See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]
net/publication/326031583
Fragblast 12-2
Conference Paper · June 2018
CITATIONS READS
0 358
4 authors:
Ranjit Kumar Paswan M.P. Roy
CSIR - Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
20 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 239 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Vivek Kumar Himanshu Suraj Kumar
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
17 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Blast optimization study at limestone mines. View project
Mining View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ranjit Kumar Paswan on 28 June 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
3UHVSOLWEODVWLQJWHFKQLTXHVDWGUDJOLQHEHQFKHVIRUVWDEOH
EHQFKZLWKLPSURYHGIUDJPHQWDWLRQOHYHO
3.6LQJK035R\9.+LPDQVKX5.3DVZDQDQG6.XPDU
CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, India
$%675$&7
The paper deals with a systematic controlled blasting study conducted at one of the largest coal
mine of India and subsequently to determine optimal blast design parameters for deep Dragline
benches (45 to 60 m) for stable bench wall with better fragmentation and suitable muck profile with
minimum vibration level. During blasting, back-break and stability of the benches were the main
concern and pre-split controlled blasting method is introduced at dragline benches of Moher and
Moher Amlorhi Extension Opencast Project of Sasan Power Limited to minimize the risk of back-
break and stability of the benches. Twelve dragline blasts along with pre-splitting of the face were
conducted with varying blast design and charging pattern at dragline benches of the mine. In-the-
hole VOD of different explosives was determined and placement of boosters was standardized. The
signature blasts were conducted to optimize the delay interval between the holes in a row and be-
tween the rows. The optimized burden and spacing were decided for dragline considering the avail-
able drill machine of 311 mm. Normal dragline bench blast consists of firing 5-7 numbers of rows
involving 80-220 holes in a blast round. A master plan of the pre-split holes position at spacing of 4
m was prepared. The available explosive was site mixed emulsions which were loaded in plastic
bags and put in the hole with air-deck of 6 to 7 nos. The inclined holes of 85° with 259 mm diame-
ter were experimented. The results were excellent and successfully being practiced at the mine.
,1752'8&7,21 The uses of explosives in dragline blasting are
huge which endanger the safety and stability of
India is the sixth largest energy consumer in the nearby structures. The control of vibrations in
world and the energy sector in India is one of dragline blasting is of immense importance.
the most challenging sectors. Through the pro- The blast design and blast hole firing sequences
cess of planned development undertaken over play important role in control of vibration (Roy
the last five decades, the country has taken ma- et al. 2017).
jor strides in stepping up the production of pri-
mary commercial energy. Coal continues to be In open pit mining, where blasting is employed
the main source of primary commercial energy for excavation, the overall cost effectiveness of
not only for direct energy use in industry but al- the production operations is compatible with
so for indirect energy use through power gener- optimization of drilling and blasting parame-
ation. The ever-increasing demand of coal in ters. Rock fragmentation depends upon two
India has necessitated construction and com- groups of variables: rock mass properties which
missioning of large size opencast mines which cannot be controlled and drill and blast design
force us to conduct big size blasts in the mine parameters that can be controlled and optimized
with improved production, productivity, and (Singh et al. 2015). The optimization of blast
safety. The prediction and assessment of the design parameters helps in getting the desired
rock size distribution produced by blasting is fragmentation with limited ground vibrations,
important in understanding the blasting process thereby minimizing the costs of downstream
(Spathis 2009). The dragline blasts are per- operations. The main blast design parameters
formed for speedy removal of overburden so include burden, spacing, explosive type, pow-
that the coal may be exposed for exploitation. der factor and initiation timing. Explosive type
705
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
and powder factor determine the type and wall rock, pre-splitting happens to be the most
amount of explosive energy available, the blast suitable for all practical purposes. The purpose
hole pattern determines the spatial distribution of pre-splitting is to isolate the blasting area
of the energy and the timing determines when from the surrounding rock mass by forming an
the energy is released. artificial plane to limit gas and stress wave pen-
etration into the remaining rock formation (Ol-
Blast induced ground vibrations are the major ofsson 1998, Scott et al. 1996).
problem in deep hole dragline blasting especial-
ly when habitats are nearby. To meet the target- In pre-splitting, closely spaced holes in a single
ed demand of coal, the mass production tech- row are drilled along the final excavation line
nology has to be used efficiently and and initiated prior to the production blast. The
effectively. Hence, standardization of dragline holes are lightly charged with explosives and
and shovel blast design to control blast vibra- the explosive charge is de-coupled from the
tion within safe limit and proper muck pile will rock i.e. an air gap is created between the ex-
help the mine operators to produce coal, meet- plosive charge and the hole. The purpose is to
ing the requirement of the mine. avoid excessive compressive failure around the
blastholes while breaking the rock in tension.
