International Journal o/Surface Mining, Reclamation and

Environment

ISSN: 1389-5265 (Print) 1744-5000 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsme19

Burden, spacing and borehole diameter at rock

blasting

R. Agne Rustan

To cite this article: R. Agne Rustan (1992) Burden, spacing and borehole diameter at rock
blasting, International Journal o/Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 6:3, 141-149, DOI:
10.1080/09208119208944329

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09208119208944329

Published online: 03 Apr 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 136

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsme20
International Journal ofSurface Mining and Reclamation 6( 1992): 141-149 141

Burden, spacing and borehole diameter at rock blasting

R.Agne Rustan
Division 0/ Mining and Rock Excavation, Luted University a/Technology, Luled,Sweden

ABSTRACT: Most text books on rock blasting claim that the relationship between burden and borehole diameter
is linear. The statistical calculation presented here with real values from one hundred open pit and
underground mines indicates that the relationship follows a power function. For underground mines the burdens
are consistently lower than those for open pit mines because of higher ore densities~ greater confinement
in blasting, and finally greater demand for well fragmented roc~. The results shown in this paper are
recommended to be considered in basic teaching of rock blasting technique. The formulas can be used for
a first rough estimation of practical burden and spacing. The formulas do not however give any information
about the fragmentation. For that purpose it is necessary to use other formulas not described in this paper.

I INTRODUCTION including total charge and burden were studied because

these formulas can be rewritten into formulas which
The research at Lulell University of Technology has been include burden and borehole diameter.
directed towards methods for controlled contour blasting In the beginning of the literature review it was found
and algorithms to calculate fragmentation in production that there are no formulas available to determine the
blasting. practical burden directly, Existing formulas calculates the
Some of the empirical formulas *) which may be used maximum burden and the practical burden can thereafter
to calculate the maximum burden were reported by Rustan be calculated after correction for the borehole deviations.
(1987) but it was found that these formulas can not be Usually borehole deviations are not well known and
used for a large range of blasthole diameters, 50-400 mm. they have therefore to be anticipated, The influence of
The reason for this is that the formulas were not checked borehole deviations on fragmentation is badly known, and
over the whole borehole diameter range mentioned above. to perform the corrections for borehole deviations during
This paper describes formulas to calculate the charge the calculation of the practical burden introduces many
quantity and the maximal or practical burden according to errors.
a literature review. Fragmentation formulas will not be reported because
Later in the paper a statistical analysis is presented they can first be used when the burden is known.
where the objective was to find the relation between The formulas presented here will only be useful for
practical buden (with an anticipiated burden to spacing bench blasting geometries. The terms burden and spacing
ratio of I) and borehole diameter using data from one used in this paper refers to the start position of the
hundred underground and open pit mines. boreholes. For mines with sun feather drilling the spacing
The result showed that the relation follows a power refers to the spacing at the borehole bottom.
function and it is not linear as most formulas showed
according to the literature review. The relationship 2.1 Charge calculations formulas
between burden and borehole diameter is also different for
underground and open pit mines. The selection of the proper burden in blasting depends on
about 30 different parameters, see Table I.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW INCLUDING CRITICAL
ANALYSIS

The literature was searched for formulas where practical

burden and borehole diameter are included. Also formulas
This paper was originally presented at the Third International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting. held Aug 26-31,
1990 in Brisbane, Queensland Australia. Pennission to publish it in
this journal was given by the Australian Institute of Mining and
0) Fonnula stands throughout this paper for an empirical equality Metallurgy. Parkville. Victoria, Australia. Some editorial correction
which does not mean a perfect equality like a rnatcrnatical equation. to the original paper has been undenaken.

© 1992 A.A. Balkema, P.O. Box 1675,3000 BR Rotterdam, Netherlands

142

Tabel I Parameters influencing the selection of the (2)

optimal burden at blasting.
Lea linear dimension at blasting. For example the bur-
GIVEN PARAMETERS
den B
Dynnmlr: cOIll!"'resuJve e t rength
k2 and k3 c proportional constants
• Dynamic t e ne I j e strength
• Youngs modulull
• Fracture toughness
Belidors formula can be seen as the first step to find a
relation between total charge and burden according to the
ImpedAnCe
Number of joint systems principles of Taylor series expansion. This implies that
• Direction ot Joint eve t ews
• Joint frequency
• Joint CI1IJng mnterlal
the unknown parameter, the burden, is written as a series
• Faults or cru!1hlng zones, direction and wp.athering
of burdens with increasing integer exponents. According
SELECTED PARAMETERS
to Belidor only two terms in the serie should be used.
If formulas (I) and (2) are combined we get the
Cont inement
followingformula
• Numher end orientation of Cree eur r ecee
• Orientation of the b r es t no t e axis to the free e-ie r acee
• Blauted burden
• Blasted spacing
• Bench height (3)
• Number ot r-owe per blast
• Charged length of blasthole

