Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16






Dynamique des roches Felsdynamik

Per Anders Persson Nitro Nobel AS, Sweden Roger Holmberg Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden

SYNOPSIS This is a general report on the related subjects of rock breaking by blasting, mechanical cutting, and in situ fracturing. It presents briefly the recent general development within the subject area and highlights specifically some recent developments. These include a new Swedish method for pre- ' dicting rock damage due to blasting, both in the near and far region, and a Norwegian and an American technique for predicting rock drillability. The status of water jet assisted rock cutting is briefly reviewed, and a short survey of progress in in situ fracturing concludes the report. 1m Folgenden wird Uber verschiedene Methoden des Bergabbaus berichtet, wle Sprengung, mechanischen Ausbruch und ZerklUftung in situ. Auf Hintergrund einer kurzen Pr~sentation der letzten Fortschritte in diesem Bereich wird Uber einige der letzten Entwickelungen mehr eingehend berichtet. Somit hande~ as sich teils urn eine neue schwedische Methode Spr~ngbesch~digungen im Gebirge vorauszusehen, sowie in der unmittelbaren N~he wie in einem weiteren Umkreis, teils urn eine norwe~ieche und amerikanische Technik fUr die Bestimmung von Bohrbarkeit. Die Verwendung von Wasser-jets beim Bcrgabb~u wird flUchtig berUhrt und der Bericht schliesst mit einer kurzen Ubersicht der Fortschl'itte in ZerklUftung in situ. Le present est un rapport sur ies differentes methodes de creusment au rocher, comme tirs des mines, excavation mechanique et fracturation in situ. Sur Ie fond d'une courte presentation du developpement general dans ce domaine quelques nouveautes recentes sont presentees plus en detail. II s'agit donc d'une methode suedoise de determiner a l'avance l'endommagement apporte au roches parunecharge explosive dans Ie voisinage comme ~ distance, e~ d'une echni9ue n~rvegienne et americaine pour determiner la penetrabilite de forage. La quest~on de 1~ emplo~ de Jets d'eau dans les travaux d'excavation et touchee superficielment et Ie rapport s'acheve par une courte presentation des progres dans Ie domaine de la fracturation en situ. ROCK BLASTING DYNAMICS The use of explosives as a tool to remove rock requires controlled blasting to minimize damage to the remaining rock walls and neighbouring structures. In present-day open pit mining with Shothole diameters Ln the range 250-500 mm (10 to 20") each shothole may contain one or two tons of explosive and a whole blast may involve the detonation of 200-500 tons of explosive. In underground mining, large shothole diameters in the range 150 to 200 mm are increasingly being used. In tunnelling,' larger diameter (50-100 mm) and long (3-6 m) shotholes are also common. The development in all these ~reas towards larger blasts gives great savings ln the cost of excavation, but also makes greater demands on methods to avoid damage. In open pit mining, the stability of the pit slopes and the corresponding slope angles have a tremendous influence on the economy and safety of the operation. Two papers in this conference deal with methods to produce steeper slopes by controlled blasting that leaves the remaining rock strong enough for the increased stresses that result. Even steepening the slope by one degree means saving a considerable amount of waste rock removal in a deep and large open pit mine. Similar savings can be realized by introduci~g controlled blasting in underground mining and tunnelling where damage to nearby tunnels and building structures representing large sums of money must be avoided. Controlling blasting damage requires an understanding of stress waves in rock. Stress waves in rock The detonation of an explosive charge in a borehole in rock gives rise to stress waves in the surrounding rock. For a drillhole fully charged with a strong explosive, the wave pressure exceeds the strength of rock and we get a very complicated shear deformation pattern, which ultimately leads to crushing of the


rock around the borehole. Further out, the conditions are favourable for the formation of radial cracks. As the wave moves radially out from the borehole, the amplitude (pressure) decreases and the wave becomes purely elastic. As a result of the interaction with the free surface, the different types of waves that we know from seismology develop, the p-wave, the s-wave, and th~ Rayleigh--wave.. n this area, the structure l of joints or fissures in the rock begin to influence both the wave propagation (wave velocity and stress amplitude) and the degree of fracturing more than in the region close to the drillhole. When we are discussing wave strength in this far-field region, it becomes useful to use the peak particle velocity as measure. Figure 1 shows the approximate decrease of the peak particle velocity with distance away from a 15 m long charge in a 250 romdiameter borehole. At distances compared to which the charge dimension is small the peak particle velocity follows approximately the relation (1) where Q is the charge weight, R the distance and K, a and B are constants (for hard bedrock K ~ 700, a a" 0.7 and B = 1.5 if Q in kg, R in m and u in mm/sec). Figure 2 shows the considerable scatter due to rock structure-related differences in wave transmission of rock masses. The stress waves move with different velocities, for hard bedrock typically C ,.. 5000 m/sec p Cs ,.. 3500 m/sec C ,.. 2500 m/sec R and somewhat lower for softer, more fissured rock masses.

= 75





Accelerometers short range Normal ground vibration range 1000




100 m/sec

Approximate values:







Figure 1. Stress wave particle velocities from 250 mm charge 15 m long.

U t1H/S

K/CR/St a.~a)t a.2927 BURERU Dr MINES



2 NR 'I.

- - --20100 1000 10000 100000

7110 1473 2350 "3440


4 5

99.9 99.99



Stress wave damage in rock Depending upon the wave type, we can get an estimate of the stress a or strain in the rock if we consider the motion as a simple harmonic oscillation (extension or bending)


4 3

Grani te may be expec ted to fail in d,vnamic ension t at a stress of perhaps 30 MPa, corresponding to a strain of ~ 1 % ,that is a particle velocity between 1000 and 2000 mm/sec depending on the wave type. But normal fissured rock will undoubtedly show tensile damage in the joints at lower stress levels(say around 700 mm/sec). For soft, sedimentary rocks, with relatively weak joints, damage may occur at a particle velocity of 400 mm/sec or less. Although the orientation of the fissures in relation to the wave propagation direction may also be important, the table below may be useful as a first guide to the range of the critical vibration velocity for rock damage. The typical



Rist a.~a
11/11/1 II/Iaa

Figure 2. Peak particle velocity u as a function of R/Qu.o for U.S. Bureau of Mlnes measured data at different confldence levels and dlfferent number of rounds. Lundbor~ et al, 1979.


damage in fissured rock is an irreversible separation of the two fissure surfaces from each other, resulting in a decrease in shear strength of the fissure. This is accompanied by a slight swelling of the rock mass affected.

