Mining Science and Technology, 7 (1988) 45-62 45

Elsevier SciencePublishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

AN INVESTIGATION INTO BLASTING DESIGN

FOR MINING EXCAVATIONS
A. Afrouz, F.P. Hassani and R. Ucar

Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A 7 (Canada)

(ReceivedNovember 1, 1987; accepted November24, 1987)

ABSTRACT

Blastability of rock is defined utilizing Bien-
iawski's rock mass classification with Hoek and
Brown m and s values. A new method is
introduced to determine optimum blasthole di-
ameter, burden, spacing, stemming length, ratio
of maximum burden to the bench height and
relationship between the blastability, rock
strength factor and specific consumption of ex-
plosive. Moreover, sets of empirical equations
are suggested to determine the amount of explo-
sive per blasthole or chamber under various
surface and underground mining conditions.
This was done by the use of evaluated blasting
coefficients for ranges of ground conditions.

1. INTRODUCTION of initiation and decoupling of the blast;

Fragmentation of rocks by blasting in
mines and quarries depends upon several fac-
tors, most important of which are: rock struc-
ture and its classification; mechanical proper-
ties and blastability of rock; blasthole diame-
ter; its length and inclination to the free face;
burden and spacing between blastholes;
blasthole dryness and smoothness of its wall;
ground pressure in the vicinity of the
blastholes; type, density, blasting power and
detonation velocity of the explosive; charge
length and diameter; design of the charge;
quality of placing and packing the explosive
in the blasthole; type and length of stemming
in the blasthole; staggering design; character-
istic impedence of explosive and rock; point
maximum available energy of explosive and
its interaction with the surrounding rock; and
degree of fragmentation. Hence, proper blast-
ing design under various conditions is com-
plex, difficult, challenging and yet highly de-
sired.
This investigation is concerned with an ap-
proach to: (a) utilize 13ieniawski's rock mass
classification and Hoek and Brown m and s
empirical failure criterion to evaluate the bla-
stability of rock in relation to its specific
explosive consumption and the rock strength
parameter; and (b) to determine the diameter
of blasthole, burden, spacing between
shotholes, weight of explosive for various
ground conditions and blast design.
There have been numerous investigations
46

to achieve efficient blasting in mines, by for- tion in the following form:

mulating some of the above noted factors.
Q = 0 . 0 2 8 B ( H + 1.5B) + 0.4B 2
Anderson [1] developed the following em-
pirical equation: • C ( H + 1.5B) (5)

B = K ( D h X H ) °5 (1) where: C is the rock strength factor, k g / m 3,

where:
B = burden (m)
K = a proportionality constant
Dh = blasthole diameter (mm)
H = bench height (m).
In the above equation, for a good fragmen-
tation: H / B ~< 4. Fraenkel [2] suggested the
following more sophisticated equation:
B = K( H X h)°'3D°8/50 (2)
where:
K = experimental constant (between 1 to 6
for most rock types)
h = length of the Charge in the blasthole
(m).
Lambooy and Jones [3] expressed the fol-
lowing formula for determination of burden:
B =h X We/SX H X q (3)
where:
S = spacing between the blastholes (m)
We = weight of explosive in k g / m run in a
blasthole
q = weight of explosive to break unit
volume of rock ( k g / m 3)
Langefors and Kihlstrom [4] suggested a
basic equation to calculate explosive quantity
required for a single shot cratering of one
metre height, as follows:
Q = K 2 x B 2 -4- K 3 X B 3 + K 4 X B 4
given in Table 1.
Pearse [7] derived an expression that
accounts for the characteristic of the explo-
sives and the strength of the rock mass, given
as follows:
B = 10- 3K X D e ( P e / o t ) °'5 (6)
where:
K = proportionality constant = 0.8 (for
most rocks)
D e = diameter of explosive (mm)
Pe = explosion pressure (MPa)
-- P d / 2
Pd = detonation pressure (MPa)
= (p~Xv ax%)xlO -3
Pe = explosive density ( g r / c m 3)
vd = detonation velocity ( m / s e c )
Vg = particle velocity of gases ( m / s e c )
--~ Vd/4
ot = tensile strength of the rock (MPa).
In most cases it is difficult to evaluate the
ratio Pe/ot. Ash [8,9] has simplified eqn. (6)
in the following form:
K B = K ( e e / o t )0.5 (7)
where:
K B = burden constant = between 20 to 40
= 30 (2.56 pe/1.3 Or)1/3
- - 37.6(pe/Pr) 1/3
Pr = rock density ( g r / c m 3)
Substituting eqn. (7) into eqn. (6) gives:

= g 3X B3 (4) B = 10-3KB X D e (8)

Russians suggested [10] a variety of equa-
where: tions to relate burden and blasthole diameter.
Q = weight of the explosive in a blasthole
Amongst the most predominantly used are
(kg)
the ones as follows:
B = burden=1to15m
K2, K 3 and K 4 a r e factors defined in Table 1 D h = diD e = B/[7.85B × p e ( 2 X ) / r X q]0.5
[4,5].
Hansen [6] extended the Langefors' equa- -----0 . 2 5 [ B X r X q/Oe X x ] 0"5 (9)
 47

TABLE 1
Definition and range of Langefors' variables [1,2]

K2 factor relating to the strength properties of the rock

0.07 to 0.10 k g / m 2

K3 factor relating to the lifting of one m3 of rock mass by explosive

0.4 k g / m 3

K4 factor relating to the throw of one m3 of rock mass 1 m by explosive

K 3/100 = 0.004 k g / m 4

B burden = ( Dh/33)[fp X Sw/C X f( S/B)] °'5

factor relating quality of placing and packing the explosive in blasthole (g/cm 3 of V):
For tamping pole, nonmatched size = 0.8-1.0
For tamping pole, matched size = 1.0-1.4
For pneumatic loader = 1.0-1.6
For granular ANFO, without loader = 0.9

0 volume of the blasthole (cm3)

& relative weight strength of the explosived:

For dynamite with 35% nitroglycerine = 1.0
For blasting gelatine = 1.27
For ANFO = 0.87

rock strength factor (kg/m 3)

(0.07/B) + K 3
F o r B > 4 m; ~ = K 3 = 0 . 4 k g / m 3
for beginning design value, single hole = 0.45
g for beginning design value, one row of holes = 0.36
for horizontally bedded sedimentary rock = 0.2-0.45
for empirical range = 0.2-1.2

fixity of hole or degree of relief.

