Underground Blast Design

Using Stemming

MNGN 333
Explosives Engineering

Prepared By:
Josh Gresham
Tim Smith
Garrett Whipp
Patrick Wieck

Prepared For:
Dr. Vilem Petr, CSM
MNGN 333 Explosives Engineering class

December 7, 2005

- i-
Executive Summary

Does the use of stemming provide for better fragmentation in underground blasting, or is
it just not worth the time and effort? This is the basic question this report seeks to answer.
We begin with a single blast design and a conventiona l blast to determine the normal
fragmentation produces during an underground blast. Then take the same blast design and
add inert ½” to ¾” road base rock to the last 6-8 inches of the loaded design holes, to
determine if this method with help with the fragmentation.

This experiment was conducted at the Edgar Mine in Idaho Springs. It was done under
the supervision and authorization of Vilem Petr, class professor, and Dave Mosch, Mine
Manager.

During the course of this experiment we have found the need for a greater number of test
blasts in both the conventional and experimental design phases to truly have any real
basis to make real judgments regarding the sue of stemming. However, with the
experiments that we have conducted and the research associated with this experiment we
conclude that the use of stemming in an underground environment is not a viable option
for most users. The law of diminishing returns is best to describe what benefits one
receives from such methods.

The time and cost associated with the use of stemming, in our experiments, greatly
reduces the benefits of better fragmentation. There is just too much variability and down
time associated with loading the stemming material with current technology.

We recommend that this experiment continue with greater emphasis on the variables
described in this report and that future experiments attempt to focus on the technology of
actual loading of the stemming material to cut down on the time and cost associated with
the use of stemming.

- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1

II. PURPOSE.................................................................................................................2

III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP...................................................................................3

Blast Pattern................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Location........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Equipment.................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Explosives.................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Stemming...................................................................................................................................................................... 4

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .........................................................................................5

Individual Analysis..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Vibration Study........................................................................................................................................................... 8

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................9

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................11

APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHS ..............................................................................12

APPENDIX B – THEORETICAL BLAST DESIGN ..................................................23

Actual Design used ......................................................................................................................................................32

Hole Cross-Section ......................................................................................................................................................33

APPENDIX C – FRAGMENTATION ANALYSIS .....................................................34

Round 1, Photo 1 ..........................................................................................................................................................35

Round 1, Photo 2 ..........................................................................................................................................................38

Round 2, Photo 1 ..........................................................................................................................................................41

Round 2, Photo 2 ..........................................................................................................................................................44

Fragmentation Comparison......................................................................................................................................47

APPENDIX D – VIBRATION STUDY.........................................................................49

- iii -
I. Introduction

In all forms of mining, production is the key element. Without production, the operation

cannot make money. Two of the most important deciding factors of production are safety

and efficie ncy. Furthermore, especially in situations requiring blasting, efficiency can be

directly related to rock fragmentation.

Rock fragmentation, in this context, is a measure of how material is broken by an

explosive blast. In general, good fragmentation can be defined by uniform distribution of

size and ease of processing. Large boulders that cannot be easily processed and require

secondary breakage cause losses of efficiency, safety concerns, and increased cost.

Good fragmentation is especially crucial in underground applications, where significant

down-time is experienced after every blast. Down-time is usually the period of time

immediately after a blast, where production is temporarily stopped for safety operations,

such as ventilation, scaling, and support installation. The need for secondary blasting of

large boulders requires similar periods of down-time, and thus decreases overall

productivity [7].

In an effort to optimize fragmentation, different blast designs have been tested with

varying degrees of success.1 In addition to changing the blast design, other techniques

have been used, such as stemming. With stemming, a hole is partially loaded, and the

remainder of the hole is plugged with inert materials such as crushed rock. This inert

material helps to contain and redirect the explosive force and gasses into the rock rather

-1-
than shooting out of the hole, which becomes wasted energy. This technique is used

extensively in surface operations, where much larger quantities of explosives are used to

break greater volumes of rock. However, the use of stemming underground is relatively

uncommon, presumably due to extra time and costs incurred [1].

II. Purpose

The purpose of this experiment is to analyze the effectiveness of stemming on

fragmentation in an underground setting. We will also consider factors such as extra

costs incurred and the time-value of stemming a round. We hope to determine

quantitatively whether stemming can be a viable and progressive tool for the underground

mining industry.

-2-
III. Experimental Setup

The experimental setup is comprised of many factors. First and foremost is the blast

design that we will use. In addition, other factors we will consider are location,

equipment, and materials used in the experiment. Reporting methods will also be

covered.

Blast Pattern
As part of our experiment, we have designed a blast pattern. We designed this pattern

mathematically using the Swedish design method [2]. However, due to time constraints

and location availability, we will be using a blast pattern provided by the mine manager

Dave Mosch and colleague Scott O’Connor [5]. We will then hypothesize on the quality

of fragmentation of our theoretical blast design versus the results of the actual blast

design used.

Location
The experiment will take place at the Edgar Experimental Mine in Idaho Springs, Colo.