rock/joint class

critical vibration velocity mm/sec


hard rock strong joints medium hard rock no weak joints soft rock weak joints


< 400

Predicting vibration velocity near an extended charge Based upon the relation (1) the authors have calculated the peak vibration velocity at different distances from explosive charges in medium hard rock at different charge lengths and diameters (Holmberg and Persson, 1978). Figures 3a and b show the results. The diagrams are very useful for blast pattern design when one wishes to keep damage to the remaining rock at a minimum. They allow, for example, the damage at a given point in the remaining rock close to the perimeter of a tunnel or near an open pit wall to be estimated, whether caused by the pre-split holes or by holes within the blast further away from the perimeter. Design of perimeter blasts The results given in figure 3 are in reasonable agreement with observed velocities over a large range of distances and hole diameters (Persson, Holmberg & Persson 1977). They can be used to design perimeter blasts to limit the extension of rock damage behind the contour row of holes. To do this it is not enough to keep the linear charge density in the contour holes low. The next few rows of holes away from the contour holes must also be given a reduced linear charge density. Otherwise, their damage zone will extend well past that of the contour holes. Details of these charge calculations have been published elsewhere (Holmberg and Persson 1979~ Vibration frequency spectra and damage criteria Strictly, the use of a critical vibration velocity as a rock damage criterion is valid in an intermediate frequency range. The deciding factor is the vibration wave length in relation to the size of the vibrating rock mass. The low frequency range is where the vibrating rock mass in its entirety experiences a uniform acceleration because the vibration wave length is much larger than the size of the rock mass. There, the displacement is the important criterion. In the high frequency range, the acceleration may be the critical factor. When in doubt, the ground vibration generated by a blast must be recorded at a site where rock or building damage may be suspected, and the peak values of vibration acceleration, velocity, and displacement must be determined together with the vibration frequency at which they occur. Then the size of the rock mass involved is determined. By comparing it with the wavelength of the vibration peak, the composite frequency-dependent critical vibration level envelope of figure 4 can be used to find the maximum allowed vibration level. This type of analysis is best left to an experienced consultant, and should also include an engineering geological survey of the direction,strength,and density of the major foliation, joints, and fissures occurring in the rock mass. Presplitting and smooth blasting To leave the surface of the remaining rock wall as free from damage as possible the normal methods are smooth blasting or presplitting. In both these techniques the linear charge density in the contour drillholes is made very low compared to that in ordinary drillholes. This gives a low initial drillhole pressure. In


e E

. '"


L ,.I.




'" E
,; 1000










Pigure 3. Estimated vibration velocity in medium hard rock as a funct10n of distance for d1fferent 11near charge densities. Linear charge dens1t1es are given in kg ANFO per meter borehole; a) charge length 3 m tP1cal ran~e for tunnel blast1ng, b~ charge len~th 15 m, typical range for open pit blastin!!;.





where a = 90 kg/m' and if d is expressed in m.

will be in kg ANFO/m

Equation (3) is equivalent to an initial borehole pressure of about 100 MPa (1000 bar). At this congress, Bauer and Calder present data indicating that for soft rock materials, the initial borehole pressure can be kept lower by still further reducing the linear charge densit~ Crack guiding An interesting development which is illustrated in one paper by Bjarnho1t, HOlmberg, and Ouchter10ny 1982 is the technique of crack guiding in smooth blasting and presp1itting usin~ 1ineRr shaped charges. By using two linear metal jets produced by the shaped charge, two diametrically opposite grooves are formed in the rock along the dri11ho1e wall. These serve as crack initiation guides, and by orienting the shaped charges in the drillholes, the cracks from adjacent boreholes can be directed towards each other. Figure 4. Similar experiments were made previously (Thompson et a1, 1979) with grooves cut by a tungsten carbide tool. Due to the high cost of grooving these experiments never reached large scale practical application. At this conference, the paper by Pccha1at and Lefin describes the use of water jets to form the grooves for crack guiding. Although the economic feasibility of large scale use of crack guiding to improve the results of smooth blasting and presp1itting, we may hope that the present developments will bring the price of grooving down to a level where crack guiding can be tried out in real life construction or mining blasting. ROCK CUTTING In this report we use the term rock cutting to describe processes in which rock is cut with mechanical means other than blasting. It thus includes drilling of b1astho1es, boring of raises and tunnels, and rock cutting with water jets. In situ fracturing will be dealt with under a separate heading. ' Some years ago, great expectations ~ere attached to research into unconventional methods of rock cutting, such as by projectile impact, laser beams, electron beams, and high pressure water jets. Of these, only water jet cutting has so far reached the stage of large scale practical application. In,soft rock water jets are used to cut rock by themselves. In somewhat harder but still mostly sedimentary rock they are used mainly to assist the work of a steel or tungsten carbide cutting tool. Great strides have been taken in recent years towards accurate methods to predict the rate of drilling or boring in different kinds of rock materials. We will review some work in this area that appears to have reached a stage of practical applicability. Two papers in this session deal with water jet assisted rock cutting. They give in themselves a good idea of the state of the art in this field.

this way the main result of the contour blast, if tp~ charges in adjacent holes are allowed to cooperate, is a crack that runs from dri11hole to dri11ho1e. Then,the damage to the remaining rock' is limited within a narrow zone close to the contour. In smooth blasting, the contour charges are initiated last in the round. In presp1itting, they are initiated before the rest of the charges, often in a separate round. Presp1itting therefore requires a closer spacing of contour holes, about 50-75% of that for smooth blasting, and becomes more expensive than smooth blasting (figure 5). The minimum required linear charge density t is the same for both techniques:



.!: 1.0





40 dmm



Figure 5. Recommended ranges of hole spacing as a function of hole diameter for smooth blasting and presp1itting. Smooth blasting: E = ksd, where ks = 15-16. Presp1itting: E = k d, P where kp



Mechanical drillin~ and borin~ With the development in the 1950-s of tungsten carbide tipped steel drill rods came the dominance of mechanical 'percussive drilling over all other methods of making shotholes for rock blasting. Percussive drilling and blasting using conventional chemical explosives still dominates among today's rock excavation methods. The drilling machines have developed from the early simple hand-held pneumatic hammer machines drilling perhaps 0.2 m/min to the present-day self-propelled multi-boom drilling jumbo using hydraulic hammer machines with a hard-rock drilling rate of the order of 2 m/min each. The bit may be either a chisel bit having 1, 3, or 4 cutting wedges or stud (button) bits having several tungsten carbide buttons. Other means of mechanical rock cutting are, however, now gradually being introduced as alternatives to percussive drilling, and even to replace the conventional drilling and blasting method altogether. In relatively soft rocks, rotary spiral drilling with drill rods having fixed steel or tungsten carbide cutting edges like on a spiral drill is used more and more for small to medium diameter shotholes in the diameter range 30 to 150 mm. Larger shotholes of diameters from 150,mm up are produced by rotary crushing drilling using tricone roller bits studded with tungsten carbide buttons. These cut by crushing the rock into chips as they are pressed successively into the rock surface at the hole bottom by the force of the rotating drill rod. Similar studded roller bits are used to produce raise bore holes even in hard crystalline rock. The rollers are held by bearings on a rotating shield which is pulled and rotated by a drill rod which passes through a smaller pilot hole up from an underground tunnel Such raise bore heads have diameters from 0.5 to 3 m diameter. A major part of the world's long straight tunnels in sedimentary rock are excavated by full diameter boring using tunnel boring machines. For soft sedimentary rock materials these are usually of the ripping head type, having a rotating spiked ripping head, movable on a hydraulic boom, like a road header machine. For the intermediate and high hardness range, the disc cutter type machines dominate. These have a rotating shield of a diameter approaching that of the tunnel. On the shield are fastened heavy steel discs with bearings that allow the discs to roll heavily on the tunnel face as the rotating shield is hydraulically pressed against the tunnel face. The cutter discs are spaced over the shield so that the circular rolling grooves they leave on the rock face are evenly spaced 6-7 cm apart. With an average cutter load of 10-30 tons per cutter, hand-sized pieces of rock are chipped off on either side of each cutter, and the penetration per revolution may be of the order of 0.5-10 cm. For use in hard rock the cutter discs may have tungsten carbide tipped button bits around its cutting edge. Where the remaining rock is stable and dry, boring rates including necessary stops for retooling and repairs may be as high as 30 m per shift in limestone of compressive strength 200 MPa (2 kbar).

