Measurement-while-drilling technique and its scope in design and prediction of

rock blasting
Rai Piyush a,⇑, Schunnesson Hakan b, Lindqvist Per-Arne c, Kumar Uday d
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India b Division
of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, Lulea Technological University, Lulea 97187, Sweden c Department of Mining
Engineering, Lulea Technological University, Lulea 97187, Sweden d Division of Operations and Maintenance Engineering, Lulea
Technological University, Lulea 97187, Sweden

article info abstract

Article history: With rampant growth and improvements in drilling technology, drilling of blast holes should no longer be viewed as an arduous
Received 1 September 2015 sub-process in any mining or excavation process. Instead, it must be viewed as an important opportunity to quickly and
Received in revised form 14 January 2016 accurately measure the geo-mechanical features of the rock mass on-site, much in advance of the downstream operations. It is
Accepted 2 March 2016 Available well established that even the slightest variation in lithology, ground conditions, blast designs vis-à-vis geologic features and
online 16 June 2016
explosives performance, results in drastic changes in fragmentation results. Keeping in mind the importance of state-of-the-art
measurement-while-drilling (MWD) technique, the current paper focuses on integrating this technique with the blasting
operation in order to enhance the blasting designs and results. The paper presents a preliminary understanding of various blasting
Keywords:
models, blastability and other related concepts, to review the state-of-the-art advancements and researches done in this area. In
Rock blasting
light of this, the paper highlights the future needs and implications on drill monitoring systems for improved information to
Drill monitoring parameters
enhance the blasting results.
Rock factor
Drill rod vibrations 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
1. Introduction coefficient’, ‘rock factor’, ‘Blastability Index (BI)’ and ‘bond work index’ [11–
14]. Nevertheless, selecting just a few parameters, such as rock properties, to
Blasting is the most frequent, versatile and often the most economical represent the resistance of the rock mass to fragmentation by blasting has been
method of breaking rocks. Owing to their dependence on a complex interaction a major limitation in describing the ease of fragmentation. Furthermore, by
of intact rock and rock mass properties, blast geometry, hole deviation, defining these parameters based on a few rock samples, often representing an
explosive properties and initiation sequences, rock blasting is considered as a entire mine, has further reduced the possibilities of detailed blast design. This
truly complicated operation. For application of MWD for investigation and is, perhaps, the most significant reason as to why blast designs are largely
value addition in blasting, the emphasis must be laid on quantitative as well as empirical and mostly governed by rules of the thumb. Since the rock mass
qualitative ascertainment of intact rock and rock mass properties. The influence properties are significant in any blasting program, their proper characterization
of intact rock and rock mass properties on blasting efficiency has been at the is critical for effective design and usage of explosive energy. The need is to
center of much research, from the beginning and has been carried out by rationalize blast designs and practices vis-à-vis the influence of intact rock
numerous researchers [1–10]. These citations are small in comparison with the property, in-situ rock mass properties, discontinuity structures and their
sustained research in this field. Though insufficient, these references interactions by use of modern, state-of-the-art techniques, methods and
necessarily serve useful purpose in understanding the complexities involved in procedures.
rock breakage by blasting. It is in this context that the ability of the MWD technique must be fully
The influence of intact rock and rock mass properties has been incorporated exploited for its useful application in blast designs and explosive loading
into blasting in various forms, such as ‘blastability patterns. It may be appropriate to mention the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 542 6702509.

E-mail address: prai.min@itbhu.ac.in (P. Rai).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2016.05.025