for free bottom = 0.75
for fixed slope 2:1 (h: v) = 0.85
for fixed slope 3 : 1 (h : v) = 0.9
for fixed vertical = 1.0
for tunneling-reliever holes = 1.25-1.5

S/B spacing/burden ratio:

for bench shots = 1.25
for smooth blasting = 0.7

and where:
2x =
B = (Dh/d) 0.28[ B × Pe X f p / q X S]°'5]
l e n g t h of t h e c h a r g e i n t h e b l a s t h o l e
(m)
0 . 0 7 8 D ~ × Pe X f p / q × S × d 2 r = radius of the f r a c t u r e d zone in rock
(m)
0 . 0 7 8 D e 2 × Pe × f p / q × S
Up c h a r g e p a c k i n g f a c t o r (see T a b l e 1)
(lo) d = d e c o u p l i n g = D h / D e.
48

Afrouz [11] presented an empirical formula where:

to determine the burden in terms of a single Pe = explosion pressure (MPa) = 10 -3 toe ×
impact force to cause rupture ( F ) and the vd/8
dynamic tensile strength of rock (ota) as fol- vd = detonation velocity ( m / s e c )
lows: a = exponential constant = 2.5
O = F n/(2n - 1)/( Ot[dn/<2. - 1)] A = the loading density or fraction of the
blasthole occupied by the explosive =
• (~r'c'd'Dh) rl/(2"-l)j) (11) volume of explosive/volume of blast-
hole.
where:
Ucar [15] has found that for range of a =
n = a constant related to the effect of rate of
2.5, the cylindrical loading density (A) can be
explosion on the braking properties of
determined as follows:
the rock
-- 1.04 for limestone, and 1.39 for concrete. A = ge/r b = (De/Dh) 2 = (l/d) 2 (15)
c -- constant related to the type of loading,
where:
for direct impact it was evaluated to be
Ve -- volume of the explosive in blasthole
4.07. (cm 3)
Hino [12] based on the propagation of the
Vb = volume of the blasthole (cm 3)
shock waves and its reflection at a free face
d = decoupling = D h / D e
suggested the following equation:
Substituting eqn. (15) into eqn. (14) gives:
B = 10-3D h ( Pd/O, )(1/n)/4 (12)
P,~ = P e ( 1 / d ) 2a = Pe × d - 5 (16)
where: n = a constant = 1.5, on average.
Rinehart [13] has developed an equation to
relate the spall thickness (3) to the explosion
2. VALUATION OF ROCK BLASTABILITY
wave length (X) as follows:
USING m AND s VALUES AND BIENIEW-
3 = X x %/2o c = X/2N = ve x t / 2 (13) SKI'S ROCK MASS RATING
where:
Tensile and compressive strength proper-
% -- normal stress at the time of fracture
ties of rocks are the main parameters in de-
(MPa)
termining their blastability. All other geologi-
% = m a x i m u m compressive stress devel-
cal, physical and mechanical factors in rocks
oped by a saw tooth explosion wave
lead to a variation in the tensile and compres-
(MPa)
sional strengths. A n important criterion in the
ve - - v e l o c i t y of explosion p r o p a g a t i o n
efficiency of fragmentation process is the ratio
(m/see)
of compressive strength (o c) to tensile strength
t -- time taken for the explosion wave to
(ot) of the rock [16]. This ratio is called
travel to the free face and back (see)
blastability coefficient (e). It ranges from 10
N -- n u m b e r of spalls that an explosive wave
to 500, except for very poor quality rock mass
m a y produce
or soil for which it approaches infinity [17],
= Oc/O n.
and for the intact rock which is seldom en-
Cook [14] has found that the pressure
countered around mining excavations.
developed in the borehole to blast the rock
According to M o h r - C o u l o m b and Hoek et
( e h ) is related to the explosion pressure (Pc)
al. [17] failure criterion the relationship be-
in the following form:
tween major principal stress (ol) and minor
eh = ee x Aa (14) principal stress (03) in a rock at failure is
 49

follows, respectively: where:

ol = % × tan2145 + (~/2)] + 2C C = cohesion of the rock (MPa)= shear
strength (when normal stress in rock is
X tan[45 + (~/2)1 zero)
=a 3 + o~[(rn × o3/oc) + s] °5 (17)

TABLE 2

m , s, ~ = - o t / o c, A a n d B v a l u e s [17]

Empirical failure Q * Dolomite, Mudstone, Sandstone Andesite, Amphibolite,

criterion, 01 = 03 (2) limestone, siltstone and quartzite dolerite, gabbro
and marble shale, and (5) diabase, gneiss,
+ ~moco 3 + so 2 ,
(3) slate and rhyolyte granite,
%=Aoc(%/o,-~) B,
(normal to (6) norite, and
and ~=-ot/o ~
cleavage) quartz-diorite
(1) (4) (7)

Intact rock samples 500 rn = 7.0 m = 10.0 m = 15.0 m = 17.0 m = 25.0

Laboratory size s = 1.0 s= 1.0 s= 1.0 s= 1.0 s = 1.0
specimens free A= 0.816 A= 0.918 A= 1.044 A= 1.086 A= 1.220
from joints B = 0.658 B = 0.677 B = 0.692 B = 0.696 B = 0.705
= - 0.140 ~ = - 0.099 ~ = - 0.067 ~ = - 0.059 ~ = - 0.040

Very good quality 100 m = 3.5 rn = 5.0 rn = 7.5 m = 8.5 m = 12.5

rock mass s= 0.1 s= 0.1 s= 0.1 s= 0.1 s= 0.1
Tightly interlocking A = 0.651 A= 0.739 A= 0.848 A= 0.883 A = 0.998
undisturbed rock B = 0.679 B= 0.692 B= 0.702 B = 0.705 B = 0.712
with unweathered ~ = - 0.028 ~ = - 0.020 ~ = - 0.01 ~ = - 0.012 ~ = - 0.008
j o i n t s a t _+ 3 m .