If k 3 cO the relation between borehole diameter and bur-

Borehole pressure and J r e dependence on t fmc

• Charge diameter
den is linear.
- Dp.nsJty of explosive
- ne t cne t Ion heat
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) made a similar Taylor
- Detonation velocity (De~ends partly on borehole diameter)
- Decoupling ratio series development like Belidor,
Spec i f t c charge
Impedance ratio ot explosive to rock
(4)
• Delay time
• Scatter of delay in the detonator!"
• Number of delays used, and the use of deck charges initiated
Three more terms were used. The value of the constants
on d I fferent delays
• Sequence of initiation for Swedish hard rock are
RESULT PARAMETERS
Frngmenta t ion
leo = 0 k 1 =0.010 k 2 = 0.400
Throw
• DJgobJ lity
k 3 =0.004 and finally k j =0
for i:?: 4.

The most important parameter is the borehole diameter. The values for the differenttenns at Bel respectively 10
(We anticipate that the decoupling ratio of the charge is m will be the following
I throughout this paper).
The next most important parameter is the texture and Bclm BclOm
structure of the rock mass.
When the borehole diameter is known the charge can be
k1 om 0,1
k 2 0.40 4.0
calculated according to the following equation.
k3 0.004 0.04

Q =1t ~~f (Ib Pcb + Ie Pee) or (I)

In both cases k2 is the dominating tenn and the error is
small if k 1 and k 3 are set to zero. If equation (I) and
Q = f(d 2) formula (4) are combined and all k's are zero except k 2 =
0.4 the relationship between borehole diameter and burden
is linear
.Q c total charge (kg)
d c borehole diameter (m)
B2 = f(d 2) or B c f (d) for B = 1-10 m (5)
Ib c length of bottom charge (m)
Ie c length of column charge (m)
The powder factor is defined as charge quantity per
Pcb c density of explosive in the bottom charge (kg/m 3)
volume unit or mass unit. The variation of powder factor
Pee c density of explosive in the column charge (kg/m 3)
with burden can be illustrated iffonnula (4) is divided by
the volume V. The relation is shown in Figure 1.
The first known formula for calculating the charge In Fig I it is shown that the powder factor is almost
emanates from Belidor (1725) in France cited by constant for practical burdens (B p) usually used in
Langefors and Kihlstrorn (1978). blasting, namely B p= 1-10 m. For small scale blasting and
very large scale blasting the powder factor increases. The
 143

reason for this, (Langefors-Kihlstrorn, 1978) is that the Co = c + 0.07/8 for B:s; 1.4 m
specific surface area is increased at small burdens. At c = blastability factor (kgim 3) (Necessary powder fac-
very large burdens the powder factor increases because the tor to break but not throw the rock).
volume increases rapidly and more and more energy is f = confinement of the borehole
needed for the throw of the fragmented material. Sd = drilled spacing (m)
Bd = drilled burden (m)
3 EMPIRICAL FORMULAS TO CALCULATE WE
MAXIMUM BURDEN RELATED TO 1HE BORE- The relation between burden and borehole diameter in
HOLE DIAMETER formula (6) is linear.
The maximum possible variation range of the maximum
First the formulas presented in basic literature on rock
burden can be calculated if the minimum and maximum
blasting will be presented. All these formulas illustrate a
values for the parameters within the square root symbol
linear relation between burden and borehole diameter.
are known.
Later on a new formula indicating a non linear relationship
Let us anticipate the following maximum values; Pc =
will be shown.
1600 kgim 3, s = 1.0, Co = 0.42 kgim 3, f = 1.0 and SdlBd =
3.1 Linear formulas 8 and the following minimum values; Pc = 800 kgim 3, s =
0.85, Co = 0.34 kgim 3, f= 0.75 and SdlBd = 0.1.
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) have developed an
Maximum values in the numerator are combined with
empirical formula to calculate the maximum burden. The
minimum values in the denominator and this gave the
constants ko, k\, k3, k4 were set to 0 in formula (4) and a
maximum value of 76 for the proportional constant in
correction factor for explosive properties, blastability and
formula (6). Minimum values in the nominator area were
geometric blast parameters were added.
then combined with maximum values in the denominator.
This gave the smallest value 14 for the proportional
Bm =0.958 d
~ Pe s
f S /B
I
(6) constant in formula (6).
Co (d d)

The formula is only valid for borehole diameters in the

range of 0.03 - 0.089 m according to personal commu- Maximum burden (m)
nications with Kihlstrom (1989).

