Full-Scale Testing of Delay Timing Effects on Rock

Fragmentation in the Shock Collision Regions

By P.G. Cahill, M.R. Hettinger, J. Nawrocki & C.E. Johnson

Abstract
This study evaluates the effects of both short inter-hole and intra-hole delay times on rock frag-
mentation and throw. Full-scale test blasts were analyzed at a granite quarry in Talbotton, GA.
This analysis provides a representative understanding of timing effects on fragmentation in the
field, different from previous lab scale studies that negate the effect of geology. Inter-hole delay
times between 0 ms and 25 ms were tested on a series of 4 bench blasts and subsequently exam-
ined using photographic fragmentation analysis methods. The 25 ms delay time was determined
to induce the smallest average rock fragmentation size, while instantaneous timing resulted in
increased throw with poor fragmentation. An additional 3 test blasts investigated this optimized
inter-hole timing while altering top and bottom column primer time to potentially improve
throw while maintaining optimum fragmentation. Timings studied are top initiation, bottom
initiation, and top and bottom simultaneously. Shock and detonation wave collisions are a poten-
tial reason for this increased throw.
Keywords: shock wave collisions, detonation wave collisions, rock fragmentation, rock throw,
delay timings, bench blasting, cast blasting, and blast design.

1. Introduction mass characteristics, cannot be modified. Other

Explosives are utilized extensively by the mining
industry in order to break rock, as either ore or
overburden, for hauling, loading, and crushing.
An effective production blast strives to achieve
optimum rock fragmentation in order to increase
the efficiency and reduce the costs of those
downstream operations, while simultaneously
meeting environmental regulations. The goal
of blasting with respect to fragmentation is to
decrease the average particle size of the fragmented
rock without overly increasing fines or, in other
words, improve fragmentation. Additionally, the
distance the rock is transported by the explosive
energy from the blast, also known as throw, can
increase efficiency by reducing the amount of
material that is re-handled by mine equipment.
Rock fragmentation in bench blasting is dependent
on many factors. Some of these, such as the rock
Full-Scale Testing of Delay Timing Effects on Rock Fragmentation in the
variables, such as the blast design and delay timing,
can be modified to optimize the fragmentation
of a shot. Particularly, a blast design pattern
that employs precise delay timing can effectively
optimize both fragmentation and throw. The
invention and increased utilization of electronic
detonators has allowed for precise delay timings
to be used between rows, holes, and even multiple
primers within the same hole. These recent
developments in the blasting community have also
provided an opportunity to investigate whether
or not the mechanism of shock or detonation
wave collisions caused by short timing delays are
responsible for any increased fragmentation or
throw. Detonation waves, which occur within a
blast column, only travel an explosive mixture
and propagate an associated shock wave that is
constantly pushed by the chemical detonation
until the explosive column has been exhausted.
Shock Collision Regions | 23
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017
Shock waves, which occur between blast holes, are
the by-product of detonation waves. They travel
through the surrounding medium (rock, air, or
water) and dissipate with distance.
There are many ways to measure blast performance
including, but by no means limited to, throw
placement, diggability, downstream processing
cost, and in-pit fragmentation analysis. Blast design
is nearly always governed by site-specific needs.
Observing and measuring rock fragmentation
is one of the first steps toward optimization.
Photographic fragmentation analysis, vibration
monitoring, and high-speed video all provide
measurements of blast performance and supply
useful data to the blaster and mine operator.
Changes to the blast design, based on the blast
performance measures, can be made to improve
fragmentation based on the mine’s goals. One of
the blast design parameters that can be modified
to improve fragmentation is timing. Blast timing
should direct the rock displacement and create the
desired muck pile shape. There is some disagree-
ment among blasters and researchers about what
delay times are ideal for fragmentation optimiza-
tion. Yamamoto (1999) and Rossmanith (2003)
believe that optimum fragmentation occurs be-
cause of wave interaction. However, Worsey
(1981), Sjoberg (2012), Johanssen & Ouchter-
lony (2013), Katsabanis et al. (1996, 2006, 2014)
and Johnson (2014) assert that the best fragmen-
tation occurs at delay times much longer than
those that have the potential for wave collision.
Another blast outcome that is affected by delay
timing is throw but less work has been completed
on this topic.
2. Background
Rock fragmentation due to blasting is dependent
on multiple variables, including geological and
structural characteristics of the host rock, blast
design pattern and types of explosives used, and
delay timings. While the geological and structural
24 | P.G. Cahill, M.R. Hettinger, J. Nawrocki & C.E. Johnson
features (density, compressive strength, fracturing
and jointing, etc.) cannot be controlled, blast design
parameters can be. Drill hole patterns and design
(including diameter, depth, subdrill, stemming),
powder factor, explosive properties, velocity of
detonation (VOD), and delay timings are all
examples of controllable variables that can affect
particle size distribution. Rock structures, fracture
planes, and voids can attenuate fragmentation
crack network formations and can cut into the
energy distribution of the pattern. These can
cause less than optimum fragmentation results
from a blast. It is important for rock structures
to be identified and mapped because if blast hole
pattern dimensions exceed those of structure
spacing, fragmentation will be poor (ISEE, 2011).
2.1 Optimized Fragmentation
Typically, optimized (sometimes referred to as
increased or better) fragmentation refers to the
reduction in the P50 particle size, in which 50%
of a sample passes through a sieve. Sometimes
fragmentation size distribution is analyzed
according to the D50 particle size, which
indicates the mean particle diameter at 50% of the
cumulative distribution and is the size distribution
system used in this study. The D50 particle size is
not always indicative of desirable fragmentation,
as there could be a situation in which binomial
distribution has occurred. Excessive fines
(particles < 1 millimeter (mm)) and large boulders
are the product of a shot that displays binomial
distribution, which could lead to loss of product
and increased processing costs, respectively. Even
so, each mine has unique products and final use
demands; boulders can be used for rip rap in one
mine and pose an expensive processing task for
another. A decrease in D50 size without excessive
fines or boulders being produced is what most
mines strive to achieve with a production blast.
This should decrease downstream handling and
processing, especially leading to less stress on
crushers, which can lead to less maintenance
down time, for example. Binomial distribution
can be ruled out when different D sizes are taken

