A MODEL FOR THE

DETERMINATION
OF FLYROCK RANGE
AS A FUNCTION OF
SHOT CONDITIONS

Prepared for
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Mines
4800 Forbes Ave nue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

Contract No . J03872~2

April 16, 1979

Manage~ent Science Associates , P . O. Box 239 , Los Altos , Calif . 94022

 A MODEL FOR THE DETERMINATION OF FLYROCK RANGE AS A FUNCTION OF
SHOT CONDITIONS

Prepared tor:

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Mines
4800 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

By:

Management Science Associates (MSA)

P. 0. Box 239
Los Altos, California 94022
· J . Roth

Final Report

Contract No. J03872A2

April 16, 1979

 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
l. Report No. 2. 3, Recipient's Accesolon No.

4. Title aod Subtitle 5. Rcpor c Date

A MODEL FOR THE DETERMINATION OF FLYROCK RANGE April 16, 1979

AS A FUNCTION OF SHOT CONDITIONS 6.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organi2ation Report No.

Julius Roth N/A

9. Performing Organlza r lon Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No .
Management Science Associates N/A
P. 0. Box 239 11. Co~cract or Grant Ho,
Los Altos , CA 94022 J038.7 242
~-------------------------------. 13. Type of Report
12. Spoo&orlng Organhatioo Hame and Addres·s
Final
U. S. Bureau of Mines July 22, 1978-
4800 Forbes Avenue April 16, 1979
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvan i a 15213 14.

15. Supplementary Notes

N/A

lb. Abstract .
Flyrock 1s t h e source o f most o f t h e 1n]ur1es
· · · and property d amage 1n
' a
majority of blasting accidents in surface mines. A quantitative correlation
between shot conditions and maximum flyrock range can be used to define a
"blasting area" in which no personnel or equipment should be ,present during
a shot.
The approach used was to develop a model that correlates shot conditions
and initial flyrock velocities and permits computation of flyrock range from
ballistic trajectories. The Gurney formula for velocity of explosively-propelled
plates or fragments was adapted to explosively-propelled flyrock from vert i cal
rock faces or from bench tops. The modified Gurney formula was then "calibrated"
with measured flyrock velocities from mining and explosives literature. Charts
\Jere then developed for possible field use which give maximum flyrock range as
a function of shot conditions.
The model indicates that for flyrock from vertical faces , borehole
diameter, roQn1mum burden and height of explosive column define maximum flyrock
range for a given explosive, shot in a given rock.
For flyrock orig inating from bench tops , flyrock range appears to be
controlled by the distance of the top . of the explosive column to the borehole
collar, by tot.al ex.E_losi ve load per borehole and · to a lesser e xtent hv.
borehole diameter
The report can al s o be purchased from the National Te chnical
I nformation Service, 5285 Port Royal Rosd, Springfield, Va.,
17. Originator's Key Words
Flyrock, Explosives, Surface Mine Blast1ng,
Safety, Rock Breakage

19. U, S, Sec urity Classif. of the Repo r t 20 , U, S. Security C1aso if. of This Pag~ 21. No. of pages 22. Price

Unclassified 86

Thl& Form onay be re produced. ( NT\ S ~ p 8- $' {·- 2"22 3 5' 8

Fig. AI- Blank Report Documcnta lion Page t fq g !;L?
 DISCLAIMER NOTICE

The views and conclusions contained in

this document are those of the authors and
should not be interpreted as necessarily
representing the official policies or
recommendations of the Interior Departments ' s
Bureau of Mines or of the U. S . Government .

___ _ _!
·---·. ---·-·-- - -·-- --· ·- - - --
Acknowledgement

Several individuals who were neither employed

by nor consultants to Management Science Associates
(MSA) contributed to the success of this project.
It is particularly gratifying to acknowledge the
assistance given us by R. W. Watson, the Bureau of
Mines Project Officer, who suggested the format of
the charts for field use. Messrs. S. Winzer and
v. Montenyohl of Martin-Marietta Laboratories,
Baltimore, kindly provided us with unpublished data
of their on-going photographic study of blasting
in quarries. Dr. Per-Anders Persson of sveDeFo and
Dr. A. Ladegaard-Pedersen of Nitro Nobel AB furnished
us additional information on and clarification of
several flyrock studies made in Sweden and Mr. P. Day
of CIL did the same for studies made by CIL in
Australia. Mr. v. Hooker 9f the Bureau of Mines,
Denver, was most helpful in furnishing us with
several hard-to-find reports of previous Bureau
studies related to flyrock.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement. i

1.0 SUMMARY . . l

2.0 INTRODUCTION . 3

3.0 QUANTITATIVE FORMULATION OF THE FLYROCK PROBLEM . 5

3.1 Ballistic Trajectories • . . . . . . . 5

3.2 Initial F l yrock Velocities from Vertical
Faces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 . 2.1 Correlation of Powder Factors

and c/m . . .. . . .
. .. ... 10
3.2 . 2 Effect of Rock Properties . . . . . . 12
3 .2.3 Effects of Multiple Boreholes . . . . 14

4.0 OBSERVED FLYROCK VELOCITIES AND THEIR COMPARISON

WITH CALCULATIONS . • • . . . . . . . . . .• . 18

4.1 Normalization of Flyrock Velocity Data 18

4.2 Flyrock Ve l ocities from Yertica l Faces 19

5.0 ESTIMAT I ON OF MAXIMUM FLYROCK RANGE • . 25

5. 1 Flyroc k Ranges from Vertical Faces 25

5.2 Correlation of Observed Flyrock Range
wi th c/m . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3 Attempted Correlation Between Flyrock Range
and Powder Factors . . . . . . . 29'

6. 0 F LYROCK FROM BENCH TOPS . 32

6.1 Mod~l · for

Flyrock Velocit i es from
Bench Tops (Cratering) • . . . . . 32
6.2 Flyrock Velocities from Bench Tops . 35
6.3 Estimation of F l yrock Range from Bench
Tops (Cratering) . . . • . . . . . • • 39
6.4 Corre l a t ion of Bench Top Flyrock Range with
c/m or Powder Factors . . . • . . . . . . . . 39
6.5 Emp i r i ca l Correlation Between Velocities
of Bench Top Flyrock and Depth of Ch arge
Burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 41

i i
 7.0 "WILD FLY ROCK" . . . . 45

8.0 ES~IMATION OF FL¥ROCK RANGE FOR FIELD USE . . 48

8.1 Prior Attempts at Estimating Flyrock Range • 48

8.2 Rationale for Field Use Charts for Flyrock
from Vertical Faces. . . . . . . • • . • . . 52
8,3 Rationale for Field Use Charts for
Flyrock from B~nch Tops . . . . 56

9. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITWNAL FLYROCK STUDIES. • 58

10.0 REFERENCES . . • 61

iii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

A. ELEVATION CORRECTION FOR BALLISTIC TRAJECTORIES . 63

B. DERIVATION OF THE GURNEY EQUATION FOR A PLATE

DRIVEN BY A HEAD-ON DETONATION ORIGINATING AT A
RIGID WALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • 65

C. CORRELATION OF THE GURNEY CONSTANT WITH DETONATION

VELOCITY . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

D. CHARTS FOR ESTIMATING MAXIMUM FLYROCK RANGE . . . • 68

E. SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF THE UTILIZATION OF EXPLOSIVE

ENERGY IN BREAKING ROCK. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 83

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

la. THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIEW OF A BENCH BLAST . 8

lb. PLANE VIEW OF A BENCH BLAST • . • . 8

2. SCHEMATIC TOP - VIEW OF BENCH BLASTS WITH VARYING

BOREHOLE SPACINGS . • . . . • . • . • • . • • • 15

3. PLOT OF OBSERVED FLYROCK VELOCITY VS. c/m FOR

BENCH SHOTS IN GRANITE . • . . . . . . . . • . ·24

4. CORRELATION OF FLYROCK RANGE OF BENCH BLASTS

WITH c/m . . . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . 28

5. ATTEMPTED CORRELATION OF FLYROCK RANGE FROM

BENCH BLASTS WITH POWDER FACTORS . . . 30

6• SCALED CRATER VOLUME AS A FUNCTION OF SCALED

EXPLOSIVE CHARGE DEPTH . . . . . . • . . . 34

7. EMPIRICAL CORRELATION OF BENCH-TOP FLYROCK

WITH SCALED DEPTH OF CHARGE BURIAL • . . . 42

8. FLYROCK RANGE FROM VERTICAL GRANITE FACES

SHOT WITH ANFO OR SLURRY EXPLOSIVES. 55

1-D . SKETCH OF A BENCH SHOT . 69

2-D. MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM

ANFO-LOADED SHOTS IN GRANITE (FIXED BOREHOLE
DIAMETERS}. . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . 70

3-D. MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM

ANFO- LOADED SHOTS IN SANDSTONE (FIXED BOREHOLE
DIAMETERS) . . . • . . . . • . . • . . . . . . • • • . 71

}~XIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM

ANFO-LOADED SHOTS IN LIMESTONE (FIXED BOREHOLE
DIAMETERS) . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5-D . .MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM

ANFO-LOADED SHOTS IN GRANITE (FIXED BURDEN) . . 75

6 - D. MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM

ANFO- LOADED SHOTS IN SANDSTONE (FIXED BURDEN}. 76

v
7-D . CORRELATION FACTOR ( s/WV3 ) FOR BENCH TOP F LYROCK. 78

8 -D . MAX I MUM RANGE FOR BENCH TOP FLYROCK FOR

ANFO - LOADED SHOTS IN GRANITE AND SANDSTONE 79

9- D. ELEVATION CORRECTION FOR MAXIMUM FLYROCK

RA.NGE . • . • • • . . . . . . ..... . ... . . 81

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

1. BREAKOUT ANGLES IN BENCH BLASTING. . • . . . 9

2. COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND COMPUTED FLYROCK

VELOCITIES IN GRANITE BENCH SHOTS . . . . . • 20

3. SPALL VELOCITIES IN GRANITE AND SANDSTONE . . . . 23

4. COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND COMPUTED FLYROCK

RANGES FOR FLYROCK FROM VERTICAL FACES . • . 26

5. COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND COMPUTED FLYROCK

VELOC I TIES IN SANDSTONE CRATER SHOTS . . • . 36

6. COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND CALCULATED FLYROCK

VELOCITIES FOR CRATER SHOTS IN GRANITE , ·
LIMESTONE AND BASALT • • . • • • . . . . . 37

7. COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND COMPUTED FLYROCK

RANGES FROM BENCH TOPS • . . . . . • • . 40

8. COMPARISON OF EMPIRI CAL AND GURNEY - MODEL FLYROCK

RANGES FOR BENCH TOP FLYROCK • . . . • • . 44

9. "WILD" FLYROC~ .. . 46

10 . COMPARISON OF RULE OF THUMB AND OBSERVED FLYROCK

RANGES FOR FLYROCK FROM "VERTICAL" FACES • . . . 49

vii
...... ·-- - ---~·-----~---
1.0 SUMMARY

Flyrock is the source of most of the injuries and property

damage i n a majority of blasttng accidents in :surface mines .
Since most of these accidents occur during normal blasting ·
operations, there is a need to develop a quantitative correl ation
between shot conditions and maximum f l yrock range. This maximum
flyrock ran~·e can define a '' blasting area" in which no personnel
or equipment should be present during a shot . Such information
can be of considerable value to pit foremen as well as to HSHA
mine inspectors.

The approach used was to develop a mode l that correlates

shot conditions and in i t i al flyrock velocities and permits
co~putation of flyrock range from ballistic trajectories. The
Gurney formula for vel ocity of explosively-propelled plates or
fragments was adapted to explosively- propelled flyrock from
vertical rock faces or from bench tops . The modified Gurney
formula was then "cal i brated " with measured flyrock velocities
from mining and explosives literature . Flyrock range thus
computed was found to compare favorably with flyrock range 1n
accident reports and with flyrock range obtained in one of our
previous studies . Charts were then deve l oped for possible field
use which give maximum flyrock range as a function of shot
cond i tions.

The model indicates that for flyrock from vertical faces ,

borehole diameter , minimum burden and height of explosive column
define maximum f l yrock range for a given expl osive , shot in a
given rock . Variation in flyrock range for different rock types
under otherwise equivalenu shot conditions , appears to be
f airly small .
For flyrock ori ginating from bench tops, f l yrock range
appears to be controlled by the distance of the top of the
explosive column to the borehole collar, by total explosive
load per borehole and, to a l esser extent, by borehol e diameter.
However , differences in flyrock range among different rock types

1
appear to be relatively large. The timing sequence of detonations
of individual boreholes and gas venting during breakup of the
vertical face may also affect top-flyrock range .

Recommendations for additional studies and analyses to

confirm some of the conclusions of this study are presented.
In particular the suggested additional studies are directed
towards determining the causes of "wild" flyrock.

2
2.0 INTRODUCTION

By far the greatest single hazard in surface mine blasting

operations is flyrock. Flyrock accounts for approximately half
of all blasting-related accidents in surface mines (or somewhat
more than one-third if fall of ground accidents are -also included
1
in blasting-related accidents) . Clearly, improved blasting
practices and more definitive blasting regulations are still
needed to minimize the flyrock hazard. The current study is
aimed primarily at developing a flyrock model that may assist
in the development of such regulations.

Se.c tian 57.2 of MESA • s Metal and Nonmetal Health and Safety
Regulations (CFR _30) defines blasting area as "the area near
blasting operations in which concussion or flying material can
reasonably be expected to cause injury." Note that this
definition is entirely qualitative. It gives the blasting
foreman no clue on how far· to move personnel and equipment from
the blast. · Section 57.6-160 states: "Ample warning shall be
given before blasts are fired . All persons shall be removed from
the blasting area unless suitable shelters are provided to protect
men endangered by concussion or flyrock from blasting." The
second part of this regulation is difficult to enforce because
a quantitative definition of blasting area is lacking . Clearly,
Federal or State inspectors at present have no adequate means*
of checking compliance with 57.6-160 and similar state regulations.
Thus, the development of a quantitative definition of blasting
area for normal shots is highly desirable.

* Certain rules-of-thumb now used for estimating flyrock range

will be discussed in Section 8 . 1.

3
 Air shock velocities (concussion) attentuate much more
rapidly than flyrock velocities. Thus, it is entirely suitable
to define the b l asting area as the circle whose radius represents
the maximum flyrock range fo~ the particul ar conditions of the
b l ast . In many instances (e.g., a high face behind the bench
being shot or proper borehole l ayout and shot delay sequen ce)
the actual danger area is the hemi-circle in front of the free
face. However, the real probl em is not whether to define the
b l asting area in terms of a circle or a hemi-circle, but in
determining the conditions for the maximum flyrock range.

Cert~in conditions , such as inadequate burden, inadequate

stemming , improper shot delay sequencing, or faults in the
rock, etc.( can produce a "wild" shot which throws flyrock much
£urther than a "normal" shot. Obviously wild shots can be
extremely hazardous. Thus , attempts at defining the conditions
that may r-esult .i:n w·i ld shots are included in the present study.

4
 3.0 QUANTITAT I VE FORMULATION OF THE FLYROCK PROBLEM

The approach used in the present study i s to relate

initial flyrock velocity to shot conditi ons and then use
ball i stic tra j ectories to compute maximum flyrock range .
This approach is entirely justified because the effects of
air friction are quite small for typical flyrock sizes and
velocities. Furthermo~e , since safety is the p~ime
consideration , it is the maximum flyrock range that defines
a safe blast area , and i n a ballistic trajectory the m~ximum
range is obtained with flyrock propelled at an initial angl e .
qf 45o.. Thus , deter-minat i on of initial flyrock velocity
completely determines maximum flyrock range.

Jn Section 3 ~1 we l ist the standard and slightly modified

ballistic trajectory equations . Section 3.2 develops
relationships between initial flyrock ve l ocity and shot
parameters for flyrock from vertical faces (highwalls). The
problem of flyrock from benc h tops (sometimes call ed cratering)
wi ll be addressed in Section 6.

3 .1 Ballistic Trajectories

For flyrock at an initial velocity v 0 and an initial ang l e · 0,

the horizontal range L (i . e., return of the projectile to its
original elevation) is given by

v 0 2 sin 20 .( 1)
L = g

where g is acceleration of gravity . Maximum f l yrock range Lm is

obtained when 0 = 45°, or

:Lm = vo 2I g . (2)

5
- - - -- - - ----·- - -- -·- - -
 If the flyrock originates at an elevation of h above ground
level, then (as shown in Appendix A) the maximum range L'm for return
of the projectile to ground level is given by

L
L~ - ; ( 11 + 4 h /Lm + 1) .

Other equations which will be useful in the interpretation of some

of the data are:

(4)

where t is the time for the projectile to reach its maximum

m
elevation h , and
m
\) 2 2
o sin 0
h
m
= 2g
( 5)

3.2 Initial Flyrock Velocities from Vertical Faces

The Gurney formula 2 successfully predicts initial velocities

3
of metal plates and metal fragments propelled by explosives.
Consequently, it is logical to attempt to adapt the Gurney approach
to the determination of initial velocities of rocks propelled by
explosives, or more specifically, to flyrock velocities obtained in
bench blasting.

The general form of the Gurney equation is

v 0 = I2E f (c/m) (6)

where 12E, 'the so-called Gurney constant, is characteristic of

the explosive used; c and m respectively are the masses (total,
or per unit length, or per unit area) of explosive and material that
is propelled; the form of the function f depends on the geometry
of the system . It will be shown later that initial flyrock velocity
correlates much better with c/m than with more familiar terms such
as powder factors.

6
 Figure la is a schematic representation of the rock
breakout produced by the detonation of one borehole of a
typical bench blast, with explosive column length ~,

stemmi~g l engths, and burden to - the free face b. Shot

conditions are assumed to be such that breakout occurs only
at the "verti-cal" free face in the region of length ~. We
idealize the situation by considering that the homogeneous
rock surrounding the borehole acts as a "rigid wall 11 in all
directions except that of breakout to the free face. This
breakout per borehole has the shape of a prism. Also shown
is the total volume of the rock broken (paralletopiped) that
is conventionally used in computing powder factors. In
Figure la it was assumed that the breakout angle is 90° ,
thus the breakout width at the free face 1s 2b . If this angle
is a rather than 90°, the breakout width at the free face is
2b.ta.n C~/'2).. Then, per un.it length of loaded borehole:

c/m - W/~ ( 7)
- p b 2 tan ( a.j-2 )
m

where W/~ is the explosive weight per unit length of borehole and
pm is the density of the rock. That a is indeed close to 90° is
shown in Table 1. The a's in this table are based on measurements
ofthe amount of rock broken, but are certainly overestimated as
explained in footnote a/ of this table .