This mine is owned and operated by the Mining Engineering Department of the Colorado

School of Mines, based in Golden, Colo. The Edgar mine currently has two portals

under deve lopment, and we will conduct experiments in the Army adit, which is a

modern rubber-tire operation. The geology in the Army adit is primarily Idaho Springs’

gneiss and granite, which is an extremely competent formation [6].

Equipment
To prepare the working face for our experiment, we will use a variety of machines and

equipment. Mucking and cleaning will be done using a Wagner ST-2 LHD with a 2yd 3

capacity bucket. The blast holes will be drilled using an Atlas-Copco diesel-electric

-3-
single boom jumbo drill. The jumbo uses a hydraulic rotary-percussion drill with a 10’

drill steel and a 1-7/8” diameter bit (button tips).

Explosives
The same explosives and timing configurations will be used for both the control and

experimental blasts. This will help minimize the amount of variables in the experiment.

All explosives except ANFO are manufactured by Orica. ANFO will be used in all holes

except the lifters and the perimeter holes. ANFO will be loaded through a hopper

attached to a compressed air line. This will allow for a loaded density of 57.434 lb/ft3 .

Based on this density and the number of holes loaded, approximately 426lbs of ANFO

will be required. The perimeter holes will use 1-1/2 sticks of Powerex Plus C emulsion

and Powercord 200 detonating cord, each. Detonating cord is used in the perimeter holes

rather than ANFO due to time and experiment location constraints. This will make no

difference for the basis of our experiment, as that factor will be held constant for all

blasts. Each lifter will be loaded with 6 sticks of emulsion due to water in the holes.

Initiation of the ANFO will be done with Pentex SB20 boosters and Exel LP detonators.

The emulsion will be initiated with Exel LP detonators. All detonators are non-el and

will be initiated with 18- grain detonating cord, itself initiated with 2 meter safety fuse

and detonator. Detonator timing 0-15 LP will be used [3].

Stemming
Stemming material for the experimental blast will be prepared by the team. The material

is crushed rock, roughly ½”-¾” in size. Road base material from the Lyons, Colo. quarry

will be sorted using a ½” mesh sieve.

-4-
Prior to loading the stemming material into the holes, a “red hat” will be inserted and

placed against the explosive charge. These “red hats” are small plastic cone-shaped plugs

that will act as a buffer between the explosive charge and the stemming.

Stemming material will be loaded into all hole. A loading apparatus consisting of a 30”

length of PVC (1-1/2” OD) and a wooden tamping rod will be used to load the material.

The holes will be stemmed from the end of the explosive charge to the collar of the hole,

except with the perimeter holes. These perimeter holes will be loaded with an amount

approximately equivalent to the other holes, at the same depth [2].

IV. Analysis of Data

Fragmentation is a measure of how the target material is broken by the tool in use. For

the purposes of this experiment, fragmentation will be defined as the size distribution of

broken rock after a blast has occurred. Furthermore, ideal fragmentation will show a

limitation of excessively large material.

In an effort to scientifically analyze the size distribution of our muck piles, photographs

were taken after each blast. These photographs included a 1.0 ft2 piece of cardboard as a

scale. Multiple photographs from each blast reduced the chances of bad data.

Photographs were then loaded onto computer workstations and a grid was added, using

the scale in the photograph. Each full square in the grid was ¼ ft2 . Squares in the grid

were given row and column designations in the format “row.column”.

Analysis was based on the percentage of rocks in a specific size range for each grid

square. From this, overall distribution of rock fragmentation for each blast was

-5-
calculated [5]. The size ranges considered were: less than 1” diameter, 1”-4” diameter,

4”-7” diameter, and greater than 7” diameter.

The tables in Appendix C show analysis for each photograph.

Individual Analysis
The analysis for Round 1 (the control
Round 1 Size Distribution

round) shows moderately even 35%

30%
distribution across the size ranges,
25%

Percentage
20%
with a higher concentration of 1”-4”
15%

10%
diameter rocks. This is a good
5%

example of proper fragmentation, as 0%

< 1" 1" - 4" 4" - 7" > 7"
Size Range
extreme sizes are minimal and the

median sizes tend towards the smaller size. A large amount of very small rocks would be

a result of too much explosives used in a round, leading to excessive costs. Conversely,

lots of very large rocks signify a need for better blast design or more explosives loaded.

-6-
 Round 2 (the experimental round)
Round 2 Size Distribution

35%
shows similar distributions in the
30%
extreme size ranges, but curiously
25%
Percentage

20%
trends to larger sizes in the middle
15%

10%
ranges. While still considered
5%

0% good fragmentation, the bias

< 1" 1" - 4" 4" - 7" > 7"
Size Range
toward larger sizes implies that the

stemming was in fact less effective than a lack of stemming.

When compared side-by-side, it is obvious that fragmentation was better in Round 1. In

addition to a smaller-trending distribution, the overall distribution was more even than in

Round 2.

Fragmentation Comparison

35%

30%
25%
Percentage

20%
15%

10%
5%

0%
< 1" 1" - 4" 4" - 7" > 7"
Size Range
Round 1
Round 2

-7-
Vibration Study
Geophone equipment was set up to measure blast vibrations for our first blast. This was

primarily done for another study being undertaken by a separate group. However, our

understanding of the results will be reported in the interest of continued education.

