ROCK BREAKAGE: EXPLOSIVES
Fig. 9.2.1.8. Geological considerations in blasting: (A) explosive loading for geological variations; (B) blasting against the strike; (C) and (D)
blasting with the strike, with the dip and against the dip, respectively (C = bench crest; T = bench toe).
pattern spacing, and orientation of free faces will determine the
efficiency of open pit blasts (Ashby, 1980). Borehole spacing
aligned with the joint strike can be widened for optimum fracture
development, while shooting with the dip, rather than against,
results in safer highwalls and requires the use of less explosive
energy.
Surface Blast Design: Surface blast designs require the selec-
tion of hole spacing S, burden B, charge weight W or powder
factor PF, top-hole stemming length T, and subgrade drilling
depth J. Design parameters are shown in Fig. 9.2.1.9. Borehole
patterns are drilled square (S/B = 1) or rectangular (S/B ≥ 1)
on center or offset (staggered). The sequence of hole initiation
timing, S/B ratio, actual timing between charge detonations, and
number of blasthole rows determine the shape of the broken rock
pile as well as the degree of rock fragmentation.
An empirical approach is taken in blast design as blasting is
a never-ending process of fine-tuning and modifications. This
approach is necessary due to the many factors that cannot be
controlled, such as geology and explosive loading conditions.
Empirical relationships used in the design of blasting have been
proposed by Ash (1963), Pugliese (1973), Van Ormer (1973),
733
Hagen (1981), Dick et al. (1983), and many others. Borehole
diameter and burden are perhaps the most important factors
used in design. Burden values should be selected based on geol-
ogy and explosive energy output. Usually hole diameter is set by
the drill rig capacity, which is matched to the range of hole
depths anticipated for the job. It is desirable to select a size that
will provide an adequate powder factor (the ratio of explosive
quantity used to the yield of rock breakage) for breakage while
distributing the explosive evenly throughout the hole depth.
Fragmentation and particle size distribution are a function of
hole diameter and burden. The capacity of the excavation equip-
ment dictates the required fragmentation. The charge length to
charge diameter ratio for a cylindrical charge should be five or
greater.
Ash (1963) has provided simple empirical formulas to com-
pute burden, spacing, subgrade, and stem lengths using “K fac-
tors,” shown in Table 9.2.1.6. Other rules of thumb are in
agreement with the range of acceptable multiplying factors given
by Ash. However, many relationships exist for stem length T.
This is because the determination of T is essentially site specific.
If too short a value of T is selected, air pressure can evolve
 Table 9.2.1.7. Typical Powder Factors Used in Rock
Blasting
Range in
Powder Factors,
Excavation Method Ib/yd3
Surface metal mining 0.6–1.0
Surface coal mining 60 yd3 dragline 0.5–0.7
30 yd3 shovel 0.6–1.1
17 yd3 front-end 0.6–1.6
loader
Coal mining blast
casting 0.9–1.5
Quarrying 0.6–1.5
Construction open excavations 0.25–0.8
trenching 2.0–3.0
Conversion factor: 1 yd3 = 0.7646 m3, 1 Ib/yd3 = 0.5933 kg/m3.

required for small capacity removal equipment such as front-

Fig. 9.2.1.9. Blasthole section view (A) showing terminology used in
design and (B) pattern array for layout of holes.
Table 9.2.1.6. Selected Factors for First-Approximation
Surface Blast Designs
Using ANFO:
Burden B = KB K B = 22 for rock density < 2.7 g/cm3
= 30 for rock density > 2.7 g/cm3
Using slurry, dynamite or other high
explosive:
= 27 for rock density < 2.7 g/cm3
= 35 for rock density > 2.7 g/cm3
Spacing S = KSB K S = 1 to 2, depending on initiation
Subgrade J = K J B K J = 0.2 to 0.5 (average 0.3)
Stemming T = KT B KT = 0.5 to 1.3 (average 0.7)
Source: Ash, 1963.
end loaders. Higher powder factors result in coarser fragmenta-
tion and are typically used for rock removal using draglines and
large shovels. Table 9.2.1.7 gives typical powder factor values
for various surface blasting situations. Powder factor is often
reported as the rock yield in tons per pound of explosive used.
Example 9.2.1.10. Determine the blast design for a copper
porphyry open pit mine.
Given blasthole diameter D = 9.25 in., bench height H =
50 ft, rock density ρ = 2.55 (quartz monzonite), and explosive
density ρ = 0.85.
Subdrilling is required and the nearest dwelling is 7 mi away.
Solution. The following values are obtained as a first approxi-
mation:
burden B = 30 (9.25/12) subdrilling J = 0.3 B
= 23 ft = 7 ft
spacing S = 1.3 collar stemming T = 1.2 D
= 30 ft = 12 ft
Thus drilled length L = 57 ft and loaded hole length is 45 ft.
The ratio of H/B is 2.17, and the ratio of charge length to
diameter is 5.2. The maximum charge that can be loaded is
LD = 0.3405 (0.85) (9.25 in.)2 = 24.8 lb/ft
W = 45 ft (24.8 lb/ft) = 1116 lb loaded/hole

Powder factor and rock breakage yield per hole are

through the stem, disturbing nearby residents. If T is too long,

rock breakage near the hole collar is poor. Recommendations
for T (in feet) range from 1.2D to 2D (based on charge diameter
in inches), or 0.5B to 1.3B. The lower range of these two relation-
ships should be used with caution if airblast or flyrock is a
problem.
Once the design parameters are established, the powder fac-
tor PF is computed as the quantity of explosives used divided by
the volume yield of material blasted, or,
(9.2.1.12)
Powder factors range 0.25 to 2.5 lb/yd3 (0.15 to 1.5 kg/m3) for
surface blasting but average 0.5 to 1 lb/yd3 (0.3 to 0.6 kg/
m3). Higher powder factors result in fine fragmentation and are
= 0.87 lb/yd3
3
Volume = 1280 yd of usable ore
The yardage is computed assuming the subgrade material is shot
but not removed until the lower bench level is blasted.
Many blast designs use decked charges formed by dividing
the explosive column into two or more individual charges, initi-
ated on the same or different time delays, separated by inert
stemming material. Decking is employed to (1) conserve explo-
sive use adjacent to weak rock zones, faults, or clay seams; (2)
reduce the charge quantity detonated on one time delay, lowering
ground vibrations; or (3) bring the powder column up higher in
the hole to assure good breakage near the collar. Decked charges
 ROCK BREAKAGE: EXPLOSIVES
should be separated by stemming materials at a length beyond
which two adjacent decks do not affect one another. If interdeck
stemming is too small, the deck designed to initiate on the earlier
time delay may prematurely initiate the second deck. This situa-
tion is referred to as sympathetic detonation and may lead to
excessively high ground vibrations or flyrock. A rule of thumb
for the design of interdeck stem length is to employ the hole
radius dimension in feet.
The following example gives the design procedures for a
blast design in which the explosive charge is limited to control
ground vibrations.
Example 9.2.1.11. Using Ex. 9.2.1.10 and limiting W to 300
lb/delay, a modification to the previous design is required such
that the powder factor is kept at 0.87 lb/yd3, using 300-lb decks.
Collar stem and subgrade drilling remain unchanged.
Solution. Charge length per deck, (300 lb)/(24.8 lb/ft) = 12
ft/deck.