F0r f}y~0ck fr0m ~he vertical face (see F igm:e lb") and f0i
the geoll)etry of the system considered (·as shown in Appendix B)

(8)

where 12E' is slightly less than /2E because the direction of

detonation is tangential to the rock and not head ~on as in the
derivation in Appendix B. The relation between /2E and 12E' was
~xarnined by the writer 3 who also showed that for most explosives

7
 Bench Top

'
I '

Pit Floor

Fi9ure l.:t: THR...:B-DH1ENSIONAL VI!~~v OF A 13L~CH .3LAST

Bench To

Pit Floor

Figure lb: PLAN:. VIEW OF A BENCH BLAST

8
 I
1
b d * a w
·sou r ce _{_gnl_ J.mmL (0) (g) Rock

Noren (Ref. 4 ) 17 . 8 38.1 lOOa/ 9 . 2b/ Granite

II
22 . 9 II llOa/ II
"
II
27 . 9 " lOOa/ " II

" 33.0 11 90a/ II II

II
40.6 11 90a/ II II

" 53.3 11 95a/ II II

II
91.4 II l20a/ II II

Ladegaerd- Pedersen
(Persson (Ref. 5 ) 45.0 27.0 l08a/ 15 . 0 Granite
II II a/
II
II
20.0 II

11 11 II a/
" 30.0 II

11 II a/
II II
35.0 11

II II II ,, a/
40.0 ,,
,, II II a/
II
50.0 11

45.0 11 a/
II II
85.0 II

II
40.0 II l06a/ II
"
II
35.0 II
104.5a/ II II

* d ~ borehole diameter.
a/ Assumed rock broke out at uniform angle over entire ho l e depth.
If, as expec.ted, break is beyond hole depth , above a's are too large.
b/ g/cm

Table 1: BREAKOUT ANGLES IN BENCH BLASTING

9
12E' ~ D/3 where D is the detonation velocity of the explosive.
However, for ANFO, which is the explosive used in most surface
mine blasts, /2E'z 0.44D (see Appendix C). In what follows we
will use

( 9)

for ANFO shots and

D (10)
\)
0
~
3
lc/m

for most of the other shots.

All of the above refers to shots in a singl e borehole.

Interactions between boreholes will be examined later .

3 . 2.1 Correlation of Powder Factors and c/n

The min i ng industry and regulatory personnel commonly

express the amount of explosive required to obtain the desired
rock breakage in terms of a quantity known as the Powder
Factor. Usually, powder factors are expressed in pounds of
explosive per cubic yard of rock to be broken. In open pit
quarries or metal mines , powder factors usually range from
about 0.6 to 2 . 3 pounds/cubic yard and are ofte~ around 1.3
6
pounds/cubic yard. In surface coal mines, powder factors
are generally :less and range from about 0 . 2 to 1.2 pounds/cubic
7
yard and are often around 0.6 pounds/cubic yard.

The method of computing powder factors i s illustrated in

Figure la. The volume of rock assumed to be broken by t h e
detonation of each borehole (a x b x h). is indicated by parallelopiped
shown in Figure la. Thus for a borehole charge of weight W,
the powder factor is W/abh with W in pounds and the l inear
d i mensions in yards. Combining this expression with the

10
 ·''

definition of c/m, in Equat±on (7), for a/2 a~sumed to be 45° ,

gives:

Powder Factor = pm(c/~(1/h) (b/a)

where p is in pounds/cubic yard. Depending on face height,

m
explosive used and the degree of fragmentation desired , the
ratios 1/h and b/a can vary appreciably from mine to mine even
~- ~i'nes mi'ni!lg essentially· the same type of material. This
~-ntroduces cons.iderab.l e uncertainty in any general correl ation
.Iie.t'ween powder factor and c/m based solely on p • A rough ·.
m
generalized relation is~

Powder Factor ~ O.Spm (c/m)

for sha l low benches and

Pow.der Facto!! ~ 0.8pm{_c/m)

for deep benches. In each. case the . numerical factor is an

'1 ayerage '·' 1/h and i't is· assumed that b =a . Further complications
arise from the fact that the b used in computing powder factors
for a mult i ~row shot is usual l y the burden between rows of holes ,
whereas the appropriate b for computing c/m for maximum flyrock
velocity i~ the minimum burden from any explosive loaded portion
of a front~row oorehole to the free face (see Figure lb).

As wtll be shown in Section 6 . 0 flyrock from bench tops

appears· to be. controlled by the distance s from the borehole
cqlla,r to the top of the. explo.sive column and the total weight
W of explosive in the boreho l e. The controlling _factor appears
to b.e s/WJ~. There i s no simple correlation between this
factor and the usual powder factor.

The model of Section 3.2 predicts a simple relation between

initial velocity of flyrock from vertical faces and cjm. This
relation is confirmed by measured flyrock data to be presented

11
in subsequent sections of this report. Since there is no
" universal " correlation between the usual powder factor and
the appropriate c/m, it is to be expected that there is no
" universal" quantitative correlation between powder factors
and flyrock. This is especially true of flyrock from bench
tops. In a qualitative sense, it is to be expected that , in
general, shots with large powder factors will produce more
flyrock than shots with small powder factors. Clearly such
qualitative statements are only of very ~imited value for
establishing a safe blasting area for a particular set of
shot conditions.

We wi l l return to the question of correlation of flyrock

and c/m o r powder factors in Sect i ons 5 . 3and 6.4.

3~2.2 Effect of Rock Properties

In the derivation of equation (8) (see Appendix B) we i gnored

. .
any energy-consuming effects other than those requ i red to impart
kinetic energy to the flyrock and the detonation product gases.
Obviously, this is an overs i mpl ification since rock fracture
consumes some of the available chemical energy of the explosives .
Similarly, generat i on of seismic waves in the rock, and the formation
of the crushed rock zone immediately around the borehole, also
consume energy. Rock breakage (at least most of the br eakage),
seismic wave generation and crushed zone formation are substantially
complete before .t he breakont rock mass attains the velocity u 0
{see A-ppendix :E and Refs. 8 and-9). Thus, correction terms for these
energy losses must be introduced into eq~ations (8) (9) or { 1 0) .

For a given homogeneous rock blasted with a given expl osive,

one might expect that:the :

1. ehergy consumed in rock fracture is proportiona l

to m;
2. seismic energy is proportional to c;
3. energy to form the crushed zone is proportional
to c.

12
Assumptions 2 and 3 are fully justified by the data in references
.. 10 and 11 and -reference 9, respectively. ·Ass-umpti<Dn 1 is·
more difficult to justify. The energy to fracture homogeneous rock
should really be proportional to the number of fragments into
which the mass of rock breaks~or more properly to the new surfaces
created by fracture. However, inter - fragment friction during
break-up and possibly plastic deformation of the fragmented material
will also absorb energy. If fracture produces approximately equi-
dimensional fragments, assumption 1 is valid. If the number and
size of fragments varies greatly with shot dimensions (even though
a given explosive is used to blast a given rock mass), assumption 1
is invalid. In the limit of large burdens and small charges it
is known that shots break rock into large chunks or slabs, whereas
under normal production blasting, rock is fragmented into many
roughly equidimensional pieces. 12 Clearly, assumption 1 can be valid
only over a limited range of m/c. Hopefully, it is valid over the
"normal" range of m/c in production blasting.

Taking into account the above energy loss.es, equation (B-4)

of Appendix B has to be modified as f ·ollows:

(11)

where ws ·= seismic energy generated by a unit weight of explosive

W
c
=. energy to crush a unit weight of rock

· W =energy absorbed in breaking out a unit weight of rock

r
K1, Kz, K 3 are proportionality constants.

According to equation (11)

v2 :::: 2E' (c/m)- 2K3 W - 2(KlW +KzW )c/m

0 r s c

or

( 12)

13
According to equation (12), a plot of v~ vs. c/m should give a
K1 W + K2 W
.
straight 1 1ne o f s 1 ope 2E 1 -
I ( s E' c) and 1n
. t ercep t o f
-2K3W . In what follows 12E' will be replaced by 0.44D or D/3
r
depending on whether the main explosive charge is ANFO or any .
other explosive.

3.2.3 Effects of Multiple Boreholes

Consider a series of shots in which spacing between vertical

boreholes, all of diameter d, is 2/3b, b, and 4/3b as shown in a
top-view sketch in Figure 2. In every case assume that hole (1)
fires 1/2 second before hol.e (2) and also assume that the breakout
angle is 90° . For a "typical" round, the rock broken by hole (1)
will have moved some 10 - 20 feet from its original position, thus
creating a new free face for hole (2). The new minimum burdens
for hole (2) are respectively0 . 47lb, 0.707b, and 0.943b for conditions
(a), (b), and (c) in Figure 2. Obviously, condition (a) has the
potential of throwing rockfour times further than condition (c) since
(from equations 2, 7, and 8) it can be shown that the maximum
flyrock range, Lm, is proportional to (d/b~

Normally, the delay between adjacent holes in the front row

of a shot is much less than 1/2 second. Thus, displacement of the
rock broken by hole (l) (still assumeo to fire before hole (2)) is
much less than in the above examples. Alsohole (2) fires (in part)
into a "curtain " of broken and expanding rock. Nevertheless,
because commercial delay devices can occasionall y be erratic, it
is desirable from the point of view of minimizing flyrock to
maintain borehole spacing ~4/3b, so that even gross mistiming does
not create very small burdens between adjacent boreholes.
Unfortunately, this can result in poor fragmentation . Thus, some
compromise is necessary.

14
.I

(a) (b) (c)

+-b--+

Figure 2: SCHEMATIC TOP-VIEW OF BENCH BLASTS WITH VARYING BOREHOLE SPACINGS

 Above,we examined the potentially dangerous effects of
mu lti ple-hole bench blasting . However, under proper conditions
mu l tiple-hole shooting may actually reduce f l yrock range. This
is so because properly delayed multiple - hole shots will ·produce
more fragmentation than the same shots fired "instantaneously".
In these delayed shots it is likely that more of the chemical
energy of the explosive is used in fragmentation processes than
in the instantaneous shots and less energy is thus available to
propel the broken rock . Quantitative formulation of this effect
will be very difficult, but experimental corraboration is available
from the studies of Forsberg and Gustavssor1 ~ who found that
1

instantaneous rounds throw rock further than short-period delay

rounds.

These compensating effects suggest that, in bhe absence of

1,mduly long delays between neighboring noles , highwall flyrock ranges
from single holes or multiple holes can be substantially equivalent.

There is fairly wide-spread belief that i mproper delay

sequencing can result ·in excessive flyrock from unrel ieved
back row holes. Under favorable conditions, this may indeed
happen and produce "wild" flyrock and certainly flyrock in
unexpected directions . The rationale for this belief is as
follows. If a back row hol e shoots before the holes in front
of it have detonated and moved some of the rock between it and the
free face, the effective burden on the back row hole is so large
t hat it cannot be broken by the detonation of the back row hole.
Consequently, this detonation is "rel ieved" by producing excessive
"cratering" (and" flyrock) . at the top of the bench. However , such a
sequence of events is limited to conditions for which the explosive
load is less than a "critical" depth below the bench top. With
sufficient stemming, both actual blasting experience* and experiments14 ·

* The writer witnessed a production shot in an open pit coal mine in

which 9 holes were fired within a few seconds of each other withouf
any apparent "relief" at the vertical face or bench top. Each ho le
contained about 1,500 lb. of ANFO but had 40 feet of stemming and an
average burden of 38 feet.

16
indicate that there will be no such cratering even in the
absence of any nearby free face other than the bench top .
Flyrock from bench tops will be considered in Section 6 .

17
4.0 OBSERVED FLYROCK VELOCITIES AND THEIR COMPARISON WITH
CALCULATIONS

The flyrock measurements that we were able to find in the

literature fall into the following categories:

1. Flyrock from vertical faces for granite. These

data cover a wide range of c/m and a wide range
of detonation velocities, D. These are the
most reliable data we have.
2. Flyrock from vertical faces for dolomite and
limestone. Here both c/m and D ranges are
relatively narrow and the data are discordant.
3. Somewhat discordant data for crater shots in
sandstone. A few of the c/m values here are
subject to the uncertainties discussed in
Section 6.1. The range of detonation
velocities is reasonably wide .
4. Scanty data for flyrock from gra~ite and lime-
stone bench tops. Both c/m and D ranges fo.r
these 'data arc very limited .

Ite1:ts 3 and 4 will be discussed in Section G.

4.1 Normalization of Flyrock Velocity Data

We shall use equation (12) to compare measured and computed

flyrock velocities. According to equation (12) a plot of the
measured velocity squared ~ 2 b )vs. c/m should be linear with a
K 1 Ws +K 2 Wc . 0 s
slope of 2E' (1~ . E' ) and an intercept of -2K 3 Wr' provided
that all velocity measurements are made with the same explosive.
If measurements made with several different explosives are to be
compared with theory, some method of normalizing the measured
velocity data must be developed. I t will be shown ~ i·~ -Apt:endix E-·
that the observed velocities can be no~alized to a common 2E' or
to a common D 2 since 2E' is directly proportional to D 2 • To
illustrate this normalization scheme, suppose that most of the
velocity data for a given rock type is for a dynamite whose Gurney

18
constant (/2ET) ~D 1 /3 where D1 is the detonation velocity of
this dynamite for the conditions of the measurement. No
correction factor will be applied to the observed flyrock
velocities generated with this explosive. Now suppose that
ANFO at a detonation velocity of D2 was used to obtain some of
the velocity measurements in the above rock type. The
normalization factor applied to these latter measurements
(i.c. 1 the factor by which u~FO is multiplied) is:

4.2 Flyrock Velocities from Vertical Faces

We will illustrate the method of "proving-in" our computed

flyrock velocities with flyrock data for granite. For each
measured flyrock velocity datum we computed c/m via equation (7),
or from the ·total amount of rock broken and the total explosive
charge weight, whenever such data were available. · If no information
on the breakout angle a was available, it was assumed that a/2 = 45°
(see Table 1). A least-squares linear regression fit was then used
to obtain the most probable values of the slope and intercept of a
linear plot of measured flyrock velocity squared versus computed
c/m. For each set of data points we also computed a correlation
coefficient r = Sa /a where Sis the linear regression · slop~ · and
X y
ax and ay are the standard deviations of the x and y values. A
correlation coefficient approaching unity shows· that the y and x
values can indeed be represented by a linear relation.

Measured flyrock velocities and computed c/m's for granite

are shown in Table 2. The linear regression slopes and intercepts
for these data are as follows=

Granite: V
2
0
= 3.487 x 10 6 (c/m) - 584 (m/sec) 2
(13)
(17 data points; ·r = 0.999; normalized to D/3 = 2300 m/sec)

19
 .
Normalized * Computedt

Data Source Explosive

D/3
(km/sec)
Ubbs
(m/sec) ~ elm x 10~
1)2
0
(m/sec) 2.
II
Ref. 15 EL-506C. 2.30 1050 4.68a/ 1109
234 2.25a/ 262 I
40%PETN/ 1.08 254 =>2.18a/ :::237 t
NaCX.
60% " 1.50 174 "'1. 95a/ =157 I
:I
EL-506C 2 . 30 104b/ 1.96a/ 160
" 94b/ 1.80a/ 105 -:I
90.3 2.10a/ 209
24c/ 1.20a/ -105
"
12.3c/ 0 . 72a/ -272

Ref. 4 Dynamite 1. 28 480 2.54 363 .

" 3730 11.70 3557
II
5695 18.32 5865
II
" 14500c/ 30.52 10119
. 8730c/ 36.64 12253
19150c/ 39.83 13366
" 28500 83.27 28513

Ref. 16 Gelamite 0 1.995d/ 349 2 . 53 359

753 3.17 582
1202 4 . 93 1196

Ref. 5 Dynamex 1. 00 3885 12.86 3961

2304 9.92 2936
II
4826 17.32 5576

Ref. 17 ANFO 2.10 209

Ref. 18 :::140

* Normalized to 0/3 = 2 . 30 km/sec ·~ u2. == 3. 487 x 10' (c/m) - 584.

0
a/ Ref. 12 gives explosive weight W and the total weight of rock
·W !
broken mt; c/m = (m) (--..!..)where ! 1 =length of borehole and h=height
t n
of rock.
b/ Charge diameter less than borehole diameter.
c/ Not used in computing slope and intercept.
d/ 0.380
e/ Shots in hematite ore.
f/ 0.440
g/ It is claimed that maximum burden to borehole diameter ratio
to break rock is 46. In computing c/m for this ratio we
assumed P /p = 1/2
c m

Table 2: COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND COMPUTED

FLYROCK VELOCITIES IN GRANITE BENCH SHOTS

20
When all the data in Table 2 are used, except those from
References 17 and 18 and the two data points at the bottom
9.~ the group of data taken from Reference 15, r = 0. 971 and

(m/ sec ) 2 (1 3a )

All the data of Table 2 are plotted in Figure 3 to provide

a visual confirmation of the validity of the proposed linear
~elation between V and cjm. Note that the slope and intercept
0
of the line based on all the data (Equation 13a) is quite
similar to the slope and intercept of the line based on data
from which three datum points have been omitted (Eq·.:. 13).

The datum point labelled L&K (and the bottom entry in

Table 2) . -.is. derived from Langefors 16 claim that the maximum
bu~den~to~diameter ratio to just barely break rock is 46. This
,ratio gives a c/m!::: 1.9 x 10-'+ (from Eq. 7) and since it is
cla.imed that rock is just ba:x:-e.ly b~oken v~ !::: 0.

The scanty data for dolomite and limestone vary too much
to permit determination of an accurate relationship such as the
one in equation (13). Consequently, the following equation is
at best an approximation:

2
Dolomite and Limestone: v 2 !::: 3 x 10 6 (c/m) - 200 ·(m/sec) (14)
0
(7 da~a points; normalized to 0.44D = 1880 m/sec; References 16,
19, 2 0; and 21)
-'+
Exam1nation of Table 2 reveals that for c/m ~: l. 5 x 10 ·· ·
equatiOn (13) does not hold. Indeed the data of reference 12 show
some half-dozen points in this region with : finite flyrock velocities,
whereas equation ( 13) predict_s zero flyrock velocity. These low
4
flyrock velocities in the region of c/rn ~ - 1.5 x 10 - may be due
to spalling~ Spall velocities vf~ (i.e., free surface velocities)
in the e l astic range are given by

= 2co -e:- (15)

21
where c is the longitudinal sound velocity in the rock and £ is
0
the strain in the rock at its free surface boundary . Table 3 shows
that there is reasonable accord between spall velocities calculated
by equation (15) and the observed fly velocities in the low c/m
range. Note that all these velocities are quite low.

