Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: R. Agne Rustan (1992) Burden, spacing and borehole diameter at rock blasting, International Journal of
Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 6:3, 141-149
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal ofSurface Mining and Reclamation 6( 1992): 141-149 141
ABSTRACT: Most text books on rock blasting claim that the relationship between burden and borehole diameter
is linear. The statistical calculation presented here with real values from one hundred open pit and
underground mines indicates that the relationship follows a power function. For underground mines the burdens
are consistently lower than those for open pit mines because of higher ore densities~ greater confinement
in blasting, and finally greater demand for well fragmented roc~. The results shown in this paper are
recommended to be considered in basic teaching of rock blasting technique. The formulas can be used for
a first rough estimation of practical burden and spacing. The formulas do not however give any information
about the fragmentation. For that purpose it is necessary to use other formulas not described in this paper.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 14:59 06 October 2013
Charge diameter
- Dp.nsJty of explosive
- ne t cne t Ion heat
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) made a similar Taylor
- Detonation velocity (De~ends partly on borehole diameter)
- Decoupling ratio series development like Belidor,
Spec i f t c charge
Impedance ratio ot explosive to rock
(4)
Delay time
Scatter of delay in the detonator!"
Number of delays used, and the use of deck charges initiated
Three more terms were used. The value of the constants
on d I fferent delays
Sequence of initiation for Swedish hard rock are
RESULT PARAMETERS
Frngmenta t ion
leo = 0 k 1 =0.010 k 2 = 0.400
Throw
DJgobJ lity
k 3 =0.004 and finally k j =0
for i:?: 4.
The most important parameter is the borehole diameter. The values for the differenttenns at Bel respectively 10
(We anticipate that the decoupling ratio of the charge is m will be the following
I throughout this paper).
The next most important parameter is the texture and Bclm BclOm
structure of the rock mass.
When the borehole diameter is known the charge can be
k1 om 0,1
k 2 0.40 4.0
calculated according to the following equation.
k3 0.004 0.04
reason for this, (Langefors-Kihlstrorn, 1978) is that the Co = c + 0.07/8 for B:s; 1.4 m
specific surface area is increased at small burdens. At c = blastability factor (kgim 3) (Necessary powder fac-
very large burdens the powder factor increases because the tor to break but not throw the rock).
volume increases rapidly and more and more energy is f = confinement of the borehole
needed for the throw of the fragmented material. Sd = drilled spacing (m)
Bd = drilled burden (m)
3 EMPIRICAL FORMULAS TO CALCULATE WE
MAXIMUM BURDEN RELATED TO 1HE BORE- The relation between burden and borehole diameter in
HOLE DIAMETER formula (6) is linear.
The maximum possible variation range of the maximum
First the formulas presented in basic literature on rock
burden can be calculated if the minimum and maximum
blasting will be presented. All these formulas illustrate a
values for the parameters within the square root symbol
linear relation between burden and borehole diameter.
are known.
Later on a new formula indicating a non linear relationship
Let us anticipate the following maximum values; Pc =
will be shown.
1600 kgim 3, s = 1.0, Co = 0.42 kgim 3, f = 1.0 and SdlBd =
3.1 Linear formulas 8 and the following minimum values; Pc = 800 kgim 3, s =
0.85, Co = 0.34 kgim 3, f= 0.75 and SdlBd = 0.1.
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) have developed an
Maximum values in the numerator are combined with
empirical formula to calculate the maximum burden. The
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 14:59 06 October 2013
10
Powder factor (kg/m 3)
3,0
2,0
5
1,0
0,5
2 4 10 20 40 100
o 100 200 300 400
Borehole diameter (mm)
Burden (m) Fig 2. Relation between maximum burden (B m ) and bore-
Fig 1. Relation between burden and powder factor. hole diameter (d). Langefors and Kihlstrorn (1978), Ash
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978). (1963), and Konya (1968).
144
The Langefors-Kihlstrom formula could therefore be Ash (1968) presented an emperical formula by Konya
written, see also Fig 2. where the maximum burden is proportional to the
diameter of the borehole.
Bm=(14t076) d (7)
Bm = 38 d~ (11)
An even more simplified version of the Langefors and
Kihlstrtim formula can be achieved if we anticipate that Bm = maximum burden (m)
the density of the explosive in the borehole Pe = 1.0, the d = borehole diameter (m)
weight strength s = 1.0, the corrected blastibility factor Co Pe = density of the explosive (kg/m3)
= 0.44 and finally Sd"Bd= 1.0. Pr = density of the rock (kg/m 3)
practical burden which can only be calculated if the (1983) the latter especially for fragmentation. Research at
borehole deviations are known. Lulea University of Technology showed that the product
When using formula (6) for borehole diameters larger of rock density and P-wave velocity (the impedance) is
than 89 mm it can be shown that the calculated value very important for fragmentation and rock blastability.
deviates more and more from the actually burdens used in The inclusion of explosive density and rock density in
practice. The reason for this will be explained further on, the burden diameter blast formula by Konya can be
but before that, other empirical formulas for Bm versus d derived mathematically according to Rustan as follows,
shall be illustrated.