into account; lower D90 values can indicate a size
reduction of oversize material and higher D10
values can possibly indicate a reduction in the
number of fines produced.
2.2 Timing Delays and Electronic Detonators
The advancement of electronic detonators has
allowed for precise timing delays to be incorporated
into a shot, with some models capable of intervals
down to the millisecond (ms). Lusk et al (2012)
demonstrated the increased accuracy of electronic
detonators versus non-electric, rendering the data
collected in electronic initiated experiments more
easily repeatable, if not more reliable as well. Using
scale model concrete blocks, Johnson (2014)
investigated the effects of short timing delays on
detonation and shock wave collisions both in the
blast column and between holes, the results of
which will be discussed in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
2.3 Shock Wave Collisions
Under certain timing circumstances, shock waves
can collide between two holes. Depending on
where the shock waves collide, or interact, vari-
ous results can occur which affect fragmentation.
One wave may be overwhelmed by the other, thus
causing effects of the first to be inhibited by those
of the second. This occurs in the case that the first
wave has already depleted before interacting with
the stronger second wave (ISEE, 2011). Yama-
moto (1999) states that simultaneously detonat-
ing charges, referred to as zero millisecond delays
by the ISEE, will result in shock wave collision
halfway between the two holes. According to
Yamamoto (1999) the greatest fragmentation be-
tween two holes occurs when the tensile trailing
sections of the blast waves interact. Worsey (1981)
disproves Yamamoto’s conclusion based on micro-
fracture density. Worsey (1981) used tests per-
formed in resin blocks to show that, rather than
initiating at the midway point between holes,
fractures from adjacent holes intersect and merge
there. While Yamamoto (1999) and the ISEE
(2011) agree that wave collision occurs and has an
effect, in contrast to Yamamoto, damage, in the
Full-Scale Testing of Delay Timing Effects on Rock Fragmentation in the
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017
case of the ISEE (2011) simulation, was increased
by utilizing delay times that were significantly lon-
ger than those that would have had any stress wave
interaction. According to Rossmanith (2003), lab-
oratory scale tests have shown that the interaction
of blast waves and subsequent cracks can be used
to achieve optimized fragmentation. In order for
the waves to utilize the superposition effect, delay
times must be significantly shorter than conven-
tional delay times.
Sjoberg (2012) concluded that there was a small
effect from shock wave interaction, but that
it was local and did not significantly improve
fragmentation. Sjoberg stated that varying hole
space and explosive quantity had the largest effect
on fragmentation, and relatively long delay times
where the stress wave would have passed the
second hole resulted in the most fragmentation.
Johansson & Ouchterlony (2013) performed
model scale tests to study the utilization of short
delays to promote improved fragmentation caused
by shock wave interactions. They found that the
pre-stressing of the rock mass by preceding blast
holes as a shot progresses played an important role
in the overall fragmentation distribution of the
shot.
Katsabanis has published a number of papers
regarding the effects of timing on rock
fragmentation and in 2014 published a review of
past research about the timing parameters necessary
for fragmentation optimization, very short delays
were associated with coarse fragmentation.
Results of the tests showed that the coarsest
fragmentation occurred when all charges were
initiated simultaneously and that fragmentation
became finer as delay time increased up to a point
(Katsabanis et al., 2006).
Johnson (2014) performed small scale tests that
investigated the effects on fragmentation of
head on collision of shock waves in a rock mass.
Collision of shock waves between blast holes was
found to decrease fragmentation. The directional
Shock Collision Regions | 25
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017
particle movement between holes resulted in an
increase in the concrete density at the collision
point, which resulted in decreased fragmentation
and increased throw because of the impedance
mismatch at the center point. Simulations were
done which backed up the experimental data
(Johnson 2014).
The results of tests done by Sjoberg (2012),
Johansson & Ouchterlony (2013), Katsabanis et
al. (2006, 2014), and Johnson (2014) contradict
Rossmanith (2003) and Yamamoto (1999) and
agree with the ISEE (2011). These results point to
the conclusion that the best fragmentation results
are achieved using delay times that are much longer
than those which can produce wave interaction.
Additionally, very long delay times should be
avoided as they result in coarser fragmentation
and increased back break.
Delay time influences how the blasted rock will
move, and blasts can be designed so that the
desired throw is achieved. Grant (1990) states
that for a front row of holes, the greatest throw is
achieved when all holes are fired simultaneously.
Small scale tests performed by Johnson (2014)
also found an increase in throw when adjacent
holes were simultaneously detonated.
2.4 Detonation Wave Collisions
Detonation waves travel as energy is released
from a chemical reaction, originating from a
detonation point. In an ideal detonation, the
velocity of detonation (VOD) is the maximum
possible velocity when all components in the
chemical reaction react fully. In scaled concrete
block model experiments, Johnson (2014) found
when simultaneously detonating two primers
within a blast column, detonation wave collisions
reflect pressure towards the face rather than back
in the original direction. These collisions occur
at the maximum VOD of the explosive. Intra-
hole detonation wave collisions have not been
investigated as thoroughly as inter-hole shock
collision; however, through discussions with
26 | P.G. Cahill, M.R. Hettinger, J. Nawrocki & C.E. Johnson
blasters, simultaneous initiation of two or more
primers in a single hole is a common practice
due to the observed increased fragmentation and
improved digability, however no fragmentation
data has been recorded or published. (Personal
communication with Brett Richter, Buckley
Powder, MO, USA, July 7th, 2017)
2.5 Fragmentation Models
To assist with size distribution predictions, several
models have been introduced to the blasting
industry. Mechanistic models, while thorough,
require the collection of an overwhelming
amount of data for each separate shot to be of
viable use. Alternatively, empirical models are
able to quickly predict size distribution using
equations incorporating mean particle sizes,
rock factors, powder factors, explosive weight
and properties, and blast design parameters and
are therefore more commonly used in analysis
of rock fragmentation. Cunningham (1983)
proposed the Kuz-Ram model as a mechanism
to predict rock fragmentation sizes. It is a
hybrid model that merges properties of both the
Kuznetsov and Rosin-Rammler equations into a
singular function. Kuznetsov (1973) relates mean
fragmentation size to the powder factor while
the Rosin-Rammler (1933) equation utilized
the Weibull distribution to indicate particle size
distribution. Two significant shortcomings of
the Kuz-Ram model are the underestimation in
predicting fines and inability to adjust for shot
timing (Hettinger, 2015). Some more recent
iterations of the model have included timing.
Ouchterlony (2005) addressed the Kuz-Ram
model’s inability to predict fines by using a five-
parameter version dubbed the Swebrec model that
can reproduce sieved fragmentation curves into
the 100 micrometer (µm) range, and is intended to
substitute the Rosin-Rammler equation. This new
model is also referred to as the KCO (Kuznetsov-
Cunningham-Ouchterlony) model, and connects
blast fragmentation to mechanical comminution.