The paper deals with the controlled blasting As the compressive rock strength is several
technique (Pre-splitting) implemented at the times greater than the tensile strength, tensile
Moher and Moher Amlohri Extension opencast failure is achieved by this method (Lewan-
project of Sasan power Limited in India. dowski et al. 1996). Sanden (1974) conducted a
Twelve dragline blasts along with pre-splitting theoretical examination on tensile pre-split
of the face were conducted with varying blast cracks through interaction between rock
design and charging patterns at dragline bench- strength and stress waves generated from the
es of the mine. The dragline bench blasts were explosives detonation. This theory has been fur-
designed in such a fashion that 20% of the ther studied by Calder (1977) and Chiappetta
blasted material should be casted in decoaled (1991). A mathematical relation based on the
area. The recorded magnitudes of vibration due above consideration is derived for pre-split
to dragline bench blasting were kept within the spacing and expressed as:
stipulated guideline of the regulatory agency.
The optimized drilling and blasting patterns, S 2R(Pb+T)/T (1)
pre-splitting and placement of explosives in the
holes helped to achieve the desired fragmenta- Where,
tion and throw of the overburden in decoaled
S = spacing between the blastholes (inches)
area while keeping vibrations within safe limits
R = blasthole radius (inches)
at the concerned structures.
Pb = blasthole pressure (psi)
1.1 Theory of Pre-split blasting for final wall T = tensile strength of rock (psi)
control
The above relation does not include geotech-
The basic theory is to control the effects of nical aspects of the strata and only deals with
blasting in such a way that the inherent strength the intact rock tensile strength. It is well known
of the wall rock is not destroyed. This can be that in closely fissured rock pre-splitting rarely
achieved certainly by keeping the explosive en- gives impressive results. The joint frequency,
ergy released by the production blast far away orientation of joints in relation to the pre-split
from the final wall so that significant damage line, aperture of joints and infillings are the
can be avoided. Different blasting techniques prominent aspects of joints that affect pre-split
are being used for different purposes depending quality (Reinhart 1964, Calder 1977, Worsey et
on the specific excavation requirements. Pre- al. 1981, Cunningham and Goetzche 1990,
splitting is one of the specific blasting tech- Chiappetta 1991, Dunn and Cocker 1995, Tariq
nique that is being used to control damage to and Worsey 1996).
wall rock. Though there are other controlled
blasting methods to minimise the damage to
706
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
(;3(5,0(17$/6,7('(7$,/6 DQG QRUWKHDVWHUQ SDUW WKH 0RKHU VXEEDVLQ
7KH QRUWKHDVWHUQ SDUW RU WKH 0RKHU VXEEDVLQ
0RKHU DQG 0RKHU$PORKUL ([WHQVLRQ &RDO FRYHUVDQDUHDRI6T.PDQGFRQWDLQVWKLFN
%ORFNV DUH VLWXDWHG LQ WKH 6LQJUDXOL FRDOILHOG FRDOVHDPVQDPHO\7XUUD3XUHZDDQG-KLQJXU
ZKLFK OLHV EHWZHHQ ODWLWXGHV ¶´ DQG GDK PDNLQJ LW WKH KLJKHVW SRWHQWLDO DUHD RI WKH
¶´1RUWKDQGORQJLWXGHV¶´DQG FRDOILHOG $W SUHVHQW WKH HQWLUH FRDO SURGXFWLRQ
¶´ (DVW FRYHULQJ DQ DUHD RI 6T RI6LQJUDXOL&RDOILHOGRIDURXQG0WLVEH
.P DQG LV PDLQO\ ORFDWHG LQ WKH 6LQJUDXOL GLV LQJ PLQHG RXW IURP WKLV DUHD $Q RYHUYLHZ RI
WULFWRI0DGK\D3UDGHVKH[FHSWIRU6T.P WKH PDVWHU SODQ IRU WKH 0RKHU EDVLQ RI WKH
ZKLFK IDOOV LQ WKH 6RQHEKDGUD GLVWULFW RI 8WWDU 6LQJUDXOL FRDOILHOG LV GHSLFWHG LQ )LJXUH DQG
3UDGHVK7KH.DFKQL5LYHUGLYLGHVWKHFRDOILHOG DQRYHUYLHZRIWKH0RKHUDQG0RKHU$PORKUL
LQWRWZRSDUWVYL]WKHPDMRUZHVWHUQDQGVRXWK ([WHQVLRQLVGHSLFWHGLQ)LJXUH
HUQ SDUW FRPSULVLQJ WKH 0RKHU PDLQ VXEEDVLQ
