Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Intact rock properties and the discontinuity structure of a rock mass are among the most important variables in¯uencing
blasting results. This in¯uence is considered to be a composite intrinsic property of a rock mass and is referred to as the
blastability of a rock mass. It represents the ease with which a rock mass can be fragmented by blasting. This paper outlines an
energy-block-transition model, recently proposed by the authors for characterising the blast process. A preliminary validation of
this model using two sets of ®eld data from the literature is brie¯y outlined. The model is comparable or better than Bond's
comminution theory at predicting blasting results for cases where intrinsic rock properties are relatively constant. To generate a
predictive capability for the model, a blastability designation BD, is designed which re¯ects the intrinsic resistance of the rock
mass to blasting. The quanti®cation of BD, based on rock engineering systems approaches and consideration of a
comprehensive range of intact rock properties and discontinuity structures is illustrated. A case study is given which applies the
model and the associated assessment system to a highway cutting site. Con®dence as to the potential value of the assessment
system and the model is obtained since re®nement and improvement on pre-existing models can be seen from the new
preliminary results. # 1999. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction eect, until recent times, has been that blasting design
has relied on rules of thumb obtained by precedent
Blasting is the most frequently used means for quar- practice [10]. The failure to promote blast design tools
rying, mining and highway rock excavation. A blasting beyond rules of thumb might have resulted from the
operation can be comprehensively described by: intact fact that the in¯uence of in-situ rock properties, dis-
rock and rock mass properties (the concern of this continuity structures and their interactions are often
paper), explosive properties, blasting geometry or pat- too dicult to be quantitatively isolated and identi®ed.
tern and initiation sequences, etc. The rock engineering systems methodology developed
The in¯uence of intact rock and rock mass proper- by Hudson [18], aims to provide both a useful check-
ties on blasting operations has long been studied [1± list for the in¯uential factors of rock engineering pro-
12]. This in¯uence has been mentioned and incorpor- jects and a logical framework for the complete design
ated in various ways, such as Bond's work index [13], procedure. As such, it has potential for coping with
Hino's blastability coecient [14], rock factor [15] and complex rock engineering problems, such as the re-
blastability index [16]. However, little attempt has been sponse to blasting.
made to develop a quantitative parameter or system to It was noted from ®ndings reported by dierent
de®ne the ease of fragmentation of rock by blasting, in researches [4±6, 16, 19] and the present authors [9, 20±
spite of the fact that this kind of development was 22] that in-situ rock mass properties are among the
suggested long ago [2] and was recently most important contributory factors in fragmentation
reemphasised [10, 17]. and that the characterisation of the blastability has
Selecting one or more parameters for the rock prop- become a pressing task for blasting operations. It was
erties that will re¯ect the resistance of the rock mass to also found that a coherent but essentially empirical
fragmentation by blasting has been a major obstacle to rock blastability system which incorporates the mech-
the description of the ease of fragmentation. The anical properties of a rock mass, the in-situ block size
0148-9062/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 9 0 6 2 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 7 5 - 2
42 J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55
indicates that in general, the energy consumed in size block sizes, characterised by the mean block size Sai, is
reduction is inversely proportional to the objective size transformed into blasted blocks with small block sizes
raised to some power. Based on the above working hy- characterised by the mean block size Sab. The larger
pothesis and the de®nition of Xo, the following re- the value of Bi of a rock mass, the easier it can be
lationship is proposed by Lu [22, 23], fragmented by a given energy input for blasting.
Eqs. (4a)±(b) indicate that a rock mass with a larger Bi
DA
Es A :
1 will be easier to break down to small blocks than a
X 1=2
o rock with a lower Bi. That is, the larger the Bi, the
greater the blastability.
Detailed derivations of DA and Xo are given
elsewhere [22, 23]. They yield the following results: 2.2. Preliminary examination of the energy-block-
DA Sai ÿ Sab
2a transition model
Table 1
Comparison between the relative dispersion of the E-B-T coecient, Bi and that of Bond's work index, Ec for the blast results for two case stu-
dies from the literature
Case E-B-T coecient Bi (m0.5/kWh/t) Bond's work index Ec (kWh/t) Blast rounds
Sandside quarry* 40.38 (4.56) 16.88 (2.14) 42.73 (30.08) 16.72 (16.23) 4 (3)
ENUSA Mine 86.57 32.72 106.18 47.06 5
Reocin Mine 31.72 12.40 58.90 23.85 4
q
Pn 2
Dmax = Xmax ÿ Xmin; and s= j
Xj ÿ Xa =N. *For the Sandside quarry case, ®gures in brackets are the outcome excluding the ®rst of
the four blast rounds. This data trimming may be justi®ed on grounds that there existed a signi®cant dierence in the stemming length, decking
and distribution of explosives between the ®rst and the other three blast rounds.
