This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Diego]

On: 11 January 2015, At: 20:48

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Fragblast: International Journal for

Blasting and Fragmentation
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nfgb20

Rock fracturing by explosive energy:

review of state-of-the-art
a b a
M. R. Saharan , H. S. Mitri & J. L. Jethwa
a
Central Mining Research Institute, Regional Centre , Nagpur,
India
b
Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering , McGill
University , Canada
Published online: 16 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: M. R. Saharan , H. S. Mitri & J. L. Jethwa (2006) Rock fracturing by explosive
energy: review of state-of-the-art, Fragblast: International Journal for Blasting and Fragmentation,
10:1-2, 61-81, DOI: 10.1080/13855140600858792

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13855140600858792

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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
 Fragblast, Vol. 10, Nos. 1–2, March–June 2006, 61 – 81

Rock fracturing by explosive energy: review of state-of-the-art

M. R. SAHARAN{, H. S. MITRI*{ and J. L. JETHWA{
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

{Central Mining Research Institute, Regional Centre, Nagpur, India

{Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Canada

A study of the dynamic rock fracture initiation and propagation due to explosive energy is
presented through a detailed state-of-the-art review. Explosive energy dissipation in crushing
and fracturing is examined and the various means to enhance the explosive energy utilization
for dynamic rock fracturing are reviewed. The study highlights the need for a better
understanding of the dynamic fracturing process particularly in the presence of in situ stresses
in the rock mass.

Keywords: Dynamic rock fracturing; Explosive energy; Ideal detonation; Non-ideal detonation;
Shock waves; Gas pressure; Explosive energy and fracturing zone

1. Introduction

The study of fracture initiation and propagation in rocks due to explosive energy is of
engineering importance. This knowledge has many practical applications for mining
engineering, civil engineering and petroleum engineering. The knowledge in mining
engineering is required for efficient rock breakage, limiting damage into host rock mass
and effective destressing of a rockburst prone area in an underground mine.
A systems engineering approach is required for better understanding of phenomena
governing dynamic fracture initiation and propagation study. Figure 1 illustrates three
main systems involved in this approach: rock, explosive and boundary conditions.
Each system is subdivided into sub-systems, which in turn are broken down into sub-
subsystems. While physically independent, these systems do interact with each other. A
number of rock – explosive energy interaction studies have been reported in the
literature. For example, the propagation of the shock wave energy (a sub-subsystem of
the explosive energy system) depends on the spatial distribution of geological
anomalies and the attenuation characteristics of the rock (both are sub-subsystems
of the rock system) as well as the resonance effect (a subsystem of the boundary

*Corresponding author. Email: hani.mitri@mcgill.ca

Fragblast
ISSN 1385-514X print/ISSN 1744-4977 online Ó 2006 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13855140600858792
 62 M. R. Saharan et al.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 1. Engineering systems for rock blasting.

conditions system) created by the reflected waves from a boundary. A detailed review
of the role of various systems and subsystems on dynamic rock fracture initiation and
propagation is presented in this paper. In particular, the role of in situ stresses is
examined and discussed.

2. Dynamic rock fracture mechanism

Explanation of the detonation process can be found in several publications related to

blasting engineering [1 – 3]. According to these explanations, the detonation of an
explosive charge, confined within a borehole, initiates a very rapid chemical reaction at
a velocity known as the velocity of detonation (VOD or Vd) with values of 2000 –
7000 m/s. Such a chemical reaction is exothermic (i.e. the temperature is in the range
from 3000 to 40008K) and converts the solid mass of explosive into gaseous products.
The very rapid conversion of the chemical energy into thermal and gaseous energy
develops a detonation pressure (Pd) with magnitude in the range from 0.5 to 50 GPa.
The detonation pressure generates an explosion pressure (Pe) in the reacted portion of
the explosive column as shown in figure 2(a). The interface between the detonated
portion and the un-reacted explosive column, known as the Chapman – Jouguet Plane
or CJ Plane (Clark, 1987) travels with the speed of the shock wave front as shown in
figure 2(a). The actual pressure acting on the boundary of the borehole, known as the
borehole pressure (Pb), depends not only on amount of gas produced, its temperature
and velocity of detonation, but also on the rock mass stiffness properties and its strain-
rate dependant strength properties as well as the borehole volume. As can be seen from
figure 2(b), the pressure Pb responsible for fracturing the rock, is less than Pd but is
considerably higher than the original pressure P0.
The following simplified equations are in use for the estimation of Pd, Pe and Pb,
which are derived using the equation of state of ideal gases [2,4,5].

Detonation pressure; Pd ¼ rVd 2 =4 ð1Þ

Explosion pressure; Pe ¼ Pd =2 ¼ rVd 2 =8 ð2Þ

Borehole pressure; Pb ¼ Pe ðrc 2g Þ ð3Þ

 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 63
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 2. Detonation process of an explosive in a borehole (constructed with the aid of information provided
by [1,2,4]).

where r ¼ explosive density in kg/m3; Vd ¼ velocity of detonation in m/s; rc ¼ coupling

ratio ¼ explosive diameter/borehole diameter; g ¼ adiabatic exponent ¼ 1.5 [7]
p
g ¼ ð1 þ Vd 2 =QÞ: ð4Þ

and Q is the heat of explosion of the explosive in kJ/kg.

