Flyrock

A Basis for Determining Personnel Clearance Distance

And Quantifying Risk of Damage to Equipment
Flyrock can be defined as uncontrolled rock projection during blasting, and implies two
important issues uncontrolled movement and unplanned projection of rock fragments, and
the potential for damage or injury. When trying to establish safe clearance distances for
personnel and equipment, the definition begs the questions of What is the normal range of
rock movement?, and What procedure can be followed to provide a reasonable and consistent
estimate of flyrock range?.
It is clear that under normal blasting conditions, there will be rock movement associated with
blasting, since it is the specific objective of blasting to both reduce the rock material to
manageable size as well as to introduce looseness to the pile of broken rock by displacing the
broken fragments. In some operations, the focus is to apply as much energy as possible to
achieve extremes of breakage and muckpile looseness. In particular, these operations must be
expected to have a greater potential to produce large rock movements, including some degree
of uncontrolled movement (flyrock).
Normal Rock Displacement
In order to estimate normal rock projection distances, it is necessary to first recognise the
different sources of flyrock and to account for the different mechanisms of generation. The two
sources of flyrock are (a) the free face of the bench, and (b) the drilling surface or individual
hole collars. Flyrock emanating from the free face will tend to be concentrated in a zone in
front of the blast, with little or no material projected to the side or behind the blast. The
distance of projection is controlled by the burden dimension (as a ratio of the blasthole
diameter) and the explosive strength. Flyrock emanating from the hole collars has an equal
probability of being projected in any direction, with the distance of projection controlled by the
depth of burial of the charge (ratio of stem length to blasthole diameter) and the explosive
strength. The different zones of flyrock influence are illustrated in Figure 1, where it must be
noted that the relative projection distances of material from the free face and the hole collars
will depend upon:
1.
the presence of a free face;
2.
the free face burden dimension and its variability along the length of the hole (or for
different front row holes);
3.
the stemming length and its variability in individual holes.

Free face
projection zone

Free face
projection zone

Free face
Blasthole

Free face
Blasthole

Hole collar
projection zone

Free Face Dominant

Hole collar
projection zone

Hole Collars Dominant

Figure 1. Flyrock zones around a single blasthole.

All of the authoritative studies on flyrock identify the blasthole collar region as the source of
flyrock with the greatest range.
Roth (1981) Flyrock Model
One estimate of the maximum range of rock displacement from normal blasting comes from
the work of Roth1 who applied the Gurney equation used for estimation of military projectile
range.
2
2

0.44 VOD
5 d h
L = 0.1
200
7.42 10

1880
Bmin

(1)

where L is the projection distance (metres), VOD is the velocity of detonation of the explosive
(m/s), dh is the blasthole diameter (metres), and Bmin is the minimum burden (metres).
The equation was intended for estimation of projectile range from the free face, but by
replacing the minimum burden term, Bmin, with the minimum stemming, Stmin, the equation is
also used to estimate the range of material produced around hole collars. Roths equation to
estimate rock displacement included, as would intuitively be expected, the ratio of the burden
(stem height) to hole diameter, as well as a term relating to the borehole pressure (i.e. VOD2).
Clearly, as explosive energy increases, or as the burden (stem height) dimension decreases
relative to the hole diameter, the expected flyrock projection distance increases. The
relationship is illustrated in Figure 2 for typical explosive charges used in Chile. Importantly,
the potential for large projection distances increases with:
1.
increasing explosive energy (powder factor, explosive density, explosive VOD);
2.
decreasing burden/diameter ratio;
3.
increasing blasthole diameter;
4.
rock hardness (hard brittle rock produces greater burden velocity and greater
projection distance).
Figure 3 shows how increasing blasthole diameter affects the potential flyrock projection
distance.
Where blasting is confined by previously blasted material, displacements will obviously be less,
and will likely occur predominantly in the vertical direction and appear as vertical swell after
the blast. Blasting into previously blasted material, i.e. in the absence of a free face, is an
obvious and very effective way to eliminate flyrock from bench faces, providing the depth of
broken rock is the same as the bench height, and provides an effective buffer for the entire
bench height. However, there is no similar way to control or eliminate rock projections from
the zone around the blasthole collars, and the authoritative studies on flyrock agree that the
blasthole collar is the usual source of dangerous flyrock.
Since it is unusual to have a production row burden less than 7 metres with a 270 mm (10
inch) blasthole, or 8 metres for a 350 mm (13 inch) blasthole, 200 metres seems to be a
reasonable practical maximum projection distance from Figure 3. This distance is likely to be
appropriate for equipment clearance, and to avoid rock projected in front of a blast which is
fired with a free face with a minimum burden of 7 or 8 metres on each front row hole.
The equation proposed by Roth appears to have some limitations. When burdens are small,
projection distances become extreme (e.g. in excess of 12 km for 1 m burden and 13 inch
blast hole diameter). This is a serious limitation, since the specific objective of a flyrock model
is to provide estimates of projection distances under various worst case conditions such as