The fundamental mechanism of rock fragmentation under the action of a hard tool being pressed into a rock surface is similar, whether the tool is a blunt wedge, a hemispherical button or the edge of a cutting disc. Therefore, rock drillability and boreability can be described by essentially the same tests of rock material fragmentation and wear properties. However, for disc cutting tunnelboring"the natural fissures and joints in the rock mass have an additional influence on the boreability which must be taken int'o account. Where nothing else is known about the rock to be drilled or bored, the unconfined compressive strength is a useful figure. In the first approximation, a high compressive s~rength means slow drilling or slow boring, high rates of tool wear, and expensive excavation. For tunnel boring there is a natural borderline between sedimentary rock which have generally low compressive strength and are easily boreable, and magmatic, crystalline rocks, which have high compressive strength heralding potentially high boring costs. Drillability and boreability of rock materials The terms drillability and boreability are used, often somewhat loosely, to describe the degree of ease and economy with which a rock mass lends itself to be drilled or bored by a given machine. The terms are thus functions mainly of the rock mass arid its strength and structure, but they also to a certain degree depend on the economy and characteristics of the machine chosen, as ~:ell as the economy and characteristics of other available machines and methods. Drillability refers to shothole drilling in the diameter range 25 to 500 mm, boreability refers to raise and tunne~bbring in the diameter range 1 to 12 m. In the following will be related the techniques for predicting drillability and boreability developed at the Norway Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway by Selmer-Olsen and Blindheim (1970) and Blindheim (1979), and also the techniques used by some manufacturers of tunnelboring machines. Predicting drillability Drillability is composed of the following factors: drilling rate (cm/min) bit wear (characterized by the length' . of borehole produced in a given rock between cutter grindings) bit life (the total length of hole drilled before the bit has to be scarapped) According to Blindheim, the drilling rate can be estimated from a crushing test, the "Swedish Brittleness Test" in which an aggregate of the rock material to be tested is crushed in a cylinder by a falling weight and a wear test, the Sivers test,in which the penetration into a rock specimen of a small rotary tungsten carbide chisel drill is measured under standardized conditions. From these two simpl~ tests one can determine the drillin~ rate index DRI which is a linear function of the S-value from





.~,. ~ . ... .





844 21/2

Roc 8l0/Cop 1018 21/'" Fixtrack/HL 483 2" Fixtrack/HL 844 3" Roc 8l0/Cop 103& Fixtrack/HL 438 2 /2



Roc 8l0/Cop 1038 3'/'" Fixtrack/HL 844 4" Fixtrack/HL 438 3" Fixtrack/HL 844 41/'" Roc 8l0/Cop 1038 4" Roc 8l0/Cop 1038 4'/'"



Fi ure 6.
Roc 8l0/Cop 1038 5" 60


the br~ttleness test, w~h the J-value from the wear te~t as a parameter. There is a good linear relationship between the DRI values for different rock materials and the measured drilling rate DRM usin~ pneumatic percussion drills with ,,3- diameter ~ungsten carbide chisel bits. mm Fip;ure 6 shows the scatter 01' the measured data around ~he linear relationship. For larger .borehole diameters than 33 mm, and heavier machines DRM is lower than shown in figure 6 at a given DRI. Reference must then be made to testing results in a rock with known DRI. The new generation of hydraulic percussion drilling machines give greatly increased drilling ratB because they have a heavier bit load ~ and a n~gher percussion frequency, by using stud bits instead of chisel bits. Figure 7 shows correlation curves between DRI and practical penetration rates for different drilling equipment. The diagrams are based on practical experience from a large number of construction sites in Norway. The bit wear is the result of abrasion of the tungs-t-e-n---ca--rbide the hardest rock parbit by ticles. The rate of bit wear increases with the content of quartzite or other equally hard minerals in the rock but also with the drilling rate. 'i'he abrasiveness of different rocks on a given type of tungsten carbide bit can be determined by an abrasion test, and it is found to depend not only on the quartz content but also on the other constituents of the rock.


o o






70 DR!

Figure 7. Estimated drilling rates for different dr~llin~ euipment as a function of rock dr~ll~n~ ~ rate ~ndex (DRI) neumat~c dr~lls at air pressure 60 ~ MPa (6 bar) and dr~ll rod length 3.05 m, . hLdraul~c drills and drill rod length H tl44,HL 43tl: 3.05 mj COP l03tl: 3.66 m. After Johannessen (l9tll).

produced in a given rock by a given equipment between bit grindings rather than the more scientific unit ~m/m giving the thickness of bit worn off in drilling one meter of borehole. The bit life is simply the total length of borehole that can be drilled by a given bit in a given machine configuration and at a given air or hydraulic pressure while drilling in a given rock mass. It is related to the bit wear in an obvious way mathematically, but the practical numbe~ of regrindings or the decision on what criterion to discard a worn-out bit also influence the actual bit life value. Predicting boreability in tunnelboring Becaus~ boring with disc cutter machines is the most frequently used technique the following section deals only with disc cutter boring. Boreability is expressed in terms of the following factors: net penetration rate m/hour of true boring time cost of cutters, $/piece (due to bit and bearing wear) total excavation cost $/m tunnel length

Round quartzgrains are often found to be less abrasive than sharp edged ones. Generally, sedimentary rocks are less abrasive than igneous and metamorphic rocks at a given quartz content. The bit wear can be expressed in terms of the bit wear index BWI which is a linear function of the abrasion value with the drilling rate index DRI as a parameter. There is a good correlation between actual measured bit wear BWM and the drilling rate index DRI. The measured bit wear is expressed in the unit ~/m drilled length. For convenience bit wear is expressed as the length of borehole in m that can be


Net penet rat ion rate


3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0



joints and partings: Curve 1: .20 em


comers to the field to follow the very clear calculation of that figure given by an experienced contractor, Prader (1977). Rock strength testing for tunnel boreability predictions It has already been mentioned that the first question to ask when faced with a new potential machine boring project is: What is the compressive strength of the different rock types to be encoIl11.tere>d? fiz:st ""swer comes from The ~he early geological surveys. Additional information can be found from different kinds of button penetration tests or punch tests. (Handewith 1969 and Lindqvist 1982), or fracture toughness tests (Robbins1977). Common for all these is that they can be made on core samples from exploration core drilling made during the site investigation period. Handewith defines the penetration index 6. as the ratio of force to permanent deformatiOn as a button bit is pressed into a rock core sample mounted to that it does not crack apart. Figure 9 shows typical punch test curves, where repeated loading and unloading to gradually greater penetration values have been made. Table 2 shows a comparison of predicted and actual penetration rates for three different rock materials. Table 2. Penetration rates from the Lawrence penetration index. rock material dolomitic limestone quartzite argillite siliceous scale compressive penetration rate strength .preaicted actual PSL FPH FPH 31,960 36',170 19,200 5.8 2.1 6.1 6.1 2.5 6.4

2: 3:

"'- 10 em 5 em

,I I

1,5 1,0

0, 5 .",~. 10






--' 80

very low mecHurr. high low Drillinp, Rate Index DRI

Figure 8. Net penetration as a function of the drilling rate ~ndex and the distance between joints and partings. The net penetration rate is the length of tunnel that can be bored in a given rock mass by a given tunnelboring machine per hour of actual boring time using normal cutter load and normal cutter head rpm.