The borehole pressure has two distinct characteristics for two general categories of
detonation, namely ideal and non-ideal. As can be seen from the illustration in figure 3,
the ideal detonation is characterized by higher peak pressure and a steep drop in
pressure wave whereas the non-ideal detonation has lower peak pressure, which
attenuates in a longer duration [8,9]. One can find contradicting borehole pressure
measurements with regard to time needed to attain the peak-pressure values but the
complete duration time for the borehole pressure-time profile is similar in these
contradicting measurements. The peak-pressure time profile falls to a stand-off
 64 M. R. Saharan et al.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 3. Pressure pulse shapes for two categories of detonation [8,9].

pressure within a few milliseconds (the stand-off pressure is much less than the static
tensile strength of most of the rocks). Many publications cite explosive peak-pressure
attainment time in the order of several milliseconds [10 – 12] but there are also in-
borehole measurements suggesting that the peak pressure attainment time is in between
20 and 150 microseconds depending on explosive type and confinement [9,13 – 16].
The above described action of detonation in rock mass is illustrated in figure 4. As
can be seen, the impingement of the transient borehole pressure on the borehole
boundary generates a primary compressive shock wave into the rock mass. Part of the
wave energy is reflected where it meets a free surface or a discontinuity (shown as
interface between rock 1 and rock 2 in figure 4). The reflected wave, termed ‘secondary’
wave, may be compressional or tensile in nature depending on the characteristic
acoustic impedance difference at the interface of the original and the new face or
discontinuity. Those stress waves, through their interaction with existing micro flaws in
the rock, are the dominant force in fragmenting it [17]. Fracture generation,
propagation and coalescence at a point of consideration will continue until
superimposed values of the incident and reflected waves attenuate to a value lower
than the tensile strength of the rock at that point under stress. These theoretical
explanations for dynamic rock fracturing, however, ignore the very characteristic of a
rock, namely the strain rate response of the material. It is now proven beyond doubt
that rocks exhibit strain rate-dependant response under severe dynamic loading
conditions [18]. Therefore, it would be more precise to state that the fracture
generation, propagation and coalescence at a point of consideration continue until
 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 65
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 4. Vertical section in a bench blasthole showing the effects of explosive energy on the rock mass
(constructed with the aid of information provided by [1,28,39,57]).

superimposed values of the primary and secondary shock waves attenuate to a value
lower than the characteristic strength of the rock, which is the result of strain rate-
dependant response at that point under existing state of stress.
Considerable efforts were made in the last four decades to understand the rock
fracturing mechanism. The work done so far has led only to general agreement on
development of stress waves and gas pressure by explosive loading, though in the past
other theories were also propounded such as flexural rupture and nuclei stress flaw.
Table 1 compiles a list of references and the blasting theories that they support for the
interpretation of breakage mechanism. As can be seen from table 1, rock breakage
mechanism is attributed to one or more of the following factors: tensile reflected waves,
compressional stress waves, gas pressure, flexural rupture and nuclei stress flaw.
Controversies still exist to precisely define the roles and mechanism of fracturing
either by stress waves or by gas pressure. Daehnke et al. [19], who are propounders of
gas pressure breakage theory distinguished between the shock wave velocity and the
crack propagation speed. The shock wave velocity is three times the crack propagation
speed as demonstrated in [20 – 21]. They, however, ignored the interaction between
primary and secondary waves emanated from pre-existing flaws in the rock mass.
Supporters of stress wave theories believe that the large number of cracks developed
around the blasthole is due to stress waves since a quasi-static pressure could only
cause a couple of cracks to develop [22].
Various experimental methods have been employed to understand rock fracturing by
explosive energy. The experimental methods involving laboratory studies are
summarized in table 2. Pilot field studies are summarized in table 3, whilst other
indirect techniques like the Hopkinson split pressure bar technique are summarized in
table 4. It is evident from tables 2, 3 and 4 that there is no consensus on the explanation
of dynamic rock fracturing and there is further scope on research on this subject
in order to maximize blasting energy utilization. One can make the following
 66 M. R. Saharan et al.

Table 1. Blasting theories and their breakage mechanisms (after [4]).

Breakage mechanism
Tensile
reflected Compressional Gas Flexural Nuclei
Reference waves stress waves pressure rupture stress flaw

Obert & Duval 1949 [4] X

Hino 1956 [4] X
Duval & Atchison 1957 [4] X
Rinehart 1958 [4] X
Langefors & Kihlstrom 1963 [4] X X
Starfield 1966 [4] X
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Porter & Fairhurst 1970 [4] X X

Persson et al. 1970 [4] X
Kutter & Fairhurst 1971 [4] X X
Field & Ladegaard-Pederson 1971 [4] X X
Johansson and Persson 1972 [4] X X
Lang & Favreau 1972 [4] X X X X
Ash 1973 [4] X X
* [58] X X X
Hagan & Just 1974 [4] X
Barker et al. 1978 [4] X
Winzer et al. 1983 [4] X
Margolin & Adams et al. 1983 [4] X
* [22] X
* [34] X
* [19] X
* [5] X

*Added reference – not in [4].

observations barring the controversies of respective roles of stress wave and gas
pressure in rock fracturing:

(a) Reduction in unwanted damage to host rock by explosive action can be achieved
by a ‘hydrofrac’ action rather than a dynamic action. The acronym hydrofrac
stands for hydraulic fracturing in which the peak borehole pressure of lower
magnitude pressurizes the rock for a much longer duration. The energy applied
is mostly used for rock fracturing only in this process. Such hydrofrac action can
be achieved by non-ideal detonation of a low energy explosive and a prolonged
action of the reduced pressure level by de-coupling of a high energy explosive
[23].
(b) Reduction in the crushing zone and the intense fracturing zone can be achieved
by air-decking techniques [24 – 25].
(c) Insertion of a viscous medium, such as water or sand, or a material with
different impedance from the rock also helps in reducing the crushing zone
as well as reducing the number of radial fractures. Bhandari and
Rathore [26] suggest the use of cardboard liners to reduce the damage to the
host rock.
(d) The rock structure plays an important role in fracturing of rock. Granular
minerals produce more fines than the minerals with elongated fibers.
(e) The fractures propagation path needs to be specified in the borehole should
directional fracture growth be needed. The notched borehole technique and
shaped charges can be employed for such effects.
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Table 2. Laboratory studies of rock fragmentation by explosive energy.