3. Inter-Hole Experimental Design
Four test blasts were conducted on the North 2nd
Bench of an active granite quarry in Talbotton,
GA. The test blasts were full-size production shots
conducted between April 16, 2015 and September
15, 2015. Each blast shot approximately 37,000
cubic meters (m3) (48,000 cubic yards (yd3)) of
rock. Maximum rock strength for the granite was
recorded to be 114 Megapascal (MPa) using a Ter-
raTek Rock Testing Machine following ASTM
Designation D2938-95. The bench used for anal-
ysis can be described as ‘massive’ with few major
bedding planes and joints.
3.1 Blast Design
The mine’s standard inter-hole delay time was
16 ms and the inter-row delay was 142 ms. Each
shot consisted of two rows of 14.605 centimeter
(cm) (5.75 inch (in.)) diameter holes with a total
of 85 holes per blast. The burden and spacing
were 4 meters (m) (13 feet (ft.)) and 5 m (17
ft.), respectively. The mine’s standard blast design
was used for all of the shots. The bench height
was approximately 21 m (70 ft.) and holes were
drilled with a 1 m (3 ft.) sub-drill, at a 5 degree
angle. The shots had only one open face. The
typical stemming height was 2.75 m (9 ft.) and
the stemming material used was good quality
angular 1.905 cm (0.75 in.) crushed rock. Holes
were loaded with emulsion and initiated by dual
electronic detonators. Detonators with boosters
were placed near the top and bottom of the powder
column and had a 2 ms delay between the bottom
and top detonators. The bottom detonator was
fired first. The top detonator served as a backup
in case of a misfire; otherwise, it was engulfed in
the charge column as the VOD was faster than the
timing delay. The only modifications made were to
the hole-to-hole delay times. Other than the delay
time variable all blast design parameters, including
loading, powder factor, planned burden and
spacing, and stemming were held constant, within
the bounds of a full scale quarry investigation.
Full-Scale Testing of Delay Timing Effects on Rock Fragmentation in the
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017
Hole-to-hole delay times were 0 ms, 1 ms, 4 ms,
10 ms, 16 ms, and 25 ms. The 0 ms, 1 ms, and
4 ms delays were all considered to be short delay
times, and the 0 and 1 ms times were the only
ones with the potential for wave collision. Each
zone was sequenced with no time lag between
zones. This prevented any additional free faces af-
fecting the fragmentation results in zones 2 and
3. Table 1 lists the delay times for each test blast
and the zone in which they were used. The 16
ms and 25 ms times were the baseline long delay
times against which the short delay results could
be compared, and 16 ms was the mine’s standard
inter-hole delay which was also used in all zones
to ensure consistency across the face. Each blast
was initiated in zone 1, resulting in less relief from
open faces in this section. The 16 ms delay showed
consistent results across all three zones and it was
therefore deemed that any zone be representative
of this bench face so consequent timings were only
tested in one or two of the zones. The intermedi-
ate, 10 ms delay, was calculated using equation 1
that input speed of sound in the rock and burden
distance. A delay time of 10.59 ms was calculated
(equation 1), using the recorded sonic velocity of
5.84 kilometers per second km/s and a burden of
3.96 m.
Delay Time = 15.6 / Sonic Velocity km/s x Burden m (1)
Table 1. Delay times and zones.
Shock Collision Regions | 27
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017

