Break Module

2018-06
Troy Williams, P.Eng.
iRing Inc.

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 1

Break Model

• 2D Single Hole
• Radial break
• Free face reflection
• Dynamic rock properties
• Explosive properties
• Attenuation

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 2

Rock Properties

• Key Properties
• P-wave & S-wave velocity
• Estimate modulus values,
Poisson’s ratio and fracture index
• Static tensile strength
• Estimate static compressive
strength value
• Estimate dynamic and insitu
strength values
• Jointing
• RMR
• RQD
• JRC

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 3

Explosive Properties

• Key Properties
• Detonation Velocity Curve
• Density
• Thermochemical Energy

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 4

Attenuation

• Peak particle velocity

• Scaled distance
• Shockwave decay from
attenuation slope
• How far can the shockwave
travel until it attenuates
below dynamic tensile
strength

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 5

UCS - Attenuation

• UCS correlates attenuation range

• Provides a starting point If PPV data
is not available

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 6

Radial Break/Damage Model

• Confined model
• 5 zones
1. Crush zone
2. Shatter zone
3. Minimum break radius
4. Pattern break radius
5. Maximum break radius

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 7

Radial Break Model – Crush Zone

• Crush Zone
• At the blasthole wall that is in contact
with the explosive charge
• Dynamic compressive strength
exceeded by a wide margin.
• Dust and very small fragments
• No strength

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 8

Radial Break Model – Shatter Zone

• Shatter Zone
• Made up of gravelly pieces of broken
rock/ore within a few borehole
diameters of the explosive charge
• Dust is still present due to sliding
forces
• Shatter material can block blastholes
• No strength between particles or
angular fragments

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 9

Radial Break Model – Minimum Break Radius

• Minimum Break Radius

• Larger cracks due to tangential tension
start to appear
• crack generated from high
compression of P-wave (impedance
mismatch)
• Material not self supporting
• Includes both shatter coarse rock
fragments as well as fines
• Structure is influential

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 10

Radial Break Model – Minimum Break Radius

• Minimum Break Radius

• Quarry example

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 11

Radial Break Model – Pattern Break

• Radial family of cracks that can

contribute to a fragmentation profile
that is suitable for haulage
equipment
• Appears between
• Minimum radial break
• Maximum radial break
• Material moved and broken enough
to be handled
• Well established structure within
tolerances

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 12

Radial Break Model - Maximum Break Radius

• Families of large cracks that can

compromise underground mine
structures
• pillars
• hanging walls
• Blocky with chunks
• Follows major structure
• Responsible for secondary

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 13

Unit Charge

• Distance detonation
head travels in the time
it takes the P-Wave to
hit the Free-Face
• Three cases:
• Subsonic
• Sonic
• Supersonic

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 14

Unit Charge - Subsonic

• Detonation Velocity < P-wave velocity

• Short unit charge length

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 15

Unit Charge - Sonic

• Detonation velocity ≅ P-wave velocity

• Unit charge length approximately burden length

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 16

Unit Charge - Supersonic

• Detonation Velocity > P-wave velocity

• Unit charge length greater than burden

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 17

Break Overlap

• Pattern overlap
• Holes in same ring (toe
spacing)
• Holes in different ring
(burden)
• Should be between 2% and
12%

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 18

PPV  Stress

• Peak Particle Velocity – Stress Relationship

• PPV – Peak Particle Velocity (m/s)
• ϱrock – Rock Density (kg/m3)
• V – P-Wave velocity (m/s)
• σ – Stress (Pa) in the rock at the particular
scaled distance

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 19

Reflection Model

• Attenuation Reflected in
Free-Face Borehole Wall
(≈10 GPa) Free-Face

Outgoing
• Stress Profile of the System Compressive
Wave Dynamic
Compressive
Reflection
Strength
(≈240 MPa)
(≈1.1 GPa)

Reflected
Tensile Wave

Dynamic
Tensile
Strength
(≈15 MPa)

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 20

Hyperbolic

• Hyperbolic view of reflection model

• Hyperbola defined by dynamic
Free Face
Hyperbolic
Tensile Damage

tensile strength envelope Zone

• Volume
• Mass
• Powder Factor
• Energy Factor

Radial Break
(2.08m)