Reference Purpose of experiment Description Reported results

[9] Fundamental rock breakage Two steel lined holes of 43 mm diameter at 0.8 m Shock wave is responsible for rock breakage
phenomena simultaneously fired with 17 mm diameter pipe charges and gas pressure helps in the movement
(dynamite and emulsion) in 2 – 4 m3 granite blocks of broken rock. Low VOD explosives
without stemming. Stemmed hole of 38 mm works gently on rock while high VOD
without liners were also tried. gives more shock.
[49] Safe boulder blasting Water-filled 5=8 inch holes in 1 ft3 blocks were blasted Water-filled boulder blasting fragmented
with No. 8 cap þ C4 explosive (RDX based). blocks into large pieces without fly-rock.
[19] Dynamic fracture mechanism Cylindrical PbZ3 charge used in PMMA blocks. The majority of fracturing occurs due to
Numerical modeling employing fracture mechanics pressurization of detonation gases.
principles was also performed.
[66] Effect of joint pattern on bench Bench blasting was simulated with 750 mm 6 500 mm 6 Reflected tensile waves further extended
blasting 500 mm sandstone blocks. Holes were blasted fractures already created by
with detonating cords. compressive waves.
[65] Effect of joint material on Bench shaped models (700 mm 6 400 mm 6 150 mm) of Size and shape of bench crater is more
fragmentation Chunar Sandstone were blasted with a single 50 mm deep and controlled by burden than by the
in bench blasting 6.5 mm diameter. Hole with detonating cord. A single 3 mm jointing material itself. Strain energy
wide joint running parallel to the face and filled with four dominates fragmentation mechanism at
different types of materials was incorporated in the study. smaller burden but for larger burden
both, gaseous and strain energy, play role.
[12], [16], [22], [53] Study oil well stimulation Cylindrical tuff blocks of 12 inch diameter and 12 inch long Gas pressure act dynamically rather than
Rock fracturing by explosive energy

technique 0.5 inch central stemmed hole were blasted with PETN.
The blocks were hydrostatically pressurized for 6.9 MPa.
[25] Investigating pre-split Detonating cords used in 2.5 mm to 25 mm dia. holes for
mechanism 150 6 150 6 75 mm Plexiglas blocks. Tests were also
conducted on larger sandstone blocks with discontinuous
planes.
quasi-statically and increase the crack
length in the order of 5 to 10. Lower
amplitude pressure with low frequency
produces smaller crushed zone and longer
radial fractures. Confinement reduces
the crack length by a factor of 2 to 3.
The majority of cracks are caused by
quasi-static gas pressure. Pre-splitting is
primarily caused by the interaction of
tensile stresses induced by quasi-static
gas pressure.

(continued)
67
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

68

Table 2.
1. (Continued).

Reference Purpose of experiment Description Reported results

[62] Investigating pre-split 70 mg charge placed in 8.75 mm diameter holes and Notched holes are the best for fracture direction
mechanism simultaneously fired in 6.4 6 450 6 610 mm Homolite sheets. control in comparison to simultaneous firing
and dummy hole practice.
[61] Effect of gas pressure on 70 mg of PbN6 was blasted in 0.344 inch holes made in Gas pressure helps in extending cracks in
crack generation transparent Homalite100 2D sheets (16 inch 6 blasthole vicinity. Containment of gaseous
16 inch 6 1=4 inch thick). Some holes were contained products increases amplitude of tensile
for comparative gas pressure effect. wave and results into more fractures and
fracture length. There is no difference in
M. R. Saharan et al.

[58] Bench blasting parameters Granite blocks of 300 mm 6 300 mm 6 230 mm and
bigger mortar blocks were blasted with detonating
cord (5.3 g/m) in hole diameter 4.8 mm to 7.9 mm.
compressional waves.
Near blast hole fractures are formed by
quasi-static gas pressure while fractures
near free face are formed by stress waves
reflection.
 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 69

Table 3. Pilot field studies for dynamic rock fracture mechanisms.

Reference Purpose of experiment Brief description Reported results

[9] Fundamental rock Commercial pipe charges Shock wave generates

breakage phenomena. (dynamite based cracks and gas pressure
and emulsion based) of helps in moving fragmented
17 mm to 22 mm rock but the phenomena
diameter are used in are explosive dependant.
51 mm to 64 mm diameter.
Holes on 5 m high granite
benches with 1.0 m burden
and 0.8 m spacing. Some
holes were stemmed, some
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

unstemmed and in some

steel liner was inserted
(Swellex bolt). Holes were
simultaneously fired.
[47] Effect of air-decking 30 g high explosive (Detasheet C) Air-decked hole produced
on fragmentation. is blasted with and without air larger crater and longer
decking in a 22 mm diameter, radial cracks around
240 mm long hole in granite. blasthole.
[34], [43] Establish the influence Dynamite, ANFO, watergel and Blast hole liner experiments
of important emulsion explosives were used suggest that break-out is
blasting variables in 0.9 m to 1.5 m long and controlled by gas penetration
on blasting results. 28 mm to 42 mm diameter and fragment sizes are
holes with a burden of 0.4 to governed by shock.
0.8 m in a 185 m deep gold
mine of less than 1 m thick
coarse grained Kimberley
quartzite (but stope width
is 1 to 1.4 m) in between
fine grained Witwatersrand
quartzite.
[27] Quasi-static gas pressure 25 mm diameter holes Change in blasting parameters
on fragmentation. were blasted with slurry changes fragmentation
explosive (0.5 kg per hole) mechanism from quasi-static
on 1 m high benches in gas pressure to strain energy.
granite with varying
spacing and burden.

