International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

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

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

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With rampant growth and improvements in drilling technology, drilling of blast holes should no longer
Received 1 September 2015 be viewed as an arduous sub-process in any mining or excavation process. Instead, it must be viewed as
Received in revised form 14 January 2016 an important opportunity to quickly and accurately measure the geo-mechanical features of the rock
Accepted 2 March 2016
mass on-site, much in advance of the downstream operations. It is well established that even the slightest
Available online 16 June 2016
variation in lithology, ground conditions, blast designs vis-à-vis geologic features and explosives
performance, results in drastic changes in fragmentation results. Keeping in mind the importance of
Keywords:
state-of-the-art measurement-while-drilling (MWD) technique, the current paper focuses on integrating
Rock blasting
Drill monitoring parameters
this technique with the blasting operation in order to enhance the blasting designs and results. The paper
Rock factor presents a preliminary understanding of various blasting models, blastability and other related concepts,
Drill rod vibrations to review the state-of-the-art advancements and researches done in this area. In light of this, the paper
highlights the future needs and implications on drill monitoring systems for improved information to
enhance the blasting results.
Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

1. Introduction
Blasting is the most frequent, versatile and often the most eco-
nomical method of breaking rocks. Owing to their dependence on a
complex interaction of intact rock and rock mass properties, blast
geometry, hole deviation, explosive properties and initiation
sequences, rock blasting is considered as a truly complicated oper-
ation. For application of MWD for investigation and value addition
in blasting, the emphasis must be laid on quantitative as well as
qualitative ascertainment of intact rock and rock mass properties.
The influence of intact rock and rock mass properties on blasting
efficiency has been at the center of much research, from the begin-
ning and has been carried out by numerous researchers [1–10].
These citations are small in comparison with the sustained
research in this field. Though insufficient, these references neces-
sarily serve useful purpose in understanding the complexities
involved in rock breakage by blasting.
The influence of intact rock and rock mass properties has been
incorporated into blasting in various forms, such as ‘blastability
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 542 6702509.
E-mail address: prai.min@itbhu.ac.in (P. Rai).
coefficient’, ‘rock factor’, ‘Blastability Index (BI)’ and ‘bond work
index’ [11–14]. Nevertheless, selecting just a few parameters, such
as rock properties, to represent the resistance of the rock mass to
fragmentation by blasting has been a major limitation in describ-
ing the ease of fragmentation. Furthermore, by defining these
parameters based on a few rock samples, often representing an
entire mine, has further reduced the possibilities of detailed blast
design. This is, perhaps, the most significant reason as to why blast
designs are largely empirical and mostly governed by rules of the
thumb. Since the rock mass properties are significant in any blast-
ing program, their proper characterization is critical for effective
design and usage of explosive energy. The need is to rationalize
blast designs and practices vis-à-vis the influence of intact rock
property, in-situ rock mass properties, discontinuity structures
and their interactions by use of modern, state-of-the-art tech-
niques, methods and procedures.
It is in this context that the ability of the MWD technique must
be fully exploited for its useful application in blast designs and
explosive loading patterns. It may be appropriate to mention the
ability of MWD to define the variations in bench geology. A contin-
uous monitoring and read-out of the drill parameters are capable
of providing useful information on variability of the rock mass.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2016.05.025
2095-2686/Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
712 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719
The monitored drill hole data, in conjunction with knowledge of
the geology of area, defined from core logging or surface maps,
can be correlated with the rock variability on mine benches, which
in turn could be of immense use in improved blast design to enable
selection of proper explosives, charge distribution, stemming pri-
mer positions as well as burden, spacing and other related blast
design parameters.
2. Models for assessment of fragmentation by blasting
In blasting studies, there has been continued development and
improvement in the assessment of fragment size by use of photo-
graphic and image analysis techniques. In view of this continued
growth, it becomes imperative that researchers expand their hori-
zons in the field of post-blast rock fragmentation assessment. It is
worthwhile stressing the use of drill monitoring data and its inte-
gration with fragmentation assessment. Eloranta [14] expressed
this by stating that the key parameters in fragmentation are drill