22
 Free*
Sound Surface
Velocity Stress Velocity Observed
3 ax 10- 7
C X 10:- Strain vfs ·. Velocity
0 4
Rock (m/sec) (dynes/cm 2 ) E: X 1 0 (rn/sec) ·.r(m/sec)

Granite 5 . 20 5.86 2 .9 3a/ 3.0 1.8

II II
8.45 4 . 23a/ 4.4 3.5
II II
8 . 97 4.48a/ 4.7 4.9
II II
1 4.5 7.25a/ 7.5 6.8
II II
19.3 9 . 66a/ 10.0 9.5

Sandstoneb/ 1.32 2.0 5.3 5.8

II II
2.0 5.3 4.0
II II
1.5 4.0 2.7
II II
1.2 3.1 ~o

. * vf s = 2c 0 E:

a/ E: = ~ where Y is Young's modulus =::. 2 x 10 11 dynes/crn 2 according

to Ref.l4 . a from Ref.lS .
b/ Crater shots; E: from curves in Ref. 11.

Table 3: SPALL VELOCITIES IN GRANITE AND SANDSTONE

23
~
u
Q)
til

:? .
til
N .J)
~o
0
::>

Figure 3 : PLOT OF OBSERVED FLYROCK VELOCITY VS . c/m

FOR BENCH SHOTS IN GRANITE

24
 5.0 ESTIMATION OF MAXIMUM FLYROCK RANGE

In Sections 3.0 and 4.0 the groundwork was laid for a method
of computing flyrock range as a function of shot characteristics.
This method will be applied now to computing the maximum flyrock
range of shots that were witnessed! or shots described in MESA
1
accident reports. In our own observations we know whether the
flyrock originated primarily from the vertical face of a highwall
or from the bench top. This information is lacking in the MESA
reports and must be determined a posteriori from the computations.

5.1 Flyrock Ranges from Vertical Faces

Observed and computed flyrock ranges are compared in Table 4.

In general, computed ranges should be equal to or greater than
observed ranges, since in the computation it is assumed that the
~ initiaY flyrock angle B is 45°, but in reality this angle is
usually either greater ·· Or less than 45 o. Most "vertical" faces
arc not truly vertical. Consequently, the burden to the free
face varies along the explosive column (see Figure lb). The
computed fly rock ranges in Table 4 are based on min imum burden
whenever there was sufficient information to determine a minumum
burden. In most MESA reports of blasting accident investigations
the " burden " usually quoted is the separation between rows of holes.
This "burden " can be different from the minimum, average, or
maximum burden to the free face which are the burdens required
for the computation. The MESA reports do not give the maximum
flyrock range but only the distance from the shot to where the
victim was located. Moreover, there is usually no indication
how this distance was measured or estimated. Most of the observed
fly rock ranges extracted from Reference 1 were obtained by scaling
still~camera records of the various shots witnessed,but several
ranges are "eye-bal l" estimates made immediately after a shot.
Incidentally, all the data in Table 4 are based on production
shots in actual surface mines. None of these data are derived
from experimental studies or exploration shots.

25
 Height of
Borehole Explosive Weight of
Diameter Burden Column Explosive/Ft.
d b t W/1 . I2E' u.•
Minet. Rock (inches) (feet)
·-
-~.-.----
I feet} llbs I /ft I) (ft/sec} lftlsec!:

Annapolis
Ouilrry Granite 3 10 ~52 a/ 3720 "-115 "-150
300-
350

Mine J Porphyry 9 27 30 27.8 2.18 6710 2019c/ 63 85 ·.100

lo!ine P Porphyry 7-7/8 25 15 16.7 1. 53 6640 88c/ 3 8 < 50

Mine K Diorite 9-7/8 27 25 32.6 2.71 6710 3592c/ 112 133 ·.100

Ming X !:>il\base 6-1/2 21 69 2.24 6550 2093c/ 65 107 <200

6200b/ 9377 c/ 200 -

~:ine ~' 9-23 26 291 315 4CO

Mine 0 Sandstone 6-1/4 18 12.5 11 2.42 6480 1738 54 64

Hin~ S Shale 9 12 20 22 .s 11.17 6700 3011Se/ 935 955 "-4CO

Mine C Shale 15 3S .,;so 6700 "-l340e/

Mine 8 Shale 15 ~ 38 46 ?. 3.5 7020 ~Sll5e/ ?. 160 ~ 200 '-300

t;olin Coal 5 ~ 12 5 7.0 ?. 3.5 6300 ~ 412Se/ ~ 128 ~ 130 210

rtoberson Coal Shale 6-1/4 9 11.3 - 4.8 6480 : 8465e/ - 260 - 270 4 00

!'-!ine W Limestone 6-3/4 13 38 13 4.52 6580 '1.14193 "-300

N
0'\
.·an~ v Limestone 6-1/2 117 12 '-4.2 6550 "-13015
11i:1e U Limestone 6-3/4 60 13 6580 "-32170 "-1000 "-1060 '>-900
Carbon
Li:r.estone Limestone 6-1/4 "-15 8.3 6480 '-5480 "-170 "-205

Fer:-~ste<lt
01.!-lr:-y Limestone 3-1/2 7 39 3.5 4. 4 6 5750 "-10665

Lil'lestone 3 4.23 3.78 4670h/ 5751 179 230 120

Mine R Dolomite 6 12 so 11 4.24 6450 "-12650 '-390 "-435 "-250

t Sa~e cesignations as in Appendix 8 of Reference 1. Data for named mines from MESA Reports.
* :rro:n Equation 2.
** From Equation 3 but with 1 substituted for h.
a/ Value shown is height of quarry face.
b/ Sl>J::ry ex!)losives with /2£":: D/3; all others are ANFO with 12£" =0.4 D.
c/ Used Equation 13.
d/ Average loading in a tapered borehole.
e/ U9ed Equation 16,
f/ Burden not given in report; estimated from bench width and number of rows.
g/ Flyrock from bench top.
h/ Semi-gel;. D/3

Table 4: COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND COMPUTED FLYROCK RANGES FOR FLYROCK FROM VERTICAL FACES
 Taking into account the several uncertainties listed
above, agreement between the observed and computed flyrock
ranges shown in Table 4 is quite satisfactory. However, all
computed values for flyrock ranges in limestone and dolomite
shots should be considered to be provisionary because of
uncertainty in the values of the constants of Equation (14).

Note that only five of the 19 shots listed in Table 4

threw rock 400 feet or more . In at least one, and probably
two( of these five shots the flyrock originated from the top
of the bench and not from the vertical face. This may suggest
that most "wild" (far-ranging) flyrock does not originate from
vertical faces - an implication that will be examined in
Section 7.0. A similar conclusion can 'be reached on the basis
of Swedish studies (see Section 8.1).

5.2 Correlation of Observed Flyrock Range with c/m

The data of Table 4 are more readily assimilated if they

are presented in graphical form . Examination of Equations (12)
and (2) suggests that observed flyrock range (Lm) should be
plotted as a function of c/m. This suggestion receives
further support from the fact that most of the data in Table 4
I

is for shots with simil ar values of~ Consequently, in

Figure 4 we have plotted observed flyrock range vs. c/m (data
points) . The three computed l ines (from top to bottom) are plots
of Equat i ons (14), (17) t and (13). Included in the plot are
also flyrock ranges for flyrock from bench tops which will be
discussed in Section 6.4. One important conclusion to b'e drawn
from the plot in Figure 4 is that all but two of 21 data
points for flyrock from vertical faces fall within the area of
the "theoretical" lines or lie very near to them (one datum
point, not shown in the plot, which lies within the area of

27
N
00

Figure 4 : CORRELATION OF FLYROCK RANGE OF BENCH BLASTS WITH c/rn

the lines is at Lm = 1200 feet and c/m = 17.5 x 10- 4 ) . An even
more important conclusion is that none of the data points lie
above the computed lines. This is very significant from a
safety point of view since any viable flyrock model should
err in overestimating rather than u~derestimating flyrock
range . Three ~ata points, taken from Reference 5 (one of
these is not shown in the p l ot) involved the use of an
explosive whose f2ET was substantially different from the
/.2ET values in Tab l e 4. The observed flyrock range for these
~hreepointswas normalized according to the procedure described
in . section 4. 1 .

5.3 Attempted Correlation Between Flyrock Range and Powder

Factors

It seems likely that field personnel would prefer to have

flyrock range expressed as a function of something familiar
like powde~ factors rather than the term c/m· which is certainly
not in common use in mining. Consequentl y we have attempted
to make this correlation but were largely unsuccessful as
discussed below.

Figure 5 presents the same data as Figure 4 but the abcissa

is powder factor rather than c/m. The two computed lines shown
are plots of Equation (14) (top) and Equation (1 3) (bottom) with
c/m's {in the equations) converted to powder factors via the
relations given in Section 3 . 2.1, with the .assumptions that
b =a and .R-/h = 0. 75. Included in Figure 5 are data points for
flyrock from bench tops which will be discussed in Section 6.4.

There are two important differences between the plots of

Figure 4 and Figure 5. As discussed in Section 5 . 2, the
correlation between flyrock range and c/m appears to be very
good. The correlation between flyrock range and powder factor
is much less satisfactory. For the latter (Figure 5) , eight of
the 21 data points for flyrock from vertical faces lie outside

29
 ·~:-:::.: ·:~ : :::: =:: .:~
·>i ::~ ~::,.· ! ~ ·:>:
·::.
00
:~::
,= .: :=
>>: <<. ·:::\>:. ::·:/:·
! . : :7~L~:~~-~
00
.. ::
·-·fr--·l+,~:~'." ~:: ..: ~::. :~ :: / :<></~~ ~~:~j~~ ~!~: !~~: ~~\~~!!
!... ·.. - . - ~99-' =t:u~~~~~: :.: :·: ··y :; <: =~:: ;:!:;~. :;;<><<
.,=· ·
00

00 i· · 00 .. ,,
·-· : I
·- --·1-- 0 · -'----·i-
·-- · · · · ·-i 1 ··-·--1
l . · 'L ·-f--·· . . 1• • l,. 1:
· - . ... ·-- · 0000 ..... oo,
' !avbrage
1;8000000100 ·. :: .. · .!
r-.· 0 · - t---
I ·.)_, : 00 :· ::: ·.: ·::· .::: :::: .. : ·::·
· .: : ~ 00. ·y :0 . 0i 0 00 : =j -1 ° ·: : • :
00
• . I: ...! . ·: ., . 00 I . : : · ·: .';= ~ :: ::: =~~: ~·~ -~~~ :~:~ ::~: ~H:: : :

~::=;·: ~ •oo:l_._: <i::·; ·oo i : : !~~: ':::j-.·~~~ :::·:

=· 00 ·T ... . . . 1·==- 1== :~ 000 , 00 . . . . .. 000 oo·
~~ ·~-~~:~~:+· -:: '::::
I'.P' ,. . ... 0000 .:::.~ : ~:~. ·:~: ;~~-~ >~ ;~;~ ~~~ ~~~: ~~~<:!
r' I .. i. .
0 .'. ••• :

oo . ; . . . .oo. , ..... . 100 oo· ... ... 00. .. , ....... , .

1200
:I' : ! :(: ': 01 0 :· ~i 0 0: 01 0 I . ; - 0 1: . . I . :· . ~·I ···ti' ·: .: 0 . : <"::: ·:·:: ::,;;:: :::.i :::
:~ · · .. ::00
~!~~t~~r
1100 ... . ............ 0
· -T:::- :- ,--- ~~ 0~~~~--~~~: ~: ~~- ~~:
. .. 0 t •. • •
·h- ::- ~~:-~T-:
• 0 .. 0 . •
·-=-·
0
·t~- ~-;1:--0 !-~~r::
0.
.;: : ·~
. .....
= :<·'·· :>
...
<0 :..-: 0·=;........ 1~:;: :;::. <
::i: :::;:,..... 0
. ·\~' v 1 (','3~ •••

.:: i·:. 00=.1:. : . t. · ~

~;:.._ ~:....:.t:..:_:f-.-:....1.:....:: :_·
I ·!.'·. w··=l00 _....
• --·.II ..:_ ' ' .. f-- .:.:.~.
: =:. :.: . 00. ... ~! .... = .. .=··...=· :::: == === = ~·oo·, , 0000
=·=· ::.: ===· ~\~.·
== =· =:==
.. . ;. ·
j0l ·.. ., :, .. ... ;;,:::; .;• ...;._ __ IJ I__ _ · . ... ... .. . .
, ... ... ,
. . .-r:
. ..
,;,.1--_: ,.._
:::; ::·1:_:
00 00 i oo: . .0000: 1.:.
00 00 .. . . ._ .00 00.::· .=00::. :-:·
. .. :=:
00. . .... ::.. ·:::
00 . . :_ ·.·
. .. .
=i: :.:: :::: . . : ::::
, 00 . .. 00.. . , . . .... 1 .
;, : :..
. . .
:;:, . .~o\\j:~::·.::.
<\\e..,/
:;;·!·::=
.. . 00 r.;,_ .
1000
. i "··r . ...
:=· = - 1 ~ ·- .. =:.
. : __
:.~::.: -: .:.:~1 ·-J~. ~~ ~-~~_::, ~·: :~~~~:._f...::. ~:: 1. :.: ~:1 "' .~~~~~~~ J~ ;~ ;Jl_~ j~J.~ ~J-:· :~: .i :>/ ·l:.± ·:::[: ·= l_:_i!_.
' 0

p. .: ;· ..
Ill . • . ·=·
:· 00 = · . / ·00 _.. Ii . 0 0
. 0~- 0 0 - '1-1 .. ~
= . · . .. , . . · .
900 ° ....... .. 0° .J 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0
0 0 0 . .. 0 0 0
~ :.:.; .. :: :! . : ·i . ~I ·
00 . /

=. , :· .· 00:: ·. . : 00. :·.1 ..: :. ·f :: o ! .3" . :·• ·001< . •:· .:: : .. 00 ../ . =. . :.0 ·:00 ·: 0 __...:_
. . . . j:.
TI 00 ---+--·-
i'-·- . .~ ·-! ···- 00 u 0 - ..: j..._:.. ...: ~-r--:- _.0 _:_:_I-/ - - 00 0
+II
>".• •· . _
. . . . .. . .
• C:...:.:.i -0 0 ' 0 00 . 0 0 0 0 -
8

·~800 :·i,. ~ i
oooo l " 0 ·r 00 oolo . 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 ....

4····::. ~~:,_=:; .:J.~- -~~~-:. : ~j,: ~ ~· ._ . ... ~--k2.<i. ~~r.

<d 0 0 ... -~ + ·' 00 0 ooo 00 v. 0 0 0 00 00 000 . 000 0 0 0 0 I

..· . . .•. ..· · .•..

w
0
"""
z :. ·: · . :: . ·
0000 0 ", ... 000

g600 00.';= :·
·: : . : · : ·. · · : ·: : : . :: ·
0 0 0 .. 0000 0000 0 0000 ..
~1oo .. T.:: .:::,: ..· ::: loo= .:. ;:: ;;· .. ::· . .
00
. .

<:!:: .: :i.. ·· ·: .=: 00 0 . ·~·: := 0 0

. : . · ·
00 0 : · · =~.
. I 00
• . : . .
·+:.: = . ~ g
.. -o

1
·
0 0: . . .. r. .......
0 v . .j

::· 1
I
00 r · . :..
.
I

:
:·
:.: ~ -;. ~~-+.:.... :....:..(.:. -·. :::. ::== . _']...:+-:1·-:- ~-~.. ... . :-:-i. -· ·~ ... :. ·.. - ..; :~ -; ~~ .:· .·· ... ::.~··~ :T··. :.= :::=
.
1
.
. 00 I 0 00 0 0 oo 0 .. 0 0

-:
00 .
..
. .. . . ..1 .

·. ·.
. ' (\ ·
.~ ~.>i : ....: :·:· :00

: ...
'i 00 .
.

1: ..
· k ~
w. :
-, ......... ·. 0 ·. -~. ·.:
!7. . ::

:=· :·:
. 00: .. :·· :·:.,·

OOY. . 0 ·: :·: ·:: ··:· ::: ': 0 .

000 ·::
~ 1 00

.00
.. 1

1.. .
:

;;
....:!
.[· : 0.I .. I ,. 0 ..
··:r-- ·--~--- _,. ,.... _., 00000- - · -- ... I'
0
¢1I : [/'! l 0
00 ... J .. .. oooloo·· ~~ · I 0 .... ,.............
.I . ° ° 00 ° 0 I . . . . .v
. 0 0 00
··- -- yf'·,. ·- --··--f-- .....;. - ---- -:-t--
°

(<;500 . T ~= ·:: ·.: · . . · : · ; . :.:- .:: . . :,· :: ~~ · . . L · .- . : ;v ~ =: .= · : . =. = ·: . · 1

S .=·!:: · :.1. = i ·. : I .:00 .:·:1: :i . ·l oo:i·:.,v' -~ ;-. --:-~ · - ~·~ · .r- ·.v T" . ,.:: .: .: .. · :::: :.: ::=: ::: .:. · ·:': ..
:~J~~.~ .. .-· .~:t.~
1:

~400 ~.·:r·~r-~.-=-r=.~~~-- 1---77 -.1-'r=w :~- -~. ·:· ~?~~-~ ·-~t;E ;~~ ~~~j~-~.~~~-~~~ ~~ ~-.
=

9 Noima1i ed l Gt anii.tE 4· 00
~
·· I I . -- ·--=::.:-·rd
~! 1
1.·. ::: 00. _j . 1

o
:.1·:. :: 1 · · .·: :
-- ·t:·~---1-- -·1·->--l-·- ---:- "7" . . ,--.:..- . ' . ·-~
f
...
.
• ... , . ;m ;. •
~r~nite· J -·-r· ·--~- ---. 00.
.· .:
00 00
.
. . . ..
d : · · ; r ~9,
·.:·---v7·z·
. . 00 ; .
300 0 . 1100 ·r V-- l _ ~=L~;;p1dst 0_~!=! I . . .
00: l: ..:. . ·I·:
, ..
:;-1-:-.. !~·--r··-·
0

,
: _j' ·· w=· .l' 0 l17. I'

.· v . . :*
I
. !-·-,
f-;-- ~ . )(.--,----..
';"''
.. -o rrioF±
. p-·-rj . =---1 . :: . : :Joo ~ -ti1~~~~ .. . I
0. !
. i
j.....
l
-· ~ ·-·.,~ j·-~-r-· ~ Tprqph~r
0 0 :.· X •Limestote
, , ' br Dolo~
, iti:.::
r
IJI :::: j.·
e-·' ·.. :· .· ·.·.
0° 'I :
?OO . ;00·.:. ;.:.