ability of MWD to define the variations in bench geology. A continuous

monitoring and read-out of the drill parameters are capable of providing useful
information on variability of the rock mass.
2095-2686/ 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
712 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719
The monitored drill hole data, in conjunction with knowledge of the geology of
area, defined from core logging or surface maps, can be correlated with the rock
variability on mine benches, which in turn could be of immense use in improved
blast design to enable selection of proper explosives, charge distribution,
stemming primer positions as well as burden, spacing and other related blast
design parameters.
2. Models for assessment of fragmentation by blasting
In blasting studies, there has been continued development and improvement
in the assessment of fragment size by use of photographic and image analysis
techniques. In view of this continued growth, it becomes imperative that
researchers expand their horizons in the field of post-blast rock fragmentation
assessment. It is worthwhile stressing the use of drill monitoring data and its
integration with fragmentation assessment. Eloranta [14] expressed this by
stating that the key parameters in fragmentation are drill monitoring and optical
image analysis. These should focus on finding clues in the drilling data to predict
fragmentation. Yin et al. [30] used the data from the Thunderbird-Pacific system
at Minntac mine to develop useful relationships among the drill monitoring data
to yield necessary information on fragmentation. The algorithms of image
analysis software are based on fragmentation evaluation models. As such,
concurrent with the use of the image analysis approach, the empirical
relationships to predict fragmentation and its distribution in the blasted muckpile
have also grown at a rapid pace. Hence, an understanding of various models for
predicting the fragment size and its distribution in the muckpile is necessary.
2.1. Kuznetsov equation
The Kuznetsov equation [12] relates the mean fragment size in the blasted
muckpile to the quantity of explosive needed to blast a given volume of rock.
The equation is expressed as:
0:8 1=6
K50 ¼ A½V=Q Q ð1Þ
where K50 = mean fragment size (cm), A = rock factor, V = volume of rock
broken per hole (m3), Q = mass of TNT equivalent explosive per hole (kg).
Values of A = 7 for medium rock, 10 for hard, highly fissured rocks and 13
for hard, weakly fissured rocks were suggested. Since TNT is not used as the
standard explosive for comparison, an equivalent quantity of any explosive (Qc)
was related to TNT as:
Q ¼ Qc½Ec=1090 ð2Þ
where Ec = absolute weight strength of explosive (cal/g) and the factor 1090 is
the absolute weight strength of TNT. Eqs. (1) and (2) can be simplified and
rewritten as:
K50 ¼ Aq0:8Qc1=6½Ec=109019=30 ð3Þ
where q is the inverse of V/Qc, defined as the powder factor (kg/m3).
From the above relationships, it is clearly evident that the rock factor, A, has
greatest influence on mean fragment size since it bears the highest exponent
value. Hence, it may not be desirable to propose a rough estimate for it. Instead,
the value of the rock factor has been suggested to be precisely evaluated by
considering important rock parameters as given in Eq. (4), proposed by
Cunningham [7] as:
A ¼ 0:006½RMD þ JF þ RDI þ HI ð4Þ
where RMD = Rock Mass Description, JF = Joint Factor, RDI = Rock Density
Influence.
The range of values for these parameters was described for varying rock mass
conditions (Table 1).
2.2. Rosin–Rammler equation
The Rosin–Rammler equation was adopted from a coal comminution
approach by Cunningham [5] for analysis of fragment size and its distribution
in the blasted muckpile. The equation is given as:
R ¼ e½X=XCn ð5Þ
where R = fraction of material retained on screen (cm), X = screen size, Xc =
constant called the ‘characteristic size’, n = constant called the ‘uniformity
index’.
The uniformity index has a typical range of 0.8–2.2. A value of 0.8 means
that the muckpile is non-uniform, while a value of 2.2 indicates that the
muckpile has a majority of fragments close to the mean fragment size.
2.3. Kuz-Ram model
This model was proposed by Cunningham [5] by combining the
Kuznetsov and Rosin–Rammler equations by assuming X = K50 in the Rosin–
Rammler equation, which means R = 50% = 0.5. This assumption modifies
Eq. (5) as:
0:5 ¼ e½X=XCn ð6Þ
This implies that K50 can be determined from the Kuznetsov equation and
the characteristic size can be computed if n is known. Furthermore, if both Xc
and n are known, the distribution can be known from the Rosin–Rammler
distribution. The resulting model is known as the Kuz-Ram model.
Cunningham proposed the following equation for estimation of n:
0:5 0:1
Lc
n ¼ ½2:2 14½B=d½1 W=B1 þ S=B Lb þ þ 0:1 L=H ð7Þ
2 Lb Lc
where B = burden (m), d = hole diameter (mm), W = standard deviation of
drilling accuracy (m), L = charge length above the grade (m), Lb = bottom
charge length (m), Lc = column charge length (m), H = bench height (m).
2.4. TCM and CZM
The Two-Component Model (TCM) and the Crushed Zone Model (CZM)
were evolved to overcome the limitations of the Kuz-Ram model. When a
blast hole is detonated, rock breakage occurs in two different stress regions:
compressive and tensile. In the first region, the compressive stress waves form
a crushed zone in the immediate vicinity of the blast holes. The second region,
namely the cracked zone, occurs outside the crushed zone and consists of
radial cracking. The widely used Kuz-Ram model does not recognize these
two different blast regions. In the case of hard rocks or blasting where the
extent of the crushed zone is minimum, the Kuz-Ram model may give a
reasonably good description. However, experience has revealed that the Kuz-
Ram model is capable of predicting the coarser range quite precisely, but tends
to significantly eliminate the amount of fines, which are generated from the
crushed zone [15,16]. Since there are numerous blasting situations where the
amount of crushing plays a vital role, modeling of rock fragmentation with a
single distribution function is not appropriate. The JKMRC developed two
blast fragmentation models, as part of their mine-to-mill project, to overcome
the limitation posed by the Kuz-Ram model. These models TCM and CZM
were developed by Djordjevic et al. [15] respectively. These models are
preferred over the Kuz-Ram model due to their improved capability
 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719 713

Table 1
Rock factor calculation for different fragmentation models (Courtesy JKMRC).
Kuz-Ram [7] TCM CZM

A = 0.06(RMD + JF + RD + HF) Same as Kuz-Ram Same as Kuz-Ram

where
A = Rock factor
RMD = Rock mass description
JF = Joint factor
RDI = Rock density influence HF =
Hardness factor
RMD Same as Kuz-Ram RMD
RMD = 10 if powdery/friable RMD = 100 ⁄ vertical joint spacing,
RMD = JF if vertically jointed, RMD
If vertical joint spacing < 0.1,
= 50 if massive
RMD = 5.56 + 44.4 ⁄ vertical joint spacing,