3. Quantification of rock fracturing by explosive energy

The pressure from the blasthole is transmitted as shock waves (the primary shock
waves) in the rock mass. Transmission of shock waves in the rock mass creates a
crushed zone (up to four times the radius of the blasthole), a fractured zone (up to
50 times) and a seismic zone beyond these two zones, respectively, starting from the
borehole boundary [27]. Calculation of blast induced damage to rock mass using
relations between frequency dependant scaled charge (charge per square root metre
of charge per cube root of metre) and peak particle velocity (PPV) is a common
field practice. This study, however, illustrates three different relations which
elaborate causative factors responsible in last induced rock mass damage. A
detailed description on the relations using PPV and scaled charge can be found
elsewhere.
Mosinets and Gorbacheva [28] proposed the following equations for the identifica-
tion of the crushed zone, fracture zone and seismic zone, respectively, based on large
 70 M. R. Saharan et al.

diameter borehole blasting studies.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p
Crushed zone radius; rcr ¼ Cs =Cp  3 q; mm ð5Þ

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p
Crushed zone radius; rf ¼ Cp =Cs  3 q; mm ð6Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p
Crushed zone radius; rs ¼ Cp =10  3 q; mm ð7Þ

where, q ¼ explosive weight in TNT equivalent, kg; Cp ¼ longitudinal wave velocity, m/

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

s; Cs ¼ transverse wave velocity, m/s.

The above equations are in agreement with the fractures zone identified by the
ground penetrating radar (GPR) studies made by Grodner [29] in South African gold

Table 4. Indirect techniques for studying dynamic rock fracture mechanisms.

Purpose of
Reference experiment Description Reported results

[46] Effect of loading Hopkinson split Better energy utilization is possible

rate and temperature pressure bar used
on dynamic on 30mm diameter
fracture of rock. and 44 mm long
gabbros and marble
samples.
[59] Study of fines Hopkinson split pressure
generation bar used on 42 mm
due to dynamic diameter, 25 mm
loading. long diabase and
gneiss rock samples.
[21] Predict fragment Impact experiments
size distributions carried out with
for rock under gas gun using flat
dynamic loading projectile impact
conditions. technique on cylindrical
quartzite specimens
of 0.635 cm thick and
1.27 to 3.81 cm diameter.
[52] Dynamic fracture Electro-hydraulically
mechanism. dynamic loads (high
voltage electric under
water spark) were
provided to 2D samples
(plates/ discs) of Plexiglas,
glass, marble, granite,
basalt and slate.
with low loading rate no
matter whether a high temperature
is available or not.
Rock containing brittle and
granular mineral like quartz
and feldspar generates more fines
than the elongated minerals
like amphiboles and pyroxenes.
Fragmentation mechanism
consists of four stages:
(a) Activation of pre-existing
flaws
(b) Radially outward propagation
of flaws
(c) Coalescence and bifurcation
of propagating flaws, and
(d) Isolation of individual flaws
from one another
The above mechanism is also
confirmed by a FDM model
using fracture mechanics principles.
The fracture process starts with wave
action but is extended by gas
pressure. Fracture by wave action
is dependant on wave velocity,
tensile strength of rock, borehole
pressure, velocity of detonation
and energy absorption by rock
mass. Both wave and gas generated
fractures propagate preferentially
in the direction of maximum
principal stress. This effect has
strong effect and can even
eliminate the influence of
pre-existing fractures.
 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 71

mines. He identified a seismic zone which is in remarkably good agreement with

equation (7) above.
From another study in deep coal mines of China, Kexin [30] reports the following
equation for the identification of the fracture zone radius, rfz:

rfz ¼ 96½G=ð10sc Þ1=8 ð10 EÞ1=6 ð8Þ

where, r is the fracture zone radius (mm), sc is the uniaxial compressive strength
(MPa), E is the elastic modulus (MPa), G is the unit charge length (kg/m TNT
equivalent).
The fractures zone radius predicted by equation (8) can be 1.3 to 2.6 times that
predicted by equation (6). Equation (6) shows that the fracture zone radius depends
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

only on the explosion type whereas equation (8) accounts also for the rock type.
Figure 5 presents a nomogram suggested by Calder [31] for the estimation of fractures
zone radius based on several experiments which rightly shows that the fracture
zone radius depends on both the explosive type and rock type. The nomogram appears
to be in good agreement with equations (6) and (8), as well as with the field study by
Grodner [29].
Holmberg and Persson [32] proposed the following relationship for damage
assessment due to small and large diameter borehole blasting in hard rock mines.
The minimum peak particle velocity of 700 mm/s is assessed as the threshold damage
level for hard rocks. The peak particle velocity, PPV, given by
Z H a
a 2 2 b=2a
PPV ¼ k L dx=½R þ ðR tan y  xÞ  ð9Þ
0

where R ¼ perpendicular distance from borehole to the point of observation; y ¼ the

angle of elevation to the point of observation from end of explosive charge; k, a,
b ¼ constants (700, 0.7 and 1.5 respectively for hard rocks); H ¼ height of explosive

Figure 5. Radius of fractured zone by different explosives in different rocks [31].