Good quality 10 m= 0.7 m= 1.0 m= 1.5 m= 1.7 m= 2.5

rock mass s = 0.004 s = 0.004 s= 0.004 s= 0.004 s = 0.004
Slightly weathered A = 0.369 A = 0.427 A= 0.501 A= 0.525 A = 0.603
and disturbed with B = 0.669 B = 0.683 B = 0.695 B = 0.698 B = 0.707
joints at 1-3 m ~ = - 0.006 ~ = - 0.004 ~ = - 0.003 ~ = - 0.002 ~ = - 0.002

Fair quality 1 m = 0.14 m = 0.20 rn = 0.30 m = 0.24 m = 0.50

rockmss s = 0.0001 s= 0.0001 s= 0.0001 s= 0.0001 s= 0.0001
Several sets of A = 0.198 A= 0.234 A= 0.280 A= 0.295 A= 0.346
moderately B = 0.662 B = 0.675 B = 0.688 B = 0.691 B = 0.700
weathered joints ~ = - 0.007 ~ = - 0.0005 ~ = - 0.0003 ~ = - 0.0003 ~ = - 0.0002
spaced at 0.3-1m

Poor quality 10 i m= 0.04 m= 0.05 m= 0.08 m= 0.09 m= 0.13

rock mass s= 0.00001 s= 0.00001 s= 0.00001 s = 0.00004 s = 0.00001
Numerous weathered A = 0.115 A= 0.129 A= 0.162 A = 0.172 A = 0.203
joints at 30-500 B= 0.646 B= 0.655 B= 0.672 B = 0.676 B = 0.686
mm ~ = - 0.0002 ~ = - 0.0002 ~ = - 0.0001 ~ = - 0.0001 ~ = - - 0.0001

Very poor quality 10 z m = 0.007 m = 0.010 m = 0.015 rn = 0 . 0 1 7 rn = 0.025

rock mass s= 0 s= 0 s= 0 s= 0 s= 0
Numerous heavily A = 0.042 A = 0.050 A = 0.061 A = 0.065 A = 0.078
weathered joints B = 0.534 B = 0.539 B = 0.546 B = 0.548 B = 0.556
spaced <50mm ~= 0 ~= 0 ~= 0 ~= 0 ~= 0

* Quality index obtained from the NGI (Norwegiml-Geotechnical Institute) classification.

50

4' = internal friction angle in the rock (de- 01

gree)
m and s = constants dependent upon the rock e_~ ~ tanr/
mass properties and its state of fracture tan2[ . . . . <40/2)]
[%so)
(noted in Table 2).
In cases where there is no lateral confine-
ment, i.e. 0"3 = 0, the uniaxial compressive e =(~+sinqS/(1- sinq~

strength of rock is from eqn. (17) as follows:

°c = 0"1 = 2C × tan[45 ° + (4'/2)] ] O3

or t (18)
0"c = 0"~/~7
Fig. 1 . Relationship between the major, minor, tensile
where 0"1 = 0 and o3 = 0"t, then eqn. (17) be- and compressive stresses in rock at failure.
comes:
(It = -- 2C X tan[45 + (4'/2)] where:
R = a parameter dependent on the frac-
/tan2[45 + (4'/2)]
ture intensity of rock mass = 0.002
= -2C/tan[45 + (4'/2)] (19) for heavily broken rock up to 1 for
= - 2C × tan[45 - (4'/2)] intact rock.
mi = value of m for intact rock =
=0.c[m--(m2+4s)°'51/2 l between 7.5 to 25, dependent upon
Therefore, from eqns. (18) and (19), the ratio the rock type and its mineralogy
of %/0.t is as follows: (noted in Table 2)
R M R - - Bieniawski's rock mass rating [19]
c = 0.c/0., = (1 + sin 4')/(1 - sin 4') = f ( 4 ' ) --20 for weak, heavily fractured
= 2 / [ m -- (m 2 + 4s)] °5 (20) rock mass, up to 100 for high
strength intact rock = 9 In Q + 44.
Q = Barton et al. [20] rock mass quality
Finally, eqn. (17) can also be expressed
(noted in Table 2)
according to Fig. 1 as follows:
Category (b)." In disturbed rock mass mainly
occurring around the surface mine slopes and
or(°l/°c)+ (°3/°t) = 1 } (21) underground excavations, which have been
c = 0.c/Ot = 0.1/(0.t 03)
loosened or damaged by poor blasting prac-
tice:
Priest and Brown [18] recommend follow- R = m / m i = e x p [ ( R M R - 100)/14] (24)
ing expressions relating the m and s values to s = exp[(RMR- 100)/6.3] (25)
the Bieniawski's rock mass rating [19]:
Category (a): In good blasting practice, pe-
Hence, for condition of Category (a)"
Substituting eqns. (22) and (23) into eqn.
rimeter blasting technique, or where the rock
(20) in terms of m and s yields:
was previously excavated by machine rather
than blasting, where the rock has no discon- £ = 2/{{ m i X exp[(RMR - 100)/28] }
tinuity and low fracture intensity:
R = m / m i = e x p [ ( R M R - 100)/28] (22)
- {{ m, x exp[(RMR- 100)/28] }2
s = e x p [ ( R M R - 100)/91 (23) + 4 e x p [ ( R M R - 100)/9]} °"5} (26)
 51

and for condition of Category (b): For chambers, S d < 2D h

Substituting eqns. (24) and (25) into eqn. Substituting eqns. (28) and (32) into eqn.
(20) in terms of m and s gives: (30):
e= 2/{{m i × exp[(RMR- 100)/14]} D h = 1.13[q × B × S(1 - S d ) / & × k × h] °5
(33)
- {{ m i × e x p [ ( R M R - 100)/14] }2
(ii). In the case where the bench inclina-
+ 4 e x p [ ( R M R - 100)/6.3]} °5} (27) tion is (a) and the blasthole is vertical (Fig.
2(b)) then:
Q=q[BXSXH+(SXHXlt/2)]

3. DETERMINATION OF THE BLASTHOLE =qXSXH[B+(H.cot a/2)] (34)

DIAMETER (Dn) where: I t = H x cot De (from Fig. 2(b)).