If vertical joint spacing < 1,

If vertical joint spacing > 1
JF = JPS + JPA Same as Kuz-Ram model, except JPS Different definition of JF:
where JPS = 10, if vertical joint spacing < 0.1, JPS = 10 + JF = 0 if JI > 1, otherwise, JF
JPS 11.11 (vertical joint spacing -0.1), if 0.1 < vertical = (200JI (200 ⁄ JI2)) where
JPS = 10, if vertical joint spacing < 0.1, joint spacing < 1 m,
JI = mean block size (maximum of burden,
JPS = 20, if 0.1 < vertical joint spacing < oversize, JPS = 50, ⁄
JPS = 20 + (30/(burden-1) (vertical spacing and stemming)
if oversize < vertical joint spacing < drilling pattern size joint spacing-1),
if 1 m 6 vertical joint spacing < burden, JPS = 50,
if vertical joint spacing > burden
JPA JPA JPA
JPA = 20 if dip out of face, Same as Kuz-Ram Not used
JPA = 30 if strike perpendicular to face,
JPA = 40 if dip into face

RDI RDI Same as TCM

RDI = 25 ⁄ rock density-50 RDI equals 0 if rock density is less than 2, otherwise same
as Kuz-Ram

HF Same as Kuz-Ram Same as Kuz-Ram

HF = Y/3 if Y < 50GPa,
HF = UCS/5 if Y > 50GPa

Note: mean block size = vertical joint spacing and the TCM and CZM do not use ‘oversize’.
of estimating the fine end (<100 mm) of the fragmentation distribution
function, which is absolutely important for SAG mill throughout. By using
their respective approaches and values of rock factor, both TCM and CZM
generate the fragment size distribution curve, as represented in Fig. 1. Table
1 summarizes the differences among the Kuz-Ram, TCM and CZM models
while estimating the rock factor. A detailed treatment of the TCM and CZM
approach is available [16].
2.5. Swebrec function
A 3-parameter fragment size distribution, termed the Swebrec function
was propounded [17] for establishing a viable linkage between rock
fragmentation by blasting and crushing. The function claims to form a new
family of a Natural Breakage Characteristic (NBC) function with a realistic
shape that connects fragmentation by blasting and mechanical fragmentation
by crushing. Also, the function has been used in the Kuz-Ram model and
appears to be capable of overcoming its drawback of poor predictive
Cum
%
Coarse distribution
-Kuz-Ram model
capabilities in the fines range. From the viewpoint of rock fragmentation by
blasting, it may be reasonable to infer the NBC to be dependent on intact rock
strength parameters and the presence of geological discontinuities in the rock
mass structure.
From the foregoing discussions on various fragmentation prediction models,
it is important to understand that these models have limited usefulness in
practical circumstances as the input parameters that form the base of these
models are not readily discernible throughout the rock mass. Even if the input
parameters are known, the models still fail to present the correct fragmentation
picture throughout the mine in a consistent fashion. This is attributed to the fact
that these models are derived in a way that makes them incapable of covering the
entire range of all the important rock and blasting parameters, which are highly
site-specific. Even at the same site, they are very sensitive to variations. In other
words, the models are difficult to tune with site-specificity. Keeping these
limitations in view it was stated that an integrated approach is required for
developing accurate models to predict rock fragmentation by blasting.
Subsequently, an integrated approach was proposed involving the drill
monitoring data to
Fines %
1 Size (mm)