monitoring and optical image analysis. These should focus on find-
ing clues in the drilling data to predict fragmentation. Yin et al. [30]
used the data from the Thunderbird-Pacific system at Minntac
mine to develop useful relationships among the drill monitoring
data to yield necessary information on fragmentation. The algo-
rithms of image analysis software are based on fragmentation eval-
uation models. As such, concurrent with the use of the image
analysis approach, the empirical relationships to predict fragmen-
tation and its distribution in the blasted muckpile have also grown
at a rapid pace. Hence, an understanding of various models for pre-
dicting the fragment size and its distribution in the muckpile is
necessary.
2.1. Kuznetsov equation
The Kuznetsov equation [12] relates the mean fragment size in
the blasted muckpile to the quantity of explosive needed to blast a
given volume of rock. The equation is expressed as:
K50 ¼ A½V=Q 0:8 Q 1=6
where K50 = mean fragment size (cm), A = rock factor, V = volume of
rock broken per hole (m3), Q = mass of TNT equivalent explosive per
hole (kg).
Values of A = 7 for medium rock, 10 for hard, highly fissured
rocks and 13 for hard, weakly fissured rocks were suggested. Since
TNT is not used as the standard explosive for comparison, an equiv-
alent quantity of any explosive (Qc) was related to TNT as:
Q ¼ Q c ½Ec =1090
where Ec = absolute weight strength of explosive (cal/g) and the fac-
tor 1090 is the absolute weight strength of TNT. Eqs. (1) and (2) can
be simplified and rewritten as:
K 50 ¼ Aq0:8 Qc1=6 ½Ec =109019=30
where q is the inverse of V/Qc, defined as the powder factor (kg/m3).
From the above relationships, it is clearly evident that the rock
factor, A, has greatest influence on mean fragment size since it
bears the highest exponent value. Hence, it may not be desirable
to propose a rough estimate for it. Instead, the value of the rock
factor has been suggested to be precisely evaluated by considering
important rock parameters as given in Eq. (4), proposed by Cun-
ningham [7] as:
A ¼ 0:006½RMD þ JF þ RDI þ HI
where RMD = Rock Mass Description, JF = Joint Factor, RDI = Rock
Density Influence.
The range of values for these parameters was described for
varying rock mass conditions (Table 1).
2.2. Rosin–Rammler equation
The Rosin–Rammler equation was adopted from a coal com-
minution approach by Cunningham [5] for analysis of fragment
size and its distribution in the blasted muckpile. The equation is
given as:
R ¼ e½X=XC n ð5Þ
where R = fraction of material retained on screen (cm), X = screen
size, Xc = constant called the ‘characteristic size’, n = constant called
the ‘uniformity index’.
The uniformity index has a typical range of 0.8–2.2. A value of
0.8 means that the muckpile is non-uniform, while a value of 2.2
indicates that the muckpile has a majority of fragments close to
the mean fragment size.
2.3. Kuz-Ram model
This model was proposed by Cunningham [5] by combining the
Kuznetsov and Rosin–Rammler equations by assuming X = K50 in
the Rosin–Rammler equation, which means R = 50% = 0.5. This
assumption modifies Eq. (5) as:
0:5 ¼ e½X=XC n ð6Þ
This implies that K50 can be determined from the Kuznetsov
equation and the characteristic size can be computed if n is known.
Furthermore, if both Xc and n are known, the distribution can be
known from the Rosin–Rammler distribution. The resulting model
is known as the Kuz-Ram model. Cunningham proposed the fol-
lowing equation for estimation of n:
 0:5  0:1
1 þ S=B Lb  Lc
n ¼ ½2:2  14½B=d½1  W=B þ 0:1 L=H ð7Þ
2 Lb þ Lc
where B = burden (m), d = hole diameter (mm), W = standard devia-
ð1Þ
tion of drilling accuracy (m), L = charge length above the grade (m),
Lb = bottom charge length (m), Lc = column charge length (m),
H = bench height (m).
2.4. TCM and CZM
The Two-Component Model (TCM) and the Crushed Zone Model
(CZM) were evolved to overcome the limitations of the Kuz-Ram
model. When a blast hole is detonated, rock breakage occurs in
ð2Þ two different stress regions: compressive and tensile. In the first
region, the compressive stress waves form a crushed zone in the
immediate vicinity of the blast holes. The second region, namely
the cracked zone, occurs outside the crushed zone and consists of
radial cracking. The widely used Kuz-Ram model does not recog-
ð3Þ nize these two different blast regions. In the case of hard rocks
or blasting where the extent of the crushed zone is minimum,
the Kuz-Ram model may give a reasonably good description. How-
ever, experience has revealed that the Kuz-Ram model is capable of
predicting the coarser range quite precisely, but tends to signifi-
cantly eliminate the amount of fines, which are generated from
the crushed zone [15,16]. Since there are numerous blasting situa-
tions where the amount of crushing plays a vital role, modeling of
rock fragmentation with a single distribution function is not appro-
priate. The JKMRC developed two blast fragmentation models, as
ð4Þ part of their mine-to-mill project, to overcome the limitation posed
by the Kuz-Ram model. These models TCM and CZM were devel-
oped by Djordjevic et al. [15] respectively. These models are pre-
ferred over the Kuz-Ram model due to their improved capability
 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719 713

Table 1
Rock factor calculation for different fragmentation models (Courtesy JKMRC).