The geophones measure sound wave vibrations, and are extremely sensitive and accurate.

For our blast, one geophone was set up on the surface, and another was set up

underground, near the blast. They were set to be self-activated when a recordable sound

wave was received.

The graphical output of the geophones can be found in Appendix D. Each spike in the L,

T, and V outputs on the graph represent the sound wave from a delayed initiation.

Initially, we thought that this had nothing to do with our project. It is interesting to note,

however, that these geophones could be used in future experiments to test the reliability

of pyrotechnic delays in detonators. An unreliable detonator that initiates even a few

milliseconds too soon or too late could have profound effects on fragmentation [8].

-8-
V. Conclusions and Recommendations
Theoretically speaking, the use of stemming in underground blasting should produce

better fragmentation over time compared with conventional blast designs. However, the

experiments conducted during this project have shown tha t the use of stemming does not

necessarily lead to better fragmentation. In this project, time constraints led to the use of

only one control blast and one stemmed blast. This proved to be less accurate as we did

not have eno ugh data to scientifically support our hypothesis. Repetition of both the

control and experimental (stemmed) rounds in various settings would likely show that

stemming in underground blasting yield s better fragmentation. A good measure of proper

fragmentation is the limitation of oversize material within the muck-pile. Based upon this

understanding of fragmentation, the data shows that there was very little difference

between the conventional blast and the stemmed blast.

Other factors in our experiment added greatly to the variability of the amount of

fragmentation. The stemmed round had a large geological lip plane four feet into the

round that affected the actual ability to load the hole with explosives. In the future, the

ability to avoid this type of geological feature will help in determining the level of

fragmentation. Perhaps a smaller scale blast design would help decrease the probability

of intersecting an undesirable geological feature. In addition, the size of the Powercord

200 detonating cord in perimeter holes prevented us from using our stemming apparatus,

and so the perimeter holes were not stemmed in the second round. This was a result of

poor planning on our part. Finally, the muck from our second round may have been

diluted when it was transported to the surface by mine personnel. This was due to

premature cleaning of the drift and could not be controlled by us.

-9-
Surveying a proper blast location ahead of time will also help to ensure a continuous rock

mass to blast. During our stemmed blast round we intersected an exploration borehole

that compromised our blast containment, therefore releasing some of the explosive

energy that was our objective to contain in order to properly fragment the rock.

Although there were factors that lead to a corruption of our gathered data, we feel

confident that if done correctly, while limiting as many variables as possible, that this

experiment will prove that stemming in an underground environment will produce better

fragmentation when compared with a conventional blast.

While looking at the practicality of using stemming in an underground environment, we

found that the time needed to stem, along with the cost of the proper materials needed to

stem a blast, make this a very time consuming and costly endeavor. Considering the

amount of time and the costs associated with stemming, we conclude that although the

fragmentation is better, the use of stemming will greatly increase the time it takes to load

and blast a round. This will decrease productivity and the turn-around time associated

with underground blasting. It is therefore our recommendation that stemming is not a

viable and progressive strategy for the underground mining community at this time.

Perhaps in the future, with enhancements in stemming materials and an increase in the

efficiency of loading, stemming will become a viable option.

- 10 -
References

1.) Keller, Roger L. Are you As Efficient As You Can Be? –An Underground Paper,
ISEE, 2000. http://isee.org/tis/Proceed/General/89gen/8904g.pdf

2.) Hustrulid, William A. and Richard L. Bullock, Underground Mining Methods (1st
Edition), Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. Littleton,
Colorado, 2001.

3.) Cooper, Paul W. Explosives Engineering (1st Edition), Wiley-VCH. New York,
NY, 1996.

4.) Kuchta, Mark. Underground Mine Design Course Notes, CSM Mining
Engineering Department, Golden, Colorado, 2004.

5.) Personal communication with Mr. Dave Mosch, CSM Mining Engineering
Department, Edgar Mine Manager

6.) Personal communication with Mr. Bob Cooper, Edgar Mine

7.) Personal communication with Dr. Mark Kuchta, CSM Mining Engineering
Department, Assistant Professor

8.) Personal communication with Donovan Smith, CSM Mining Engineering

Department, Undergraduate Student

- 11 -
Appendix A – Photographs

- 12 -
Photo 1: The portal of the Army adit

- 13 -
Photo 2: Wagner 2 yd 3 Load-Haul-Dump (LHD)

Photo 3: Atlas-Copco Single boom Jumbo drill

- 14 -
Photo 4: Round 1, Loaded and ready to go

Photo 5: Boot from round 1, still packed with ANFO

- 15 -
Photo 6: Fragmentation from round 1

- 16 -
Photo 7: Fragmentation from round 1 (part 2)

- 17 -
Photo 8: Round 2, Loaded and ready to go

Photo 9: Stemmed hole in round 2

- 18 -
Photo 10: Fragmentation from round 2

- 19 -
Photo 11: Fragmentation from round 2 (part 2)

- 20 -
Photo 12: Stemming material

Photo 13: Scale of stemming material (bit is 1-1/2” diameter)