If three decks are used, 36 ft of hole length is required,
leaving 9 ft of interdeck stem length remaining between the
decks, or 4.5 ft between two decks. Using the expression for
powder factor, a new burden and spacing are computed:
(3 decks) (300 lb/deck) (27 ft3/yd3)
PF = = 0.87 lb/yd3
(B) (1.3 B) (50 ft)
B2 = 430 ft2
B = 21 ft
S = 1.3 (21 ft) = 27 ft
Thus total hole charge weight W=900 lb. Yield per hole is 1050
yd3.
Hole Loading Practices—Safe loading practices are given by
Dick et al. (1983) and Osen (1985). Recommended procedures
include taking adequate precautions and using proper accessories
during the hole-loading process. Keeping careful records sum-
marizing blast design dimensions and loading quantities is essen-
tial to safety and economics.
Once drilled, all holes should be plugged or covered to pre-
vent rocks and drill cuttings from filling the hole. Prior to load-
ing, the driller’s log should be checked for hole depths, subdril-
ling, and indications of hard or soft seams, voids, and the
presence of water. The blaster must check each hole for any
change in conditions prior to final design. This is to ensure that
all safety precautions are considered. Abandoned holes must be
filled with cuttings to prevent flyrock.
Transporting the blasting crew and explosives to the blasting
site is done once the site has been identified with markers and
the site cleared of all personnel not involved in hole loading.
Initiators, cap-sensitive explosives, and noncap-sensitive agents
must be transported in accordance with regulations in approved
vehicles, carrying classification signs. Proper tools for loading
include a cloth measuring tape, a wooden tamping pole, a pair
of wire cutters and strippers, a mirror, grappling hooks, and a
powder punch. If electric caps are to be used, an approved
blasting multimeter or galvonometer must be used to check cir-
cuit resistance.
If the blastholes are filled with water, and a water-resistant
explosive of a density greater than one is not used, the holes
must be pumped or blown free of excess water. Plastic sleeves
or hole liners, available to protect from water seeping back into
the hole over a limited time period, minimize the desensitization
of granular explosives and blasting agents.
In holes that are partially filled with water, a wet blasting
agent recommended in wet-hole loading is used below the water
735
level, while granular agents may be placed above. In this case,
plastic tubes are slit along the axis for good coupling.
Once the delay sequence is designed, in-hole or surface delays
are placed adjacent to respective holes. Each hole is then loaded
after it is measured for correct depth. If primers are used for
noncap-sensitive explosives, they are made up at the time of
loading. Caps or detonating cords are inserted and wrapped
around the primer in accordance with manufacturer’s recom-
mendations. A small amount of main charge is added to the hole
bottom, then the primer carefully lowered. The main charge
is poured (for free-running explosives) or carefully lowered (if
packaged), while measuring the loading depth to ensure that
each deck or column rises to the designed length (based on
known loading density). Care must be taken not to overload
holes. Any loading of charge that does not result in a measurable
powder column rise must be stopped immediately. This situation
may indicate a loss of explosive into cavities or open fractures.
It may be necessary to plug the open hole section and stem a
safe distance, continuing the loading with a separate deck. If this
is not possible, a second primer and initiator may be placed at
the charge top and the hole should be stemmed to the top.
The location of the primer for a single explosive column is
a matter of choice. Primers can be placed at the toe, the middle,
or near the top of a column of deck charge. In certain bedded
rock, toe priming provides the best results, while some blasters
feel middle priming works well. High-energy primers, if used too
close to the collar stem base, can displace the stemming material,
sending wasted energy into the air. Top priming should be used
with care, particularly when collar stem lengths are short or the
stemming is damp, to prevent flyrock and excessive air concus-
sion. Multiple priming is often employed as an added safety
measure in the event of explosive column cutoffs. Detonating
cord downline cutoffs can occur in horizontally bedded rock
formations as bedding units shift during the detonation of adja-
cent holes (Fig. 9.2.1.10). A second downline and primer near
the explosive column top may prevent a misfire.
Initiating systems are also a matter of choice. Detonating
cord is easy to use; however, cutoffs can occur if flyrock severs
surface lines. High-grain core load detonating cord tends to
promote the “rifling” of explosive energy through an open chan-
nel within the collar stem as the stem material compresses from
the initiation shock force, as shown in Fig. 9.2.1.10. Angles
between a branch and the line carrying the incoming detonation
wave should be 90° or more, and connections should be made
with slip-proof knots.
When using electric blasting caps, precautions must be made
to monitor extraneous currents at the blast site. Always check
the resistance of each cap before stemming the hole to ensure
continuity. If the detonator is damaged, a second initiator can
be placed in the hole. Once all cap, connecting, and firing line
wires are joined, the resistance must be checked and compared
to the calculated resistance for agreement. Nonelectric initiating
systems are recommended when blasting in the vicinity of stray
currents or to control air concussion. As nonelectric systems
comprise surface and in-hole delays as well as tubing, the blaster
must follow the manufacturer’s recommended procedures for
layout and connection.
Detonating cord downlines must be cut from the supply
spool and held securely during hole loading. Should the cord
slip into the hole during loading, a second primer and initiator
must be immediately placed in the hole before loading is contin-
ued. Blasting cap legwires must also be held securely during
loading, and care must be taken not to damage legwires.
Stemming material should provide a high degree of frictional
resistance against the explosive detonation force moving upward
from the charge base. In dry holes, drill cuttings work well;
736 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Fig. 9.2.1.10. (A) Detonating cord downline cutoff caused by shifting
of horizontally bedded rock, and (B) stemming compression leading
to a loss of explosive energy
however, when cuttings are wet, they provide little resistance.
In this case, 3/8 -in. (9.53-mm) crushed stone is recommended.
Prior to shot initiation, the blast site and surrounding area
must be cleared and all access to the blast site must be guarded.
A sequence of audible sirens of a set code precedes the blast,
with an “all clear” siren following the blast. During shot firing,
all personnel must be adequately covered and fully protected
from flyrock. A certain time period must pass before entering
the blast site as both flyrock and noxious fumes may be present
for an extended period of time after detonation.
If a misfire occurs, the charge should be flushed from the
hole with water or air. If this is not possible, the cord, legwires,
or tubing may be reconnected, if available, once continuity is
established. If continuity is not established, the hole should be
reprimed after the stemming is flushed out. In this case, care
must be taken during initiation as excessive flyrock may result. In
the case that it is not possible to use these approaches, qualified
professional assistance must be sought. With the assistance of
experts trained to handle misfires, the charge may be carefully
dug out or a hole may be drilled adjacent to the unshot hole.
The adjacent hole is then lightly loaded, and detonated, to lift
the rock surrounding the unshot charge for removal. Under no
circumstances should these attempts be made by unexperienced
blasting personnel without consultation with their supervisors
and experts in this field.
Surface Delay Blasting—Delay blasting techniques are em-
ployed to improve fragmentation, control of rock movement,
overbreak, and to reduce ground vibrations. Delays are incorpo-
rated into the blast design using electric or nonelectric caps or
delay connectors with detonating cord. The delay patterns used
in design will determine the sequence of hole or deck initiations,
thereby, dictate the overall direction of blasted rock movement
and resulting fragmentation. Depending on the S/B ratio, the
actual timing (in milliseconds) between detonating charges will
determine muck pile displacement height and distance from the
bench. Fig. 9.2.1.11 shows variations of timing patterns used for
surface blasting. Depending on initiation sequence, an effective
burden B e and effective spacing S e result as shown in Fig.
9.2.1.11. The effective spacing is the distance between holes in a
row defined by adjacent time delays (e.g., delays by rows). Effec-
tive burden is the distance in the direction of resultant rock mass
movement. The V and echelon (diagonal) patterns are used when
rock placement is restricted. Designs using two free faces usually
provide improved fragmentation and throw control over those
using a single face.