100

0
~: ~rrrn
Q.
/
2
;·

· ~·-~ ·~-~-· -~
r·---::;.:;-.
i
i-oo· • 0 --- ---·-
I' .0
0. 6
! ./ I
I

0 . :I
1
·~

oo· :t .. · ·
0
I
i
00
:[ .~- --~- -i ~~ - ~ b~~! ~~~~;~=~~~-lj~t :-~~;:~=~~~~- ~r-:-
·-,-. · .... 0000 .. ·j
0 .. j ·
l. 4
. 0
l. 8
I. .
: ·
i
2. 2
j' j
0
Ari·owl· t
• I oo 0 j
2. 6
0
'=· Gr~at~r· th?n· "" in the · dat~ --- oo-..;-:-
SignHi s ber ch! tdo nJrock· . .T 00
3. 0 - - ·3. 4
·1 :-: : :!

3. 8
.. · .:.l=

4. 2
=

POWDER FACTOR (LBS./CU . YD.)

F i gure 5 : ATTEMPTED CORRELATION OF FLYROCK RANGE FROM BENCH BLASTS WITH POWDER FACTORS
the area between the two "theoretical .. lines. Even more
disturbing is the fact that six of these points lie well
above the uppe r theoretical line. This means that a correlation
based on powder factors tends to underestimate flyrock range.
From a safety point of view such a correl ation is bad unl ess
the d~gree of underestimation is acc-urately known over the
practical powder factor · range.

31
:----- ··~ , - -,...--....~--·---.,:-:--__,.---
6.0 FLYROCK FROM BENCH TOPS

In the preceding sections we have been considering flyrock

that originates from a "vertical " free face. We will now
examine conditions that can produce flyrock from "horizontal"
free faces (bench tops). It will become quite apparent that
quantitative treatment of this problem is more complex and the
results obtained are l ess certain than those for flyrock from
vertical faces.

6.1 M0del for Flyrock. Ve-locities. from Bench Tops (Cratering)

There are two serious problems in adapting the Gurney approach

to bench top :Ely rock; .namely :

1. The assumption that the material surrounding the

explosive charge acts as a "rigid wall" in all
directions but those of material breakout is less
plausible than the equivalent assumption for
well - stemmed shots with verticar · breakout.
2. The values of c/m are difficult to establish
because crater dimensions (amount of material
broken) go through a maximum that varies with
explosive charge weight and the depth of the
explosive charge below the bench top.

If the rigid wall assumption is valid, a'nd if an appropriate

c/m can be defined, the equations for the initial velocity of
cratering shots are almost identical with those given for bench
shots. The minor difference between these shots is that the Gurney
constant is 12E for a head-on detonation rather than 12E' for
the tangential detonation that obtains in vertical breakout:
Because of the potentially large uncertaint i es introduced by
problem areas (1) and (2) above this minor difference will be
ignored. To use these equations one needs to establish means of
estimating c/m for crater shots. At present this can only be done
empirically.

32
 Duvall and Atchison 1tt showed that plots of V/W vs. s;wlh
give roughly bell - shaped curves for several different rocks
blasted byreveral types of explosives (Figure 6). Here, V is
crater volume, W is explosive charge weight, and s is depth of
burial of the center of mass of a concentrated charge. Within
the large scatter of their data, type of explosive does not
appear to affect these curves for any given rock. The relation
be~ween V/W and c/m is as follows:

c/m ::: W/p V (16)

m

where Pm is the density of the rock in lbs/ft 3 , if w is in

pounds and V is in ft 3 • There are however two serious questions
that need to be resolved before applying these data to the
estimation of c/m. They are:

1. What is s for an elongated rather than

concentrated charge?
2. Is it meaningful to use the portion of
the curves to the right of their maxima?

A posteriori, it has been found that taking s as the

distance from the bench top to the center of mass of an
elongated charge (the kind usually encountered in bench
blasting} leads to a gross underestimate of flyrock range.
There is some ad hoc experimental justification for taking s
as the distance to the top of an elongated charge, and then
still use the experimental curves of V/W vs. s/W 1~ that were
obtained for s equal to the distance to the center of mass of
a concentrated charge (see Table 7).

Use of curves beyond their maxima in estimating c/m and

subsequently v0 leads to an absurdity. These curves show that
for large s/W 1~,V/W is small and above a critical value of
s/W 1~ no crater is formed. Since c/m increases as V/W
decreases, use of v;w, taken from the branch of the curve
where V/W is decreasing, predicts increasing flyrock velocities,

33
 1--: ' ..
l::l d;:~ :" !ii n~H iii~!W l it~ ::c Jir H~ ·~1 um~~~~~ I :.: l l·ii :1 nwj: 1
ITH ~~tltHiH mlt4 IrE ttHhr. '1 1:!! 1~! f.;t1
i~, 1
i:; . 1l
~[1i iitilif! In! llii~ lt8 ;3 lfi ··r;l
20
~. H!l ''
:.:1
1"-:":.< ~gl tC:.f:;
ll 1 1~ ~.~~ I'! 1~1
l:!:!t ~t;
It;; ~~ I~I
;1
~:..:
1:1
19

18

17

16

t-- !-'.!
15
t~"
t '--'7 t-·•
14
..Q
r-1
......... 13
"'+l
4-l
12
I+' t;
~
~ I ""'"I
......... ~
:>
.
11
(i Ull
C)
H .;;

•
::sE
r-1
10
ji::::l r.; ,.; l+'' tqi
ll
ttU w
'-'
0
:> IT.:
I '-•
r-
9
~ +++
C)
4J
(j . 8 n-
H
(.) )II
'"0 7 1-
C)
r-1
(j
() 6
~~
(,'}
l!.i
l i~ li
5
t;ii ttl! !I!:! f!1
1*1w W.:t:w.:nt

4
[1m m1:! l:;:t;

•
!ti It~

3
~ Y•
~ ~=
I
1
h
:1
'"""
l.:t
1 2 3

· · SG::aled C.ha~ge-· De.pth . sjW 1 ~ ( ft/lb 3 j

Figur e 6' : SCALED CRATER VOLUME AS A FUNCTION OF SCALED EXPLOSIVE

CHARGE DEPTH

34
whereas in reality these velocities are decreasing and in
the limit of no cratering, become zero.

For shots that are bottom-primed (and most bench shots

are) and well-stemmed, the above procedures provide only an
upper limit of the initial flyrock velocity because some
breakout from the vertical face occurs prior to cratering
from the bench top. Obviously , such prior breakout is
incompatible with the assumption that the explosive charge
is surrounded by a "ri~id wall'', consequ~ntly the computed
initial oench top fly r ock velocities are overestimates.

In view of the difficulties described above we have also

attempted (~ut only with modest success} to use an alternate
'
empirical approach to estimate initial velocities of flyrock
from bench tops. This approach will be discussed in Section
6.4~

6.2 Flyrock Velocities from Bench Tops

We will adapt Equation (12) and the normalization procedure

of Section 4.1 to the computation of flyrock velocities from
bench tops, with the proviso that c/m in Equation (12) be obtained
via Equation (16) rather than . Equation ( 7) which was used for c/m
for computing flyrock velocities from vertica l faces. Flyrock
velocities thus computed are compared with observed velocities
in Table 5 for sandstone and in Table 6 for granite, limestone
and basalt.

The sandstone data are well represented by the following

equation obtained from linear regression analysis:

2
Sandstone: u2
0
= 2 .266 x 10 6 (c/m) -475 (m/sec) • (17)

(10 data points; r = 0.999; normalized to 0.3BD = 1750 m/sec)*

* The exact relation between I2E' and D depends on r (see Appendix C) •

For f = 3, 1'2E'~ D/3 and for f < 3, 12E ~ D/3 . For the explosive
used to normalize the sandstone data,r : ~2.5.!\ 14122 and J'~~ 0.3BD .

35
 Normalized * Computedt
0.38D u2
obs ** u2
0
Date Source Explosive (km/sec) _l_m/sec) 2 c/m x 104 (m/sec)

Ref. 16 Gelamite 2 1 . 75 4099 20 . 8 4238

II II II
753 4.56 558
II II II
595 4.56 558
II II II
455 3.90 409
II
60 HP gel 2.10a/ 930 6.08 903
II II II
316 4 . 40 522
II II II
161 3.90 409
II
Hercom. B 1.20a/ 13360 60.8 13302

Ref. 1 ANFO 1.95b/ 445 3 . 72 386

II It 1. 98b/ 228 3.80 386

e/
Ref . 17 ANFO 2 . 07b/ 72c/ 2.7 134

Ref. 18 ~oc/d/ ::::1.9 ::::-44

* Normalized to 0.38D = 1.75 km/sec (Gelam.2)

**See text for method of computing c/m
t u2 = 2.266xl0 4 (c/m) - 475
a/ D/3
b/ 0 . 44D
c/ Not used in computing slope and intercept.
d/ See footnote g in Table l .
ej Hematite waste rock.

Table 5: COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND COMPUTED

FLYROCK VELOCITIES IN SANDSTONE CRATER SHOTS

36
 Computed Observed
I2E s/Wl/3 uo Vo
Data Sou r ce Explosive (km/sec) Rock (ft/lbl/3 ) elm x 10 4 (m/sec) (m/sec)

Ref. 19 ANFO 1 . 70 Limestone 0.69 13.37a/ 67b/ 69 (58-79)

II
" 1. 70 II
0.71 13 . 07a / 66b/ 66
II II
1 .75 " 0.90 9 . 97a/ 55.5b/ 43 (38-47)
II II
1.75 II
0.2 1 ~58 a/ ~138b/ 104 (98 - 109)
II II
l . 79 II
1.00 8.9la/ 5lb/ 33
II II
1 . 98 II
1.5 5.82a/ 36.5b/ :::21c/
II II
1 . 84 Granite 1.73 5.41 29 . 5d/ 45 (37 - 52)

Ref. 5 Rheolit B 1.67 " 0.48 20.90 60 ~90e/

II II II
" 0 . 73 12.89 46 :::,73e/
w
'-l II II II II
0 . 99 9 . 32 38 ~ 5 4e/

' .

Ref. 23 TNT 2.10 Basalt 0 . 14 ~65a/ 1 36f/ ~100

II
" II II II ~65a/ 12791 ~ 1 00

a/ From Figure 3 assuming that the curve for g r anite also holds for limestone and basalt.

b/ u~ ~ [.3xl0 6 (c/m) - 2 0 0](l~~ 8 )2; see Eq·. 14 .

c/ Computed via Eq. 5 f rom ma x height of flyrock seen i n a still photo. True max height
may not have been attained; a l so rock may have projected at 8 ~ 90° .
2
d/ From c/m and Eq . 13 normalized by 2E/(2.3) •

e/ No sterruning f/ Used Eq. 1 3 g/ Used Eq. 14

Tabl e 6 : COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND CALCULATED FLYROCK VELOC I TIES
FOR CRATER SHOTS IN GRANITE, LIMESTONE AND BASALT
 Here, as in the bench shots for granite, there may be
spalling in the low c/m range (see Table 3).

The few available measurements of crater shotflyvelocities

in limestone, granite and basalt are compared with computed
ve l ocities in Table 6 . Agreement between measured and computed
values is fair-to - good for limestone and basalt and poor for
granite. This is somewhat surprising since we can estimate
cjm for granite fairly accurate l y according to the ascending
branch of Figure 6 , and we do have well - established consta n ts
f or the. linear relationship between v 2 and c/m for granite
0
(Eq . 1 3) , whereas for limestone the constants in Equation (14)
are only provisionary and we have no dat a (o f t he type shown
~ n F i gure 6 for gran i te and sandstone) for estimating c/m fo r

either limestone or basalt. For basalt we also have no

constants for the linear v~ and c/m equation. To obta i n c/m
for l i mest one and basal t we assumed that both were "granite-
like" in their cratering behavior and used the curve f or granite
1n Figure 6 to estimat e t he i r c/m. As shown in the last entry
in Tab l e 6 , use of the gran ite constants {Eq. 13) or l i mestone
constants (Eq . 14) changes the computed velocity for basa lt
on l y slightly.
For gra ni te t hree o f f our measured velocit i es are
appreciab l y higher than the corresponding comput ed velocities .
The three shots for which flyrock veloc ities were measuredwere
unstemmed . This suggests that l ack of stemming may generate
gre a t er-than-expected flyrock velocities even t hough the top
of t he explosive charge is app rec i ably below t he top of the
bench . Obviously, this ad h oc hypothesis needs check i ng.

38
6.3 Estimation of Flyrock Range from Bench Tops (Cratering)

Observed and computed flyrock ranges, for f l yrock

originating from bench tops, are compared in Table 7. The
various caveats discussed in Section 5.1 also apply to these
shots. A further difficulty is introduced by the uncertainty
in estimating c/m for crater shots (see Section 6.1). In
some shots it was impossible to determine a priori whether
flyrock originated at the vertical face or at the top of the
bench . Such shots are listed in both Tables 4 and 7. In
general , agreement between observed and computed flyrock
ranges for bench top flyrock is surprisingly good.

The r esults in Table 7 suggest that c/m for "hard" rock

(taconite and limestone) , for which we have no explicit data ,
can be obtained from the granite curve of Figure 6 . Similarly,
the results of Tables 4 and 7 imply that it is permissible to
use granite constants (Eq. 13) f or taconite , and to use
sandstone constants (Eq. 17) for shale as well as the sand-
stone curve in Figure 6 for estimating c/m for shale.

6.4 Correlation of Bench Top Flyrock Range with c/m or

Powder Factors

Observed flyrock ranges from bench tops (as well as flyrock

ranges from vertical faces) were presented as a function of c/m
in Figure 4 and as a function of powder factors in Figure 5.
I n the c/m plot, four of eight top flyrock data points fal l
within the r egion defined by the computed lines. All four data
points outside of this region are below the lowest theoretical
line. In the powder factor plot (Figure 5), only one datum
point is within the "theoretical" region, two data points are
very close to it, and five data poin ts are outside it . Four of
these five outside points are well above the top computed line.
Thus, as it is for flyrock from vertical faces , correlation
between top flyrock range and c/m is appreciably better than the
corresponding correlation with powder factors .

39
 Bench 1/3*
Height s/w L'
h I2E' vJ Lm m Lobs
Mine Rock (feet) (ft/lb1/ 3 ) . c/mxl0 4 ** (ft/sec) ~ft.::: sec) 2 (feet) (feet) (feet)

Reno Construction Limestone 14 1.65 5 . 25 a/ 6000 14035 435 450 210

Carbon Limestone Limestone 50 0.76 12.3 a/ 6480 41555 1290 1338 600

Star Route Quarry Limestone 36 0 . 93 10.4 a/ 5600 25966 806 840 850-
1000

Ferns teat Quarry Limestone 40 -vl.O "'~· 6 a/ 5750 "-25125 "-780 "-820 450

Mine u Limestone 70 1. 76 5 . 25 a/ 6580 16881 524 589 "-900 b/

Mine 0 Taconite 35 -v0.45 -vl9C/ 6200 d/ "-44000 "-1400 "-1430 "-1000

Mine M Taconite 4. 76 c/ 6200 d/ 8262 257 300 200-

50 1. 53 400
Mine c Sandstone 60 1.65 3. 72 6700 5394 168 "-168 e/ 'V200

Mine c Shale 110 3.49 6700 -vo 'VQ 'VQ 0

f/
"'"
0 Mine B Shale 68 1..72 "-3.7 7020 "-5850 "-180 "-230 'V300

Mine I Shale 44 1.80 'V3 . 7 f/ 6700 "-5330 "-165 'V200 "-200

* s = length of stemming column and weight of explosive column.

** From Figure 6.
a/ From Figure 6 and curve for granite.
b/ Flyrock from vertical face; see Table 4.

cj From Figure 6 and curve for granite. Equation 13 used to compute · 1Jo2 •

d/ Slurry explosive; values shown are D/3 .

e/ 'Flyrock landed at about same level as bench top.
f/ From Figure 6 and curve for sandstone.

Table 7: COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND COMPUTED FLYROCK RANGES FROM BENCH TOPS
6.5 Empirical CorrelationBetween Velocities of Bench Top
Flyrock and Depth of Charge Burial

From preceding discussions it is evident that use of

the Gurney approach to compute flyrock range for bench top
flyrock is beset by many uncertainties and moreover requires
experimental data (Figure 6) for the estimation of G/m.
Consequently , we have tried a purely empirical correlation
of flyrock velocity and scaled depth of burial of the
explosive. Figure 7 is a log-log plot of observed flyrock
velocity (mostly measured but some calculated from measured
flyrock range with e assumed to be 45°) as a function of
1
s/W fi for granite, limestone and sandstone. The observed
velocities were normalized by the procedure described in
Section 4.1. The distance s (depth of burial) is from the
borehole collar to the top of the explosive column.

Examination of Figure 7 reveals that for s/W 1/ 3 < 1 . 5 ft/l'b 1/ 3

the plots for g~anite and sandstone appear to be linear. The
limestone data in .this range vary appreciably but appear to fall
mostly within the region defined by the granite and sandstone
lines. Note that for a given s/W 1~ the flyrock velocity for
granite (~nd consequently flyrock range) is appreciably greater
than the flyrock velocity for sandstone. For s/W 1fi > 1.5 ft/lb 1~
there still appears to be a linear relation between log u and
0
3
log s/WI/ but the slope of this line is much steeper than the
corresponding slope of the lines in the region of s;wlh < 1. 5.
Such a change in slope is not unexpected since u 0 rapidly
approaches zero as s/W 1~ exceeds 2 to 3 ft/lb 1~. Included in
Figure 7 are spall velocities, computed via-Equation {15), for
s/WI/3 ranges where spalling may predominate. The slopes of
these computed spall lines (broken lines in Figure 7) appear
to be steeper than the "eye-ball" line (heavy line in Figure 7)
through the data for s/W 1~ > 1 . 5.