Bm = maximum burden for good breakage (m)

15
d = borehole diameter (m)
Pc = density of explosive in the borehole (kgim 3)
s = weight strength of the explosive
Co = corrected blastability factor (kgim 3)
Co = c + 0.05 for B = 1.4 - 15 m

10
Powder factor (kg/m 3)
3,0
2,0
5
1,0

0,5

2 4 10 20 40 100
o 100 200 300 400
Borehole diameter (mm)
Burden (m) Fig 2. Relation between maximum burden (B m ) and bore-
Fig 1. Relation between burden and powder factor. hole diameter (d). Langefors and Kihlstrorn (1978), Ash
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978). (1963), and Konya (1968).
144

The Langefors-Kihlstrom formula could therefore be Ash (1968) presented an emperical formula by Konya
written, see also Fig 2. where the maximum burden is proportional to the
diameter of the borehole.
Bm=(14t076) d (7)

Bm = 38 d~ (11)
An even more simplified version of the Langefors and
Kihlstrtim formula can be achieved if we anticipate that Bm = maximum burden (m)
the density of the explosive in the borehole Pe = 1.0, the d = borehole diameter (m)
weight strength s = 1.0, the corrected blastibility factor Co Pe = density of the explosive (kg/m3)
= 0.44 and finally Sd"Bd= 1.0. Pr = density of the rock (kg/m 3)

(8) It is important to notice from this formula that the density

of the rock is included as a parameter. In the Langefors-
This formula or rule of thumb is commonly used for Kihlstrtim formula (6) the effect of the density of the rock
simple charge calculations in Sweden according to is not included directly but indirectly because the rock
BrlInnfors (1973). The formula is shown together with density influences the blastability factor c.
other linear formulas in Fig 2. The importance of the density of the rock in blasting has
been verified by Atchison (1964), Atchison (1968) and
Formula (6) does not give any information about the Leinz and Thurn (1970) and also by Rustan and Vutukuri
practical burden which can only be calculated if the (1983) the latter especially for fragmentation. Research at
borehole deviations are known. Lulea University of Technology showed that the product
When using formula (6) for borehole diameters larger of rock density and P-wave velocity (the impedance) is
than 89 mm it can be shown that the calculated value very important for fragmentation and rock blastability.
deviates more and more from the actually burdens used in The inclusion of explosive density and rock density in
practice. The reason for this will be explained further on, the burden diameter blast formula by Konya can be
but before that, other empirical formulas for Bm versus d derived mathematically according to Rustan as follows,
shall be illustrated.
Pearse (1955) developed an empirical linear formula for
B m andd.
Q 1t
q =-= 2
tfflc
Pe
(12)
m Bpi HbPr

B m =8,5 d (9) q = powder factor (kg/t)

Q = total charge per borehole (kg)
m = blasted mass of rock (kg)
Bm = maximum burden (m) lc = length of charge in the borehole (m)
d = borehole diameter (m) Bp t =practical burden =the burden when the ratio be-
Pd = maximum detonation pressure (MPa) tween spacing and burden equals one (m)
at = maximum tensile strength of rock (MPa) H b = bench height (m)

This formula is not easy to use when the maximum tensile

Other symbols have been explained earlier in the paper.
strength is not known. Experimentally it is also difficult Equation (12) can be rewritten to
to determine the maximum detonation pressure.
Ash and Pearse (1962) and Ash (1963) modified Pearse
(13)
formula. The constant 8.5 and the factor ";p<!at were
replaced by one single constant Kb. From field tests the
following formula was derived. Mathematically it is therefore a linear relationship
between practical burden (Bpi) and borehole diameter (d)
(10) and the square root of explosive density divided by rock
density.
Bm = maximum burden (m) If it in practise can be shown that the burden is directly
Kb = proportional factor varing between 20-40 depending proportional to the borehole diameter and all other
on rock- and explosive parameters. parameters are constant when blasting in a certain rock
d = borehole diameter (m) type, this implies that the powder factor should not change
when the burden is changed according to equation (13).
The formula is also illustrated in Fig 2.
 145

3.2 Maximum influence of explosive density and rock was not linear in open pit blasting. The following formula
density on the burden was derived by curve fitting.