The design of initiation timing for multiple-hole blasting is
critical to the blasting effectiveness. If the interhole delay is too
short, the movement of row burdens is restricted and fragmenta-
tion is poor. High ground vibrations result, and backbreak along
the new highwall may persist, jeopardizing the stability of the
slope. If interhole delays are too long, cutoffs of surface delays
may occur. The minimum time for design is controlled by the
stress wave travel distance (= 2 B e ) in order for radial cracking
to begin to develop, contributing to the detachment of the rock
mass in the vicinity of the hole. This detachment forms an inter-
nal free face (or relief) to which successive detonations will
interact with the reflection of stress waves. The minimum timing
is, therefore,
(9.2.1.13)
where t is stress wave travel time in ms, Be is effective burden or
distance from the hole to the free face in feet, and Cp is velocity
of sound for the rock in fps. The maximum timing is that at
which the burden is fully detached and accelerating as gas pres-
sures build. Research by Barker and Fourney (1978, 1978a),
Winzer and Ritter (1980), and others, has shown that stress wave
travel time is a fraction of the time required to develop radial
cracks. Furthermore, studies using high-speed photography indi-
cate that the burden moves within a timeframe which is between
2 to 10 times the wave travel time to the face. Hagen (1977)
noted the time to burden movement ranges from 5 to 50 ms, and
suggests an optimum range of timing for design between 1.5 to
2.5 ms/ft of Be.
Timing studies have been performed to investigate resulting
fragmentation and muck pile shapes. Reduced-scale research
using a variation in delay ratios suggests improved fragmentation
for timing between 11 to 17 ms/ft of Be (Stagg and Nutting,
1987), while Bergmann et al. (1974) demonstrated improved
fragmentation for S/B ratios of two at timing ratios of 1 ms/ft
of Be or greater.
Production-scale, multiple-row blasting has resulted in rec-
ommended timing to improve fragmentation. Andrews (1981)
suggests delays of 1 to 5 ms/ft within rows and 2 to 15 ms/ft of
Be between rows (or on the echelon). Anderson et al. (1982)
measured flyrock velocity, or gas venting, through the collar
stemming to establish a 3.4 ms/ft of hole spacing and 8.4 ms/
ft of B e recommendation for optimum breakage and forward
movement. Similar work in which muck pile profiles were
 ROCK BREAKAGE: EXPLOSIVES
Fig. 9.2.1.11. Typical initiation patterns for surface blasting showing initiation by rows (A) parallel and (B) perpendicular to a single free face,
(C) in a “V” configuration and, (D) echelon pattern using two free faces; Be and Se are effective burden and spacing, respectively.
mapped indicates that optimum forward throw and muck pile
height reduction occur for delay ratios of 4.2 ms/ft of Se and 10
ms/ft of Be, while forward throw is minimized, resulting in high
muck piles, with ratios of 1.5 to 2 ms/ft of Se and 5 to 6 ms/ft
of Be (Winzer et al., 1981). Hagen (1977) has shown for single-
row production shooting and S/B of 1.2 to 1.6 that timing ratios
greater than 1.2 ms/ft of Be are ideal. Hagen recommended 1.2
ms/ft of Be for multiple-row production blasting in hard rock,
while using high powder factors and short stem lengths. A 2.4
ms/ft of B e was recommended for soft rock with long stem
lengths and low powder factors. To control ground vibrations,
Kopp (1987) recommended that a 1.3 ms/ft of S and 1.2 to 4.3
ms/ft of Be be used.
The timing ratios cited are found to vary over a wide range.
A great deal of research on the effects of initiation timing cannot
be compared due to the lack of similar variables such as geology,
scale, and explosive type. Winzer et al. (1983) recognized the
need to qualify delay ratios, in a general way, based on existing
fracture density. Competent dense rock requires lower delay
ratios to achieve fine fragmentation, while weak fractured rock
fragments best with higher delay ratios.
Underground Blast Design: Blasting rounds are used in the
development of tunnels, shafts, raises, stopes, caving, and other
underground openings. Powder factors range from 1.5 to over
10 lb/yd3 (0.9 to 6 kg/m3). The lower values are used in large
open rooms in soft weak rock while the higher values are used
in confined raises and shafts for hard competent rock.
Underground explosives should be selected for ease of han-
dling and loading. Explosives with a fume class of 1 are required,
and permissibles must be used in gassy mines. Wet and dry
blasting agents as well as dynamites are used in a variety of
blasting situations. The storage of explosives underground
737
should be made for limited periods of time in the case of atmo-
spheric conditions which present high humidity and tempera-
tures. Cartons must be kept sealed until used, and a rigid system
of stock rotation employed. Many loading procedures outlined
in the segment on surface blast design also apply to underground
loading. During blasted rock removal, a constant watch for un-
shot explosives must be made. Prior to drilling the subsequent
round, the face must be closely inspected for evidence of unshot
explosives from the previous round. The holes are then blown
with compressed air to clear blockages and remove water from
the holes.
For loading short holes using cartridge explosives, the charge
is tamped with nonsparking poles. The cartridge containing the
initiator should never be tamped, but rather pushed gently into
the holes. In recent years, advances in hole loading have been
made with the use of mechanized pneumatic and pumping ma-
chines. Pneumatic loading uses pressurized airstream flow to
inject conventional cartridge as well as dry bulk explosives
(Ljung, 1978; Smith, 1982; Russell, 1984; Day and Joyce, 1988).
In loading dry bulk ANFO, care must be taken to adjust the
pressure regulator such that the tank or line pressure remains
below the level recommended by the manufacturer. Static elec-
tricity buildup is a problem with this method, and nonelectric
or anti-static blasting caps must be used with pneumatically
loaded ANFO. The success of loading bulk ANFO and wet
blasting agents in upholes, using pressurized air and pumps, has
allowed the application of large-diameter holes (6.5 in. or 165
mm) to stoping techniques and the development of the vertical
crater retreat (VCR) method of stoping (Bauer, 1978; Lang,
1978).
Priming methods used in underground holes are a matter of
choice. Large-diameter holes are primed at the base of the hole.
738 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Fig. 9.2.1.12. Typical tunnel round showing drillhole terminology and
an initiation sequence for delay timing; all holes between the cut and
perimeter holes are referred to as relief holes.
Blasting caps are inserted with the exploding tip facing the line
of charge. Small-diameter horizontal holes should be primed at
the hole bottom to ensure maximum confinement. If the primer
containing the initiator is placed at the hole collar, it could be
expelled upon detonation if the stem length is too short. A misfire
could result with unshot explosives remaining in the hole. If a
misfire occurs, it should be handled as described in the segment
on surface blasthole loading.
Post-shot procedures must include a safe waiting time for
fumes to disperse from the working area. This time varies based
on the explosive and rock type, as well as the ventilation system.
Measurements should be taken to establish this safe time.
The design of underground blasting rounds is covered in
detail by Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978), Gustafsson (1981),
and Dick et al. (1983). Two types of blasting rounds are those
with one free face and those with more than one free face. Single-
face rounds are used in development openings (tunnels, shafts,
raises) as well as in room and pillar, longwall, and shrinkage
stoping methods of mining. All mining methods require single-
face blast designs for development work. Multiple-face rounds
are used in open stopes, sublevel caving, and large-diameter
tunnels using benching methods. In many cases, multiple-face
rounds are designed similar to surface blasting.
Single-Face Rounds—Names given to the various blastholes
drilled within a round are shown in Fig. 9.2.1.12. Cuts refer to
a group of holes, centrally located at the face and detonated on
the first few delay intervals. The purpose of the cut is to provide
initial relief to which the remaining holes break. Cuts comprise
parallel holes, referred to as the burn cut, or angled holes, defined
as V cuts. Various types of burn and V cuts are shown in Fig.