41
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 2 ·3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 L
10
9
8

5_

'
2 3 4
,
T~~s----------------~--------------H-u
-n~Cfreds
Th'(:(usands
vobs (m/sec)

Figure 7: EMPIRICAL CORRELATION OF BENCH-TOP FLYROCK WITH SCALED DEPTH OF CHARGE BURIAL
 Flyrock ranges,for granite and sandstone, based on the
empirical correlation of Figure 7 are compared with flyrock
ranges computed from the Gurney model in Table 8 for s/w 1fi ~
1.75 ft/lb 1~. Agreement between these two methods of estimating
flyrock range for bench top flyrock is fairly good . The maximum
diffe.rence between these two sets of estimates is about 27% .
For s/Wl/3 > 1. 75 ft/lbl/3 we have no means of estimating c/m
(see Figure 6 and discussion in Section 6.1) . Thus, no
comparison can ·be made between .the empirical and Gurney methods.
In any case, the flyrock range under these conditions ( s/W 1/ 3 >
1.75) . is expected to be small.

43
 Assum;id \) * Lm* \.)2 \) L **
s/Wl 3 0 *** 0 0 m
·Rock . (.ft/ lb l/3 ) (m/sec) (m) cjm x 10'* (m/sec) (m/sec) (m)

Granite 1.75 35 125 5.46 1320a/ 36 135

Granite 1.5 39 155 6.06 1529a/ 39 156
Granite 1 .0 ' 54 297 9.32 2666a/ 52 272
Granite 0.5 94 900 21.6 6460a/ 83 708

Sandstone 1.6 20 41 3.72 368b/ 19 38

Sandstone 1.3 24 59 4.20 477b/ 22 49
Sandstone 1.0 30 . 92 5.29 724b/ 27 74
Sandstone 0.7 42 180 8.21 1385b/ 37 141
Sandstone 0.5 56 320 17. a 3377b/ 58 344

* From Figure 7
** From Equation (2)
* ** From Figure 6
a/ From Equat ion (.13)
b/ From Equation (17)

Table 8: COMPARISON OF EMPIRICAL AND GURNEY-MODEL FLYROCK RANGES

FOR BENCH TOP FLYROCK

44
7.0 "WILD" FLYROCK

Wild flyrock may be defined as f lyrock that travels much

further than flyrock that is normally encountered in any given
blasting operation 1 or further than estimated by existing rules
of thumb {see Section 8). Tab l e 9 shows a comparison between
computed flyrock ranges and observed flyrock ranges for shots
in which the latter is much larger than the former. Obviously,
wild shots can be extremely dangerous. Thus, every effort should
be made to determine what causes a shot to become wild. Unfor-
tunately, information on shot conditions that obtained for these
wild shots is scarce and insufficiently detailed. For four of
the 10 shots shown in Table 9 the MESA accident investigation
reports gave essentially no details about shot conditions.
Possibly four or five of the 10 shots had the explosive column
too high in the borehole. One or two wild shots have been
attributed to fissures .
There is certainly no doubt that a borehole loaded almost
to the collar will throw rock over a wide distance. This type
of overload must be avoided. If part of the borehole caves in
just prior to loading or during loading, the explosive column, if
unchecked, can a lso come close to the collar. Similarly, if some
of the explosive cartridges (ANFO) float up in wet holes wild
flyrock may be generated. Clearly it is very important to
monitor the distances between the t op of the charge and the hol e
collar before the hole is stemmed. If at all possible, sA~lh
should be kept greater tha n 2 ft/ lbw This will keep bench top
flyrock down to a minimum.
Other causes for wild flyrock are much more difficult to
establish. Obviously, a sufficient burden must be mainta ined
for every hole near a free face. This is easier said than done .
Vertical faces are usually irregular and a small caved -in portion
of the face may result in a much smaller burden in the reg ion of
the cave-in than the average burden. Potentially even more
hazardous are undetected internal cave-ins or fissures. They may
reduce burdens drastically. Preliminary results {see data marked
with b/ in Table 2) indicate that considerable decoupling of

45
 Computed L~ (feet) . Lobs Powder Factor
Mine Rock Bench Top Vertical Faoe (feet) lbs/yd 3 Possible Cause
Conklin Quarry Limestone '11430 'V230 1200 0.45 Overloaded holes (?)
a/
Sibley Quarry Limestone small "-125 475 0.9 Undetermined
Roberta Quarry Limestone "-150 '11135 1600 '111.7 Undetermined
Falling Springs Limestone '11790 'V270 2000 0 . 7 max . Fissures; also mar-
Quarry ginal stemming
Okalona Quarry Limestone a/ 1600 a/ Overloaded holes
Oglesby Quarry Limestone a/ 2500 a/ Undetermined
Latah Quarry Trap Rock 30-120b/ 330 0:68 Undeterminedd/

Mine 0 Taconite ·"-300 max. 4500 1. 2 avg. Insufficient stemming

Berkely Pit Porphyry a/ 840 a/ Some holes may have
partially caved in;
consequently explo-
sive load could have
risen much higher
than planne<.l.
Mine A Sar.dstone '11800 0.53 Fissures

a/ Insufficient information to .compute.

b/ Lower value computed with granite constants; higher value computed ~ith limestone constants .
c/ According to shot conditions given ir. the report.
d/ Flyrock must have originated at bench top since observed flight time is much too long for flyrock
from vertical face.

Table 9 "WILD" FLYROCK

charge and burden does not alter flyrock velocity. This suggests
that to a f irst approximation the flyrock ve l ocity produced by a
given explosive load for boreholes with and without intersecting
internal cavi ties will vary inversely as the minimum burden (rock
thickness) of the respective conditions. For example, if the
minimum burden for a hole in uncavitated rock is b and that for
cavi t ated rock in the reg i on of the intersecti ng cavity is b/2,
t he expec t ed flyrock velocity o f the latter is abou t twice the
former, and flyrock range o f t he latter is about four times the
former.

Fissures extending close to the free face may produce an

additiona l dangerous effect . Loose rocks within such fissures
may be shot out as "cannon- balls " ; i. e . , the fissure acts as a
gun barrel and permits a much longer accel eration time of the
loose rock than is normally enc0untered in open pit blasting.
Incidentally, Swedish studies 5 ind icat~ that loose rocks
on the surface of a crater shot achieve a f l y veloc ity that is
essentially equivalent to that obtained in a simi lar crater shot
without loose rocks on i ts surface.

In Tab l e 9 we included powder facto r s whenever such

informa t ion was available. Note t hat there i s no correlation
between powder factor and flyrock range. In view of the
discussion above this is to be expected . Certainly powder
factors . provide no informa t ion about the presence of cav i ties
or fissures . Since powder fac t ors are comput ed from average
loads per hole t hey prov i de little or no warn i ng about a few
holes that may be over l oaded ; i . e ., holes in which the charge
comes close to the borehole collar.

Incorrect or inaccurate delays between holes can conceivably

generate wild flyrock . The possibl e effects of incorrect timi ng
were discussed in Section 3 . 2 . 3 .

47
8.0 ESTIMATION OF FLYROCK RANGE FOR FIELD USE

The results and conclusions of the preceding sections

are of limit ed va l ue · un l ess they can be adapted for field
use. Consequently a series of simple charts have been
developed which give flyrock range as a function of shot
conditions. These charts as' well as direction for their use
are presented i n Appendix D. If deemed suitable, the contents
of Appendix D can be distributed to field personnel .

In this . section we will briefly summarize prior attempts

a t estimating f l yrock range and present the rationale for the
charts in Appendix D.

8 .. l Prior Attempts at Estimating Flyrock Range

There appears to be a ru l e-of-thumb of unknown origin

and rationale which states t h at flyrock range is three times
tli.e bench height . · A·c cording to the data in Table 10 this
rule-of-thumb is highly unreliable since in about two-thirds
of the compari sons shown (lower grouping in Tabl e 1 0) it predic t s
tncorrect flyrock ranges . Moreover all but one of these false
predictions are underestimates and some are gross underestimates .

For bench top flyrock a comparison between rule - of- thumb

and observed flyrock range i s even worse than that shown in
Table 10 for vertical face flyrock. Only two of 10 comparisons
are reasonably close. Aga i n, the rule - of- thumb generally
grossly underestimates flyrock range.

Ash~ suggests that the ratio of stemming height to

burden (s/b) be maintained larger than 2/3 to prevent bench
top f l yrock . He a l so suggests that, on the average , b/d for
efficient blasting should be about 30 (but the range here is
wide: 14 for "weak" explosives in hard material and 49 for
"strong'' explosives in soft material). The maximum load per

48
 Bench Observed
Height::::h Flyrock 3h
Mine Rock (ft) Range (ft)

Mine D Sandstone 20 'V50 60

Mine J Porphyry 40 'Vl00 120
Mine p Porphyry 25 <50 75
Mine K Diorite 50 'VlOO 150
Mine v Limestone 117 'V350 351
Mine X Diabase 80 <200 240

Annapolis Quarry Granite 52 200-400 150

Mine H Shale 40 'V400 120
Mine c Shale 110 'V20 330
Mine B Shale 68 'V300 204
Nolin Coal Shale 27 210 81
Roberson Coal Shale 30 400 120
Mine w Limestone 50 'V300 150
Mine u Limestone 60 'V900 180
Mine R Dolomite 60 'V250 180

Table 10: COMPARISON OF RULE OF THUMB AND OBSERVED FLYROCK

RANGES FOR FLYROCK FROM ''VERTICAL" FACES

49
borehole, according to Eq . 7 . 3 - 18 of Ash's article is given
by

if s=0.7b.

Then ,

and with b/d = 30 (according to Ash) and pc = 53 lb/ft 3 (for ANFO) ,

sjw 113 = 1. 4 8 ft/lb 1/ 3

According to the plots in Figure 7 this val ue of s/w 1fi can sti ll
lead to far~ranging bench top flyrock at least for shots in
granite and possibly also in limestone (see Table 7).

Still another attempt to estimate flyrock range was

25
published by Lundborg, et. al . Their study was concerned
primarily with crater shots. Baseq on conservation of momentum ,
scaling laws for spherical explosive charges, and ballistic
trajectories they obtained a relation between f l yrock range and
borehole diameter . The constants in this relation were obtained
empirical ly and their final result for maximum flyrock range is

L
m
= 853dz,h ( 18)

where L is in feet and d is in inches.

m
Unfortunately, even a cursory comparison of the flyrock
range computed by this formu la with observed bench top flyrock
range (Table 7) shows that this formula grossly overestimates
flyrock range . This is illustrated in the following tabulation:

50
 L 853d z,h
d obs
Mine (inches) (ft) (ft)

Ferns teat Quarry 3.5 450 1966

Mine u 6.75 900 3047
Mine c 12 rvo 4471
Mine I 9 rv200 3690
Star Route Quarry 3 850-1000 1774

It appears that the empirical constants of Equation (18)

were mostly obtained from measurements of flyrock range of
unstemrned shots , and from flyrock ranges computed from· ballistic
trajector~es based on velocity measurements of fl yrock from
small-scale crater shots. If the fly in these small-scale
shots was mostly vertical (0=90°), the horizontal flyrock
range would he much less than that computed from these
velocities for 0 = 45°. Intuitively one would expect that
unstemrned shots propel flyrock further than stemmed shots.
Consequently the empirical constants thus obtained may be
too large for most production blasts.

Equation (18)_ does, however, appear to give the right order

of magnitude of the flyrock range of about half the "wild " shots
listed in Table 9. This is shown in the following tabulation:
Lobs 853d 7/3
d
Mine (inches) (ft) (ft)

Okalona Quarry 2.5 1600 1571

Roberta Quarry ;3 1600 1774
Conklin Quarry 3.5 1200 1996
Mine 0 9-15 4500 3690-5188

Lundborg, et . al. 25 state that the flyrock range from

vertical faces is roughly one-sixth that of flyrock range of
similar shots that break out at the bench tops (crater).
Although their formula for flyrock range from vertical faces

51
generally overestimates the flyrock range in production
blasting, their qualitative conclusion agrees with our
conclusion that most far-ranging flyrock comes from bench
tops and not from vertical free faces (see Section 5.1) .

8.2 Rationale for Field Use Charts for Flyrock From Vertical
Faces

As shown in the previous sections, the shot variables that

control flyrock are: rock type, cjm, Q the 9etonation
velocity of the explosive charge for the conditions of the shot ,
and to a lesser degree face height h or height of the explosive
column, i .

Equation (.7) can be transformed into:

c/m =
4p b 2,
if a/2 is assumed bo·be 45°. (19)
m

D, for a given explosive, can be expressed as a function of d.

Thus, Lm, the maximum f l yrock- range for a given rock, shot with
a given explosive , for flyrock striking at the same elevation
as its origina l elevation in the rock face, can be completely
defined in terms of the borehole diameter d and the minimum
burden to the free face b.

The explosive used in most open pit blasting is ANFO.

Consequently, all our results about to be presented are for
ANFO at a loading density (pc) of 0.85 g/cm 3 • The following
relation between d and 0 . 440 was used.

52
 d 0.440
(Inches) (Ft./Sec.)

2 4900
3 5300
4 5900
6 6450
9. 670.0.
12 6800
15 6850

These values were obtained from an Eyring-type plot of 0 vs. 1/d

of ANFO detonation velocities from several published sources.

For granite , a combination of Equations (2) , (13), and (19)

gives the fo llowing expression for Lm as a function of d/b:

Lm = 0 . 334 [ 8.95 X 10 5 (d/b) 2 - 584] (0.440/7544) 2 ( ft) (20)

The bracketed squared term on the far right transforms the

.normalized Lm values of Equation (}3) to Lm for the actual shot
conditions. The density of granite, Pm' was taken to be 2.6 g/cm 3 •

Analogously, for sandstone (substi tuting Eq. (17) for

Eq . (13)) :

Lm;: 0.334 [ 6.86 xl0 5 (d/b) 2 -475 ] (0. 440/5740) 2 (ft) ( 21)

The density of sandstone was taken to be 2 . 2 g I em 3 •

For limestone (using Equation 1 4) provisionary values for

L are:
m

L
m = ~
0 . 3 4 [ 7. 4 2 X l 05 - 2 0 0 ] (0 . 440/5490) 2 (ft) (22)

The density of limestone was taken to be 2.7 g/cm 3 •

53
 In the field , borehole diameter, d , i s usually fixed by
the avai l abil i ty of dril l ing equipment and burden, b, can
usua lly be adjusted to obtain the desired blast results . Thus
it is logical to develop charts for field use that relate L
m
to· b for various fixed values of d . A series of such curves
for granite is shown in Figure 8 (more curves are given in
Appendix D) . Note that on a semi - log scale the r elation
between L and b is linear over the range examined for
m
3" ~ d ~ 6 ". For d > 6" there appears to be a break in the
linear plots at L < 100 ft (the broken lines i n Figure 8) .
m
In blasting hard rock o r blasting under wet cond i t i ons ,
s lurry explosives are often u sed i nst e ad of ANFO . Thus it is
desirab l e to estimate the effect that substi tuti·on .:of slu r ries
for ANFO wil l have on the p l ots in Figu re 8. Unfortunately
tnere are many commercial s l urry explosives availab l e and
their explosive characteristics can var y appreciabl y.
Consequent l y , no unique explosive properties can be assigned
toa "generi c"sl urry _explosive. In g~neral s l urries are denser
than ANFO and have.a higher detonation velocity than ANFO under
comparable conditions . Howeve r , some scanty dat~ 2 suggest
that 12E' ~ D/3 for slurries whereas I2E':::: 0 . 440 for ANFO .
Thus , as far as ~is concerned , the higher D of slurries
is counterbal anced by the higher numerical factor of ANFO ,
but the higher density of s l urries will resul t in a larger
c/m than that for ANFO at any given borehole diameter. On the
basis of Equations (1 3) , (14) , or (17) , we can anticipate that
the flyrock range of any diameter borehole l oaded wi th slu rry
will be greater than the flyrock range of the same borehol e
loaded with ANFO.
11
In Figure 8 we have plotted Lm vs . b curves for a low "
density and a_ "high " density s l urry. The low dens i ty slurry
is Hercu les Gel Power 0 at 1 .1 5 g/cc . The detonation velocities
for this slurry were interpol ated from data given in t he
manufacturer ' s trade literature. The h igh density s l urry is
DuPont ' s Pourvex Extra at 1.33 g/cc. Trade lit erature · gives
only a single value of D = 4900 m/sec for d == 5" (under
confinement) .

54
 MAXIMUM FLY ROCK RANGE (FT.)

Ji*_ft if'
- N W .Mro. f..ft "0'\ ....,. <10 \0 ?