Figure 1. View of bench showing zone layout, buckets, and marker rocks.

3.2 Zone and Throw Markers of the muckpile at various points throughout the
For each test blast the bench was divided into three mucking process to be analyzed using WipFrag™
zones. Separating the bench into zones allowed desktop software. This process requires the use of
for three different delay times to be evaluated on a scale object in each picture (a 38 cm (15 in.)
each shot. The separations were identified using bucket, in this experiment) to accurately identify
buckets on top of the bench, as well as on the particle sizes. Figure 2 is an example of the muck
floor below. Shock tube “flash bulbs” were used pile from zone 2 of the 4th test blast, taken mid-
to indicate the column detonation of the opening way through the mucking process.
hole in each zone and could be seen on the high-
speed video. Each zone consisted of either 28 or
29 blast holes from two rows. On the floor below
the shot, in the center of each zone, neon painted
rocks were placed at 30, 45, 61, 76, and 91.5 m
(100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 ft) from the face.
These rocks allowed for observation of the throw
distance achieved in each zone. The layout of the
zones, buckets, and marker rocks are shown in
figure 1.

3.3 Instrumentation
The source of data was collected via photographs
taken for digital image analysis. Photographs Figure 2. Test blast 4 zone 2 muck.
were taken systematically for each timing zone,
immediately after each shot and throughout the
mucking process. These photographs were taken
28 | P.G. Cahill, M.R. Hettinger, J. Nawrocki & C.E. Johnson
 Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017

Table 2. Average sizes by delay time (bold indicated the best, italics the worst).

Figure 3. Averages in order of delay time (10 ms and 25 ms performed the best).

4. Inter-Hole Results averages in order of delay time. Based on these

4.1 Fragmentation Results
The fragmentation for each zone and delay time
was evaluated through digital image analysis. Each
of the photographs were extensively manually ed-
ited to ensure that the rock outlines, as they were
shown and evaluated in the program, truly repre-
sented the actual rocks in the field. In addition to
the fragmentation analysis, observations of several
blast performance parameters were made. Table
2 gives the average fragmentation sizes for each
of the delay times tested. Figure 3 illustrates the
Full-Scale Testing of Delay Timing Effects on Rock Fragmentation in the
averages, 25 ms followed by 10 ms had the best
fragmentation results.
4.2 Throw Results
In addition to the fragmentation effects of timing,
the effect timing had on throw was also observed.
The short delay times, especially the 0 ms delay,
greatly increased the throw distance in the zone
that they were used. Figure 4 shows the increased
throw during the final test blast in zone 3 where
a 0 ms delay time between holes was used. This
Shock Collision Regions | 29
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017
Figure 4. Increased throw from 0 ms delay.
agrees with Johnson’s (2014) conclusion that 0
ms delay times, or delay times where shock waves
interact, will have an increased throw distance.
5. Intra-Hole Experimental Design
The inter-hole time study indicated an increase in
throw with the 0 ms delay but poor fragmenta-
tion. As a follow on from these results, a second
investigation was carried out combining the best
inter-hole delay time of 25 ms with alterine top
and bottom primer time. Data was collected from
three separate, consecutive test shots at the same
granite quarry in Talbotton, GA on July 5, Au-
gust 9, and September 20, 2016, respectively. The
shots were full-scale, blasting on average 40,500
m3 (53,000 yd3) of rock using 28,500 kilograms
kg (63,000 lbs.) of bulk emulsion.
5.1 Blast Design
The delay times used at the time were 25 ms
between holes and 142 ms between rows. The
25 ms inter-hole timing was previously identified
in this study as the ideal time delay to achieve
optimum fragmentation. The drill pattern was
85, 14.605 cm (5.75 in.) diameter holes per shot
arranged in 2 linear rows behind the lone open
30 | P.G. Cahill, M.R. Hettinger, J. Nawrocki & C.E. Johnson
face. The face height averaged about 21m (70 ft.)
for each shot, and each hole included 1 m (3 ft.)
of subdrill. The burden was set at 5 m (15 ft.)
and the spacing between rows was 5.5 m (18 ft.).
Each shot closely adhered to this standard, with
the only variation coming in the form of the blast
column delay times. The holes were stemmed with
1.905 cm (0.75 in.) angular crushed rock with an
average stemming height of 2.75 m (9 ft.).
The holes were loaded with bulk emulsion. Elec-
tronic detonators were used throughout the blast
design, enabling all delay times to be easily and
precisely programmed to the millisecond. Two
primers were loaded into each hole, one towards
the top and the other towards the bottom, nearly
9 m (30 ft.) apart. The delay times and order of
initiation were variable from shot to shot; the first
was simultaneous (dual initiation), the second was
1 ms bottom-initiated (single initiation), and the
third was 1 ms top-initiated (also single initia-
tion). These will be referred to as Test Shot 1, Test
Shot 2, and Test Shot 3, respectively. In the latter
two shots, the 1 ms delay between primers was
chosen so that the second primer detonated before
being engulfed in the explosive column.