9.2.1.13. In the case of single free faces, the burden is defined as
the distance, on the face, between each hole and adjacent relief.
This relief can be provided by the empty holes in the cut, by the
blasted and ejected cut itself, or by holes surrounding the cut as
the delayed sequence of holes are initiated.
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) provide design criteria for
the distance between loaded and empty holes to maximize break-
age and advance of the face for the burn cut round. As a general
rule, the burden between central empty holes and the nearest
small-diameter loaded hole should be 0.7 times the area of the
empty holes.
Fig. 9.2.1.13. Example of burn and V cuts used in underground
blast designs.
The location of the cut on the face will dictate the direction
and distance of throw. In soft rock, such as coal or potash, a
saw or cutter chain is used to produce a kerf cut near the floor,
roof, or along the midsection of a face to serve as a plane of relief
in addition to protecting the wall rock from backbreak.
Borehole patterns are selected based on rock type and size
of the face. Drillhole alignment is critical for blasting results. If
holes are incorrectly spaced, wallrock damage or poor fragmen-
tation can occur. Bottom-hole deviation is defined as the offset
distance measured at the hole bottom divided by the planned
hole length and is given in percentage. Hole alignment is a
function of hole size, total hole length, direction drilled and
geology. Longhole deviations can be approximated by 0.015
times hole length in feet (0.05 times hole length in meters).
Vertical, large-diameter down-holes can be drilled with little
deviation. Small-diameter holes drilled within a fan or ring result
in large deviations. When loading holes, deviations must be con-
sidered such that adequate hole bottom powder factors are used.
If powder factors are too low, the advance per round, or pull, is
poor. If holes are too close together, resulting in high powder
factors, dead pressing of explosives may occur leading to boot-
legs, or misfires. Sympathetic detonation could also occur, pre-
maturely initiating adjacent holes simultaneously, and results
with in-place fragmented rock and no displacement. This rock
is referred to as “frozen” in place, and generally leads to no
advancement of the face.
Empirical relationships available for spacing of holes and
powder factors are given by Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978),
Gustafsson (1981), and Holmberg (1982). Approximate relation-
 ROCK BREAKAGE: EXPLOSIVES
ships between total heading area and total hole area, powder
factors, and approximate number of holes required based on
geology and hole size are given. Such relationships are based on
hard-rock blasting techniques used in Sweden and Austria. They
are based on empirical data and cannot be expected to apply to
each underground blasting situation in other types of rock.
Wilbur (1982) gives drillhole requirements for US tunnel
projects and a generalized range of geology. The relationship for
N, the number of blastholes per round based on tunnel area A
in square feet, is approximated for soft or highly fractured rock
(9.2.1.14) and for hard or massive rock (9.2.1.15) by
N = 0.124 A + 10 (9.2.1.14)
N = 0.158 A + 28 (9.2.1.15)
Gustafsson provides numerous design examples for relationships
developed in Austrian tunnels. Design formulas are based on
holes loaded with a nonuniform distribution of explosive charge
or loading density. A heavy charge, loaded at the bottom one-
third of the hole, and a column charge equal to one-half the
bottom charge is used in tunnel blastholes. The burden in feet is
equal to (hole depth – 1.3/2), and spacing in feet is 1.1 times
the burden. Stemming length is one-half the burden depth.
Such relationships only serve as examples of the procedures
to be taken in the design process. For each design situation, a
trial-and-error approach is usually taken by experienced and
qualified blasters.
Delays used are either short- (ms) or long- (sec) period elec-
tric or nonelectric delays. In general, long periods provide coarse
fragmentation, and muck pile placement is high and close to the
blasted face. These delays are necessary in tight headings such
as raises where more time is necessary to displace rock for indi-
vidual delays. Short-period delays generate finer fragmentation
and a long, low muck pile profile.
Delay patterns and approximate hole spacings used for sin-
gle-face blasting underground are shown in Fig. 9.2.1.14. Blast
designs used for sinking shafts are similar to those used for
tunnels. For full-face rounds, a burn cut or V cut is used. A
bench round or sump cut, shown in Fig. 9.2.1.14, allows for
dewatering during development. Powder factors range from 2 to
7 lb/yd3 (1.20 to 4.2 kg/m3). Hole diameters average 2 in. (50.8
mm) in tunnels, and diameters of 4 to 6 in. (101.6 to 152.4 mm)
are used in stoping techniques.
Raises using short holes less than 120 ft (36.6 m) or long
holes greater than 120 ft (36.6 m) are drilled 2 to 6.5 in. (50.8
to 165 mm) in diameter and loaded up or down from a horizontal
drift. Drillhole deviations limit raise drilling to less than 148 ft
(45 m). Drilling and loading upholes from below can be danger-
ous and time consuming. Down-hole drilling and loading is safer
and provides a high productivity. This is usually done with a
central large relief hole or using the vertical crater retreat (VCR)
method. The VCR method has been adapted to drilling large-
diameter down-holes, providing a safer and more efficient means
of advancing raises from the bottom taking advantage of gravity,
while equipment and men remain at the top sill.
The shrinkage stope method used for production can be
adapted to VCR methods in large diameter (6.5 in. or 165 mm)
holes. In this method, down-holes are drilled from an upper drift,
plugged near the hole bottom, loaded, and shot using delays. The
sequence is repeated several times, advancing the back of the
undercut with horizontal slices. Each round is loaded with a
charge length to diameter ratio of 6 or less with parallel hole
spacing designed 20 times the hole diameter dimension. The
advantage of this method used in shrinkage stoping is higher
739
productivity, improved safety, good fragmentation, and cost per
ton lower than traditional overhand shrinkage methods.
Multiple-Face Rounds— Underground blasting techniques
using multiple faces are shown in Fig. 9.2.1.15. Benching, similar
to surface methods, is employed for room and pillar and open
stoping methods. Medium- to large-diameter holes, drilled either
vertically using subdrilling or horizontally, are used.
Shrinkage stopes are blasted using either the overhand or
blasthole shrinkage method. Hand-held jacklegs or stopers are
used to drill small-diameter upholes or holes in an inclined back,
as well as horizontal holes, using overhand or breasting methods,
while working support is provided by the previously blasted
muck pile.
Cut and fill mining methods excavate horizontal slices of ore
working from the stope bottom upward. In this method, the ore
is blasted and removed after each slice, then replaced with waste
material usually comprising cemented mill tailings. Hydraulic
filling provides a competent, even floor for the drilling of hori-
zontal or vertical holes along the back using mechanized drilling
equipment.
Sublevel or blasthole stoping methods include small-diame-
ter hole ring and fan drilling techniques or large-diameter paral-
lel holes drilled the entire stope length. Sublevel stopes are devel-
oped with small-diameter holes approximately 2 in. (51 mm) in
diameter. Drilling efficiency is limited to 60 to 80 ft (18 to 25
m) for rings. Fan upholes, angled 45° to 88°, are drilled 45 to 65
ft (12 to 20 m) in length. Stope widths range 20 to 150 ft (6 to
46 m), and heights up to 250 ft (76 m) are common. An end
pillar raise or a central slot raise is initially blasted from wall to
wall to which successive slab rounds break. Fan or ring spacings
along the drill drifts, or the burden distance between holes, vary
5 to 10 ft (1.5 to 3 m), and hole bottom, or toe, spacings between
holes in a fan or ring range from 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m). Hagen
(1988) recommends the use of staggered drilling patterns be-
tween fans or rings with a spacing 3.5 to 4 times the burden
distance. The use of this ratio should minimize sympathetic
detonation, improve fragmentation, lower ground vibrations,
and provide a good distribution of explosive energy. ANFO or
water gels are commonly used with powder factors ranging from
2 to 6 lb/yd3 (1.2 to 3.6 kg/m3). Short period electric or nonelec-
tric blasting caps with delay intervals of 25 ms are generally
used.