Fig. 1. Fragmentation distribution with two components of the TCM and CZM.
Fine distribution
understand the in-situ rock mass condition by calibrating the calculated specific
-crushed zone
energy in drilling, split image analysis software for assessing the post-blast
Mean size fragmentation and crushability and grindability of rock and the explosive energy
per unit volume of broken rock. These 3 types of data were collected and
Passing analyzed on a holeby-hole basis giving 50 or more data points for each blast.
These data sets, in turn, founded the basis for a statistical correlation between
in-situ rock mass conditions, blasting parameters and the resulting fragment size
and its distribution in the muckpile.
714 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719
Apart from such useful integrations and site-specific calibrations, the MWD
techniques in future must aim at correlating the calculated drilling parameters,
penetration rates, rock quality index etc. with the rock factor, which has
invariably been used in all the fragmentation prediction models. Thereafter the
efficacy of these models in predicting the fragmentation results must be
ascertained by calibrating the results with a suitable image analysis system. Such
site-specific correlations could go a long way to establishing a reliable and
efficient integration of drill monitoring data with fragmentation assessment
software.
2.6. Computer simulation models
As examples, the Hybrid Stress Blasting Model (HSBM) will be briefly
discussed. This model is probably the best available model that incorporates
all major chemical-physical processes operating during detonation,
fragmentation and muck pile formation.
HSBM is a 3-D numerical model for blast-induced rock fragmentation that
uses a combination of discrete and continuous numerical techniques to model
detonation, dynamic wave propagation, rock fragmentation and muck pile
formation. To demonstrate the complexity of modeling of blasting the software
included in the model is briefly described [18,19]: The borehole, explosive and
near-field rock are represented as an axisymmetric continuum by the software
Blo-Up 2. The continuum region extends for two-and-a-half borehole radii from
the edge of the borehole. The main rock-body representation is coupled to this
continuum region to allow wave energy to propagate away from the borehole
area.
The detonation software (explosive model) gives as input to Blo-Up 2 the
Velocity of Detonation (VOD), the equation of state, the final reaction
extent, the initial density and a reference state. Energy release is controlled
by a Programmed Burn (PB) algorithm.
The main rock body is represented with a lattice type Discrete Element
Method (DEM), which models the wave propagation and initial fragmentation
through to muck pile formation. In the lattice-type method rock is represented
as a collection of randomly located point masses connected by springs, see
Fig. 2. A gas flow model (Distinct Element Code (DEC)) coupled to BloUp 2
simulates gas in open fractures flowing out into the rock mass and the transfer
of energy to fragments. In the present model, it is found that gas flow into the
fractures only has a minor contribution to the overall fragmentation, but
contributes to the fragment velocity.
The rock properties needed for simulation are Young’s modulus, Poisson’s
ratio, density, unconfined compressive strength, direct tensile strength and
damping coefficient. This coefficient has been introduced to account for the
attenuation characteristics of a given material. Evaluations have shown that this
coefficient may be used as a calibration factor to take into consideration the
complexities of rock or rock like material textural characteristics [20].
Calibration simulations [20] of laboratory small scale concrete cube and
cylinder experiments reported earlier have shown that the lattice scheme is able
intact and in-situ rock mass properties. In this concept, the BI was expressed on the basis
of five parameters as represented in Eq. (8). The BI was developed in respect of the iron
ore mines in Australia.
BI ¼ 0:5½RMD þ JPS þ JPO þ RDI þ H
n1 n2
also expresses the correlation with respect to energy factor for comparison with
explosive other than ANFO.
Table 2
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of
lattice.
to realistically reproduce fracturing patterns. The fragmentation predictions also
follow realistic trends. In the cube samples, modeling results show an
overestimation of the mean passing fraction of the order of 23%; however,
overall fragmentation uniformity appears to be well matched. In all cases larger
discrepancies were observed at the size fraction below 10 mm which is twice
the lattice model resolution. This may be an indicator of the limit at which size
distributions may be reliably predicted as a function of model resolution. With
regards to fragment trajectories and velocities, results indicate that the trend of
increasing fragment velocity against available explosive energy is consistent
with what has been shown experimentally.
The HSBM can be described as a sophisticated blast modeling research
tool, which provides results that can still be used implicitly for practical blast
design. In its current form it is not a tool that can be used for day to day blast
design and analysis [20]. The rock mass representation by the lattice scheme
is an artificial material description. The damping coefficient is presently used
as a correlation factor. In a shorter perspective it doesn’t seem feasible to try
to connect blast modeling based on MWD with sophisticated computerized
blast modeling.
3. Rock blastability and BI
Rock blasting may be easily understood by considering two different rock
masses blasted by identical blast geometry and energy inputs from
explosives. Post-blast fragmentation results from the different rock masses
would be necessarily different owing to inherent differences in the rock mass
properties, which offer different degrees of resistance to rock breakage. The
degree of resistance offered by the rock mass to fragmentation by blasting is
referred to as rock blastability. It is a truly intrinsic property (just like
hardness and strength etc.) and is normally uncontrollable. Adhikari [21]
stated that since rock blastability is a function of numerous variables, the old
concepts of designating rock blasting by the rock constant or Hino’s
blastability coefficient are not suitable for the purpose of blast designs. He
further suggests that some newer concepts of blastability [22] need further
research for their practical implementation. It is significant to note that since
a myriad of rock properties jointly affect the rock blastability, it may be
helpful to consider the blastability of the rock mass to be representative of its
composite intrinsic property.
In view of the importance of rock blastability in rock breakage by
blasting, a good number of researchers have focused on establishing the BI
of the rock mass, which, in turn, has been correlated with specific charge
(powder factor). An inadequate value of specific charge essentially leads to
poor fragmentation results, which exert a cascading impact on the economy
of all the downstream operations. This is precisely the reason for consistent
research in the area of establishing effective and practical correlations
between rock blastability and specific charge requirements.
3.1. BI
The concept of Blastability Index (BI) was proposed [13] by duly considering the
ð8Þ
The notations used in Eq. (8) are explained in Table 2.
The empirical correlation between specific charge and BI is shown in Fig. 3, which
 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719 715

Parameters of BI with their ratings. Table 4

Adjustment factors for BI.
No. Parameters Rating

1 Rock mass description (RMD)

Powdery/friable 1 Degree of confinement: reasonably free 0
10
Highly confined 5
Blocky 20
Bench stiffness:
Massive 50 2 Hole depth/burden > 2 0
Hole depth/burden = 1.5–2.0 2
2 Joint plane spacing (JPS) Hole depth/burden < 1.5 5
Close (<0.1 m) 10
Intermediate (0.1–1 m) 20

Table 5
Wide (>1 m) 30 Estimation of specific energy.
BI Specific charge (kg/m3)
3 Joint plane orientation (JPO)
Horizontal 10 80–85 0.2–0.3
60–70 0.3–0.5
Dip out of face 20
50–60 0.5–0.6
40–50 0.6–0.7
Strike normal to face 30 30–40 0.7–0.8

Dip into the face 40

longterm geological mechanisms. Given this, the identification of rock
blastability and the corresponding BI in any mine is governed not only by the
4 Specific gravity influence (RDI)
PDI = 25p–50 where p = rock
rock strength parameters, but also by the presence of
density (t/m3)

5 Hardness (H) 1–10 Table 3

No. Parameters Range of values

1 Density (t/m3) 1.3–1.6 1.6–2.0 2.0–2.3 2.3–2.5 >2.5

Rating 20 15 12 6 4

2 Spacing of discontinuities (m) <0.2 0.2–0.4 0.4–0.6 0.6–2.0 >2

0.2–0.4
Rating 35 25 20 12 8

3 Point load strength (MPa) <1 1–2 2–4 4–6 >6

Rating 25 20 15 8 5

4 Joint plane orientation Dip into face Strike at an acute angle to face Strike normal to face Dip of face Horizontal
Rating 20 15 12 10 6

