PLANNING DRILLING PATTERNS for improved

fragmentation

Dr. B.S.Choudhary
Department of Mining Engineering
ISM, Dhanbad

1
PREFACE
 For any drilling & blasting professional, three items are of immense importance
• Rocks
• Explosives
• Blast design
 Rocks COMMUNICATE (whisper, slightly speak & sometimes even talk loud) but, DO NOT
CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR.
 Nevertheless, to the great relief of D&B engineer the Explosives & BLAST DESIGN
parameters CAN BE AND SHOULD BE CHANED AS PER THE COMUNICATIONS
MADE BY THE ROCK.
 Further, to this, the COMMUNICATIONS Made by the ROCK are SITE SPECIFIC, Which
calls for necessary SKILL for each case.
 Topmost aim of a D&B professional is to provide ‘acceptable & rather sustainable
fragmentation’ of rocks under prevalent Geo-mining conditions, giving due cognizance to
safety, economy, productivity and environmental considerations.
 Rock

Explosive Blast Design

BUT

FRAGMENTATION RESULTS sensitive

Which Design
to changes made in
Parameter?
blast design parameter
Hence, Judicious selection and proper control on explosive and/or blast design parameters vis-à-vis site
specific conditions go a long way in accomplishing the goal of ‘acceptable & sustainable
fragmentation’ for any project
4
 Degree Of Fragmentation Of Rock Depends On

• The rock’s characTerisTics;

• The properties and quantities of explosives;
• Blast geometry;
• Blast size;
• The priming method; and
• The initiation sequence
BS Choudhary, ISM 5
 Blasting Nomenclature
• Free Face - open area at the rock air interface - essential that broken rock has
a place to go to avoid energy turning to bad vibrations
• Row - a line up of holes running parallel to the Free Face
• Spacing - the distance between holes in a row
• Burden - the distance from a row of holes to the free face - the rock that
must be broken up and moved by the explosive

BS Choudhary, ISM 6
• Blast performance is vastly governed by the
mesh area (spacing x burden), which exerts
considerable influence on effective
utilization of explosive energy.
• The two components of mesh area, namely,
spacing(S) and burden (B) play key role in
controlling overall blast results.

BS Choudhary, ISM 7
• Too small mesh area may escalate the drilling and blasting cost
enormously (particularly in hard rocks), whereas, too much expansion of the
mesh area produces big boulders in the blasted muckpile, which more than
offsets the indiscriminate savings made on the part of drilling and blasting
costs. Further, the occurrence of blast nuisances, because of indiscriminately
designed mesh areas, cannot be overlooked.

BS Choudhary, ISM 8
• If burden is too less then there is danger of air blast and fly rocks. The burden
at which the volume of suitably fragmented and displaced rock is maximum
and the side effects like toe, air overpressure and back break are minimum, is
termed as ‘optimum fragmentation burden’.
• Excessive burden distance prevents the flexural rupture due to increased
stiffness. The gas energy becomes inadequate to provide proper displacement
and its associated breakage.
• The distance between adjacent blast holes, measured perpendicular to the
burden is defined as the spacing. It controls mutual stress effects between the
blast holes and depends upon burden, hole depth, charge length, initiation
sequence and rock properties.

BS Choudhary, ISM 9
• The spacing provided between two holes in no case should be less than burden as it
causes premature splitting of holes and early loosening of stemming which results in
sudden drop of blast hole pressure to adversely affect the fragmentation besides causing
rapid release of gases to the atmosphere causing air blasts.
• A large spacing and small burden tend to cause more twisting and tearing of rocks, less
splitting along the line of blast hole and less back breaks. Small spacing results in large
sized fragments because of premature dissipation of energy.
• The S/B ratio of even upto 8 has been reported to provide better fragmentation with
alternate pattern multi row blasting.

BS Choudhary, ISM 10
 Burden (B) suggested formulae
S.No. Formulae Proponent Year Remarks

1 Bm = Kb * d Ash 1963 Kb = burden ratio ranging

from 20-40
2 B=K*d U.S.B.M 1977 K=25-30, d = hole
diameter
3 B = (d.L)0.5 Andersen 1978 d= diameter of hole (in),
and L= length of hole (ft)

4 Longefors and 1978 *

Kihlstrom
5 B= 37.8 (ρe)1/3/ ρr * d Hagan 1983 ρe and ρr = densities of
explosive and rock, d =
hole diameter
6 Gupta et al. 1986 **
CMRI
7 Bp = 18.1 d0.689 Rustan 1992 Bp = Practical burden, d =
hole diameter
Bcal = 0.012[ 2SGE/SGR + 1.5] ϕ
8BS Choudhary, ISM Konya 1995 *** 11
• *Where;
• Bm= maximum burden (m), S = weight strength of explosive, d= diameter of blast hole(m), Ca= corrected
blastability factor (kg/cu.m.), ρ=density of explosives, f=confinement of blast hole, Sd= spacing(m), and
Bd= burden(m).
•
• **Where,
• B= burden (m), Ld= load density of explosive (kg/cu.m.), C= charge factor (kg/cu.m), Hb= bench height
(m), and E=efficiency factor, 0.7- 0.8 depending on structural discontinuities of the rock.
• ***Where, Bcal=calculated burden for the first row (m),
• SGE=specific gravity of ANFO
• SGR=specific gravity of blasted rock,
• ϕ=diameter of drill hole (mm), Infield practice, the Bcal value should be only 0.5 or 1.0m