- 21 -
Photo 14: PVC stemming tool and wooden pushing rod

Photo 15: Scale of PVC stemming tool (bit is 1-1/2” diameter)

- 22 -
Appendix B – Theoretical Blast Design

- 23 -
Drill Pattern Blast Design
Using the Swedish
Calculation Method

- 24 -
Parameters:
7
Hole diameter (m) d := 1 ⋅ in d = 0.05 m d := 0.048
8
Burn Hole Diameter(m) φ := d ⋅ 1.99 φ = 0.1
Tunnel Width (m) w := 12⋅ ft w = 3.66 m w := 3.66
Abutment Height (m) h := 8⋅ ft h = 2.44 m h := 2.44
Height of Arch (m) h a := 2⋅ ft h a = 0.61 m h a := .6
Smooth Blasting Yes
Lookout (rad) γ := 0.05
Angular Deviation (m/m) α := 0.01
Collar Deviation (m) β := 0.05
Explosive: ANFO 6 J
Q := 3.92⋅ 10
Heat of Explosive: (J/kg) kg
3
m
Gas Volume STP (m^3/kg) v := .973
kg
Density of Explosive (kg/m^3)
kg
ρ := 900
3
m
Swedish Relationship s anfo := 1.0
Rock Constant c := 0.4 (Swedish conditions assume c=0.4)
Adjusted Rock Constant C := 0.45
Fixation Factor f := 1.45
Fixation Factor for Walls fw := 1.2

** All Calculations In SI units and then converted to SAE

Charge Concentration of ANFO

2
l := π⋅ 
d⋅ m  kg lb
 ⋅ρ l = 1.63 l = 1.09 Charge Concentration
 2  m ft

Advance:
( 2)
H := 0.15 + 34.1⋅ φ − 39.4⋅ φ ⋅ m H = 3.05 m H = 10 ft Hole depth

I := 0.95⋅ H I = 2.9 m I = 9.5 ft Advance

- 25 -
Design Layout:
The following calculations are based on the generalized face layout shown below.

- 26 -
(A) Cut Area:

The Swedish blast design method incorporates the following four section cut
surrounding an oversized burn hole.

- 27 -
Four Section Cut:
1st Quadrangle:
V := 1.7φ V = 0.16 Maximum burden (m)
V1 := 1.7⋅ φ −  α ⋅ + β  ⋅ m
H
V = 0.08 m
1 V1 = 0.27 ft Practical Burden
  m 
 c 
 1.5
   kg
l1 := 55⋅ d ⋅   ⋅  V −  ⋅
V φ .4 kg lb
 ⋅ l1 = 0.67 l1 = 0.45 Charge Concentration
  φ  2  s anfo m
 m ft

lstem1 := 10⋅ d ⋅ m lstem1 = 1.57 ft Stemming Length

B1 := 2⋅ V1 B1 = 0.12 m B1 = 0.38 ft Hole Separation Distance

2nd Quadrangle:

(
B := 2⋅ V1 − β ⋅ m ) B = 0.15 ft Open Face Length

−2 B⋅ l⋅ s anfo
V := 8.8⋅ 10 ⋅ m⋅ V = 0.17 m V = 0.56 ft Maximum Burden
d ⋅ c⋅ kg
V2 := ( V − β ⋅ m) V2 = 0.12 m V2 = 0.4 ft Practical Burden
lstem2 := lstem1 lstem2 = 1.57 ft Stemming Length

 B1 
B2 := 2⋅  V2 +  B2 = 0.25 m B2 = 0.84 ft Hole Separation Distance
 2 

3rd Quadrangle:
 B2 
B := 2⋅  V2 + − β ⋅ m B = 0.28 m B = 0.93 ft Open Face Length
 2 
−2 B⋅ l⋅ s anfo
V := 8.8⋅ 10 ⋅ m⋅ V = 0.43 m V = 1.41 ft Maximum Burden
d ⋅ c⋅ kg
V3 := ( V − β ⋅ m) V3 = 0.38 m V3 = 1.25 ft Practical Burden
lstem3 := lstem1 lstem3 = 1.57 ft Stemming Length

 B2 
B3 := 2⋅  V3 +  B3 = 0.72 m B3 = 2.36 ft Hole Separation Distance
 2 

4th Quadrangle:
 B3 
B := 2⋅  V3 + − β ⋅ m B = 0.98 m B = 3.2 ft Open Face Length
 2 
−2 B⋅ l⋅ s anfo
V := 8.8⋅ 10 ⋅ m⋅ V = 0.8 m V = 2.63 ft Maximum Burden
d ⋅ c⋅ kg
V4 := ( V − β ⋅ m) V4 = 0.75 m V4 = 2.46 ft Practical Burden
lstem4 := lstem1 lstem4 = 1.57 ft Stemming Length