)LJXUH 2YHUYLHZRIPDVWHUSODQIRU0RKHUEDVLQRI6LQJUDXOLFRDOILHOG
)LJXUH 2YHUYLHZRI0RKHUDQG0RKHU$PORKUL([WHQVLRQ2SHQFDVWPLQHRI6DVDQ3RZHU/LPLWHG
707
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
0(7+2'2/2*<
Bench design parameters are controlling pa-
rameters which regulate the desired fragmenta-
tion level of particular blast. Rock mass proper-
ties and blasting parameters control the
efficiency of blasting operation. But all the
blast design parameters cannot be changed de-
pending on type of strata and bench height.
During the trial blast the hole diameter was
311mm for dragline benches and 250 mm for
pre-split blastholes. The average hole depth for )LJXUH 0XFNSLOHSURILOHRIWKHGUDJOLQH
dragline benches was 45 m to 57 m. The total EHQFKEODVW
explosive range for dragline benches was
38,480 kg to 980,330 kg. To optimize the delay
timing between the holes in a row and between
the rows, the time history of a signature blast
were recorded and analyzed. The blast induced
ground vibrations for each blast were recorded
to investigate the vibration level. A few blasts
were performed with the existing blast design
practiced in the mine and after each blast,
scaled digital photographs of fragmented muck
pile were taken to analyse fragmentation char-
acteristics such as mean fragment size, index of
uniformity etc. Optimum fragmentation size )LJXUH +DOIFDVW LPSUHVVLRQ RI SUHVSOLW
may not be the required size but knowing the EODVWKROHVRQWKHILQDOZDOO
size distribution for particular blast and rock $1$/<6,62)'$7$
mass conditions, the contractor can adapt the
blasting if possible (Engin 2009). The drilling The blast design parameter data collected from
and charging pattern of a dragline bench with 39 blasts are analysed to find out its impact on
pre-split holes is depicted in Figure 3. The rock fragmentation level.
muck profile of the blast is depicted in Figure
4. The half-cast impression of pre-split blast 4.1 Blast vibration analysis
holes on the final stable wall is presented in
Blast induced vibration was monitored at dif-
Figure 5.
ferent locations for blasts of the shovel bench,
the dragline bench and signature hole blast.
Seismographs were placed at a distance of 40 m
to 4260 m and the maximum blast vibration
recorded was 184 mm/s to 1.37 mm/s respec-
tively depending on quantity of explosive
charged, distance of monitoring station from
blast face, explosive weight charged per delay
etc. Air overpressure was recorded up to 148
dB. One of the blast wave signature and FFT
)LJXUH 7KH GULOOLQJ DQG FKDUJLQJ VH analysis recorded for dragline bench blast have
TXHQFH RI WKH GUDJOLQH EHQFK been presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7 respec-
EODVW tively.
708
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
4.2 Blast delay optimization with the help of
signature blast
The delay timing between the holes in a row
and between rows plays a fundamental role in
fulfilment of the objectives of the blasts. To ad-
dress this issue a single blast hole was drilled at
the dragline bench of the mine (Figure 8) and
ground vibrations were recorded in the near
field and the far field. The frequency spectra of
)LJXUH %ODVWZDYHVLJQDWXUHUHFRUGHGDWD the signature blast at the dragline and different
GLVWDQFH RI P IRU GUDJOLQHEHQFK shovel benches were analyzed Signature blast
holes of the dragline benches were loaded with
3,420 kg of explosives. The blast was fired in-
stantaneously without in-hole delay. The blast
wave signatures were recorded for each signa-
ture hole blast at respective distances. The typi-
cal time history of blast wave signature record-
ed at the dragline and shovel bench at 150 m
from the blast hole is presented in Figure 9 and
signature hole analysis table is presented in
Figure 10.