According to Lama and Vutukuri (1978) the density of (16)

rock varies from 1670 kg/m 3 for chalk (Nareth in Israel) to
5070 kg/m 3 for hematite (Soudan in Michigan, USA). Bp = practical burden (m)
The density of explosive in the borehole can vary from d = borehole diameter (m)
800 - 1600 kg/m 3.
As shown earlier maximum values in the nominator are The formula is shown in Fig 3 and it is valid for borehole
combined with minimum values in the denominator and diameters from 50-300 mm in open pit blasting.
vice versa. The values are put into formula (II). In formula (16) the ratio of spacing to burden has not
been taken into account.

Bm = (15 to 37) d (14) Usually the SIB ratio is equal to I for large borehole
diameters in open pit mines, but at borehole diameters less
than 100 mm, the SIB-ratio could vary between 1.5-2.0
This formula has been introduced into Fig 2 for and in extreme cases it could be as high as 8.
comparison with other linear relationships between burden
and borehole diameter.
If we anticipate common values for explosive density 4 POWER FORMULAS DERIVED BY STATISTICAL
and rock density, 1000 respectively 2800 kg/m 3, formula ANALYSIS
(II) can be simplified to
4.1 Underground magnetite mines in Sweden
(15)
To eleminate the influence of different rock densities,
values for borehole diameters and their respectively
3.3 Power formula developed for open pit mines
burdens were collected from magnetite orebodies at
Luossavaara-Kirunavaara AB (LKAB) and the Research
A diagram given in a brochure, from Atlas Copco showed
Mine at Luossavaara, see Table 2.
that the relation between burden and borehole diameter
The following formula was derived for the values given in
Burden (m) Table 2.

15 Bp = 8.50 dO•525 Valid only for data in Table 2. (17)

Bp = practical burden (m)

d = borehole diameter (m)

Observe that the relation between burden and borehole

10 diameter follows a power function. The LKAB formula is
compared with the Langefors and Kihlstrorn formula and
the Atlas Copco formula in Fig 3.
One possible reason why the burdens used at 102 and
165 mm borehole diameter are small could be that the

5
Table 2 Relation between practical burden and borehole
diameter when blasting in Swedish magnetite ore. Density
- 4800kg/m 3

Location Pnctica1 80,"",,1.

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

(or blat burden (m) diameter(m) length (m)

Borehole diameter 1m) LKABlKinm. 1.8 0.052 11

Fig 3. Burden versus borehole diameter. Atlas Copco lKABlMolmberS.t 2.5 0.102 2S
practical burden values refer to open pit mines and LKAB Loussavlln 3.3 O.IM 90
practical burden values to magnetite underground mines in Research Mine
Sweden.
146

fragmentation should be fine in underground blasting. This means that the best approximation of a Taylor
Another reason could be that the borehole length is series fit was
comparatively long compared to surface mines and hole
deviations have to be compensated by decreased practical (20)
burden.
Almgren and K1ippmark (1981) showed for example that However a power curve fit, see Fig 4, gave an even higher
drillhole deviations could cause additional costs for ore correlation coefficient and therefore the Taylor approxi-
losses and waste rock dilution when mining narrow mation formula 20 was not used.
orebodies. These costs might be as large as the operating
cost for sublevel stoping in large orebodies. B 1= 23.4 d O.855 +53 % Expected maximum (21)
Another reason is, that the boreholes can not be drilled p -33 % and minimum value
parallel underground, because the drilling drifts are too
narrow and the pillars between the drilling drifts too wide. Correlation coefficient R = 0.90
Only at the bottom of the borehole sufficient burden and
In Fig 4 each single value is evenly distributed above
spacings are achieved.
and below the power curve fit. Comparison is made to the
Langefors and Kihlstrom formula B m = 46 d.
4.2 Statistical derivation of formula for practical burden
Almost all values are below the Langefors and
(Bpi)
Kihlstriim curve for average Swedish rock. This means
that the Langefors and Kihlstrom curve is not valid for
The values used to derive formula (17) were very few,
large borehole diameters.
only three values and the zero point, and the basic values
From Fig 4 it can also be seen, that the values for
to derive formula (16) were also lacking. Therefore about
borehole diameters 165 mm underground are all below the
100 values for practical burdens and borehole diameters .
regression curve. This could imply that the burden and
were collected from different references. For example an
spacing used underground are too small. One explanation
extensive list from Canadian open pit mines by Dubnie
can be that this borehole diameter needs wider drifts and
(1972) was used. Other sources were Almgren (1988),
Nielsen (1986) and Bauer (1978). Together this represents
borehole diameters from 48 to 381 mm. Primary and
calculated data are shown in Table 3, see Appendix 1. Burden (m)
It is not sufficient to record the relation between burden
and borehole diameter because the powder factor is
determined by both the drilled burden (B d) and drilled
15
spacing (Sd)' In Appendix 1 the theoretical area per hole
has been determined, that means the product of BdSd' If •
the inclination of the bench face is 90 0 this product is the
same as Btl,Stl (practical burden x practical spacing).
The practical burden (Bpi) when spacing and burden are
10
equal was calculated according to the following definition.
•
B pl = ~ (18) •