 72 M. R. Saharan et al.

charge column (m), and L ¼ charge concentration in kg/m normalized with respect to
the weight strength, sANFO, of ANFO (1.05):

sANFO ¼ ðQ þ Vg =0:85Þ=5:04 ð10Þ

where Q ¼ heat of explosion, MJ/kg, and Vg is the gas volume released at STP, m3/kg.
Figure 6 presents two potential applications based on equation (9): small diameter
tunnel blasting with a 3 metre explosive column height (figure 9(a)) and large diameter
open pit blasting with a 15 metre explosive charge column height (figure 9(b)). The
plots can be used to estimate the peak particle velocity in mm/s at any point a distance
R from the blasthole, for a given charge concentration l in kg/m. As can be seen, the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

velocity v attenuates faster with less charge concentration. Also, the PPV attenuates
with distance R as expected.
It should be noted, however, that Blair and Minchinton [33] showed that the well-
known model of Holmberg and Persson [32] described by equation (9) should be
cautiously used. In their work on the assessment of damage zone around single
blasthole using dynamic finite element method; they show that it is not suitable for
near-field analysis. Figure 7 presents a classification of the type of rock damage
anticipated as a function of the measured peak particle velocity [34] for three different
charges of Dynagel 25 6 200, namely 250 g, 500 g and 750 g. As can be seen, the
measured peak particle velocity should be as low as 50 mm/s to avoid any damage to
the rock surface. On the other hand, damage to intact rock is likely to occur when the
peak particle velocity exceeds 1000 mm/s. More recently, the possibility of generating
vibration measures other than the peak particle velocity, such as energy, has been
suggested as a means to predict blast damage more robustly [35].

4. Rock – explosive energy interaction

Numerous studies adopted mechanistic models to describe the rock-explosive

interaction using pressure-volume curves of the explosion gases by blasting [36 – 41].
According to these models, the area under the pressure-volume curve represents the
explosive energy produced. The concept is illustrated in figure 8; it also shows how

Figure 6. Estimated peak particle velocity as a function of distance for different linear charge densities, kg/m
borehole length [32].
 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 73
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 7. Reported damage threshold w.r.t. peak particle velocity [60].

much of the explosive energy is utilized for detonation and rock fragmentation. As can
be seen, 40 to 60% of the explosive energy can be wasted in heat generation, while only
up to 25% of the explosive energy is shock wave energy which is utilized for fracture
generation. Langefors and Khilstrom [42] theoretically estimated and found that the
shock wave energy is between 5 and 15% of the total explosive energy. Lownds and Du
Plessis [38] assumed the shock wave energy to be between 2 and 20% of the total
explosive energy. Brinkmann [43], during his experiments in the deep underground
gold mines of South Africa, estimated the shock wave energy to be 25% of the total
explosive energy for emulsion explosives.
Brinkmann [43] and Lownds and Du Plessis [38] extended the pressure – volume
illustration concept to explain how the explosive energy is utilized in hard and soft
 74 M. R. Saharan et al.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 8. Explosive energy released during different phases of rock blasting [37–40].

rocks for the two general categories of detonation, namely ideal and non-ideal
(figure 9). In their explanation, the area under the explosive energy curve and the line
representing the dynamic stiffness of the borehole wall rock is divided into two
portions: (1) the shock wave energy responsible for rock fragmentation and (2) heave
energy. It can be seen that this graphical illustration suggests that: (a) there is more
shock wave energy available for rock fragmentation when an ideal detonation is used,
and (b) soft rock is likely to experience less fragmentation than a hard rock subjected to
the same amount of explosive energy and type of detonation. Fogelson et al. [44]
reported that the shock wave energy is 10 to 18% of the total energy in test blasts of
granite (hard and stiff rock), whereas Nicholls and Hooker [45] observed only 2 to 4%
in salt rocks (soft and ductile rock). Therefore, it can be concluded that the utilization
of the explosive energy is indeed dependent on rock stiffness properties in addition to
the explosive properties.
Several studies suggest different means for the enhancement of the explosive energy
utilization. A low VOD and non-ideal detonation is reported to produce longer radial
fractures [16,43,46]. Applications of de-coupling [25] and air-decking [47] techniques
are also found to enhance the radial fracture growth. Controlled fracture growth can
also be achieved with notched holes [10], shaped charges [10] and slotted tubes [48] and
even with a change of media separating explosive and rock [49]. A rise in the peak
pressure is found with the insertion of a steel liner [9] whereas discontinuity or free
surface reflects wave propagation and thus deflects fractures direction [25]. Therefore,
these can have deleterious impact on the energy utilization. Directional fracture growth
by the pre-split pattern is found to be not only dependant on the discontinuity plane
but also on the blasthole spacing [9,25] as well as on the delay [9]. Bhandari and
 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 75
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 9. Energy utilization for hard and soft rocks with ideal and non-ideal detonation [43,38].

Rathore [26] suggest cardboard liners for enhancing energy utilization in pre-split
blasting.

5. Dynamic fracture initiation and propogation under in situ stress field

The influence of the in situ stress field around the blasthole on dynamic fracture
initiation and propagation is of prime importance for underground perimeter blasting
applications and rockburst control using destress blasting. Such a stress field may
cause a high level of confinement and, hence, alter the anticipated blast-induced
fracture pattern and extent around the blasthole. Radial cracks from the blasthole
grow by taking the least resistance path, i.e. either that of the least tensile strength or
the least confining stress. Obert [50] observed with core drilling that micro and macro
cracks align with the major principal stress direction. Jung et al. [15] experimentally
validated that the preferred fracture path in marble slabs subjected a uniaxial
external pressure of 5 MPa prior to blasting, align with the maximum principal stress
direction (see figure 10). Donze et al. [51] numerically validated this trend by
simulating blasting with and without external uniaxial pressure of 194 MPa as shown
in figure 11. Kutter and Fairhurst [52] observed that the fracture growth in the
principal stress direction is so strong that the presence of pre-existing flaws in the
rock can be ignored.
 76 M. R. Saharan et al.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 10. Photographs of marble slabs after blasting (size: 200 mm 6 200 mm 6 23 mm) [15].

