A New Technique for Predicting Rock Fragmentation in Blasting

P-A Persson
1
ABSTRACT
The explosion of a charge in a drill hole sets the surrounding rock mass
into vibrating stress wave motion. Except in the immediate vicinity of the
drillhole, the dynamic stresses associated with this motion do damage
only to pre-existing joints, cracks, or other weak planes, not to the rock
material in between these. The joints are weak in tension, therefore the
damage occurs as a result of tensile stresses. The initial damage process
in the rock mass that ultimately breaks loose in front of the hole is similar
to that in the remaining rock behind the drillhole. Recorded or calculated
values of the vibration velocity and frequency contain a wealth of
information about the combination of stress and strain that causes the
damage.
This paper outlines a new technique by which the peak strain energy
derived from measured or calculated vibration velocity records is used to
determine the local fragment size distribution. It combines two
previously known and well tested techniques, namely the
Holmberg-Persson calculation of the peak vibration velocity generated by
an extended charge and King's calculations of the fragment size
distribution as a function of the strain energy in rock crushing. Both of
these calculations are based on experimental data and have been tested
and found to agree well with actual conditions in their respective fields.
Holmberg-Persson's calculated peak vibration velocities have been used
successfully to predict and control damage to the remaining rock in
cautious blasting, while King's calculation successfully describes the
comminution of rock in mechanical crushing.
Preliminary predictions of fragmentation in two types of rock blasting,
a large hole open pit mining blast and a tunnel round, indicate that the
new technique for fragmentation prediction has the potential for
predicting fragment size distributions within the rock removed by the
blast.
Two types of experiments are proposed to further evaluate the strain
energy concept for predicting rock damage and fragmentation in blasting.
STRAIN ENERGY VERSUS VffiRATION
VELOCITY
The high pressure of the detonation reaction product gases acting
on the drillhole wall gives rise to a shock wave in the surrounding
rock. For a drillhole fully loaded with a high-energy high-density
explosive, the combined stresses behind the shock wave front
may exceed the strength of the rock material, causing large plastic
deformation and crushing of the rock material near the drillhole.
As the drillhole expands, the compressive stresses are relieved,
and therefore, only a small region around the drillhole is exposed
to this large plastic deformation and crushing. Depending on the
strength of the rock material and the energy density of the
explosive, this region extends no further than about one hole
diameter outside of the drillhole wall. For holes in hard rock
loaded as required for smooth-blasting or pre-splitting, no plastic
deformation or crushing occurs at all. This is evidenced by the
half-drillholes remaining on the rock face of a well designed
smooth-blast or pre-split.
The rest of the rock around a blasthole is exposed to combined
peak compressive stresses which are below the dynamic elastic
limit of strength of the homogeneous rock material. However,
after the peak compressive stresses have decayed, tensile stresses
occur, which may cause fracture of joints and widening of
pre-existing cracks. To understand and be able to calculate the
extent of tensile stress damage to the joint structure of the rock
I. Director, Research Center for Energetic Materials, New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801, USA.
mass, we need to know what combination of stresses and strains
cause damage to which joints.
Strain energy is used extensively as an intensity variable in
rock crushing and comminution. Vibration particle velocity and
frequency are similarly used as intensity variables in predicting
rock and building damage caused by ground vibrations from rock
blasting. However, in a vibrating rock mass a given peak particle
velocity and its related frequency also define (and can be
translated into) a peak strain energy. The purpose of the work to
be described in the following was to investigate if the wealth of
information gathered about rock break-up in crushing can be
applied to fragmentation by blasting.
Consider, to clarify the concepts, a flat rock surface and an
explosive charge that sets up wave motion in the rock below and
at that surface as schematically shown in Figure 1.
The compressive wave, in seismology called the P-wave, has
the highest velocity, cp. Though transmitting a high stress, it is
of very short duration, therefore the material motion in it is
negligible. The P-wave is followed by a shear wave, called the
S-wave, which propagates at a lower velocity cs, also with little
material motion. The major motion at the surface is that due to
the Rayleigh wave, the R-wave, a surface wave resulting from the
relaxation of shear stress, which propagates with the still lower
velocity CR. (The shear wave originates at the surface at the front
of the compressive wave and sets up a shear stress in the material
behind it. It is the relaxation of this shear stress that gives rise to
the Rayleigh wave). If we draw an instantaneous cross-section of
the ground surface in the region where the Rayleigh wave is, the
surface will be wavy, as shown with an exaggerated vertical
amplitude in Figure 2. Typical values of the three wave velocities
in hard rock are cp =5000 m/s, CS =3500 m/s, and CR =3000
m/s.
