing with the grosser por-
tion of the blast and the generation of boulders in
this case.
In blasts with obstructed holes, the blast design is,
somehow, changed producing coarser fragments and
consequently, more boulders.
A real granulometric curve of the blasted pile is poss-
ible only with the sieving of all the material, but it is
almost impossible. Although, the WipFrag method-
ology and the number of images analysed can be con-
sidered satisfactory when comparing blasts because
the methodology and analyses were performed accord-
ing to the manufacturer’s instructions and following the
same protocol for all blasts. However, even with the
positive results achieved, it is still be important to per-
form additional blasts for better validation, as well as
utilization of more modern and accurate techniques
for measuring the actual particle size curve in the field.
In any case, advancement orthogonal to the joint set
plan produces better fragmentation and reduces the
quantity of boulders up to 64%, in the mine case studied.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Osvail André Quaglio http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3302-
0983
José Margarida da Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5695-
7213
Edmo da Cunha Rodovalho http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0754-5957
Ana Olivia Barufi Franco-Magalhães http://orcid.org/
boulders 0000-0001-8537-6653
relative to Thaís Gontijo Pereira http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4323-
blast 1 (%)
0493
0.00
41.74
53.96
References
Akbari M, Lashkaripour G, Bafghi AY, Ghafoori M. 2015.
Blastability evaluation for rock mass fragmentation in
Iran central iron ore mines. Int J Min Sci Technol. 25
(1):59–66. doi:10.1016/j.ijmst.2014.11.008.
Bacci DdlC. 2000. Vibrações Geradas Pelo Uso de Explosivos
No Desmonte de Rochas : Avaliação Dos Parâmetros Físicos
Do Terreno e Dos Efeitos Ambientais. Universidade
Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho” Instituto de
Geociencias e Ciencias Exatas. Available from: https://bv.
fapesp.br/pt/dissertacoes-teses/86454/vibracoes-geradas-
pelo-uso-de-explosivos-no-desmonte-de-roch.
Bergmann OR, Wu FC, Edl JW. 1974. Model rock blasting
measures effect of delays and hole patterns on rock
fragmentation. Eng Min J. doi:10.1016/0148-9062
(74)90634-2.
Botelho AH. 2014. Influência Da Operação de Desmonte de
Rochas No Carregamento de Material Fragmentado.
Porto Alegre. Available from: https://lume.ufrgs.br/
bitstream/handle/10183/118836/000969156.pdf?sequence=
1&isAllowed=y.
Cunningham CVB. 1983. The Kuz-Ram Model for
Prediction of Fragmentation from Blasting. In
Proceedings Lulea, Sweden.
Cunningham CVB. 1987. Fragmentation Estimations and the
Kuz–Ram Model –Four Years On. In Proceedings of
Second International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, 475–487. Keystone.
Cunningham CVB. 2005. The Kuz-Ram Fragmentation Model
– 20 Years On. Brighton Conference Proceedings. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2053273315024699.
Fiori AP. 2015. Fundamentos de Mecânica Dos Solos e Das
Rochas: Aplicações Na Estabilidade de Taludes. 3rd ed.
Oficina de textos. Available from: https://www.amazon.
com.br/Fundamentos-Mecânica-dos-Solos-Rochas/dp/
8579751845.
Gama CD. 1983. Use of Comminution theory to predict frag-
mentation of jointed rock masses subjected to blasting. In:
1st International Symposium on rock fragmentation by
blasting. Lulea: Lulea University of Technology; p. 565–
579. Available from: https://books.google.com.br/books?
id=Vg8Ukw15XjIC&pg=PA688&lpg=PA688&dq=Use
+of+comminution+theory+to+predict+fragmentation+
of+jointed+rock+masses+subjected+to+blasting&source=
bl&ots=xQrOiZ0BWG&sig=ACfU3U1odkERD9XMQv-
08dDtlVEVeynmtw&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=2ahUK.
Gheibie S, Aghababaei H, Hoseinie SH, Pourrahimian Y.
2009. Modified Kuz-Ram fragmentation model and its
use at the sungun copper mine. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci. 46(6):967–973. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.003.
Hagan TN. 1995. The effect of rock properties on the design
and result of tunnel blasts. J Rock Mech Tunnel Technol.
1:25–39. Available from: https://isrmtt.com/wp-content/
pdf/vol-1-1995/vol-1-no-1,jan-1995/t-n-hagan.pdf.
Hamdi E, du Mouza J. 2005. A methodology for rock mass
characterisation and classification to improve blast results.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 42(2):177–194. doi:10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2004.07.005.

Hekmat A, Munoz S, Gomez R. 2019. Prediction of Rock
Fragmentation Based on a Modified Kuz-Ram Model.
Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on
Mine Planning and Equipment Selection – MPES 2018.
Springer International Publishing; p. 69–79. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99220-4_6.
Jimeno CL, Jimeno EL, Bermudez PG. 2003. Manual de
Perforación y Voladura de Rocas. Ingeopress. Madri:
Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España.
Kulula MI, Nashongo MN, Akande JM. 2017. Influence of blast-
ing parameters and density of rocks on blast Performance at
Tschudi Mine, Tsumeb, Namibia. J Min Mate Charact Eng.
05(06):339–352. doi:10.4236/jmmce.2017.56028.
Kuznetsov VM. 1973. The mean diameter of the fragments
formed by blasting rock. Soviet Mining Science. doi:10.
1007/BF02506177.
Mio GD, Gandolfi N. 1995. Cartografia Geotécnica Da
Região de Mogi-Guaçu, São Paulo. Revista Do Instituto
Geológico 16 (special). doi:10.5935/0100-929X.19950018.
Morais JLd, Gripp MdFA. 2004. Fundamentos Para
Simulação Dos Desmontes de Rocha Por Explosivos.
Rem: Revista Escola de Minas. 57(4):241–248. doi:10.
1590/s0370-44672004000400005.
MINING TECHNOLOGY 7
Moura RTPe, Seccatore J, de Tomi G. 2014. PROJETO P80
NOVAS VARIÁVEIS PARA FRAGMENTAÇÃO NO
DESMONTE DE ROCHAS. Belo Horizonte. Available
from: http://www.ibram.org.br/sites/1300/1382/00005676.
pdf.
Nur Lyana K, Hareyani Z, Kamar Shah A, Mohd. Hazizan
MH. 2016. “Effect of geological condition on degree of
fragmentation in a Simpang Pulai Marble quarry.
Procedia Chem 19: 694–701. doi:10.1016/j.proche.2016.
03.072.
Oliveira R. 2006. Apontamentos Da Disciplina GEOLOGIA
DE ENGENHARIA. Porto. 2006. Available from: https://
paginas.fe.up.pt/~geng/ge/apontamentos/Cap_4_GE.pdf.
Scott A. 1996. Open Pit Blast Design : Analysis and
Optimisation. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research
Centre.
Wu YK, Hao H, Zhou YX, Chong K. 1998. Propagation
characteristics of blast-induced shock Waves in a
Jointed rock mass. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 17(6):407–412.
doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(98)00030-X.
Zalán PV, Wolff S, Conceição JCJ. 1990. Bacia Do Paraná.
Petrobrás Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, no. Origem e evolução
de vacias sedimentares: 135–68.