Pearse (1955) developed an empirical linear formula for
B m andd.
Q 1t
q =-= 2
tfflc
Pe
(12)
m Bpi HbPr
3.2 Maximum influence of explosive density and rock was not linear in open pit blasting. The following formula
density on the burden was derived by curve fitting.
Bm = (15 to 37) d (14) Usually the SIB ratio is equal to I for large borehole
diameters in open pit mines, but at borehole diameters less
than 100 mm, the SIB-ratio could vary between 1.5-2.0
This formula has been introduced into Fig 2 for and in extreme cases it could be as high as 8.
comparison with other linear relationships between burden
and borehole diameter.
If we anticipate common values for explosive density 4 POWER FORMULAS DERIVED BY STATISTICAL
and rock density, 1000 respectively 2800 kg/m 3, formula
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 14:59 06 October 2013
ANALYSIS
(II) can be simplified to
4.1 Underground magnetite mines in Sweden
(15)
To eleminate the influence of different rock densities,
values for borehole diameters and their respectively
3.3 Power formula developed for open pit mines
burdens were collected from magnetite orebodies at
Luossavaara-Kirunavaara AB (LKAB) and the Research
A diagram given in a brochure, from Atlas Copco showed
Mine at Luossavaara, see Table 2.
that the relation between burden and borehole diameter
The following formula was derived for the values given in
Burden (m) Table 2.
5
Table 2 Relation between practical burden and borehole
diameter when blasting in Swedish magnetite ore. Density
- 4800kg/m 3
fragmentation should be fine in underground blasting. This means that the best approximation of a Taylor
Another reason could be that the borehole length is series fit was
comparatively long compared to surface mines and hole
deviations have to be compensated by decreased practical (20)
burden.
Almgren and K1ippmark (1981) showed for example that However a power curve fit, see Fig 4, gave an even higher
drillhole deviations could cause additional costs for ore correlation coefficient and therefore the Taylor approxi-
losses and waste rock dilution when mining narrow mation formula 20 was not used.
orebodies. These costs might be as large as the operating
cost for sublevel stoping in large orebodies. B 1= 23.4 d O.855 +53 % Expected maximum (21)
Another reason is, that the boreholes can not be drilled p -33 % and minimum value
parallel underground, because the drilling drifts are too
narrow and the pillars between the drilling drifts too wide. Correlation coefficient R = 0.90
Only at the bottom of the borehole sufficient burden and
In Fig 4 each single value is evenly distributed above
spacings are achieved.
and below the power curve fit. Comparison is made to the
Langefors and Kihlstrom formula B m = 46 d.
4.2 Statistical derivation of formula for practical burden
Almost all values are below the Langefors and
(Bpi)
Kihlstriim curve for average Swedish rock. This means
that the Langefors and Kihlstrom curve is not valid for
The values used to derive formula (17) were very few,
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 14:59 06 October 2013
A Taylor series fit was done for the relation between Bpi
and d according to the following equation
thinner pillars between the drifts to be able to give the 4.4 Statistical formula for underground mines (d = 48-165
boreholes a sufficient burden and spacing. Normally mm)
however it is not possible to increase the width of the drift
and decrease the width of the pillar due to the stability of The data from the 200 mm borehole diameter was
the drifts. neglected because they deviated very much from the gen-
There are however two underground mines, Mount Isa eral trend. It is also known that these large borehole
and Kidd Creek, using 90 m long and 700 mm diameter diameters can cause damage underground, and vibration
blastholes underground where the mean value for the restrictions on the surface might make it difficult to use
practical burden is very close to the regression line. This these borehole diameters in the future.
might imply a rational mining or the fragmentation may be
too large. The 200 mm boreholes were drilled with the rotary
crushing drilling technique. This method gives smaller
Fig 4 also shows that almost all underground values are borehole deviations. That could be one of the explana-
below the regression line. It was therefore necessary to tions why these borehole diameters can break a
separate data from underground mines from open pit data comparatively large area compared to the 165 mm
and make a regression analysis for each of them. boreholes. The latter borehole diameters are usually
drilled with the in the hole hammer technique.