 B3 
B4 := 2⋅  V4 +  B4 = 1.57 m B4 = 5.15 ft Hole Separation Distance
 2 

- 28 -
(E) Lifter Area:
l⋅ s anfo ⋅ m
V := 0.9⋅ m⋅ V = 1.42 m V = 4.66 ft Maximum Burden
( c + .05) ⋅ f ⋅ ( 1.0) ⋅ kg

w⋅ m + 2⋅ H⋅ sin ( γ )
NL := +2 NL = 5 Number of Lifters
V
w⋅ m + 2⋅ H⋅ sin ( γ )
EL := EL = 1.05 m EL = 3.43 ft Inner Lifter Spacing
NL − 1
EL2 := EL − H⋅ sin ( γ ) EL2 = 0.89 m EL2 = 2.93 ft Corner Hole Spacing
VL := V − H⋅ sin ( γ ) − β ⋅ m VL = 1.22 m VL = 4 ft Practical Burden
h bL := 1.25⋅ VL h bL = 1.52 m h bL = 5 ft Length of Bottom Charge
h cL := H − h bL − 10⋅ d ⋅ m h cL = 1.04 m h cL = 3.42 ft Length of Column Charge

(D) Contour Area

Contour Holes, Roof:
E := 15⋅ d ⋅ m E = 0.72 m E = 2.36 ft Hole Spacing
E
V := V = 0.9 m V = 2.95 ft Maximum Burden
0.8
VR := V − H⋅ sin ( γ ) − β ⋅ m VR = 0.7 m VR = 2.29 ft Pracitical Burden
2 kg kg lb
lR := 90⋅ d ⋅ lR = 0.21 lR = 0.14 Minimum Charge Conc.
m m ft
( w + .2) ⋅ m
NR := +2 NR = 7 Number of Holes
E

Contour Holes, Wall:

Cs := h ⋅ m − VL − VR Cs = 0.52 m Cs = 1.72 ft Contour Size

l⋅ s anfo ⋅ m
V := 0.9⋅ m⋅ V = 1.4 m V = 4.59 ft Maximum Burden
( c + .05) ⋅ fw⋅ ( 1.25) ⋅ kg
VW := V − H⋅ sin ( γ ) − β ⋅ m VW = 1.2 m VW = 3.92 ft Practical Burden

Cs
NW := +2 NW = 2 Number of Holes
V⋅ ( 1.25)
Cs
EW := EW = 0.4 m EW = 1.32 ft Hole Spacing
NW − 1
h bW := 1.25⋅ VW h bW = 1.49 m h bW = 4.9 ft Length of Bottom Charge
h cW := H − h bW − 10⋅ d ⋅ m h cW = 1.07 m h cW = 3.52 ft Length of Column Charge

- 29 -
(B) Stoping Area:
CsB := w⋅ m − B4 − 2⋅ VW CsB = −0.3 m CsB = −0.99 ft Horizontal Spacing

** Stoping is not needed in ZONE B because spacing is negative.

(C) Stoping Area:

CsC := h ⋅ m − B4 − VL − VR CsC = −1.05 m CsC = −3.43 ft Vertical Spacing

** Stoping is not needed in ZONE C because spacing is negative.

Summary:
Number of Holes to be drilled:
Ncut := 4⋅ 4 Ncut = 16 Number of Cut Holes

Ntotal := NW ⋅ 2 + Ncut + NL + NR − 1 Ntotal = 32 Total Holes w/ ANFO

Nburn := 1 Nburn = 1 Number of Burn Holes

Rock Volume:
 ha  2 3 3
Vtotal := I⋅  w⋅ h + w⋅  ⋅ m Vtotal = 29.04 m Vtotal = 1025 ft Rock Volume
 2 

Specific Drilling:
Ntotal⋅ H m ft
SD := SD = 3.33 SD = 0.31 Specific Drilling
Vtotal 3 3
m ft

ANFO Usage:

( )(
ANFOcut := l1⋅ 4 + l⋅ 12 H − lstem1 ) ANFOcut = 126 lb ANFO in Cut

(
ANFOcon := lR⋅ NR⋅ H − lstem1 ) ANFOcon = 8.6 lb ANFO in Roof Contours

(
ANFOwall := l⋅ NW ⋅ 2⋅ H − lstem1 ) ANFOwall = 42 lb ANFO in Wall Contours

(
ANFOlift := l⋅ NL⋅ H − lstem1 ) ANFOlift = 44.15 lb ANFO in Lifters

ANFOtot := ANFOcut + ANFOcon + ANFOwall + ANFOlift

ANFOtot = 221 lb Total ANFO Used
Specific Charge:

ANFOtot kg lb
SC := SC = 3.45 SC = 0.22 Specific Charge
Vtotal 3 3
m ft

- 30 -
Final Drill Hole Layout:
The four quadrant cut was placed in a location to minimized the burden of both the roof contour
holes and the lifters. In addition the the wall contour holes were adjusted to take advantage of
both the corner lifters and the corner roof contour holes.

- 31 -
Actual Design used

Due to time and location constraints, this is the pattern that was used for both of our
blasts. Given more time, we would have liked to use our design instead.