.p o ....
o o • o :o o p ..
o 'L'
o· p
0
Q
o "' p
0
10
10
100 lOo o0 o0
..... "9. "' p 10
0
1 , _L!..LLL.i.'._l
•"fTil~
....LJ ' , 1 .!.LLl~r- l 1 , .. JJ.:..I1'" : :n~~ - ~u·;!! :·:. i·· 1.••.• -.
I~ - JT-W-~:... .!.:.!.~ -~ ~l!~p ;~:! :H .. ..: ;- . 1.. 1._qJ'-i-t.J
. ~-~-.:..1 . ..t;..LLw.u : J ..LLL
..!-.!..L _:. u.J.l..U+!. ·: T I I - -ti- -W
-LWI ® JL·.! :w...:.u1 ::: -·· . . ··"'- 1!
r ;+t~ ~~ ':! . .:.: .:. ,:_ . .,. . .,
-t·J ·,-..L!
_____;_____L_l__l! .
TTTI"""i ~
'. , •
I .
. ~! (i-
: ~~
' I •. I
, , ' .
I I • I
!
, . • • ~.L: ~.;_;... ; :~.. ,, .. :;d -~- ,. ::1 .:.. -I-·' ... ... .. r' ..j.....l...!.'.t~l:
T'!.l!JJ..:..L!. ~ ....!.J.lJ .l..LU. .. ,•.L. ~:-7 :.:.,· : ~ .:, · ~· ., .:1 ·:.
_:_JJTlll~l·' h H ~ I I _.jl , ti ,, 'l
.. •.i .p..ur~ ' , ~~ -t:tJ:f-l ..., r JJ . l ' ~~· ~1'. 'iT :.·, ·::- ~ .. . . .
-tt ·-' ' .....1•~~
•
-+- - '· -· ., ........... I
. . ·. ·, ..
: :, ' .
ti. 1--+:-- '-
r -1 ~JrrqTru
T1TI! · ': 1--j I :
+t...Ll.
• !Ji
I .
: 11
·I+-
=EW.' r.rr . m
1 f :·
·. :J
t ''' ' ' ' •

1 , ' IIt I ~-
1'7:.1 ( ,I , 1f I
...L~.
I 1 -~--
J.l.l!.!.J::!:L ~ I,- I I · I . ml.
1 ,,, , fil-.-
' i.!.:.'ljJ
LJ!' .. .1 •'"11 : j'·
d!:I .... ! f"''l
l ' ; .. ·' .! ; .t :i:.... .•· r t~
-·... ·· ·:.-~ ..... ...,,·..+- - - r ..~ t· _1 ' 'll
.. •mi . - ffiJtl- - IJ.* - ' •·. •.!.!
L . JJ.l1iti iuLtlt
'- ' I· ! .1 :"J'•
: :1 .;~· •·· . I. . I ~
.11 1!
.LU. T ..L - ~-r~· · -·1"· ··~ . ........ ~~-" J n_ l~J- ~ - I ft
' ¥'
.J,__
, ·· 1-8
~ ••• i ~ - ~~ · I'l l' ~ ·
1-'· , ,
H : t 1 I ; I lI l-'·-"' !+· ·' I '' .'1'1 ' ~ ., I •. ,_.•' , ~··' .·· -:.r::- 1 mIt ···
-:;-- 1 l •• , , ,

'f . i I , l I ~L· ' H' ·a,. J.....Lu........J

v -
J...!lL,..,...
T . I ..L · _,_,
I__ .w....
If.:,·
-1 I '-"3''··~--- ·I 1 "
.. ,....1. -+-tiil I I :···I 1
·
l. ft±m.Jit,.L.m.- . I'
' "'l• I · · · I' ! _,
1 .! p. ,t ,· ..... ,. ~I I '· 1·····
' . •• · . ~ ·- • • • • ••••••
1'7:.11.0 , It • ~=I I -,- I I I j .. I I I , 1 ' I
:J:~c
I : II I

1 ..~ ,t
· .' l.1 .1
· ...: ~~1 , j j-'..J.J..U.
; , i2 ~ ~Li ·· r l tl£ ~ , "" '- b~t.!
0
~~ ~ . .~
.. . . ' [1· j•. ·:· •··. I·· . ' 1 •
1 1
' , ' I • I o ' I l . l ! I •· •I 'I ' o 1 I ' . I I ' • I ' 0:::: l '

'!· ·'····· ··' ·.r···. .....,....• .,.·.~....

j 1t •' : • " ' '' •

nti r-.-r~
..LL.t. , :. .lJ.'-
TTT ..L.I-r.-·
·, ~ J . 1 • • 11 1 "
·'-'-·-- 1·-j, I·!fJ'l··· , .11',
!... . ....
•• ,, ··•·
.. - ·- ' --'- . ~•....,e· ..·•··. . ,-H.. 1 ."'1"" - ·· .. · I I · .I ., --,1' ,
'I !+• I . ...' ..1,-,·1
..., -·'"~·• ~ . .1 I
-j[ffft4,
:
! • • -+-
tx:l(l) ' ... + I"T :--! ' - I' · ~· -
-..~~..:S+H~fl:ittt · ··•l·,--11 ,.1. ·! r·· -: , L , . . _;-.-ii· l~t'r.a . o~ . . . 1t;-· 1-·H-I·· 't~-. t;~·· '~~··~
i:. :. ,.tI .r~n....;,...-: . .. 'l'
. • I . I I- ~ II , . ,, • ' . _,., .•
1
. ~.:. t ... . .- , • •• • •• •• , ~ , • •t fi:-e~,

..,. i +t-.U·i I ,,. 1 ' I . • ha

' t

j:''
i ' I'
• 4 ' ~ • I • I J t - '
1 :· .......,.. -~., ::...J i I 1 f ' I • \;,;J • I 1 • l
(/)(X)
.. •
VI ••
~ : : I • I t I ·. : t • .

t+++.uJ•
r;-!.W • ...!. -
i I ' t
.Lg - ~ ft' ~ : ,l )l :.:. ;l. .• : . ~ 01'-'.._tr
I ·--L,.J.."t're}(J~-'
I ;

:-, _ -• J· ..I .....

•1 :

J~.I
' .

l1•.!-1! -~-~
I ~ t I . ;::::~! ~
'

! ;.1.1 ' ·+~ .·•···•-·

•

···.,· }?-1 ·•' .~.!

.
: .. -;" ~!\-~ :- ·
. .: :, P"':"'i"l.1.:, ~
·-

1.1!'·1
·n 1 ·.
··~ ,~· :.-\\ ~ ··I·· . .! · I I r·l . Ttj I 1- , . ' • • ; •: t

,J1:jJ:1-P'i ll ~ :0iloidl>l,
.,: ! lhl il· ~· ~ ~l··' I J I
(/)
"iit ' I I , • 'I 'i· 1•1
I
f .L
:ti
0":1
.l , ,
..=pj:l.
.........--t-11 I ( · ' ' iffi t , ,t±i.
,
-- j_J.
.
,
..
..
• l l \ I .. r. . 'T '
t' ' ·•
'
r
,,, , ...:.. -
1.. i \1. ~
·· •
·!·ll:,,::.J:!:!.:Y
M •••. . . ·. ,:H·· ..
...
""'
.;
'
,
f'
...
, , ' , •. ·
- . .. • • . I •
..
t~~G~·I l , · · ~ .:·t·; .· p~ .
• , , , .• .. ' i J..,,.
!!.
• •
b.,_r, .........
'