Large-diameter parallel holes 4 to 7 in. (102 to 178 mm) in
diameter are often used to blast entire stopes without sublevels
to heights of 250 ft (76 m). The vertical limits of the stope are
defined by an upper drill drift or top sill and an undercut drift.
The upper sill is developed to the width of the ore body. Down-
the-hole (DTH) drilling equipment is used to drill down-holes
150 to 200 ft (45 to 65 m) in length. Two methods of production
blasting include vertical slabbing to an open stope and crater
blasting or VCR. Panel blasting requires a raise and slot to be
developed in addition to an undercut fan beneath each slab
round. A 0.32-lb/ton (0.15-kg/t) powder factor is typically used.
The application of crater blasting in stope mining requires a
minimum of development within the ore pillar. Its use depends
on the size of the ore body and the stability of wallrock. The VCR
method has been shown to reduce pillar damage and overbreak,
resulting in less ore dilution. Drilling and blasting cycles were
described previously under single-face shrinkage stopes. Spac-
ings and burdens range 8 to 10 ft (2.4 to 3 m) square or staggered
on a 7 × 9-ft (2.1 × 2.7-m) pattern for a typical drillhole
diameter of 6.5 in. (165 mm). Charge weights per hole using
ANFO or water gels vary from 10 to 20 lb (4.5 to 9 kg), and a
vertical advance of 10 to 15 ft (3.0 to 4.6 m) is typical. A major
drawback with the use of this method is the difficulty in keeping
Fig. 9.2.1.14. Single face drilling patterns for (A) a long-hole raise, (B) drop raise for blasthole stopes (note: slot raise pattern similar to long-
hole raise design), (C) shaft bench round, and (D) full face V shaft round.
holes open during blasting cycles in fractured and faulted
ground.
Block and sublevel caving techniques are used at depths
below which stoping methods become unstable or used for low-
grade, fractured ore bodies. The sublevel caving method employs
the use of fan drilling using long, small-diameter holes, between
sublevels or drill drifts to undercut and blast the ore zone. An
initial slot is developed at the wallrock, and vertical uphole fans
are drilled in a diamond pattern from sublevels in sequence.
Generally, eight holes, inclined 85° toward the slot, are drilled.
Hole diameters average 2 in. (51 mm). Burdens and spacings
vary from 4 to 6 ft (1.2 to 1.8 m) and 5 to 6 ft (1.5 to 1.8 m),
respectively. Blasting is performed against broken waste rock as
the wall rock caves. Powder factors range from 0.6 to 0.9 lb/ton
(0.3 to 0.4 kg/t).
Block caving techniques require an initial development blast
above the undercut level to start caving. Jumbos with 2- to 3-in.
(51- to 76-mm) diameter holes drill fan rounds, oriented 45° to
vertical and 15 to 38 ft (4.6 to 11.6 m) in length. Fan spacing is
generally 5 ft (1.5 m). Secondary blasting is often required to
dislodge oversize material or broken muck that has hung up
within the raises. Bagged water gels are used in raises at a powder
factor of 0.2 lb/ton (0.09 kg/t).
Controlled Blasting Techniques: Controlled blasting employs
the use of reduced explosive quantities loaded into holes that are
generally smaller in diameter and spaced closer than the main
blast. The holes are often placed along the periphery of an exca-
vation or round. This method is used to control overbreak, re-
duce fractures within remaining rock walls, and reduce ground
vibrations. Such methods are variations of line drilling in which
closely spaced, unloaded holes form a natural excavation line
beyond which no rock is to be blasted. In general, hole diameters
range from 2 to 3 in. (51 to 76 mm), and spacings range from
0.3 to 1 ft (0.1 to 0.3 m).
Two versions of line drilling used in surface blasting are
presplitting and cushion blasting. Presplitting (or preshearing)
uses a line of closely spaced loaded holes in the range of 2 to 4
in. (51 to 101.6 mm) in diameter and 2 to 4 ft (0.61 to 1.22 m)
is spacing. They are drilled along the periphery of an excavation
and initiated before the main blast is detonated. In this respect,
an internal free face is formed, containing stress waves from
successively detonated holes within the boundaries. Explosive
charges range from 0.1 to 0.7 lb/ft (0.06 to 0.42 kg/m). Presplit-
ting is often employed with trench blasting techniques.
Cushion blasting (also referred to as smooth-wall or trim
blasting) is performed using hole sizes of 2 to 6 in. (51 to 152
mm) and loading from 0.1 to 1.5 lb/ft (0.06 to 0.89 kg/m). Hole
spacings are generally set between 3 to 9 ft (0.9 to 2.74 m). In
this method, explosive charges in cartridge form are decoupled
 ROCK BREAKAGE: EXPLOSIVES 741

Fig. 9.2.1.15. Multiple face drilling patterns for (A) room and pillar, cut and fill, and shrinkage stoping methods; (B) sublevel caving; (C) sublevel
stoping; and (D) long-hole stoping or vertical crater retreat methods.
742 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
from the borehole wall, intermittently spaced along the boreholeTable 9.2.1.8. Comparison of Drilling and Blasting
length. Costs for Various Mining Methods
Smooth or trim blasting is the underground application of
cushion blasting. For large-diameter blasting underground, an
Extraction Methods
effective method of protecting pillars and stope walls is the de-
coupling of charges with air. Often a mixture of 50% ANFO Metal mines and quarries
and 50% polystyrene beads is used to lower the explosive energy Construction
in prefractured rock and for pillar protection. The use of spacers Tunneling
or plugs is used to distribute the charges, lowering the powder Longhole stoping
Vertical crater retreat mining
factor and eliminating the chance for charges to prematurely
Cut and fill stoping
initiate adjacent holes designed for later initiation timing. Often Shrinkage stoping
the charge is placed in cardboard liners one-half the diameter of
the borehole, filling the annular area with drill cuttings. Trim Conversion factor: $1 /yd3 = $1.31 /m3.
blastholes are shot after the main blast round is detonated. Source: Aimone, 1979.

9.2.1.4 Estimating Drilling and Blasting Costs

Example 9.2.12. Using single-column loading from Ex.
Drilling and blasting are unit operations required for devel- 9.2.1.10, estimate the drilling and blasting costs. The following
opment and production. The components of costs for drilling cost data are used:
and blasting include labor, direct costs of operating equipment,
and supplies. In surface mines, the basis of cost is computed per blasting: ANFO $ 0.12/lb drilling: $1.30/ft
ton (tonne) of ore produced or per cubic yard (cubic meter) of primer 1.50/ea
material broken for removal. The costs are directly related to caps 1.30/ea
powder factor and depend on geology, type of explosives, and labor 16.00/hr
the size of the blastholes and excavating equipment. Under-
ground costs are a function of mining method, level of mechani- A three-person blasting crew is assumed, and hourly wages in-
zation, productivity, and operational cycle time. Development clude benefits. The unit drilling cost includes all costs to own
costs are given per foot (meter) of advance for tunnels and raises and operate the rig, computed using Eq. 9.2.1.16.
and are expensed over the ore block associated with develop-
ment. Production drilling and blasting is computed per foot Production data:
(meter) of hole drilled or per ton (tonne) of ore produced. weekly production 150,000 tons
For equipment, such as a drill rig, the costs can be summa- tonnage factor 2.4 tons/yd 3
rized with the following relationship: yield/hole 1280 yd 3
holes/week required 50
yield/week 64,000 yd3 or 153,600 tons
(9.2.1.16)
Solution.