Kuz-Ram [7] TCM CZM

A = 0.06(RMD + JF + RD + HF) Same as Kuz-Ram Same as Kuz-Ram
where
A = Rock factor
RMD = Rock mass description
JF = Joint factor
RDI = Rock density influence
HF = Hardness factor
RMD Same as Kuz-Ram RMD
RMD = 10 if powdery/friable RMD = 100 ⁄ vertical joint spacing,
RMD = JF if vertically jointed, If vertical joint spacing < 0.1,
RMD = 50 if massive RMD = 5.56 + 44.4 ⁄ vertical joint spacing,
If vertical joint spacing < 1,
If vertical joint spacing > 1
JF = JPS + JPA Same as Kuz-Ram model, except JPS Different definition of JF:
where JPS = 10, if vertical joint spacing < 0.1, JF = 0 if JI > 1, otherwise,
JPS JPS = 10 + 11.11 (vertical joint spacing -0.1), JF = (200JI  (200 ⁄ JI2))
JPS = 10, if vertical joint spacing < 0.1, if 0.1 < vertical joint spacing < 1 m, where
JPS = 20, if 0.1 < vertical joint spacing < oversize, JPS = 20 + (30/(burden-1)⁄ JI = mean block size (maximum of
JPS = 50, if oversize < vertical joint spacing < drilling (vertical joint spacing-1), burden, spacing and stemming)
pattern size if 1 m 6 vertical joint spacing < burden,
JPS = 50, if vertical joint spacing > burden
JPA JPA JPA
JPA = 20 if dip out of face, Same as Kuz-Ram Not used
JPA = 30 if strike perpendicular to face,
JPA = 40 if dip into face
RDI RDI Same as TCM
RDI = 25 ⁄ rock density-50 RDI equals 0 if rock density is less than 2,
otherwise same as Kuz-Ram
HF Same as Kuz-Ram Same as Kuz-Ram
HF = Y/3 if Y < 50GPa,
HF = UCS/5 if Y > 50GPa

Note: mean block size = vertical joint spacing and the TCM and CZM do not use ‘oversize’.