)LJXUH ))7 DQDO\VLV RI WKH EODVW ZDYH
VKRZQLQ)LJXUH
)LJXUH %ODVWVHTXHQFHDQGH[SORVLYHRI6LJQDWXUHKROHEODVW
Linear superposition of the signature waves
was done to simulate the waveform characteris-
tics for multi-hole blasting. The analyses for
signature blast hole revealed that very short de-
lay times between the holes and very long delay
intervals between the rows should be avoided
the analyses further concluded that the mean
time needed to start the movement of rock face
)LJXUH 7LPH KLVWRU\ RI WKH VLJQDWXUH is 9.5 ms/m of effective burden. The delay in-
EODVW LQ 9HUWLFDO GLUHFWLRQ FRQ terval between the successive rows should be
GXFWHGDWGUDJOLQHEHQFK 9.5-23.4 ms/m of effective burden which is 7.9
709
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
m for a pattern of 10 m × 13 m. This concept determination of the boosters and the recorded
was drawn after calculating the wavelength in trace of the VOD is presented in Figure 12.
terms of Ȝ/4, Ȝ/2, 3Ȝ/4, Ȝ and so on of the signa-
ture blast waveform which is slightly varied for
each cycle of the signature recorded for three
mutual perpendicular directions i.e. Long, Vert
and Tran direction of the signature blast. The
blast designs were optimized considering the
output of linear superimposition techniques.
Based on the output of the signature blast, de-
lays were optimised and subsequently the shov-
el and dragline bench blasts were successfully )LJXUH 92' WUDFH RI 60( H[SORVLYH
blasted and generated good fragmentation with UHFRUGHG DW 6+ VKRYHO EODVW
suitable muck profiles with a minimum level of IDFHDWWKHH[SHULPHQWDOVLWH
vibrations. DataTrapII VOD Data
Channel 3 5,000,000 Hz
1.25
1.00
Dis tanc e (m )
0.75
0.50
VOD = 7315.6 m /s
0.25
0.00
196.20 196.25 196.30 196.35 196.40 196.45 196.50
Tim e (m s )
)LJXUH 7UDFH RI UHFRUGHG 92' RI FDVW
ERRVWHUV J DWPLQHVLWH
)LJXUH 9LHZ RI 6LJQDWXUH KROH DQDO\VLV
WDEOHIRUGUDJOLQHEHQFKEODVW 4.3 Testing of quality of blasting accessories
4.3 Monitoring of in-the hole velocity of deto- The qualities of Nonel delay detonators of dif-
nation (VOD) of explosives ferent companies have been tested at the exper-
imental sites. The Blaster Ranger II, High speed
A uniform VOD is essentially required video camera and Data Trap-II recorder were
throughout the blast holes to produce sufficient deployed to document the scattering in shock
detonation pressure to the blast hole walls to tube (NONEL) delay detonators (DTH- 450 ms
yield uniform fragmentation. The recorded in- of 12 m, 15 m, 18 m and 23 m); MS connectors
the-hole VODs of the SME explosives used (17 ms, 25 ms, 65 ms, 100 ms and 125 ms) and
were in the range of 4690 m/s to 5545 m/s. cord relays (25 ms, 50 ms, 65 ms and 100 ms).
One of the VOD trace recorded at the site is View of the MS connectors (17 ms, 25 ms, 65
presented in Figure 11. Surface VOD of 200 g ms, 100 ms and 125 ms) and cord relays (25
and 400 g cast booster was determined using ms, 50 ms, 65 ms and 100 ms) connection for
Data Trap II. Five Boosters were taped and delay scattering test is depicted in Figure 13.