1. Blasting cost
where is cost per hour to own the rig, is cost per hour Explosives per hole:
to operate the rig, BL is bit life in hours or in feet, and BC is ANFO 1114 lb @ $0.12/lb $133.68
bit cost. The cost to own includes taxes, interest, insurance, Primer and cap 2.80
amortization, and depreciation. The cost to operate includes
Total per hole $136.48
labor, fuel, and parts and supplies, such as tires and drill steel.
Labor costs, also applied to blasting costs, include base salary
Total per week, 50 × $136.48 $6824
plus benefits. Benefits, which range from 30 to 40% of base
Labor, 8 hr, 3 miners @ $ 16/hr 384
salary, include insurance, health care, pension, and vacation.
Incentive pay, as a percentage of base salary, is often provided Total blasting per week $7208
when productivity increases over a predetermined average. Pro- Total per yd3 $0.113
ductivity is measured as feet (meters) drilled for the drill crew 2. Drilling cost
or loaded and shot per employee-shift for the blasting crew. 50 holes, 57 ft per hole @ $1.30/ft $3705
Incentive pay is also provided for accurate underground drillhole Total per yd 3 $0.058
alignment and depth. Example 9.2.1.13. Using three-deck loading from Ex.
Blasting costs comprise explosives, boosters and primers, 9.2.1.11, estimate the drilling and blasting costs.
initiation systems, and other expendables. Labor costs include
the hours spent by the blasting crew to handle and transport Production data:
explosives, load holes, detonate the shot, and take inventory yield per hole 1050 yd 3
and prepare paperwork. The cost of bulk loading and storage holes per week 60
equipment is also included. yield per week 63,000 yd3 or 151,200 tons
A comparison of drilling and blasting costs for various min-
ing methods is shown in Table 9.2.1.8. Blasting costs are directly Solution.
related to powder factor and the cost per pound of the main 1. Blasting Cost
explosive charge. Labor costs can represent 5 to 40% of the total Explosives per hole:
blasting costs, while the cost of expendable blasting accessories ANFO, 900 lb @ $ 0.12/lb $108.00
such as primers and initiators is generally less than 20% of total 3 primers and caps 8.40
costs. Example cost calculations are given for the surface blast Total per hole $116.40
designs in Exs. 9.2.1.10 and 9.2.1.11. Total per week, 60 × $116.40 $6984
 ROCK BREAKAGE: EXPLOSIVES 743
Labor, 9 hr, 3 miner, @ $ 16/hr 432 Total stope drilling required
Total blasting per week $7416 326,700 tons/(2 tons/ft) = 163,350 ft
Total per yd 3 $0.118 Productivity and costs
2. Drilling cost Drilling labor
60 holes, 57 ft per hole @ $1.30/ft $4446 (35 ft/hr drill rate)(6.5 hr) = 228 ft/employee-shift
Total per yd3 $0.071 ($150/employee-shift)(228 = $0.66/ft
Cost Comparison for Increase in Explosive Energy: The ft/employee-shift)
following example gives a cost comparison for two explosives of Drilling supplies and nonlabor = $0.10/ft
different energy levels. A design for explosive A, with a density costs
of 0.85 and per-pound cost of $0.12, is compared with a design Total drilling costs = $0.76/ft = $0.38/ton
for explosive B, whose density is 1.3 and cost $0.20/lb. The Blasting
design involves 4-in. (101.6-mm) diameter holes for a 150,000- Explosives, (0.7 lb/ = $0.084/ton
yd3 (114,690-m3 ) excavation using 28-ft (8.53-m) long holes, 8- ton)($0.12/lb)
ft (2.44-m) collar stem, and 4-ft (1.22-m) subdrilling. The excava- Primer and initiator = $0.035/ton
tion subgrade is 24 ft (7.3 m) below current surface. Primer and Total blasting supplies = $0.119/ton = $0.238/ft
cap costs are $2.80, while it is assumed that blasting labor is Labor productivity
$4.00/hole, and drilling costs are $ 0.90/ft ($2.95/m). (35 ft/hole)/(0.25 hr/hole = 140 ft/employee-hr
Example 9.2.14. Cost comparison. loading time)
(140 ft/employee-hr)(4 hr = 560 ft/employee-shift
loading/shift)
Explosive A Explosive B Labor cost
explosive density 0.85 1.30 ($150/employee-shift)/(560 = 0.27/ft = $0.14/ton
loading density 4.63 lb/ft 7.08 lb/ft ft/employee-shift)
charge weight/hole 93 lb 142 lb Total blasting costs = $0.51/ft = $0.25/ton
total blasting cost/hole $17.96 $35.20 Total drilling and blasting costs = $0.634/ton
pattern ( B × S) 10 × 13 ft 12 × 17 ft VCR stoping costs:
yield per hole 116 yd3 181 yd3 Blasthole pattern 9 × 9 ft
number of holes required 1293 829 Total VCR holes/stope 182
powder factor 0.80 lb/yd3 0.78 lb/yd3 VCR drillhole length 220 ft
blasting cost $0.155/yd3 $0.194/yd3 Total crater hole drilling 40,040 ft
drilling cost $0.217/yd3 $0.139/yd3 VCR production 287,500 tons
total costs $0.372/yd3 $0.334/yd3 Undercut development 39,200 tons
Explosive density 1.35
The higher cost of blasting with the higher-density explosive is Explosive loading density 19.42 lb/ft
Explosive cost $0.20/lb
offset with a lower drilling cost. With a higher-energy explosive,
an expanded pattern is drilled with fewer holes. The overall cost Loading length-to-diameter 6
savings is $5830. Charge weight per slab round 60 lb
Cost Comparison of Two Stoping Blasting Methods: Exam-
ple 9.2.1.15 provides a cost comparison between conventional
sublevel stope blasting (longhole stoping) and cratering tech- Based on preliminary tests, a powder factor of 0.83 lb/ton (0.5
niques. Production costs are considered and development costs g/kg) is adequate to break 72 tons (65 t) for a 10-ft (3-m) retreat
are not included. along the back. Total slab tonnage is 13,104 (11.9 kt). Rotary
Example 9.2.15. Cost comparison. drilling cost, including labor, is $0.60/ft.

Production ore stopes are 250 ft (76 m) high, 420 ft (128 m)

in length, and 35 ft (11 m) in width. Production is 1000 tpd VCR blasting per 10-ft advance
(900 t/day), and stope production is 326,700 tons (296.4 kt). In explosives
longhole stoping, 2-in. (51-mm) drillholes are used to drill rings (182 holes)(60 lb/
from sublevels with approximately 60 ft (18 m) of vertical separa- hole)($0.20/lb) $2184
tion. Eight holes are drilled per ring with an average hole depth primer and initiator
of 35 ft (11 m). The crater method (VCR) uses 6.5-in. (165-mm) (182 holes)($2.50/hole) 455
holes drilled vertically from the upper drill drift. A total labor labor
cost of $18.75/hr or $150/employee-shift, is used. Drilling and (54.6hr)(2 miners)($18.75/
blasting activities take place over 6.5 hr of the 8-hr shift. 2048
hr)
Longhole stoping costs: Total blasting costs $2.57/ft = $0.36/ton
Drillhole size 2 in. VCR drilling per 10-ft advance
Explosive density 1.03 ($0.60/ft)( 10 ft/hole)( 182
Explosive loading density 1.4 lb/ft holes) $1092 = $0.083/ton
Powder factor 0.7 lb/ton Total VCR drilling and blasting
Explosive cost $0.12/lb costs = $0.443/ton

Solution.