0.5 1.5 Geo-mechanical parameters of BI with their ratings.

geological structures within it. Hence, to integrate the blasting with MWD, it is
0.4 imperative that the MWD system should be able to monitor the performance
1.0 data at reasonably small depth increments for precise detection of geological
0.3
discontinuities (fractures, cavities, open beds, cracks, fissures etc.) and assess
0.2 their location and density. The aim should be to produce the strength and
0.5
discontinuity logs by the MWD system on a hole-to-hole basis. Babatunde et
0.1 al. [23] reported the correlation of two MWD parameters, namely, the specific
0 energy and bit wear rate with joint spacing in gneiss and limestone rocks. They
0 20 40 60 80 100 also established the relationship between penetration rate and joint spacing in
Blastability index
such rocks. Furthermore, it was reported that the width of penetration rate peaks
Fig. 3. Correlation between BI and specific charge/energy factor for Australian iron ore mine. can be used as a direct measure of the width of discontinuities [24]. It was
further suggested by another group of researchers that discontinuities could be
located by the combined application of drill monitoring, core logging and
On the basis of experiments in 12 surface mines in India, another concept borehole TV surveys [24,25]. It was reported that areas of high RQD and
of rock BI was suggested using four geomechanical parameters, as described in fracture frequency estimated by these combined interpretation techniques,
Tables 3 and 4. The BI in this case is obtained by adding up the ratings of 4 closely coincided with the position of increased penetration rate peak amplitude
parameters and adjusted to take account of field conditions under which the and width. Although, by precisely locating the geological discontinuities, it is
blast was conducted. The correlation of BI with specific charge, as suggested practically impossible to change the explosive loading techniques on a hole-to-
in this approach, is tabulated in Table 5. hole basis, such logs should hold sufficient merit in facilitating the broad
From the BI studies, it is quite evident that factors influencing rock decisions on explosive selection, stemming, decoupling, decking etc., in each
blastability fall into two groups; the first group comprises the intact rock blast block to yield improvements in fragmentation results.
properties (strength, hardness, density etc.) and the second group is concerned Emphasis was laid on such logging for improving the explosive selection
with the discontinuities and geological structures that consist of orientation, and distribution in the blast holes [26]. It was pointed out that if a zone of loose
spacing, number and extent of geological discontinuities created by a range of rock material (sand, clay, highly weathered basalt, powdery haematite, heavily
716 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719

fissured shale etc.) is encountered, the penetration rate becomes relatively

higher and the required rotary torque becomes comparatively lower (provided
that there is sufficient air for flushing the drill cuttings from the
Fig. 4. Rock mass variability vis-à-vis penetration rate.
Stemming
Strong
massive
caprock
A B

Charge
Pocket
Stemming Loose Stemming charge
deck sand

Charge Strong
massive
rock Charge

Backfill

Coal Penetration rate Bench floor

level

Penetration rate

Fig. 6. Typical traces of penetration rate and charge distributions for effective rock types shown.

Stemming
Rock of moderate Fig. 7. Contour
strength
map of the mine
Anfo
bench showing
normalized
MWD
Anfo or powerful Very strong parameters.
watergel rock

Anfo Grey areas represent lost MWD data

Rock of moderate Blasting
strength engineers in the said mines used these maps to deter-
Backfill
Fig. 5. Charging of a blast hole that passes through very strong beds.
Coal mine the explosive charge for each hole, particularly for transition within a blast
block from one rock to another. Downhole variations
blast hole and the newly-created walls of the blast hole do not cave in the BI for a particular blast in a copper mine in Australia were
in during drilling). In such cases, thrust and rotary speeds are also reported by same researchers [27]. With reference to their
adjusted to suit the ground conditions. These variations in penetrastudies in the given copper mine, they suggested that when the
tion rate, rotary torque, thrust and rotary speeds need to be calitotal length of each rock type in each hole is plotted as a contour
brated with the nature of rock to decide the manner in which plan for the blast, distinct rock zones become apparent. Accord-
the explosive and stemming material must be distributed in each ingly, the explosives charging aspects in the blast holes can be
blast hole. Additionally, the relative penetration rate data can be varied. blended with other
data to determine the beds in which an explosive charge or stemming material needs to be
placed (Fig. 4) and
4. Powder factorwhether
more than one type of explosive were required (Fig. 5).
Although not much researched, it is the belief of the authors that
4.1. B
ased on BIrecords of flushing pressure variation and their calibration with the changing
ground conditions, holds sufficient merit in envisag-
As discussed in the preceding section, researchers [13] provided ing the
discontinuities. Fig. 6 illustrates the manner of explosive correlation of BI with specific charge. Nevertheless, it is worthcharge distribution with changing rock mass
conditions as while mentioning here that the concept of generating a BI is heavrevealed by penetration rate results. Similarly, MWD can provide ily dependent on
assigning subjective weights to the geothe real-time and permanent information on the existence of mechanical parameters. Even then, this approach is laudable as
it floaters-strong massive boulders embedded within a softer, encompasses a plethora of geo-mechanical parameters (including plastically-acting matrix and cavities
along with their respective the intact rock properties as well as structural features of rock depth of occurrence. Such data may become consequential for a mass) to
quantify the rock mass for blasting. With necessary caublasting engineer to ensure all practical steps to ensure that correct tion, the BI offers the potential of
integration with MWD and assist weights of explosives are loaded at correct places inside the blast the blasting engineer in the design of blast rounds and determining
holes as warranted by the site-specific need.
the specific charge (powder factor).
Furthermore, it is the belief of the authors that the knowledge gained from the MWD data, as regards the geological discontinu-
4.2. B
ased on drilling dataities and structures, may be appropriately fed in the BI equations to
evolve the rock BI. The index can then be used to demarcate
Correlation of drilling parameters with powder factor for correthe
boundaries of the blasting block and also may be used for corlating Rock Quality Index (RQI) with powder factor has been studrelating with the specific charge and
blast geometry parameters. ied [28], as shown in Fig. 8. As per their study, based on perimeter
A contour map of an operational bench, as shown in Fig. 7, in blasting rounds, the RQI for rotary drills was expressed as:
BHP iron ore, Newman, Washington State, showing the BI was
reported [27]. RQI ¼ Eht=L ð9Þ
 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719 717