The ground surface as indicated in Figure 2, is bent, in a wavy
fashion, and consequently, the material is in a state of stress,
which varies periodically. The highest compressive stress is at
the bottom of the deepest trough, the highest tensile stress is at
the crest of the highest wave. Where the surface is at its original
location, (an inflection point) there is no stress. The actual shape
of the wavy surface is determined by the vertical particle velocity
v and the (constant) wave velocity CR. The strain E, which is the
FIG I - Far field stress waves at and below a flat rock surface
(ground vibrations). P denotes the compressive stress wave, S the shear
wave, PS the shear wave originating at the surface, and R the
Rayleigh surface wave.
EXPlO '95 Conference Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995 421
P-A PERSSON
This stress is about two-thirds of the tensile strength of
homogeneous granite. Holmberg and Persson concluded from
their studies of blast damage to a granite rock mass that the peak
particle velocity I rnIs corresponding to this stress was the limit
where damage in the form of opening of joints would begin to
occur.
From Equation 2 we find the strain energy corresponding to
this stress level
li 11*60000 10 3
es =--E =- =-- =0.00333 MJ/m =1.33J/kg
2 c
2
2 3000
2
3000
for a rock material of density 2500 kglm
3
.
(I)
STRAIN ENERGY RELATED TO
FRAGMENTATION
o
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Size Relative to Parent Particle = 1
-lOO
-1000
, -10,000
80
Cl
c:
60 I
'en
'"
III
Cl.

'"
40
'"
III
:::E
20
Fla 3 - Diagram of fragment size distributions showing the mass fraction
of a crushed rock boulder passing a sieve as a function of the sieve mesh
width (expressed as a fraction of the original rock boulder size), with the
strain energy applied in crushing as a parameter (Lownds, 1995).
Milin (1994) carried out an extensive study and analysis of the
fragment size in comminution of rock by crushing. Using the
strain energy as a parameter, he was able to find agreement
between experimental and theoretical fragment size distributions
of rock crushed by mechanical means. Figure 3 shows Milin's
results as adapted by Lownds (1995), in the form of sieve
analysis curves, showing the mass fraction of the fragments
obtained from crushing one single piece of rock. The mass
fraction is plotted as a function of the sieve opening size,
expressed as a fraction of the original size of the original piece of
rock. The original rock pieces were represented by a curve with
the strain energy I J/kg. Experimental sieve curves for crushed
rock covered the range of strain energies from 10000 J/kg to
10 J/kg, with corresponding values of the 50 per cent passing
sieve size ranging from 0.25 to 0.99.
100 r----,.---r---,----:=----....-ii)
I
Energy
, J/kg
0
1
-10
We can now compare the lower limit strain energy for incipient
rock damage derived from Holmberg and Persson's
measurements in large-scale blasting, 1.33 J/kg, with the lower
limit strain energy for comminution from Milin's work crushing
small particles of quartz, 10 J/kg. The values differ, as could be
expected, indicating that a large rock mass containing many joints
and pre-existing cracks will fracture at a lower level of strain
energy than does a small particle of quartz. We may conclude
that the lower limit strain energy of 1.33 J/kg derived from the
results of Holmberg and Persson indicates the limit where
incipient damage could be expected to occur. However, the work
of Milin is important because it indicates a way that could
perhaps be used to determine the critical strain energy level from
impact experiments usin
y
larger samples of rock mass, say in the
range from I liter to I m (2.5 kg to 2500 kg).
o V
E =E=-;;
The relationship in Equation I holds exactly for a sine-wave
and approximately for other wave forms similar to a sine-wave.
It should be noted, however, that the peak velocity occurs where
the surface is at its original position (this is an inflection point
where the surface is not bent one way or the other and
consequently experiences no stress or strain), while the velocity is
zero at the crest and at the bottom of the waves, where the
particle velocity is zero. In other words, the velocity and stress in
the vibration are 90 degrees out of phase with each other. This is
a property that the surface wave shares with all single harmonic
oscillating systems.