Roth, J., 1981. A model for the determination of flyrock range as a function of shot conditions United States
Department of the Interior, Contract No. JO387242, OFR 77-81.

reduced burden. Furthermore, the equation provides no indication about the size of fragments
which achieve the estimated projection distances.

Normal Front Row Displacement

300

Normal Projection Distance (m)

Blendex 950
250

200

ANFO

150

100

50% ANFO/Air

50

0
4

10

11

12

Front Row Burde n (m)

Figure 2. Normal rock projection in front of a free face (270 mm dia), using the equation of Roth (1981).

Normal Front Row Displacement

Normal Projection Distance (m)

300

Bx 950 (270 mm)

Bx 950 (350 mm)

250

200

ANFO (270 mm)

ANFO (350 mm)

150

100

50

0
4

10

12

14

16

Front Row Burde n (m)

Figure 3. Normal rock projection as a function of diameter and explosive strength using equation of Roth (1981).

Lundborg (1975) Flyrock v Powder Factor Model

Lundborg2 presented the relationship between maximum projection distance and powder factor,
as illustrated in Figure 4, based on work conducted by Ladegaard-Pedersen and Persson. This
graph shows that flyrock projection distance depends on both blasthole diameter and powder
factor, and shows that projection distances increase linearly once powder factor exceeds

Lundborg, N, 1975. Keeping the Lid on Flyrock in Open-pit Blasting, Engineering and Mining Journal, May, 1975.

approximately 50 g/t. Below this powder factor, confinement is too great to produce significant
projection of material.
Max. Projection Distance v Powder Factor
1000

Max. Projection Distance (m)

900

13.750 in

10.625 in

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Powder Factor (g/t)

Figure 4. Maximum projection distance as a function of powder factor (after Lundborg, 1977).

The equation to predict flyrock range from powder factor as presented by Lundborg is:

Lmax = 0

for PF < 40 g/t

Lmax
= 0.358 PF 24
Dh

for PF > 40 g/t

where PF is the powder factor (g/t), Lmax is the

maximum flyrock projection distance (metres), and Dh is the blasthole diameter.

The research conducted to derive the powder-factor v flyrock graph (Figure 4) considered
single blastholes drilled in granite boulders. The relationship seems difficult to apply to normal
multi-hole, multi-row bench blasting operations, since in those cases average powder factor is
not an adequate description of the state of confinement or burial of individual explosive
charges. A high powder factor could be achieved, in a multi-row blast, while still having good
control over front row burden and stemming. Similarly, a poorly confined charge in a multi-row
blast with a low average powder factor may still represent a major risk as regards flyrock
potential. A better model will permit evaluation of how maximum projection range varies as
specific changes are made to limit flyrock projection distance, such as increased stemming and
increased front row burden.
Lundborg (1974) Flyrock Model
Another estimate of flyrock projection distance from free face blasting comes from Lundborg3.
Lundborgs model to estimate maximum flyrock range has a sound theoretical basis and takes
into account both the initial velocity of projection of the rock fragments, and air resistance, and
is able to estimate both the range of flyrock, and the size of particle able to achieve various
ranges of projection. The model appears to provide a much more realistic estimate of
maximum throw distance, as well as having the advantage of estimating the size of particles
likely to be projected various distances, and the ability to allow for variable explosive density
and the effect of air deck charges. Lundborgs model to estimate the initial particle velocity,
using theoretical analysis and experimental observations, is presented as:

Lundborg, N., 1974. The Hazard of flyrock in rock blasting, Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, Sweden.

d 2600
where V0 is the initial velocity (m/s) of a particle of size xf (metres), dh is
V0 = 10 h
x f r
the blasthole diameter (inches), and r is the rock density (kg/m3). The equation as presented
was stated by Lundborg to represent the case for projection of fragments from crater blasts, in
which approximately spherical charges were located in shallow blastholes in either solid
boulders of granite, or in the ground. This type of charge is known to produce high velocity
rock fragments, and probably represents the worst case for flyrock generation, likely to occur
when charges are inadequately confined either by inadequate stemming, or inadequate burden.
Flyrock generation from cratering is illustrated in Figure 5 below. The ability of the explosive
to eject the conical plug of rock material around the hole collar depends on the depth of burial
of the charge, the dimensions of the charge, the energy of the charge, and the strength and
fracture properties of the rock. As the charge is buried deeper, the momentum imparted to the
wedge decreases, and the velocity of movement of the fragments also decreases.
Ejected wedge (flyrock)

Depth of burial
Explosive
Figure 5. Source of collar flyrock in rock blasting.

This equation presented by Lundborg predicts the initial velocity as a function of hole diameter
and particle size, and is normalised for particles of density 2.6 g/cc. The constant changes
according to rock type, with the displayed value (10) representing the case for hard and brittle
rock such as granite, commonly found in Sweden where the original experimental work was
conducted. For a particular blasthole diameter and rock density, the product of velocity and
particle size is constant, according to the equation proposed above by Lundborg based on the
impulse density of spherical and cylindrical charges and momentum imparted to loose rock
fragments surrounding the charge. Although Lundborg did not present the equations for
calculating flyrock projection distance as a function of particle size, it is clear from analysis of
his results that his model included the effects of air resistance, since smaller particles displayed
a much shorter range than larger particles.
Flyrock projection equations were presented by Chernigovskii4, showing that, for a given initial
particle velocity, the maximum projection distance can be calculated using the equations
below.

z=

1
ln (1 + bd v0t )
bd

2t b g

1 e d +1
y = ln
t b g
bd
2e d

1.3
bd =
xf

Particle trajectory

L( t ) = z cos
4

A.A. Chernigovskii, 1985. Application of directional blasting in mining and civil engineering.

where L(t) is the horizontal displacement at some instant in time, t (sec), after propulsion of
the particle, z is the distance (metres) measured along the initial line of projection of the
particle at an angle to the horizontal, y is the vertical displacement (metres) from the original
line of projection (i.e. below the inclined z axis), xf is the size of the rock fragment (sieve size,
measured in metres), g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), and is the rock density
(kg/m3). The equation accounts for air resistance as a function of particle size, and allows
calculation of the particle trajectory over its full flight path, including final elevations either
above or below the initial elevation.
To find the maximum projection distance, the above equations must be solved for:
1.

time of flight to a specified final elevation for each particle size and each angle of
projection;

2.

initial angle of projection to maximise the horizontal displacement for each particle
size.