5.2 Throw Markers
To measure the distance of the throw, rocks painted
with high-visibility neon paint were placed at
distances of 61 m (200 ft.) and 76 m (250 ft.)
along the floor below the shot, as indicated in
figure 5.
A temporary berm of boulder piles on the far end
of the floor remaining from the previous blasts
restricted the ability of adding further markers.
Data gathered previously in this study negated
the need for markers closer than 61 m (200 ft.)
to the face. The distances were measured using a
laser range finder. Following each shot, overhead
photographs were taken from an adjacent ramp.
To be visible from this distance, the rocks had to
be large enough to see but light enough for an
individual to carry into place.
Figure 5. Throw markers arranged on bench floor.
Table 3. Average fragmentation size distribution (bold is the best, italics is the worst).
Full-Scale Testing of Delay Timing Effects on Rock Fragmentation in the
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017
5.3 Instrumentation
Data was collected in the form of photographs
and high speed video, with differing camera types
depending on the manner in which the data
would be processed. For fragmentation analysis,
a PortaMetrics™ unit from Motion Metrics was
used to take pictures of the muckpile immediately
following each test shot. Additionally, pictures
were taken of the muckpile throughout the
mucking process and analyzed using WipFrag™
to correct for coarse material present from the
stemming region and to get size distribution data
that accurately represented the entire muckpile.
High-speed video footage was captured using an
MREL Blaster’s Ranger II™ camera in order to
note differences within the shot itself.
6. Intra-Hole Results
6.1 Fragmentation Results
In order to display the size distribution of each test
shot in its entirety, the data from all photos using
both MetricsManager™ Pro and WipFrag™
were averaged to find the values located in table 3
and figure 6. The fragmentation was worse in Test
Shot 1 at the D50 size but the throw was much
greater. Additionally, the D90 size is the lowest
which may indicate that the dual initiation blast
column is more effective at reducing oversize than
either single initiation configuration. Test Shot 2’s
D50 size is the lowest but it also has the highest
D90 value. Test Shot 3’s D50 and D90 values fell
in between those of the other two test shots.
Shock Collision Regions | 31
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017

Figure 6. Average fragmentation size by timing.

6.2 Throw Results
Test Shot 1, the simultaneous (0 ms delay) dual
initiation blast column, had the greatest throw
measuring 83.83 m (275 ft.). The rock was thrown
a further distance (> 18.28 m (60 ft.)) than the
other two test shots (62.48 m (205 ft.) and 65.53
m (215 ft.), respectively). There is not a large
difference between the throw distances of each
single-initiated shot. Figure 7 displays the throw
of each test shot. Figure 7(a) displays an area of
significantly lower throw compared to the rest of
the material; this is due to the fact that the shot
initiated in the near-left corner and the blast did
not have sufficient energy at this point to throw
the rock as far as if it were in the middle of the
open face. Figure 7 (b) and (c) feature the same
characteristic but it was not present in the frame
of these particular photographs. These results
match the findings of Johnson (2014), indicating
that detonation waves caused by dual initiation
primers can result in increased throw when all
other blast parameters are held constant.