of estimating the fine end (<100 mm) of the fragmentation distri-
bution function, which is absolutely important for SAG mill
throughout. By using their respective approaches and values of
rock factor, both TCM and CZM generate the fragment size distri-
bution curve, as represented in Fig. 1. Table 1 summarizes the dif-
ferences among the Kuz-Ram, TCM and CZM models while
estimating the rock factor. A detailed treatment of the TCM and
CZM approach is available [16].
2.5. Swebrec function
A 3-parameter fragment size distribution, termed the Swebrec
function was propounded [17] for establishing a viable linkage
between rock fragmentation by blasting and crushing. The function
claims to form a new family of a Natural Breakage Characteristic
(NBC) function with a realistic shape that connects fragmentation
by blasting and mechanical fragmentation by crushing. Also, the
function has been used in the Kuz-Ram model and appears to be
capable of overcoming its drawback of poor predictive capabilities
Cum % Coarse distribution
Passing -Kuz-Ram model
Fine distribution
-crushed zone
Mean size
Fines %
1 Size (mm)
Fig. 1. Fragmentation distribution with two components of the TCM and CZM.
in the fines range. From the viewpoint of rock fragmentation by
blasting, it may be reasonable to infer the NBC to be dependent
on intact rock strength parameters and the presence of geological
discontinuities in the rock mass structure.
From the foregoing discussions on various fragmentation pre-
diction models, it is important to understand that these models
have limited usefulness in practical circumstances as the input
parameters that form the base of these models are not readily dis-
cernible throughout the rock mass. Even if the input parameters
are known, the models still fail to present the correct fragmenta-
tion picture throughout the mine in a consistent fashion. This is
attributed to the fact that these models are derived in a way that
makes them incapable of covering the entire range of all the impor-
tant rock and blasting parameters, which are highly site-specific.
Even at the same site, they are very sensitive to variations. In other
words, the models are difficult to tune with site-specificity. Keep-
ing these limitations in view it was stated that an integrated
approach is required for developing accurate models to predict
rock fragmentation by blasting. Subsequently, an integrated
approach was proposed involving the drill monitoring data to
understand the in-situ rock mass condition by calibrating the cal-
culated specific energy in drilling, split image analysis software for
assessing the post-blast fragmentation and crushability and grind-
ability of rock and the explosive energy per unit volume of broken
rock. These 3 types of data were collected and analyzed on a hole-
by-hole basis giving 50 or more data points for each blast. These
data sets, in turn, founded the basis for a statistical correlation
between in-situ rock mass conditions, blasting parameters and
the resulting fragment size and its distribution in the muckpile.
Apart from such useful integrations and site-specific calibra-
tions, the MWD techniques in future must aim at correlating the
calculated drilling parameters, penetration rates, rock quality
714 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719
index etc. with the rock factor, which has invariably been used in
all the fragmentation prediction models. Thereafter the efficacy
of these models in predicting the fragmentation results must be
ascertained by calibrating the results with a suitable image analy-
sis system. Such site-specific correlations could go a long way to
establishing a reliable and efficient integration of drill monitoring
data with fragmentation assessment software.
2.6. Computer simulation models
As examples, the Hybrid Stress Blasting Model (HSBM) will be
briefly discussed. This model is probably the best available model
that incorporates all major chemical-physical processes operating
during detonation, fragmentation and muck pile formation.
HSBM is a 3-D numerical model for blast-induced rock
fragmentation that uses a combination of discrete and continuous
numerical techniques to model detonation, dynamic wave
propagation, rock fragmentation and muck pile formation. To
demonstrate the complexity of modeling of blasting the software
included in the model is briefly described [18,19]:
 The borehole, explosive and near-field rock are represented as
an axisymmetric continuum by the software Blo-Up 2. The con-
tinuum region extends for two-and-a-half borehole radii from
the edge of the borehole. The main rock-body representation
is coupled to this continuum region to allow wave energy to
propagate away from the borehole area.
 The detonation software (explosive model) gives as input to
Blo-Up 2 the Velocity of Detonation (VOD), the equation of
state, the final reaction extent, the initial density and a refer-
ence state. Energy release is controlled by a Programmed Burn
(PB) algorithm.
 The main rock body is represented with a lattice type Discrete
Element Method (DEM), which models the wave propagation
and initial fragmentation through to muck pile formation. In
the lattice-type method rock is represented as a collection of
randomly located point masses connected by springs, see Fig. 2.
 A gas flow model (Distinct Element Code (DEC)) coupled to Blo-
Up 2 simulates gas in open fractures flowing out into the rock
mass and the transfer of energy to fragments. In the present
model, it is found that gas flow into the fractures only has a
minor contribution to the overall fragmentation, but con-
tributes to the fragment velocity.
The rock properties needed for simulation are Young’s modulus,
Poisson’s ratio, density, unconfined compressive strength, direct
tensile strength and damping coefficient. This coefficient has been
introduced to account for the attenuation characteristics of a given
material. Evaluations have shown that this coefficient may be used
as a calibration factor to take into consideration the complexities of
rock or rock like material textural characteristics [20].
Calibration simulations [20] of laboratory small scale concrete
cube and cylinder experiments reported earlier have shown that
the lattice scheme is able to realistically reproduce fracturing pat-
n1
n2
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of lattice.
terns. The fragmentation predictions also follow realistic trends. In
the cube samples, modeling results show an overestimation of the
mean passing fraction of the order of 23%; however, overall frag-
mentation uniformity appears to be well matched. In all cases lar-
ger discrepancies were observed at the size fraction below 10 mm
which is twice the lattice model resolution. This may be an
indicator of the limit at which size distributions may be reliably
predicted as a function of model resolution. With regards to frag-
ment trajectories and velocities, results indicate that the trend of
increasing fragment velocity against available explosive energy is
consistent with what has been shown experimentally.
The HSBM can be described as a sophisticated blast modeling
research tool, which provides results that can still be used implic-
itly for practical blast design. In its current form it is not a tool that
can be used for day to day blast design and analysis [20]. The rock
mass representation by the lattice scheme is an artificial material
description. The damping coefficient is presently used as a correla-
tion factor. In a shorter perspective it doesn’t seem feasible to try to
connect blast modeling based on MWD with sophisticated com-
puterized blast modeling.
3. Rock blastability and BI
Rock blasting may be easily understood by considering two dif-
ferent rock masses blasted by identical blast geometry and energy
inputs from explosives. Post-blast fragmentation results from the
different rock masses would be necessarily different owing to
inherent differences in the rock mass properties, which offer differ-
ent degrees of resistance to rock breakage. The degree of resistance
offered by the rock mass to fragmentation by blasting is referred to
as rock blastability. It is a truly intrinsic property (just like hard-
ness and strength etc.) and is normally uncontrollable. Adhikari
[21] stated that since rock blastability is a function of numerous
variables, the old concepts of designating rock blasting by the rock
constant or Hino’s blastability coefficient are not suitable for the
purpose of blast designs. He further suggests that some newer con-
cepts of blastability [22] need further research for their practical
implementation. It is significant to note that since a myriad of rock
properties jointly affect the rock blastability, it may be helpful to
consider the blastability of the rock mass to be representative of
its composite intrinsic property.
In view of the importance of rock blastability in rock breakage
by blasting, a good number of researchers have focused on estab-
lishing the BI of the rock mass, which, in turn, has been correlated
with specific charge (powder factor). An inadequate value of speci-
fic charge essentially leads to poor fragmentation results, which
exert a cascading impact on the economy of all the downstream
operations. This is precisely the reason for consistent research
in the area of establishing effective and practical correlations
between rock blastability and specific charge requirements.
3.1. BI
The concept of Blastability Index (BI) was proposed [13] by duly
considering the intact and in-situ rock mass properties. In this con-
cept, the BI was expressed on the basis of five parameters as repre-
sented in Eq. (8). The BI was developed in respect of the iron ore
mines in Australia.
BI ¼ 0:5½RMD þ JPS þ JPO þ RDI þ H ð8Þ
The notations used in Eq. (8) are explained in Table 2.
The empirical correlation between specific charge and BI is
shown in Fig. 3, which also expresses the correlation with respect
to energy factor for comparison with explosive other than ANFO.
 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719 715

Table 2 Table 4
Parameters of BI with their ratings. Adjustment factors for BI.