The above equations have been solved using Newtons Method to determine both the time of
flight and the angle of projection which maximise the horizontal displacement, for each particle
size. The angle of projection to achieve maximum displacement is always less than 45
degrees, due to the influence of air resistance, and generally varies between 10 and almost 45
degrees.
The above equations reproduce the curves presented by Lundborg (although the value of the
velocity coefficient was found to be 10.92 rather than 10), and are therefore assumed to be the
ones used in his studies. From these curves, Lundborgs equation to predict maximum throw
2/3
as a function of hole diameter is readily obtained: Lmax = 260 (Dh )
where Dh is the hole
diameter in inches.
For the case of normal bench blasting operations, Lundborg states that the ejected fragments
display exactly the same behaviour as the particles ejected in crater tests, but with lower
velocities, and he further states that projection distances are typically around one sixth of
those observed from crater tests. To simulate this behaviour, the constant in Lundborgs
velocity equation was reduced from 10.92 to 0.659, which decreases the maximum range to
approximately 1/6 of that which occurs in crater blasting, as per Lundborgs observations and
comments. The maximum throw equation for bench blasting therefore becomes:
Lmax = 40 (Dh )2 / 3 where Dh is the hole diameter in inches.
According to the above modelling using Lundborgs and Chernigovskiis equations, the
maximum projection distances from 270 mm and 350 mm blastholes in normal bench
blasting are in the range of 200 to 250 metres. These values are in reasonable agreement with
the estimations made by Roth (1981). Lundborgs analysis also reveals that the size of the
rock which can be projected this distance is approximately 0.1 metres (i.e. diameter of
equivalent sphere), corresponding to a weight of approximately 1.2 kg. His model also allows
estimation of the maximum range for any size of particle (for example, a particle of size 1
metre can be projected only 10 metres), as illustrated in Figure 4 below.
Using Lundborgs crater results as worst case conditions, maximum projection distances from
270 mm and 350 mm blastholes increase to the range 1200 to 1500 metres, and the size of
rock that can be projected this distance increases to around 0.5 metres, corresponding to a
weight of approximately 150 kg. Under normal bench blasting conditions, the maximum
projection distance is reduced to approximately 200 metres, and the size of fragment which will
travel this distance is approximately 0.1 metres, or 1.2 kg.

Max. Horiz. Range (m)

10000

1000

Crater Blasting

Bench Blasting
100

10
1 mm

10 mm

100 mm

1000 mm

10000 mm

Particle Size (mm)

Figure 6. Flyrock projection curves for crater and bench blasting (after Lundborg).

Scaled Depth of Burial

Lundborg was not explicit about the experimental conditions which produced the maximum
flyrock projections which he presented, other than to describe the tests as crater blasting.
However, he did suggest that when the stemming length for bench blasting was equal to
approximately 40 times the hole diameter, flyrock was effectively eliminated, and when it was
around 20 to 30 times the hole diameter, flyrock was controlled. These observations are also
consistent with observations and normal practices in Chilean copper mines using large blasthole
diameters. An assumption is therefore made as regards the depth of burial of the charges used
in his experiments, and a linear relationship is assumed between the Scaled Depth of Burial
and the Velocity Coefficient, Kv, in Lundborgs velocity equation: V0 = K v

dh
xf

2600

.
r

100
-3.3164

Velocity Coefficient, Kv

y = 41.927x
2

R =1
10

0.1
1

10
Sca le d De pth of Buria l (ft/lb^1/3)

Figure 7. Assumed correlation between fragment velocity coefficient and Scaled Depth of Burial (US units).

It is important to note that Lundborgs equations do not account directly for explosive strength
or explosive density, and indicate that flyrock distance is dependent only on hole diameter and
particle size. Lundborg was not specific about the explosives used in his experiments.
Intuitively however, one must anticipate that the projection distance of flyrock will depend on
explosive strength, if other conditions such as depth of burial are kept constant. By relating
the velocity coefficient, Kv, to a Scaled Depth of Burial, which is dependent on explosive
density, Lundborgs equations become sensitive to explosive strength. Since Lundborgs tests

were conducted in hard rock (e.g. granite), the estimated projection distances are likely to
represent maximum, or conservative, values. Weaker and softer rock material will not be
projected as far as hard and brittle material.
The cratering effect of buried charges, and the velocity of particles ejected, depend on their
depth of burial, the diameter of the hole in which the charge is buried, and the weight and
strength of charge. In normal bench blasting, in which a long column of explosive is buried,
only a part of the explosive near the top of the column contributes to cratering. Hence, a 10
metre charge and a 20 metre charge located in vertical holes of the same diameter will produce
the same cratering effect if the top of each charge is located at the same depth below the
surface. The Scaled Depth of Burial considers a maximum of 10 times the hole diameter as
contributing to cratering, and therefore contributing to flyrock projection. Chiappetta5
presented the following diagram illustrating the effect of varying Scaled Depth of Burial on
flyrock.

Figure 8. Scaled depth of burial (SD) and flyrock generation according to Chiappetta (1983). Note that Scaled Depth
of Burial (SD) utilises US units in this diagram.

