General report: Blasting technology

..

'

Rapport general: Technique du sautage a la mine

Generalbericht: Sprengtechnik
WCOMEAU,

Hydro-Quebec,

Que., Canada

ABSTRACT: This General Report identifies the significant contributions from the present Congress and notes the
advances in the Blasting Technology field since the Montreal Congress.
Pertinent comments on the present state of the art are made and,issues to be resolved pointed out. Many opportunities for meaningful future research are revealed.
RESUMf: Ce rapport general identifie les contributiona notables du present congres et souligne les progres
dans le domaine des techniques du sautage depuis le congres de Montreal.
Des commentaires pertinents sont offerts sur les divers aspects du domaine, certaines questions pendantes sont pointees et plusieurs possibilites
de projets de recherches sont presentees.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG:
Dieser
Generalbericht
stellt die bedeutenden
Beitrl!g~ dieses
Kongresses
vor und
beschreibt
die Fortschritte
in der Sprengtechnologie
seit dem Kongress
in Montreal.
Es werden
fachliche
Statements
zum derzeitigen
stand der Technik
gegeben
und verschiedene
Fragestellungen
besonders
er6rtert.
Weitere Gebiete fUr die zukUnftige
Forschung werden vorgestellt.

1 INTRODUCTION
There has been a steady progress towards a better understanding and more efficient use of explosives since
the last congress in Montreal in 1987. However, there
are only seven pspers included in the BLASTING TECHNOLOGY theme this time as opposed to eighteen (concerning drilling and blasting) in 1987.' Nevertheless, I
believe significant advances have been made by contributions outside the Blasting Technology theme. The
forums where papers on blasting can be presented are
continually increasing (i.e. National Rock Mechanic
and Mining Industry Symposiae, Explosives Society meetings such as: SEE (U.S.), Gfee (Fr.), SEEQ (Que.),
DSF (Ger.), DFEE (Den.), EFEE (Eur.), three BAI High
Technology Seminars, etc., the International Rock
Fragmentation Symposiae now sponsored by ISRM and various other national and international meetings), thus
thinly spreading a perhaps too limited effort by the
Rock Mechanics community.
"
The main thrusts of research are directed at solving
practical problems in rock mass characterization
for
blssting, blasting results prediction and modelling
snd prediction of environmental effects of blasting.
The first International Concrete Blasting Conference
is scheduled for June 18-19, 1992 in Copenhagen, Denmark, which indicates a closing of the circle, as a considerable body of information on rock blasting was
generated by concrete blasting in the laboratory.
One
could conclude that we should know all there is to
know about concrete blasting and that after dusting
off this information, there won't be a need for a second conference on concrete blasting, but this is as
far from the truth as one can get.',
Fortunately, for those now just embarking in the
field, the more welearn about blasting the more we
realize that there is as much left to learn. I am
particularly impressed by the rapid strides made in
the development of applied mathematic. and computation
to blasting problems.
However"I.believe
our computational capacity has far outstripped our understanding
of the phenomenon(s) and much of this work will have
little practical use in the future.
,
There is a growing awareness of the limitations of
present mathematical models in representing reality.
One need only consider the difficulties mathematicians
are experiencing in mathematically completely defining
1605