.
,
,.,,,"U
~t"' Ill 0 ~
•·t"·o·n l·JI I''i.'l-....
I I
"l"''' "'I. ..·l"r..;: 1111... ....
I l l •
~~~ ~·
I
I -·• l•'l"£-rfdt3
I ~I
I I l=H'I I. 0 ~
I,
b•~-••~~-~
:.·· r'-·..· l V,
•

. ,.... , ' I ~ ~-I·

h•' • • • • • , . I I I • • I -;;- ' • ,-.

1.
.J .... ~' ·
I''..·· I.· ' "
I I ' I ' I ' j

c I I I -:---l
'' J..l "J..--rt""7' · ,. c-~......,1 .. •. ....
.. ...
m+Hll
· · -··1-
.- I' . J 1 ·r-'
1 ·J
- .11"". il l , , .• .• , •. r-' I : ...1 >- 1 . "·
:€1-<: -::o , 1 1 , "I'" O·"' ~~ J., . . •• I

~- ' -t!..ll!..'- • ,+.J±J ~~Lt4~-l

!·i·i . '.l·i•l!.-~ !q . .-:-;- .. J.!..· - ..~·, . . . I -·r·
I . 1 ~.:0 ·, ; 1; 1. r· l';~ ·~ _ _ _ !_.~ ·1 ..1 ! lr!c,e V. ·~ 1 : . ~ c'j .!pr:::· ·;:~~. ·~- j - ~~I
-- ' 1·
" ~· .• J • 1
• • · .• ·"• '• j : 1r:••e . 1 IJll I"'"
· '•· 1 1 ~~
~ ---· · •I , , . . . .' ""11
•

i'i j.-W..l+.
,\.),)::.v • 1"1 -'-!1 . • • )." • '
- ·+
H!;O 0
'-t. ~--:-+ ~· 2.:____:j
~?S
:ti~ - -~1'' ~
~ r-..J
•
lft
I
:
I
t
t i
t
'
--;T
I It
. 1
l ti lf
I
I I I
:1
l i
.

-:-1-++·P.=l:::P:: ~_- :d. ~. ~!J ; ~ , ;~, .:

-.....-.-L,-u+=c l .....,JI.dT. =R+i= -~· . w L--1!. l. . (,. .. . r. . . ·.. .. ... ---! • (
I 1I ! . I
'

;1•,; .· .· .. , :::.,. ·{..·lrn

I
\
( I
j •
1
I
I
(
! J •• :
f 1'
_I_:
-: .l .. l I I ....,.(). . I r 1 ·I I .. ,., . ..,. ''·•~
-,
II
I ,
1 :
I I

.•
•

· ~ ... . .
•C • ,
I

i j.JI h! ·t·:.:.. , .;;:: ;:[.:; 1

. I "I I:
'· : -
'
.
'
I

•
~;--
.•
•

l i~ -~~-· - ~J+I·'~ jj·~

.

l·!el-~!· ~FH·-·. i~~--1 ; ~~~

i
•
oi ....J-
: J
'

: I
Ll • .. I
1 • •
. I
.
I:
. I
'I
l
!
'I' '
• ).o
I I
0
•
I
• t
I
•I
I
I
i
tl
rHm
••'
I
I :, •
''
tl
•
·

V.~1-· • ... I -·. Llli1

8 :Yi1ti:tii ··, :· l :I -
-1 ~.~ . , ·r!iir·~ . J...LL!Jjjjj- . . , 1 1 " 'I · ·~····
1r , ... ®;_!
I L I J . JI:-1:,.
~~ 'i t'l
0 1· · .h. 1r"i :·
~
L..._l
•
-<:-J-.!....,;...J.....:,.,,_.
, I I I j I f

li'UJ•. :::r.mt· 1·t··

I I I

Itt' .... ,,ll

-- •
ll ' . • l
•
4 f ~
· - "'-!"'7
t I. ! j j
. ,.
•• 1
· -· • .. ,
til! I · .
t :•
"'·· '·· ····
' ! •:
·
I·
...

l 1'4'
t
,... . I - I ·~. ·
I "'j 'J i'
N
• .·1 ·'"
; I
·-
I
I ·1
. • '
• • •...• . • · · ·" : ·.. •
~

"" ru .
.....1.,_

1'7:.1z "'-::ot:1 ;n±tJ tl'

~· . ,,· r;-·,
--H· ;···
I ' l ·ll"l'r~·
I ·· ·, i t~r·· .,·jl"
lJ 'I 'lJ11 ·''· ,.,.
,~::i',.,: :·· ~ r· . ~
·• ,...-:-~ - ,, . I ! ' I···I '~-.. ljTil
:-,tnT ,····"l:
· · - · 1 t~ Tl
I ' ~~--
~""'" " ' i ! !i"l
· ··
·1·1······· · ·····r· ·+-r· · ___ ...._ ·1'1· ··1·
· !• '·JI.
. • •• "'""·l I :· .....- !
'1·!;:··:···
· , 1·
- -I l l r·-·- II- J.I '~ •··· " ··1~
· ~
·~. .. ., • ··· ·. ; r· · '-I I ··I - ~
lol - ·I
04> 1•...,
Vl
()1 t:l ,_. ~i·otu
' r • • .l ···•
It ' I I
·• ··-n l+L...,. +HTJw.ijii
I
111 ·· [.JI:I..L
I

I 1····r
l t
., ,
t
'tl·······
. , . ··'
•1 ' -···
:
• r• ··. ,•.·......
'
,, .. •
•• I· • '
: . . . · ·-· ' l·j·,-· l'i i' ' ·'-1: -1 --r··r··l . . . ' II U' -1 ' "•
l .
.. .••. ·. ..•
'
. 1 • •··.-1
1
I t

f::"''"''1.-
~ .. r ..., ,"j'' l /.' tr·· I ' " .. .. .. 1
1 .· 1,,.• ,.,. 1
I
otx:l
'+ ' .Jr·Il·i I•!". ··j l. r , . .~ · I t . ,. · ·•·'·
-.Y
....,_,.Tt-- -.,.~ . ~ . ,., ·•·: ., -i-1 -

n r' ··-:':;..' -1· ·

rf. ,,.
, , , ,, ! , I .I I 11 · . :11 1 '! · 1! ·~ I , ,,. , I ~ . I : ·. ,.__ ll
±' I"' 1!. ···1 .... v .·
f f ! .I .:. .... < 1 . ,: .\ J! .
::01-Ij . -++--h'. ' .. ' . . •1 ' ' + .
"':;:. V\+H_,-..w.r- t±i'l~t' t;-· '!±ii' '· .·I ~·
L!L l~b .-~.'"~ tJ., I'''!"'·. ·· I . 1-.> - ~ I t· . ·- r ·I J1 · 1 •• 0 · ·I
L.l..l..W. ·~ · . -- ~
.l-.r,-· - ·:~-1-- -
- I·· ·
I . -- -'' ·'-+-- - •- I I' I II.
..L.:.. . . .' . .• •I . I, .• .
. . .J .I , •- ··
•• • :• •' • III. , Ih .• • li •\ ••• ......, •_ ...• - • I• I I •
....... - If II ' .

:... ·;;; ...,l. :

... _:··~· -I+·~---r-~·iJ.+
f t ~

o±.
"'' Em:···-~Q:[W,
l I • • , • ' •
(/)::0 ()
~ . 1:' ! ' · -m·:..!•...~tLH...L . .!....L.L 11-·r.. !-n
t,.. . ., '-H+-~+ ~ , ! .. , i:: r·!t·:·-~··!···. -t -··ll i- +. lI.1..l --·
. · J• •.• ·', ·+·:i1~· ....n-~;..! ~·;··:!e.~
.. o~'<:/./ :. .ItJ I, 1...... ·.r· l . . ·. - 'tfW
·I - .

t·~IllI
t"'o f\,)r: -.~ J,J_ ' ' l
L.! .. 1 . · , ~~, • : ' · 1 • . , 1,, . ..; 1 . . . •· I I, -- -~,, ~.>--7 ... •.

,. v· ..,l•:... '" '.

. .
/ _,,
c::3:
...., +1l:ffil! ··--t+i·n1··· -'-'-r-
111
·-r
•
. · ··· ···<·
L'i'' '~' ·r 1U·-1 ····
; 1.

· ..
.,
1
, ..
••

...
·

.. ··
•

···: .,
..

.. ~1
, •

......• · .1·
J · ·
,.

I I·
1 1 ' ·

j"lt-~1'11 ' .. I
. ''
.,
•
11
' ·r· 'I~
. '
.•.Z: l " t'r, ~·
1. . . ,,. . tJ I . ··t;::
. , -·t~ ~-, . L Tt ~· ,..rl irCJ. ~=··· _;., ~
l
::0<: , , 1 , · r : · • 1
· '[l • 1:; ' 1'' ·1•
'·' I " : ,r ..... 1· .
, •
: l l l l l >i ,,
• •··• • · ··• • · -·1· ,· · ~- ·· 1 , ·• ·1• I I
· · • • , , , . ,
• - • · ·r TI I - -·1 J....JI.. ·r..j 'I.;~
, • H·l-·,·
• ·, \ i · .,,.
~-I 1 ·'11""" ''" .... ;. 1- . .. t·l-'1"'
t'l.· w·
-i l l 1 ' '• · - ·• • • • • 1 ·• •• t1 • ,._. ••·· •· •••· ' •
!;OI:l'j 8
-n· I I'- ·! ··· t .. I .I . I IJl.
cj t c
·
I ( ..l I.J. 1 i· - t I I. .I I :, • · .. .• .'-.7 ,.. , ..... . . l

f*H
t '
1-<:::o t>..>F-$_ ..... ,., · ·i+ .,. '· ····I r
I
--:
I - I • • j .... • I I : '

~ ; .l : , , I J: ~ . · ~I ~ · .' i ·,; ; ·:: '; ' ~ l · t, ·:· ·· ·· ~--~-, ·- · ~- ;. : • • :I :, ; _It ; ~ : , ; ' !: :. · ~~ .:._ - ' ::-<~-- - - . r- ·
I •. 0
tx:l~
:><:~
Vl : : J..q
, .... !
,.l-
I ...I
. J .... • ... ---rr -·d. . . 1w
..L..... ·-'1,
'1' '
··l·
...
~ ..I
l t 1'"'f ':. ....
,. '
It r I'I. .I r·'· !->..J. 'f+·
ITh·l. !
····t.! --~j ·
I
·l · l r
!... t""l

, .. l, .j.r1 I .,I,, • •. •• ·•..1 • .....:.I -_!,#, ;I., . . lr'l

' I I. I "'
j • 111.I: I·.!
I 1 . .: I!!!.. 11.1.I ···I ¥1,
. ' '
±~
I
~ - I .. . ,. I
• • t . ·~· )'
.·. •! I' I , . " • •• •

-.- ;,., l . .. ,. . . ~ :1. ,j...1.. · "'l ·t··-, i-,1" ~. ..~JI··· l* 1 ·-~i-~ 1 .t ,, 7-

~~i+t. ~: ; :~, *i~ 1t.·-;-~;-r t-: i·i --: 1'IIi IH .;t; •., ·. . ~ -: ~ = .. :,. . -i-· -~""1 ~1i' · 1 ·1 1. 1~1; i·. , !~! : ~?"'
,_L.--I:fP.:I.--1"·· ;· i · '<' . -:: .:;··:.· · .J,. ...... · · l-
~~
0
(/)4>
<~
~
-n-t+!---r-'---'
- -I ·----
1

-~~-
~ -~-H
1
• ~~
: C
" '-r....,
4 :
......
~
I : : .

• l -·H-·- 3 - - -,---~-~o~-·-I
1 -Lf+tt
1
I : I

-r· · ·::~ r( · · - I £.J

I :

lT!TIIli :' (1) · -h-1

• ''
~
:.._ U • ~:
1

·- · .. •·1 I· · · •·· ' " ·c.• ,~a

1... '- ··'I·
I . I ' 11· ·I • •1·I .-',I ' ..' ,,...
I.~

'- .. '-ri ;-.! 1!-~ il;t 1i1·.. !'i, ·l~t :. I

• .
: I : ;
1

··J - I . .· · · · 1-
I . ..
' . t _.

I .. ··· · {l' l · ' ljl ~l

• I

rr , L I' 1: :t :. . _:._ __ __.. :.. ...... . ~- .L...:....' .:. . ....._·I' .L:t 1·

•

I ' I' ' ' • .~1

< j' ·l" .
0

.
~

~Q
~ ~
1' " . • 1 11 · 'I ~
~I
< ; Ill ,: ,.

· · I · ·• · • · ·~--
'

l
.,
1 " ;' :.-: -:,, :.:··
•

...L: __;_JlL ' ·_1_ .LLL~ :.2.!1 ~~ ;_w :::· .:..: -·· .~: ___ .. _
· ·
·
-
f o·
·· ·

· · ~
i

1·· · .,. ···. · i ·

1

1
:
1
: I : I . I

r •
J )

; '
' ,

i·l
' •
• f

'
_':'I, _· J .
• j

' ·
•
0
: o, • o; 1 "'

L
~-1 ).! •f 1 ~· ;i ~ ~1 - i . ~1 11 1·!1
tx:l z
H·H ·l·h! I i .t":1'-'::r ;··rr I Hn I !I • I I .,• I I ·i ...• ,. ·'I · ,.·· • • •' ' . . · ' I 'I
1
., , · ·' r . I I J.• . .• . 1'1 1·.• ., I, I I .,,, .
(/)H
•
-
I • l j l 'J . 'I ll:
1 ·· r· · · t ... . · ·o· )--,' 1· · · - 1
h-i l-
(,}\ .,.. t,• ...r l.t.:::t:··· ::r[i- 1L r!J-!
···It·· "' ., ., . 1 ,·l.-' 1. 1. . • ~ ~ ··· .J.. .. . . . .!I. il!! ,. ::::!' ., ; .. rm.
I

·ll·;.•
!·II
, . . I 'J
·
' l'fo 1 1 l*tf,l'
1
I, ·I
I , . :Jijl:l
. i I1 I J . rll ;I' l 1 1 ·•·
:!'ll>'l lil
I. II. ····· .
. · .. , 1
I
I
I "'II:IJi 1
1· ' · • •

il'rr
1-3
.' . I' I I '
I , ' •
w -· ' I ,. ,.... ;. -1--·l' o.. ! ·I I . . I ' . .i I . . . . I f, ' !· ' • . . ·. , I ' ' I ~~- 'J•. I· :, t. . I . . ' ...: . I I .
I ' ~v I • I I I I ; ' . . • • • • i • ' • ' I j • ~. I •

tx:l . J ,I ,, . ,, , . ·(J) . .,, 1 ' .

l I II
l • •.• ' • •• . . I I • •• \ ,Ill l . . ' I I ·' ' ( IJ :; . . .

o . L!-l.
, ' ' +·±i=J''''
-~ '''' · ~ · l l· rr
•• TTi": ' r • 1•' 'l' · ·r~ -, ...,.·, ·r····
r.J r; 1-·r· .1'1·" ·.. J···· .. . r-.....-r · •, ;,
• · I"··, , , ·, ·. ~ , · i'•- ~ ' k(l
· ··' ' ··j1 ·:'1·1 j' ~ ,; 'i. ·' J ·'I! '' I ';··1I , . ·.I ·
:::+!n'.l-1 ,:: = 3 ·~-,+ #1· . ·-~rrt~'l. J ''I In !:-
·II.1 ·' ~~·.. /.
·i 1 ··.'''! !.:', ir· ·· · 11 . : .' I I1 I ' I . I II. ~- . ~. . ItI 'I
: - ~ - -r -·· ' i·, · - ·! 1~' H - ~
. ~i 1 'r!H,;iiii .J·· · :
1 1
...TITT1 ..... Ql - •· ....... 1 ···' , .
_l.i-L··· · ~·-n. ' !w. ~. , "' ~ ,~- ·J·....., I I~.,.i .r ,. I I .,1 . ,··i l-;· . 1 -
1 ... .. . . I I' ... ,.'
. .- .,
·I : I I' .... .·:, ..,I I 1
w .J.... . -····Hi- 1,. 1 -- .. ct r, .. _.._
j • • , ' · , •v 3 '
.
11
.,
I I ,, , 1' ..' .. .'I",.,.
. . . ... : • '· •• , , 1 1
I
, •• 1 \ '· • o 1

!"; '~: ' , ' ,t l i•ll · t l~v.l I .: l! :•;:,.: :o ;: .:~ .. ~~--~- -·+:·$....-
·H+ + .. ·- t'·,! ~y ,·-+ J I I '- I :~ ' ( I ! ! I1U1i' :1 ,• :+-ll~ ·~+. '' , ; , ; ' l • l :;-:7~:..·~ ·-- -1 - ~· ~1-
l ' l . 1 I i I ' ! I I) . .: r' 'I .,:. .I . ' I
Jj~·-w.!:J~ +fP~II ~ i~.LTJ~l r~~ '~ll;ti:~ll j.~- : J~! : ~
! j I" ;!r.. , . ' :I ;•. ' ., :
I

l/1 • ; . . ,

-:H.l
. .1 ···-r '"'·
W1 1 . l !1
VI.
'

....,....!-.. .. ..-t-+-··-·-··1,· f..: JIIII/#II

1 l l t i •J I •o t. ~~' •-~ ~ ~J,. IIIn! ..'! , J:_
ill !i.
1 1
! l[!llll;l,ll.l ::r
t f ,
:
.! ;j.
:.
l:; l·
1::! ·. • . r·l . j. ll ! utf
I

'l!.
1 · I JI .•
1 11 1 111_L1.1
I
[ 1.. 1 ' I.JI. •II I I·1 1[:1.J·IJJI
1; 1 I _
j 1.'1 1
1 1t t: ·,''·!!. ...
., , ··I··
.:. . , .'· I ''
· • .,, f _ ' __ ~!
1
~~ _!
I

__, _
lJ I : 1
II. 1'
I
11
!,•
 Comparison of the ANFO and slurry plots suggests that
over the range of borehole diameters examined the ratio of
flyrock range (Lm) : (Lm) ~ 1.5.
slurry ANFO

The flyrock ranges Lm 1n Figure 8 are the horizontal

distances from the free face to a plane at the same vertical
elevation as the original position of the chunk of rock in
1
the free face. If 'floor level" of the pit is appreciably
below this elevation, flyrock will travel further than Lm •
This greater range , L~ , is defined by Equation (3). A chart
for convert i ng Lm to L~ is included in Appendix D.

8.3 Rationale for Field Use Charts for Flyrock from Bench Tops

These data . are

. .more
. difficult to present in simple form than
data for flyrock from vertica l faces. Also, ·-- the bench top data ..
are less reliable than the vertical face data. Because the Gurney
method of ~alculating flyrock ranges for crater shots involves too
many variables to be combined into· ·a sing l e chart, we have chosen ·
to use an empirical approach. Measured flyrock velocities for
sandstone, limestone and granitewereplotted on log-log paper vs.
s/W 1h in Figure 7. We have no theoretical justification for the
apparent linearity of these plots. Since the u 0 of Figure ? is
related to L by Equation (2), one can construct L vs. s/Wlh plots.
m m
Such plots···are - gi ':'en for ANFO loaded shot.s in -granite and in
. .
sa-ndsto~e. ·: i~.. F-~-~~Fe -'S<o..;I!).,of- Appendix D. It should be recalled
that s is the distance from borehole collar to top of the
explosive column. The borehole diameters chosen for the plots
cover the usual production blasting range. Note that the
flyrock range for gran i te shots appears to be roughly three
times greater than the flyrock range for shots in sandstone .
Since limestone flyrock velocities in Figure 7 lie between those
of sandstone and granite, it is to be expected that limestone
flyrock ranges will also fall between the ranges for sandstone
and granite . In the region of s/w 1fi of 1.5 to 2 ft/lb 1fi there

56
is a break in u vs. s/W 1~ plot (Figure 7). Consequently
0
the plots for sandstone in Figure 8-D were terminated at
s/WV3 = 1. 5 ft/lb t/3. Similarly a break in the granite plot
of Figure 7 occurs in the region of s/W 1~ = 2 to 2.75 ft/Jb 1fi.
Consequently the granite plots in Figure 8-D were . terminated at
s/W 1fi = 2 ft/lb 1fi . Below these termination regions Lm is
expected to decrease rap i d l y.

57
9.0 RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL FLYROCK STUDIES

It has been shown that an adaptation of the Gurney method ,

deve l oped in thi s study , can predict maximum flyrock range over a
wide spectrum of shot conditions. Ho\'Tever , the·r ·e are a number of
ass-umptions used in t h is computational method that still remain
unveri f i ed because the necessary experi mental data for verifica-
tion do not exist . Simi l arly , some ·o f the required constants for
the computation are not known to the des i red degree of accuracy
again because the required experimental data are l acki ng. Thus ,
to complete our understanding of the relation between shot condi-
tions and flyrock range , answers must be provided to several
general and several specific questions .

The genera l questions that need to be answered are: (a) does

the Gurney method, developed f or a single hole model , require
modificati on to adapt it to multipl e hole shooting? At present we
have found indirect evidence ·to answer this quest i on i n the nega-
tive , but it would be most desirable ·to obtain actual data fo r
shots under .comparable
. ..
conditions in wh i ch one set of data a r e
for ··s ·i ngle hole shots and a comparative · set of data are for multiple
hole shots ; (b) can mistiming of shot de l ays in a multiple hole
round d r astically affect flyrock range? For most well-designed
blasts, and in the absence of utterly gross mistiming , our present
understand i ng of the problem leads us to answer this question in
the negative. However , we may be in the minority with our point
of view. The proper way to settle this question is by appropriate
experiments; (c) what causes " wi ld " f l yrock? Is is primarily ·
improper shot design or is it some undetected fau l t in the rock
strata? There is no doubt that improper s h ot design in the f orm
of overloaded holes (too high a rise of the explosi ve column or
too little burden) wil l produce wild flyrock. Whether mistiming
can do this is questionnable. In any event one can purpose l y alter
shot conditions to determine if t h ese a l terations (other than over-
loading) result in wild flyrock. The effects of fau l ts in the rock
are much more diff i cu l t to assess. Studies with transparent small-
scale models may provide ·some guidance , but like most sca l ed-down

58
)
model tests of rock blasting t hey are expected to be of limited
val ue. A more useful approach is to produce artificial faults in
reasonably homogenous rock through a judicious combination of
drilling and small-scale blasting . Shots in which artificial faults
have been introduced between the borehole and the free face can then
be compared to similar sho"ts with ·no artificial ·faults in the rock .

There appears to be little hope of finding much useful data

on wild shots in accident reports. Fortunately wild shots are not
too frequent . Thus , the data base at best will be small. Further
problems arise from the fact that most of the accident reports of
wild shots are grossly lacking in the necessary details for estab-
lishing the cause of t hese wild shots . Clearly an experimental
approach is required to obtain an understanding of the factors
that contribute to the production of wild flyrock. Though wild
shots are infrequent , their hazard potential is great. Consequently
the eliminat ion of wild flyrock is· a most worthwhile improvement in
blasting safety .

The specific questions ·that need to be answered deal primarily

with flyrock · from limestone and sha.le. .These two rock types are
probably shot much more frequently in the U. S. than all other rock
types combined . The questions are : (a) what is the relationship
between s/Y.7 1
/s and V/W for crater shots in limestone or in shale·?
In the present study it was assumed that limestone is "granite-
like" and shale is "sandstone-like~'. These assumptions need
verification via actual crater shots. These shots ·could also be
used to check the validity of our assumption that elongated explo-
sive loads behave. like concentrated loads if s is taken to be the
distance from borehole collar to the top of the elongated load
rather than the distance to the center of mass of a concentrated load
(b} preliminary data on crater shots in granite suggest that observed
flyrock ranges from such shots are greater than the computed ranges.
Is this a valid conclusion? Here, complete analysis of the Martin-
Marietta_ datcP·may provide the answer; (d) how valid is the assumption
that I2E' ~ D/3 for slurry explosives? Some data justifying this
assumption is given in Reference . 22, ·but additional measurements
would be desirable.
 In summary, certain aspects of the correlation between fly r ock
range and shot conditions, still unanswered by the present study,
can be clarified by:

o examination and analysis of the flyrock data of the on-

going Martin-Marietta studies;

o an experimental program primarily directed to obtain a

better understanding of crater shots which appear to
be the kind of shots that can throw flyrock far and in
unexpected directions.

60
10. REFERENCES

1. Roth, J. , et. al. , "Evaluation of Surface t-1ine Blasting

Procedures," Management Science Associates, Bureau of
Mines Contract No. J0366017 (1977).

2. Gurney , R.N., Ballistics Research Laboratory Report No.

405 (1 943).

3. Roth, J., SRI Laboratory Technical Report No. 001.71 (1971).

4. Noren, c. H., "Colorado School of Mines Quarterly," 51 ,

222 (1956).

5. Ladegaard-Pederson, A., and Persson , A., "Svedefo Report,"

DS 1973:13 (1973).

6. Anonymous, DuPont Blaster 1 s Handbook, 175th Anniversary

Edition , p. 242 (1978).

7. Ibid, p. 308.

8. Cook, M.A., The Science of Industrial Explosives,

Chapter 10 (1974).

9. Ni:cho~ls, H . .R., and Hooker, v. E., "RI· 6693 ", p. 43 (1965).

10. Nicholls, H. R. and Duvall, W. I., "RI 6806", pp. 12-14,

(1966).

11 . Nicholls, op. cit., p. 43 (1965).

12. Noren, C. H., and Porter, D. D., Proceedings 3rd Congress

of Int . Soc. Rock Mech., Vol. 2B, 1371 (1974).

13. Langefors, u., and Kihlstrom, B., Rock Blasting, pp. 46-49,
Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm (1963) (Quotation).

14. Duvall, W. I., and Atchison, T. C., "RI 5356", pp . 34-35

(1957).

15. Be rgmann, 0. · R., et. al., "Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. and
Geomech.," Abstract, Vol. 10, 585 (1973).

16. Petkof, B ., et. al., "RI 5849," p. 9 (1961) .