BS Choudhary, ISM 12
• Floyd (1999), on the basis of full scale trials, with use of high speed camera and
borehole camera, suggested a maximum face burden of 25 times the charge
diameter to prevent the overbreak / backbreak etc.
• Djordjevic (1998), on the basis of series of trials in open pit gold mine
recommended that burden in front of a row can vary in the range of (25-40)
times the blast hole dia.
• Burden can also be calculated from the bench height using the following equation:
B = C2H
Where, B=burden (m), H=bench height (m) and C2=constant of proportionality
(depends on rock and explosive properties). For satisfactory blasts C2 varies from
0.25 to 0.50 (Adhikari, 1994).
BS Choudhary, ISM 13
 Spacing formulae suggested
S.No. Formulae Proponent Year Remarks

1 S=1.25B Vutukuri and Lama 1974 B= burden (m), S= spacing

(m)
2 S= Ks *B Ash 1976 Ks=coefficient, 1.5 to 2.5
3 S= 1.8B Bhandari and 1975, Where free face is parallel to
Sastry 1990 the joint orientation

4 S=1.1B Bhandari and 1975, Where free face is

Sastry 1990 perpendicular to the joint
orientation

BS Choudhary, ISM 14
S/B ratios suggested
S.No. Conditions of blasting S/B ratio Proponent
1 Model blasting 3.0 to 4.0 Singh and Sastry, 1987
2 Field blasting 1.0 Hagan, 1985
3 Instantaneous firing 2.5 to 3.0 Singh et al.,1981
4 Small diameter with ms delay 1.5 to 1.8 U.S.B.M., 1977
5 Large diameter with ms delay 1.2 to 1.5 U.S.B.M., 1977
6 Multi-row blasting Up to 8 Langefors & Kihlstrom,1976
7 Field blasting 1.0 Dick et al., 1973
8 Field blasting 1.2 to 1.5 Porter, 1971
9 Homogeneous material 2 to 4 Langefors, 1966
10 Field blasting 1.0 to 1.5 Kochanowisky, 1964
11 Simultaneous firing 1.3 to 1.4 Hino, 1959
BS Choudhary, ISM 15
Angled versus vertical blast hole

BS Choudhary, ISM 16
BS Choudhary, ISM 17
 Drilling patterns

Square/ rectangular pattern

Staggered pattern

BS Choudhary, ISM 18
BS Choudhary, ISM 19
Drilling Patterns

Square Pattern - ease of drilling - easily explained to labor - not a lot of judgement to
lay out - just one number to remember

Spacing > Burden improves fragmentation

BS Choudhary, ISM 20
Rectangular Pattern

Provides for spacing > Burden - Improves fragmentation if you can

get your drillers to put one down
Staggered Pattern

Provides Spacing > Burden by a considerable amount

Problem of leaving stumps on quarry floor - next row takes them out
 pattern

BS Choudhary, ISM 23
BS Choudhary, ISM 24
BS Choudhary, ISM 25
Firing patterns
• Firing pattern is like an electrical circuit, which provides a pathway for detonation wave in order
that explosive charged in the holes, can be initiated.
• In any blasting programme the foremost requirement is sequential generation of free face (with
the blast progression).
• To this end, the firing pattern decides the movement and direction of rock by creating free face for
subsequent blast holes/rows.
• Each firing pattern has its own application. Proper use of pattern vis-à-vis the blast requirements
can provide optimal blast performance in terms of fragmentation, throw, wall control etc. This is
largely attributed to the importance of firing burden in any blast round. By changing the firing
patterns the firing burden, and, thereby the ratio of spacing to burden is also subject to change.

BS Choudhary, ISM 26
Firing Patterns
• All shots need a free face for rock to move to
• With several rows must wait for material in front to move to create a free face
• Lack of a free face turns throw energy in vibration
• causes cracking behind holes - called back break - can make future faces hard to
support
• 25 to 40 ms would be common
BS Choudhary, ISM 28
BS Choudhary, ISM 29
Delay time versus hole diameter and burden

Delay time between blast holes in bench blasts

Rock type Delay times
(ms/m of spacing)
Sandstones, marls, coals 6-7
Shales, salts and some limestones 5-6
Compact limestones and marbles, granites and 4-5
basalts, quartzites, gneisses and gabbroe
Diabases, porphyrites, gneisses and micaschists, 3-4
magnetites
• Chiapetta and Postupack (1995) suggested that increasing burden
require an increase in interrow delays, while decrease in burden requires
smaller interrow delay timings.

• Field trials by Tansey (1980) revealed that the rock should be moved by
one third of burden distance before next row is fired.

• Hagan (1983) suggested an interrow delay of 5 ms/m of effective burden

(for short collars, high energy factors and strong massive rocks) to about
10 ms/m (for low stemming columns, low energy factors and weak or
highly fractured strata).