Bpi = practical burden when SIB = I, (m)

B p = practical burden (m) 5
Sp = practical spacing (m)

A Taylor series fit was done for the relation between Bpi
and d according to the following equation

(19) o 100 200 300 400

Borehole diameter (mm)
With the help of the computer program "Statgraphics" it Fig 4. Power curve fit to burden versus borehole diameter
was shown that ko = 0, and the constants k2 and larger (as for one hundred data from surface and underground mines,
shown in equation (19», were so small that they could be compared to the average maximum burden in Swedish
neglected. hard rock.
 147

thinner pillars between the drifts to be able to give the 4.4 Statistical formula for underground mines (d = 48-165
boreholes a sufficient burden and spacing. Normally mm)
however it is not possible to increase the width of the drift
and decrease the width of the pillar due to the stability of The data from the 200 mm borehole diameter was
the drifts. neglected because they deviated very much from the gen-
There are however two underground mines, Mount Isa eral trend. It is also known that these large borehole
and Kidd Creek, using 90 m long and 700 mm diameter diameters can cause damage underground, and vibration
blastholes underground where the mean value for the restrictions on the surface might make it difficult to use
practical burden is very close to the regression line. This these borehole diameters in the future.
might imply a rational mining or the fragmentation may be
too large. The 200 mm boreholes were drilled with the rotary
crushing drilling technique. This method gives smaller
Fig 4 also shows that almost all underground values are borehole deviations. That could be one of the explana-
below the regression line. It was therefore necessary to tions why these borehole diameters can break a
separate data from underground mines from open pit data comparatively large area compared to the 165 mm
and make a regression analysis for each of them. boreholes. The latter borehole diameters are usually
drilled with the in the hole hammer technique.
4.3 Statistical formula for open pit mines (d = 89-381 mm) In Fig 5 the relation between practical burden and the
borehole diameter for underground mines is,
The following formula was derived for open pit mines.
BpI = 11.8 . dO. 630 +40 % Expected maximum (23)
-25 % and minimum value
B
pt
= 18.1 dO.689 +52 % Expected maximum (22)
-37 % and minimum value Correlation coefficient R =0.94
Valid for borehole diameters 89-381 mm The formula is valid for borehole diameters from 48 to
Correlation coefficient R =0.78 165mm.

The formula is shown i~ Fig 5.

4.5 Practical advise for calculation of the practical burden
and spacing

Formula (22) should be used to calculate the practical

Practical burden Bp1Im)
burden BpI for open pit mines and formula (23) for
underground mines. When this has been done, it is easy to
15 J> .' calculate burden and spacing for any SIB-ratio according
\1-
II
to formula (18). These formulas can be used as a first step
S- .: in roughly determining the burden and spacing when
Q;)~"" drill hole deviations, explosive, and rock properties are not
well known. The calculated values can be adjusted
Rustan, Surface Mi'nes 18.8dO. 689 according to the following.
10 ~ .:
t..; •
• If the rock density is large, reduce the calculated
':f .: burden value and vice versa.
.q .:
...
Q;
?S' : : • If the borehole deviations are large. reduce the calcu-
cr .:' lated burden value and vice versa.
s.,e., .. • If the strength of explosive is large in hard rock,
5 .....
<::> .: increase the value and vice versa.
~ :' • If the strength of explosive is small in soft rock, the
......,tS : burden value should be increased and vice versa .

.... Rustan, Underground Mines 11.8dO.630

5 CONCLUSIONS

° 100 200 300 400

Borehole diameter (mm)
This paper shows that the linear relation between burden
and borehole diameter could only be used in a small
Fig 5. Practical burden (B pt) versus borehole diameter for diameter range. To be able to cover all borehole diameters
surface and underground mines compared to maximum used in practice today it is necessary to use a power
burden (Bm) in Swedish hard rock.
148

