Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

BLASTING AND SLOPE STABILITY

Tirs de mines et stabilite des talus


Sprengen und Standsicherheit von FelsbOschungen

Z. V. Solymar
Engineer, Monenco Ltd., St. Catharines,

Asst. Chief Geotechnical

Ontario,

Canada

.i

..

SYNOPSIS
This paper describes case examples where blasting damage to excavated rock faces was observed. One of the examples des~
cribes a major slide which commenced immediately following a blast.
~
RESUME
Cet article decrit des exemples de degats causes par des explosions aux fronts de taille en galeries. Un des exemples~.
concerne en glissement majeur qui a commence immediatement apres un tir.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Dieser Bericht gibt einige typische Falle der Wirkung von Sprengen auf Felsboschungen.
eine Felsrutschung,welche
sich als Folge einer Sprengung entwickelt hat.
".
.:

'-

..

>-

~ !
Bei~piele
"
.

."

beschreibt
-.:
..
~

the elastic
limit and "no fragmentation 'occurs,
except
where compressive stresses
are transformed on reflection into tensile
stresses
which may cause the rock to
fracture
or spall .

When blasting.work
has to be performed 'in the neighborhood of man-made structures
the _ ground vibration
is
often the factor which finally
decides. how the blasting
is
to be performed.
Comprehensive' data
has been
collected
and published during the.,last
two decades on
seismic
monitoring,
however,
there
is
still
some
difficulty
in establishing
limit
values for varying
degrees of damage.
There have been relatively
few
cases where damage could be proven to be associated
to
any man made structure.
k

~
Einesder
, ..

,.

2.1 Stress

Waves

TO
'i:.
Approximately 5 to 20%of the total energy released in
detonation
of explosives
is transmitted
directly
into
the surrounding rock mass in the form of stress waves.
The amount. and the percentage
of, total., energy. which
goes into stress waves depends on (a) type of explosive
(impedance), (b) weight of explosives,
(c) burden and
(d) length of delay interval
between explosive groups.'

Less attention
is directed
during excavation
to blast
damage of unexcavated rock mass and excavated slopes
and rock faces.
In practice,
if the damage'is small,
scaling will usually rectify
the problem.
However, if
the damage is extensive,
remedial
measures such as
secondary blasting
or rock bolting in combination with
shotcrete
treatment is often considered.

..

It is 'possible
to' obtain some idea of the comparative
effects
of different
explosives since the impedance of
the explosives
is"equal
to its mass density multiplied
" by the detonation
velocity As a comparison, a 90%
strength
gelatin
dj'T1amite~ has an'impedance
ratio
of
't
around _1000 gs/cm'J and an amrionium
nitrate
. (ANFO)
Damage to rock slopes can' be caused by blasts
set off;;;
blasting
agent only about half of this.
Selecting the
next to or near an excavated face.
This paper presents proper explosive
is therefore
an .important factor
in
case histories
of the damage to rock slopes which is
~
reducing vibration
levels . '
.-'
considered caused.by blasting.)
~
-; "
.-:t,!
.
~ ~
The stress' wave is distributed
all around a charge, a
2. ROCKFRACTURING.
Y'"
part of its energy will be distributed
within the angle
~'"
. r;:..
."
of breakage and the remainder of its energy will travel
is a
Knowledge of the mechanisms of rock fracturing
-, through the rock at a 'velocity
of 2000 - 5000 m/s.
If
necessary
part
of all
blasting
operations
to avoid'
it is possible for the burden in front of a blast hole
potential> damage to II nearby' rock surface that is to
_ .
to move forward freely.and
,the ignition,
of the. next
remain in place ._

hole in the row occurs with an adequate delay,


a
smaller part of the energy will go into the rock.
ConThree major T zones,
namely crushed,
fractured
and
sequently,
if, the burden approaches infinity,
as for
seismic zones develop around an explosion.
Concerning
example around a presplit
hole, a larger
part of the
rock damage and slope stability,
the fractured
and
energy will
be transferred
to the rock.
It
is,
seismic zones are the more important.
Fracturing
is a
therefor,:!,
:..quite
possible
that
at
sites
where
function
of
the
energy
release
and
the
rock

C 123

presplitting
is used the greatest
be associated
with the presplit
Devine ~
81., 1965.

vibration
problem may
shots as suggested by
~

'\

The stress
waves associated
with
ground
motions
observed at a given point are dependent upon (a) the
energy transmitted
by the stress
waves, (b) the distance between the detonation and observation
point; and
(c) the transmission
characteristics
of the rock mass.

The majority
of the kinetic
energy (approximately
50%
of the total)
remaining in these gases from the explosion is likely
to be the more important source of rock
breakage.
The maximum effect
per drill
hole and
quantity
of change is attained
if it is possible
for
the burden in front of a hole to move forward freely.
3.