4.3 Statistical formula for open pit mines (d = 89-381 mm) In Fig 5 the relation between practical burden and the
borehole diameter for underground mines is,
The following formula was derived for open pit mines.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 14:59 06 October 2013
~
formula, one for open pit mines (22), and one for
underground mines (23). Bpi = k2 dO.630 underground mines (25)
The basic formulas given in rock blasting text books are
recommended to be revised according to this information,
Other parameters like rock texture and structure are more
The reason why the underground formula is different
difficult to include in the formula, To include these
from the open pit formula might be
parameters it is necessary to undertake detailed structure
and strength analysis of the rock mass in many operations.
,.. Larger confinement of the boreholes underground.
,.. Cautious blasting has to be undertaken close to the
hanging- and footwall underground. 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
,.. The borehole length is larger underground and the
borehole deviations have to be compensated for a smaller Lulea University of Technology is thanked for its financial
burden and spacing. In open pit mines all boreholes can support of this study and Prof. G. Almgren and MSc M.
be drilled parallel to each other and the borehole deviation Kuchta for their good comments during the work. The
are small at large diameters. The bench height is generally doctorial students H. Wirstam and A. Mansson are also
only 15-20 m. thanked for their kind help in doing the statistical
computer analysis.
One reason that the relationship for open pit mines is not
linear is that when the borehole diameter is increased the
bench height is not scaled up, and for large drill hole REFERENCES
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 14:59 06 October 2013
~
Almquist and Wiksell.
Bpi = k l . dO.689 open pit mining (24) Leins, W., Thurn, W. 1970. Ermittlung und Beurleitung
der Sprengarbeit von Gestein auf der Grundlage des
149
Steep Rock
5
5
5
Non 'e ore 219
Waste 2 J9
"9 .. ,
10.0
J1.3
10.0
11.3
~.5
100.00
J27.60
23.65
)0.00
) 1. 30
4.86
specific charge (powder factor), geometric scale and
physical properties of homogeneous rock on frag-
(Can)
CirJtfHh (CanJS
S
Waste
We.Urob (Can) S Waste
5 Ore
229
229
229
"9
..... ,
S.'
7.S
6.'
7.6
...9
4.3
40.96
57.76
21.07
18.49
6."0
1. 60
4.69
'.30
mentation by blasting. First Internat. Symp. on Rock Ca.alar teen} S
ClJnton (Canl S
Asbestos
Aabe.toa
279
220
S.l 6.1
5.5
37.21
30.25
6.10
5.50
'.S
Fragmentation by Blasting, Aug. 22-26, Lulea, Sweden. Savaoe RIver S Fe 220 8.0 8.0 4e.00 6.92
ITanlanlen)
Rustan, A., 1981. Factors influencing fragmentation at AnvU ICan) 5 Non Fe are 229 8.1 6.1 37.21 6.10
5 Waste 729 7.0 7.0 49.00 7.00
blasting, Literature review. Lulea University of BrunswJc1c 5 Non Fe 229 8.1 6, ) 31.2) 6.10
(Can)
Technology, Technical report No. 1981:38 T. (In
Swedish).
[eatell (Can) S
Pho~nllt ICan) S
Cranlale ICanlS
Non Fe ore 229
Non r e ore 729
Non r. 229 ...,.,
8.7
'.9
8.5
4.9
9.1
56.95
24.0)
.'.!o3
1. 55
".90
".89
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 14:59 06 October 2013
Cla.rabelle-
S
S Mon Fe are 229
"9 s, ,
11.0
9.7
60.50
DO.'"
1.78
1.10
(Can)
Enda1co (Canl
S
S Hon Fe
".
or. 229
8.1
S.l
6.1
6.7
37.21
"0,87
6.10
6. "
AHUt ISw) S Cu. Au 251 7.8 9.5 71.2& 8.44
GrUtHh ICan)S Ore 251 7.' 7.9 62,41 7.90
Appendix I. scnerreevrrre S Ore 251 8.' 8.2 67.24 8.20
(Can'
Canada 5 Hard .10101'- 251 7.0 7.0 49.00 7.00
cant Fe
Carol (Can) 5 Ore :151 7.3 7.3 63.29 7.30
Table 3. Drilling dam used for determination of the relation 5 Waste 251 7.8 7.6 51.76 7.60
5 Ore 251 8.7 1.3 48.91 6.89
between burden, spacing and borehole diameter S Ore 251 7.0 7.6 53.20 7.29
5 Waste 251 S.7 7.3 48.91 6.89
5 Wast!!! 251 7.8 8.2 62.32 7 .119
Hooae MountainS Ore 251 8.1 8.1 65.61 8.10
type Ore-type Hol. Pract. Pract. Bro- Pract. (Can) 5 Waste 251 8.' 8.2 67.24 8.20
7.9 8.7&
dlame-
t.r
burden hole
dist.
k.n
area
burden
IS/B-l)
Wabuah (Can) 5
CJJnton (Can) 5 Waste '"
251 8.1
7.9
9.7
15.1
16.63
37.21 6 .10
9.02
e
("'1 ~g, ('~I ~gl Bethlehe. S Non Fe '"
251 S.l
10.3
6.1
81.37
37.21 6.10
Norway
)foTway
LKAB (Sw)
Ug
Up
U9 MagnetHe
.8
51
52
].1
1.8
1.8
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.55
3.60
... 50
1. 60
1. 90
2.12
ICen)
EcsulJ (Canl S
Ga.pe (Can)
Dibraltar
(Canl
S
S
Non Fe 251
'"
'"
...