~
formula, one for open pit mines (22), and one for
underground mines (23). Bpi = k2· dO.630 underground mines (25)
The basic formulas given in rock blasting text books are
recommended to be revised according to this information,
Other parameters like rock texture and structure are more
The reason why the underground formula is different
difficult to include in the formula, To include these
from the open pit formula might be
parameters it is necessary to undertake detailed structure
and strength analysis of the rock mass in many operations.
,.. Larger confinement of the boreholes underground.
,.. Cautious blasting has to be undertaken close to the
hanging- and footwall underground. 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
,.. The borehole length is larger underground and the
borehole deviations have to be compensated for a smaller Lulea University of Technology is thanked for its financial
burden and spacing. In open pit mines all boreholes can support of this study and Prof. G. Almgren and MSc M.
be drilled parallel to each other and the borehole deviation Kuchta for their good comments during the work. The
are small at large diameters. The bench height is generally doctorial students H. Wirstam and A. Mansson are also
only 15-20 m. thanked for their kind help in doing the statistical
computer analysis.
One reason that the relationship for open pit mines is not
linear is that when the borehole diameter is increased the
bench height is not scaled up, and for large drill hole REFERENCES
diameters only bottom charge is therefore used to break
the rock. It is however a well known fact that the rock Almgren, G. and Klippmark, K., 198 I. Economic aspects
will fragment better if the bench height is increased. on hole deviation in sublevel stoping, Internat. Conf, on
When the boreholes are gelling futher and futher apart it Caving and Sublevel Stoping, Nov 18-20, Denver,
is also necessary to use a higher powder factor to keep the Colorado, USA.
fragmentation below acceptable values. Almgren, G., 1988. Main Course in Mining, BT 203, Part
The Langefors and Kihlstromformula presented· in Fig 2. Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden. (In
I, is not correct in the burden range 1-10 m, because Swedish).
accordning to the diagram the powder factor should be Ash, R.L., 1968. The design of blasting rounds. Surface
almost constant, but the statistical analysis shows that the Mining, Chapter 7.3, AIME, New York.
powder factor (kglm 3) increases with burden according to Ash, R.L., 1963. The mechanics of rock breakage. Part I
Fig 5. Only at a linear relation between the burden and through IV, Pit and Quarry 56, 2 through 5 (August
borehole diameter the powder factor (kglm 3) will be through November, p 98,100,112,118-123,126-131,
constant. 109-11 1 and 114-118.
Probably the burden and spacings are too small when Ash, R.L. and Pearse, G.E., 1962. Velocity, hole depth
using 165 mm boreholes underground. If the boreholes related to blasting results. Min. Eng, No. 14, Sept. 9, pp,
can be arranged parallel and drilled with smaller borehole 71-76.
deviations it might be possible to increase the burden and Atchison, C., 1964. Comparative studies of explosives in
spacing from 3.8 x 3.8 m to 4.8 x 4.8 m. granite. Second series of test. USBM RI 6434.
Atchison, C., 1968. Fragmentation principles, Surface
Mining, (Editor Pfleider), pp. 335-372, (AIME, New
6 FUTURE WORK York).
Atlas Copco. Bench drilling catalogue. Know how and
This is the first step to create a more scientific rock equipment, p. 13.
blasting formula for calculation of the burden related to Bauer, A., 1978. Trend in drilling and blasting. CIM Bul-
the borehole diameter. It was found mathematically that letin, Sept, p. 81-90.
the power formulas presented in the paper might be Brannfors, S., 1973. Rock Blasting Technique. Norstedt
improved if the explosive density and rock density are in- och Stiner. (In Swedish).
troduced into the formulas like in formula (11). New Dubnie, A., 1972. Surface mining practise of Canada.
proportional constants have therefore to be derived. The Mines Branch Information Circular 292, Oct., p. 38-39.
influence of rock density and explosive density must Lama, R.D. and Vutukuri, V.S., 1972. Handbook of
however be examined by field tests to get the correct Mechanical Properties of Rock, Volume II. Trans. Tech.
values of the constants k t and k2 in formula (24) and (25). Publications.
Langefors, U. and Kihlstrom, B., 1978. Rock Blasting.

~
Almquist and Wiksell.
Bpi = k l . dO.689 open pit mining (24) Leins, W., Thurn, W. 1970. Ermittlung und Beurleitung
der Sprengarbeit von Gestein auf der Grundlage des
 149