EFFECTSOF BLASTING
ON SLOPESTABILITY

The most common visually


blasting
are:

From seismic works it is known that the two material


properties
that are of significance
in wave transmission are the modulus of deformation and the density.
Changes in both of these properties
for wave transmission in the rock means that a part of the wave will be
reflected.
The extreme example is when a free face is
encountered,
the compression wave is reflected
as a
tension wave and may cause scabbing of a part of the
rock near the surface.
From a bedding or joint
plane
reflected
waves can cause fracturing
far behind the
blast.
This is due to the tensile
strength
of the
rocks being much less than the compressive strength.

observed

damage caused

by

3.1 Crushing of Rock


This type of damage is sometimes associated
with preshear holes as shown in Figure 2 and the overall
stability
of the slope is not significantly
affected.
The
crushed zone typically
extends
to about twice the
charge radius.
3.2 Backbreak
The most commonlyobserved damage to a rock face caused
by presplitting
and by bench blasts is backbreak.
This
occurs in or behind the fracture
zone.

Transmission characteristics
of the rock mass can vary
from site to site.
From three different
sites particle
velocity
observation
data were plotted
against
scaled
distance
on
log-log
co-ordinates,
as
shown in
Figure 1. The effect of differences,
in charge weight,
was eliminated
from the data by dividing
the scaled
distance
by the cubic root of the total
or per delay
charge weight,
as suggested
by Hendron (1970).
The
charge weight W used in Figures
la and lb is the
maximumweight per delay if the delay interval
was more
than 1/4 of the transit
time.
The level of vibration
was significantly
larger
for Site A than for Sites B
and C, thus indicating
different
transmission
characteristics
of the rock.

Presplit
blasting
affects
the unexcavated
rock by
generating
the highest particle
velocities
of any type
of blast as shown in Figure Ib for Site B. Fracturing
of the rock near the top of a slope can result
in
instability
and extra excavation as shown in Figure 2.
The crushed
zone can be eliminated
and fracturing
minimized by using different
strengths
of igniter
cords.
instead of dynamite in prespl1t
holes.
Figure 3 shows
clear
cutting
of a channel face in poorly cemented,
weak sandstone by using 100 g/m igniter
cord.

2.2 Expansion of Gases

The stability
of the slope behind the presplit
line can
be further
affected
'by
inadequately
delayed
bench
blasting,
since the prespl1t
failure
plane between the
blast area and the rock face is not very effective
in
reducing vibration
levels.

In the last stage of rock breakage from an explosion,


under the influence
of the pressure of the gases from
the explosive,
the primary cracks expand and the free
rock surface yields and is moved forward as described
by Langefors et al.,
1963.
r

.,
300
~

1200

E 200

\
\

>=,'00

t:
()

9
W

40

\
\~

BOO

>
W
..J

1000

80
80

251

20

Iw'{, ]"u."

X.,.

.~

()

i=
a:
~
~

..<?

\0.
,-..-

800
10
8

~C7.

400

.~

........

..

oCt

SITE A

no

SITES BAND

C .

200

."'

1
1

48810

SCALED

Fig. 1 Particle
three sites

20

40

DISTANCE,

velocity

versus

80

100

m/kg~3

scaled

SCALED

distance

810

20

DISTANCE,

for

C 124

40

80

100

m/kg'3

DISTANCE,

interpretation
can be made from the peak' particle
velocity
recordings
made at Site A and presented
in
Figure la.
At this site the stratification
(bedding)
was the most important structural
element.
The average
thickness
of the subvertical
greywacke beds was 0.4 m
and 0.2 m for the slate
layers.
Analysis of particle
velocity
measurement data obtained from more than 140
blasts
show that the vibration
in a direction
parallel
or' near parallel
to the bedding plane (o-300)1s'DDre
severe than in-a direction
perpendicular
to the bedding
(75-90) as ~indicated
in Figure la:
Therefore, - it is
concluded
that
more" than one separating
'plane is
required between the point of detonation
and the blast
before. considerable
reduction
in : vibration
levela .can
occur.
~
'".

Fig.

Fig.