Volume of explosive in each blasthole (Ve)

with respect to Figs. 2(a) and (b) can be
determined as follows:
Ve = Q / &
r e = k X "17 X D 2 X

= 0.79k x D~
h/4
(28)

(29)
Burden(~l -~

L'.; o,,;
"l
where: k = packing factor ~ 0.6 to 1.00 (see BenG
H
Table 3). F r o m eqns. (28) and (29):
D h = ( V J 0 . 7 9 k × h)°5 (30)
However, total weight of explosive per hole B e r m----~

(Q) is evaluated as follows:

Q=qx Vr (31)
where:
q = specific c o n s u m p t i o n of explosive, g / m 3
of rock
Vr = volume of rock to be blasted.
(i). In the case where the inclination of
bench to horizontal (a) is the same as that of
the blasthole, i.e they are parallel to each
/I ll/lll/1/ II]111111

v
lit/

other (Fig. 2a), then:

h~o-B H i
Q=q×BXS(I-Sd) (32)
7/i///lllll/ ...........
where: "-~ 7 -
l = length of the blasthole (m)
S d = subdrilling, rn = 20 to 35% of B, or:
Fig. 2. Variety of blasthole inclination relative to that of
For blastholes with D h > 60 mm, 5D h < S d <
the bench: (a). Inclination of bench to horizontal with
15D h parallel blasthole; (b). Bench inclination to horizontal is
For blastholes with Dh < 60 mm, S a > 10D h a " , where the blasthole is vertical.
52

TABLE 3
Explosive packing factor (k)
Type of blasthole Type of explosives k
Deep blastholes Slurry and Gelatineous explosives 1.00
Deep blastholes Powdered ANFO loaded pneumatically 0.98
Deep blasthoies Powdered ANFO loaded free flow downhole 0.90
Deep blastholes Pellet ANFO loaded free flow downhole 0.80
Deep blastholes Large diameter dynamites 0.90
Deep blastholes Small diameter dynamites 0.80
Deep blastholes Granular black powder 0.85
Potholes and chambers Large diameter dynamites 0.80
Potholes and chambers Small diameter dynamites 0.70
Potholes and chambers Granular black powder 0.70
Potholes and chambers Explosives in rectangular boxes 0.70
Potholes and chambers Explosives in cylindrical boxes O.60
Potholes and chambers ANFO in bags 0.80

Substituting eqns. (28) and (34) into eqn. (Q) can be determined as follows:
(30).
Q= We×h= We(H-x + Sd) (38)
Dh = O.8[ q X H × S ( 2 B + H X cot a)
Also, Q = q X H X S X B = q X H X n X B 2
/0e x k x h] °5 (3s) (39)

4. DETERMINATION OF THE BURDEN (B)
A quadratic equation in which B = f ( H , h,
We, S, q) can be considered. According to
Fig. 2(b), length of charge (h) is determined
as follows:
h = H- x + SO (36)
According to Langefors and Kihlstrom [4],
the weight of explosive used per metre of
blasthole (We) can be derived as follows:
We = L ( Dh/36)2 (37)
where:
fp = factor relating quality of placing and
packing the explosive in blasthole (in
g r / c m 3 of volume of blasthole) = 0.8 to
1.6 ( g r / c m 3)
D h -- diameter of the blasthole (mm).
Therefore, the total explosive weight per hole
where: n = S / B -- between I to 2.
Equating eqns. (38) with (39) gives:
We(H-x + So)=qXHXnXB z (40)
For surface mining of m e d i u m strength to
competent rocks such as limestone, sand-
stone, quartzite and granite with H ~< 30 m,
q = 0 . 4 K g / m 3, x = B , S 0 = B / 3 and n - -
1.25, eqn. (40) can be simplified in the follow-
ing form:
1.5H × B 2 + 2W~ × B - 3We × H = 0 (41)
Equation (41) is also applicable for high
and low density explosives, and for small
bench heights ( H ) and burden (B) calcula-
tions, occurring in underground conditions,
and where 1 ~ B ~ 2 metres and 5 ~< H / B ~ 6.
It gives a close fit to the empirical expressions
suggested by Langefors [4] as shown in Table
4. For example, considering: H - - 1 . 2 m; D h
= 33 mm; fp = 1.27 gr/cm3; and n = S / B =
 53

1.25, then: (43) with m a x i m u m b u r d e n f r o m Langefors

[4] is given in Table 5 which shows close
We = 1 . 2 7 ( 3 3 / 3 6 ) 2 = 1.07 k g / m
similarities. It is to be n o t e d that at ~b = 1.5 in
B = 0.98 m - ~ 1.0 m eqn. (43) the results will be the same in b o t h
Table 4 i n d i c a t e d a m a x i m u m b u r d e n of 1.1, the approaches.
a n d also a practical b u r d e n of 1.0 m. Substituting eqn. (37) into eqn. (43) gives:
E q u a t i o n (40) can be simplified for the
B = 0.04fp°5 × D h (44)
case h = 5 H / 6 to give:
where
5 W J 6 = q × n x B 2, or B = b u r d e n (m)
D h = blasthole diameter (mm).
B = 0 . 9 1 ( W e ~ q × n ) °5
A n o t h e r m e t h o d to determine b u r d e n ( B )
= ~b × We°s (42) is to consider the ratio H / B = X. Thus eqn.
where, + = 0 . 9 1 / ( q × n) °5, for q = 0.4 k g / m 3 (41) becomes:
a n d n = 1.25: 1.5?t X B3 + 2We × B - 3X × W e × B = 0
~b = 0 . 9 1 / ( 0 . 4 × 1.25) 0.5 = 1.3. (45)
Therefore, eqn. (42), for ~b = 1.3 becomes as Therefore, B = We°5[(3)~- 2 ) / 1 . 5 X ] °5 (46)
follows:
TABLE5
B = 1.3We °'5 (43)
Relationship between burden (B) and weight of charge
C o m p a r i s o n of average b u r d e n f r o m eqn. per metre of the blasthole (We) for bench blasting and
stoping (fp=1.27 (tamping pole); S=1.25 B; x = B;
Sa = 0.3 B; Slope 2 : 1-3 : 1 and weight strength of ex-
TABLE 4 plosives = 1.0)
Multiple-row bench blasting: Diameter of the drill bits
Blasthole We Langefors [4] Burden (B (m))
34-29 mm (1.35-1.16 in.), fp = 1.27; Length of the rod
diameter (kg/m) (Bma× (m)) (eqn. 37)
0.8-4.8 m (2.6-16 ft); Slope of the holes 3 : 1 - 2 : 1 ,
( G (ram))
S = 1.25 B [4]
14 0.18 0.60 0.55
Bench Depth of Diameter Max Practical 16 0.25 0.70 0.65
height the hole at the burden burden 19 0.36 0.85 0.78
(H(m)) (/(m)) bottom (Bmax (m)) (B (m)) 22 0.48 1.00 0.90
(D h (mm)) 25 0.63 1.15 1.03
0.3 0.67 34 0.60 0.55 29 0.84 1.30 1.20
0.45 0.80 34 0.70 0.65 32 1.00 1.50 1.30
0.6 1.00 33 0.77 0.7 38 1.40 1.80 1.54
0.9 1.35 33 0.92 0.85 44 1.90 2.00 1.80
1.0 1.45 33 1.00 0.95 50 2.50 2.30 2.10
63 4.00 3.00 2.60
1.2 1.65 33 1.10 1.00
75 5.60 3.50 3.10
1.5 1.0 32 1.20 1.10 88 7.70 4.10 3.60
1.8 2.4 32 1.30 1.20 100 10.00 4.70 4.11
2.1 2.7 31 1.35 1.25 125 15.50 5.90 5.12
2.4 3.1 31 1.40 1.25 150 22.50 7.00 6.20
2.7 3.4 30 1.40 1.25 175 30.00 8.20 7.12
3.0 3.8 30 1.40 1.25 200 40.00 9.40 8.22
3.3 4.2 30 1.40 1.20 225 50.00 10.60 9.20
3.6 4.5 29 1.35 1.15 250 62.00 11.80 10.23
4.0 4.9 29 1.35 1.15 300 90.00 14.00 12.33
54