It has therefore been assumed that Lundborgs tests which produced the maximum flyrock
range corresponded to a Scaled Depth of Burial of 1.5 (US units) in Chiappettas tests (0.6 in
metric units). This depth of burial is known to produce extreme flyrock. The Scaled Depth of
Burial, SDB, can be calculated using the following equation (metric units):

SDB =

St + 0.0005 m Dh
0.007323 3 mDh3 e

where St is the length of stemming (metres), Dh is the blasthole

diameter (mm), e is the explosive density, and m is defined as below.

If charge length < 10 * Hole dia, m = Charge length / hole dia
5

Chiappetta, R., Bauer, A., Dailey, P. and Burchell, S., 1983. The Use of High-Speed Motion Picture Photography in
Blast Evaluation and Design, Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique.
Dallas, TX. International Society of Explosives Engineers, pp 258-309.

If dia > 4, m = 10
If dia < 4, m = 8
For large diameter blastholes and normal charges of length greater than 10 times the hole
diameter, the Scaled Depth of Burial is therefore equal to the stemming length plus 5 times the
diameter of the hole (the charge contributing to the cratering effect is considered to be only 10
times the hole diameter).
Similarly, a Scaled Depth of Burial of 6 (Figure 4) has been assumed to represent the point at
which flyrock is effectively eliminated, and a Scaled Depth of Burial of 3.5 (Figure 4) has been
assumed to correspond to what Lundborg referred to as normal bench blasting.
Using these assumptions, blasting with a stemming length corresponding to a Scaled Depth of
Burial of 1.5 (e.g. 1.8 metres for 10 diameter hole and 1.0 g/cc explosive density) will
produce Lundborgs worst case crater blasting flyrock projection. Blasting with a stemming
length corresponding to a Scaled Depth of Burial of 3.5 (e.g. 6.1 metres for 10 diameter
hole and 1.0 g/cc explosive density) will produce Lundborgs normal bench blasting flyrock
projections. Blasting with a stemming length corresponding to a Scaled Depth of Burial of 6
(e.g. 11.5 metres for 10 diameter hole and 1.0 g/cc explosive density) will effectively
produce zero flyrock.
This model of Lundborgs seems best suited to the task of understanding flyrock, controlling it,
and attempting to quantify the Risk of Flyrock, which is important when considering safety of
both personnel and mining equipment.
Personnel Clearance Distance
Lundborg states that people must never be exposed to flyrock. National laws in Chile relating
to workplace safety also require that workers never be exposed to flyrock. This requires that
the probability of flyrock be zero for personnel located outside the Personnel Clearance
Distance for all blasts.
The clearance distance for personnel is quite easily determined from the equations of Lundborg
and Chernigovskii. This distance should not be less than the calculated maximum projection
range. Further, it would be prudent to add a safety factor to the calculated distance. For the
purposes of calculating safety of personnel, any rock projected beyond the Personnel Clearance
Radius must be considered capable of causing injury or death, irrespective of the direction in
which it travels from the blasthole. The probability of projection beyond the Personnel
Clearance Radius then becomes equal to the probability that the Scaled Depth of Burial is less
than some critical depth.
If the process of charging and stemming blastholes is considered stochastic, and that the
stemming length can be accurately described by a Normal Distribution, then the probability
that a hole with a nominal stemming length of Ln will have a stemming length shorter than
some critical length Lc, can be calculated from the mean and standard deviation of the
stemming lengths. In Excel, this is calculated using the formula NORMDIST(Lc,Ln,,TRUE),
where is the standard deviation of the actual stemming lengths, in metres. For example, if a
design specifies a stemming length of 7 metres (i.e. average stemming length = 7 metres),
and the standard deviation of the actual stemming lengths is 1 metre, the probability that a
hole will have a stemming length shorter than 4 metres is obtained in Excel from the formula
NORMDIST(4,7,1,TRUE) = 0.135%. If the blast contains 100 blastholes, the probability that at
least one hole in the pattern has a stemming length shorter than 4 metres is 1-(1-0.00135)100
= 12.6%, i.e. on 12% of occasions when blasting with 100 holes, flyrock will be projected
beyond the clearance zone. Clearly, this level of risk is too high for personnel, and the
calculation procedure highlights that if a continuous distribution function is used to describe the
variability in stemming length, the probability of flyrock extending beyond the clearance zone
will become unacceptably high once the total number of blastholes being fired is taken into
consideration.