S.7
S.7
.5
.7
7
56.95
.7.63
. . . 89
Norway Ug 62 2.0 2.4 LBO 2.19
Horway Ug 61 2.0 2.0 ".00 2.00 PJpe Lake S acn Fe 251 7.0 .0 49 00 1.00
vr ee er r e A8 Ug CU 10 1.8 1.8 3.2" 1. 80 (Can)
(Sw) Shdl1cameen S Non Pe 251 8.7 (,.7 ".99 e . 70
LKAB (Sw) Og Magnetite 76 2.6 2.1 5.2& 2.29 (Can)
SSAB/Grangea tJg MagnetS t e 76 2.1 L8 3.18 ].9 .. Brenda (Can) 5 251 7.9 9.7 76.63 8.7&
tSw) Toa Price (Au) 5 Fe 300 8.0 Il.O 64,00 8.00
vr ee er r e AS 09 Cu 89 2.3 2.3 5.29 2.30 Mount Iaa IAu)S 310 9.0 104 93.60 9.67
Canada S nard. 10101'- 311 7.9 7. g 62 .fi1 7.90
IS"')
Tun08ten (CaniS Non Fe ore 89 2.1 2.1 4.41 2.10 cont Pe
Nordkalk "9 5 r.ree e rcne 96 2.5 ~.O 12.50 3.5 .. Sherman (Can) Fe-ore 311 8.' g.) 77.35 8.79
IS"'1 95 3.0 6.0 18.00 4.24 Wa.te 31J 8.' 9.1 77.35 8.79
Vhcar1a AS UQ Cu 104 3.0 3.0 9.00 3.00 Cartier (Can) Fe-ore 311 S 8.8 56.32 7.50
(SM) Waste 3)) 9. I 9.. 85.5. 0.26
LKAB (Sw) Ug- M39netHe 104 2.' 2.5 6.25 2.50 Toa Price IAulS ,. 360 8.0 8.0 64.00 8.00
B-C (Can) S Asbestoa 104 3.7 4.6 17.02 ... 13 Hount Wha]e- S Fe 380 10.0 11.0 170.00 13.04
It-B tcent S 104 e. 6 ".6 2L16 01.60 back (Au)
Jeffrey (Can) S 104 3.7 e.6 17.02 ... 13 Canada Hard. 10W'- 38) 9.1 9.1 02.0) 9.10
Carey tCan) S 104 4.0 ... 9 19.60 4.43 cant Pe
GullhOgen ISwjS LIDPstone 10~ 4.0 4.0 16.00 01.00
Mount r ee {Au)Ug Pb 11~ 3.0 4.5 13.~0 3.n Abbreviation. uaed:
Plnp Point S Non FI! ore 121 ... 6 ".6 21.16 '.60
fCan}
Reeves fCan) S aebe e t ce 127 4.3 5.~ 23.65 4.86
S - Surtace Au Auetra11a H Norway
U~ Underground Can Canada Sw Sweden
NaUonal (Can)S Asbe!ltos 127 01.3 4.9 21.07 4.59
Zink Corp (Au)Ug Pb. Zn 159 2.0 8.0 16.00 . 00
B-C fCan) S Asbt-Sto5 159 5.5 6.7 36.85 6.07
NOTlftandh: S Asbestos 159 6.1 6.7 40.87 6.39
ICan)
t.ces eeveer-e Uc;;r Mac;;rn~tHe 165 .3 3. ) 2 . 21 3.49
Rl!searchmlne
15w)
Cobar (Au) Ug Cu. Pb . Zn 165 4.0 e .c 1': .00 . oc
Copppr Cliff Og Nl. Cu 165 4.0 '.0 H.OO ".00
(Canl
Little StobIe Og Nl. Cu 165 3.7 3.7 13.69 3.70
ICan)
Lockprby ICanlUg Ni, Cu 16~ 3.3
Broken Hill
(Aul
tac Tl0 (Can)
Ug Pb.
Waste
Or.
Zn
'"
'"
JS,
.....,.,, . 0
,.,
S.'
14.00
29.H
22.36
3.14
5.43
... 73