The strength of a rock mass is much higher in compression
than in tension. Therefore, fracture occurs in tension only, in
mechanical crushing as well as in blasting.
The local strain energy es at a given point in the rock mass is
one half of the product of the stress and the strain at that point,
thus
Fla 2 - The Rayleigh wave. In this schematic drawing, the vertical
amplitudes have been exaggerated to more clearly show the bending of the
surface. In reality, the amplitude in an elastic wave at the elastic tensile
strength limit is no more than perhaps 1/1000 of the wavelength.
ratio of stress 0 to elastic modulus E, is also proportional to the
particle velocity and inversely proportional to the wave velocity,
so that we can write approximately
I 10
2
1 i
es = '2 0 E = '2 E = '2 c
2
E (2)
Take as an example a Rayleigh wave having a peak particle
velocity v =I rnIs and propagating with the wave velocity CR =
3000 rnIs, in a rock mass which has the elastic modulus E =
60000 MPa. Holmberg and Persson (1978; 1979) carried out
extensive experiments in large-scale blasting, in which the
vibration particle velocities (or primarily accelerations) caused by
the explosion of nearby extended charges were recorded and the
corresponding rock damage was mapped out. They found that
the first measurable reduction in strength of the rock mass
corresponded with rock mass vibrations having particle velocities
in the range 0.7 rnIs to I rnIs. The damage to the rock mass
consisted of opening of pre-existing cracks which resulted in
swelling of the rock mass; the swelling was measurable by
extensometers. No new cracks were formed, however, as
indicated by the observation that there was no difference in the
RQD (rock quality designation) number determined for core drill
samples of the rock at the same distance from the drillhole taken
before and after the blast. The RQD-number is a measure of the
average length of unbroken drill-cores recovered from core
drilling.
From Equation I we find the stress corresponding to the wave
velocity I rnIs to be
o = :: = I = 20 MPa
422 Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995 EXPlO '95 Conference
A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR PREDICTING ROCK FRAGMENTATION
PREDICTION OF VIBRATION VELOCITY AND
STRAIN ENERGY IN BLASTING
Holmberg and Persson (1978; 1979) found a way of calculating
the vibration particle velocity within a rock mass relatively close
to an extended charge in a blasthole resulting from the detonation
of the charge. Figure 4 shows for two different charge
arrangements the resulting vibration velocity as a function of the
distance from the charge, with the linear charge concentration (kg
explosive per m charged hole length) a a parameter. The charge
arrangement shown in Figure 4a is characteristic for large hole
diameter open pit bench blasting, the charge arrangement shown
in Figure 4b is characteristic of the charges used in tunneling.
The calculated diagrams of vibration particle velocity versus
distance in Figure 4 have proven to be very powerful tools in
preventing damage to the remaining rock in smooth-blasting and
pre-splitting as well as in understanding the damage caused by
other techniques for perimeter blasting. The simple damage
criterion in the form of a critical vibration particle velocity, which
for hard igneous rock is in the range from 0.7 m/s to 1 m/s, is
used to determine whether unacceptable damage occurs or not.
The simple criterion, although crude, has made possible a
consistent treatment of widely different rock damage situations.
It has been applied to control and limit damage to the remaining
rock in large open pit bench blasting as well as in tunneling and
road cuttings.
To take into consideration the effect of this additional free
surface, we will assume that the vibration particle velocity at a
given point in the rock to be removed is twice the calculated
velocity value at an equipositioned point in the remaining rock.
This assumption is consistent with the well-known effect of a free
surface which doubles the particle velocity of a simple
compressive elastic wave as it is reflected at the free surface as a
tensile wave. Figure 5 shows such calculated velocities behind
and in front of a drillhole in a bench blasting geometry. (For
simplicity in the calculations shown in Figure 5, the effect on the
vibration velocity of the free surface at the top of the bench has
been assumed not to superimpose on the effect of the front free
surface - possibly, the fragmentation of the rock at the corner
where the front and top free surfaces intersect may be aided by
the expansion of the rock in two directions perpendicular to each
other).
The mode of vibration of the rock to be removed can be
considered as the bending vibration of a prism-shaped beam of
rock, bounded by the original free surface and the cracks
extending from the drillhole at an angle towards the free surface.