General view of a channel alope achieved


using igniter
in presplit
holes

Closeup view of discontinuous


presplit
line "
between 70 mmdiameter holes at 300 mmspacing

Figure 5 shows an open joint associated


with backbreak
extending up to 6 m behind a presplit
face in "a gnessic
rock.
Similar
backbreak or opening of an existing
joint
is shown approximately 5 m behind 'a large" hole
diameter inadequately
delayed bench blast in greywacke
and slate in Figure 6.
'

by

Figure
4 shows a typical
fracture
created
by presplitting
at the surface.
,The
crack was not, continuous, but probably occurs many times.
Even assuming
that the crackis
continuous,
tests
by Devine et al.,
(1965) indicate
that the presence of a vertic&l presplit
fracture
plane
between the blast
point
and
observation
points has no or very little
effect on the
slope of the particle
velocity
distance data.
Similar

A further but not so obvious damage from ground vibration occurs below the blasted
level.
This is where
disputes
and controversies
between the contractor
and
the owner are commonand may lead to claims for additional
cost due to changed conditions.
Figure 7 shows
a well' executed
portion
of a presplit
face
just

C 125

below the original


ground surface.
In the same area,
presplitting
for, the top part of the second. bench was
successful
due, to, major. damage to the rock, from the
first
bench excavation aa shown in Figure 8
.. '

limit is lower. say 200 mm/s. the size of a fractured


zone for this-particular
site would be much higher.

Fig.

Presplit
granite

blasting

for

the second bench in

~,""

~":':T

Another significant
backbreak'phenonema in horizontally
or near horizontally
stratified;
or jointed
roCk is
lifting
of large blocks .."and opening, of joints
behind
the face. by expanding gases.
This can cause unstable
and .,unsafe' roCk conditions.
Figure 9 shows'
large
block mOved by expanding gases

a,

'1

......

~.:

Holmberg et' al.,


(1981) reported that damage' to rock in
an open pit mine waa introduced at a vibration
level of
70D-I000 mm/s.>However,
it is expected that opening of
~
joints
or creation
of new joints
could occur at much
lower vibration
levels in different
types of rocks.,IAt
Site A opening of joints
waa, observed by the. author, at
much lower vibration
level i.e. as low aa 200 mm/s. As
an example for the extent of possible fracture
zone, in
Figure lc the calculated
peak particle
velocities,
for
100 kg' charges ,are plotted
against
the horizontal
distance
from the centre of, the blast.
If damage is
limited,to,750,mm/s,a
small diameter hole bench blast
3 m from the, face could cause damage to the rock behind
the final
face at Site A.
If, however., the threshold

Fig.

C 126

'.

Large block moved by expanding gases

",

3.3 Minor or Major Slope Failures


1

I""

....

, h':'.

~.

A minor, slope failure'


(slide)
is shown in Figure 10.
The blast set off under the- partially
excavated slope
released. the roclt. from the V-notch ..
J

dynamite.
The excavation method applied produced heavy
burden in relation
to the bench height.
Large backbreak and flying
rock indicated
that
the blast was
"tight",
that is it did not break to a free face, which
means that a large percentage of the explosive energy
was absorbed by the surrounding rock.
The 5 ms delays
used between rows were, insufficient
to move. the roelt
and reduce baelt.pressure.
For the 4 m burden the delay
time between 'rows should have been at least.17
ms
. t

";

r'

b...
:

,;"?

The. slide
movement comprised' a' rotational.
movement
towards, the southeast
with a maximum displacement
of
some :4.5 metres" at -the ~ top,
followed by a sliding
action along the _.bedding. !, t' '.
,. ,
,,-4., "(.!..fl~
I}
",,'
/':.:;
,t
;,;;,'
J
'-.--..
The rotation- of the roelt ,layers
resulted
in detachment
of rock slabs on the front of the moving mass as shown
in Figure 12 ,At the toe of the rotation
the displacement. equalled
zero.
Immediately after, the blast some
of the. loosened rock was pushed down to the 28 m bench
by bulldozer.
The, blast
provided the external
force
and the same time loosened the roelt structure.
i

t~

",:!

Immediately following
another
blast
upstream of this
slope a rotatory.' roclt ,movement commenced in' the right
half, of the, lh: 12v I slope shown~in
Figure- 10 and continued for a full ,two' days.,
Location ,of the, blast in
relatio~
to the area of roelt movement is. presented
in
Figure
11.
The blast
contained
between 2523 and
3236AL kg ~ of ". explosives,
fired
for
all .. practical
purposes,
instantaneously,
and was located only 20 m
from the area where. the-rotational
slide occurred.
The
maximum charge per 5 ms delay interval
ranged between
450,and 650 Itg.
' , ., .
,.'
At'
'.,
, '"

,.
Fig.

11

Plan showing status of excavation


of blasted area and failed slope

Failed

and location

slope
-to

The second external


load, from bulldozing
brolten rock
on the bench, escalated
the process.
The detachment of
roelt started
at once after the,blast,and
reached a peak

The 62 mm diameter holes were between 1 and 12 m deep


on 1.5 x 1.5 m centers
and were loaded with 40%

C 127

two days later.