• Andrews (1981) suggest the interrow timing of 2-3 times the interhole timing for
adequate fragmentation and displacement of the blasted muckpile.
BS Choudhary, ISM 32
Row to row
Properties
• Gives long linear muck pile along the face
• Open Free Face Helps to Avoid Confinement Problems
• Movement Perpendicular to Face Can Maximize forward throw which may
be problematic for narrow benches
• Needs a Rectangular drill pattern to get spacing > burden
• Also used with staggered drill pattern
 Rectangular drilling with line firing pattern

BS Choudhary, ISM 35
V Type
• Firing Pattern Rips out a V Shape Wedge
• Firing Pattern Alters the Position of the Free Face for Later Firing Holes
• Provides a 2:1 Spacing to Burden Ratio with a Square Pattern
• Tends to Throw Material into Centrally Collected Muck Pile
• Can be good for limited bench room
Modifications of the V Cut
• Flatten the apex of the V - fire two maybe three holes in a row at top of the
V
• Spread the pile out a bit more
• More forgiving of a cap misfire
• Can see at some point Plough and V cuts may melt into each other
• Fire Only One Side of the V at two free faces - Called Row Echelon Form
 Staggered drilling with diagonal firing pattern

BS Choudhary, ISM 38
 Staggered drilling with slot cut firing pattern

BS Choudhary, ISM 39
Blast hole section

40
Firing pattern

Se/Be=1.2

Se/Be>3.7

41
 Firing pattern

Se/Be> 4

42
V” -firing pattern on pilot bench with stemming plug
Firing pattern

Se/Be=1

Longitudinal section of
Blast Hole 43
Firing pattern

44
 Result and Discussions Relationship between Fragment size and Cumulative passing

Quarry-A Quarry-B

Relationship between Front row burden (FRB) and Mean fragment size (MFS)

Quarry-A Quarry-B

MFS increases as FRB increases this is due to the restricted relief of first row hence, no proper free
face generation for the subsequent rows 45
 Result and Discussions
Relationship between Front row burden (FRB) and Excavator cycle time

Quarry-A

Quarry-C
Quarry-B

Excavator cycle time increases as FRB increases this is due to the boulder generation and tight
muckpile
46
Result and Discussions

Images for qualitative study

47
Result and Discussions

MESH AREA (S X B)

 Blast performance is vastly governed by the mesh area (SXB), which exerts
considerable influence on effective utilization of explosive energy.
 Too small mesh area may escalate the drilling and blasting cost enormously
(particularly in hard rocks), whereas, too much expansion of the mesh area
produces big boulders in the blasted muckpile, which more than offsets the
indiscriminate savings made on the part of drilling and blasting costs.

48
Result and Discussions

MESH AREA (S X B)
Table 4.13: Field observations and results for baseline and adjusted blasts in quarry-A

S No. Parameters MA- 1 MA- 2 MA- 3 MA- 4

1 Hole diameter (mm) 102 102 102 102
2 S x B (m) 3.2 x 2.8 3.2 x 2.8 3.2 x 2.8 3.2 x 2.8
3 Bench height (m) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
4 Sub-grade drilling (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5 Stemming length (m) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
6 No. of holes 43 32 44 36
7 No. of rows 4 3 3 3
8 Total explosive,(kg) 2345 1728 2050 1908
9 Firing pattern Diagonal V-type V-type V-type
10 Total broken rock, (t) 8684 6480 8609 7196
11 Powder factor, (kg/t) 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.26
12 Boulder count 40 20 5 0
13 Cycle time (sec.) 55/ (PL) 55/ (PL) 50/ (PL) 47/ (PL)
14 Total Dozing time,(hr) 17 13 13 8
15 Throw (m) 4.5 6.0 8.75 12.10
16 Drop (m) 2.0 2.15 3.50 3.75
17 End break length (m) 7.0 3.96 No No
18 PF, kg/t 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.26
19 Cost, Rs/t 11.46 11.26 8.5 9
20 Uniformity index, n 3.082 3.5904 3.4438 3.4547
21 Characteristic size, xc 0.3286 0.2998 0.2381 0.1879
22 K20 0.1952 0.1953 0.1573 0.1122
23 MFS, K50 0.2917 0.2707 0.2141 0.169
24 K80 0.3795 0.349 0.2534 0.2171
25 K100 0.554 0.462 0.3761 0.296

49
Result and Discussions

MESH AREA (S X B)
Table 4.14: Field observations and results for adjusted blasts an expanded mesh area in quarry-A

S No. Parameters MA- 5 MA- 6 MA-7 MA- 8

1 Hole diameter (mm) 102 102 102 102

2 S x B (m) 3.6 x 2.8 3.6 x 2.8 4.0 x 3.0 4.0 x 3.0
3 Bench height (m) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
4 Sub-grade drilling (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5 Stemming length (m) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
6 No. of holes 40 28 20 36
7 No. of rows 3 4 3 4
8 Total explosive quantity,(kg) 1942 1280 1009 1836
9 Firing pattern V-type V-type V-type V-type
10 Total limestone broken, (t) 8846 6007 4977 9495
11 Powder factor, (kg/t) 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.19
12 Boulder count 10 5 5 1
13 Cycle time, (sec.) 50/ (PL) 48/ (PL) 46/ (PL) 46/ (PL)
14 Total Dozing time,(hr) 7 5 3 2
15 Throw (m) 9.50 12.35 10.35 13.25
16 Drop (m) 3.50 3.75 4.10 4.75
17 End break (m x m) No No No No
18 PF, kg/t 0.24 0.16 0.19 0.19
19 Cost, Rs/t 9.64 5.92 6.45 6.02
20 Uniformity index, n 3.3527 2.4508 2.5934 3.1436
21 Characteristic size, xc 0.1759 0.2692 0.1133 0.1549
22 K20 0.1232 0.148 0.0625 0.106
23 MFS, K50 0.1799 0.2318 0.1183 0.1378
24 K80 0.257 0.3261 0.1365 0.1815
25 K100 0.3165 0.533 0.215 0.258

50
 Result and Discussions

MESH AREA (S X B)
Table 4.15: Field observations and blasts results for expanded mesh area in quarry-A