8000 4
q =1.124 e -0.57 Ip
3 r =0.92
4000
2

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 1

Powder factor (kg ANFO)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Fig. 8. Correlation between RQI and powder factor.
Specific charge (kg/m3)

Fig. 10. Correlation between drilling index and specific charge for a Spanish openpit mine.
where Eh = hydraulic pressure of drill (kPa), t = drilling time (min), L = drill
hole depth (m).
The correlation between RQI and the powder factor was suggested as: 4.3. Based on seismic wave velocity

½RQI 25 ð Þ LnðPFÞ ¼10 7:2 P-wave velocity in a rock mass is greatly dependent on in-situ
rock strength, degree of jointing, structural weakness and weathering etc. As
However, there are many limitations to this approach, as listed below: such, the P-wave velocity in a rock mass has also been correlated with powder
Since the approach considers only the hydraulic pressure in drilling, the data factor. Earlier studies [29] correlated the in-situ P-wave velocity with the specific
obtained is dependent on type and model of drill rig. charge for a surface copper mine. Subsequently, on the basis of elaborate studies
The relationship has been evolved from the perimeter blasting results where in a surface mine copper mine in Nevada, the correlation results of P-wave
velocity with specific charge for different rocks was proposed [30], as tabulated
the specific charge ranged from 0.04 to 0.08 kg/ t-much lower than in Table 6 and illustrated in Fig. 11.
conventional blasting. Similar work was reported in overburden strata in surface lignite coal mines
The relationship does not consider drill diameter. in Turkey by use of seismographs on 60–80 m long survey lines on the designated
benches. A satisfactory correlation was established between the P-wave velocity
The relationship does not consider the rotation speed. and specific charge for different rock types. However, since the specific charge
ranged from 0.13 to 0.33 kg/m3 only, the study is not applicable in hard rock
Notwithstanding its limitations, the methodology proposed by Leighton et mines that require a relatively high specific charge in excess of 0.35 kg/m3.
al. [27] was adopted in several coal mines in Turkey. They monitored rotary The correlation of specific charge with P-wave velocity indicates that it may
drill rigs with 229 mm tricone roller bits. The penetration rates were measured be useful to incorporate P-wave velocity measurements in conjunction with
at constant rotational speed of 120 r/min. Fig. 9 presents the correlation MWD systems to provide some useful insights on the estimation of powder
between specific charge and RQI. factor, while designing the blast rounds.
Nevertheless, on considering the limitations of the RQI approach which
depends on the type and model of drill rigs and does not consider the drill Table 6
hole diameter and rotary speed, a different drilling index (Ip) was described Specific charge for different rocks in an open-pit copper mines in Nevada, USA.
Rock type P-wave velocity (m/s) Specific charge (kg/m3)
[28] as:
Weathered limestone 300–600 0.30
PR WN=D Weathered porphyry 600–900 0.35
Rhyolite breccia 900–1200 0.45
Ip ¼ ð 2Þ Monzonite porphyry 1200–1500 0.60
ð11Þ Quartz sericite porphyry 1500–1800 0.60
Fresh limestone 1500–1800 0.60
where PR = penetration rate (m/h), W = pull down hydraulic pressure/thrust Massive jasperoid 1800–3600 0.77
on the bit (1000 lb), N = rotational speed of bit (r/min), D = drill diameter
0.6
(inch).
Fig. 10 illustrates the correlation between drilling index and specific 18×21
0.5
charge for a variety of rocks in Spanish surface mines. As the range of specific
charge studied by the researchers was extensive, the correlation seems to be 0.4
applicable for soft as well as hard rocks. 21×24
Average of
24×27 0.3 blasts
0.4
q 27×30
=0.0225 ( RQI )0.466 30×33 0.2
r 2 =0.89
0.3
0.1

0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Acoustic velocity-feet per second (×1000)