Halting
the rock
blast
area resulted
in stabilization
mass.
-:-

removal from ,the


of the rotating
.'G

The rotational
failure
was a slow process and after the
blast
loosened
some. of the
rock and, rockbolts
by
spall1ng,
the near vertical
slabs
started
to deform
which lead to a new state
of equilibrium.
"However, by
loading
the top of the bench,
the balance
between
acting and reacting
forces could not be reached until
the loading of the bench stopped.
It was a very unique
situation.,
By adding a few more tonnes' of rock, the
rotating
mass tipped a little
more and more loose rock
fell from the face.
A considerable
volume of material
was disturbed
and it has been removed mechanically
by
controlled
blasting
to achieve acceptable
foundations.
In assessing
the stability
of the rock mass, there are
basically
two partially
related
analyses which must be
completed, an analysis
of the static
stability
of the
rock slope,
which can be established
by conventional
and well, documented methods of
analysis,
and an
analysis
of the stability
of I the rock mass considered
in conjunction with outside forces.
'

'.

The rotation
of the entire
mass could have taken place
only through' differential
'movement 'of single
layers.
The rotating'mass'indicates
that the frictional
resistance along the bedding'planes
must have been overcome.
The movement was favoured
by the vertical
sets' of
joints
and by the smaller number of horizontal
or near
horizontal
joints.
:i>
'
+.

:i

:.
~

".s,;

1;:

Forces
acting
on a block which is
inclined
surface
and on several
other
in Figure 13.

By using the longitudinal


acceleration,
the factor
of
safety is between 1.19 and 1.16 during the blast and by
using the vector
sum of each individual
quantity
the
factor
of safety against
overturning
is 0.83 and 0.80
respectively.
The actual value is probably between the
above values.
4.

The detonation
of an explosive
confined
in a hole
generates
a-large
volume of gas at high pressure.
This
pressure
generates', a compressive stress
pulse in the
rock, . which constitutes
the '. source
of the
ground
vibrations.
'The primary causes of excessive
vibration
~
levels
. which _'could - cause
weakening
of ~ the. rock
structure
and slope failure,
are high'speed
explosives,
large burden (underloading),
insufficient
delay intervals and too large a maximumcharge per delay interval.
The risk 'of causing damage' to ' rock -r slopes
that
lie
beneath an area of blasting
and are to be excavated
.later
can be minimized if peak particle
velocities
are
limited
to between 300 and 600 mm/s as suggested
by
Keil ~
al.,' 1975.
However, in certain
highly:jointed
rock and unsupported slopes with a particular
geometry
and joint
orientation
the limit must be set as low as
200 mm/s.
.

Opening of joints
by expanding gases along the crest of
slopes. is - a major source of overbreak
and creates
unsafe, slope conditions.
Orientation
'of major -joint
systems should be included in the'design
of the, blast
to' minimize overbreak and to increase slope stability.
':y

resting
on an
blocks is shown

NOTE: Opinions
distilled
from'
experience

.'

The calculated
factor
of safety
against -overturning
prior to the blast with B 74" and ~ 33" was around
7.2
The blast ,adjacent
to' the slide
area
gave
~
extrapolated
vibration
levels of:

values

,
6L 1.315-1.813
: _,c,6y 0.757-1.000
, 6T 0.511-0.654

where L stands
for transversal

(8)
Fig. 13

cis

cis

by the. writer
observations

Hendron, A.J.,
(1970).
Ground vibrations
caused
by
blasting
in
rock.
Geotechnical Seminar, Proceedings.
*

of:

mm.'
mm
mm

Keil,

aL 8387-8641 ~s2
<
ay 5730-5652 mm/s2,
2
aT .,8427-9106 mm/s

Forces acting on a single


number of layers

Y for

vertical

and damage
Acres
1970

Holmberg, R., and MAlti, K., (1981).


Case examples of
blasting
damage and
its
influence
on slope
stability.
3rd Intr.
Conf.
on Stability
in
Surface Mining, Vancouver, Canada.

~ ..

for longitudinal,
component.

""
have. been
and
field

Devine, J.F.,'
Beck, RoH., Heyer, A.Y.C., and Duvall,
W., (1965) . Vibration levels transmitted
across a
,presplit
fracture
plane.
Bureau of Mines, Report
'of Investigation
6695.

for aD.
24 m and W 450 and 650 kg respectively.
The calculated
frequency and acceleration
values are:

cis

--",'

:-,

REFERENCES

fL -,,12.7-11
fy 13.8-12
fT '20.4-19

,..,

expressed
personal

..

. vL 105-125 mm/s
vY , .65- 75 mm/s,'
, vT
65- 76 mm/s
and displacement

CONCLUSIONS

L.D., Burgess, ~S.,


Nielsen, N.M., and
Koropatnick A. (1975), 28th Can., Geot. Conf.,
Montreal, Canada.'

Langefors,
U., and Kihlstrom:
B., (1963).
The modern
technique of rock blasting,
Wiley, New York.

and T

and on n

C 128

Potrebbero piacerti anche