S No. Parameters MA- 9 MA- 10 MA- 11 MA-12

1 Hole diameter (mm) 102 102 102 102

2 S x B (m) 4.5 x 3.0 4.5 x 3.0 4.5 x 3.0 4.5 x 3.0
3 Bench height (m) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
4 Sub-grade drilling (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5 Stemming length (m) 1.8, 1.8, 1.8, 1.8,
6 No. of holes 58 39 23 34
7 No. of rows 5 4 3 3
8 Total explosive quantity (kg) 2752 1993 1207 1727
9 Firing pattern V -type V-type V-type V-type
10 Total limestone broken (t) 17200 11726 6706 10162
11 Boulder count 48 29 23 25
12 Cycle time (sec.) 56/ (PL) 52/ (PL) 50/ (PL) 52/ (PL)
13 Total Dozing time(hr) 19 9 6 9
14 Throw (m) 7.0 8.25 9.30 8.55
15 Drop (m) 2.20 2.35 3.15 2.50
16 End break (m x m) No No No No
17 PF, kg/t 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.17
18 Cost, Rs/t 10.5 8.9 8.61 9.32
19 Uniformity index, n 2.7087 2.4508 3.0659 3.1455
20 Characteristic size, xc 0.2889 0.2692 0.285 0.3361
21 K20 0.1672 0.148 0.1812 0.2061
22 MFS, K50 0.2523 0.2318 0.2529 0.2991
23 K80 0.3441 0.3261 0.3291 0.3831
24 K100 0.531 0.533 0.492 0.559

51
 Result and Discussions

MESH AREA (S X B)
Table 4.16: Field observations and blasts results for expanded mesh area in quarry-B

S.No. Parameters MB-1 MA-2 MB-3 MA-4 MB-5

1 Hole Diameter 115 115 115 115 115
2 S x B (m) 2.5 x 2.5 2.5 x 2.5 3 x 2.5 3x3 3.5 x 2.5
3 Depth of holes, m 8.5 7 5 6.5 7.5
4 No. of holes 9 14 19 6 15
5 No. of rows 2 3 6 2 2
6 Charge length, m 5 4 2.5 3.5 4

7 Total explosive Quantity, kg 227.34 405 465.64 187 502.8

8 Total delay time, ms 135 177 125 25 75

9 Boulder count, nos 30 12 15 10 24
10 PF, kg/t 0.29 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.19
11 Cycle time, sec 20 23 15 19 18
12 Throw ,m 4.5 2 2 3 0.5
13 L/W Ratio 1.6 1.75 0.92 1.67 5.3
14 Uniformity index, n 2.3771 3.2215 3.2069 2.8188 3.0669
15 Characteristic size, xc 0.3874 0.3043 0.2244 0.2687 0.3166
16 K20 0.202 0.1925 0.143 0.162 0.188
17 MFS, K50 0.3321 0.2716 0.2001 0.236 0.2809
18 K80 0.447 0.3435 0.25 0.3192 0.357
19 K100 0.776 0.499 0.369 0.48 0.536

52
 Result and Discussions

MESH AREA (S X B)
Table 4.17: Field observations and blasts results for expanded mesh area in quarry-B

S.No. Parameters MB-6 MB-7 MB-8 MB-9 MB-10 MB-11

1 Hole Diameter 115 115 115 115 115 115

2 S x B (m) 3.5 x 3 3.5 x 3 3.5x 3.5 4.5 x 3.5 4.5 x 3.5 4.5 x 4

3 Depth of holes, m 8 8 6 7.5 8 7.5

4 No. of holes 21 12 10 14 10 15
5 No. of rows 6 3 2 5 2 2
6 Charge length, m 5.3 4 3 4.5 5.5 4.5

7 Total explosive Quantity, kg 788 510 241 547 490 562.8

8 Total delay time, ms 100 175 25 100 75 25

9 Boulder count, nos 7 12 8 15 10 27
10 PF, kg/t 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.18
11 Cycle time, sec 20 18 18 15 23 23
12 Throw ,m 1 7 2.5 0.5 5 2
13 L/W Ratio 0.67 1.44 2.14 0.78 4.6 4
14 Uniformity index, n 3.1711 3.218 2.334 2.9267 4.0922 2.1369
15 Characteristic size, xc 0.1765 0.4157 0.2484 0.2373 0.5696 0.4917
16 K20 0.11 0.27 0.2245 0.2738 0.365 0.243
17 MKS, K50 0.1572 0.372 0.3123 0.4393 0.5208 0.4142
18 K80 0.205 0.49 0.3845 0.576 0.639 0.607
19 K100 0.292 0.667 0.512 0.683 0.822 0.992

53
 Result and Discussions

Relationship between Fragmentation size and Cumulative passing

Quarry-A

Quarry-B

54
 Result and Discussions

Relationship between Mesh area and Mean Fragment size (MFS)

Quarry-A

Quarry-B

This is due to the better distribution of explosive energy in rock fragmentation 55

Result and Discussions

Relationship between Mesh area and Excavator cycle time

Quarry-A

Quarry-B

56

This is due to the better fragmentation with good throw and spreading of muck
Result and Discussions
Relationship between Mesh area and Powder factor (PF)

Quarry-A

Quarry-B

This is due to the reduced consumption of explosives 57

Result and Discussions

Relationship between Mesh area and Total cost of muck handling

This is due to dozer , excavator, explosive, etc. utilization,

58
Result and Discussions

Images for qualitative study

59
Result and Discussions

FIRING PATTERN
 In any blasting programme the foremost requirement is sequential generation of free
face with the blast progression.
 To this end, the firing pattern decides the movement and direction of rock by creating
free face for subsequent blast holes/rows.
 Extensive studies were done by various researchers namely, Smith (1976), Hagan
(1986) and Rai (2003a) on different types of firing pattern (row to row (Line),
diagonal, V-type and skewed V-type). The researchers suggest that each firing pattern
has its own application. Proper use of pattern vis-à-vis the blast requirements can
provide optimal blast performance in terms of fragmentation, throw, wall control etc.
 By changing the firing pattern the firing burden, and, thereby the ratio of effective
spacing to effective burden is also subject to change (Rai, 2003b).

