Module 7 Blast damage

Homework
The most accessible empirical methods used to predict the extent of
fracturing in full scale production blasting conditions are those based on
direct measurements (e.g. peak particle velocity (PPV) measurements).
These include:

– PPV based modelling (Holmberg and Persson, 1980)

– Crack length estimations (Ouchterloney et al 2001)
– Hustrulid and Lu Wenbo (2002)
 Holmberg & Persson (1980)

• On-set of damage in elastic medium is at a critical

level of induced strain, estimated by:

PPV ε= strain

ε= PPV = peak particle velocity (vector sum)

c = Longitudinal wave velocity

c
 Estimation of PPV in the near field (Holmberg & Persson,1980)

r
x

α
⎡ xs +H ⎤
⎢ dx ⎥
PPV = K l ∫
xs

⎢ x 2
[ ] 2α ⎥
β

⎣ s ro + ( x − x0 )2
⎦
xo-xs

ro P(ro,xo)
xo
H
For β = 2α x-xo

[ ]
1

R = r + ( x − xo )
2 2 2
o

α
⎡⎛ l ⎞⎛ ⎛ H + xs − xo ⎞ ⎛ x − x ⎞ ⎞⎤ x dx
PPV = K ⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜⎜ arctan⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + arctan⎜⎜ o s ⎟⎟ ⎟⎥
⎟ xs+H
⎣⎢⎝ ro ⎠⎝ ⎝ ro ⎠ ⎝ ro ⎠ ⎠⎦⎥
 Model Assumptions (Holmberg & Persson)

• A radiating blast wave obeys charge weight scaling

laws of the form: α Where
W
ϑ=K β is the peak particle velocity, W is the charge
weight, R the distance to the source and K, α and
R β are site specific constants.

• The peak particle velocity due to each small element of

charge within the blast hole is numerically additive

• The velocity of detonation (VOD) is infinite

• Does not consider the influence of free face boundaries

 Estimating PPV critical

• The index of incipient damage or critical peak

particle velocity (PPVcrit) may be estimated from
direct in situ measurements or as a first
approximation, by assuming the simple equation
for the stress in a plane sinusoidal wave in an
infinite medium (Persson et al, 1994)

Ts v p
PPVcrit =
E st
Ts is the static tensile strength of the rock (Pa) , vp is the
compressional wave velocity (mm/s) and E is the static Young's
modulus (Pa).
 Example data to determine attenuation
parameters (K and α)

⎛l⎡ ⎛L ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞⎤ ⎞
log(PPV) = log(K) + α ∗ log⎜⎜ ⎢arctan⎜ 2 ⎟ − arctan⎜ 1 ⎟⎥ ⎟⎟
⎝h ⎣ ⎝h⎠ ⎝ h ⎠⎦ ⎠
y = 1.0868x + 2.6742
2
R = 0.7289
3

2.5

2
log (PPV)

1.5

0.5

0
-1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2

log (a)
 Holmberg & Persson attenuation parameters
and PPV thresholds

Rock type & reference K α PPVcrit PPVbreakage

(mm/s) (mm/s)
Massive Granite, (Persson et al, 1994) 700 0.7 1000 >4000
Andesite, (McKenzie et al, 1995) 200 0.9 600 >2400
Strong Sandstone, (McKenzie et al, 1995) 400 0.78 450 >1800
Strong Shale, (McKenzie et al, 1995) 175 1.25 350 >1400
Strong shales (across bedding), (Villaescusa et al, 2004) 456 1.12 848 >3400
Ridgeway Volcanics, (Onederra, 2001) 470 0.94 1200 >4800
Medium/coarse grained quartz diorite, (LeBlanc et al, 1995) 150 0.87 840 >3360
Bronzewing (Onederra and La Rosa, 2002) 332 1.0 1100 >4400

K and α values derived from PPV vector sum data

PPVbreakage = 4 x PPVcrit
PPV critical values for some Chilean rock types
ASP Blastronics, 2006
Holmberg & Persson damage criteria
example

PPV effect on hard Scandinavian bedrock

After Persson et al. 1994

Peak particle velocity Typical effect in hard Scandinavian

(mm/s) bedrock
700 Incipient swelling
1000 Incipient damage
2500 Fragmentation
5000 Good fragmentation
15000 Crushing
Other PPV damage criterion
Extent of damage
Ouchterlony, 2001
Degrees of damage
Ouchterlony, 2001
Crack length predictions
Ouchterlony, 2001
 Hustrulid and Lu Wenbo (2002)

• The approach retains the simplicity of the Holmberg &

Persson model but includes physical processes

v = peak particle velocity

k= constant
ρe = Explosive density
D = Confined VoD
γ = Adiabatic index of explosive
ρ = density of rock
Cp = P-wave velocity of rock
Ra = Decoupling ratio or air decking volume ratio
α = attenuation index
 Module 7
2 assignments (Maximum 3 pages per
assignment- English or Spanish)

1. A review of the PPV based Holmberg and

Persson (1980) Model:
– Assumptions, limitations, applications and
strengths

• Papers to read:
– Holmberg and Persson 1980
– Course notes by Frederic Vanbrabant
– Course notes by Chitombo & Onederra.

2. Pre-split design: Hustrulid vs. Chiapetta

• Summarize the bases of each approach and
identify the difference in the proposed pre-spilt
principles and design approaches.

• Papers to read:
• Hustrulid and NIOSH: “A practical, yet technically
sound design procedure for pre-split”
• Frank Chiapetta “Pre-splitting Techniques..”