Comparing eqn. (42) with eqn. (46) results: waves to reach the free face and the time for
the resulting tension waves to travel back (t 1)
~ = [ ( 3 X - 2)/1.5X1 °5 (47) can be expressed as follows:
tI = 2 B/vp (49)

5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAXIMUM Equation (49) is important in order to

BURDEN (Bmax) WITH MAXIMUM BENCH choose a proper delay interval in the blasting
HEIGHT (/'/max) design. As a rule of thumb, the optimum
delay is about 5 to 10 milliseconds per metre
In b o t t o m initiated, long charge columns a of burden.
pear shape explosion wave will be developed. The travel time for detonation velocity (v d)
The actual shape and symmetry of the wave to pass the column charge (h) can be denoted
propagation depends u p o n the charge length, as (t2) and expressed as follows:
the hole inclination, occurrence of bedding t2=h/va (50)
planes and their inclination, and finally oc-
currence of other discontinuities and in-fill- In the critical condition, for m a x i m u m
ings, their orientation, extent and quality. b u r d e n (Bm.x), the following relationship ex-
However, the complex wave propagation can ists:
reasonably be simplified in vertical blastholes, t1 = t2
for calculation purposes, as being of conical
2B/Vp = h/v d (51)
shape as shown in Fig. 3.
For the explosive with a characteristic de- In cases where h = 0.8H, eqn. (51) can be
tonation velocity (va) exceeding that of the expressed as follows:
longitudinal or P-wave velocity of the rock 2B/% = 0.8H/v.
(%) with the stress cone angle of (0), follow-
ing relationship exists [8]: Therefore,

sin 0 = Vp/V d (48) va/v p = 0.4H/B

The travel time for explosion compressive =0.4X (52)

TABLE 6
[~ B "1
Average values for the longitudinal P-wave velocities

X T (Vp) in various rocks

Rock type Specific gravity vp (m/sec)
t• • (gr/cm3)
Unconsolidated soil 1.5-2.1 < 900
Clay stone 1.8-2.3 1000-2000
H Conglomerate 2.0-2.5 1200-2100
Soft shale 2.0-2.6 1200-2400
Hard shale 2.2-2.7 1800-3000

1!
Chalk 2.1-2.6 2800-3000
Sandstone 2.2-2.7 2800-3300
Marlstone 2.2-2.9 2800-3800
Limestone 2.1-3.0 2500-5000
Primer Basalt 2.2-2.8 2500-4000
Gneiss 2.2-3.1 2800-5500
Fig. 3. Schematic of explosion wave propagation in the Granite 2.5-3.2 4000-6000
bottom initiated, vertical, long charge columns.
 55

TABLE 7
Average detonation velocity (va) for various explosives
Explosive type Constituent Specific gravity va (m/sec)
(gr/cm3)
Ammonium nitrite 93% NO3NH 4 + 7% C 0.80 3600

Ammonium nitrite 93% NO3NH 4 + 7% C 1.00 4000

10% Nitroglycerine 10% Nitroglycerine +

80% NO3NH 4 +
10% Cellulose 0.98 4300

50% Nitroglycerine 50% Nitroglycerine +

41.5% NO3NH 4 +
5.5% Cellulose+
7% Combustible material
+ 2.3% Cotton wool 1.50 6800

Nitroglycerine Pure (NO 3)C 3H 5 1.60 8500

P-wave velocity in various rocks (%) is
noted in Table 6 [4,21] and the detonation
velocity for various explosives (Vd) is given in
Table 7 [21]. For practical purpose, Vp < vd <
3 Up.
In case where D h > 1 5 0 mm; H~<30 m;
and vd = 2Up, eqn. (46) gives:
x = H/B = 2/0.4 = 5
Substituting eqn. (53) into eqn. (47) gives:
+ = [(3 × 5 - 2)/1.5 × 5] 0.5= 1.3
The latter determination checks with +-value
obtained from eqns. (42) and (43).
6. DETERMINATION OF SPACING BE-
TWEEN BLASTHOLES (S)
The following suggestions [4,22] work well
under field conditions, considering a stagger-
ing pattern:
If 2B < H < 4B, then, S = (B × H ) °5
If H > 4B, then, S = 2B
For square pattern, smaller spacing, S/B ratio
is recommended.
7. DETERMINATION OF THE STEMMING
LENGTH ( x )
Length of the stemming is a function of the
(53)
burden (B), length of the blasthole (l), type
of the stemming material, method of place-
ment, and compaction of the stemming in
blasthole and type of explosive utilized.
For most blasting conditions, the stemming
should have enough length and compaction to
permit the explosion gases to perform the
necessary fracturing of solid rock before there
is rock movement. Generally, the compres-
sional wave travels much faster in solid rock
than in the stemming. The critical condition
occurs when travel time of the compressive
explosion wave to reach the free face is equal
to that of the wave to pass through the col-
u m n of stemming, to reach the top of the
hole. In this case:
(54)
X/( Up)stemming= O/( Vp)rock
(55) Therefore, x = B(t3p)stemming/(Up)rock (56)
 t.~
os