60
Result and Discussions

FIRING PATTERN
Table 4.5: Base line data observation for diagonal firing pattern for quarry-A

S. No. Blast No. A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18

1 Burden, m 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.8 3 3
2 Spacing, m 3.2 4 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.5
3 Depth of holes, m 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
4 Stemming plug 0 58 25 0 3 0
5 No. of holes 49 82 74 32 24 74
6 No. rows 2 3 7 4 4 4
7 Total Explosive, kg 1472 2771 1838 852 723 2021
8 Firing pattern Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal

9 Delay 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42

10 Throw, m 14 10.5 8 12 12 6
11 Cycle time, sec 28.12 49.23 50.19 23 28.16 22
12 PF act, kg/t 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.16
13 Uniformity index, n 2.4438 3.0659 3.7758 3.3144 3.6004 3.211

14 Characteristic size, xc 0.3381 0.285 0.3667 0.2491 0.3098 0.425

15 K20 0.2073 0.1812 0.2554 0.154 0.2053 0.2635

16 MFS, K50 0.2941 0.2529 0.3528 0.2231 0.2807 0.3792

17 K80 0.383 0.3291 0.4293 0.2785 0.339 0.4765

28 K100 0.4961 0.492 0.632 0.4125 0.477 0.698

61
Result and Discussions

FIRING PATTERN
Table 4.6: Details of experimental blasts conducted on V- firing pattern for quarry-A

S.No. Blast No. A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 A-23 A-24

1 Burden, m 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

2 Spacing, m 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.8
3 Depth of holes, m 6.5 6.5 10 6.5 6.5 6.5
4 Stemming g plug 50 3 0 0 15 18
5 No. of holes 69 30 14 40 65 47
6 No. rows 5 4 2 3 3 3
7 Total Explosive, kg 2250 909 679 1277 1749 990
8 Firing pattern V V V V V V

9 Delay 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42

10 Throw, m 13 10 13 10.2 5 10.15

11 Cycle time, sec 29.14 29 30 51 25 48.7
12 PF act, kg/t 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.24 0.14 0.17
13 Uniformity index, n 3.0498 3.9092 3.9102 3.3527 3.123 3.0507
14 Characteristic size, xc 0.2422 0.1293 0.1295 0.1759 0.3376 0.2121
15 K20 0.1473 0.0951 0.0951 0.1232 0.1967 0.14
16 MFS, K50 0.2147 0.1177 0.1203 0.1799 0.2917 0.1881
17 K80 0.2744 0.1381 0.1393 0.257 0.3795 0.2451
28 K100 0.4112 0.2011 0.2023 0.3165 0.564 0.3625

62
Result and Discussions

FIRING PATTERN
Table 4.7: Details of experimental blasts conducted on slot cut firing pattern quarry-A

S No. Parameters EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB4 EB5 EB6 EB7

1 Hole diameter, (mm) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
2 Burden, m 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
3 Spacing, m 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
3 Avg. bench height (m) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
4 Avg. sub-grade drilling (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
5 Avg. stemming length (m)
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
6. Explosive quantity, (kg) 1438 1142 2250 982 921 1168 2838
7. No. of holes 44 40 69 31 34 35 110
8. No. of rows 3 3 5 4 5 6 5
9. Plugged holes (nos.) 14 10 50 18 15 19 32
10. Avg. weight of limestone broken
(t) 5677 5296 8785 3990 4386 5080 14192

11. Powder factor, (Kg/ t) 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.22
12. Excavator cycle time, (sec)
22.76 20.10 21.0 20.48 22.14 20.22 21.37
13. Boulder count (nos.) 10 Negligible 5 7 5 Negligible Negligible
14. Throw, (m) 10.5 7.13 13 2.8 2.0 3.0 0
15. Firing pattern V V V Slot Slot Slot Slot
16 K20 0.1573 0.1232 0.1473 0.1672 0.1311 0.1122 0.2431
17 K50 (MFS) 0.2141 0.1799 0.2147 0.2523 0.1958 0.1690 0.36
18 K80 0.2534 0.2570 0.2744 0.3441 0.2552 0.2171 0.4912
19 K100 0.3761 0.3165 0.4112 0.5310 0.3771 0.2566 0.7426

63
Result and Discussions

FIRING PATTERN
Table 4.8: Details of experimental blasts conducted on L- firing pattern quarry -B

S. No. Parameters B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5

1 Burden, m 2.5 4 2.5 3.5 2.5

2 Spacing, m 2.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3
3 Depth of holes, m 8.5 7.5 7.5 8 5
3 No. of holes 9 15 15 10 19
4 No. of rows 2 2 2 2 6
5 Charge length, m 5 4.5 4 5.5 2.5
6. Total expl. Quantity, kg 227.34 562.8 502.8 490 465.64
7. Initiation system D/F D/F D/F D.F. D/F
8. Firing pattern L L L L L
9. Total delay time,ms 135 25 75 75 125
10. Boulder count, nos 30 27 24 10 15
11. PF, kg/t 0.19 0.29 0.19 0.14 0.26
12. Cycle time, sec 20 23 18 23 18
13. Throw ,m 4.5 2 0.5 5 2
14. Uniformity index, n 2.3771 2.1369 3.0669 4.0922 3.2069
15 Characteristic size, xc 0.3874 0.4917 0.3166 0.5696 0.2244
16 K20 0.202 0.243 0.188 0.365 0.243
17 MFS, K50 0.3321 0.4142 0.2809 0.5208 0.2001
18 K80 0.447 0.607 0.357 0.639 0.45
19 K100 0.776 0.992 0.536 0.822 0.569