- 32 -
Hole Cross-Section

- 33 -
Appendix C – Fragmentation Analysis

- 34 -
Round 1, Photo 1

Cell Size Distribution (Percentage)

< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch Total
1.1 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
1.2 90% 10% 0% 0% 100%
1.3 20% 30% 50% 0% 100%
1.4 20% 40% 20% 20% 100%
1.5 30% 20% 50% 0% 100%
1.6 10% 20% 40% 30% 100%
1.7 10% 20% 60% 10% 100%
1.8 10% 10% 80% 0% 100%
1.9 10% 20% 70% 0% 100%
1.10 10% 30% 60% 0% 100%
2.1 90% 10% 0% 0% 100%
2.2 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
2.3 10% 70% 20% 0% 100%
2.4 10% 10% 30% 50% 100%
2.5 70% 30% 0% 0% 100%
2.6 50% 10% 40% 0% 100%
2.7 40% 25% 20% 15% 100%
2.8 20% 50% 10% 20% 100%
2.9 30% 70% 0% 0% 100%
2.10 20% 80% 0% 0% 100%
3.1 90% 10% 0% 0% 100%
3.2 60% 20% 10% 10% 100%
3.3 10% 10% 40% 40% 100%
3.4 20% 60% 20% 0% 100%
3.5 30% 20% 50% 0% 100%
3.6 80% 20% 0% 0% 100%
3.7 30% 20% 20% 30% 100%
3.8 30% 10% 20% 40% 100%
3.9 40% 40% 20% 0% 100%
3.10 20% 70% 10% 0% 100%
4.1 60% 0% 40% 0% 100%
4.2 60% 30% 10% 0% 100%
4.3 20% 30% 30% 20% 100%
4.4 30% 10% 60% 0% 100%
4.5
Cells were covered by scale and not analyzed
4.6
4.7 20% 80% 0% 0% 100%
4.8 10% 90% 0% 0% 100%
4.9 10% 10% 30% 50% 100%
4.10 10% 0% 0% 90% 100%

- 35 -
 Cell Size Distribution (Percentage)
< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch Total

5.1 40% 60% 0% 0% 100%

5.2 80% 20% 0% 0% 100%
5.3 20% 30% 0% 50% 100%
5.4 30% 0% 10% 60% 100%
5.5
Cells were covered by scale and not analyzed
5.6
5.7 0% 0% 20% 80% 100%
5.8 10% 50% 0% 40% 100%
5.9 10% 0% 20% 70% 100%
5.10 10% 0% 0% 90% 100%
6.1 10% 40% 20% 30% 100%
6.2 20% 20% 30% 30% 100%
6.3 20% 40% 20% 20% 100%
6.4 20% 40% 30% 10% 100%
6.5 10% 30% 20% 40% 100%
6.6 10% 30% 40% 20% 100%
6.7 25% 15% 20% 40% 100%
6.8 10% 20% 50% 20% 100%
6.9 10% 10% 70% 10% 100%
6.10 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
7.1 10% 10% 70% 10% 100%
7.2 10% 10% 60% 20% 100%
7.3 10% 40% 50% 0% 100%
7.4 10% 70% 20% 0% 100%
7.5 10% 10% 20% 60% 100%
7.6 20% 30% 50% 0% 100%
7.7 30% 70% 0% 0% 100%
7.8 20% 80% 0% 0% 100%
7.9 10% 50% 30% 10% 100%
7.10 0% 20% 0% 80% 100%
8.1 10% 10% 0% 80% 100%
8.2 20% 30% 0% 50% 100%
8.3 20% 40% 40% 0% 100%
8.4 10% 10% 20% 60% 100%
8.5 30% 30% 0% 40% 100%
8.6 50% 50% 0% 0% 100%
8.7 10% 20% 0% 70% 100%
8.8 10% 70% 0% 20% 100%
8.9 20% 30% 40% 10% 100%
8.10 0% 40% 20% 40% 100%

Average 27% 29% 22% 22% 100%

- 36 -
 Size Distribution of Blast #1 Picture #1

35%

30%

25%
Percentage

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch
Size Range

- 37 -
Round 1, Photo 2

Cell Size Distribution (Percentage)

< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch Total
1.1 30% 70% 0% 0% 100%
1.2 20% 30% 30% 20% 100%
1.3 0% 0% 30% 70% 100%
1.4 0% 30% 70% 0% 100%
1.5 0% 20% 80% 0% 100%
1.6 0% 30% 70% 0% 100%
1.7 0% 30% 65% 5% 100%
1.8 0% 5% 10% 85% 100%
1.9 0% 70% 30% 0% 100%
1.10 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
2.1 10% 70% 20% 0% 100%
2.2 20% 50% 30% 0% 100%
2.3 0% 50% 50% 0% 100%
2.4 0% 10% 10% 80% 100%
2.5 0% 5% 15% 80% 100%
2.6 0% 20% 80% 0% 100%
2.7 10% 40% 50% 0% 100%
2.8 0% 10% 30% 60% 100%
2.9 0% 40% 60% 0% 100%
2.10 0% 40% 40% 20% 100%
3.1 0% 60% 40% 0% 100%
3.2 0% 10% 10% 80% 100%
3.3 0% 10% 30% 60% 100%
3.4 5% 25% 30% 40% 100%
3.5 10% 10% 10% 70% 100%
3.6 10% 20% 25% 45% 100%
3.7 0% 40% 0% 60% 100%
3.8 10% 20% 20% 50% 100%
3.9 15% 10% 5% 70% 100%
3.10 0% 10% 0% 90% 100%
4.1 0% 40% 60% 0% 100%
4.2 0% 10% 20% 70% 100%
4.3 15% 25% 30% 30% 100%
4.4 10% 15% 40% 35% 100%
4.5
Cells were covered by scale and not analyzed
4.6
4.7 5% 30% 40% 25% 100%
4.8 20% 50% 30% 0% 100%
4.9 40% 40% 20% 0% 100%
4.10 10% 60% 30% 0% 100%