four dimensional space (i.e. X, Y, Z, and Time) as

compared to any other dimensional space, or the difficulties encountered by rheologists in developing general constitutive equations.
,
One direction which may hold much promise is; the
use of Incremental Models and Bifurcation Lsws guided
by correct failure criteria to develop aore rigorous
simulation models.
Before this can become useful, I
believe that much is left to be learnt about the behavior of rock around a blasthole.
I aa not able and do
not wish to propose a probable mathematical formulation for thia but I think that once a complete coherent understanding of the phenomenon(s) hss been formulated consistent with the laws of nature, through
careful obse~vation, aonitoring and analysis of real
scale blasts; theae mathematical formulations can be
easily found. Computation of results may still pose a
formidable or presently insurmontable task. I will be
dealing with the meaning of some of these observations
and the related indications for the future in this report.
2 AREAS OF STUDY REPRESENTED,. THEME 4.2
The areas of study represented in this Theme can be
classed into four broad categories, i.e. 1. Observation - Rock Mass Characterization
(2 papers), 2.
Stress-Strain Analysis (1 paper), 3. Simulations-Models (3 papers), 4. Environmental Effects of Blasting
(1 paper). A fifth category termed "CASE HISTORIES"
could be established, however, with no contributions
under theme 4.2.
1. Observation - Rock Mass Characterization
(before
during and after blasting):
Although only two papers
fall in this category, "Tectonic.fabric and blasting
in dolomite rocks" by Bozic and Braun (Yugoslavia) and
"Correlation of powder factor with physical rock properties and rotary drill performance in Turkish surface coal aines" by Huftuoglu et al (Turkey), it is interesting to note that at least ten other papers,
being presented under themes: 2.1, Gervais and Gentier (France), Koczanowski et al (Australis), Milne et
al (Canada), Villaescusa and Brown (Australia), 2.3,
Watanabe and Sassa (Japan), 3, Lee et al (Korea) and
Huller and Ex (Germany) and theme 4.3, Barton et al

(Norway), Hudson et al (UK and Japan) and Ra~.et~al,

.f' Modelling 'as ahown by Heuze et. al. at this conference
(India), deal with rock characterization
results which
and Preece (2) elsewhere, allows us to imagine the
can be directly applicable to Blasting Technology. v-, 0Lv' formulation of incrementa! modele combining the FEM
._
>
' ,and DEH modelling
capabilities with appropriate BHur2. Stress-Strain Analysis:
The unique paper in this
'cation and Happing laws to adequately model the blasclassification is "Stresses in the Rock During Straiting phenomenon consistent with a coherent physical
ned Solid Hass Blasting" by Ermekov et al (USSR) (mismodel..
takenly printed in theme 2.4). Of significant inte
3. The key to advances in the overall understanding
rest for analysis of stress around a blasthole are papers in theme 2.1, "Failure mechanisms of fractured
of blasting and the proper intergration of science and
technology lies in increased use of the observational
rock - a fracture coalescence model", by Reyes and
Einstein (USA) and theme 2.3, "Further developments
and characterization approach as exemplified by Huffor the determination of the stress-strain behsviour
tuoglu et al at this congress, Hendricks et al (3),
of jointed rock mass by large scale tests", by Natau
Chiappetta (4) and Brinkman (5). I would even go so
and Mutschler (Germany).
Also of interest are papers
far as to suggest that previous observations and rein themes 2.3 by Kielbassa and Duddeck (Germany), 2.4,
search should be reinterpreted in the light of the laby Cox et al (Australia) and 4.3, by Ezersky et al
test version of a coherent physical model.
(USSR)
,t
, I.
3. Simulations-Hodels:~
There are three papers in
this group, "A Mathematical Model for Rock Breakage by"
Blasting", by T. Klein (Australia) winner of ISRH's
Rocha Medal, "Analysis of Rock Fragmentation in Bench
Blasting Using Image Processing", by Farmeret
al
'
(USA-UK) and "Explosion Phenomenology irrJointed Rocks I'"
New Insights -", by Heuze' et al (USA).
,',
4. Environmental Effects:
"Experience with Tunnelling by Blasting, near Buildings",
by Dr. P Rissler
(Germany) is,the only paper in,this group.' In theme;
4.4, Zeisel proposes an interesting use for blasting
vibrations as certification for blast 'rounds.
Although it is unfortunate that no papers were presented under ,the heading "CASE HISTORIES" in Theme
4.2.; interest~ng papers from other themes deserve to
be mentionned as they have some case history value
with respect to blasting technoiogy. ' These are: from
theme 1.1 "Desian and construction of a dump in a
quarry of 60m depth", by Amann et al (Germany), who
mention an interesting slope stabilisation technique
called "Perforation Blasting". Also of interest fromi
theme 4.4 are papers by Chermoutf (Algeria)'~nd'Zeisel
(Gerll8ny).
' "
.