An alternative method of calculation is to specify a minimum acceptable stemming length. This

effectively truncates the distribution curve describing stemming length variability. If any hole
is charged so that its stemming length is less than some minimum acceptable length, then
action must be taken such as increasing clearance radius, removing explosive from the hole, or
some other means to avoid flyrock projections. The minimum stemming length for any charge
configuration is that length of stemming for which the Scaled Depth of Burial produces a
projection curve (Figure 9) with a maximum projection distance equal to the clearance
distance, multiplied by a safety factor, Fs > 1.2. In Figure 9, if the stemming length which
produces a maximum projection distance of 300 metres is 4 metres, then the minimum
stemming length should be at least 4.8 metres.

Max. Horiz. Range (m)

1000

Clearance
100
Max Flyrock

10
1 mm

10 mm

100 mm

1000 mm

10000 mm

Particle Size (mm)

Figure 9. Maximum projection distance equal to clearance distance. Minimum personnel clearance should be at least
1.25 times the maximum projection distance for any hole.

If a hole has a stemming length less than the minimum length as calculated above, the
clearance radius should be increased to the maximum projection distance for the particular
charge configuration, multiplied by a safety factor of at least 1.25. Hence, if the smallest
actual stemming length is 4 metres, and the minimum stemming length was calculated to be
4.8 metres, the above model predicts a maximum projection distance of 400 metres. The
clearance distance should be increased to at least 500 metres.
The Factor of Safety for the Personnel Clearance Distance should be at least 1.25, i.e. the ratio
of the clearance distance to the maximum estimated projection distance (for the hole with the
shortest stemming length) should be at least equal to 1.25 (Figure 10).
Personnel involved in charging blastholes must be aware that the stemming length is the factor
having the greatest single impact on the safety of personnel and equipment when blasting. For
each type of explosive, hole diameter and rock type, there is a critical length of stemming
which must be achieved in every blasthole in order that people can work in complete safety
anywhere outside the clearance zone. To avoid injury and death, stemming lengths must
never be allowed to be less than the critical length. Where stemming length in any hole is less
than the critical length, for any reason, action must be taken to ensure that the safety of
personnel is not compromised. Appropriate actions include:
increasing the clearance radius, with a minimum factor of safety of 1.25 applied to the
maximum projection distance for the hole with the minimum stemming length;
removing explosive to comply with the minimum stemming length;

flushing the hole with water to desensitise the upper section of the charge column
(when using ANFO).

Max. Horiz. Range (m)

1000

Clearance
100
Max Flyrock

10
1 mm

10 mm

100 mm

1000 mm

10000 mm

Particle Size (mm)

Figure 10. Personnel clearance distance equal to at least 1.25 times the maximum estimated projection distance.

Equipment Clearance Distance

When assessing reasonable clearance distances for bench blasting throughout Chile, it is
assumed that equipment will not be left directly in front of a free face. It is also assumed that
free face blasting will not usually be practised, and that the primary risk of flyrock is from the
blasthole collars.
Although both Roth and Lundborg estimate 200 to 250 metres as a reasonable clearance
distance for equipment to avoid flyrock projected from the free face, under normal bench
blasting conditions and with a blasthole diameter in the interval 10 to 12, it is considered
prudent to consider the risks associated with a reduced stemming length, possibly caused by
over-charging or bridging of the stemming column, or associated with a variable rock character
from hole to hole. It is not uncommon, for example, to find a stemming column which is 1 or 2
metres shorter than the design or nominal stemming length. Variability in depth of burial and
in rock properties must be expected to increase the risk of flyrock generation. The converse
should also hold true, that as the degree of quality control over stemming length and stemming
quality increases, the risk of flyrock should decrease.
Clearly, the risk is highest when blasting in hard and blocky rock masses where short stemming
columns are required in order to achieve fine fragmentation and high productivity from the
shovels and other excavators. In these cases, even a high level of quality control over
stemming lengths will not prevent an increased flyrock projection range relative to a softer rock
with longer stemming columns.
According to the models outlined above, the probability of flyrock is related directly to the
probability of a short stemming column, i.e. to the probability of a low value of the Scaled
Depth of Burial. The risk of flyrock therefore is related to the likely projection distance of rock
fragments compared to the equipment clearance distance around blasts. If the clearance
distance exceeds the maximum flyrock projection distance, there is no risk that the equipment
will be damaged. If the clearance distance is less than the maximum flyrock projection
distance, the risk of flyrock is related to the probability that rock fragments of appropriate size
will be ejected at the appropriate angle in the appropriate direction. It is normal practice to