No. Parameters Rating No. Adjustment factors Values

1 Rock mass description (RMD) 1 Degree of confinement: reasonably free 0
Powdery/friable 10 Highly confined 5
Blocky 20 Bench stiffness:
Massive 50
2 Hole depth/burden > 2 0
2 Joint plane spacing (JPS) Hole depth/burden = 1.5–2.0 2
Close (<0.1 m) 10 Hole depth/burden < 1.5 5
Intermediate (0.1–1 m) 20
Wide (>1 m) 30
3 Joint plane orientation (JPO)
Horizontal 10 Table 5
Dip out of face 20 Estimation of specific energy.
Strike normal to face 30
BI Specific charge (kg/m3)
Dip into the face 40
80–85 0.2–0.3
4 Specific gravity influence (RDI)
60–70 0.3–0.5
PDI = 25p–50
50–60 0.5–0.6
where p = rock density (t/m3)
40–50 0.6–0.7
5 Hardness (H) 1–10 30–40 0.7–0.8

geological structures within it. Hence, to integrate the blasting

with MWD, it is imperative that the MWD system should be able
0.5 1.5
to monitor the performance data at reasonably small depth incre-
ANFO specific charge (kg/t)

0.4 ments for precise detection of geological discontinuities (fractures,

Energy factor (MJ/t)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0 20 40 60
Blastability index
Fig. 3. Correlation between BI and specific charge/energy factor for Australian iron
ore mine.
On the basis of experiments in 12 surface mines in India,
another concept of rock BI was suggested using four geo-
mechanical parameters, as described in Tables 3 and 4. The BI in
this case is obtained by adding up the ratings of 4 parameters
and adjusted to take account of field conditions under which the
blast was conducted. The correlation of BI with specific charge,
as suggested in this approach, is tabulated in Table 5.
From the BI studies, it is quite evident that factors influencing
rock blastability fall into two groups; the first group comprises
the intact rock properties (strength, hardness, density etc.) and
the second group is concerned with the discontinuities and geolog-
ical structures that consist of orientation, spacing, number and
extent of geological discontinuities created by a range of long-
term geological mechanisms. Given this, the identification of rock
blastability and the corresponding BI in any mine is governed not
only by the rock strength parameters, but also by the presence of
1.0 cavities, open beds, cracks, fissures etc.) and assess their location
and density. The aim should be to produce the strength and discon-
tinuity logs by the MWD system on a hole-to-hole basis. Babatunde
0.5 et al. [23] reported the correlation of two MWD parameters,
namely, the specific energy and bit wear rate with joint spacing
in gneiss and limestone rocks. They also established the relation-
0
80 100 ship between penetration rate and joint spacing in such rocks. Fur-
thermore, it was reported that the width of penetration rate peaks
can be used as a direct measure of the width of discontinuities [24].
It was further suggested by another group of researchers that dis-
continuities could be located by the combined application of drill
monitoring, core logging and borehole TV surveys [24,25]. It was
reported that areas of high RQD and fracture frequency estimated
by these combined interpretation techniques, closely coincided
with the position of increased penetration rate peak amplitude
and width. Although, by precisely locating the geological disconti-
nuities, it is practically impossible to change the explosive loading
techniques on a hole-to-hole basis, such logs should hold sufficient
merit in facilitating the broad decisions on explosive selection,
stemming, decoupling, decking etc., in each blast block to yield
improvements in fragmentation results.
Emphasis was laid on such logging for improving the explosive
selection and distribution in the blast holes [26]. It was pointed out
that if a zone of loose rock material (sand, clay, highly weathered
basalt, powdery haematite, heavily fissured shale etc.) is encoun-
tered, the penetration rate becomes relatively higher and the
required rotary torque becomes comparatively lower (provided
that there is sufficient air for flushing the drill cuttings from the

Table 3
Geo-mechanical parameters of BI with their ratings.

No. Parameters Range of values

1 Density (t/m3) 1.3–1.6 1.6–2.0 2.0–2.3 2.3–2.5 >2.5
Rating 20 15 12 6 4
2 Spacing of discontinuities (m) <0.2 0.2–0.4 0.4–0.6 0.6–2.0 >2
0.2–0.4
Rating 35 25 20 12 8
3 Point load strength (MPa) <1 1–2 2–4 4–6 >6
Rating 25 20 15 8 5
4 Joint plane orientation Dip into face Strike at an acute angle to face Strike normal to face Dip of face Horizontal
Rating 20 15 12 10 6
716 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719

e e
ng te bl te bl ng

Time
ro e as ia e as ia e ro e
Stemming St or W Fr or W Fr or St or
Strong
massive

Time
caprock
A B

Charge
Pocket
Stemming charge
Stemming Loose
deck sand

Charge Strong
massive Charge
rock

Backfill Bench floor

Coal Penetration rate level

Fig. 4. Rock mass variability vis-à-vis penetration rate. Penetration rate

Fig. 6. Typical traces of penetration rate and charge distributions for effective rock
types shown.
Stemming
Rock of moderate
strength
Anfo

Anfo or powerful Very strong

watergel rock

Anfo Grey areas represent lost MWD data

Rock of moderate
strength
Backfill
Fig. 7. Contour map of the mine bench showing normalized MWD parameters.
Coal