,.,

Damage zones
j":

1j"

,.

1-

.~
1.
j
2.
, 3.
,Failure model Plastic Z,.
Shear,
Radial'
Confinement I',"; Hydrostatic Z, Triaxial Z, Uniaxial Z
,

j'

",'

Figure 1

\'

.)

-1'

Damage zones about a blast hole

-r
I_

r::

3 SIGNIFICANT

DEVELOPMENTS

. t

SINCE 'MONTREAL-1987~
r

4 COMMENTS ON THE STATE OF THE ART

l'

1,

4.1 Observation-rock

These developments have occured in three main categories, 1. Stress-Strain Analysis, 2. Simulations-Models
and 3. Rock Mass Characterization.
-.
i

i'.

1. The papers by Reyes an Einstein and by Natau and

Mutschler presented at this congress are, to my mind,
of great significance in 'the development of a coherent
physical model for the rock blasting phenomenon in"
real scale. When combined with the classical figure
of damage around a blasthole presented bY,P-A. Persson
in 1970 and the present state of knowledge from observation, the findings in these papers should significantly advance the formulation of a coherent model for
rock breakage by blasting.
'II ,
The propagation of many micro cracks in parallel
which coalesce to define macro fragmentation effectively de couples stress wave'velocities and crack velocities allowing fo~ a fragmentation mechanism consistent with observation.
A poisible image .of'fragmentation by blasting can be seen in Fig. 1. 'It is my belief that fragmentation by blasting is essentially a
static, albeit rapid, phenomenon quite similar to that
envisaged by Fairhurst' (1): 'It may be 'likened to an J
axially variable confine~ent.cOlDpression test.combi;:
ning: 1., strain failure ,criteria ~and the o~tg~ing and
reflected strain wave, 2., crack coalescence, 3. variable confinement and 4. 'quasi-static compression. <'The
borehole may be thought of as the upper,platen and the
inertial rock I18SS as the lower platen, variable'con~
finement being a logical extension.of the finding of 'a
zero,value for Poisson's 'ratio in the'large 'scale compression tests reported by Natau and Mutschler
I;

2~ Computationally,

.,.

the advances

in Discrete

Element

mass characterization

The improvements in the methods of rock mass characterization both before and after the blast'have been
continuous and impressive Bozic, at this congress,
has shown the power of limple propagation velocity ,
correlations in an admittedly particular 'case. Koczanowski on the other hand points out the limits of a
similar correlation for ripping in a paper given in
theme2.1 at this congress~
It should be realised
that refraction surveys 'give horizontally integrated
values of the velocity layers and have difficulties
with local periodic hard' spots which could render
ripping inoperable.
Puech et al-(6) compared refraction surveys with those carried out using a micro-.
seismic sonde used in precussion drilled boreholes;
for an autoroute excavation, and reported that the micro-seismic'sonde
proved much more sccurate in determining the-real ripping-blasting
interface as well as
characterizing the rock for blast designs:'
This micro~seismic sonde was developped by~. Allard
at the CETE d'Aix (Laboratoire Centrale des Ponts et
Chaussees) 'in France and is essentially a device for'
carrying out two channel refraction surveys in a bor
hole. It also 'has been successfully used to charact
rize damage zones behind a blasted surface (7). It
'ismy opinion that there should be increasing use of '
'this type of field proven, rock characterization
instrumentation for'improved optimization of blasting
'I

technology.

""",1

iJ~~

t ~ ~.vtt;

'

.,

Instrumentation of mining machinery, 'i.e. drills and

shovels,for
characterizing in-situ and blasted rock
is not a new idea, nevertheless, the practical value
of such instrumentation has not been clearly demons'trated till now.' Lately 'with the advent of more po-.