Figure 7. Intra-hole throw results; (a) 0 ms; (b) 1 ms bottom-initiated; (c) 1 ms top-initiated.

32 | P.G. Cahill, M.R. Hettinger, J. Nawrocki & C.E. Johnson


7. Discussion
7.1 Inter-Hole
Photographic fragmentation analysis of muck
piles created using various delay times on the
same bench blast were used to evaluate the effects
of inter-hole timing on rock fragmentation. This
analysis provided a representative understanding
of timing effects on fragmentation in the field and
differentiated itself from many previous scaled
timing studies which negated the effects of geology
and practicalities in the field. While blasting in a
full-scale operating mine site introduced a number
of uncontrollable variables to the tests, testing in
the full scale is necessary to determine if timing
options are viable for use in real world mining
applications. Scale tests and computer models
provide consistency, but that consistency does not
necessarily translate to applications in naturally
variable material, like a quarry bench.
The 1 ms delay time had the highest mean,
D50, D90, and max size, which indicate very
poor fragmentation for this configuration. It
was expected that the 0 ms delay time would
have produced the worst fragmentation results,
although it is possible that secondary fragmentation
occurred due to the increased throw distance
over the 1 ms time delay. The 25 ms delay time
produced the best fragmentation results due to
the lowest D10, Mean, D50, and D90 sizes. The
10 [ms] delay time produced slightly larger sizes
in these categories but significantly better than
the other 4 configurations. The mine has since
adopted the 25 ms delay time between holes, and
has subsequently reported better fragmentation,
less oversize material in the muckpile, and greater
crusher efficiency since 2015.
7.2 Intra-Hole
The results from the 0 ms delay (or simultaneous
initiation) indicate that fragmentation isn’t
necessarily sacrificed for increased throw; in fact,
oversize is drastically reduced in this configuration
over both of the single-initiation configurations.
It is also possible that the lower D10 and D90
Full-Scale Testing of Delay Timing Effects on Rock Fragmentation in the
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017
sizes are correlated with the increase in throw;
the smaller, lighter fragments would be able to
be displaced a greater horizontal distance than
oversize boulders. Bottom-initiation had the best
D50 fragmentation results, which is contrary
to traditional design concepts that suggest top-
initiation is better due to proximity to additional
free face. This configuration would also be
desired in order to effectively blast out the toe
of the face, whereas a top-initiated configuration
may not be as effective. This configuration also
resulted in the shortest throw distance. The top-
initiated configuration possessed the greatest
maximum fragment size, despite achieving an
average fragmentation size between the other two
configurations.
8. Conclusions
Seven full-scale test blasts at an operating granite
quarry in Georgia were conducted between
April 2015 – September 2016 and subsequently
analyzed using digital fragmentation analysis
techniques. The first 4 test blasts investigated
shock wave interactions between holes at delay
times between 0 ms and 25 ms, finding that 25
ms delays between holes resulted in the greatest
fragmentation. Another 3 test blasts investigated
the effects of detonation wave collisions within the
blast column on rock throw and fragmentation
using this optimum inter-hole delay timing.
These blasts consisted of two primers down each
hole, with initiation sequences consisting of
simultaneous, bottom-initiated, and top initiated.
8.1 Inter-Hole
The 25 ms and 10 ms delay times resulted in the
best fragmentation. Through photographic frag-
mentation analysis, it was found that the 25 ms
delay had the smallest D10, Mean, D50, and D90