Spezifischen Sprengenergieaufwandes. Westdeutcher

Mine Type Oretype Hole Pract. Pract. Bro- Pract.
Verlag, Koln und Opladen. Forschungsbericht des dJaile- burden hole k.n burden
t.r dlst. area (S/B-Jj
Landes Nordrhein-Westfahlen, Nr 2118. d
~~, "~J ~gl
... ......
laID)
Nielsen, K., 1986. Optimum fragmentation in under-
ground mining. APCOM. Brunswick Waste 171 2 •. 00 4.DO
(Can)
Canada S Hard 10101'-
178 '.9 24 .01 '.90
Pearse, G.E., 1955. Rock blasting - some aspects on the
theory and practise. Mine and Quarry Eng. Vol 21 Jan.,
BiHon ICan)
MarDoraton
S
S
Ore
) 78
Ore
178 ,.,
8.1 S.1
'.8
37.21
31.90
6.10
~.65
Can) 5 Wa.te 178 S.' S.7 42. Be 6.54
p.25-30. Advocat!!! (Can)S Aabesto. 187 7.9 7.9 62."1 1. 90
Mt ha (Au) Ug Cu. Pb. In 200 S.O S.O 36.00 6.00
Rustan, A., 1987. Course in rock blasting technique frag- ~ldd Creek Ug Cu. Zn 200 '.0 S.O 30.00 5.41
ICanl
mentation and blast damage. Lulea University of Caland ICan) 5 Ore 200 '.S ~.5 25.30 ~L03

Technology, March 9-13, 1987, LuJeA. (In Swedish).

Stel!p Rock
(Can)
5 Ore
5
200
'00 ,.,
'.7 '.9
5.5
18.13
30.25
4.26
6.50

Rustan, A. and Vutukuri, V.S., 1983. The influence from

Lornex ICan}

Steep Rock
5
5
5
Non 'e ore 219
Waste 2 J9
"9 .. ,
10.0
J1.3
10.0
11.3
~.5
100.00
J27.60
23.65
)0.00
) 1. 30
4.86
specific charge (powder factor), geometric scale and
physical properties of homogeneous rock on frag-
(Can)
CirJtfHh (CanJS
S
Waste
We.Urob (Can) S Waste
• 5 Ore
229
229
229
"9
..... ,
S.'
7.S
6.'
7.6
...9
4.3
40.96
57.76
21.07
18.49
6."0
1. 60
4.69
'.30
mentation by blasting. First Internat. Symp. on Rock Ca.alar teen} S
ClJnton (Canl S
Asbestos
Aabe.toa
279
220
S.l 6.1
5.5
37.21
30.25
6.10
5.50
'.S
Fragmentation by Blasting, Aug. 22-26, Lulea, Sweden. Savaoe RIver S Fe 220 8.0 8.0 4e.00 6.92
ITanlanlen)
Rustan, A., 1981. Factors influencing fragmentation at AnvU ICan) 5 Non Fe are 229 8.1 6.1 37.21 6.10
5 Waste 729 7.0 7.0 49.00 7.00
blasting, Literature review. Lulea University of BrunswJc1c 5 Non Fe 229 8.1 6, ) 31.2) 6.10
(Can)
Technology, Technical report No. 1981:38 T. (In
Swedish).
[eatell (Can) S
Pho~nllt ICan) S
Cranlale ICanlS
•
Cla.rabelle-
• S
S
Non Fe ore 229
Non r e ore 729
Non r. 229

Mon Fe are 229

"9
...,.,
8.7
'.9

s, ,
8.5
4.9
9.1
11.0
9.7
56.95
24.0)
.'.!o3
60.50
DO.'"
1. 55
".90
".89
1.78
1.10
(Can)
Enda1co (Canl
S
S Hon Fe
".
or. 229
8.1
S.l
6.1
6.7
37.21
"0,87
6.10
6. "
AHUt ISw) S Cu. Au 251 7.8 9.5 71.2& 8.44
GrUtHh ICan)S Ore 251 7.' 7.9 62,41 7.90
Appendix I. scnerreevrrre S Ore 251 8.' 8.2 67.24 8.20
(Can'
Canada 5 Hard • .10101'- 251 7.0 7.0 49.00 7.00
cant Fe
Carol (Can) 5 Ore :151 7.3 7.3 63.29 7.30
Table 3. Drilling dam used for determination of the relation 5 Waste 251 7.8 7.6 51.76 7.60
5 Ore 251 8.7 1.3 48.91 6.89
between burden, spacing and borehole diameter S Ore 251 7.0 7.6 53.20 7.29
5 Waste 251 S.7 7.3 48.91 6.89
5 Wast!!! 251 7.8 8.2 62.32 7 .119
Hooae MountainS Ore 251 8.1 8.1 65.61 8.10
type Ore-type Hol. Pract. Pract. Bro- Pract. (Can) 5 Waste 251 8.' 8.2 67.24 8.20
7.9 8.7&
dlame-
t.r
burden hole
dist.
k.n
area
burden
IS/B-l)
Wabuah (Can) 5
CJJnton (Can) 5 Waste '"
251 8.1
7.9
9.7
15.1
16.63
37.21 6 .10
9.02
e
("'1 ~g, ('~I ~gl Bethlehe. S Non Fe '"
251 S.l
10.3
6.1
81.37
37.21 6.10