Blasting engineers in the said mines used these maps to deter-

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

8000 4

Rock quality index

((kPa·min)/m)
q =1.124e -0.57Ip
3
r=0.92

Drilling index
4000
2

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 1

Powder factor (kg ANFO)

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

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

½RQI  25 P-wave velocity in a rock mass is greatly dependent on in-situ

LnðPFÞ ¼ ð10Þ
7:2 rock strength, degree of jointing, structural weakness and weather-
ing etc. As such, the P-wave velocity in a rock mass has also been
However, there are many limitations to this approach, as listed correlated with powder factor. Earlier studies [29] correlated the
below: in-situ P-wave velocity with the specific charge for a surface cop-
 Since the approach considers only the hydraulic pressure in per mine. Subsequently, on the basis of elaborate studies in a sur-
drilling, the data obtained is dependent on type and model of face mine copper mine in Nevada, the correlation results of P-wave
drill rig. velocity with specific charge for different rocks was proposed [30],
 The relationship has been evolved from the perimeter blasting as tabulated in Table 6 and illustrated in Fig. 11.
results where the specific charge ranged from 0.04 to 0.08 kg/ Similar work was reported in overburden strata in surface lig-
t-much lower than conventional blasting. nite coal mines in Turkey by use of seismographs on 60–80 m long
 The relationship does not consider drill diameter. survey lines on the designated benches. A satisfactory correlation
 The relationship does not consider the rotation speed. was established between the P-wave velocity and specific charge
for different rock types. However, since the specific charge ranged
Notwithstanding its limitations, the methodology proposed by from 0.13 to 0.33 kg/m3 only, the study is not applicable in hard
Leighton et al. [27] was adopted in several coal mines in Turkey. rock mines that require a relatively high specific charge in excess
They monitored rotary drill rigs with 229 mm tricone roller bits. of 0.35 kg/m3.
The penetration rates were measured at constant rotational speed The correlation of specific charge with P-wave velocity indicates
of 120 r/min. Fig. 9 presents the correlation between specific that it may be useful to incorporate P-wave velocity measurements
charge and RQI. in conjunction with MWD systems to provide some useful insights
Nevertheless, on considering the limitations of the RQI approach on the estimation of powder factor, while designing the blast
which depends on the type and model of drill rigs and does not rounds.
consider the drill hole diameter and rotary speed, a different dril-
ling index (Ip) was described [28] as: Table 6
Specific charge for different rocks in an open-pit copper mines in Nevada, USA.
PR
Ip ¼ ð11Þ Rock type P-wave velocity (m/s) Specific charge (kg/m3)
ðWN=D2 Þ
Weathered limestone 300–600 0.30
Weathered porphyry 600–900 0.35
where PR = penetration rate (m/h), W = pull down hydraulic pres- Rhyolite breccia 900–1200 0.45
sure/thrust on the bit (1000 lb), N = rotational speed of bit (r/min), Monzonite porphyry 1200–1500 0.60
D = drill diameter (inch). Quartz sericite porphyry 1500–1800 0.60
Fig. 10 illustrates the correlation between drilling index and Fresh limestone 1500–1800 0.60
Massive jasperoid 1800–3600 0.77
specific charge for a variety of rocks in Spanish surface mines. As
the range of specific charge studied by the researchers was exten-
sive, the correlation seems to be applicable for soft as well as hard
rocks. 0.6

18×21
0.5
Powder factor LBS ANFO per ton

0.4
Pattern size for 9 holes

q =0.0225 (RQI )0.466

0.4
r 2 =0.89 21×24
Specific charge (kg/m3)

0.3 Average of
24×27 0.3 blasts

27×30
0.2 30×33 0.2
Broken rocks

Pit average
Velocity

Weight

0.1
0.1

40 80 120 160 200 240 280 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Rock quality index ((kN·min)/m) Acoustic velocity-feet per second (×1000)

Fig. 9. Correlation between specific charge and RQI for Turkish surface coal mines. Fig. 11. Correlation between powder factor and acoustic (P-wave) velocity.
718 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719
5. Drillability and blastability relationship
Based on the belief that drilling performance and results from
blasting are mutually related, a relationship between these two
was formulated, as given in Eq. (12). In this relationship, RQI was
proposed as a measure of blastability and using dimensional anal-
ysis the relationship between RQI and the drilling parameters was
developed, as expressed below:
r ¼ a NTF=u1:5
where r = RQI ((N min)/m)), N = rotational speed (1/s), T = torque
(N m), F = pull-down thrust (N), u = penetration rate (m/h),
a = site-specific coefficient, dependent on drill parameters.
Further extending their concept of using the drill logs for blast
designs, the researchers suggested the use of MWD information
for determining the powder factor by incorporating the concept
of specific energy during drilling and assuming that the energy
required for blasting is proportional to the energy required in dril-
ling. They proposed the following equation for determining the
specific energy during drilling:
 