wrapped on stick. The firing was done with D-
cord initiation. The arrangement for the VOD
710
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
)LJXUH )LHOGDUUDQJHPHQWWRUHFRUGWKHDFWXDOILULQJWLPHRI06&RQQHFWRUVDQGFRUGUH
OD\VZLWKWKHKHOSRI+LJK6SHHG9LGHR&DPHUD
4.4 Fragmentation analysis 4.5 Role of scattering in pyrotechnic delays on
rock fragmentation
The fragmentation achieved from experimental
trial blasts showed different results. The frag- The effect of delay time on fragmentation has
mentation achieved from blasts was excellent been discussed for a long period and despite the
and the muck piles were properly distributed efforts of many researchers, delay selection for
for loading. The fragment size analyses were fragmentation improvement or optimization
carried out with the help of Wipfrag software. remains a controversial issue. Katsabanis and
The output of the analyses are in the form of Omidi (2015) based on small-scale tests sug-
number of exposed fragmented blocks, maxi- gest that there is influence of delay time on the
mum, minimum and mean size of the fragment- larger sizes of blast induced fragmentation as
ed blocks, sieve analysis as per the requirement well as on the uniformity of the fragmentation.
i.e. at different percentile size viz. D10, D25, Ouchterlony et al. (2015) experimented and
D50, D75 and D90. (Percentile sizes: for exam- compared the results for the electronic delay
ple D10 is the ten-percentile, the value for detonator rounds, which had nearly the same
which 10% by weight of the sample is finer and drilling and charging pattern as the Nonel
90% coarser. Five to ten photographs of muck rounds with normal specific charge show that
pile were taken and analyzed after each blast. the initiation scatter and possibly the delay mal-
The Netting, contouring, histogram and cumu- functioning may have a considerable effect on
lative size curve view of fragmented block at the blast fragmentation. In the present scenario,
the dragline bench is depicted in Figure14. the scattering in Nonel delay detonators (pyro-
technic delay) is very serious issue. The result
of these delay detonators on fragmentation can
better be understand by recording the actual
detonation timing of these delay detonators.
The analyses of recorded data reveal that al-
most all delay detonators have scattering. The
scattering was observed in both ways, i.e. ‘+’ve
and ‘–‘ve side of the nominal firing times. The
graphical presentation of the recorded scatter-
ing in firing time of Nonel delay detonators and
cord relay is depicted in Figure 15 and Figure
16 respectively.
)LJXUH 1HWWLQJ FRQWRXULQJ FXPXODWLYH
DQGKLVWRJUDPVL]HFXUYHYLHZRI
IUDJPHQWHG EORFN DW GUDJOLQH
EHQFK
711
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
x The blast vibrations recorded at the point of
concern are well within the safe limits as
per the stipulated guidelines of regulatory
agency i.e. below 5 mm/s and 10 mm/s for
the houses of structures not belonging and
belonging to the owner respectively. The
recorded frequency range was between 2.5
and 23.2 Hz.
x The recorded in-the-hole VOD of SME Ex-
plosives of used at the mine site was in the
)LJXUH 3ORW RI UHFRUGHG SHUFHQWDJH range of 4690 m/s to 5545 m/s. To get de-
RIVFDWWHULQJLQ1RQHO'HOD\'HW sired level of fragmentation, VOD of SME
RQDWRUV explosives of more than 4800 m/s is re-
quired and the sleeping time should be re-
stricted to one week for achieving efficient
utilization of explosive energy in rock
fragmentation.
x Decking size and its location have been de-
cided based on the occurrence of generation
of the boulders from the top portion of the
bench and their sizes were kept within 12 to
17 times of drill diameter.
x On the basis of trial blast results, it has been
advised to avoid multiple point priming and
placement of the booster at one location for
)LJXUH 3ORW RI UHFRUGHG SHUFHQWDJH
an explosive column length of 8-10 m.
RIVFDWWHULQJLQFRUGUHOD\
x Blast wave simulation analysis of signature
&21&/86,216 blast waves was performed for different
benches. The recommended delay interval
Optimum blasting should comprise the optimi- between the holes for dragline bench blast
zation of blast design parameters for stable high is 48 ms and may be used as per the blast
dragline bench wall, generation of required wave signature blast and whereas between
fragment size distribution with suitable muck the rows it should be in multiple of 120ms
pile optimal for loading, as it may improve the i.e. 60ms, 90ms, 120ms, 125ms, 150ms and
downstream operations. The main conclusions 180ms may be used in order to improve
of the study are as follows: fragmentation with lower level of vibration.
x The recorded scattering range of the Nonel
x The trial blasts conducted for establishing delay detonators were varied between 2 %
presplit blast design by using 25 kg SME and 37 %. High scattering value in the
bulk explosives in plastic bag (coupled) at Nonel detonator has affected the output of
an interval of 2 m up to a total depth of 24 fragmented as well as in muck pile for-
m (inclined at an 10o) along with stable hole mation.
depth (17 m) in which only 500 kg blast
was detonated for a dragline bench of 40 m
(hole depth 43 m) is pragmatic after analyz-
ing the blast result in terms of the half cast
factor.
