1

2
Explosive rock breakage is an
interaction betwen the explosive and
the rock. The results, in terms of
degree of fragmentation, damage and
muckpile displacement are determined
largely by the properties of the two
components.
3
4
Hagan & Harries (1977) have stated
both experiments and practice have
indicated that blasting results are
influenced by rock propierties more
then by explosive properties.

Experience in quarries, open cut

mines, surface coal mines, and
underground mines supports this
assertion.
5
In general, attempts to predict
fragmentation results achieved in
normal bleasting operations from
physical and rock properties
obtained from laboratory testing
have not been successful. The
failure is attributed to the
dominant effects of rock structure
and its influence on bulk rock
properties.

6
Although the physical and
mechanical properties of the rock
mass (viz. Compressive and
tensile strengths, density, elastic
moduli) do impact on
fragmentation performance, they
are secondary to the dominant
effects of rock structure.

7
En el diagrama conceptual se muestra
típicos diclasismos.

8
9
Discussions of rock properties and
their influences on fragmentation
frequently refer to rock strength. This
property is difficult to quantify in view
of its dependence on the rate of
loading or strain rate, since it is well
known the dynamic strength of rock
varies quite considerable from static
strength.

10
However, despite this limitation, both
compressive tensile strength play an
important role in determining the
limits of damage and overbreak
behind blastholes, primarily because
of their relationship to the easily
measured peak particle velocity.

11
The more important factors
affecting blast fragmentation, rock
mass stability, and the
environmental impact of blasting
therefore include:

12
1.Orientation of natural jointing;
2.Elastic properties of rock;
3.Density of rock;
4.Friction angle ();
5.Cohesive strength of frecture
surfaces.

13
For convenience, the
influences of rock properties
on stability; fragmentation, and
environmental impact will be
considered separately.

14
Of the factors listed above, the largest
influence on fragmentation is undoubtedly
the degree of natural jointing and
fracturing. The formation of joints occurs
during rock diagenesis, generaly as a
result of tensile stresses in the rock. The
rock mass typically develops a number of
Inter.-dependent joint sets wnich act to
destress the rock mass. 15
16
17
Joints inevitable occur in sets, with
each set exhibiting a degree of
parallelism which reflects their
common genesis. Joint sets are
generally ranked by order of
prominente from “major” sets to less
prominent or “minor” sets as
determined by their frequency of
occurrence and persistente or
continuity.

18
The degree of natural jointing is important
because it defines the largest block which
may results after blasting, Either from within
the blasthole pattern, or from overbreack
behind the shot. Because jointing tends to
occur in sets which are aproximately
perpendicular natural joint planes define sets
of blocks of varying sizes. Where the spacing
between joints within a set is wide the insitu
blocks are large and the energy factor
associated with blast desings is relatively
high. If blasting does not breack these
blocks, they may be “rolled” out of the
pattern to form oversize.
19
Where the frequency of fracturing
in the rock mass is high, fine
fragmentation is more easily
achieved and energy factors
associated with blasting tend to
be lower. Heavily jointed or
fractured hard rocks behave quite
similary to softer and weaker
rock types.

20
The combination of rock and
discontinuites can be considered, and
modelled, as a stack of blocks held
together by a combination of the joint
surface cohesión, the coefficient of
friction of the joint surfaces, and the
stresses acting on the blocks (either
hydrostatic stresses in surface
applications, or a combination of
hydrostatic and tectonic stresses in
deep underground applications).
21
Several authors have suggested that in
order to achieve maximum utilisation
of explosive energy in fragmentation
process, it is necessary to match the
impedance of the explosive as closely
as posible to the impedance of the
rock.

22
Impedance is defined as the
product of velocity and density.
For the explosive, impedance
refers to the product of in-hole
density and velocity of
detonation whereas for the rock,
impedance is defined as the
product of p-wave velocity and
density. Hence, for maximum
fragmentation:
23
  exp losivo VOD   Rock Vr

Where:

ρ is the density,
VOD is the velocity of detonation of
the explosive, and
Vr is the p-wave velocity of the rock.

24
Based on the desire for impedance
matching, massive and estrength
rocks (typically with p-wave
velocities in the range 4500 m/s to
6000 m/s) fragment better when a
high density, high VOD explosive is
used. Explosive impedances never
reach the maximum impedance of
rock, because of the relatively low
density of comercial explosives.

25
Many rocks, however, do not require
fragmentation as much as displacement,
and for these rock types, the utilisation
of shock energy is very much of
secondary importante to the generation
and utilisation of heave energy. These
rock types usually Benefit from the use
of low VOD explosives, and it is in this
application that the use of aluminised
explosives is best suited.

26
On the other hand doctor Alan
Bauer an Peter N. Calder have
said, that:

“The factors influencing

fragmentation in blasting are”:

27
i. Rock material type to be blasted
ii. The geological structure, that is the
predominant fracture orientations and
fracture frequency
iii. Direction of blasting relative to the
rock structure
iv. For a given explosive loading, the
ratio of the burden to spacing

28
v. The explosive charge and its
performance. That is, the useful
energy per foot of borehole or per
cubic yard or per ton of rock
vi.The delay interval employed between
rows of holes
vii.The collar height
viii.Subgrade and the bottom charge
ix.The number of rows of blastholes
x. Operational control in the field.

29
 The end.

Dr. Carlos Agreda T

Profesor

Lima, 31 de octubre del 2006.

30