60 Nm

In tunnelboring much more than in shothole drilling the presence of weakness planes or joints in the rock mass influences the net penetration rate, especially when the distance between weakness planes (joint spacing) is of the same order as that between the cutter grooves. The crushability of the rock material itself can be accounted for in boring by the same technique as in drilling, using the drilling rate index DRI. Figure 8 shows the net penetration rate as a function of DRI with the distance between weakness planes as a parameter. In the same way, the cutter cost, expressed in $ per m3 of solid rock bored can be estimated by the bit wear index BWI derived as descibed ~ above for drilling, again with joint spac~ng as a parameter. With the great capital cost involved in aquiring a tunnelboring machine, the ~ excavation cost is greatly influenced by the. rat~o of productive to unproductive tme d~r~ng ~ an average shift of working. The cruc~al f~ure is the number of new tunnelmeters produced ~n a shift, and we would like to recommend new-

Rock cutting wiih water jets In open pit mining industry hydraulic monitoring has been used. for a long time to wash away overburden alluvium deposits. Hydraulic mining operations have been applied to underground coal mines by Kaiser Resources in western Canada. The Kaiser Resources used continous miners in 1974, producing jets at pressures up to 13 MPa with a flow rate of 3800 11m. Discussions concerning advantages of underground hydraulic mining of oil sand has been carried out by GateS et al (1978). They outline the advantages and the problems likely to be encountered with hydraulic mining. Today however the economic development in oil business is low which is a disadvantage for this type of forthcoming projects . , Mathews (1980)report a borehole mining technique tested by U.S. Bureau of Mines. Access holes were drilled vertically from the surface into the coal strata and a horizontally rotating water jet nozzle was moved upwards as the coal was cut. The coallwater slurry was pumped up to the surface by a pump, see figure

*Note the distinct difference between the two terms penetration Pe which is expressed. in mml cutterhead revolution, and net penetrat~on rate, P which is expressed in m/hour. They are related through N, the number of cutterhead revolutions per minute.









. .


.. ..
u c

c ,.8

problems which limit the use of water jet cutting alone for excavation. , a) In hard rock. two para11e11 slots can easy be cut close to each other but still the rock between the slots will remain undisturbed. This means that the water jet angle of attack must be changed continuously in order to fragment the rock. b) The very high water jet pressures needed for hard rock requires automatic guidance which can be a problem due to the rough rock surface which is achieved in excavation in hard jointed rock. c) The power requirement will be very large. It definitely looks more promising to use a combination of high pressure water jets and mechanical tools for rock excavation. This approach has an obvious attraction as a supplement to mechanical excavation by drilling machines. tunnel boring machines. rippers and milling roadheaders. The water jets are here used to create additional free surfaces for the mechanical tools. Summers et a1(1977) report water jet drilling in sedimentary and crystalline rock. Red granite was harder to penetrate due to its lower permeability compared with the Berea sandstone. At this congress Pecha1at and Lefin present a paper about drilling equipment for mines tested by Cerchar. One interesting application concerning selective mining was mentioned. Notches along the boreholes for fracture control could be introduced by water jet. Notched holes together with a light linear charge can effectively separate the valtiable ore from the reInaining waste rock. The utilization of water jet cutting heads instead of shearer drums on longwa11 mining machines for coal has been commented by Barker and Summers (1977).High pressure water jets are used for cutting slots at the bottom. back and top of the coal seam web. The coal plow can

Figure 10. Cavity minin~ in coal strata. Mathews. 1980. Much higher stagnation pressures are needed for cutting in hard rock. Rehbinder (1977) carried out experiments in high strength rocks with different grain sizes and permeabi1ities. Jet pressures in the range of 150-460 MPa were used. Rehbinder points out that the slot cutting rate is highly affected by the ratio of jet pressure and threshold pressure of the rock. If the stagnation pressure is'greater than the threshold pressure of the rock. the grains are . spa11ed at a rate which is equal to the mean rate at which the water passes a grain. Layer of grains will be cut as long as the stagnation pressure at the bottom of the slot is high enough. The conclusion is that erosion resistance of the rock is closely connected to its permeability. Several authors have reported successful slotting in hard and abrasive rock but there exist


thereafter successfully advance into the slot and wedge coal cantilevers isolatee by the water jets. Field trials with the developed Hydrominer were reported to be successful with no dust problem and an acceptable excavation rate. It is interesting to see that experiments are carried out in order to break the present technical or rather economical limits for mechanical excavation by ripping and milling roadheaders, Today the technical limit is reached when the uniaxial compressive strength is in the interval of 120-150 MPa. The economi~ oal limit is around 70 MPa. By using water jet together with the picks, advantages are reached for the excavation method. A high pressure water jet increases the penetration rate, lowers the tool cost by cooling the picks contributes to better environment by reduci~g dust problems and lowers the ignition risk for methane/air mixtures. Fowell and Tecen report at this congress experiments carried out with water jet assisted drag tool cutting in sandstone and limestone with uniaxial compressive strengths from 40-150 MPa. Their experiments show how important it is to consider the water jet penetration in rocks with different strengths. If it is deeper than the cut taken by the pick the sides of'the tool comes into contact with the rock (ins~ead of the tip) which suppresses cracking ahead of the tool and lowers the cutting performance. In 1976 Hood reported laboratory experiments where water jets were directed immediately ahead of the drag bit during the cutting operation. The bit force was reduced to 1/3 of what was needed without water jet assistance. As a result of the laboratory experiments some operating underground rock cutting machines were equipped with water jets to assist the cutting. Hood 1978, reported successful results indicating even better performance than the previous laboratory experiments. Baumann et al (198Q) mention a very promising method for efficient rock excavation. By utilizing two high pressure water jets, one on each side of a cutting disc (see figure 11) it is possible to lower the thrust per cutter. The water jets cut grooves and the rib left in between is removed by the shearing action caused by the disc.

The authors claims it was possible to reduce the required feed by more than 50 percent which,in turn, would entail a proportional decrease in machinery weight with beneficial effects on the tunnel machine flexibility.

W.ter pressure 3200 bar


o o
200 \IO ~ 600 000 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Foed kN

Figure 12. Drilling speed with and without ass1stance of water jets. Baumann et aI, 1950. The articles publfshed about mechanical excavation by assistance of high pressure water jets clearly show that water jets are a versatile tool for improvement of the cutting performance. However the energy requirements per excavated volume of rock still seems to be much higher for the water jet production than for the mechanical excavation. Future improvement of energy utilization can probably be a reality through beneficial use of water additives for increased flow speed and better confinement of the water jet for the actual stand off distance. IN SITU FRAGMENTATION At the time of writing this report there is a temporary overproduction of oil due to the world recession. Over a longer time perspective, the emand or oil will undoubtedly be steadily ~ ~ 1ncreas1ng due to the growing energy demands. Oil shale is regarded as the major future source for extraction of oil and much work has been done during the last few years to develop methods for in situ recovery of oil shale. In situ recovery methods are true in situ 0: modified in situ retorting.eitherthe true reIn in S1tU method, no shale is mined before the torting starts. The shale is fractured in situ to develop the required permeability using . hydraulic or explosive fracturing techniques. After.the necessary permeability is achieved the oil is extracted by pyrolysis and pumped up to the surface. Hydraulic fracturing introduces single large fractures in the shale and these fractures either follow the bedding planes or are oriented parallel to the highest principal stress. No really successful experiments have been reported where enough permeability was achieved by use of only hydraulic fracturing.




Figure 11.

h ressure water 'ets and a d1sc. After Baumann et al.