examination results are brie¯y described below and the the rock mass of interest. It will be most advantageous
details can be referred to elsewhere [22, 23]. for the coecient Bi to be determined before blasting
The ®rst case study cited is the work reported by in order to help with the blast design of an excavation
Wang [27], in which ®ve rounds of full scale blast trials operation. Without any realistic chance in the short
were carried out at the Sandside limestone quarry term of a practical analytical solution to de®ne the
located in Cumbria, England. The information about value of Bi for a given rock mass as a function of ma-
IBSD, BBSD, explosive energy input and blasting pat- terial properties, the development of a comprehensive
terns were either given or can be derived. Four out of assessment system for quantifying the blastability of
®ve blast rounds provide a data set of full-scale blast- rock masses would appear to have great potential. The
ing parameters with approximately the same geological objective would then be to have a method for deter-
in-situ conditions, but with dierences in both blasting mining the value of Bi from results derived from the
patterns and energy input. The second case cited is the assessment system.
work reported by Aler et al. [28, 29], in which the as- In reviewing the blasting practices and literature
sociated data input from production blasts carried out published [2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14±17, 30±36] it is obvious that
in two mines were provided. Two groups of data, one many factors can aect the blastability of rock masses.
from Bench 4 in ENUSA mine and another from These cited factors consist of a wide, possibly compre-
Bench 3 in Reocin Open Pit are used for checking the hensive range of intact rock properties and discontinu-
validity of the E-B-T model. ity structures, each of which in¯uences the blasting
The E-B-T coecients Bi and the Bond work indices result to a varying degree. The blastability of the rock
Ec were calculated and the relative dispersions were mass is therefore considered to be a composite intrinsic
analysed and summarised as shown in Table 1. It is property of the rock mass.
seen from Table 1 that both the coecient of variation The factors in¯uencing blasting results fall into two
and the value of Dmax/M for Bi are signi®cantly lower groups. The ®rst group is the intact rock properties,
than for Ec. This indicates that Bond's work index, Ec which includes strength, hardness, elasticity, deform-
deviates more from a constant than the E-B-T coe- ability, density of rock, etc. They are dependent upon
cient Bi and suggests that the E-B-T model gives a clo- rock texture, internal bonds, composition and distri-
ser ®t to the blast data than the alternative Bond's bution of minerals forming the rock. The second
model. group is the discontinuity structure that consists of
Thus, although further examinations of the applica- orientation, spacing and extent of discontinuities, and
bility of the E-B-T model to practical blasting oper- the in-situ block sizes, created by a range of long-term
ations are desirable, the attempted validation of the geological processes.
model using the above two cases provides sucient The problem of obtaining a satisfactory measure of
encouragement to examine further the E-B-T model blastability from an assessment of numerous poten-
and ways of quantifying Bi for dierent rock masses. tially in¯uential factors has at least three features
which have often been neglected in early attempts to
investigate blastability. One is the interactions between
3. Factors in¯uencing blastability of rock masses factors. Another is the degree of in¯uence (or the
weighing) to be attributed to each factor or coupled
As shown above, the E-B-T coecient Bi, is a quan- factors. A third is the need to treat subjective data, a
titative measure of the blastability of a rock mass. To situation often encountered in geotechnical engineering
apply the E-B-T model to a practical blasting oper- with systems of soils, rocks, ¯uids and discontinuities.
ation requires prior knowledge of the Bi coecient for Because of the complexity of the geotechnical system,
J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55 45
it is often necessary to take advantage of all available could provide a better alternative assessment of blast-
data, whether it is objective observation, practical ex- ability.
perience or subjective data based on combinations of
observation, practical experience and engineering jud-
gement. The degree of in¯uence of individual factors 4. Development of an assessment system of blastability
upon each other and upon the blastability is often
expressed in terms of ``strong'', ``fair'' and ``weak'', 4.1. Rock engineering systems and interaction matrix
and it is important to be able to integrate such valu-
able knowledge. 4.1.1. Rock engineering systems
While uniaxial compressive strength might be an im- The rock engineering system (RES) aims to provide
portant indicator of the blastability of a rock, several a useful checklist for a rock engineering project. More
others such as sonic velocity or joint spacing might be importantly, it also aims to provide a framework from
of equal or greater importance, especially when which the complete design procedure can be evaluated,
coupled in a certain way. It is perhaps now more leading a rock engineering project to an optimal result.
apparent, considering the three factors mentioned An RES description of the overall interactive mechan-
above, why blastability assessment presents such a isms in rock blasting operations appears to be a prom-
challenge. ising basis for an approach to blastability assessment
The development of rock blasting has a relatively problems.