1606

werful as well as more robust electronics, there has

been renewed interest and it is my opinion that we
shall shortly see a breakthrough in the use of this
type of instrumentation.
Work in Turkey, reported at
this Congress as well as by others i.e. the CCARH
group at McGill University in Canada, indicates the
practical value of thil 'Observational' approach.
Observation and interpretation of the dynamici of
real Icale blasts as exemplified by Chappietta (4) is
a powerful tool which can lerve as a lounding board in
validating the physical blasting model.
Based on published resultl of fragmentation comparisons between lab scale and real scale tests (8) as
well as other information found in the literature, it
il my opinion that lab scale experimentation of rock
fragmentation with explosives is of little use and .at
the very least, requires very careful interpretation
if any useful information'is to be derived.
This is
no doubt due to the inherent difficulty in scaling all
aspects of the experiment.
4.2

Stress-strain

terize the fragmentation of blalted roek and thul by

extenlion provide an appreeiation of the energy expended uling lurface energy valuel for the particular
.
rock. It would appear that -ost of these imageing
techniquel eannot define the fine portion of the blalted rock very aecurately and thus y grolsly undereltimate the energy expended.
Figure 3, represent 1 an envelope of six leiving telt
on quarry rock executed at the Outardel 4 damsite in
northern Quebec in the late aixtiea.
Thele testl were
done on thirty-five-ton truck loads of over 65 mm diameter rock from the quarry after the pit run had been
pasaed through a grizzly.
The percentaga of under
65 rock fragmentl could be accurately determined and
aeparate leiving tests done on this frsction.

------

1:,.,;" 11I4F1" (~

., Ppst

-z:;,.-----'

~r,.:~,.i"J" _

c:h~/.;'L_ _ _ _ _

analysis

The effect of the existing stress state on rock blasting has long been observed and is usually deleterioul
(I have recently been its victim without realizing it
at the time) but to my knowledge the simulation models, publicized in the literature. do not take thil
stress into'account.
There are-many cases' of known
high stresses parallel to the earth's surface at shallow depth which would affect blasting in surface quarries.
In underground excavation, high stresses near excavated lurfaces may be the norm rather than the exception and certainly have a notable effect. This may be
the reason why high speed tunelling using decked cratering charges and accurate horizontal drilling as
exemplified in Fig. 2. has yet to be succesfully realized,' Once a valid blasting model has been determined, the intergration of exilting stress into the simulation should result in enhanced optimization.
4.3. Simulation-models
,'

There are only a few really'all encompasling. high

performance blast simulators running at present and
more or less available- to the 'buying public' i.e.
BLASPA. SABREX. SweOeFo'S.
ICI the developers of SABREX have stated in their publication DOWLlNE (9) that
the current block to improvement in simulation il proper characterization of geological parameters.
It
-'would appear that a proposed solution is to develop 'a
mechaniltic model. One underltanding of this type of
model is that of a machine which through varioul artifices and algorithms. based on oblervation of lelected
-resultl of prototype blasts, provides what il deemed a
correct response to any plausible situation;
PerhapI,
in other wordl. an expert system.
'Another option is to make the simulator follow the
physical phenomenons ss closely as possible through
correct and necessarily eomplex mathematical algorithms. At the present 'time it il my opinion that the
phylical phenomenon il not fully underltood and that
this particular option il It ill imperfect. "It follows
that the development of delcriptive, holistic, physical model is a neeessity.
Hopefully, a universally
accepted one can be devised.
It is quite probable that a rigourously correct
blast limulator will use many algorithms or codes
(i.e. Analytie or Empirial FEM, OEM etc.) to represent
the various processes going on during the blasting
phenomenon.
It will also be necelsary to provide bifurcation lawl as the phenomenon progrelses through
the various processes.
It will of course be neceslary
to determine the "pertinent geological parameterl and
their values at states which are difficult to duplicate in laboratory or observe in in-situ tests. It can
be appreciated that there il still Icope for much in-teresting relearch in this field.
.,
It has been proposed by Far-er et aI, at this Congress, that imageing techniques can be used to eharac1607

?1

t ~

MIN

3l1ft

(5'*'.f,) ----

1.-3+,

.1' p~t.