Blasting yield The costs to drill and blast the 39,200-ton (35.6 kt) undercut
must be included. This is assumed to be a total cost of $0.634/
(1.4 lb/ft)/(0.7 lb/ton) = 2 tons ore/ft of drillhole ton as calculated for the smaller diameter hole. Thus the entire
744 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
stope drilling and blasting cost is $0.466/ton. The application of
VCR to stoping techniques for this example results in a 26%
reduction in drilling and blasting costs over conventional long-
hole stoping.
9.2.1.5 Research in Explosives Applications
Within the past two decades, advances have been made to
improve the efficiency of explosives and rock blasting. These
advances have been, in part, largely due to analytical and compu-
tational techniques of high-speed photography and computer
modeling. These methods have brought about a greater under-
standing of the distribution of explosive energy during the rock
fracturing process. Other areas of advancement include initiators
and explosives formulation.
Much attention has been given to modeling the explosive
fracture and fragmentation processes (Cunningham, 1987; Da-
nell and Leung, 1987; Kuszmaul, 1987; Kirby et al., 1987; Paine
et al., 1987; Exadaktylos et al., 1987; Crum and Stagg, 1989)
and to modeling explosive detonations (Leiper and Plessis, 1987).
With fracture and fragmentation modeling, the effects of varia-
tions in design parameters on blasting results are readily obtained
without costly field trial and error attempts. The output from
many codes show particle size distributions, radial fracture for-
mation, muck pile profiles, and stress profiles or damage func-
tions, plotted along a borehole axis for a hypothetical blast.
The blast may include charges placed within a two- or three-
dimensional rock mass. Thermodynamic characteristics of the
explosives and time delays are also modeled. The usefulness of
these models are, however, limited as they cannot completely
take into account the variability of geology or hole-loading con-
ditions in practice. Output from computer models must be field
tested for validation.
Explosive performance, particularly in the areas of wet blast-
ing agents and heavy ANFOs, has been extensively researched
(Bauer et al., 1984; Lee, 1987; Van Ommeren, 1989). Explosive
manufacturers are investigating ANFO/emulsion blends to in-
crease shelf life and the number of times the mix can be re-
pumped. One area of ongoing research is the formulation of a
water-based replacement for dynamite or a non-nitroglycerin
explosives with the energy of dynamite. Improvements in the
performance of AN prills, with changes in particle sizes and the
selective penetration of liquids, is being investigated.
High-speed photography (Anon., 1983a; Chiappetta et al.,
1983), used to evaluate blast designs, initiator timing, and explo-
sive performance, has led to new product development and a
better understanding of blasting theory. Cinematography has
been used to assist in the selection of optimum hole loading,
stemming, spacings, and burdens for control of throw and muck
pile placement. Optimum delay sequencing can be identified
from photographic work, both underground and on the surface.
Surface-cast blasting, a method used primarily in surface-coal
mining, was perfected using high-speed photography (Burleson,
1988; Guiliani and Otuonye, 1989). Cast blasting, using angled
or vertical holes in a limited number of rows, is performed with
high-gas producing explosives, to “cast” the burden rock. In the
case of blasting overburden wasterock, the material is thrown to
the final spoil area to minimize equipment handling. In theory,
the cost tradeoff between increased blasting costs and decreased
material handling costs lowers overall operating costs.
The concept of air decking applied to surface blasting tech-
niques has been made with the use of high-speed photography
(Bussey and Borg, 1988). Air decking, developed 50 years ago,
involves the use of a small, concentrated charge at the hole
bottom and a rigid plug near the hole collar to hold a length of
stemming. Between the plug and charge is a length of unloaded
hole, or air deck. Its application to blast design greatly enhances
fragmentation and controlled fracturing near the collar and
throughout the hole length. Upon detonation, the shock wave
generated at the hole bottom travels through the air deck, re-
flecting at the stem base, intensifying the shock energy within
the rock at the hole collar with a minimum (limited) explosive
charge. The air deck is effective in modifying the pressure pulse
shape within this region by lowering the stress wave amplitude;
however, the pulse is increased in duration. The stress wave
amplitude remains at the level that promotes tensile fracturing.
It is the increase in pulse duration or the time application of this
tensile pulse that enhances fragmentation. Currently, the method
is employed successfully for surface presplitting.
Two major advances have occurred in the area of initiators.
These are the developments of precise pryotechnical delays for
electric blasting caps and electronic integrated circuit delays.
Timing errors are inherent to the design and manufacture of
all standard electric blasting caps (Winzer, 1978). Such errors
become critical when accurate timing is required for fragmenta-
tion and the control of ground vibrations. Precise pyrotechnical
delay caps are now manufactured to provide an increase in accu-
racy on the order of milliseconds; however, they cost slightly
more than standard caps.
Programmable blasting caps are being developed with milli-
second accuracy (Worsey and Tyler, 1983; Wilson et al., 1987;
Larsson et al., 1988). The caps comprise an integrated circuit,
using a microprocessor to receive and distribute programmed
information on detonation time, current required for detonation,
and other coding to prevent access by unauthorized personnel.
All forms of electrical hazards are eliminated with these caps,
as a unique rate of current must be supplied to the caps before
detonation can occur.
REFERENCES
Anon., 1961, “Explosives,” Federal Register, Schedule l-H, Vol. 26, No.
39, US Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1974, “Treatment of Extraneous Electricity in Electrical Blast-
ing,” Industrial Safety Data Sheet No. 123.09, National Safety
Council, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1977, Blasters Handbook, E.I. duPont and Co., Inc., Wilmington,
DE.
Anon., 1983, Federal Register, “Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation
Operations; Permanent Regulatory Program Training, Examina-
tion, and Certification of Blasters; Final Rule,” Department of Inte-
rior, Office of Surface Mining, Washington, DC, Mar. 8, pp. 9788–
9811.
Anon., 1983a, High-Speed Photography in Open Pit Blasting, Mining
Resource Engineering, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Anon., 1985–1987, Safety Library Publications 1–4, 17, 20, and 22,
Institute of Makers of Explosives, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1985a, Handbook of Electric Blasting, Atlas Powder Co., Dallas,
TX.
Anon., 1987a, Explosives and Rock Blasting, Atlas Powder Co., Dallas,
TX.
Anon, 1987b, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Caterpillar, Inc., ed.
18, Peoria, IL.
Anon., 1988, Code of Federal Regulations, Chap. 29, Pts. 1910, 1026,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1988a, Federal Register, “Safety Standards for Explosives and
Blasting; Final Rule,” Code of Federal Regulations, Chap. 30, Pt.
75, Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration,
Washington, DC.
Anon., 1988b, Code of Federal Regulations 49, Chap. 1, Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1988c, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Pt. 55, and US
Code 18, Chap. 40, Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms, Washington, DC.
 ROCK BREAKAGE: EXPLOSIVES
Anon., 1989, Mineral Industry Surveys, “Apparent Consumption of In-
dustrial Explosives and Blasting Agents in the United States, 1988,”
US Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC.
Aimone, C.T., 1979, “Blasting Costs for Surface Coal Mining,” Mineral
Resource Engineering and Management Program, Report MREM
R102, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Anderson, D.A., Winzer, S.R., and Ritter, A.P., 1982, “Blast Design for
Optimum Fragmentation While Controlling Frequency of Ground
Vibrations,” Proceedings, 8th Conference on Explosives and Blast-
ing Techniques, Society of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp.