Norway
)foTway
LKAB (Sw)
Ug
Up
U9 MagnetHe
.8
51
52
].1
1.8
1.8
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.55
3.60
... 50
1. 60
1. 90
2.12
ICen)
EcsulJ (Canl S
Ga.pe (Can)
Dibraltar
(Canl
S
S
Non Fe 251

'"
'"
...
S.7

S.7
.5
.7
7
56.95
.7.63
. . . 89
Norway Ug 62 2.0 2.4 LBO 2.19
Horway Ug 61 2.0 2.0 ".00 2.00 PJpe Lake S acn Fe 251 7.0 .0 49 00 1.00
vr ee er r e A8 Ug CU 10 1.8 1.8 3.2" 1. 80 (Can)
(Sw) Shdl1cameen S Non Pe 251 8.7 (,.7 ".99 e . 70
LKAB (Sw) Og Magnetite 76 2.6 2.1 5.2& 2.29 (Can)
SSAB/Grangea tJg MagnetS t e 76 2.1 L8 3.18 ].9 .. Brenda (Can) 5 251 7.9 9.7 76.63 8.7&
tSw) Toa Price (Au) 5 Fe 300 8.0 Il.O 64,00 8.00
vr ee er r e AS 09 Cu 89 2.3 2.3 5.29 2.30 Mount Iaa IAu)S 310 9.0 104 93.60 9.67
Canada S nard. 10101'- 311 7.9 7. g 62 • .fi1 7.90
IS"')
Tun08ten (CaniS Non Fe ore 89 2.1 2.1 4.41 2.10 cont Pe
Nordkalk "9 5 r.ree e rcne 96 2.5 ~.O 12.50 3.5 .. Sherman (Can) Fe-ore 311 8.' g.) 77.35 8.79
IS"'1 95 3.0 6.0 18.00 4.24 Wa.te 31J 8.' 9.1 77.35 8.79
Vhcar1a AS UQ Cu 104 3.0 3.0 9.00 3.00 Cartier (Can) Fe-ore 311 S •• 8.8 56.32 7.50
(SM) Waste 3)) 9. I 9.. 85.5. 0.26
LKAB (Sw) Ug- M39netHe 104 2.' 2.5 6.25 2.50 Toa Price IAulS ,. 360 8.0 8.0 64.00 8.00
B-C (Can) S Asbestoa 104 3.7 4.6 17.02 ... 13 Hount Wha]e- S Fe 380 10.0 11.0 170.00 13.04
It-B tcent S 104 e. 6 ".6 2L16 01.60 back (Au)
Jeffrey (Can) S 104 3.7 e.6 17.02 ... 13 Canada Hard. 10W'- 38) 9.1 9.1 02.0) 9.10
Carey tCan) S 104 4.0 ... 9 19.60 4.43 cant Pe
GullhOgen ISwjS LIDPstone 10~ 4.0 4.0 16.00 01.00
Mount r ee {Au)Ug Pb 11~ 3.0 4.5 13.~0 3.n Abbreviation. uaed:
Plnp Point S Non FI! ore 121 ... 6 ".6 21.16 '.60
fCan}
Reeves fCan) S aebe e t ce 127 4.3 5.~ 23.65 4.86
S - Surtace Au • Auetra11a H • Norway
U~ • Underground Can • Canada Sw Sweden
NaUonal (Can)S Asbe!ltos 127 01.3 4.9 21.07 4.59
Zink Corp (Au)Ug Pb. Zn 159 2.0 8.0 16.00 •. 00
B-C fCan) S Asbt-Sto5 159 5.5 6.7 36.85 6.07
NOTlftandh: S Asbestos 159 6.1 6.7 40.87 6.39
ICan)
t.ces eeveer-e Uc;;r Mac;;rn~tHe 165 .3 3. ) 2 . 21 3.49
Rl!searchmlne
15w)
Cobar (Au) Ug Cu. Pb . Zn 165 4.0 e .c 1': .00 •. oc
Copppr Cliff Og Nl. Cu 165 4.0 '.0 H.OO ".00
(Canl
Little StobIe Og Nl. Cu 165 3.7 3.7 13.69 3.70
ICan)
Lockprby ICanlUg Ni, Cu 16~ 3.3

Broken Hill
(Aul
tac Tl0 (Can)
Ug Pb.

Waste
Or.
Zn
'"
'"
JS,
.....,.,, •. 0

,.,
S.'
14.00

29.H
22.36
3.14

5.43
... 73

take (Card S Asbl!sto. 7.0 7.9 55.30 7.440

Jeffrey (Canj S Asbestos '"
111 S.7 S.7 44.89 6.70