- 38 -
 Cell Size Distribution (Percentage)
< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch Total
5.1 10% 0% 0% 90% 100%
5.2 0% 0% 70% 30% 100%
5.3 20% 20% 60% 0% 100%
5.4 0% 40% 60% 0% 100%
5.5
Cells were covered by scale and not analyzed
5.6
5.7 20% 50% 30% 0% 100%
5.8 30% 40% 30% 0% 100%
5.9 30% 40% 30% 0% 100%
5.10 80% 20% 0% 0% 100%
6.1 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
6.2 0% 20% 30% 50% 100%
6.3 15% 65% 20% 0% 100%
6.4 10% 80% 10% 0% 100%
6.5 30% 60% 10% 0% 100%
6.6 20% 0% 10% 70% 100%
6.7 10% 10% 20% 60% 100%
6.8 30% 10% 0% 60% 100%
6.9 70% 20% 10% 0% 100%
6.10 80% 20% 0% 0% 100%
7.1 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
7.2 0% 10% 30% 60% 100%
7.3 30% 40% 30% 0% 100%
7.4 20% 80% 0% 0% 100%
7.5 20% 5% 35% 40% 100%
7.6 20% 0% 0% 80% 100%
7.7 0% 20% 65% 15% 100%
7.8 0% 85% 15% 0% 100%
7.9 0% 85% 15% 0% 100%
7.10 0% 85% 15% 0% 100%
8.1 20% 0% 60% 20% 100%
8.2 15% 10% 35% 40% 100%
8.3 50% 45% 5% 0% 100%
8.4 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
8.5 50% 0% 50% 0% 100%
8.6 85% 15% 0% 0% 100%
8.7 0% 25% 75% 0% 100%
8.8 15% 20% 65% 0% 100%
8.9 0% 75% 25% 0% 100%
8.10 0% 35% 50% 15% 100%

Average 15% 31% 29% 26% 100%

- 39 -
 Size Distribution Round #1 Picture #2

35%

30%

25%
Percentage

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch
Size Range

- 40 -
Round 2, Photo 1

Cell Size Distribution (Percentage)

< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch Total
1.1 10% 20% 70% 0% 100%
1.2 10% 20% 10% 60% 100%
1.3 20% 50% 30% 0% 100%
1.4 30% 60% 10% 0% 100%
1.5 20% 60% 20% 0% 100%
1.6 20% 20% 60% 0% 100%
1.7 40% 60% 0% 0% 100%
1.8 20% 80% 0% 0% 100%
2.1 20% 60% 20% 0% 100%
2.2 20% 50% 30% 0% 100%
2.3 20% 50% 20% 10% 100%
2.4 20% 30% 10% 40% 100%
2.5 10% 10% 0% 80% 100%
2.6 20% 40% 0% 40% 100%
2.7 20% 50% 30% 0% 100%
2.8 20% 30% 50% 0% 100%
3.1 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
3.2 40% 10% 50% 0% 100%
3.3 10% 0% 0% 90% 100%
3.4
Cells were covered by scale and not analyzed
3.5
3.6 30% 50% 20% 0% 100%
3.7 20% 30% 20% 30% 100%
3.8 70% 30% 0% 0% 100%
4.1 20% 10% 70% 0% 100%
4.2 10% 20% 60% 10% 100%
4.3 10% 10% 40% 40% 100%
4.4
Cells were covered by scale and not analyzed
4.5
4.6 30% 40% 30% 0% 100%
4.7 20% 0% 80% 0% 100%
4.8 70% 30% 0% 0% 100%
5.1 10% 0% 90% 0% 100%
5.2 10% 20% 20% 50% 100%
5.3 10% 10% 0% 80% 100%
5.4 50% 40% 10% 0% 100%
5.5 50% 40% 10% 0% 100%
5.6 30% 30% 40% 0% 100%
5.7 70% 30% 0% 0% 100%
5.8 90% 10% 0% 0% 100%

- 41 -
Cell Size Distribution (Percentage)
< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch Total
6.1 20% 20% 60% 0% 100%
6.2 30% 30% 40% 0% 100%
6.3 10% 10% 0% 80% 100%
6.4 10% 0% 70% 20% 100%
6.5 20% 50% 30% 0% 100%
6.6 80% 20% 0% 0% 100%
6.7 70% 30% 0% 0% 100%
6.8 70% 30% 0% 0% 100%