sizes. This delay time was too long for shock wave
collisions to affect fragmentation. Short hole-to-
hole delay times do not improve rock fragmenta-
tion in full scale bench blasting. The best perform-
ing delay times were outside of the short delay
Shock Collision Regions | 33
Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017
range and the worst performing delays were the
shortest. The 1 ms delay time had the worst frag-
mentation results. The 0 ms delay demonstrated
an increase in throw distance, even though frag-
mentation and digability were poor. This obser-
vation agreed with other studies that have shown
that instantaneous or short delays have an influ-
ence on rock throw and led to a second study on
intra-hole timing.
8.2 Intra-Hole
A second study attempted to maintain the
improvements to fragmentation from the 25 ms
delay while increasing throw from wave collisions.
Detonation wave collisions caused by simultaneous
detonation of the top and bottom primers in the
blast column resulted in increased throw (>18.28
m (60 ft.)) over both single initiation timings.
Additionally, the mean fragmentation size was
not dissimilar to either of the single-initiation
configurations.
This study demonstrated the use of timing to
alter fragmentation and throw without altering
other blast parameters such as burden, spacing or
hole diameter. Full-scale blast analysis has several
uncontrollable factors to consider over lab scale
tests. However, the aim of this investigation was
to establish whether results found in lab scale
experiments could be mimicked successfully into
the field and lead to improved blast performance.
9. Acknowledgments
Completion of this work could not have been
possible without the help and support from
the following people and companies. Junction
City Mining for their hospitality in allowing
us to observe their operation and conduct our
experiments on site. Additionally, the expertise
and knowledge provided by Joseph Nawrocki and
Andy Hudson of Dyno Consult was invaluable
to the completion of this study. Special thanks
to Enoch Chow, and the entire Motion Metrics
team, for assisting our research and helping with
PortaMetrics technical analysis.
34 | P.G. Cahill, M.R. Hettinger, J. Nawrocki & C.E. Johnson
10. References
Worsey, P.N. (1981) Geotechnical Factors
Affecting the Application of Pre-split Blasting to
Rock Slopes. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mining
Engineering, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Yamamoto, M. (1999) Experimental and
theoretical study on smooth blasting with
electronic delay detonators. Fragblast, Vol. 3: 3-24
Rossmanith, H.P. (2003) The Mechanics of
Electronic Blasting. Proceedings of the 33rd
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique,
ISEE.
Sjoberg, J., et al. (2012) Computer Simulations of
Blasting with Precise Initiation. Eurock
Johansson, D. & F. Outcherlony (2013) Shock
Wave Interactions in Rock Blasting: The Use of
Short Delays to Improve Fragmentation in Model
Scale. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
Vol. 46:1-18
Katsabanis, P.D. & L. Liu (1996) Delay
Requirements for Fragmentation Optimization.
Measurement of Blast Fragmentation, p.143
Katsabanis, P.D. et al. (2014) A Review of Timing
Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation.
Proceedings of the 40th Conference on Explosives
and Blasting Technique. ISEE, Denver, CO, 2014.
Katsabanis, P. D. et al. (2006) Timing Effects
on Fragmentation. Proceedings of the 32nd
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique.
ISEE, Dallas, TX, 2006.
Johnson, C.E. (2014) Fragmentation Analysis
in the Dynamic Stress Wave Collision Regions
in Bench Blasting. Dissertation, University of
Kentucky.
ISEE (2011) Blasters’ Handbook 18th Edition.
International Society of Explosives Engineers,
Ohio, USA
 Blasting and Fragmentation
Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017