In the modified in situ fragmentation techniques. about 20% of the oil shale is mined out by conventional mining methods and brought up to the surface to give room for the expansion of the 80% remaining rock which is rubblized in tall chimney stack retorts underground. True in-situ fragmentation The Bureau of Mines has run a number of laboratory experiments to determine the feasibility of using liquid explosives to fracture the oil shale. This is described in detail by Miller et aI, (1974). Experiments were done in ah ' attempt to study if a dry porous sandstone would absorb sufficient amount of.a,NG (nitroglycerin) -EGDN (ethylene glycol dinitrate) mixture to yield a detonable charge and an high detonation velocity. Tests with a dry Berea sandstone having a density of 2.2 glcm' showed that'this rock could absorb about 12% of its own volume of liquid. With a booster of 73 grams of NG-EGDN they succeded in initiating a sample (5lx5lx152 mm) that had absorbed 8.2% NG-EGDN. The detonation velocity was measured as 4 700 m/s. Fifteen percent gelled NG (p = 1.37 g/cm') absorbed in sodium chloride with a diameter of 287 mm had a detonation velocity of 1,550 m/s. The Bureau of Mines also showed that NG-EGDN could be detonated with a detonation velocity of 7,500 mls if it was confined in a 1.6 mm crack. NG-EGDN poured in a sand filled crack detonated with a detonation velocity of 2,100 m/s. About 5.5 liters of desensitized NG was poured out into a presplit crack in limestone with an average width of 3 mm. The detonation extended the fracture about 40 m and the crack width was increased to about 70 mm when the limestone was displaced horizontally towards the vertical face in the limestone quarry . ' Tests were run in oil shale (Rock Spring and Green River Sites) which indicated that NG will detonate and the explosion will propagate in water and sand filled natural and hydraulic fractures. The oil shale was fragmented to such an extent that retorting was indeed possible. However, the difficulties in controlling the NG flow pattern was such that its use is not recommended. Pelletized TNT was shot in wells and an extensive fracturing out to a radius of 15 m was disclosed by seismic methods. Air flow measurements between wells indicated the presence of fractures but the evaluation techniques did not indicate the extent of rock fragmentation. Oil shale fracturing tests were investigated by the Bureau of Mines (Cambell et aI, 1970) in the Green River Formation near Rock Springs Wyoming. Five wells were drilled to a depth' of 15-27 m and the wells were placed in a quadratic pattern with a hole distance of 7.6 m. One well was placed in the center of the quadrangle. At this test site the Bureau of Mines tested 'electrolinking, hydraulic fracturing without and with sand propping, and explosive fracturing. Liquid NG was used for the explosive fracturing. Electrolinking and hydraulic fracturing without sand propping were relatively ineffective. Hydraulic fracturing with sand propping created horizontal fractures with desirable flow capac-

ity. Hydraulic fracturing with sand propping took place in two wells at a depth of 22-24 m. and 24-26 m, respectively. Almost 300 liters of a desensitized NG was poured into each well and was allowed to migrate into the hydrofractured rock. After the detonation the maximum surface elevation had increased about 50 mm directly above the wells. To evaluate the fracturing, airflows between selected wells were measured. The authors indicat~ that there was a significant increase in fracture permeability when an adequate NG shot was detonated (i.e. 300 liters). A 100 liter NG shot resulted in a lower permeability. The 300 liter shots increased the injection capacity up to eight fold. The report does not mention anything about the degree of vertical fracturing that occurred after the blasts. However, Burwell et al-(1973) say that the detonation of the NG explosive undoubtedly created breakage of the shale on both sides of the fractures which resulted in a large surface area. The shale was apparently fractured to allow,the in situ retorting process to proceed and the oxygen utilization and rte of burninp, were improvinp, steadily at the ~ t~me the test was terminated. Burwell et al also report experience from another test, test site 7, where first only hydraulic fracturin~ took place before i~nition. Two inition attempts were made but they were ~ terminated because the injection rates could not be maintained. When 160 kg of pelletized TNT was detonated in the wellbore the permeability increased and it became no problem to ignite the oil shale. Coursen (1977)and McNamara et al (1979)have shown that true in situ blasting can increase the permeability and the explosion cavities if the depth is not too large and the tectonic stresses are not too high. However a very large specific charge must be used'(or several reshots) to establish a permeability large enough to allow a high recovery degree of oil. It is hard to believe that true in-situ fragmentation methods will be economic for extraction of oil from kerogen in the near future. The major problem seems to be that insufficient porosity is generated in the shale. (Parrish et al, 198D. Loading is costly and it is a problem to work with explosives having both a low enough sensitivity to be handled safety


Figure 13. The LOFRECO-process.


After Britton


and a small enough critical diameter that can be used for detonation in thin hydro fractures. Most likely the true in-situ explosive and/or hydraulic fragmentation will not be economic if the fracturing is intended to take place at large depth where the stress field is high. The two methods have their potentia~ly most interesting application in shallow o~l shale zones where the advantages of an upper free surface can be utilized, and where expensive development work can be avoided. One method is the LOFRECO-processldescribed by Lekas (1979) and Britton (J980A A heavy explosive load is used to heave the surface in order to create the necessary fractures and voids. From their results, Geokinetics (Lekas, 1981) concluded that: It is possible to drill a pattern of blastholes from the surface into the oil shale and fracture the shale with explosives to establish a zone of high permeability with a relatively impermeable zone between the fragmented shale and the surface. It is possible to drill throug~ the rubblized material and construct the var~ous wells for. the operation. A point ignition'can be made ~n the rubblized shale and expanded into a burn front that covers the cross section of the retort. The b~rn front can be made to move down the length of the retort as a cohesiv~ emperature ~ front with satisfactory sweep eff~c~ency. Produced oil can be recovered from a well drilled to the bottom of the rubblized zone. Recovery of inplace oil of up to 50 percent can be achieved. Modified in-situ fragmentation Only a few years ago there were seve:a~ la:ge ~nscale projects to produce oil by mod~f~ed situ fragmentation and retorting. Tod~y.the~e ~nactivities have decreased and the mod~f~ed situ methods (MIS) seem today to be hard to justify economically. Mignogna(1979),MCCarthY 8 and Cha G97@ Ridley (1978) and Ricketts (19 0) have reported"MIS methods with variou~ results. The mined out void volumes have been ~n the order of 20% before "in-situ" fragmentation took place. Due to an irregular fragmentation distri~ution and chimney effects preventing an effect~ve (one level burn-out) the recoveries have often been too low. Modern underground mining.methods, like room and pillar mining, combined w~th surface retorting and back fill of spent shale looks to be the most promising method for deeper oil shale formation - if the oil price goes up. Numerical modelling of fragmentation A number of codes for numerical modelling of rock fragmentation have been developed during the recent years. Some of the~ are ver~_ sophisticated and have all the mater~al const~ tutive properties implemented as well as the. fracture mechanics for the intact rock mater~al. Fi~ure




