Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 133–146 | Cite as

Fragmentation Energy in Rock Blasting

  • Essaïeb Hamdi
  • Najla Bouden Romdhane
  • Jean du Mouza
  • Jean Michel Le Cleac’h
Original Paper

Abstract

The theoretical explosive energy used in blasting is a common issue in many recent research works (Spathis 1999; Sanchidrian 2003). It is currently admitted that the theoretical available energy of the explosives is split into several parts during a blast: seismic, kinetic, backbreaks, heave, heat and fragmentation energies. Concerning this last one, the energy devoted to the breakage and to the creation of blocks within the muckpile can be separated from the microcracking energy which is devoted to developing new and/or extending existing micro cracks within the blocks (Hamdi et al. 2001; López et al. 2002). In order to investigate these two types of energy, a first and important task is to precisely study the main parameters characterising the two constitutive elements of the rock mass (rock matrix and discontinuity system). This should provide useful guidelines for the choice of the blasting parameters (type of explosive, blasting pattern, etc.), in order to finally control the comminution process. Within the frame of the EU LESS FINES research project, devoted to the control of fines production, the methodology was developed in order to: (1) characterize the in situ rock mass, by evaluating the density, anisotropy, interconnectivity and fractal dimension of the discontinuity system and (2) evaluate fragmentation (both micro and macro) energy spent during the blasting operation. The methodology was applied to three production blasts performed in the Klinthagen quarry (Sweden) allowing to estimate the part of the fragmentation energy devoted to the formation of muck pile blocks on one side and to the muckpile blocks microcracking on the other side.

Keywords

Rock mass Explosive energy Fragmentation energy Sweden Microcracks 

References

  1. Aler J, du Mouza J, Arnould M (1996) Measurement of the fragmentation efficiency of rock mass blasting and its mining applications. Int J Rock Mech Sci Geomech Abstr 33(2):125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baecher GB (1978) Statistical analysis of rock mass fracturing. Math Geol 5(2):329–348Google Scholar
  3. Barton CM (1978) Analysis of joint traces. In: Proceedings of the 19th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Nevada 1:38–41Google Scholar
  4. Dershowitz WS (1993) Geometric conceptual models for fractured rock masses: implications for groundwater flow and rock deformation. In: Ribeiro C, Sousa L, Grossmann N (eds) Proceedings of EUROCK’93. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 71–81Google Scholar
  5. Goodman RE, Shi G (1985) Block theory and its application to rock engineering. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  6. Hamdi E (2007) A fractal description of simulated 3D discontinuity networks. Rock Mech Rock Eng. Accepted, Online FirstGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamdi E, du Mouza J (2005) A methodology for rock mass characterization and classification to improve blast results. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42(2):177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamdi E, du Mouza J, Fleurisson JA (2001) Evaluation of the part of blasting energy used for rock mass fragmentation. Fragblast—Int J Blast Fragment 5(3):180–193Google Scholar
  9. Hamdi E, Audiguier M, du Mouza J, Fjäder K (2003) Blast induced micro cracks assessment in muckpile blocks: P-wave velocity and porosity measurements. European Federation of Explosive Engineers. In: Proceedings of 2nd World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. 10–12 September 2003, Prague, Czech Republic: 389–399Google Scholar
  10. Liu Q, Tran H (1996) Comparing systems—Validation of fragscan, wipfrag, and split, measurement of blast fragmentation. In: Franklin J, Katsabanis T (eds) Proceedings of the International Confrence on Fragmentation by Blasting-FRAGBAST 6. AA Balkema, pp 151–155Google Scholar
  11. López LM, Hamdi E, Sanchidrián JA, du Mouza J (2002) On explosive useful work and rock mass fragmentation energy. International Society of Explosive Engineers. In: Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference on Explosives & Blasting Technique. Las Vegas, Nevada, 10–13 February, 2002, pp 175–191Google Scholar
  12. Moser P (2003) Less fines production in aggregate and industrial minerals industry. In: Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, 10–12 September 2003, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 335–343Google Scholar
  13. Moser P, Grasedieck A, du Mouza J, Hamdi E (2003) Breakage energy in rock blasting. European Federation of Explosive Engineers. In: Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, 10–12 September 2003, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 323–334Google Scholar
  14. Priest SA, Hudson JA (1981) Estimation of discontinuity spacing and trace length using scanline surveys. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 18:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sanchidrián JA, López LM (2003) Calculation of the explosives useful work-comparison with cylinder test data. In: 2nd World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique Technique. Prague. 10–12 September, Balkema, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Spathis AT (1999) On the energy efficiency of blasting. In: 6th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannesburg, 8–12 August, The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  17. Schleifer J, Tessier B (2002) Fragmentation assessment using the FragScan system. Fragblast 6(3–4):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Xu J, Cojean R (1990) Three-dimensional simulation of natural rock granulometry. In: Price DG (eds) Proceedings of 6th International Congress IAEG. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 797–802Google Scholar
  19. Wang H (1992) Predictions of in-situ and blast pile block size distributions of rock masses, with special reference to coastal requirements. PhD Thesis, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang H, Latham JP, Poole AB (1990) In-situ block size assessment from discontinuity spacing data. In: Price DG (eds) Proceedings of 6th International IAGE Congress. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 117–127Google Scholar
  21. Wang H, Latham JP, Poole AB (1991) Prediction of block size for quarrying. Q Eng Geol 24:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Warburton PM (1980) A stereological interpretation of joint trace data. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 17(5):181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Essaïeb Hamdi
    • 1
  • Najla Bouden Romdhane
    • 1
  • Jean du Mouza
    • 2
  • Jean Michel Le Cleac’h
    • 2
  1. 1.Unité de Recherche en Ingénierie GéotechniqueEcole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de TunisTunisTunisia
  2. 2.Centre des GéosciencesÉcole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de ParisParis Cedex 06France

Personalised recommendations