0.1
Fig. 11. Correlation between powder factor and acoustic (P-wave) velocity.

40 80 120 160 200 240 280

Rock quality index ((kN·min)/m)
Fig. 9. Correlation between specific charge and RQI for Turkish surface coal mines.
5. Drillability and blastability relationship
Based on the belief that drilling performance and results from blasting are
mutually related, a relationship between these two was formulated, as given in
Eq. (12). In this relationship, RQI was proposed as a measure of blastability and
718 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719
using dimensional analysis the relationship between RQI and the drilling
parameters was developed, as expressed below:
r ¼ a NTF=u1:5 ð12Þ
where r = RQI ((N min)/m)), N = rotational speed (1/s), T = torque (N m), F =
pull-down thrust (N), u = penetration rate (m/h), a = site-specific coefficient,
dependent on drill parameters.
Further extending their concept of using the drill logs for blast designs, the
researchers suggested the use of MWD information for determining the powder
factor by incorporating the concept of specific energy during drilling and
assuming that the energy required for blasting is proportional to the energy
required in drilling. They proposed the following equation for determining the
specific energy during drilling:
4 2PNT
E¼ P2U
ð13Þ
D variability in the UCS of each sample was also noticeable. The study suggests
And equated it with blasting energy so that:
Cqf ¼ k E ð14Þ
where C = energy released per kg of explosive, q = rock density, f = powder
factor.
Eq. (8) may be written for powder factor as:
f ¼ kE=qC ¼ k0E ð15Þ
The constant k0 was estimated from historical, real-time data from the mines
as a ratio of mean values of specific energy and its corresponding mean value of
powder factor. Smith [31] acknowledged the work reported by Muftuoglu et al.
[22] to establish the relationship between RQI and powder factor.
Most of the researchers who have tried to establish a relationship between
rock drillability and blastability have largely used the penetration rate as one of
the key performance indicators, and the interrelationships among the drill
operating parameters (thrust, rotation, speed and torque) to infer the rock mass
properties. Segui et al. [26] reported from their studies in BHP iron ore, Newman,
Washington State, that with some modeling work done by JKMRC, a crude
specific energy was calculated as a normalized ratio of penetration rate and thrust
on the bit expressed as a weighted average of indices generated from composites
in each blast hole. It was then used for generating the charging pattern in each
blast hole.
6. Drilling vibrations and blasting designs
Smith examined the Aquila drill monitoring system in place at Ernest Henry
gold and copper mine (Mt. Isa Mining, Queensland) and reported a trend between
drill rod vibration and specific energy. After normalization of specific energy and
vibration data, the same could be plotted on a single graph as shown in Fig. 12,
which showed an inverse relationship between specific energy and vibrations. It
is already established that specific energy and rock strength can be correlated.
Hence, the drilling vibrations could also be correlated with rock strengths. Smith
further carried out experiments in the laboratory using 4 different types of
concrete samples with each sample consisting of 3 different values of UCS. It
was found that the vibration data correlated very well with rock type and strength.
The concrete samples with pebble aggregates yielded much noisier, larger
amplitude signals in contrast with
2.5
Vibration (Normalized)
Specific energy (Normalized)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Time (s)
Fig. 12. Normalized field data showing inverse proportionality between specific energy and
vibrations.
þF
uniform signals emanating from the homogeneous samples of concrete or
concrete with sand. The relative difference in vibration level due to induced
that vibration level measurement could yield significant information on rock
variability within the blast holes in order to use this information for explosive
loading and blast design.
From the work reported in this section, it may be inferred that, in a given
domain of rock mass, the operating conditions determine the drilling
performance. Hence, on the basis of available drilling parameters and the
achieved drilling performance, it should be possible to know the rock mass
characteristics. The inferred rock mass properties have been correlated with
blastability for evaluation of powder factor and blast designs.
7. Conclusions
The following are the salient conclusions:
Owing to wide variation in the geo-mechanical features of the rock mass,
various fragmentation models fail to provide an accurate fragmentation
picture consistently throughout the mine. As such, image analysis
software based on any of these models also suffers from a similar
drawback. This is due to the fact that these models are incapable of
conveying the fullrange of important rock and blasting parameters. This
calls for an integrated approach to combine the pertinent drill monitoring
data for supplying the information to a fragmentation model for predicting
fragment sizes. Toward this end, the MWD technique must aim at
correlating calculated drilling parameters, such as, SE, RQI, drilling
index, flushing pressure, vibrations etc. with the rock factor, which is
invariably used in all fragmentation prediction models.
Site-specific drill monitoring and optical image analysis methods need to
be properly calibrated and integrated in a manner which will provide real-
time information on drill monitoring data that can predict fragmentation.
Identification of rock blastability and BI in any mine is governed by the
intact rock strength parameter and the presence of geological structures
within the rock. In order to blend the concept of rock blastability with
MWD, it is imperative on the MWD system to monitor the performance
data at reasonably small depth increments with an aim to concurrently
produce strength and discontinuity logs on a hole-to-hole basis.
Penetration rates, their variations, peaks, amplitudes and widths have been
reported to be useful in predicting rock blastability. Similarly, flushing
pressure variation and its calibration with rock mass variations is believed
by the authors to provide quantitative information on rock blastability.
Studies made by several researchers have suggested effective correlations
between PF and the drill monitoring parameters such as: SE, RQI, drilling
index and P-wave velocities. These studies definitely pave the way for
advancement of such relationships in newer domains.
 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719 719

Records of variations in drill rod vibrations (both horizontal and vertical)
and their calibration with rock strength need to be further explored for
providing useful insights for improving blasting designs.
Acknowledgments
[29] Heinen RH, Dimock RR. The use of seismic measurements to determine the blastability of
rock. In: Proc 2nd annual conf on explosives and blasting techniques. Lousiville; 1976. p.
234–48.
[30] Yin K, Liu H. Using information extracted from drill data to improve blasting design and
fragmentation. Fragblast 2001;5(3):157–79.
[31] Smith B. Improvements in blast fragmentation using measurement while drilling parameters.
Fragblast 2002;6(3–4):301–10.