100 mIl

14. A bench blast simulation at: 1 ms. 5 ms and 50 ms~

We feel that future numerical models to a much higher degree must involve the inherent anisotropic effects. The rock mass is characterized by a large amount of joints, fractures and existing weakness planes. This geologic complexity plays the major roll in forming the post blast fragments whose size distribution is of vital interest. A well founded estimate will always help lowering the cost for investments in tailor made crushers and transportation systems for mining industry or help to consider the burn rate and degree of recovery in the oil shale business. Testing of rock strength usually is carried out in small scale rock core samples selected from the intact core pieces available. The uniaxial tensile strength is often given with a standard deviation equal to fifty percent of the mean value. Predominant fracturing will occur in these non or low strength weakness planes when the rock mass is subjected to a dynamic load caused by a nearby detonation. All the weakness planes will have an individual strength and will brp.ak depending upon how far away from the nearest borehole it is situated. The geologic


complexity will be more pronounced and will influence more upon the fragmentation more when larger hole diameters (i.e. larger spacings) are used for blasting . It is desirable that future modelling codes can handle 3D- structure geology given by a geologic core mapping procedure (or a statistically simulated rock mass anisotropy). The strength of the weakness planes should preferably also be given as input. The dynamic load can be modelled for various distances in the near field and this load together with the strength criteria for the weakness planes will: describe major part of the blast induced fra~ment sizes. Cooper (1981) has used'the Cundall Block model program and implemented extensions to the model, such as joints with cohesion. With this approach it is possible to model breakage of existing weakness planes as well as mass movement of the broken rock. Figure 14 shows a simple 2D-bench blast with two free faces. Observe the fracturing that successively takes. place and creaks existing weakness planes. WELL STIMULATION Hydraulic fracturing has long been used for stimulation of impermeable gas reservoirs and oil wells. For a successful result fracturing has' to occur in such a way that a sufficiently large contact area with the reservoir is created. The method to use a fluid "mud" pressure in a drilled hole to initiate and extend a crack outwards into the surrounding rock formation has been used for several years. Well established theories exists where it is possible to predict necessary fluid pressure and cra0k growth direction. The in-situ stress field will however irrevokably steer the crack prop~ agation into a plane perpendicular to the least principle stress and variations of this stress may cause unfavorable fracture growth into formations with no reservoir contact. The hydraulic fracturing method ha~certain limitations because the method will only create one fracture plane with a surface contact area determined by the length of the driven fracture. Obviously it would be beneficial if we can find a method which initiates a multiple fracture pattern around the borehole or between several parallel hy~raulic fractures. This would increase permeabil1ty and contact areas. Randomly distributed radial cracks can be achieved by the use of an explosive charge but unfortunately the short time pulse loading will result in rather short fractures. The fracture lengths are also determined by the depth of overburden or rather the in-situ stress field. A higher stress field result in less fracture propagation and the fractures outside the borehole will tend to be oriented'towards the maximum principal stress in a non uniform stress field. High detonation velocity and pressure will (especially in low compressive and porous rock materials) damage the rock material in the near region and fines will be produced that effectively plug fractures. Decoupled charges where

an air cushion is situated between the borehole and the explosive charge will effectively reduce the bore pressure. The ratio between the borehole pressure for a decoupled charge (P2) and a fully coupled charge (PI) is approximately given by equation
(4 )

whcredl denotes the hole diameter, d2 the charge diameter and y can be approximated with 1.5 (y is actually pressure dependent). The borehole pressure for a fully coupled charge is dependent upon detonation pressure and can be approximated with half of that pressure. By the decoupling the borehole pressure can be adjusted to the strength of the surrounding rock in order to avoid a crushing zone. Still however the short duration loading pulse will be to short to drive the fractures longer distances. Alternatives to hydro fracturing and explosive fracturing of boreholes have been discussed by Schmidt et aI, (1980)and Swift and Kusubov (198D. By use of compressing fluid and a piston a repetitive loading condition can be achieved. Pulse durations can be shifted down to I ms and loading varied from 10-2 to 100 MPa/ms. Tests 'carried out in a sandstone with water as fluid indicate~ some interesting results. Multiple fractures will be formed without damage to the borehole if the sandstone is semi-dry or wet. Only two fractures are formed during dry conditions. Figure 15 shows the fracture patterns achieved for different loading conditions. Warpinski et al (1979) report experiments conducted at the U.S. Nevada Test Site in a volcanic ashfall tuff formation. Three propellants with different burn times were used. The pressure loading rates and peak pressures are given in table 3 below. About 9 kg of each propellant was used. The overburden was 420 m at the experimental site. Tensile strength for the ashfall tuff was reported to be 2.8 MPa and the fracture toughness KIc was 0.5 MNm-!/2. The length and the number of fractures were' mapped after the test. Carbon black had been added to simplify identification of created fractures. The slowest propellant GF #'1 resulted in a single fracture that was similar to fractures produced by hydro fracturing. The fracture formed extended to a length of 0.6 - 0.9 m from the borehole. The intermediate propellant GF # 2 initiated twelve different fractures of which five only Table 3. proellants _19_7_. ~ Propellant Burn time GF It 1 900 ms GF . 2 9 ms GF ~ 3 Ims used by Warpinski et aI, Loadin~ rate Peak Dress~ 6.2110- !"Pa/\Js 43.1 MPa I 1.3810- MPa/\Js95.1 MPa >10.3 MPa/\Js >138 MPa


6000 Gr.t1






0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8 (SEC) 1.0 TIME FROM IGNITION ~J




0.250 (SEC)


a. Hvdrofr8Cture.

b. Explosive


p S 1 MPa'l.

Pb ~



MPa's. Pb

> > Pinsitu




c. Tailored-pulse. p 102 - 106 MPa's. Pb 2Pinsitu





0.1272 (SEC)

Eigur 16. Measured pressure time history for tested propellants. Warpinsky et al 1979. '

Figure 15. Fracture patterns for different loading conditions, Swift and Kusubov, 19tH.

extended less then 0.3 m. The other seven fractures had lengths running from 0.6 - 2.4 m. Propellant GF# 3 initiated multiple fractures with lengths not exceeding 0.12 m and crushing was observed near the borehole. Only one fracture extended radially a longer distance(~1.2 m). Fractures created were not found to be affected by the in-situ stress field. Figure 16 shows the measured pressure time histories for the three propellants. Considering the tests it is apparent that the fracture process is strongly dependent on loading rate. Pressure loads slightly higher than the in-situ stress will produce only one single fracture. This fracture will not extend very far if propellants are used because it is hard to maintain the pressure load for a longer period, with the limited amount of gas available from the propellant charge. Higher initial lOading rates and pressure peaks helps to initiate multiple fractures. The number of fractures are dependent upon the number of flaws around the well or the grain size of the material. However in order to propagate the fractures longer distances it is necessary to keep the pressure level at a sufficiently high level for a longer period. The pressure should preferably be kept below the yield stress of the rock to prevent residual compressive stresses that help prevent crack growth during post peak pressure load. (Schmidt, R A et aI, 1979).

A high loading rate and a high peak pressure evidently induce multiple fractures but unfortunately the residual compressive stress fiel~ n~ the fines produced effectively seal ~ the 1n1t1ated fractures and sometimes lower the pre-detonation permeability. If the in-situ stress field is low and the rock material is competent figure 3 can be used to estimate the maximum length of induced radial fractures from a coupled charge of different hights. Ouchterlony (1974) has shown that the pressure required to initiate cracks is independent of the numb7r of cracks if the crack lengths are short. F1gure 17 shows the relations between the normalized stress intensity ratio and the crack length parameter. Using the equation valid for critical pressure P required to initiate cracks equal to a flaw cif size a (5) it is obvious that very low pressures are requred to initiate cracks. A suggested flaw size ~ of less than 1 mm for the volcanic ashfall tuff' (KT = 0.5 MNm-3/2) where Warpinskis gas fracturg test was conducted indicates a required critical pressure of only a few MPa (static). A fully coupled charge which is detonated obviously is capable of producing borehole pressures several orders of magnitude larger than needed. Even decoupled charges used for smooth blasting (coupling ratio ~ 9) give borehole pressures in the order of 70 to 150 MPa which still i~ higher than n7eded.Although this has been real1zed by people 1nvolved in well stimulation, Schmidt et aI, 1979, have suggested that high explosives used for well stimulation should be positioned below the pay zone with a




TIME (~a)
12.5 34.0 57.0 80.5 89.5 112.5 140.0 163.5 190.5 214.5 246.5 271. 5 322.5



St~ reo



1 2 3 4 5 6 7



." V2'

CharI_ Area 20,854 13,760 11,784 12,493 12,613 7,193 5, 050'


10,320 17,742 17,395 21,978 12,363 28,846 4,220' 20,168


O. 1.0




8 9 10 12 14 16

Figure 17. Stress intensity factor for a pressurized surized circular cavity as a function of crack length parameter.

