Mining - Blasting Research Leads to New Theories and Reductions in Blasting Costs

TO improve blasting methods it is necessary to know how the explosive force acts and how rock resists this force. Because of the tremendous power developed within milliseconds and the great number of other factors directly affecting the technical and economic results, an analysis of the fundamentals of blasting theory is difficult. But since the rules used for layout design and for calculations of size of explosive charges are based on theoretical assumptions, complete knowledge of blasting theory has great practical importance in mining. Analysis of Blasting Theory: It is interesting to note the opinion of blasting experts with respect to contemporary blasting theories. F. Stussi; Professor of the University of Zurich, stated: "We do not have enough experience yet to change our army engineering regulations in blasting and base it on new fundamentals. It is our duty to collect more practical data and to do more research in blasting to close this gap." K. H. Fraenkel,2 editor of the Manual on Rock Blasting published in 1953 in Sweden and written by well-known Swedish, German, Swiss, and French blasting and explosive experts, said: "To the best of our knowledge no suitable formulas for civil blasting work are to be found in the American, French or German literature." Present blasting theory is based upon two assumptions. 1) The blasting force of explosive acts in concentrical and spherical form. 2) Rock resistance against the explosive force is directly proportional to the strength characteristics of the rock. The first classical formula based on theoretical fundamental in blasting theory for explosive charge calculation was introduced by Vauban, a military engineer who lived 300 years ago. It was Vauban who proposed the famous formula L = w3 q, where L is the explosive charge, w = line of least resistance, and q = specific explosive consumption proportional to the weight of rock. Later engineers used q as proportional to the strength of the rock. Since Vauban's time different suggestions concerning blasting theory have been proposed. However, the principles stated at that time so affected the thinking of later generations that his formula is still in use and practically unchanged. The first controversy concerned the form of crater. It was found that geological features of rock affected its form. The factor q was analyzed thoroughly by Lares3 and later by Ohnesorge," Weichelt,5 Bendel,6 and others, but the assumption remained that resistance against explosive force is directly proportional to the strength of the rock blasted. The greatest controversy, which has not yet been settled, concerned w. It was noted that w3 is more appropriate for long lines of resistance and w2 for lines of resistance less than 15 ft. Based on the assumption that the explosive force acts concentrically and spherically, spacings between charges were limited to distances not greater than the length of line of least resistance. Sometimes larger spacing is recommended, but this is due to the advantageous geological and physical properties of rock and not to the action of an explosive force as such. In addition to the classical formula, empirical formulas are used widely. These state that the explosive charge is directly proportional to the volume of blasted rock in cubic yards, and the amounts of explosive required are usually expressed in pounds of explosive per cubic yard of rock. Empirical and classical formulas are contradictory. In the empirical formula, but not in the classical formula, explosive charge is taken proportional to all three space axes: line of least resistance, spacing, and bench height. In spite of this contradiction, both formulas give good results. This is possible because as now practiced the explosive charge calculation for heavy burdens need not be highly accurate. Each, open pit or quarry, usually works with a certain relation between bench height and line of least resistance and between charge spacing and line of least resistance. When these relations are changed, however, the specific explosive consumption q changes greatly. This is one of the reasons why the principles on which the formulas are based appear to be incorrect. In addition to the formulas discussed, others exist and are based more or less on the same theoretical