4 2PNT
E¼ þF
PD2 U
And equated it with blasting energy so that:
C qf ¼ k E
where C = energy released per kg of explosive, q = rock density,
f = powder factor.
Eq. (8) may be written for powder factor as:
0 evaluation of powder factor and blast designs.
f ¼ kE=qC ¼ k E
0
The constant k was estimated from historical, real-time data
from the mines as a ratio of mean values of specific energy and
its corresponding mean value of powder factor. Smith [31]
acknowledged the work reported by Muftuoglu et al. [22] to estab-
lish the relationship between RQI and powder factor.
Most of the researchers who have tried to establish a relation-
ship between rock drillability and blastability have largely used
the penetration rate as one of the key performance indicators,
and the interrelationships among the drill operating parameters
(thrust, rotation, speed and torque) to infer the rock mass proper-
ties. Segui et al. [26] reported from their studies in BHP iron ore,
Newman, Washington State, that with some modeling work done
by JKMRC, a crude specific energy was calculated as a normalized
ratio of penetration rate and thrust on the bit expressed as a
weighted average of indices generated from composites in each
blast hole. It was then used for generating the charging pattern
in each blast hole.
6. Drilling vibrations and blasting designs
Smith examined the Aquila drill monitoring system in place at
Ernest Henry gold and copper mine (Mt. Isa Mining, Queensland)
and reported a trend between drill rod vibration and specific
energy. After normalization of specific energy and vibration data,
the same could be plotted on a single graph as shown in Fig. 12,
which showed an inverse relationship between specific energy
and vibrations. It is already established that specific energy and
rock strength can be correlated. Hence, the drilling vibrations could
also be correlated with rock strengths. Smith further carried out
experiments in the laboratory using 4 different types of concrete
samples with each sample consisting of 3 different values of UCS.
It was found that the vibration data correlated very well with rock
type and strength. The concrete samples with pebble aggregates
yielded much noisier, larger amplitude signals in contrast with
2.5
Vibration (Normalized)
Specific energy (Normalized)
2.0
Normalized value
1.5
1.0
0.5
ð12Þ
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Time (s)
Fig. 12. Normalized field data showing inverse proportionality between specific
energy and vibrations.
uniform signals emanating from the homogeneous samples of con-
crete or concrete with sand. The relative difference in vibration
level due to induced variability in the UCS of each sample was also
noticeable. The study suggests that vibration level measurement
could yield significant information on rock variability within the
ð13Þ blast holes in order to use this information for explosive loading
and blast design.
From the work reported in this section, it may be inferred that,
ð14Þ in a given domain of rock mass, the operating conditions determine
the drilling performance. Hence, on the basis of available drilling
parameters and the achieved drilling performance, it should be
possible to know the rock mass characteristics. The inferred
rock mass properties have been correlated with blastability for
ð15Þ
7. Conclusions
The following are the salient conclusions:
 Owing to wide variation in the geo-mechanical features of the
rock mass, various fragmentation models fail to provide an
accurate fragmentation picture consistently throughout the
mine. As such, image analysis software based on any of these
models also suffers from a similar drawback. This is due to
the fact that these models are incapable of conveying the full-
range of important rock and blasting parameters. This calls for
an integrated approach to combine the pertinent drill monitor-
ing data for supplying the information to a fragmentation model
for predicting fragment sizes. Toward this end, the MWD tech-
nique must aim at correlating calculated drilling parameters,
such as, SE, RQI, drilling index, flushing pressure, vibrations
etc. with the rock factor, which is invariably used in all frag-
mentation prediction models.
 Site-specific drill monitoring and optical image analysis meth-
ods need to be properly calibrated and integrated in a manner
which will provide real-time information on drill monitoring
data that can predict fragmentation.
 Identification of rock blastability and BI in any mine is governed
by the intact rock strength parameter and the presence of geo-
logical structures within the rock. In order to blend the concept
of rock blastability with MWD, it is imperative on the MWD sys-
tem to monitor the performance data at reasonably small depth
increments with an aim to concurrently produce strength and
discontinuity logs on a hole-to-hole basis.
 Penetration rates, their variations, peaks, amplitudes and
widths have been reported to be useful in predicting rock
blastability. Similarly, flushing pressure variation and its cali-
bration with rock mass variations is believed by the authors
to provide quantitative information on rock blastability.
 P. Rai et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26 (2016) 711–719
 Studies made by several researchers have suggested effective
correlations between PF and the drill monitoring parameters
such as: SE, RQI, drilling index and P-wave velocities. These