short but signi®cant history [8] and the advent of rock The RES approach contains a very useful procedure
mass classi®cation systems [37, 38] has made signi®cant for devising a rock mass classi®cation scheme for any
impacts on the assessment of rock mass quality. rock engineering project. In a rock mass classi®cation
However, a generic methodology for the appraisal of scheme, a single parameter is required to comprehen-
the blastability of a rock mass encountering a standard sively characterise the quality of any rock mass for a
blasting operation remains lacking. One of the reasons given engineering project that is to take place within
has been both the diversity of factors in¯uencing the the rock mass. According to the RES approach, all
blastability of rock and the complexity of the associ- possible rock mass classi®cation schemes can be rep-
ated representation of all the in¯uences of the various resented by a function of the leading diagonal par-
factors and the interactive mechanisms between them. ameter values of an interaction matrix. The selection
Another has been the temptation to include controlla- of the parameters and the de®nition of the weighting
ble factors relating to blast design within the scope of of each parameter in a classi®cation system can be
the term blastability [10, 17] and this has led to a more made through the coding of the interaction matrix fol-
confused approach than one which retains the term for lowing a rational procedure. This coding is crucial to
intrinsic rock mass properties. the applicability of the equation in the classi®cation
Several questions then remain. Of the many dierent scheme. The RES approach has been applied to a
parameters thought to be important, how can dupli- number of rock engineering ®elds, for example, the
cation of similar parameters and the over-in¯uence of assessment of stability of underground excavations [39],
minor parameters be avoided? How would all import- hazard and risk assessment of rockfall [40] and rock
ant factors which cannot be easily expressed with mass characterisation for indicating natural slope
objective measurements be taken into account? How instability [41]. The approach forms one key stage in
can the interactions between the individual contribu- establishing the blastability system.
tory factors be described and presented? It is quite dif-
®cult to answer these without recourse to novel 4.1.2. The interaction matrix and its coding
methodologies. The new methodologies need to pro- In the RES approach to rock engineering, the inter-
vide a basic analytical tool and a presentational tech- action matrix device [18] is both the basic analytical
nique for characterising all relevant factors and tool and a presentational technique for characterising
interaction mechanisms and then to tailor the quanti- the important parameters and the interaction mechan-
tative use of parameters to tackle the complexity of isms in a rock engineering system. In the interaction
blastability assessment. Rock engineering systems matrix for a rock engineering system (e.g. a blastability
methodology [18] was introduced in response to the system), all factors (or parameters) in¯uencing the sys-
need for an ``all-encompassing'' procedural technique tem are arranged along the leading diagonal of the
to approach increasingly complex rock engineering matrix, called the diagonal terms. The in¯uence of
problems, and this appears to be one promising avenue each individual factor (or parameter) on any other fac-
for the development of a blastability assessment sys- tor (or parameter) is accounted for at the correspond-
tem. It is dicult to imagine the practical data acqui- ing o-diagonal position, and these are named the o-
sition of suciently complete data set from which diagonal terms. The o-diagonal terms, are assigned
conventional, e.g. multivariate statistical approaches values which describe the degree of the in¯uence of
46 J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55
Fig. 2. Illustration of the interaction matrix in RES (from Hudson [18]) (a) Interaction matrix of two factors, (b) general illustration of the cod-
ing of interaction matrix and the set-up of the cause and eect coordinates.
one factor (or parameter) on the other factor (or par- and the sum of a column is the ``eect'' value, desig-
ameter). Assigning these values is called coding the nated as coordinates (C, E) for a particular factor. C
matrix. A problem containing only two factors is the represents the way in which Pi aects the rest of the
simplest example of the interaction matrix, as shown system and E represents the eect that the rest of the
in Fig. 2(a). system has on Pi. The coordinate values for each fac-
A general illustration of the coding of interaction tor can be plotted in cause and eect space, forming a
matrix is shown in Fig. 2(b). The row passing through so-called C±E Plot [18]. After obtaining the C±E plot
Pi represents the in¯uence of Pi on all the other factors for a system, an equation de®ning a classi®cation
in the system, while the column through Pi represents index that takes into account key contribution factors
the in¯uence of the other factors, or the rest of the sys- can be developed. These stages are shown in Figs. 3
tem, on the Pi. Several procedures have been proposed and 4.
for numerically coding this matrix, for example, the 0± In principal, there is no limit to the number of fac-
1 binary and the expert semiquantitative (ESQ) tors (or parameters) that may be included in an inter-
method [18] and the continuous quantitative coding action matrix, although the number of factors (or
(CQC) method [42]. After coding the matrix by insert- parameters) needed to solve a practical engineering
ing the appropriate values for each cell of the matrix, problem are ®nite. A problem which includes n factors
the sum of each row and of each column can be calcu- (or parameters) will have an interaction matrix with n
lated. The sum of a row is termed the ``cause'' value rows and n columns, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
Fig. 3. Developing a rock engineering classi®cation system by means of the interaction matrix (from Hudson [18]). (a) forming the ordered histo-
gram, (b) formulating the rock classi®cation index.