-Ii'IIW

r-;:1
~
Figure 2 High speed drill and blast tunnelling using
decked eratering chargel, accurate detonators and large diameter precision horizontal drilling.
,

.~

Two things are noteworthy: 1. aeiving was carried out

to the silt size i.e. 0.074mm and 2. the envelope ia
rather narrow suggesting that these telts resulta are
valid. The rock type at the Outardel 4 quarry site is
a coarse grained Anorthosite to gsbbroic Anorthosite
with joint Ipacing"of I-to 2 metera on average.You will note that there is a eonsiderable percentage of under lsm material.
The heavy black line on
Fig. 3 shows the diltribution of the aurface area developed (using a simpla cubic assumption) for the average fragmentation distribution shown. You will also
note that about 85%+ of the aurface area lies in the
fraction a ller than Imm. It,il ay opinion that this
figure clearly
demonstrates that a lignificant part
of the explolive energy used in fragmenting the rock
is expended in the king of fines (mostly close to
the blasthole).
,
Further, it would!also appear that the in-situ or
natural fragmentation even in closely jointed rock represents a small fraction of the total new surface
area in blast fragmented rock. The natural fragmentation will of course limit the maximum block size that
can be obtained from a given rock mass, which can be
very important for certain end usel i.e. riprap. I
would thus caution those using imageing techniques to
arrive at energy distribution to beware of undereltimating the finel content.
On the other hand it seems
likely that imageing will ultimately be useful in characterizing the coarse fraction of blast fragmented
rOCk, eventually, onboard mining machinery.
Grain size distribution results from other aourcel
(9) would seea to suggelt that the pivot point for a .
faaily of lize diltribution curves of blast fragmented rock lies in an area between about 5 and 10 percent under lam (see Fig.4). Thil may not agree very
well with the KUZ-RAH fragmentation model where the
pivotal point il at a much higher % and suggeltl that!
further interelting relearch work liea ahead in this
field.

4.4- Environmental

effect ~
J.1

Optimal fragmentation
'but no displacement?

t
I

Thi. i. one aspect of blasting technology where in my'

opinion progre.s has stagnated.
We have too long been
indoctrinated on the unique importance of charge
weight per delay and the statistical approach to vibration analysis.- If particle velocity ia-the best
energy descriptor for vibrations it follows that this
descriptot in not sensitive, in the elastic domain, to
the spring rate of the tranSllittor l,e. low spring rate (low 1I0dulus) low frequency-high displacement and
high spring rate (high 1I0dulus) high frequency and
low displacellent. In both cases, for a given energy
input-in the elastic dOll8in, the particle velocities
are identical, integrally respecting Newton's laws of
motion.

,.-I......
<

,:t..'{roZ./M 1t1lf'
I

"I

.~
I
I
I

Optimum
depth
(lO

equivalent

Figure 5 Typical vibration

tering tests.

powder factor +0
intenaity

-vs- DOB for cra-

vibrations from cratering tests. To explain these results I wiah to propose a tri-source vibration modelas follows:

Figure 3 Total fragment size distribution -vs- new

surface area for dall rockfill quarry - Outardes-4,
Quebec. - '.I

"

..

IDD

"

"

JDOiQIStJD,.",
'*" ~

Figure 4
muck.