- Valocity fractura inltiate the time

probably lov aioca v.a not likaly to at the 1nlteat count .tatted.




, ,




Figure 18. One alternative to conventional well shooting. Explosive ~s placed below pay zone. Schmidt et aI, 1979.


Other techniques havebeen used to control the fracture process. Bligh (1974) reports studies performed to control fracturing with a fuel-air mixture. Moore et al (1977) and Fitzgerald and Anderson (1978) describe methods where propellants are used to pressurize surrouning water or mud,push it into initiated cracks and propagate them. The application of metal-lined shaped charges to the chemical explosive stimulation of natural gas wells in Devonian shales has been investigated by Schott
et al (1977).

stemming placed above the pay zone in order to utilize a lower peak pressure and longer pressure time history. See figure 18. Fourney et al (1980) carried out high speed photography studies in a plexigla~model 51 mm high. At the bottom of the drillhole a small PETN charge was detonated. The hole was stemmed above the charge leaving an air cushion between the stemming and the charge equal to about 4 times the charge len~h. It was observed that fractures were initiated along the borehole but the fractures close to the stemming area grew at a faster rate than those in the charge area. Simultaneous pressure time records at different points along the borehole indicated a higher pressure close to the stemming and the high pressure was maintained for a longer time period here than at any other place along the borehole. This phenomenon. favourably supported the crack propagation close to the stemming area and the cracks were not arrested as quickly as in the charge area where residual compressive stresses were developed, and the produced fines plugged the cracks. Hydro fracturing alone in some strata can effectively increase permeability and thereby stimulate fluid production. It has been used for many years to stimulate production of petroleum

Figure 19. Crack propagation velocities in charge and stem area. After Fourney et aI, 19tjO.

and natural gas. Sand injected with fracturing fluid or mud is sometimes needed to prop the crack open. Unfortunately it is often difficult to control the hydrofracture so that a large contact area is achieved with the strata containing the heated water (geothermal and recirculation wells) or the petroleum reservoir. The in-situ stress field in the earth in deeper formations usually is such that the produced crack tends to orient itself vertically with its azimuthal orientation guided by the local tectonicstress field. This is a wellknown fact that is used for stress measurements. Further the hydraulic fracture will often be oriented parallel to already existing fractures in the rock mass. The use of high explosive alone for fracture control seems be hard to justify sometimes. It looks more promising to control the fracture growth by a tailored pressure pulse from slow burning propellants. It is difficult,


however, to keep the pressure at a sufficient level for a longer time span. To prevent fast gas-venting there is often a need to stem the well properly which makes it hard to shoot the well repetitively. The burning rate of propelants is greatly affected by surrounding presSure and temperature. When pressure increases, the burning rate will increase exponentielly which makes it impossible to use larger charges to increase the loading time. The pressure rise will increase the burning rate which increases the pressure and so on. This sometimes turns over the deflagration into 'a detonation. Still we have to accept that numerous future applications can be found if we improve the understanding of effective in-situ fracturing and fragmentation by the use of explosive and hydraulic fracturing. There is a need to develop methods to control the fragmentation mechanism for deep in-situ recovery methods for geothermal energy and fuel recovery. There is a tremendous wealth of oil and gas to be won from already existing wells if even marginal improvements in present-day well stimulation techniques can be made.

Burwell, E.L., Sterner, T.E. and Carpenter, H.C. (973). In Situ Retorting of Oil Shale, Results of 'IW Field iments. Bureau of Mines: Repcrt of Investi~ gatlon 7783, U.S. Dept. of the Int. Library, 1973. Cambell, G.G., Scott, W.G.and Miller, J.S. (1970). Evalua~ion of Oil Shale Fracturing Tests Near Rock Sprlngs, wyo., Bureau of Mines, Rep. of Inv. 7397, U.S. Dept. of Int. Library, June, 1970. Cooper, T. (1981). An Implementation of the Cundall Block Programon the HP 2100 with Extensions to the Physical M:x!el: SveDeFo Repcrt DS1981:7 Stockholm Sweden. " Coursen, D.L. (1977). Cavities and Gas Penetrations from Blasts in Stressed Rockwith Flocx:led Joints: 6th Int. c;olloquiumon Gasdynamicsof Explosives and ,Reactlve Systems, Stockholm, Sweden 22-26 August 1977. " Fitzgerald, R. and Anderson, R. (1978). Kine-Frac: A New Approachto Well Stimulation: ASME Paper 78-PET-25, ASME Energy Technology Conference and Exhibition Houston, TX, November 5-19, 1978. ' Fourney, W.L., Holloway, D.C. and Barker, D.B. (1980). Pressure Decay in Propagating Cracks, University of Maryland, USA. Gates, E.M. and Gilpen R.R. (1978). Jet Cutting in Oil Sands: AOSTRA Seminar on UndergroundExcavation of Oil Sands, Edrn::mton, Canada. Handewi th, H.J . (1969). Predicting the EconomicSuccess of Continous Tunneling in Hard Rock: 71' st Annual General Meeting of the CIM,Montreal, Canada. Holmberg, R. and Perss<;>n, .A. (1978). The Swedish Approach P to Contour Blastlng: Proc. 4th Conf. on Explosives Blast0g Technique arr. by the Soc. of Explo~ Slves Englneers, NewOrleans, pp. 113-127. Holmberg, R. and Persson. P.A. (1979). Design of Tunnel Perimeter Blasthole Patterns to Prevent Rock Damage: Proc. Tunnelling '79, editor Jones M.J., Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy, London, March 12-16. Hood, M. (1976). Cutting Strong Rockwith a Drag Bit Assisted by High Pressure Water Jets: Journal of South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Vol. 77, No.4, Nov. pp. 79-90. Hocx:I, (1978). A Study of Methodsto Improve the PerM. formance of Drag Bits Used to Cut Hard Rock Ph.D. Thesis, University of Witwatersrand. ' Johannessen, O. (198~). Drillability, Drilling Rate Index Catalogue: Pro]ect Repcrt 8-79, The University of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway. Lekas, M.A. (1979). Progress Repcrt on the Geokinetics Horizontal In-Situ Retorting Process: Proc. 12th Oil Shale Sympcsium,James H. Gary editor Colorado School of Mines Press, Goiden, Coiorado, pp. 228-236. Lekas, M.A. (1981). The Geokinetics Horizontal In-Situ Retorting Process: Proc. 14th Oil Shale Sympcsium, James H. Gary, editor, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, Colorado, pp. 146-153. Lindqvist, P.A. (1982). Stress Fields and Subsurface Crack Propagation of Single and Multiple Rock Indentation