Lusk, B., et al. (2012) Field Testing and Analysis

of Blasts Utilizing Short Delays with Electronic
Detonators. OSM Final Report: S09AP15632

Grant, J.R. (1990) Initiation Systems – What does

the Future Hold? 3rd International Symposium on
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Brisbane,
Queensland

Kosanke, K.L. et al. (2012) Encyclopedic

Dictionary of Pyrotechnichnics (and related
subjects). Journal of Pyrotechnicas.

Cunningham, C.V.B. (1983) The Kuz-Ram model

for prediction of fragmentation from blasting.
Proceedings of the first international symposium
on rock fragmentation by blasting, Lulea, Sweden,
p. 439–54.

Kuznetsov, V. M. (1972) The Mean Diameter of

the Fragments Formed by Blasting. Institute of
Mining, Siberian Branch, Academy of Sciences of
the USSR, Novosibirsk, USSR.

Rosin, P. & E. Rammler (1933) The Laws

Governing the Fineness of Powdered Coal. Journal
of the Institute of Fuel, Vol. 7: 29–36.

Hettinger, M.R. (2015) The effects of short delay

times on rock fragmentation in bench blasts.
Masters Theses, Missouri University of Science
and Technology.

Full-Scale Testing of Delay Timing Effects on Rock Fragmentation in the

Shock Collision Regions | 35