studies definitely pave the way for advancement of such
relationships in newer domains.
 Records of variations in drill rod vibrations (both horizontal and
vertical) and their calibration with rock strength need to be
further explored for providing useful insights for improving
blasting designs.
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper is part of a large study to
propose the Strategic Agenda: Sustainable Mining and Innovation
for the Future (SMIFU) by a joint Swedish – Polish Consortium
managed by Rock Tech Centre (RTC), Lulea, Sweden. The funding
and permission to publish this paper by RTC is greatly appreciated.
The authors remain indebted to the support provided by the Center
of Advanced Metallurgy and Mining (CAMM), Division of Opera-
tions and Maintenance Engineering, Lulea University of Technol-
ogy, Lulea, Sweden and Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
in conducting and accomplishing the present research.
References
[1] Langerfors U, Kihlstörm B. Modern technique of rock blasting. New York: John
Wiley and Sons Inc; 1963.
[2] Belland JM. Structure as a control in rock fragmentation. CIM Bull
1966;59:323–8.
[3] Hagan TN, Just GD. Rock breakage by explosives: theory, practice and
optimization. In: Proc 3rd ISRM cong. Washington, DC; 1974. p. 1349–58.
[4] Yang ZG, Rustan AP. The influence from primary structures on fragmentation.
In: Proc int symp on rock fragmentation by blasting. Lulea; 1983. p. 581–603.
[5] Cunningham CVB. The Kuz-ram model for prediction of fragmentation from
blasting. In: Proc int symp on rock fragmentation by blasting. Lulea; 1983. p.
439–53.
[6] Singh DP, Sarma KS. Influence of joints on rock blasting: a model scale study.
In: Proc int symp on rock fragmentation by blasting. Lulea; 1983. p. 533–54.
[7] Cunningham CVB. Fragmentation estimation and the Kuz-Ram model. In: Proc
2nd int symp on rock fragmentation by blasting. Colorado; 1987. p. 475–87.
[8] Aler J, Du Mouza J, Arnould M. Measurement of the fragmentation efficiency of
the rock mass blasting and its mining applications. Int J Rock MechMin Sci
Geomech Abstr 1996;33(2):125–39.
[9] Latham JP, Liu P. Development of an assessment system for blastability of rock
masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36(1):41–55.
719
[10] Hino K. Theory and practice of blasting. Japan: Nippon Kayaku Company, Ltd.;
1959.
[11] Kuznetsov VM. The mean diameter of the fragments formed by blasting rock.
Soviet Min Sci 1973;9(2):144–8.
[12] Lilly PA. An empirical method of assessing rock mass blastability. In: Proc large
open pit mining conf. Melbourne; 1986. p. 89–92.
[13] Bond FC, Whittney BB. The work index in blasting. Quart Colorado School
Mines 1959;54(3):77–82.
[14] Eloranta J. Characterization of pre and post blast environments. In: Twenty
ninth conf of expl blast technol, Nashville; 2003.
[15] Djordjevic N. A two-component model of blast fragmentation. Ausimm
Proceed 1999;304(2):9–13.
[16] Kanchibotla SS, Valery W, Morrell S. Modeling fines in blast fragmentation and
its impact on crushing and grinding. In: A conference on rock breaking.
Kalgoorlie; 1999. p. 137–44.
[17] Ouchterlony F. Swebrec function: linking fragmentation by blasting and
crushing. Min Technol, Trans Inst Min Metall 2005;114(1):29–44.
[18] Kemeny J, Mofya E, Kaunda R, Lever P. Improvements in blast fragmentation
models using digital image processing. Int J Blast Frag 2002;6(3):311–20.
[19] Onederra I, Chitombo GP, Cundall PA, Furtney JK. Rock fragmentation by
blasting. London: Taylor and Francis Group; 2010.
[20] Rustan A, Nie LS. New method to test the rock breaking properties of
explosives in full scale. In: Proc 2nd int symp on rock fragmentation by
blasting. Colorado; 1987. p. 36–47.
[21] Adhikari GR. Empirical methods for the calculation of the specific charge for
surface blast design. Fragblast 2000;41(1):19–33.
[22] Muftuoglu YV, Pasamehmetoglu AG, Karpuz C. Correlation of powder factor
with physical rock properties and rotary drill performance in Turkish surface
coal mines. In: Proc 7th cong of ISRM. Aachen; 1991. p. 1049–51.
[23] Babatunde Adebayo, Ademola Bello Wasin. Discontinuities effect on drilling
condition and performance of selected rocks in Nigeria. Int J Min Sci Technol
2014;24(3):603–8.
[24] Schoble MJ, Peck J, Hendericks C. Correlation between rotary drill performance
parameters and borehole geophysical logging. Min Sci Technol 1989;8
(3):301–12.
[25] Hagan TN, Reid IW. Performance monitoring of blast hole drills- a means of
increasing blasting efficiency. In: Proc 2nd int surface mining and quarrying
symp. Bristol; 1983. p. 245–54.
[26] Segui JB, Higgins M. Blast design using measurement while drilling
parameters. Fragblast 2002;6(3–4):287–99.
[27] Leighton JC, Brawner CO, Stewart D. Development of a correlation between
rotary drill performance and controlled blasting powder factors. CIM Bull
1982;75(844):67–73.
[28] Broadbent CD. Predictable blasting with in-situ seismic survey. Min Eng
1974;26(4):37–41.
[29] Heinen RH, Dimock RR. The use of seismic measurements to determine the
blastability of rock. In: Proc 2nd annual conf on explosives and blasting
techniques. Lousiville; 1976. p. 234–48.
[30] Yin K, Liu H. Using information extracted from drill data to improve blasting
design and fragmentation. Fragblast 2001;5(3):157–79.
[31] Smith B. Improvements in blast fragmentation using measurement while
drilling parameters. Fragblast 2002;6(3–4):301–10.