J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55 47
Fig. 4. Illustration of the interaction matrix coding results. (a) Coding values, (b) the C±E plot and (c) the ordered histogram (see Section 4.2).
4.2. Formulating the blastability assessment parameter'' column in Table 2). The factors and their
depicting parameters are listed below:
We now return to the development of a blastability
system. Firstly, we select the factors in¯uencing the P1 Strength, represented by uniaxial compression
blastability. Identi®cation of relevant factors can be strength (UCS) of intact rock or point-load
obtained from an extensive review of literature on strength index (PLI);
blasting (e.g. see references listed in Section 4.1.2) com- P2 Resistance to fracturing, represented by the uni-
bined with the authors' experience and judgement. The axial tensile strength (UTS);
following 12 factors (see the ``factors aecting blast- P3 Sturdiness, represented by density of rock (r);
ability'' column in Table 2) were chosen as the basic P4 Elasticity, represented by static or dynamic mod-
ones to be considered in establishing a blastability ulus of rock (E);
classi®cation system for a general site, i.e. these 12 fac- P5 Resistance of rock to dynamic loading, rep-
tors were chosen as the diagonal terms in the inter- resented by P-wave velocity (Vp);
action matrix used to establish the blastability system. P6 Hardness of rock, represented by Schmidt ham-
The matrix might be coded by means of subjective jud- mer rebound value (SHV);
gement and experience or objective measurements, or P7 Deformability, represented by Poisson's ratio (m);
both. However, relating to each of these 12 factors, P8 Resistance of rock to breaking, represented by
one (or two) measurable parameter(s) that can, to fracture toughness of rock (KIc);
some extent, depict the factor's in¯uence at a given P9 In-situ block size of rock mass, represented by
site, has been used as the diagonal term to represent mean in-situ block size (MIBS) or principal mean
this factor in the interaction matrix (see the ``depicting spacing (PMS);
48 J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55
Table 2
Suggested quantitative indications for the classi®cation of the blastability of a rock mass associated with individual factor [22]
P10 Fragility of rock mass, represented by fractal factors to be included, it may not be possible to ®nd
dimension of in-situ block sizes (D); measurable parameters that fully quantify each factor.
P11 Integrity of rock mass, represented by the wave However, to simplify the system to manageable and
velocity ratio, Rv (the ratio of P-wave velocity in relatively easily obtained ®eld parameters, the set of
the ®eld to that for the laboratory-size specimen), depicting parameters above were chosen.
or by RQD; Using either the ESQ or the CQC coding method,
P12 Discontinuity plane's strength, represented by the coding values, the C±E plot and the ordered histo-
cohesion, C, or friction angle, f of dominant set gram, all of which re¯ect the interaction intensity for
of discontinuities. each of the factors, can be obtained (see Fig. 4, which
is the result of a case study that is described in the
next section). It is important to bear in mind that the
Naturally, one can include more, such as the discon- coding values would probably vary according to dier-
tinuity orientation related to the face to be blasted. ent opinions from dierent researchers and ideally sev-
Bhandari [48] refers to his model experiments in which eral experts' opinions should be involved in the factor
fragmentation processes are shown in photographs to selection and coding process. The next stage after cod-
be dierent when dominant joint sets take the dierent ing is to calibrate the parameters with greatest inter-
orthogonal planes with respect to the blast face. Roy action intensity and contribution to the blastability of
and Dhar [49] go further and conclude that best frag- a rock mass based on the geological and geotechnical
mentation occurs when the dominant joint face strikes information.
at between 258 and 658 to the blast face. Making use of the ®ndings of blasting theory and
Quanti®cation and weighting of such an orientation practice, a quantitative list of classes of blastability
eect will require further research as the situation is connected to individual factors and their depicting par-
complex and is in¯uenced by the free face and thus the ameters is suggested in Table 2. This table is the basis
detonation sequence. Cunningham's algorithm [4, 5] for both rating the in¯uence of each parameter on the
for the rock factor A provides some general guidance blastability and obtaining the rating value used in
on likely degrees of in¯uence. Eq. (6) below. With reference to Table 2, continuous
Water content in the rock mass, joint aperture and rating charts corresponding to each single factor have
various other parameters could also be signi®cant vari- been created to help for borderline cases and also to
ables to take into account. Having chosen the various remove an impression that abrupt changes in ratings
J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55 49
Table 3
Blastability classi®cation according to the E-B-T coecient Bi and BD
Description of ease of blasting Very easy Easy Moderate Dicult Very dicult
Blastability class 1 2 3 4 5
Bi (m0.5/kWh/t) >40 20±40 13±20 8±13 <8
BD <0.25 0.25±0.50 0.50±0.70 0.70±0.85 >0.85
relating BD and A is therefore suggested as follows For the highway improvement, a new route nearly
600 m long was to be created in a deep cutting to be
A 13 BD:
8
excavated by blasting. The road cutting was divided
into berms, the depth of a berm was generally 4±6 m.