accept some degree of risk as regards equipment damage, since the clearance distances to
eliminate the risk are usually too large and the loss of productivity associated with moving
large equipment is too high. The situation where the clearance distance is less than the
maximum projection distance is illustrated in Figure 11 below.

Max. Horiz. Range (m)

1000

Clearance
100
Max Flyrock

10
1 mm

10 mm

100 mm

1000 mm

10000 mm

Particle Siz e (mm)

Figure 11. Equipment clearance distance less than maximum flyrock projection.

The flyrock curve, specific to a particular stemming height and depth of burial, indicates that
flyrock could be projected beyond the clearance radius, and equipment could be hit by
fragments in the size range 50 to 300 mm (Figure 11). It is likely that fragments larger than
0.1 metres will cause damage to equipment if struck. Each particle of a size between the lower
and upper intersections of the red line with the projection curve will have 2 possible
trajectories, i.e. two possible angles of ejection which will permit the particle to land at a
particular location. One of these trajectories will be steeper than the trajectory which produces
the maximum projection range, and the other will be more shallow.
However, such fragments must be projected at the correct angle of trajectory in order to
exceed the clearance radius. The probability of flyrock beyond the clearance zone therefore
becomes the product of (a) the probability that fragments greater than 0.1 metres will be
generated in the zone around the hole collar, and (b) the probability that these fragments will
be projected at an angle which will cause them to travel beyond the clearance area. It is
probably prudent to assume that the probability that fragments of size 0.1 metres or greater
will be projected is 100%.
It is possible to take the estimates further to determine the probability that a particular piece of
equipment will be hit by a particle sufficiently large to cause damage. However, to do this, an
assumption must be made regarding the number of eligible fragments ejected at each
blasthole. This will clearly depend on the depth of burial of the charge, and is likely to be little
more than a guess.
Risk of Damage to Equipment
Analysis of Risk requires a definition of damage as well as a quantitative measure of how the
probability of damage changes as the clearance distance changes. To evaluate the probability
that a sufficiently large rock will hit and damage a piece of equipment requires assumptions to
be made which are difficult to justify, and difficult to relate to different operating conditions.

An alternative method for quantitatively assessing risk, which is sensitive to the major blast
design parameters, is therefore proposed. The method is sensitive to the size of rock fragment
capable of causing damage, to the clearance distance, to the variability in stemming lengths,
and to the type of explosive being used. The method utilises the projection curves derived
from the Lundborg and Chernigovskii equations.
1000

Min size for damage, xmin

A1

Max. Horiz. Range (m)

A0

Clearance distance

Dist for Pr (hit) =

100%, Dmin

100

10
1 mm

10 mm

100 mm

1000 mm

10000 mm

Particle Size (mm)

Figure 12. Quantifying Risk to equipment.

The minimum size of rock fragment expected to cause damage is taken as xmin, and the
maximum distance at which the probability of being hit by flyrock of any size equals 100% is
taken to be Dmin (Figure 12). The area bounded by the projection curve and the Dmin line is
then defined as A0. The zone bounded by the projection curve, the xmin line, and the Clearance
Distance line is defined as A1 (Figure 12). The Risk of Damage can then be defined as the
ratio of the areas A1 to A0. As the clearance distance decreases, the Risk approaches 100%,
and when the clearance distance exceeds the maximum projection distance, the Risk is zero.
As the size of particle capable of causing damage decreases (equipment sensitivity), the risk
increases.
Past experience can indicate what the current level of Risk of Damage is, for any current
clearance distance. Changes in the level of risk due to reductions or increases in clearance
distance can then be evaluated.