64
Result and Discussions

FIRING PATTERN
Table 4.9: Details of experimental blasts conducted on V- firing pattern quarry-B

S. No. Parameters B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10

1 Burden, m 4 3 3 2.5 3.5
2 Spacing, m 4.5 3.5 3 2.5 3.5
3 Depth of holes, m 8.5 8 6.5 7 6
3 No. of holes 13 21 6 14 10
4 No. of rows 2 6 2 3 2
5 Charge length, m 5.5 5.3 3.5 4 3

6. Total expl. Quantity, kg 450 788 187 405 241

7. Initiation system D/F D/F ST ST ST

8. Firing pattern V V V V V
9. Total delay time, ms 75 100 25 177 25
10. Boulder count, nos 10 7 10 12 8
11. PF, kg/t 0.10 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.13
12. Cycle time, sec 18 20 19 23 18
13. Throw ,m 2 1 3 2 2.5
14. Uniformity index, n 2.6086 3.1711 2.8188 3.2215 2.334
15 Characteristic size, xc 0.234 0.1765 0.2687 0.3043 0.2484
16 K20 0.135 0.11 0.162 0.1925 0.1245
17 MFS, K50 0.2033 0.1572 0.236 0.2716 0.2123
18 K80 0.285 0.205 0.3192 0.3435 0.2845
19 K100 0.432 0.292 0.48 0.499 0.512

65
Result and Discussions

FIRING PATTERN
Table 4.10: Details of experimental blasts conducted on L and V- firing pattern in quarry -C

S. No. Blast No. C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6

1 Burden, m 4.5 4.25 4.5 4.2 4.25 4

2 Spacing, m 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 6.5
3 Depth of holes, m 8.25 9 8.5 8.5 7.5 6.5
3 No. of holes 8 8 9 8 8 12
4 No. rows 1 1 1 2 2 2
5 Total explosive, kg 342 353 289 373 333 387
6. Firing pattern Line Line Line Line Line Line
8. Excavator BH BH BH BH BH BH

9. Excavator Cycle time, sec 29 27 27 23 21 23

10. PF, kg/t 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08

11. Uniformity index, n 3.3261 3.023 3.303 3.4203 2.7904 3.3261

12. Characteristic size, xc 0.1304 0.1176 0.2163 0.1987 0.1787 0.1304

13. K20 0.08 0.1298 0.156 0.1547 0.1095 0.08

14. MKS, K50 0.1157 0.1985 0.201 0.1773 0.168 0.1168

15. K80 0.152 0.235 0.335 0.312 0.239 0.152

16 K100 0.2123 0.269 0.378 0.355 0.324 0.2123

66
Result and Discussions

Relationship between Fragment size and Cumulative passing

Fig.4.44: Diagonal firing pattern in quarry-A Fig.4.45: V- firing pattern in quarry-A

Fig.4.47: Line firing pattern in quarry-B

Fig. 4.48 V- firing pattern in quarry-B

67
Result and Discussions

Relationship between Fragment size and firing pattern

Quarry-A

Quarry-B

The combined influence of hole-to-hole delay sequencing increased Se/Be>3 resulted

in to the formation of long & slender burden rock mass along the firing plane. This
has led to good and uniform fragmentation in the blasted muck pile.
68
Result and Discussions

Relationship between Powder factor and fragment size

Quarry -A

Quarry-B

This is due to the proper distribution of explosive energy utilization, over use of
explosive creates other environmental hazards without doing effective work
69
Result and Discussions

Relationship between Mean fragment size (MFS) and Excavator cycle time

Quarry-A

Quarry-B

This is due to the better fragmentation with good throw and spreading of muck
70
Field observations

Quarry-B Images for qualitative study

71
Result and Discussions Images captured during field study

FIRING PATTERN

72
 Result and Discussions

 Mean fragment size is lower in all three quarry in case of V-firing pattern
than Diagonal or Line firing which is due to better inter collision of rock
mass at the time of rock movement. (fragment improvement is almost 33-
50%)
 Powder factor is lower in all three mines in case of V-firing pattern than
Diagonal or Line firing as boulder generation is lower and proper throw
of rock till last row so tonnage obtained were more and explosive energy
utilization was proper. (almost 25% reduction in fragment size)

73
Result and Discussions

STEMMING COLUMN ADJUSTMENT

 Stemming, the upper portion of blast hole which has been packed with inert material
such as drill cutting, aggregates etc. confines and retains the gases produced due to
the explosion inside the blasthole.
 Confinement and retention promotes the rock fracturing by transmitting a major
portion of shock as well as gas pressure through the broken rock mass prior to the
release of stemming.
 Improper confinement results not only in wastage of energy and poor fragmentation,
but also, in environmental problems (Chiapetta, et al, 2004, Mclonghlin, 2004) such
as, air blast, fly rocks etc.
 As per Brinkman (1990) almost 50% of explosive energy is lost if premature
venting is allowed to occur through the collar region of blast hole.
 Floyd (1999) indicated that improper explosive confinement due to inadequate
stemming produces oversize in the face and perimeter zones of any blast round. 74
 STEMMING COLUMN ADJUSTMENT
Table 4.11: Field observations and results for baseline and adjusted blasts with stemming plug.