The examination of Eq. (8) will be described in At the time of the authors' site investigation, the cut-
Section 5. ting had been excavated down to the second berm and
there were one or two deeper berms to be cut. The
rock types at the site were seen to include siltstones,
sandstones, tutes, tus and limestones.
5. Blastability: a case study
5.2. Site investigation and data collection
The blastability assessment system developed above
has been applied to a case study that assesses the blast- The available data from the previous geological in-
ability of the rock mass at a highway improvement vestigations, possibly restricted by the limited ex-
cutting site in North Wales (hereafter referred to as posures, were inadequate to provide a satisfactory
the G cutting site). This application served as one of explanation for why a high percentage of blasting
the ®rst trials of the blastability system and it was failed to obtain satisfactory fragmentation. In order to
found to be useful, while investigating the reasons for provide an up-to-date assessment of blastability of
blasting problems encountered at the site. rock materials at the site, the authors undertook
further geological data acquisition. The investigation
5.1. Background of the case study carried out involved mapping discontinuities on var-
ious rock cuttings, taking photos of blasting results im-
The main concern in the case study was to identify mediately after blasting, performing on-site point load
the reasons for the high percentage of blasts which tests and Schmidt Hammer tests and collecting other
produced unsatisfactory fragmentation (i.e. excess associated geological and blast design data. A sketch
oversize). plan for the investigation, together with the positions
Fig. 7. A sketch plan for the geological investigation at the G cutting site showing locations of scanline mapping and intact rock samples.
J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55 51
Table 4
Blastability assessment of rock masses at the G cutting site
description unit S1 S2 S3
No. Pi value rating Wi*Ri value rating Wi*Ri value rating Wi*Ri
S4 S5 S6
description unit value rating Wi*Ri value rating Wi*Ri value rating Wi*Ri
of the scanline mapping, the point load tests and the samples, tests and experience. Due to a lack of com-
Schmidt Hammer tests is illustrated in Fig. 7. plete sets of test results, a number of empirical for-
mulae based on published correlation studies [43±46]
5.3. Blastability assessment have been used to derive missing parameters. The
results obtained from the site investigation showed the
With help from the resident engineers and consult- varying degrees of both mechanical properties and dis-
ants involved in the cutting, the interaction matrix of continuity structures from one place to another. This
the blastability system was coded using the CQC is re¯ected by the blastability assessment results, as
approach [42], and the coding results were obtained as shown in Table 4.
illustrated in Fig. 4. The data taken from the authors' site investigation
It is seen from Fig. 4 that the range in parameter in- and sampling based on six ®eld locations along the
teraction intensity is quite wide (refer to Fig. 9.6(b) cutting, when subjected to the blastability analysis,
in [18]). Thus, only those factors contributing to a yielded values of the blastability designation from
total of 72.5% of the a(C + E) in the ordered histo- 0.631 to 0.725 (i.e. Bi from 15.85 to 13.75 m1/2/kWh/t),
gram, that is, the eight parameters, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, as shown in Table 4. This indicated that the rock
P6, P9, P10 have been chosen as the main contributory masses in the highway cutting area belong basically to
factors of the blastability of the rock masses at the the border range between class 4 (dicult blasting)
site. The corresponding weights of the eight factors and class 3 (moderate blasting), see Table 3. Applying
were derived using the method illustrated in Fig. 4, the description terms to the BD results, this means
and they are listed in Table 4 (column Wi). Having that the rock masses are, in general, dicult or moder-
completed the ®rst stage, which is concerned with the ate to blast.
matrix coding and thus the parameter weighting, the The blastability of the rock mass at this site was
second stage is to obtain the actual results for each also assessed at three out of the six locations utilising
parameter (column value in Table 4) using ®eld only the previous geological information that was
52 J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55
Fig. 8. Comparison of BBSDs from the E-B-T model with alternative prediction methods. (a) 31/07/95 blast, (b) 03/08/95 blast.
available. The values of BD obtained were from 0.498 Ram model which can take advantage of the new
to 0.569, indicating that the values of BD belong to IBSD estimation procedure [6, 20], (iv) estimation
class 2 or the border range between class 2 and class 3 using the new E-B-T model and blastability assessment
(see Table 3). This suggests that the new ®eld test data and (v) an estimation of the BBSD primarily based on
has revealed that the rock mass is generally more di- the Kuz±Ram model but with a correction such that
cult to blast than might have been expected from the the rock factor in the Kuz±Ram model, A, is deter-
initial site investigation. mined by Eq. (8) (such a model is called the corrected
Kuz±Ram model).