TABLE 8
Empirical determination of explosive weight per blasthole or chamber (Q) for surface and underground mining

Condi- Q (kg/hole) Parameters (m) Types of blastholes and chamber Remarks

tion H l B S Dh Chamber Blasthole

T- L- Hori- Verti- 15 ° < oc 45 ° < cC Deep Shallow

shape shape zontal cal < 750 < 85"

1 qxBxSxH 2B-4B >_2B 1/2<B<3 (BXH) °'5 <0.06 X x

2 qXBXSXH 2B 2<B< (B×H) °s <0.06 x
3 qXCf×B×SxH >3B >2B >3 2B >0.06 X x
4 qXGcXB×SxH/2 <B <2 <2 ( B x H ) °5 <0.06 X x Ground resistance
is m o r e at the b a c k
of the face
5 qxG~BxSxH >2B >3 2B <0.06 x x Ground resistance
is m o r e at t h e b a c k
o f the face
6 q×GrxCrxBxSxH <2 <3 (BxH) °'5 <0.06 Ground resistance
is m o r e at t h e b a c k
o f t h e face
7 qxGr×B×SxH <2 >3 (BXH) °5 <0.06 x Quarrying with
black powder
8 qXGrXCfXBXSXH >2B >4 2B >0.06 x Quarrying with
black powder
9 qXGrXCfXB×SxH/2k ~3B <4B >4 2B >0.06
10 q X Cf X B X S X H / 2 k > 3B < 4B > 4 2B > 0.06 x Quarrying
11 qxCfxB×SXH >2B 3<B<4 1.5B <0.1
12 qxB×SxH/2 >2B <3 1.5B <0.1
13 q X Cf X B X S X H I 2 2B < 3 2B < 0.06
14 1.3qXCf×B×SxH/k 2B HI2 (BxH) °'5 <0.1 Quarrying
15 1.6q × C r X B X S × H / k < 3B < HI2 2B > 0.1 Quarrying
16 qXCrXBXSXH/k 1.5<H<B 0.3H < B (B×H) °'5 <0.1 Quarrying
< 0.7H
17 qXcXCrXB×SxH/2 1.5B< H<B <S c ( B X H ) °'5 <0.1 Quarrying
 57

TABLE 9
Plastic coefficient of various rocks (PI)
Group no. Rock hardness Rock type P1 = Ee/Ep
1 Very hard and intact Diabase, basalt, gneiss, gabro, diorite, > 160
norite, amphibolite, chert
2 Hard and intact Hard black shale, quartzite, granite, magnetite, 80-200
dolomite, hematite, marble, hard limestone,
Medium hard and intact Ordinary limestone, ordinary sandstone, shale, 50-100
slate, siltstone, hard underclay or fireclay
Medium hard weathered and Ordinary limestone, ordinary sandstone, shale, 30- 70
intact slate, siltstone, hard underclay or fireclay
Soft and intact Potash, rock salt, coal gypsum, chalk, underclay 20- 40
Soft weathered and Potash, rock salt, coal gypsum, chalk, underclay 10- 30
fractured mass
7 Soil Aluvial deposites and wastes, sand and clay 3- 15

In practice, for the r o c k strength f a c t o r ( C ) of be derived f r o m the following equation:

0.3 to 0.45, k g / m 3, a n d d e l a y time of 3 to 5 Q=q×B×S×H
m i l l i s e c / m of b u r d e n , a length of s t e m m i n g
( x ) b e t w e e n 0.6 B to B is satisfactory. = [ 1 . 4 C × B 3 q- 0 . 4 ( 7 × B 2 ( H - 2 B ) ]
(57)
8. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ROCK
STRENGTH FACTOR (C), BLASTABILITY where: Q at the b o t t o m o f blasthole = 1.4C
XB 3
(E) AND SPECIFIC CONSUMPTION OF
Q in the blasthole c o l u m n = 0 . 4 f i x
EXPLOSIVE (q)
B__2(H- 2 B )
A c c o r d i n g to L a n g e f o r s a n d K i h l s t r o m [4], C = 0.50 + 2.60(ot/Oc) °5 + 13ot/Oc,
the a m o u n t o f explosive per b l a s t h o l e ( Q ) c a n kg/m 3

TABLE 10
Coefficient for shattering power of explosive (Sp)
Group no. Explosive type Detonation velocity Sp
(m/sec)
1 Blasting gelignite, startex A, gelatine donarite no. 1,
Jel-anon, acid pycric, tetryl 6000-8000 1.1
2 Dynamite, gelex no. 3, delobel, dubel, monobel, T.N.T.,
melinite, ammonium dynamite, ammonium gelatine 5000-6000 1.2
3 Liquid oxygen, donarite, reolite, detonite, amonite no. 1,
dynamex A & B, pantryl, lead azide, silver azide 4500-5000 1.3
4 ANFO, gurite, pabdite, donarite no. 2, reomex, nitrites,
mercury fulminite 3500-4500 1.4
5 Decamon, chlorites, dynalite, granular dynamite 3000-3500 1.5-1.6
6 Nobel dynamite no. 1235, prilite A & B 1500-2500 1.6-1.7
7 Black powder, gun powder 200- 800 1.7-2.0
58

TABLE 11
Blasting index due to the ground conditions (Bi)
Group no. Ground conditions Drilling pattern Type of Bi
charging
1 Sloped bedding with weak cementation (a) Vertical or spread 0.6
and joints; footwall blasting horizontal holes
(b) Vertical or
horizontal holes concentrated 0.7
(c) Angular deep holes concentrated 0.9-1.1
and chambers
Near horizontal bedding with weak (a) Vertical or spread 0.7
cementation and joints horizontal holes
(b) Vertical or concentrated 0.9
horizontal holes
(c) Angular deep holes concentrated 1.1
and chambers
Slopes bedding with strong cementation Angular deep holes spread or
and joints; hanging wall blasting and chambers concentrated 1.2-1.5
Less than one metre thin bedding with weak (a) Angular deep holes spread 1.8-2.0
cementation, joints and clay partings; (b) Vertical or spread 0.7
footwall blasting horizontal holes
5 Less than one metre thin beddings with (a) Angular deep holes spread 0.9
strong cementation and joints; (b) Vertical or concentrated 1.2
footwall blasting horizontal holes
or chambers
6 Same as group 4; hangingwa11 blasting (a) Angular holes spread 1.2
(b) Vertical or concentrated 1.5
horizontal holes
or development
works
More than one metre thick beds without (a) Vertical or spread 0.8
joints; footwall blasting horizontal holes
(b) Deep holes of concentrated 1.0
chambers
8 More than one metre thick beds without Angular deep holes spread or 1.2
joints; hangingwall blasting or chambers concentrated
9 Same as group 4 Vertical deep holes spread or 1.4
concentrated
10 More than one metre thick massive beddings (a) Horizontal holes spread 0.7
with weak cementation and high slope; (b) Vertical holes concentrated 0.9
footwall blasting
11 As that of group 10 with near horizontal (a) Vertical holes spread 0.8
beddings (b) Angular deep holes concentrated 1.0-1.2
12 As that of group 10; hangingwall blasting Angular deep holes spread 1.3
13 More than one metre thick near vertical Vertical or angular spread 1.6
 59