Initially, the peak vibration particle velocity varies across the
thickness of the beam, but the overall effect is a translational
motion of the central part of the beam away from the charge. The
particle velocity at the ends of the beam at the intersection of
these cracks with the original free surface is less than that at the
free surface opposite the drillhole, because of the difference in the
FRAGMENTATION IN ROCK BLASTING
ISO-Vl:l.OClTY CONTOURS
3000+----+----+----j
2.5 m/s
K - 1.4 K - 0.7
10+--t----1--+--+---+---+
5
o+-
-5
-30
-35-l-......,I--+--+--+---t--+----+
-10 -5 0 5 '0 15 20
Olstonce (m)
Fla 5 - Curves of constant peak vibration particle velocity around a charge
in a drill hole in rock, assuming the vibration particle velocity doubles in
the rock to be removed as a result of the existence of an additional free
surface (the front surface of the bench).
Whether fragmentation will occur or not in rock adjacent to an
exploding charge in a drillhole in that rock depends entirely on
the presence of a pre-existing free surface. Such a surface will
provide the necessary expansion space for fragmentation, which
occurs as a result of tensile stresses set up by the vibration.
(Since the brittle rock materials are an order of magnitude
stronger in compression than in tension, we can safely neglect
compressive stresses as a cause of fragmentation). Formally, the
method proposed by Holmberg and Persson (1978; 1979) for
calculation of the vibration particle velocity in the rock
surrounding the extended charge can be applied equally well on
both sides of the drillhole, ie to the rock which will be left
standing after the shot as well as to the rock which will be
removed. However, there is a major difference, in that the rock
which will be left standing will be vibrating towards only one
free surface, namely the one formed by the fractures extending
from the drillhole, whereas the rock which will be removed will
have an additional free surface allowing Vibration, namely the
original front of the bench. This additional free surface provides
the expansion room for the rock to be fragmented.
3000 +----+----+--+----+----1
1 2
Di.tonce (m)
b
,...

.,
......
E
5
2000
:?:'
'u
0
u
>
c
1000
.2
e
.c
>
50 10 20 30 40
Distance (m)
1234
6. I
1000
2000
a
Fla 4 - Calculated peak vibration velocity as a function of distance to (a) one end of a 15 mlong, large-diameter charge, and (b) the center of a 3 mlong,
smaller-diameter charge, with the linear charge density as a parameter. The charge arrangement in (a) is typical of bench blasting with large diameter
holes, the arrangement in (b) is typical for tunnel blasting and road cuttings.
EXPLO '95 Conference Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995 423
P-A PERSSON
TABLE 1
Damage andfragmentation effects in hard Scandinavian bedrock
resulting from vibrations with different values of the peak particle
velocity (from Persson. Holmberg, and Lee, 1994).
The table also includes new corresponding values of the tensile
stress. and the strain energy, calculated using Equation 1with
E = 60000 MPa, c = 3000 m/s, and po = 2500 kg/m.
Peak particle Tensile stress Strain energy Typical effect in
velocity (m/s) (MPa) J/kg hard Scandinavian
bedrock
0.7 14 0.65 Incipient swelling
I 20 1.33 Incipient damage
2.5 50 8.3 Fragmentation
5 100 33 Good fragmentation
15 300 300 Crushin
SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE WORK
FIG 6a - The vibrating beam bounded by the front surface of the bench and
the cracks extending from the drillhole at an angle to the front surface of
the bench (dashed lines indicate two sets of pre-exlstingjoints along
which fragmentation occurs), (b) schematic picture of the resulting
fragmentation.
distance from the exploding charge in the drillhole. The resulting
bending of the beam will result in tensile stresses and
fragmentation, if the resulting stresses are large enough. The
vibrating beam is shown in Figure 6a; the resulting fragmentation
is shown schematically in Figure 6b.
As an example, let us assume the vibration particle velocity at a
point two-thirds of the way between the drillhole and the free
surface opposite the drillhole is 15 m1s, while the velocity at the
ends of the beam is 5 m1s. The difference, 10 m1s, would then be
representative of the initial strain energy available for
fragmentation. To obtain the strain energy, we calculate the strain
as the ratio between the particle velocity 10 m1s and the wave
velocity, which we assume to be 3000 m1s, ie a strain of 1/150.