5.4. Estimation of BBSD based on blastability A comparison of the BBSD results of two blasts,
assessment one carried out on July 31 and another on August 3,
1995, which considers the dierent estimation tech-
It is interesting to consider that the blastability niques mentioned above, is illustrated in Fig. 8. The
assessment results obtained above are re¯ected in the blast pattern data, the borehole parameters and the
actual blasting results which indicated by the BBSDs explosive details are summarised in Table 5. From
of the blastpiles obtained. To examine the BBSD at Fig. 8, the following important observations can be
the site, the following approaches will now be com- made.
pared: (i) direct assessment of the BBSD by the photo- The BBSD directly assessed using the photo-scanline
scanline method devised by the authors [47], (ii) esti- method appears to lie near the average of the predic-
mation using the previously published Kuz±Ram blast tions from the other four techniques. The BBSD pre-
design model [4] with no IBSD information needed, dictions from the Kuz±Ram and Bond±Ram models
(iii) estimation using the previously published Bond± form the far upper and far lower boundaries while
Table 5
Parameters associated with the predictions of BBSD
that from either the newly developed E-B-T model or the assessment system, it is possible to de®ne the value
the corrected Kuz±Ram model based on the blastabil- of Bi, and thereby use the E-B-T model as a blast de-
ity assessment is approximately in the middle of the sign tool.
range formed by BBSDs from the Kuz±Ram and the A sample of available data sets from the literature
Bond±Ram models. Also, the BBSD from the E-B-T suggests that the E-B-T model would generally give an
model and the corrected Kuz±Ram model are close to improvement in describing the energy±size reduction in
the BBSD assessed using the photo-scanline technique blasting compared with the Bond±Ram model. The
for the 03/08/95 blast. case study presented also suggests that the proposed
blastability assessment system and the associated E-B-
5.5. Discussion of case history T model represents a possible improvement on existing
models. The calculation of the rock factor A in the
It seems reasonable to assume that early blasting op- Kuz±Ram model based on the blastability assessment
erations at the site would have begun by taking instead of Cunningham's A also appears to give an
account of little more than geological data from the in- improvement in the accuracy of the Kuz±Ram
itial site investigation. But, it has been shown that the equation when applied to the case study data.
blastability designation based on rock mass data However the parameter set developed in the paper to
revealed during excavation is greater than that likely assesses blastability has yet to include the in¯uence of
to be estimated from the previously available data set. the dominant joint set orientation with respect to the
Furthermore, the variability of blastability might not free face.
have been previously recognised. Not taking account A well-developed model or system should be
of the variability in blastability probably contributed exposed to a variety of case study examinations with
to unsatisfactory blasting results in various places. A dierent geological conditions in order to achieve su-
possible opportunity to optimise is indicated by the cient con®dence for its use. This could be most e-
dierence between BD of 0.631 (site S6) and 0.725 ciently implemented by the setting up of a database
(site S3) (see Table 4) which would represent a clear with the full record of dierent in-situ geological con-
increase in speci®c charge required. ditions, blast patterns, explosive energy inputs and
directly assessed BBSD results. A series of model-scale
or full-scale trial blasts would be ideal for further vali-
6. Concluding remarks dation of the E-B-T model and the associated blast-
ability assessment. The relationship proposed between
The E-B-T model proposed for characterising blast- the E-B-T coecient and the blastability designation,
ability Ð the ease with which a rock mass can be frag- Eq. (7) has a comparatively poor level of con®dence
mented by blasting Ð has been outlined. The E-B-T and therefore further calibration is to be rec-
coecient Bi and E-B-T model have been proposed to ommended.
account for the eects that rock masses with dierent The blastability assessment system presented
blastability will have. includes a signi®cant amount of subjective criteria
Recognising that blastability is a composite intrinsic through the matrix coding procedure. Systems
property and that conventional approaches are not approaches such as the rock engineering systems and
well suited to characterising the blastability, a method- the grey systems [42] have been exploited to reduce the
ology for the assessment of blastability of rock masses ojectivity. Further investigations into how to more
using the rock engineering systems approach has been subjectively represent parameters of the blastability
developed in this paper. The methodology has system- system and how to more accurately code the inter-
atically taken into account twelve factors which a action mechanisms in the matrix are necessary for
review suggested would give a reasonably comprehen- improvement in the blastability assessment.