Average 31% 29% 25% 14% 100%

- 42 -
 Size Distribution Round #2 Picture #1

35%

30%

25%
Percentage

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch
Size Range

- 43 -
Round 2, Photo 2

Cell Size Distribution (Percentage)

< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch Total
1.1 0% 80% 20% 0% 100%
1.2 0% 10% 15% 75% 100%
1.3 0% 20% 30% 50% 100%
1.4 15% 65% 20% 0% 100%
1.5 30% 40% 30% 0% 100%
1.6 5% 55% 40% 0% 100%
1.7 10% 20% 30% 40% 100%
1.8 0% 15% 20% 65% 100%
1.9 0% 15% 85% 0% 100%
1.10 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
2.1 0% 70% 30% 0% 100%
2.2 0% 15% 0% 85% 100%
2.3 30% 15% 25% 30% 100%
2.4 15% 60% 25% 0% 100%
2.5 30% 50% 20% 0% 100%
2.6 20% 60% 20% 0% 100%
2.7 15% 40% 30% 15% 100%
2.8 10% 40% 20% 30% 100%
2.9 10% 50% 40% 0% 100%
2.10 0% 20% 80% 0% 100%
3.1 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
3.2 0% 0% 10% 90% 100%
3.3 40% 10% 50% 0% 100%
3.4 20% 40% 40% 0% 100%
3.5 30% 30% 40% 0% 100%
3.6 30% 40% 30% 0% 100%
3.7 80% 20% 0% 0% 100%
3.8 20% 50% 20% 10% 100%
3.9 0% 15% 60% 25% 100%
3.10 0% 20% 0% 80% 100%
4.1 0% 10% 70% 20% 100%
4.2 10% 15% 60% 15% 100%
4.3 10% 10% 80% 0% 100%
4.4 30% 10% 60% 0% 100%
4.5
Cells were covered by scale and not analyzed
4.6
4.7 50% 0% 0% 50% 100%
4.8 20% 30% 10% 40% 100%
4.9 0% 30% 30% 40% 100%
4.10 0% 0% 50% 50% 100%

- 44 -
Cell Size Distribution (Percentage)
< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch Total
5.1 20% 60% 20% 0% 100%
5.2 0% 40% 60% 0% 100%
5.3 0% 30% 70% 0% 100%
5.4 0% 25% 75% 0% 100%
5.5
Cells were covered by scale and not analyzed
5.6
5.7 0% 10% 40% 50% 100%
5.8 0% 0% 40% 60% 100%
5.9 0% 30% 70% 0% 100%
5.10 0% 40% 60% 0% 100%
6.1 20% 40% 40% 0% 100%
6.2 20% 70% 10% 0% 100%
6.3 10% 70% 20% 0% 100%
6.4 0% 30% 70% 0% 100%
6.5 0% 15% 85% 0% 100%
6.6 20% 20% 60% 0% 100%
6.7 0% 10% 20% 70% 100%
6.8 0% 20% 80% 0% 100%
6.9 0% 10% 90% 0% 100%
6.10 0% 40% 60% 0% 100%
7.1 20% 40% 40% 0% 100%
7.2 10% 10% 0% 80% 100%
7.3 0% 10% 30% 60% 100%
7.4 0% 10% 20% 70% 100%
7.5 0% 0% 50% 50% 100%
7.6 0% 20% 60% 20% 100%
7.7 0% 0% 10% 90% 100%
7.8 0% 10% 30% 60% 100%
7.9 0% 30% 70% 0% 100%
7.10 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
8.1 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
8.2 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
8.3 0% 0% 70% 30% 100%
8.4 0% 20% 20% 60% 100%
8.5 0% 0% 50% 50% 100%
8.6 30% 40% 30% 0% 100%
8.7 20% 0% 0% 80% 100%
8.8 0% 0% 20% 80% 100%
8.9 0% 20% 80% 0% 100%
8.10 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

Average 9% 27% 36% 28% 100%

- 45 -
 Size Distribution Round #2 Picture #2

40%

35%

30%

25%
Percentage

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
< 1 inch 1 - 4 inch 4 - 7 inch > 7 inch
Size Range

- 46 -
Fragmentation Comparison

Round 1
1" - 4" -
< 1" 4" 7" > 7"
Photo 1 27% 29% 22% 22%
Photo 2 15% 31% 29% 26%
Average 21% 30% 25% 24%

Round 2
1" - 4" -
< 1" 4" 7" > 7"
Photo 1 31% 29% 25% 14%
Photo 2 9% 27% 36% 28%
Average 20% 28% 31% 21%

Round 1 Size Distribution

35%

30%

25%
Percentage

20%

15%

10%
5%

0%
< 1" 1" - 4" 4" - 7" > 7"
Size Range

Round 2 Size Distribution

35%

30%

25%
Percentage

20%

15%

10%
5%

0%
< 1" 1" - 4" 4" - 7" > 7"
Size Range

- 47 -
 Fragmentation Comparison

35%

30%

25%
Percentage

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
< 1" 1" - 4" 4" - 7" > 7"
Size Range Round 1
Round 2

- 48 -
Appendix D – Vibration Study

- 49 -
- 50 -