Comparison

1. The first vibration generator is the strain wave

generated at the borehole wall. Curiously enough, while some equate this vibration to that measured as a
result of a blast, it has been shown mathematically to
represent only about 25% of the vibrational energy at
the aource and less than about 10% at- as short a distance as one wavelength away (10).
2. The second source is a result of Newton's Third
Law, action-reaction,. as the fragmented rock is projected by the explosive gases the remaining surface ia
elastically deflected correspondingly, generating a
surface vibration as this deformation is recovered.
3. The third source is the SNAP-BACK source mentionned by Beuze et. al. at this congresl.
This il caused
by the elastic wedging open of natural and blast generated cracks in the remaining rock and their lubsequent
closing (snapping back) when the wedging force (gal
pressure) vanishes.
This source is, as well, a surface
vibration.
.
r
It will become evident, after'a brief contemplation of
these three sources, that only the latter two are sensitive to powder factor due to the decreased time of action implied by higher powder, factors. The first generated Vibration radiating outwards at the P-wave velocity il completely oblivious of its environment when generated. Further contemplation of the second and third
sources will reveal that frequency content at the source
can be modified by apropriate blast designs.
This has
actually been reported by persons involved in real-scale
blasting situations (11), (12).
.,
It is my opinion that we should atart anew on blast
vibrations, by firstly developing a coherent physical
model compatible with oblervations from real blasts in
the field and secondly developing the mathematics to
match. Using vibrations to characterize fragmentation
should. be done with caution.
,.
0

,ht
. ",;

of coarse quarry and finer tunnel

It is difficult to undertand why the exponent of the

scaled distance
parameter (which effectively eliminates distance 1n the equation i.e. small charges close
in have the same scaled distance as larger charges
further away) is still referred to as a ground factor. I could understand a ground attenuation exponent
applied uniquely to the distance separating the blast
and monitoring point. To further complicate the matter,' it 15 common knowledge among most experienced
blasters that higher powder factors result in lower
vibrationa per charge weight per delay. This author
has been successfully applying this principle for the
last 25 years.
Figure 5, showa the results of measuring resultant
1608

r
-

t.

5 WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE

It 'will be evident in";eadi~g 'this report that I am optimistic about the future. There are 10 many things
left to learn concerning blasting technology that re-
searchers or, for that matter, any inquisitive person
involved in blasting, should be kept busy for man~ years
to come. Furthermore, there are many unresolved issues
to be elucidated as well as many relatively inexpensive
and eminentely useful research topics to be tackled.
In this conclusion, I shall attempt to identify some
of these.
"

5. Mining equipment monitoring as a means of blast design optimization and/or characterization.

5.1 Issues
1. Coherence of the Blasting Phenomenon: With the
existing differences of opinion expressed through the
various breakage theories being proposed, it is evident that there is not a coherent, holistic and universal view of the blasting phenomenon in the scientific community.
It is my opinion that the elaboration
of such a blasting model is a prerequisite to the development of a rigorous, mathematics based simulation
of the phenomenon.
I would further suggest that an
all-encompassing observational approach should constitute a sounding board against which a proposed model
is judged.
2. Overcharging with Respect to Blast Damage: Cast
blasting, now an incressingly popular blasting technique, requires an excess of explosive energy and when
properly applied results in lower vibrations and stable, sound high-walls (4). Heraud and Reyberotte (13)
showed us at the Montreal Congress that higher energy
preshearing gave less blast damage in the remaining
rock. As mentionned previously, higher powder factors
can effectively be used to lower blasting vibrstions.
How are these observstions compstible with the current
recommendations emansting from many sources concerning
the dangers of overcharging.
At best, it is confusing
to the experienced blaster, at worst it could lesd to
undesirable results.
It should be a priority to clarify the meaning of the term 'overcharging'.

6. The mechanics of drill hole deviation with respect

to rock mechanics.
REFERENCES
1.
FAIRHURST,C., "Hard Rock Blasting Developments
and Possibilities", unpublished paper prepared for
Bench Drilling Days, Atlas Copco, Sweden, circa 1975.
2.
PREECE,D.S., 1991, "Blast Induced Rock Motion
Modelling, Including Gas Pressure Effects", 3rd HIGHTECH SEMINAR, BAI Inc., San Diego.