sive set of factors that in¯uence the blastability of a In this paper the energy input for the model has
rock mass. The contribution of each of these factors to only been related to uncontrollable factors governed
the blastability of the rock mass is identi®ed using in- by in-situ geological conditions and the term blastabil-
teraction matrix analysis, which is implemented by de- ity has been deliberately restricted to quantify this
riving a weighting for each factor. Combining the intrinsic resistance of the rock mass. In the companion
results from the interaction matrix analysis and the paper [23], it is brie¯y suggested that the controllable
ratings proposed in this research, the blastability of factors such as burden, spacing, delays, decoupling,
the rock mass may be represented quantitatively using etc. could be introduced into the E-B-T model through
the blastability designation, BD. A preliminary classi®- a composite coecient fc that regulates the eective-
cation for blastability of rock masses according to the ness of the input energy of explosives. The utility of
E-B-T coecient or the blastability designation has such an E-B-T model with or without fc remains some-
therefore been suggested. Using the BD derived from what speculative.
54 J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55
References [23] Lu P, Latham, J-P. A model for the transition of block sizes
during rock blasting. Int. J. Blast. Fragment., in press.
[1] Belland JM. Structure as a control in rock fragmentation. CIM [24] Charles RJ. Energy±size reduction relations in comminution.
1966;59:323±8. Trans. AIME 1957;208:80±8.
[2] Hagan TN, Just GD. Rock breakage by explosives: theory, [25] Schuhmann R, Jr. Energy input and size distribution in commi-
nution. Trans. Am. 1st Min. Metall. Petrol. Engrs. 1960;217:22±
practice and optimisation. In: Proc. 3rd Congr. ISRM. National
5.
Academy Sciences, Washington, DC, 1974;1(B):1349±1358.
[26] Nagahama H, Yoshii K. Fractal dimension and fracture of
[3] Yang Z-G, Rustan A. The in¯uence from primary structure on
brittle rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr.
fragmentation. In: Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Rock Fragmentation by
1993;30(2):173±5.
Blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 1983;581±603.
[27] Wang H. Predictions of in-situ and blastpile block size distri-
[4] Cunningham C. The Kuz±Ram model for prediction of frag-
butions of rock masses, with special reference to coastal require-
mentation from blasting. In: Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Rock
ments. Ph.D. thesis, Queen Mary and West®eld College,
Fragmentation by Blasting. Lulea, Sweden, 1983:439±453.
London University, 1992.
[5] Cunningham C. Fragmentation estimation and the Kuz±Ram
[28] Aler J, Du Mouza J, Arnould M. Measurement of the fragmen-
model: four years on. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Rock
tation eciency of rock mass blasting and its mining appli-
Fragmentation by Blasting. Colorado, U.S.A., 1987:475±487.
cations. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Geomech. Abstr.
[6] Da Gama CD. Use of comminution theory to predict fragmen-
1996;33(2):125±39.
tation of jointed rock mass subjected to blasting. In: Proc. 1st
[29] Aler J, Du Mouza J, Arnould M. Evaluation of blast fragmen-
Int. Symp. Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. Lulea, Sweden,
tation eciency and its prediction by multivariate analysis pro-
1983:563±579.
cedure. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Geomech. Abstr.
[7] Clarke GB. Principles of Rock Fragmentation. John Wiley,
1996;33(2):189±96.
New York, 1987.
[30] Franklin JA, Broch E, Walton G. Logging the mechanical char-
[8] Atlas Powder Company. Explosives and Rock blasting. Atlas
acter of rock. Trans. IMM 1971;A:1±9.
Powder Company, Texas, 1987.
[31] Fourney WL, Barker DB, Holloway DC. Fragmentation in
[9] Wang H, Latham J-P, Poole AB. Blasting design for armour- jointed rock materials. In: Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Rock
stone production. Quarry Management, 1991, part I (July), 17± Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 1983;505±531.
21; part II (Aug.), 19±22. [32] Rustan A, Vutukuri VS, Naarttijarvi T. The in¯uence from
[10] Scott A, Chitombo G, Kleine T. The challenge of the prediction speci®c charge, geometric scale and physical properties of hom-
and control of fragmentation in mining. In: Rossmanith editor, ogenous rock on fragmentation. In: Proc. Int. Symp. Rock
Proc. of the 4th Int. Symp. -FRAGBLAST-4. Balkema, Fragmentation by blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 1983;115±142.