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 21

Ranges

• Pattern summary efficiency

• Green checkmarks indicate acceptable
pattern parameters
• Ranges
• Burden Overlap (2% - 12%)
• Spacing Overlap (2% - 12%)
• Reflection Point (Between DTS and DCS)
• Ratio of radial break to burden reflection
distance (45% - 75%)
• Break angle (> 80 degrees)
• Powder factor (0.4 to 0.8 kg/tonne)

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 22

Remedies – Burden and Spacing Overlap Low

• Values below 2%
• Powder factors may be low
• Breakout angle may be low
• Remedy
• Use more energetic explosive with higher detonation velocity
and density
OR
• If burden overlap is too low, decrease burden
• If spacing overlap is too low, decrease spacing
• Decrease hole diameter to decrease detonation velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 23

Remedies – Burden and Spacing Overlap High

• Values above 12%

• Powder factors may be high
• Reflection point my be high
• Remedy
• Use less energetic explosive with lower detonation velocity
and density
OR
• If burden overlap is too high, increase burden
• If spacing overlap is too high, increase spacing
• Decrease hole diameter to decrease detonation velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 24

Remedies – Reflection Point Low

• Value is less than dynamic

tensile strength
• Ultimately leads to low stress
and secondary
Remedy
• Decrease burden and/or spacing
• Use more energetic explosive with
higher detonation velocity and
density
• Increase borehole diameter to
increase detonation velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 25

Remedies – Reflection Point High

• Value is greater than dynamic

compressive strength
• Ultimately leads to high stress
and interference between
adjacent rings and holes
Remedy
• Increase burden and/or spacing
• Use less energetic explosive with
lower detonation velocity and
density
• Decrease borehole diameter to
decrease detonation velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 26

Remedies – Radial Break to Reflected Burden Low

• Value less than 45%

• Break angle be my greatly increased
• High Powder Factor
Remedy
• Decrease burden and/or spacing
• Use more energetic explosive with higher
detonation velocity and density
• Increase borehole diameter to increase detonation
velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 27

Remedies – Radial Break to Reflected Burden High

• Value less than 75%

• Explosive becomes unburdened
• Loss of pressure for maximum break out
Remedy
• Increase burden and/or spacing
• Use less energetic explosive with lower detonation
velocity and density
• Decrease borehole diameter to decrease
detonation velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 28

Remedies – Break Angle Low

• Value less than 80°

• Powder factor will suffer
• Overlap will be too low
Remedy
• Decrease burden and/or spacing
• Use more energetic explosive with higher detonation velocity and density
• Increase borehole diameter to increase detonation velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 29

Remedies – Powder Factor too Low

• Value less than 0.4 kg/tonne

• Break angle may be to low
• Overlap may be low to non-existent
Remedy
• Decrease burden and/or spacing
• Use more energetic explosive with higher detonation velocity and density
• Increase borehole diameter to increase detonation velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 30

Remedies – Powder Factor too High

• Value greater than 0.9 kg/tonne

• Overlap may be too high
• Reflection point may fall out of range on the high side
Remedy
• Increase burden and/or spacing
• Use less energetic explosive with lower detonation velocity and density
• Decrease borehole diameter to decrease detonation velocity

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 31

Case Study

• Current Pattern
• 100mm
• 2.3m x 2m (S/B ≈ 1.15)
• Emulsion (VOD ≈ 5700 m/s)
• Hard Rock (P-Wave ≈ 6000 m/s)
• Hanging Wall Stability Issues
• Dilution Issues
• Break ≈ 2.0m
• Burden ≈ 20% overlap
• Spacing ≈ 20% overlap
• ~300 MPa at the Free-Face

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 32

Case Study

• Proposed Pattern
• 100mm
• 2.8m x 2.5m (S/B ≈ 1.12)
• Emulsion (VOD ≈ 5700 m/s)
• Hard Rock (P-Wave ≈ 6000 m/s)
• Break ≈ 2.0m
• Burden ≈ 11% overlap
• Spacing ≈ 12% overlap
• ~245 MPa at the Free-Face

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 33

Case Study

• Planned
• Tonnage: 15699t
• Dilution: 17269t (≈9%)
• Extracted
• Tonnage: 15668t
• Planned vs Actual: ≈ 0.2%

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 34

Case Study

• Generated Break Isosurfaces

(2m) Agree with CMS

iRing Inc. 2018-06-08 35

Questions

Contact:
[E]: info@iring.ca
[W]: www.iring.ca

iRing Inc. 36