Figure 11. Numerical simulation of dynamic fracture propagation [51].

All of the above-mentioned studies, however, ignored the effect of biaxial stress field
found at a tunnel face or a mining front. Only a few references are found which
consider the biaxial stress field and its influence on crack growth [53,54] and the
laboratory simulation studies [12,53]. The results of their numerical studies appear to
be affected by the simulation of pre-placed or preconceived fractures in the numerical
model. Nonetheless, Schatz et al. [12,53] have shown experimentally and numerically
that cracks having a length of up to 50 times the blasthole radius in a plane parallel to
the principal stress direction is not inconceivable and a typical cross cutting crack
length of 10 times the blasthole radius can be easily obtained; see figure 12(a). The
stress anisotropy effect is expressed in terms of the stress ratio of the principal in situ
stresses, k ¼ s1/s2. The effect of k on crack growth is shown in figure 12(b). Such
fractures can be generated with non-ideal detonation and the prolonged action of the
 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 77
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 12. Effect of field stress ratio on crack lengths in the principal stress directions [12,53].

borehole pressure. However, their laboratory experiments did not validate the
numerical simulations prediction of the cross-cutting fracture lengths of more than
10 times the borehole length.
Further, McHugh [22] numerically observed that the primary effect of a confining
pressure of 6.9 MPa is to reduce the crack lengths by a factor of 2 to 3. Daehnke et al.
[19,55] employed the principles of fracture mechanics and closed-form integral
equations to arrive at similar observations. They state that the fracture growth due to
gas pressure is inhibited with the increase in the field stress or confining stress around
the blasthole. As shown in figure 13, the extent of blast-induced fractures increases as
the confining stress i.d. reduced from 40 MPa to 10 MPa.
 78 M. R. Saharan et al.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

Figure 13. Influence of confining stress on penny- and cone-shaped crack extension in rock [19].

6. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from the review of the state-of-the-art for rock
fracturing by explosive energy.

1. Controversies exist for the respective roles of gas pressure and shock wave energy
in dynamic fracture initiation and propagation. It is uncertain what amount of the
respective part of the energy is liberated and imparted in different situations for
engineering blasting operations in different rock types. The explanations put forth
so far also ignore strain-rate dependant material response. The controversies stem
from observation difficulties associated with prevalent experimental techniques
due to the extremely short duration of the explosive shock wave load on rocks (in
the order of micro-seconds), a very fast fracturing process occurring under the
explosive gaseous products and the rock debris (crack speed up to one third of
the wave speed in rock) apart from the heterogeneity of rocks. Moreover, the
prevalent experimental techniques developed so far do not have full control on the
experiments. The use of numerical modelling for dynamic rock fracturing
simulation process or the development of other experimental tools is much
needed in this regard.
2. Explosive energy utilization can be enhanced by non-ideal detonation with
prolonged action of detonation pressure. Air-decking, de-coupling, notched holes
and liners are some of the means to enhance the explosive energy utilization.
3. The knowledge of dynamic fracture propagation under in situ stress regime
(particularly biaxial stress field) is a grey area and requires further work. An effort
in this direction is currently underway by the authors.
4. The dynamic fracture generation can be best illustrated in figure 12(a) on the basis
of present knowledge level. As per figure 12(a), longer cracks in the principal stress
direction along with few smaller cracks in the intermediate principal stress
direction should be anticipated due to blasting of an isolated hole in a confined
 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 79

rock mass. Stiffer rocks in conjunction with higher confinement will reduce the
number of cracks as well as the cross cutting crack length.

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper is part of the research work done for the PhD thesis
of the first author. This work was financially supported partially by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canada (NSERC) and by the
J.W. McConnell Foundation, McGill University, Canada.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