S No. Parameters SA-1 SA-2 SA-3 SA-4

1 Hole diameter (mm) 102 102 102 102
2 S x B (m) 3.2 x 2.8 3.2 x 2.8 3.2 x 2.8 3.2 x 2.8
3 Bench height (m) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
4 Sub-grade drilling (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5 Stemming length (m) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
6 No. of holes 43 32 44 36
7 No. of rows 4 3 3 3
8 Column charge 2230 1658 1850 1800
9 Primer charge 114 70 200 108
10 Total Explosive quantity (kg) 2345 1728 2050 1908
11 Firing pattern Diagonal V-type V-type V-type
12 Stemming Plug
Not used Not used In last row In last 2 rows
13 Total limestone broken (t) 8684 6480 8609 7196
14 Powder factor (kg/t) 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.26
15 Boulder count 40 20 5 0
16 Excavator Cycle time (sec.) 55 55 50 47
17 Total Dozing time(hr) 17 13 13 8
18 Throw (m) 4.5 6.0 8.75 12.10
19 Drop (m) 2.0 2.15 3.50 3.75
20 Uniformity index, n 3.3221 3.082 3.0507 3.1455
21 Characteristic size, xc 0.1951 0.3286 0.2121 0.3361
22 K20 0.1251 0.1952 0.14 0.2061
23 MFS, K50 0.1747 0.2917 0.1881 0.2991
24 K80 0.2242 0.3795 0.2451 0.3831 75
25 K100 0.3211 0.554 0.3625 0.559
 STEMMING COLUMN ADJUSTMENT
Table 4.12: Field observations and results for adjusted blasts with variation in stemming plugs.

S.No. Blast No. SA-5 SA-6 SA-7 SA-8 SA-9 SA-10

1 Burden, (m) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
2 Spacing, (m) 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.2
3 Depth of holes, (m) 8.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 10 6.5
4 Stemming plug 20 75 14 50 7 0
5 No. of holes 29 86 44 69 28 49
6 No. rows 3 3 3 5 4 2
7 Total Explosive quantity, (kg) 1475 2809 1438 2250 1280 1472
8 Firing pattern V V V V V V
9 Throw, (m) 12.35 8.39 12.15 13 13.35 14
10 Excavator Cycle time,(sec) 28.43(PS) 49.00(PL) 48.65(PL) 29.14(PS) 30.76(PS) 28.12(PS)
11 Total Dozing time,(hr) 1 1 2 3 0 0
12 PF act, (kg/t) 0.23 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.24
13 Cost, (Rs/t) 10.42 9.73 8.5 10.17 11.26 8.07
14 Uniformity index, n 3.3192 2.73 3.4438 3.0498 3.5904 2.4438
15 Characteristic size, xc 0.3001 0.4118 0.2381 0.2422 0.2998 0.3381
16 K20 0.1817 0.2492 0.1573 0.1473 0.1953 0.2073
17 MFS, K50 0.2688 0.36 0.2141 0.2147 0.2707 0.2941
18 K80 0.3426 0.4911 0.2534 0.2744 0.349 0.383
19 K100 0.484 0.7458 0.3761 0.4112 0.462 0.4961
76
STEMMING COLUMN ADJUSTMENT

Relationship between
Fragment size and Cumulative
passing

Relationship between Stemming plug and

Mean fragment size

As no. of stemming plug used in blast increases MFS decreases but after optimum use MFS increases, this is due to better throw
which reduces the inter collision of rock and increases the MFS. (best is to use plugs in last row and where proper free face is not
available)
77
STEMMING COLUMN ADJUSTMENT

Relationship between Throw of

muck and Dozing hours

Relationship between Stemming

plug and Total cost for blast

From study it was observed that stemming plug correlation with other factors are less but it is very
effective in reducing back break, throw of muck 78
Images for qualitative study

79
STEMMING COLUMN ADJUSTMENT

Following results may be evolved from given case study

 Use of stemming plug has been effective in the throw, drop and spreading
characteristics of the muckpile, while reducing the length of crack generated along the
edges of the blast
 Due to better fragmentation and heave of the muckpile, the extensive use of dozer to
assist the FEL, has been reduced by 88%.
 Use of stemming plug increases very little extra cost of mining but on overall
analysis it is economical.

80
SIZE OF BLAST

Effect of no. rows and no. of holes

81
 SIZE OF BLAST
Table 4.18: Field observations and blasts results for 2 and 3 no. of rows in a blast

S.No. Blast No. B-21 B-30 B-31 B-6 B-14 B-23

1 Burden, m 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

2 Spacing, m 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
3 Depth of holes, m 10 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
4 No. of holes 14 15 13 44 82 65
5 No. rows 2 2 2 3 3 3
6 Total Explosive, kg 679 425 379 1438 2771 1749
7 Firing pattern V V V V V V
8 L/W Ratio 4 5.33 4.66 6 5.5 1
9 Delay 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42
10 Throw, m 13 9.25 5.5 12.15 10.5 5