69–89.
Andrews, A.B., 1981, “Design Criteria for Sequential Blasting,” Proceed-
ings, 7th Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society
of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 173–192.
Ash, R. L., 1963, “The Mechanics of Rock Breakage,” Pts. I–IV, Pit
and Quarry, Vol. 56, Nos. 2–5, Aug.–Nov., pp. 98–100; 112; 118–
123; 126–131; 109–111; 114–118.
Ashby, J.P., 1980, “Production Blasting and the Development of Open
Pit Slopes,” Proceedings, 6th Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Techniques, Society of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 291–
311.
Barker, D.B., and Fourney, W.L., 1978, “Photoelastic Investigation of
Fragmentation Mechanisms, Pt. I,” Report, University of Mary-
land, College Park, MD.
Barker, D.B., and Fourney, W.L., 1978a, “Photoelastic Investigation of
Fragmentation Mechanisms, Part II—Flaw Initiation Network,”
Report, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Bauer, A., 1978, “Trends in Drilling and Blasting,” Proceedings, 4th
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society of Ex-
plosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 291–325.
Bauer, A., et al., 1984, “A Laboratory Comparative Study of Slurry
Emulsions and Heavy AN/FO Explosives,” Proceedings, 10th An-
nual Conference on Explosives and Blasting, Society of Explosives
Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 299–321.
Bergmann, O.R., Wu, F.C., and Edl, J. W., 1974, “Model Rock Blasting
Measures Effects of Delays and Holes Patterns on Rock Fragmenta-
tion,” Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 175, No. 6, pp. 124–
127.
Burleson, T., 1988, “The Evaluation of Cast Blasting in the Warrior
Coal Basin Using High-Speed Photography,” Proceedings, 14th
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society of Ex-
plosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 257–269.
Bussey, J., and Borg, D.G., 1988, “Pre-Splitting With the New AIRDEK
Technique,” Proceedings, 14th Conference on Explosives and Blast-
ing Techniques, Society of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp.
197–217.
Chiappetta, R.F., et al., 1983, “The Use of High-Speed Motion Picture
Photography in Blast Evaluation and Design,” Proceedings, 9th
Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society of Ex-
plosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 258–309.
Cole, R.H., 1948, Underwater Explosions, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Cook, M.A., 1958, The Science of High Explosives, Krieger Publishing,
Huntington, NY.
Cook, M.A., 1974, The Science of Industrial Explosives, Ireco Chemicals,
Salt Lake City, UT.
Crum, S.V., and Stagg, M.S., 1989, “The Computer Modeling of Single
Hole, Reduced Scale Bench Blast Fragmentation,” Proceedings, 5th
Annual Symposium on Explosives and Blasting Research, Society
of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 17–30.
Cunningham, C.V.B., 1987, “Fragmentation Estimation and the KUZ-
RAM Model,” Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium on Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Society of Explosives Engineers, Solon,
OH, pp. 475–487.
Danell, R.E., and Leung, L., 1987, “Computer Simulation of Blast Frac-
tures and Fragmentation of Rocks,” Proceedings, 2nd International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Society of Explo-
sives Engineers, Solon, OH, CO, pp. 449–461.
Day, P.R., and Joyce, D.K., 1988, “Loading Explosives in Large-Diame-
ter Upholes,” Proceedings, 14th Conference on Explosives and Rock
Blasting, Society of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 17–29.
745
Dick, R.A., Fletcher, L.R., and D’Andrea, D.V., 1983, “Explosives and
Blasting Manual,” Information Circular 8925, US Bureau of Mines,
Washington, DC.
Exadaktylos, G.E., Haycocks, C., and Zhou, Y., 1987, “Computer-Aided
Blast Fragmentation Prediction,” Proceedings, 5th Annual Sympo-
sium on Explosives and Blasting Research, Society of Explosives
Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 1–15.
Fickett, W., and Davis, W.C., 1979, Detonation, University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Guiliani, T., and Otuonye, F., 1989, “Applications of Crater Theory in
Explosive Casting Design,” Proceedings, 5th Annual Symposium on
Explosives and Blasting Research, Society of Explosives Engineers,
Solon, OH, pp. 67–82.
Gustafsson, R., 1981, Blasting Technique, Dynamit Nobel Wien, Vienna,
Austria.
Hagen, T.N., 1977, “Good Delay Timing—Prerequisite of Efficient
Bench Blasts,” Proceedings, Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, No. 263, pp. 47–54.
Hagen, T.N., 1981, “Explosives and Blasting—The Next Decade, Part
II—Rock Properties and Blastholes,” Australian Mining, Vol. 73,
No. 8, Aug., pp. 33–40.
Hagen, T.N., 1988, “Optimizing the Yield and Distribution of Effective
Explosive Energy in Fans and Rings of Blastholes,” Explosives in
Mining Workshop, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Melbourne, pp. 59–62.
Hoek, E., and Bray, J.W., 1977, “Blasting,” Rock Slope Engineering,
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp. 271–308.
Holmberg, R., 1982, “Blasting,” Underground Mining Methods, Chap.
1, W.A. Hustrulid, ed., SME-AIME, New York, pp. 1580–1589.
Johansson, C.H., and Persson, P.A., 1970, Detonics of High Explosives,
Academic Press, London.
Kirby, I.J., Harries, G.H., and Tidman, J.P., 1987, “ICI’s Computer
Blasting Model SABREX—Basic Principals and Capabilities,” Pro-
ceedings, 13th Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques,
Society of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 184–198.
Kopp, J., 1987, “Initiation Timing Influence on Ground Vibrations and
Airblast,” Surface Mine Blasting, Information Circular 9135, US
Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, pp. 51–59.
Kuszmaul, J.S., 1987, “A New Constitutive Model for Fragmentation
of Rock Under Dynamic Loading,” Proceedings, 2nd International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Society of Explo-
sives Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 412–423.
Kutter, H.K., and Fairhurst, C., 1971, “On the Fracture Process in
Blasting,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Science, Vol. 8, pp. 181–202.
Lang, L.C., 1978, “Spherical Charges Develop Vertical Crater Retreat
Method in Stope and Pillar Mining,” Proceedings, 4th Conference
on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society of Explosives Engi-
neers, Solon, OH, pp. 80–92.
Langefors, U., and Kihlstrom, B., 1978, The Modern Technique of Rock
Blasting, John Wiley, New York.
Larsson, B., Holmberg, R., and Westberg, J., 1988, “Super Accurate
Detonators—A Rockblaster’s Dream,” Proceedings, 14th Confer-
ence on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society of Explosives
Engineers, Solon, OH, pp. 44–58.
Lee, J., 1987, “The Effect of Microballoon Size on Detonation Behavior
of Emulsion Explosives,” MSc Thesis, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, 124 pp.
Leiper, G.A., and Plessis, M.P., 1987, “Describing Explosives in Blast
Models,” Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium on Rock Frag-
mentation by Blasting, Society of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH,
pp. 462–474.
Ljung, B., 1978, “New Developments in Mechanized Uphole Charging
of Explosives,” Proceedings, 4th Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Techniques, Society of Explosives Engineers, Solon, OH,
pp. 154–162.
Mader, C.L., 1979, Numerical Modeling of Detonations, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Manon, J. J., 1976–1977, “Explosives,” Pts. 1–4, Engineering and Mining
Journal, Vols. 177, 178, Oct., Dec., Jan., Feb., pp. 81–85; 60–68;
74–78; 76–77.
Meyer, R., 1981, Explosives, Verlag Chemie, Essen, Germany.