The work presented in this paper is part of a large study to propose the
Strategic Agenda: Sustainable Mining and Innovation for the Future (SMIFU)
by a joint Swedish – Polish Consortium managed by Rock Tech Centre
(RTC), Lulea, Sweden. The funding and permission to publish this paper by
RTC is greatly appreciated. The authors remain indebted to the support
provided by the Center of Advanced Metallurgy and Mining (CAMM),
Division of Operations and Maintenance Engineering, Lulea University of
Technology, Lulea, Sweden and Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
in conducting and accomplishing the present research.

References

[1] Langerfors U, Kihlstörm B. Modern technique of rock blasting. New York: John Wiley and
Sons Inc; 1963.
[2] Belland JM. Structure as a control in
rock fragmentation. CIM Bull 1966;59:323–8.
[3] Hagan TN, Just GD. Rock breakage by explosives: theory, practice and optimization. In: Proc
3rd ISRM cong. Washington, DC; 1974. p. 1349–58.
[4] Yang ZG, Rustan AP. The influence from primary structures on fragmentation. In: Proc int
symp on rock fragmentation by blasting. Lulea; 1983. p. 581–603.
[5] Cunningham CVB. The Kuz-ram model for prediction of fragmentation from blasting. In:
Proc int symp on rock fragmentation by blasting. Lulea; 1983. p. 439–53.
[6] Singh DP, Sarma KS. Influence of joints on rock blasting: a model scale study. In: Proc int
symp on rock fragmentation by blasting. Lulea; 1983. p. 533–54.
[7] Cunningham CVB. Fragmentation estimation and the Kuz-Ram model. In: Proc 2nd int symp
on rock fragmentation by blasting. Colorado; 1987. p. 475–87.
[8] Aler J, Du Mouza J, Arnould M. Measurement of the fragmentation efficiency of the rock
mass blasting and its mining applications. Int J Rock MechMin Sci Geomech Abstr
1996;33(2):125–39.
[9] Latham JP, Liu P. Development of an assessment system for blastability of rock masses. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36(1):41–55.
[10] Hino K. Theory and practice of blasting. Japan: Nippon Kayaku Company, Ltd.; 1959.
[11] Kuznetsov VM. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock. Soviet Min Sci
1973;9(2):144–8.
[12] Lilly PA. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability. In: Proc large open pit
mining conf. Melbourne; 1986. p. 89–92.
[13] Bond FC, Whittney BB. The work index in blasting. Quart Colorado School Mines
1959;54(3):77–82.
[14] Eloranta J. Characterization of pre and post blast environments. In: Twenty ninth conf of expl
blast technol, Nashville; 2003.
[15] Djordjevic N. A two-component model of blast fragmentation. Ausimm Proceed
1999;304(2):9–13.
[16] Kanchibotla SS, Valery W, Morrell S. Modeling fines in blast fragmentation and its impact
on crushing and grinding. In: A conference on rock breaking. Kalgoorlie; 1999. p. 137–44.
[17] Ouchterlony F. Swebrec function: linking fragmentation by blasting and crushing. Min
Technol, Trans Inst Min Metall 2005;114(1):29–44.
[18] Kemeny J, Mofya E, Kaunda R, Lever P. Improvements in blast fragmentation models using
digital image processing. Int J Blast Frag 2002;6(3):311–20.
[19] Onederra I, Chitombo GP, Cundall PA, Furtney JK. Rock fragmentation by blasting. London:
Taylor and Francis Group; 2010.
[20] Rustan A, Nie LS. New method to test the rock breaking properties of explosives in full scale.
In: Proc 2nd int symp on rock fragmentation by blasting. Colorado; 1987. p. 36–47.
[21] Adhikari GR. Empirical methods for the calculation of the specific charge for surface blast
design. Fragblast 2000;41(1):19–33.
[22] Muftuoglu YV, Pasamehmetoglu AG, Karpuz C. Correlation of powder factor with physical
rock properties and rotary drill performance in Turkish surface coal mines. In: Proc 7th cong
of ISRM. Aachen; 1991. p. 1049–51.
[23] Babatunde Adebayo, Ademola Bello Wasin. Discontinuities effect on drilling condition and
performance of selected rocks in Nigeria. Int J Min Sci Technol 2014;24(3):603–8.
[24] Schoble MJ, Peck J, Hendericks C. Correlation between rotary drill performance parameters
and borehole geophysical logging. Min Sci Technol 1989;8 (3):301–12.
[25] Hagan TN, Reid IW. Performance monitoring of blast hole drills- a means of increasing
blasting efficiency. In: Proc 2nd int surface mining and quarrying symp. Bristol; 1983. p.
245–54.
[26] Segui JB, Higgins M. Blast design using measurement while drilling parameters. Fragblast
2002;6(3–4):287–99.
[27] Leighton JC, Brawner CO, Stewart D. Development of a correlation between rotary drill
performance and controlled blasting powder factors. CIM Bull 1982;75(844):67–73.
[28] Broadbent CD. Predictable blasting with in-situ seismic survey. Min Eng 1974;26(4):37–41.