11 Cycle time, sec 30(PS) 21(BH) 29.32(PS) 48.65(PL) 49.23(PL) 25(BH)

12 PF act, kg/t 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.14

13 Uniformity index, n 3.9102 3.211 3.1124 3.4438 3.0659 3.123

14 Characteristic size, xc 0.1295 0.425 0.2278 0.2381 0.285 0.3376

15 K20 0.0951 0.2635 0.174 0.1573 0.1812 0.1967

16 MFS, K50 0.1203 0.3792 0.2461 0.2141 0.2529 0.2917
17 K80 0.1393 0.4765 0.2945 0.2534 0.3291 0.3795
18 K100 0.2023 0.698 0.4835 0.3761 0.492 0.564

82
SIZE OF BLAST
Table 4.19: Field observations and blasts results for 4 and 5 no. of rows in a blast

S.No. Blast No. B-20 B-16 B-17 B-25 B-32 B-4

1 Burden, m 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
2 Spacing, m 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
3 Depth of holes, m 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 10

4 No. of holes 30 32 24 110 21 35

5 No. rows 4 4 4 5 5 5
6 Total Explosive, kg 909 852 723 3145 686 1525
7 Firing pattern V V V V V V
8 L/W Ratio 1.62 2.16 2.08 5.28 0.87 2.01
9 Delay 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/51 17/25/51
10 Throw, m 10 12 12 - 10 13

11 Cycle time, sec 29(PS) 23(BH) 47.16(PL) 45(PL) 48.12(PS) 28.42(PS)

12 PF act, kg/t 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.25 0.17

13 Uniformity index, n 3.9092 3.3144 3.6004 2.73 3.7658 3.1455

Characteristic size, xc 0.1293 0.2491 0.3098 0.4118 0.3657 0.3361
14

15 K20 0.0951 0.154 0.2053 0.2431 0.2441 0.2061

16 MFS, K50 0.1177 0.2231 0.2807 0.36 0.3318 0.2991

17 K80 0.1381 0.2785 0.339 0.4912 0.4181 0.3831

18 K100 0.2011 0.4125 0.477 0.7426 0.551 0.559

83
SIZE OF BLAST
Table 4.20: Field observations and blasts results for 6 and 7 no. of rows in a blast
S.No. Blast No. B-33 B-34 B-35 B-15

1 Burden, m 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

2 Spacing, m 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

3 Depth of holes, m 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

4 No. of holes 30 42 50 74

5 No. rows 6 6 7 7

6 Explosive ANFO, kg 863 1222 1383 1838

7 Firing pattern V V V V

8 L/W Ratio 1.67 2.4 1.4 2

9 Delay 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42 17/25/42

10 Throw, m 8 10 12 8

11 Cycle time, sec 48.7(PL) 49(PL) 48.1(PL) 50.19(PL)

12 PF act, kg/t 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.17

13 Uniformity index, n 2.811 2.4591 3.3792 3.7758

Characteristic size, xc 0.435 0.4505 0.2602 0.3667
14

15 K20 0.2725 0.2489 0.158 0.2554

16 MFS, K50 0.3789 0.3881 0.2335 0.3528

17 K80 0.4657 0.543 0.2932 0.4293

18 K100 0.7183 0.89 0.415 0.632

84
 Relationship between Fragment size and Cumulative passing

Fig.4.101: Relationship between

Fragment size and Cumulative passing
for blast of 2 and 3 rows

Fig.4.102: Relationship between Fragment size and Cumulative Fig.4.103: Relationship between Fragment size and Cumulative
passing for blast of 4 and 5 rows passing for blast of 6 and 7 rows
85
Result and Discussions

SIZE OF BLAST

Relationship between No. of

rows and Mean fragment size
(MFS)

Relationship between No. of

holes and Mean fragment size
(MFS)

86
SIZE OF BLAST

Relationship between No. of rows and Excavator cycle time

87
 Concluding Remarks

• The systematic release of energy and proper burden relief from one row to another is crucial in
maintaining the continuous momentum for inter row displacements. In the instances of short
delay, the burden from front row remains in place before the charges from second row are
fired resulting in improper relief and excessive confinement to the successive rows. This, in
consequence, causes cratering upwards resulting in poor fragmentation with little
displacement, high and tight muckpiles. On the other hand, if the delay time between the rows is
too large, the material of the first row fails to act as a screen and also it fails to confine the
remainder of the blast

BS Choudhary, ISM 88
• When blasts of various rows of holes are fired, the delay time between these
should allow horizontal movement of the fragmented rock, avoiding the following
problems;
• The increase in the vertical component of displacement as the number of rows
increments towards the interior and as a consequence,
• The risk of fly rock;
• The toe problem as the confinement increases as well as resistance to the cut
at floor level due to a larger burden;
• Overbreak problems in the last rows as the charges act with crater effect.

BS Choudhary, ISM 89
 Conclusions
Based on the case studies following may be concluded:
 For optimum fragmentation results the front row burden value of 0.5B (B=burden) has given the best results.
 For blast hole diameter of 102-115mm mesh area between 11-13m2 has yielded good blast results in terms of
MFS, PF,EXCAVATOR CYCLE TIME, COST and WALL CONTROL. However the mesh area of 4 x 3 m2
in quarry A has provided optimum fragmentation.
 The V-firing patterns yielded always better results in comparison to line and diagonal firing pattern.
 Although stemming plug do not contribute significantly in reduction of fragment size in muckpile, it has been
found very effective in enhancing the muckpile shape by increasing the throw and drop of muckpile, which
in-tern improves the excavator performance.
 Cost of stemming plug is insignificant in comparison to its advantages as mentioned above.
 For optimum performance of a given blast round the no. of rows may range between 3-5 and the no. of holes
between 40-60.
 In-line firing pattern poor fragmentation size results has yielded in all the cases.

90
91