REFERENCES Barker, C.R. and Summers,D.A. (1977). Consideration in the Developmentof a Water Jet Cutting Head - Energy Resources and Excavation Technology: Proc. 18th U.S. Symp.on Rock Mechanics,editors Fun- Den Wang and George B. Clark, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, USA. Baumann,L. and Heneke, J. (1980). High Pressure Water Jets .l\id TBM' 5th International Sympcsium Jet s: on Cutting Technology, June -80, Hannover, West Germany. Bjarnholt, G., Holmberg, R., Ouchterlony, F. (1982). A System for Contour Blasting with Directed Crack Initiation: Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, SveDeFoRepcrt DS1982:3 (in Swedish), Stockholm, Sweden(1982). Bligh, T.P. (1974). Principles of Breaking RockU~ing High Pressure Gases, Advances in RockMeChanlCS: Proc. 3rcl.Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics, Denver, CO, 1974, Vol. Il, Part B, pp. 1421. Blindheim, O.T. (1977). Preinvestigations, Resistance to Blasting and Drillability Predictions in Hard Rock Tunnelling. In "Mechanical Boring or Drill and Blast Tunnelling?: 1st OS-SwedishUndergroundWOrkshop, Stockholm, December5-10, 1976. Document 3:1977D Statens RAdfl)r Byggnadsforskning (Swedish Council for Building Research), Stockholm1977, pp. 81-97. Blindheim, O.T. (1979). Drillability Predictions in Hard RockTunnelling. Preprint, Paper 15, 2nd ~n~. Sympcsium Tunnelling '79, Institution of Minlng and Metallurgy, London, 1979. Britton, K., (1980). Principles of Blast Design Developed for In Situ Retorts of the Geokinetics Surface Uplift Type: Proc. 13th Oil Shale Sympcsium, olden G Colorado, April 16-18, 1980, pp. 169-180, James H. Gary ed., Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, USA.


and Disc Cutting. Rock Frag}llentation by Indentation and Disc Cutting. lliiversity of LuleA. Ph.D. Thesis 1982:20D. LuleA, Sweden. Lundborg. N., Holmberg, R. and Persson, P.A. (1978). The Distance-charge Size Dependenceof Ground Vibrations. Report Rll:1978, Statens ModfBr Byggnadsforskning (Swedish Council for Building Research), Stockh::>lm (In Swedish) Mathews, K.E. (1980). Potential for the Underground Mining of Oil Sands in Canada: Proceedings of the International Symposi\.lIl Rockstore '80, Pergam::m Press, pp. 673-681. Editor Ber!YJ1aI1, Stockh::>lm, M., Sweden. M::::Carthy, H.E. and Chao C.Y; (1976). OxyI-bdified In-Situ Process Developnent and Update. Quarterly of the Colorado ScOOolof Mines: Proc. 9th Oil ~hale Symposi\.lIl. olume71, no, 4, pp. 85-101, 1976. V M::::Namara, P.H., Peil, C.A. and Washington, L.J. (1979). Characterization, Fracturing and True In Situ Retorting in the Antrim Shale of Michigan: 12th Oil Shale Symposium Proceedings , Golden, Colorado, April 18-20, 1979, pp. 353 and 365, editor James H. Gary, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, USA. Migoogna, R.P. (1979). Conceptual Design of a Horizontal I-bdified In Situ Oil Shale Retort: Dept. of Mining Engineering, Colorado ScOOolof Mines, Golden, CO, USA,March 30, 1979. Miller, J.S., Walker, C.J. and Eakin', J.L. (1974). Fracturing Oil Shale for In Situ Oil Recovery. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 7874, U.S. Dept. of the Int. Library, 1974. M::Jore,LT., Murrma, .M. and Seifert, K.D. (1977). DynaD frac - Application of a Novel Rock Fracturing Methodto Oil and Gas Recovery. Physics International Final Report 827. Ou:::hter lony, F. (1974). Fracture Mechanics Applied to Rock Blasting: Proc. 3rd International Congress of the ISRM.Volume2, part B, pp. 1377-1383, Denver, CO, USA. Parrish, R.L. 'Stevens, A.L. and Turner. T.F. (1981). A True In Situ Fracturing Experiment - Final Results: Journal of Petrole\.lIl Technology. July 1981, pp. 1297-1304. Persson, P.A., Iblmberg, R. and Persson, G. (1977). Careful Blasting of Slopes in Open Pit Mines. Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, StockrDlm, 'SveDeFo Report 1977:4 (in Swedish). Prader, D. (1977). Boring of Tunnels:, Remarkon Borability. In Mechanical Boring or Drill and Blast Tunnelling?: 1st US-Swedish'UndergroundWorkshop StockrDlm, ~cember 5-10, 1976. DocumentD3:l977 Statens Modf5r Byggnadsforskning (Swedish Council for Building Research), Stockholm 1977, pp. 129-131.

Rehbin:ler, G. (1977). Slot Cutting in Rock with a High Speed Water Jet: Research Report TULEA 1977:03, LuleA University of Technology, LuleA, Sweden. Ricketts, T. (1980). Occidental's Retort 6 Rubblizing and Rock Fragmentation Progrem. Oil ShaleSymposi\.lIl, Golden, CO, USA,April 16-18, 1980, pp. 46-61, editor James H. Gary, Colorado ScOOolof Mines Press, Golden, CO,USA. ' Ridley, R.D. (1978). Progress in Occidentals' Shale Oil Symposi\.lIl: roceedings, Golden, CO, April 12-14, P 1978, pp. 169-175, editar James H. Gary,Colorado ,ScOOolof Mines Press, Golden, CO, USA. Robbins, R.J. (1977). DevelopmentTrends in Tunnel BorinE Machines,for Hard RockApplicot:ion. In Mechanical Boring or Drill and Blast Tunnelling: 1st USSwedish UndergroundWorkshopStockholm, December 5-10, 1976. DocumentD3:l977 - Statens M.d f5r Byggnadsforskning (Swedish cOuncil for Building Research), Stockholm, 1977, 27-39. Schmidt, R.A., Boade, R.R. and Bass, R.C. (1979). A New Perspective on Well Shooting - The Behaviour of Contained Explosives and Deflagrations: Society of Petrole\.lIl Engineers of AlliE, SPE 8346. Schmidt, R.A., Warpinski, N.R. and Cooper, P.W. (1980). In Situ Evaluation of Several Tailored - Pulse Well SOOotingConcepts: SPE Paper 8934, Soc. of Petrole\.lIl Eng., Dallas, TX, USA .. Schott, G.L., Carter, W.J. and Vanderborgh, N.E. (1977). Stimulation and Characterization of Eastern Gas Shales: Los Alam:>s Report LA-7320-PR,Los Alam:>s,NM,USA. Selmer-Olsen, R. and Blindheim, O.T. (1970). On the Drillability of Rock by Percussive Drilling: Proc. 2nd Congress Int. Soc. Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, 1970. Sunrners, D.A.' and Lehnhoff, T. F. (1977). Water Jet Drilling in Sandstone and Granite: Proc. 18th U.S. Symposi\.lIl on Rock Mechanics, editor Wangand Clark, Colorado ScOOolof Mines Press, Golden, CO, USA. Swift, R.P. and Kusubov, A.S. (1981). Tailored Pulse Loading Conditions for Multiple Fracturing of Boreholes: 22'nd U'S. Symposi\.lIl RockMechanics, on Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. Th:mpsonet al' (1979). Field Evaluation of,Fracture Control in Tunnel Blasting: Report No. UMTA-MA-060100-79-14, U.S. DepMrtment of Transportation, Administration. Warpinski, N.R. et al (1978). High Energy Gas Frac.: Report SAND 78-231,/2.Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM,USA. Warpinski, N.R. et' al (1979). High Energy Gas Frac. , Multiple Fracturing in a Wellbore: Pi-oc. 20th U.S. 'Symposium Rock Mechanics, June 4-6, 1979, AUstin, on TX, USA.