TABLE 11 (continued)

Group no. Ground conditions Drilling pattern Type of Bi

charging
beddings; perpendicular to the deep holes
direction of advancement
14 Massive thick limestones and sandstones Angular deep holes concentrated 1.5-1.8
I5 Massive horizontal beddings and fine (a) Vertical or spread 0.7 1.0
grained, without joints angular deep holes
(b) Vertical or concentrated 0.8
angular deep holes
16 Same as group 15 with joints Vertical or angular spread 1.4
deep holes
17 Hard, coarse grained rocks (a) Vertical holes concentrated 1.2
(b) Angular deep holes concentrated 1.5
or chambers
18 Hard, fine grained rocks (a) Vertical holes spread 1.0
(b) Angular deep holes concentrated 1.2
or chambers
19 Dykes and sills; footwall blasting Angular deep holes concentrated 1.2-1.3
or chambers
20 Dykes and sills; hangingwall blasting Angular deep holes concentrated 1.3-1.5
or chambers
21 Basalts (a) Vertical holes spread 1.5
(b) Angular deep holes concentrated 1.8
22 Consolidated soil, clay and aluminal (a) Vertical holes spread 1.5
deposits together with rock beddings (b) Angular holes concentrated 2.0
23 Thick beds of conglomerates, shale, (a) Vertical or spread 1.5
siltstone, tuff and dolomite; horizontal holes
footwall blasting (b) Angular holes or concentrated 2.0
chambers
24 As that of group 23, but thin beds and Angular holes or concentrated 2.5-3.0
hangingwall blasting chambers
25 Moderately weathered and jointed shale (a) Vertical or spread 2.2-2.8
horizontal holes
(b) Angular deep holes concentrated 2.7-3.5
or chambers
26 Hard and dry underclay or fireclay (a) Vertical or spread 1.5
horizontal holes
(b) Angular holes of concentrated 1.8
chambers
27 Soft underclay and clay rocks with Angular holes or spread 2.0-3.0
28 Unconsolidated soil, sand and clay Any type of hole spread 3.0-4.0
60

TABLE 12
Coefficient relating to the number of free faces (n) in each blast (Ff)

Group no. Type of blasthole Types of charging Ff

n=l n=2 n=3
Shallow; angular to vertical holes (a) Spread 1.2 1.0 0.8
(b) Concentrated 1.0 0.8 0.6
Deep; angular to vertical holes Concentrated 1.6 1.4 1.2
Horizontal holes; one metre up the floor (a) Spread 1.4 1.2 1.0
(b) Concentrated 1.2 1.0 0.8
Angular holes 30 to 40 ° to horizontal (a) Spread 1.3 1.0 0.9
drilled into an advancing face and (b) Concentrated 1.1 0.9 0.7
development of an underground work,
or bench of an open pit
Chambers driven about one metre up Concentrated 1.6 1.4 1.1
the floor
Chambers driven at the floor level or Concentrated 1.8 1.6 1.4
in stressed ground
Chambers driven below the floor level Concentrated 2.2 2.0 1.8
(this type of blasting is accompanied by
high ground vibration)
Tunnelling and development work (a) Pyramidal centre 1.2
(b) Conical centre 1.1
(c) Roof holes 0.7
(d) Floor holes 0.9
(e) Wall holes 0.8
(f) Middle holes 1.1 0.9-1.0

F r o m eqn. (57)"
q=Q/BXSXH
= (1.4CX B 3 + 0.4CX B 2 ( H - 2B)) TABLE 13
Coefficient related to the quality of stemming the
/nXHXB 2 blasthole or chamber (Sq)
= 0.4c(a + (a.5B/H))/n Group no. Types of blasthole, Sq
charging and stemming
=0.4[0.50 + 2 . 6 0 ( o J % ) °5 + 1 3 o J o c ]
1 Deep angular to vertical holes 1.1-1.2
x[1 + (1.SB/H)]/n or chambers
2 Shallow 0.3 to 0.7 m horizontal
= [0.20 + 1.04(1/~) °'5 + (5.2/c)] holes or
0.7 to 1.1 m vertical holes 1.2-1.4
x[1 + (1.5B/H)]/n (58) 3 Shallow horizontal holes 1.4-1.5
of 1_<0.3 m
E q u a t i o n (58) is a p p l i c a b l e w i t h i n the r a n g e
4 Blastholes with good stemming 0.9-1.0
o f 1.25 ~ n ~ 1.5 a n d H 4 5B.
 61

9. EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF THE the ground conditions, rock type and its bla-
EXPLOSIVE AMOUNT PER BLASTHOLE stability.
OR CHAMBER (Q) Definitions of the factors and coefficients
used in the expressions of Table 8 are fol-
Experimental results in various surface and lows:
underground blasting conditions for soft to Q = weight of explosive per blasthole or
hard rocks such as coal, limestone, sandstone, per chamber (kg/hole)
quartzite, magnetite, hematite, copper ore, q = specific consumption of explosive,
shale, siltstone, underclay, mudstone, mag- g r a m / m 3 or rock = PI × Sp × B i X F r
nesite, Alaskite, galena, marble, chronite and ×Sq
phosphate deposits are summarized in cate- PI = plastic coefficient of rock = E e / E p
gories noted in Table 8. The percentage error (see Table 9)
was seen to be within _+15% of that indicated Ee = energy consumption to fracture the
in Table 8. This was largely dependent upon rock within its elastic range
Ep = energy consumption to break the rock
into the plastic range
T A B L E 14
Sp = coefficient for shattering power of
Correction factor related to the burden (Cf) explosive (Table 10)
Burden Cf Burden Cf Burden Cf Bi = blasting index due to rock physical
(B (m)) (B (m)) (B (m)) properties (Table 11)
2.8 0.36 5.5 0.23 8.5 0.19 Ff = coefficient relating to number of free
3.0 0.33 6.0 0.22 9.0 0.18 faces (n) (Table 12)
3.5 0.30 6.5 0.22 9.5 0.18 Sq = coefficient related to the quality of
4.0 0.28 7.0 0.21 10.0 0.18
stemming the blasthole or chamber
4.5 0.26 7.5 0.21 10.5 0.17
5.0 0.24 8.0 0.20 11.0 0.17
(Table 13)
B = burden (m)