This strain energy obtained from Equation 2 with E = 60 000 MPa
is then
1 10 2 6 6 3
e, ='2(3000) 6 o o 1 = 0.33 * 10 J/m = 133J/kg
using po = 2500 kg/m
3
for the density of the rock mass. We may
compare this value with the rock damage and fragmentation
effects at different peak vibration particle velocities tabulated by
Persson, Holmberg, and Lee (1994) as shown in Table I, where
we have included new values of the corresponding peak tensile
stress and new corresponding values of the strain energy,
calculated using Equation 2 with the more reasonable values E =
60 000 MPa, c =3000 m1s, and po =2500 kg/m
3
(in their original
calculations, Persson, Holmberg, and Lee used E = 50 000 MPa
and c = 5000 m1s).
The value of the strain energy es = 133 J/kg calculated above
for the vibration velocity 10 m1s is in the region 'Good
fragmentation' to 'Crushing'. Comparing the strain energy es =
133 J/kg with the data for crushing obtained by Milin (1994), we
find, not unexpectedly, that a much larger strain energy is
required for good fragmentation of small grains of quartz (of the
order of es = 10000 J/kg) than the value es = 133 J/kg that we
found for the large rock mass involved in rock blasting. Again,
Milin's crushing experiments may indicate a way in which impact
crushing experiments using large samples of rock mass can be
used to determine the levels of strain energy that correspond to
different levels of fragmentation.
I would like to propose two types of experiments to further
explore the practical application potential of the strain energy
criterion for rock damage and fragmentation.
The first series of experiments would be to place
accelerometers in the rock mass to be fragmented. Even if the
time of useful recording would be limited considering the
large-scale motion of the rock in which the accelerometers are
positioned, and even if not all accelerometers could be recovered
after each experiment, the records would provide extremely
valuable information on the initial motion of the rock and
especially confirm or refute the tentative assumption that the
vibration velocity in the rock to be fragmented is twice that in the
rock that will be left standing.
The second series of experiments would involve impacting
free-standing short cylindrical (lId = 1) or cubic samples of rock
by a heavy mass falling on the sample from above or suspended
in a pendulum, hitting the sample from the side. The mass and
height of fall could be varied to vary the strain energy imparted to
the sample, and the sample size could be varied from say I litre to
I m
3
. In addition, strain gauges or accelerometers could be used
to record the stress and strain in the ensuing vibratory motion.
Depending on the level of strain energy imparted, measurements
could be made of the swelling of the sample or, at higher strairr
energies, the fragment size distribution can be analysed by sieve
analysis or by weighing fragments grouped in different size
intervals. The objective would be to establish curves similar to
those provided by Milin, but for larger samples of rock, more
closely representati ve of the size of the burden in rock blasting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Mr Mick Lownds of Viking Explosives,
Salt Lake City, for a short but extremely useful discussion of rock
fragmentation early in February, 1995 during a chance encounter
in the reception hall of the 16th ISEE Conference on Explosives
and Blasting. During this discussion Mr Lownds pointed out to
the author that Dr Milin's results on rock comminution in
mechanical crushing might have relevance to the problem of
predicting fragmentation in blasting. Subsequent reading of Mr
Lownds' paper submitted to that conference, and discussions with
graduate student Vilem Petr of New Mexico Tech's Department
of Minerals and Environmental Engineering led to the thoughts
presented in this paper.
424 Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995 EXPLO '95 Conference
REFERENCES
Persson, P A, Holmberg, R and Lee, J, 1994. Rock Blasting and
Explosives Engineering (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA) 240pp.
Holmberg, R and Persson, P A, 1978. The Swedish approach to contour
blasting, in Proceedings 4th Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Techniques (Soc of Expl Engineers: New Orleans, LA).
Holmberg, R and Persson, P A, 1979. Design of tunnel perimeter
blasthole patterns to prevent rock damage, in Proceedings Tunneling
'79 (Bd: M J Jones) (Institution of Mining and Metallurgy: London).
A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR PREDICTING ROCK FRAGMENTATION
Lownds, M, 1995. Prediction of fragmentation based on distribution of
explosives energy, in Proceedings 11th Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Techniques (Int Soc of Expl Engineers: Nashville, TN,
USA).
Milin, Ludovic, 1994. Incomplete Beta-function modeling of the tIo
procedure, Internal Report (Public), (Comminution Center,
University of Utah: Salt Lake City, UT, USA).
EXPLO '95 Conference
Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995
425
426 Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995 EXPLO '95 Conference