References
[1] Bhandari, S., 1997, Engineering Rock Blasting Operations (Rotterdam: Balkema), 375 pp.
[2] Clark, G.B., 1987, Principles of Rock Fragmentation (London: John Wiley & Sons Inc.), 610 pp.
[3] Fourney, W.L. (1993). In: J.A. Hudson (editor-in-chief) Comprehensive Rock Engineering. Principles,
Practices and Projects (London: Pergamon Press), 1, 39 – 70.
[4] Anon., 1987, Explosives and Rock Blasting (Washington, USA: Atlas Powder Company).
[5] Nie, S.L. and Olsson, M., 2000, Study of mechanism by measuring pressure history in blast holes and
crack lengths in rock. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique,
Orlando, US, 291 – 300.
[6] Persson, P.A., Holmberg, R. and Lee, J., 1994, Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering (Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press).
[7] Fickett, W. and Davis, W.C., 1979, Detonation: 26 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
[8] Aimone, C.T., 1992, In: H.L. Hartman (ed) SME Mining Engineering Handbook (Littleton: Society of
Mining Engineers), 722 – 746.
[9] Olsson, M., Nie, S., Bergqvist, I. and Ouchterlony, F., 2001, What causes cracks in rock blasting? In
Proceedings of EXPLO2001, Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia, 191 – 196.
[10] Holloway, D.C., Barnholt, G. and Wilson, W.H., 1986, A field study of fracture control techniques for
smooth wall blasting. Proceedings of the 27th US Symposium of Rock Mechanics, Tuscaloosa, 1585 –
1609.
[11] Nakayama, Y., Matsumura, T., Iida, M. and Yoshida, M., 2001, Propagation of blast waves initiated by
a solid explosive in a cylinder. Journal of the Japanese Explosives Society, 62, 244 – 256.
[12] Schatz, J.F., Ziegler, B.J. and Christianson, M., 1987, Multiple radial fracturing from wellbore –
experimental and theoretical results. Proceedings of the 28th US Symposium of Rock Mechanics, Tucson,
Arizona.
[13] Daniel, R., 2003, Pressure-time history of emulsion explosives. Personal communication.
[14] Frantzos, D.C., 1989, Finite element analysis of radial cracking mechanism around blastholes using
measured pressure-time curves for low density ammonium nitrate/fuel oil. Unpublished PhD thesis,
Department of Mining Engineering, Queen’s University, Canada, 290 pp.
[15] Jung, W.J., Utagava, M., Ogata, Y., Seto, M., Katsuyama, K., Miyake, A. and Ogava, T., 2001, Effects
of rock pressure on crack generation during tunnel blasting. Journal of the Japanese Explosives Society,
62, 138 – 146.
[16] McHugh, S. and Keough, D., 1982, Use of laboratory derived data to predict fracture and permeability
enhancement in explosive pulse tailored field tests. Proceedings of the 23rd US Symposium of Rock
Mechanics, Issues in Rock Mechanics, 504 – 514.
[17] Winzer, S.R., Anderson, D.A. and Ritter, A.P., 1983, Rock fragmentation by explosives. Proceedings of
the 1st International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting (FRAGBLAST 1). Lulea, Sweden,
225 – 249.
[18] Prasad, U., Mohanty, B. and Nemes, J.A., 2000, Dynamic fragmentation of selected rocks under impact
loading. Proceedings of the 4th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Seattle, Washington, 577 –
581.
[19] Daehnke, A., Rossmanith, H.P. and Napier, A.L., 1997, Gas pressurization of blast induced conical
cracks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34, paper no. 263.
[20] Edgeston, H.E. and Barstow, F.E., 1941, Further studies of glass fracture with high speed photography.
Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 24, 131 – 137.
[21] Shockey, D.A., Curran, D.R., Seaman, L., Rosenberg, J.T. and Petersen, C.F., 1974, Fragmentation of
rock under dynamic loads. International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences and Geomechanics,
Abstract, 11, 303 – 317.
[22] McHugh, S., 1983, Crack extension caused by internal gas pressure compared with extension caused by
tensile stress. International Journal of Fracture, 21, 139 – 145.
 80 M. R. Saharan et al.

[23] Barkley, T.L., Lee, R. and Rodgers, J., 2001, A new detonating cord for reducing unwanted damage in
controlled blasting. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference Explosives and Blasting Technique,
Cleveland, OH, USA, 167 – 173.
[24] Bussey, J. and Borg, D.G., 1989, Pre-splitting with the new air-deck technique. Journal of Explosives
Engineering, 6, 28 – 31.
[25] Worsey, P.N., Farmer, I.W. and Matheson, G.D., 1981, The mechanics of pre-split blasting to rock
slopes. Proceedings of the 22nd US Symposium of Rock Mechanics, MIT, Boston, Massachusetts, 205 –
210.
[26] Bhandari, S. and Rathore, S.S., 2002, Comparative study of blasting techniques in dimensional stone
quarrying. Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Society of Explosive
Engineers, Las Vegas, Nevada.
[27] Bhandari, S., 1979, On the role of stress waves and quasi-static gas pressure in rock fragmentation by
blasting. Acta Astronautica, 6, 365 – 383.
[28] Mosinets, V.N. and Gorbacheva, N.P., 1972, A seismological method of determining the parameters of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