T A B L E 15
Coefficient related to the resistance of the ground to blasting (Gr)

Group no. Type of ground and blasthole Gr

1 Ground resistance to the back of the faceline is little concentrated charging 1.0
2 Ground resistance to the back of the faceline is high and blastholes are
vertical or chambers of T-type 1.1-1.3
3 Same as group 2 where it is necessary to throw the blasted rock well off
the face area 1.2-1.5
4 Chambers of L-type 1.2-1.3
5 Ground heavily jointed or, fractured 1.1-1.3
6 Ground with 2 free faces 0.7-0.9
7 Ground with 3 free faces 0.6-0.7
8 Levelling the floor or berm 0.2-0.3
9 Deep angular holes of 45 ° to 55 o to horizontal 0.5-0.6
10 Deep angular holes of 60 ° to 65 ° to horizontal 0.6-0.7
11 Deep angular holes of 70 ° to 80 o to horizontal 0.7-0.8
12 Spread charging and high ground resistance to the back of the faceline 0.6-0.8
13 Quarry blasting with large blocks of rocks 0.3-0.5
14 Same as group 13 with high ground resistance at the back of the faceline 0.3 0.6
15 Same as group 14 with large blocks of rocks just to be detached from the face 0.2-0.5
62
S = spacing between blastholes (m)
H = height of the bench (m)
l = length of the blasthole (m)
Dh = diameter of the blasthole (m)
a = angle of blasthole to horizontal (de-
grees)
Sc = spacing centre to centre between ad-
jacent chambers (m)
Cf = corrective factor related to the burden
(Table 14)
Gr = coefficient related to the resistance of
the ground to blasting (Table 15)
k = explosive packing or charging factor
(Table 3).
10. CONCLUSIONS
The Bieniawski's rock mass rating can suc-
cessfully be utilized in determination of rock
blastability. Therefore, specific consumption
of explosive can be determined as a function
of the rock blastability using Bieniawski's
R M R values. Other factors of prime impor-
tance in rock fragmentation such as blasthole
and explosive diameters, decoupling, bench
height, subdrilling, burden, spacing, specific
c o n s u m p t i o n of explosive, its type and length
of stemming can be determined accurately
using the relevant expressions given in this
investigation.
REFERENCES
1 0 . Anderson, Blasthole burden design: Introducing
a formula. Proc. Australian Inst. Min. Metal., (1952):
166-167.
2 K.H. Fraenkel, Factors influencing blasting results.
Manual on Rock Blasting, Atlas Diesel and S.J.
Sweden, 1(2) (1952): 15 pp.
3 P. Lambooy and R.C. Esplay-Jones, Practical con-
siderations of blasting in open cast mines. Proc.
Open Pit Mining Syrup., Johannesburg, S. Africa,
(Aug. 29-Sept. 4, 1970) Balkema, 227-234.
4 U. Langefors and B. Kihlstrom, The Modern Tech-
nique of Rock Blasting. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, (1976) 405 pp.
5 C.H. Dowding, ]3last Vibration Monitoring and
Control. Prentice-Hall Inc., (1985), 246-247.
6 D.W. Hansen, Drilling and blasting techniques for
Morrow Point Power Plant. 9th Symp. on Rock
Mechanics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO,
(1967), 347-360.
7 G.E. Pearse, Rock blasting--Some aspects on the
theory and practice. Mine and Quarry Eng., 21(1)
(1955): 25-30.
8 R.L. Ash, The mechanics of rock breakage. Pit and
Quarry, 56(2-5) (1963): 98-143.
9 R.L. Ash, Class Notes on Explosives. University of
Missouri-Rolla, (1974).
10 J.A. Otano, Fragmentacion de Rocas Con Explo-
sives. Editorial Pueblo Y Educacion, (1980):
174 175.
11 A. Afrouz, Rupturing mechanism of rock under
dynamic loading. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, (1969), 150 pp.
12 K. Hino, Theory and Practice of Blasting. Nippon
Kayacu Co., Asa, Japan, (1959) 189 pp.
13 J.S. Rinehart, On fractures caused by explosions and
impact. Q. Colorado School of Mines, 55(4) (1960):
150 pp.
14 M.A. Cook, The Science of High Explosives. Rein-
hold Publ. Corp., NY, (1958), 440 pp.
15 R. Ucar, Decoupled explosive charge effects on
blasting performance. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Missouri-Rolla, 1975, 59 pp.
16 T.C. Atchison, Surface Mining-Fragmentation
Principles. Amer. Inst. Min. Metal. Pet. Eng., (1st
ed.), (1968): 355 372.
17 E. Hoek and T. Brown, Empirical strength criterion
for rock masses. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 106
(GT9) (Sept. 1980): 1013-1035.
18 S.D. Priest and T. Brown, Probabilistic stability
analysis of variable rock slopes. Trans. Inst. Min.
Metal. Section A: Mining Industry, 92 (1983):
A1-A12.
19 Z.T. Bieniawski, Rock mass classification in rock
engineering. Proc. Symp. on Exploration for Rock
Engineering, Vol. 1, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
(1976): 97-106.
20 N. Barton, R. Lien and J. Lunde, Estimation of
support requirements for underground excavations.
Proc. 16th Symp. on Design Methods in Rock
Mechanics, .University of Minnesota and Amer. Soc.
Civil Engineers, (1977): 163-177.
21 A. Afrouz, Blasting in Mines. Mighat Publishing
Co., (1st ed.), 1985, 482 pp.
22 J. Pugliese, Designing Blast Patterns Using Em-
pirical Formulae. Information Circular 8550, U.S.
Dept. Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1972.