3. Blasting Vibrstion: Understanding in detail the

true nature of blasting vibrations, their generation
and propagation will go a long way in helping us understand the true nature of the rock blasting phenomenon.

4.
CHIAPPETTA,R.F., 1991, Lectures on: Blast Design, Overburden Casting, Motion Analysis and Controlled Blasting, 3rd HIGH-TECH SEMINAR, BAI Inc., San
Diego.
5.
BRINKMAN,J.R., 1991, Underground Instrumentation
Workshop, 3rd HIGH-TECH SEMINAR, BAI Inc., San Diego.
6.
PUECH,J.P., GUENOUN,A., HARVARD,H. et BIOCHE,P.,
1983, "Micro-Seismic Logging Contribution to Earth and
Rock Cutting Design", Bulletin of the International
Association of Engineering Geology, No. 26-27, Paris.
7.
REBEYROTTE,A. et HERAUD,H., 1989, "Met'hodes
d'extraction pour les terrassements rocheuK (Decoupage
des talus
l'explosif, evaluation des effets arrieres)", Rapport GT-38, Laboratoire des Ponts et Chaussees, France.

4. Blasting Economics: It is gradually being appreciated by many mines and quarries that explosive energy
is the least expensive way of fragmenting rock. Many
other benefits can accrue with respect to wear and
tear on mining machinery.
Is it possible to obtain
these benefits while minimising fines in cases where
these are objectionable?

8.
KRISTIANSEN,J., KURE,K., VESTRE,J. and
BERGQUIST,I., 1990, "An Investigation of Heave and
Fragmentation Related to Explosive Properties", 3rd
International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, Australia.

5. Blasthole deviation is a continuing problem for

which an adequate solution has not been found. Blasting simulators usually assume correct placement of
explosives according to the design.
5.2 Research

3.
HENDRICKS,C,PECK,J.
and SCOBLE,M. 1990, "Intergrated Drill and Shovel Performance Monitoring for Improved Fragmentation and Productivity", Proceedings of
the 3rd International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
by Blasting, Brisbane, Australia.

9.
DOWNLINE,
bruary, 1991.

possibilities

There are many possibilities for research in blasting

technology which do not necessarily require large budgets. However, they do require detailed observation,
hard work and in most cases, outdoor work. For example:
1. Detailed examination of fracture patterns around
blastholes on quarry faces and floors as well as tunnel faces and walls in order to quantify the various
damage zones with respect to precise local blast design parameters.
Downstream Spillway excavations are
a good place to look.

ICI in house publication,

No. 15, Fe-

10.
LEHOUEDEC,D., circa 1980, "Propagation des vibrations dues au trafic routier", Revue fran~aise de
Geotechnique, Numero 14 Bis.
11.
PRUSS,K.C., 1991, Workshop on Non-Electric Initiation Systems, 3rd HIGH-TECH SEMINAR, BAI Inc, San
Diego.
12.
LAFRENIERE,M., 1991, Personal Communication,
Entreprises Lagace (1982) Inc., Laval, Quebec.

2. Interaction of blast fractures around blastholes

with natural in-situ fractures as can be observed on
quarry faces and floors as well as tunnel walls and
faces with respect to precise local blast design parameters.
3. Before and after borehole geophysics behind blasted
surfaces (for ex. micro-seismic sonde) in order to
characterize and quantify blast damage zones with respect to precise local blast design parameters.
4. Interpretation and/or re-interpretation of dynamic
observations of real-scale blasts in order to validate
a physical model.

1609

Les

13.
HERAUD,H. et REBEYROTTE,A., 1987, "Presp1itting
Tests and Measurement of the Induced Back-Break in
Granitic Rocks of the French Massif Central", 6th International Rock Mechanics Congress, ISRH, Montreal.