712
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
5()(5(1&(6 Roy, M. P., Paswan, R. K., Sarim, M. D.,
Kumar, S., Singh, P. K. and Singh, V. K.
Calder, P. (1977) Perimeter blasting. Pit Slope (2017) Evaluation of the Effect of Ground
Manual, CANMET Report 77-14, Chap. 7, Vibration due to Dragline Bench Blasting on
82 pp. Adjacent Structures. International
Chiappetta, R. F. (1991) Pre-splitting and conference on NexGen Technologies for
controlled blasting techniques including air- Mining and Fuel Industries (NxGnMiFu-
decks and dimension stone criteria. Procs. 2017). February 15-17, 2017, Vigyan
Blast. Technology, Instrumentation and Bhawan, New Delhi, India. pp. 375-386.
Explosives Applications seminar, Chiappetta Sanden, B. H. (1974) Pre-Split Blasting, MSc.
RF (ed). San Diego, USA. Thesis. Mining Engineering Department,
Cunningham, C. V. B. and Goetzsche, A.F. Queen’s University, 125 pp.
(1990) The specification of blast damage Scott, A., Cocker, A., Djordjevic, N., Higgins,
limitations in tunnelling contracts. M., La Rosa, D., Sarma, K. S. and
Tunnelling and Underground Space Wedmaier, R. (1996) Open pit blasting
Technology, Vol. 5(3), pp. 193-198. design analysis and optimization. Andrew
Dunn, P. and Cocker, A. (1995) The design of Scott, editor. Published by JKMRC,
pre-split blasts. Proc. EXPLO’ 95 Queensland, Australia; pp. 214-243.
conference, Brisbane. pp. 307-314. Singh, P. K., Roy, M. P., Paswan, R. K., Sarim,
Engin, I. C. (2009) Practical method of bench M. D., Kumar, S and Jha, R. R. (2015) Rock
blasting design for gmendesired fratation fragmentation control in opencast blasting.
based on digital image processing technique Journal of rock mechanics and geotechnical
and Kuz-Ram model. Proceedings of 9th Int. engineering. Vol. 8(2): 225-237.
Symp. Rock Frag Blasting FRAGBLAST–9. Spathis, A.T. (2009) Formula and techniques
Granada, Spain, September 13-17, pp. 257- for assessing features of blast-induced
263. fragmentation distributions. Proceedings of
Katsabanis, P. D. and Omidi O. (2015) The the 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Frag. by Blast.
effect of delay time on fragmentation pp 209-219.
distribution through small- and medium- Tariq, S. M. and Worsey, P. N. (1996) An
scale testing and analysis. Proceedings of the investigation into the effect of varying joint
11th Int. Symp. on Rock Frag. by Blast. pp. aperture and natureof surface on pre-
715-720. splitting. In Proc. 12th Symp. Exp. Blas.
Lewandowski, T., Mai Luan, V. K. and Danell Research, pp. 186-195.
R. (1996) Influence of Discontinuities on Worsey, P. N., Farmer, I. W. and Matheson, G.
Prespilliting Effectiveness. In proc. 5th Int. D. (1981) The mechanics of pre-splitting in
Symp. Roc. frag. Blas., Montereal, Canada, discontinuous rock. Proceedings, 22nd U.S.
pp. 217-225. Roc. Mech. Symp., pp. 205-210.
Olofsson, S. O. (1998) Applied explosives
technology for construction and mining. A.
A. Balkema; pp. 183-186.
Ouchterlony, F., Nyberg, U., Olsson, M.,
Widenberg, K. and Svedensten, P. (2015)
Effects of Specific Charge and Electronic
Delay Detonators on Fragmentation in an
Aggregate Quarry–Building Fragmentation
Model Design Curves. Proceedings of the
11th Int. Symp. on Rock Frag. by Blast, pp
727-740.
Rinehart, J. S. (1964) Transient stress wave
boundary interactions. Stress Wave in
Anelatic Solids.. Kolsky H and Prager W
(eds). Springer-Verlag.
713
12th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå Sweden 11-13 June 2018
714
View publication stats