the zones of deformation of rock by blasting. Soviet Mining Science, 8, 640 – 647.
[29] Grodner, M., 2001, Delineation of rockburst fractures with ground penetrating radar in the
Witwatersrand Basin, South Africa. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 38,
885 – 891.
[30] Kexin, D., 1995, Maintenance of roadways in soft rock by roadway-rib destress blasting. China Coal
Society, 20, 311 – 316.
[31] Calder, P., 1977, Perimeter Blasting (Chapter 7. Pit slope manual). CANMET report 77 – 14.
[32] Holmberg, R. and Persson, P.A., 1979, Design of tunnel perimeter blasthole pattern to prevent rock
damage. Tunneling ’79 (London: Institute of Mineralogy and Metallurgy), 280 – 283.
[33] Blair, D. and Minchinton, A., 1996, On the damage zone surrounding a single blasthole. Proceedings of
the 5th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting (Fragblast 5), B. Mohanty (ed), 25 –
29 August (Montreal, Canada: Balkema Publishers), 121 – 130.
[34] Brinkmann, J.R., 1987, Separating shock wave and gas expansion breakage mechanisms. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting.
[35] Spathis, A.T., 1999, On the energy efficiency of blasting. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium
on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting.
[36] Kirby, I.J. and Lieper, G.A., 1985, A small divergent detonation theory for intermolecular explosives.
Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Detonation, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[37] Lownds, C.M., 1986, The strength of explosives. In J.P. Deetlefs (ed), Proceedings of the Planning and
Operation of Open-pit and Strip Mines South Africa Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg,
151 – 159.
[38] Lownds, C.M. and Du Plessis, M.P., 1984, The behaviour of explosives in intermediate-diameter
boreholes. Proceedings of the Institute of Quarrying Trans., December, 709 – 804.
[39] Scott, A., Cocker, A., Djordjevic, N., Higgins, M. La Rosa, D., Sarma, K.S. and Wedmaier, R., 1996,
Open pit blast design – analysis and optimisation. JKMRC Monograph Serried in Mining and Mineral
Processing 1, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC) Monographs Series in Mining and
Mineral Processing 1, JKMRC, University of Queensland, Australia, 338 pp.
[40] Whittaker, B.N., 1992, In: Rock Fracture Mechanics (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 443 – 480.
[41] Udy, L.L. and Lownds, C.M., 1990, The partition of energy in blasting with non-ideal explosives.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST3,
Brisbane, Australia, August, 37 – 43.
[42] Langefors, U. and Kihlstorm, B., 1978, The Modern Techniques of Rock Blasting, Third edition (New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.), 438 pp.
[43] Brinkmann, J.R., 1990, An experimental study of the effects of shock and gas penetration in blasting.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST3, 55 –
66.
[44] Fogelson, D.E., Duvall, W.I. and Atchison, T.C., 1959, Strain energy in explosion-generated strain
pulses in rock. U.S. Department International, Bur. Mines, Report of Investigations, 5514.
[45] Nicholls, H.R. and Hooker, V.E., 1962, Comparative studies of explosives in salt. U.S. Bur. Mines R.I.,
6041, 46 pp.
[46] Zhang, Z.X., Yu, J., Kou, S.Q. and Lindquist, P.A., 2001, Effects of high temperatures on dynamic rock
fracture. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 38, 2. 211 – 225.
[47] Liu, L. and Katsabanis, P.D., 1996, Numerical modelling of the effects of air decking/ decoupling in
production and controlled blasting. In: B. Mohanty (ed) Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST
5 Montreal, Canada, 319 – 330.
[48] Ladegaard-Pedersen, A., Fourney, W.L. and Dally, J.W., 1974, Investigation of Pre-Splitting and Smooth
Blasting Techniques in Construction Blasting, University of Maryland, Report to the National Science
Foundation.
[49] Ayres, R.P., Schmidt, M.F.C. and Worsey, P.N., 2000, Effect of boulder geometry on hydraulic
fragmentation using small explosive charges. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Explosive
and Blasting Technique, Anthiem, CA, US, 225 – 232.
 Rock fracturing by explosive energy 81

[50] Obert, L., 1962, Effects of stress relief and other changes in stress on the physical properties of rocks.
USBM-RI, 6053, 8 pp.
[51] Donze, F.V., Bouchez, J. and Magnier, S.A., 1997, Modeling fractures in rock blasting. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34, 1153 – 1163.
[52] Kutter, H.K. and Fairhurst, C., 1971, On the fracture process in blasting. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 8, 181 – 202.
[53] Schatz, J.F., Ziegler, B.J., Bellman, R.A., Hanson, J.M. and Christianson, M., 1987, Prediction and
Interpretation of Multiple Radial Fracture Stimulations. Final report to the Gas Research Institute,
Chicago, Illinois, 290 pp.
[54] Toper, A.Z., 1995, Numerical modelling to investigate the effects of blasting in confined rock simulation
of a field study. Proceedings of the 35th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, J.K. Daeman and
R.A. Schultz (eds), University of Nevada Reno, USA (Rotterdam: Balkema), 541 – 546.
[55] Daehnke, A., Rossmanith, H.P. and Knasmillner, R.E., 1996, Blast-induced dynamic fracture
propagation. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 20:48 11 January 2015

FRAGBLAST5, B. Mohanty (ed), Montreal, Canada, 619 – 626.

[56] Ambraseys, N.N. and Hendron Jr., A.J., 1968, In: K.G Stagg & Zienkiewicz (eds) Rock Mechanics in
Engineering Practice Chapter 7 (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons).
[57] Atchison, T.C., 1968, In: E. P. Pfleider (ed) Surface Mining (New York, NY: AIME), 355 – 372.
[58] Bhandari, S. and Vutukuri, V.S., 1974, Rock fragmentation with longitudinal charges. Proceedings of the
3rd International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Denver, USA, 1337 – 1342.
[59] Bohloli, B., 1997, Effects of the geological parameters on rock blasting using the Hopkinson split bar.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34, 630.
[60] Brinkmann, H.R., Giltner, S.G. and Gibson, P.A., 1987, Fundamental studies of blasting in narrow-
stope gold mines. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
Keystone, CO, 498 – 520.
[61] Dally, J.W., Fourney, W.L. and Holloway, D.C., 1975, Influence of containment of the borehole
pressures on explosive induced fracture. International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences and
Geomechanics, Abstract, 12, 5 – 12.
[62] Dally, J.W., Fourney, W.L. and Peterson, A.L., 1978, A dynamic photoelastic evaluation of some
current practices in smooth wall blasting. Mining Engineering, February, 184 – 189.
[63] Nicholls, H.R., Johnson, C.F. and Duvall, W.I., 1971, Blasting vibrations and their effects on structures.
International Bureau of Mines Bulletin, US, September, 656.
[64] Oriard, L.L., 1972, Blasting effects and their control in open pit mining. Proceedings of Geotechnical
Practice for Stability in Open Pit Mining (Denver, CO: AIME).
[65] Singh, D.P. and Sastry, V.R., 1986, Rock fragmentation by blasting. Influence of joint filling material.
Journal of Explosives Engineering, 3, 18 – 27.
[66] Bhandari, S. and Badel, R., 1990, Post blast study in jointed rocks. International Journal of Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 439 – 445.