Rotterdam, 1993:507±517. [33] Rorke AJ. A scienti®c approach to blast design. Quarry
[11] Singh DP, Sarma KS. In¯uence of joints on rock blasting: a Management. 1988;October:0±0.
model scale study. In: Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Rock Fragmentation [34] Stagg MS, Otterness RE, Siskind DE. Eects of blasting prac-
by Blasting, Lulea, Sweden, 1983:533±554. tice on fragmentation. In: Proc. 33rd U.S. Symp. Rock Mech.,
[12] Jimeno CL, Jimeno EL, Carcedo FJA. Drilling and blasting of Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992;313±322.
rocks. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1995. [35] Lizotte YC, Scoble MJ. Geological control over blast fragmen-
[13] Bond FC, Whittney BB. The work index in Blasting Quarterly tation. CIM Bull. 1994;87(983):57±71.
of the Colorado School of Mines 1959;54(3):77±82. [36] Matheson GD. Aspects of highway rock engineering in the
[14] Just GD. The application of size distribution equations to rock U.K. Engineering Geology of Construction, ed. M. Eddleston et
breakage by explosives. Rock Mech. 1973;5(3):151±62. al. Geol. Soc., London, 1995;169±187.
[15] Kuznetsov VM. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by [37] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classi®cation of jointed rock mass.
blasting rock. Soviet Mining Sci. 1973;9(2):144±8. Trans. S. Afr. ICE 1973;15:335±44.
[16] Lilly PA. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastabil- [38] Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classi®cation of rock
ity. In: Davidson editor. Large Open Pit Mining Conference, masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech.
AusIMM, Victoria, 1986;89±92. 1974;6(4):189±236.
[17] Franklin JA, Maerz, NH. Empirical design and rock mass [39] Lu P, Hudson JA. A fuzzy evaluation approach to the stability
characterisation. In: Franklin, Katsabanis, editors. of underground excavations. ISRM Symposium: EUROCK'93,
Measurement of Blast Fragmentation, Balkema, Rotterdam, ed. L Ribeiro e Sousa and NF Grossmann. Balkema,
1996. Rotterdam, 1993;615±622.
[18] Hudson JA. Rock Systems Engineering: Theory and Practice. [40] Cancelli I, Crosta G. Hazard and risk assessment in rockfall
Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1992. prone areas. In: Skipp B, editor. Risk and Reliability in Ground
[19] JKMRC. Advanced blasting technology. AMIRA P93D (1987± Engineering, Thomas Telford, London, 1993, pp. 177±190.
1990), ®nal report, JKMRC. University of Queensland, [41] Mazzoccola DF, Hudson JA. A comprehensive method of rock
Australia, 1991. mass characterisation for indicating natural slope instability.
[20] Wang H, Latham J-P, Matheson GD. Design of fragmentation QJEG 1996;29:37±56.
blasting in surface excavation. In: Hudson, editor. Rock [42] LuP, Latham J-P. A continuous quantitative coding approach
Characterisation, Thomas Telford, London, 1992;233±238. to the interaction matrix in rock engineering systems based on
[21] Lu P, Latham J-P. In-situ block size distribution prediction grey systems approaches. In: Proc. 7th Int. Cong. of IAEG.
with special reference to discontinuities with fractal spacing dis- Balkema, Rotterdam, 1994;4761±4770.
tribution. In: Proc. ISRM: EUROCK'96. Balkema, Rotterdam, [43] ISRM. Suggested method for determining point load strength.
1996;311±318. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Geomech. Abstr. 1985;22(2):53±60.
[22] Lu P. The characterisation and analysis of in-situ and blasted [44] Karpuz C, Pasamehmetoglu G, Bozdag T, MuÈftuÈoglu Y.
block size distribution and the blastability of rock masses. Rippability assessment in surface coal mining. In: Singhal RK,
Ph.D. thesis, Queen Mary and West®eld College, London Vavra M, editors. Mine Planning and Equipment Selection,
University, 1997. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1990;315±322.
J.-P. Latham, P. Lu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 41±55 55
[45] Sachpazis CI. Correlating Schmidt hardness with comprehensive with Ros±Ram and Schuhmann models. In: Proc. Int. Symp.
strength and Young's modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull. IAEG Mining Sci. Tech. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1996;683±688.
1990;42:75±83. [48] Bhandari S. Changes in fragmentation processes with blasting
[46] Xu S, Grasso P, Mahtab A. Use of Schmidt hammer for esti- conditions. In: Mohanty B, editor. Rock Fragmentation by
mating mechanical properties of weak rock. In: Price DG, edi- Blasting, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1996;301±309.
tor. Proc. 6th Int. IAEG Cong., Balkema, Rotterdam, [49] Roy PP, Dhar BB. Fragmentation analysing scale: a new tool
1990;511±519. for rock breakage assessment. In: Mohanty B, editor. Rock
[47] Lu P, Latham J-P, Yin J. Estimation of blasted block size distri- Fragmentation by Blasting (abstract), Balkema, Rotterdam,
bution of a blastpile: combining ``photo-scanline'' technique 1996;448.