17 . Chung, s ., et. al., "Preprint lOth Canadian Symposium on

Rock Mechanics, " (1975), and Chung, S., "Report from
CIL Explosives Research Lab, September 16, 1975.

18. La~gefors, U., op. cit., p. 70 (1963).

61
19. Montenyohl, V. , Pr i vate communicat ion , Martin-Marietta Labs,
Ba l timore (1978).

20. Blair , B. E., " RI 5584, " (1960) .

21. Shimomura , Y. , and Yamaguchi , v., J . Industr. Expl osives

Soc. (Japan), Vo l . 32 , No. 1, p. 49 (1 97 1 ) .

22. Finger, M., et. al. , "Proc . 6th Detonation Symposium ,"
729 , (1976) .

23. Henny, R. W., and Carlson, R. H., "Ann . N. Y. Acad . Sci. ,"
1521 417 (1968) o

24. Ash , R. L. , Surface Mining (E. G. Pf l eider, Editor),

Chapter 7 . 3 , pp. 373-397 (1968) .

25. Lundborg, N. et. al . , Engineeri ng and Mi ning Journ al , 95

(May 1975).

26. Persson, P . A. , et . al. , "Proc. 2nd Con gress of the

International Society for Rock Mechanics , " 5-3 , p. 1
(1 970) .

27. Anderson, G. D., SRI Internal Report 007 - 59 (1959).

62
 APPENDIX A
ELEVATION CORRECTION FOR BALLISTIC TRAJECTORIES

I
y
I
)L
R R
I
h

< X >

Parabolic trajectory starts at velocity v, angle 8 and

0
elevation h . Place coor dinate origin at 0, then :
0

y = cR 2 and y +h = c (R + x) 2

or dividing:

h h
1 +-
y
and (x/R)2 + 2x - -
R y
= 0

or

and

-2R + /4R 2 + 4hR 2 /y

X = 2
= -R + R -¥1 + h / y = R {/1 + h/y - 1)

63
but f r om Eqs . (1) and (5) , y = R/2 (y is called hm in Eq . 5),
therefore

X = RV 1 + 2h/R -1) = (L /2) (/1 + 4h/L

m m - 1)

Finally ,

Lm' = L
m
+x = (L I
m
2 ) (/ 1 + 4 h/Lm + 1 ) •

64
 APPENDIX B
DERIVATION OF THE GURNEY EQUATION FOR A PLATE DRIVEN BY A
HEAD-ON DETONATION ORIGINATING AT A RIGID WALL

The sketch below represents a cross-sectional view of the

system at some time after initiation.

m
II
II ~
0 m = mass/unit area of propelled
llu material
II c = mass/unit area of explosive
II
u ::::: expansion velocity of product
lL gases at x =0
x=O dx x=l
U=O

The Gurney assumptions are:

a. Product gas density, p , is uniform at any given time.

b. Velocity distribution u of the expanding product gases is

linear; thus an element of gas, dxJ bas a mass/unit area
of pdx and the entire product gas mass is pJ dx = p.t
0

1. Conservation of mass {and assumption a):

c = p.Q, {B- 1)

2. Kinetic energy of p l ate (B-2)

lQ,
3. Kinetic energy of gas= 2 f pu 2 (x)dx, but from assumption b
X 0
u (x) = u0 ( Q,) , therefore

pu 2 R-
dx = 2 Q, o2 J x2dx =
.
0

65
 Substitution from Equation {B - 1) gives

K.E. gas (B-3)

4. If all the explosive energy E goes into K.E. of gas and

plate, then from conservation of energy:

cE · = -±mv2 +cv2 (B-4)

2 0 6 0

or

2E = (m + l) v2 (B-5)
c 3 0

and

~ 1- .2
1/:
I) = 2E (m + -) (B-6)
0 c 3

If m/c >> 1/3 I)

0
~ 12E I elm (B-7)

66
 APPENDIX C
CORRELATION OF THE GURNEY CONSTANT WITH DETONATION VELOCITY

3
The writer showed for head - on detonations the Gurney constant
I2E can be expressed as

/2E = 0.605D {C-1)

f-1

where detonation product gases are assumed to obey a polytropic

equation of state with a coefficient r such that

where Pj is the detonation pressure, p 0 is the initial density of

the explosive and D is the detonation velocity. For tangential
detonations the Gurney constant 12E' is given by

./2E' !::! 0 . 95/2E • . {C-2)

For many explosives r !::! 2. 8. Then, according to Equations ( C-1) and

(C-2)

12E I :::: D/3. (C-3)

However, for ANFO,P. and D data obtained at Lawrence Livermore

J
LaboratoriesH giver~ 2.3. Consequently, for ANFO

12E' ~ 0.44D. (C - 5) .

67 .
 APPENDIX D
CHARTS FOR ESTIMATING MAXIMUM FLYROCK RANGE

The maximum range for flyrock from vertical faces is

controlled by a different set of conditions than the maximum
range of flyrock from bench tops. In Section D-1 we will present
methods of estimating flyrock range from vertical faces. Means
of estimating flyrock range from bench tops will be given in
Section D-2.

D-1 Flyrock Range from Vertical Faces

The information needed to estimate flyrock range from

vertical faces is:

a. Type of rock that is being blasted

b. Diameter of borehole
c. Burden to ·· the free face at th~ top of the explosive ·
column if the free fac~ i~ i~clined in the usual sense·
of a greater distance from borehole to the free face at
the toe than at the collar
d. Type of explosive in the main charge

Of the four items above only b) and d) are usually known

precisely. It will be sufficiently accurate to classify rock
types quite broadly, for example granite, limestone, sandstone,
etc. It is very desirable to measure or estimate the minimum
burden (item c) as accurately as possible. If vugs are noted in
the free face, the horizontal distance between a neighboring
borehole and ~he deepest portion of the vug should be used as the
minimum burden if this distance is less than that defined in item
c. The sketch below illustrates the determination of minimum
burden, b, in the absence of vugs, and b 1 if there is a vug in
the free face.

68
 Bench Top Flyrock

expioslve
load

Pit Floor

Figure 1-D~ SKETCH OF A BENCH SHOT

In open pit mining most shots are fired with ANFO. In hard
rock or under very wet conditions slurry explosives are also
used . Thus, only ANFO or slurries will be considered in what
follows. In fact, all the charts tha t follow are for ANFO-loaded
shots. An approximate correction factor will be given to convert
flyrock ranges for ~NFO into f l yrock ranges·fo r slurry shots.

Figure 2-D gives the maximum flyrock range for flyrock fro~

vertical faces for ANFO-loaded shots in granite. The plots in

this chart can probably be a l so used to estimate flyrock ranges
in other hard rock such as taconite or basalt.

Figure 3-D gives the maximum flyrock range for flyrock from
vertical faces for ANFO-loaded shots in sandstone. The plots in
this chart can probably be also used to estimate flyrock ranges
in other soft material such as shale.

Figure 4-D gives the maximum flyrock range for flyrock from
vertical faces for ANFO-loaded shots in limestone. The
information upon which this chart was constructed is less
accurate than that used in constructing Figures 2- D or 3-D.

69
1000 \ .
: . r--··-'- - ---+--:-:---1
~- ~~~:
~
90 -- . \ . : \ _:_ __:__:..; ~--l----­
'
80 !--=--- - - - ---\-+-'-'· ~\-- l: \ -:----t--,-;-."-_,.,",...,:-+-,---;.--+-:--i-~--.--~--,-- -·---r---. -·
7.0C ~-:.....,- -,.c B -;;.. .\--: ·..~\ ~ ;.,: ;'" <:·-. ! .. · - ~

0 2.5 S 7.S 10 12 . 5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 35

MINIMUH, BIIRDEN TO FREE FACE (FT.)

Figure 2- D: MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK- FROM

ANFO-LOADED SHOTS IN GRANITE (FIXED BOREHOLE DIAMETERS)

70
Figure 3-d: MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM
ANFO - LOADED SHOTS IN SANDSTONE (FIXED BOREHOLE DIAMETERS)

71
Figure 4-D: MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM
ANFO-LOADED SHOTS IN LIMESTONE (FIXED BOREHOLE DIAMETER)

72
 To illustrate the use of these charts, consider the
following examples:

1. What is the maximum f l yrock ra n ge fo r a shot i n granite

with 6 inch diameter boreholes l oaded with ANFO and
having a minimum burde n of 1 3 feet?
Solution: I n Figure 2- D go to the line labe l led d=6 " .
Find the vertical line which correspo n ds to a mi nimum
burden of 13 feet. This li n e is o n e small division to
the right of the line labelled 12 . 5 at the bottom of the
chart . Move upward along this line to i t s i n t ersection
with the d i agona l d=6 " line , as shown by the broken
vertica l line labelled " example". Move hor i zonta l ly
along the horizontal l ine passing through the
intersection point until you reach the vertical scal e at
the left of the chart , as shown by the broken hori zon t a l
line labelled "exampl e " . Read a maxim um f l yrock range
of 1 45 feet .
2. What is the max i mum flyrock range for a shot in
limestone with 1 2 inch diamete r borehol es loaded with
AN FO and having a minimum burden of 23.5 feet?
Solution: In Figu r e 4 - D f ind the curve label l ed d=l2 ".
Find the vertical l i ne corresponding to a min i mum
burden of 23.5 f eet . It is the l ine t wo small divisio n s
to the right o f the l ine labe lled 22 . 5 f ee t a t the
bottom of the chart; · Go up this li n e to its
intersection with the d=l2 " curve , a.s shown by the
vertica l broken l i ne l abe ll ed " example ". Go across
alon g a horizonta l l i n e th r ough this intersection to
read 440 feet on the vertica l scale on the left of the
chart , as shown by the broken horizontal line. This is
the answer sought.
3. What is the max i mum f l yrock range for a shot in
sandstone with 4 i n ch diame t e r boreholes loaded with
ANFO and hav i ng a mi nimum burden of 8 feet?
Approximate solu t io n : In Figure 3 - D find the vert i ca l
l i n e corresponding to a minimum burden of 8 feet (one
sma ll division to the right of the l ine l abe lled 7.5 a t
the bottom of the chart). Move upwards a l ong this line
until it almost intersects the diagona l l ine l abelled
d=4 . 5 ". The exact position of this i magi nary
i ntersectio n is a " judgement call ." In this examp l e we
wi l l assume that this imagina r y intersection occu rs at a
point give n by the inte r sect i on of the broke n ver t ical
and horizonta l l ines shown. Move to the l e ft a l ong the
b r oken horizonta l l ine to read 24 0 f eet on t he ver t ical
scale o n the left on the cha r t .

73
 More accurate solutio n: To faci li tate estimation of
flyrock range for bore hole diameters not shown in
Figures 2-D and 3-D, the information in these c h arts has
been replotted in Figure 5-D for granite and Figure 6 - D
for sandstone. In the example considered , find th e line
corresponding to a borehole diameter of 4 inches at the
bottom of Figure 6-D. Move vertically alo ng this line
to its intersection with the curve labelled b:=:S ' • Move
to the left along the horizontal line through th i s
intersection to read 260 fee t on th e vertical scale on
the left of the chart. This more accurate answer agrees
fairly well with the 240 feet obtained by th e
approximate method above.

Many different types of sl u rry explosives are now used in

production blasts. It would be tirne~consuming and confusing to
have f l yrock ra nge charts for a ll these slu·rries . A reasonable
estimate of the flyrock range of slurry-loaded shots can be
obtained by simp l y multiplying the flyrock range of analogous
ANFO - loaded shots by 1.5 . Thus in example 1 if the boreholes
were l oaded with slurry , th e f l yrock range is about 1.5 x 1 45 ~

218 feet; in examp l e 2 it is 1.5 x 440 = 660 feet; in examp l e 3

i t i s l •5 ~ 2 60 = .3 9 0 f eet •

D- 2 Fl yrock Range from Bench Tops

The information needed to estimate f l yrock range from bench

tops is:

a. Weight of explosive per boreho l e , W

b. Distance from t he borehole collar to the top of the
explosive charge , s (see Figure 1-D )
c. Borehole diameter, d •
d. Type of rock bei ng b l as t ed
e. Type of explosive used

As d i scussed in Section D-1, items c, d , and e are genera l ly

known precisely. Items a and b should be available from the shot
loading pla n and measurements during borehole loading. Rock

74
1ooor .
90001-;-
. ., ,
1 -: ~ ·· ---~-
3: 1
_ __ _;_ .
I .
--·--'· - ------; ---
, _.
I . .
. _
. • . I----
. .
- - -- 1 - ---l-----1-----· -
• • . : - -
.
----l ..· - -
-- ·- - - : - - -· -
8000--- ·-=-.-·-;- - ~ ~---- !-·-.-.-~-~ - -: · -------.--- --··,:- ! . I ·-

::::~E-:~-r.:::-:-
;.~ ;.- ~, ~-;-~·.=-+~----=
.. ..•
==i-i !••:00
'~-·~ ~.:
.·"=_·~.;_--'-t_;",:+~:-_~-=.::r:.....,..,.:.,:::,+--'-....:....-+..:....;-=--:...+-'
..
-:.~~.=-!.·~ ·:~t; : • Oo
·_].~_:;_. ~,'_t··.:~-.-~~- ~:_-·:,. :..._.
.•. '..
' ' :!:.::
.• -
_ r : :

:-: ~: :::-:...;.. :.. l··~..- o oo o •o

'-''-''"'-~
•
-
,__~-=~- ~-++-"~~~
- o
~-
00
--
.~::·.--·~.: ..-
: :.
. •.•Oo' ;O •OO •o :• •
:. :.:7
,>, : .:.-
L .:·.: :' . ..::, : i ...:.:...
.:':- :_. =M ::._.~_.: ;.:::.._:-
_~:, ,',
!, :_ ...-
· oOoo•

5000 ~--:::~:_.·. :_._

. :., _ .... .. .. :: .:. .. :- :~.:..~_:: .. .. . .... :
-~ :I~==~~··::== :+~ -~~~:: ~~~~~·::: :::tT:: ::.: :-.= ...... - :.: :~·~; ~~;::}~~-- r=~§~~=-~~~~ :~~.:-.;..:: r-~~-= -:=--~

Figure 5-D: MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM

ANFO-LOADED SHOTS IN GRAN I TE (FIXED BURDEN)

75
Figure 6-D: MAXIMUM RANGE OF VERTICAL FACE FLYROCK FROM
ANFO-LOADED SHOTS IN SANDSTONE (FIXED BURDEN)

76
types can be grouped broadly as discussed in Section D-1 . In
what follows, the only type of explosive to be considered is
ANFO . At present there is insufficient data to make precise
estimates of the effect of usi ng explosives other than ANFO
except that in a general sense flyrock range is expected to be
greater for slurry explosives than it is for ANFO.
It has been found that the factor that controls bench top
f l yrock range is s/w 1h. This factor can be obtained from Figure
7-D.

Flyrock ranges for ANFO loaded shots - in granite and

sandstone are given in Figure 8-D as a function of the above
factor (s/W.Vs) for three different borehole diameters. Flyrock
ranges for limestone cannot at present be predicted with any
degree of accuracy. However , in Figure 8-D at any value of s/W 1ft
they are expected to be roughly midway between the ranges for
sandstone and gra n ite.
The following _ examples will i l lustrate the use of this
cnart:

4. What is the maximum flyrock range of an ANFO shot in

sandstone with 105 pounds of ANFO per 6 inch diameter
borehole with 7 feet of stemming?
Solution: W = 105 lbs; s = 7 ft; d = 6 in. Enter
Figure 7- D at W = 105 which is the imaginary vertical
line midway between the vertical line labelled 100 at
the bottom of the chart and the first small division to
its right as indicated by the broken line i n the chart .
Proceed upward along this line labelled "example 4" to
its inter section with diagonal line labe l led s = 7 feet .
Move to the left along the horizonal line through this
intersection~(as indicated by the broken line) to read
1.48 ft/lb 3 on the vertical scalj. on the left o f the
chart . Now enter Figure 8-D at s/w · 3 = 1.48 as shown by
the broken vertical line labelled "example 4" and move
to its intersection with the light diagonal line
labelled d=6". Move to the l eft along the horizontal
line through this intersection (as shownl and read 170
feet on the vertical scale on the left of the chart.
This is the answer sought .

77
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3. . 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

:
10 _

1
~-x : ~:: ~ ::?~~F~~)~
:. ~~ -: 1.:: ~: ~:
.

:::; i;·;~~~: :t(.l.:_;_ ~! i ~ ~-r -~ l:

:c:·'?':-~ :::: ·'.:. i-~~i:.i.: -~ ~:l.-:i-.
.

U1
1
'

;~: ~ ~:~, !,:: , :'): :::: ::!~ ;:~: ,,~: -~~tt~t:tl~ :~n:tjl·~
: ~ :; ,-, ~ :·:: · ,: -~<;~J !Gi ~•::
: ;,
'

:m~m :m~~~ ;:w0 :;. ~~~ ;r~ ~~:

':::__~_:g:L:- .:r..,~-~: ;.:_,;;- 'i~i ,:; ' ::~ :~; ~ ;.,;~ ;"? .:~; ~== ~::: ___7
~;,:
-. 1

6 ~ · ~~ :: .:;: .: .. :-:-:--~ ::.· "":"~ ~ :! ~: ~ ; h 1~ ,: :H::::::::';: :::: T: w: ::g :::: :i::-~- -~-~ - , ~;: ." -i·~~~- ~.if~: ?~~Lj;: :~~ ~:: -~~ :~ ~~ ~~ ::f: __ 6
I< ! ~ ~~ :: ·.. r+--: : ·, :' ~ .:: :: i: ·:· ' . ..... :. · ;: · ::: : :;: ;:.·.t:: - ~ !. ! : 1 : J :::: :;:~ :t~:: .. · ~: ;: .. :.-.;;; ::::: .. ::.::

:~~~~:~~~~k~~~~J: 'fjff+~H~' ~ i,~~:; -~ ~ ~J:~~"l~~ :

:: : ~,
:: . : ~ <; , _:: :~,~~r-
f·_r.::.t~~~~~ : ·: .~ -K:: , ,~ ~~~
1 ., ..-=r---. ........... ~ : 6~G
1
::;: fu;
: : .· : · :..:.~ ~_:: ...:.:: _.. ..:::·::. :.:: ....:....:. ..:.: ..::·•,... ~
.. _.!.. :.. -~--: · :: :: s~· I ~~~ 'f.7i~ ·::· ~N , ; - ~ -:-Y
i:ii iiiii i;i :iii>::;:<i;;: :::: :::; ::;;:~:
:;.: i ; ~ ::: ·:: ~: : : :::.r::-::8
1
::. ::: ·
·

~
"'k..·l > ..... ·· · ... --:-......._ ~I·~ . . ,. ~· ~·-·· ··.· 1~ ; ·
.. . . ·· · · · · 1 : ·!1
1c-r-. .......:......' 1, ~ ,, I
5 ·•<-e ·I- ~ - ,~ ~ -~~
1 ,., .. ......:...: , -·' · IJ"·-'-··------ ·- --· ,... - --· - -
' -~:--:....:.::.., ' ."--...j"'-:. ' , .. , ........ _._ ... .......... -:.j

~P~E ·6 ~~~~~ .. .. :: ..:. ! · ;~~ ; ~~t~~~~:-~]l~~~~ -1i:·: -:>h:; ::;~~:~~:.:::~::·:-::~· --

2 2

~DT E)., i - - . lr---rl :--:-:- ... 0 f:.:.. ,_~ ~ ~ ~~-..:. · "F'-Jd··.·--:-:-;- ~r--:- :·'I i i~~ ..j : !! l: ~r'~J: ·: ~~ ~:: ·. ~~: 1 :"·
~Afu..... -~-~--- ~~ · '-'-"-'-L. .-;-_,_ ..""r=r.:==~- · -. __.,.....~d-"1..,_"""'~"TT: -:-'- ·-jt-K!....--:=~--·1· · =-

~
. .... ... !. , .. ~i~ .... . .. '1 1 ". 1 ~ !. ! .. : .. :..... .. : . : . 1, ~ ..--:-,-, .;~. .. :::·· 1 - ~-:~ - - ·-:;-,...~~~ .. ;..... ............... _...... l.c-r--
·I·· ·' ...... l..~
j· ~- , · ::=:- Iii i i/ .:·1:::
·.· · J' It ; ~ 1
1 ~~-f· :: ; r;:-:r-::-~· t·i-IJI . . . .:. :.. . ·>· l 1 1JS~. ~~ ""'-'..:.:::-
~·~:-, s~,;.;,:_ --·· 1
L'_ :
""" ~r--'1!1-. :, .. ' : .. !'....:: .... -- ; ; : r i I ~ I .. : .,. , . ,. ' ·--,:..:.: '1; . : I : ,-~·--
r --- _..
' ~J:-:-. ~- · , II ~c· ,-~
-.....:_· · i ,. . . .......... . --- 1 :-'!'-- · ~· , .. 4 . • 1 .. , I ••~-..s,.., -
7 ..... 1 ... .. , ,~
,. j .l .. .. ~ , . • . . 1 . -~- . ... ~ t , ·~i-1..:..--· ..;-1- ~-.... .... __ .,....,...;,:.: ..:._ -· ·-
~ l. EXA;"iP LE 5 --....:.. · · ., :·. •- _:-" . . :· .. l• -..... -.E. I · " : ~t- · I • '! ! 1 1 ' '1 . --... · 1 f'--. ~ · 1

· :::::: ~:H: · :~ ~ :_~ :,.'J::: ~~~ -;~::;L~~r~n:BJ·

. . ... :. . . . ,:~ T:· : ,;...'ht~e,':
.. ... ~;:-s~~~-:
_

1
~ 0.9 1

,.. . . ._ o.s
.t:l
~ 0.7
, • . -:sr~ , ~ .,, r---..~ ....... ~.......:.· .......
-.J .•
00 ~
•• 1 . . ... , . . . ! ... _. , .. . r-;::1'-"i-..... , . , .. 1 ....
.· ~ o .6 ::::::: ~: , : · . :·: ~ : ·:~f"· . : ::: ·: ... - · ~ ·: ·;:: ::l:·. :: : · · ~~~- ~~~ :.:::::::: t~ ~ : l:; ::;: i·::::·:i:_ ...;.;: :···:: .. - :- ::... ::::: 6

L;+~±Y!_~~f0 ~ t-iGJr±E~{ji\j m~2:~ 2 j3]J;; :

...~ 0.5
::::
..........
So.4 ,_ -! •:. • .••
... ..... A . . '. : I .I . .. .. . . . ,-;- ... , :·1 .. ~ . I" . . .......... ~ ..... ~-. . '.. .. .... ~ ..:!.1-:-:::-::-c: .... r--;~
~ -. ~ j I'~ L_~~~-+J~lL ;: ::--~~ ·:: · ~ ; :i ?}t ~--· ,' - , 7 34-. ~~'
03

.... .. . . .... 1...

-d1H lJ<
t .............. ' :"' . . . . :Jo. =f ....... ·. . . .
... j ... r-s .... . . . ................ _....... ~
1
:
·i; .. . .:.. l ..

~ ·~ ~u_ijlx .ji£ ;: --~~~ ~:: :-·),;~ ~,~t_ ': j'~~~~!!!: : !! :::?I ,f'fBg2~~ ·'
02

I • ! :;
. . . . 1 .. ...... 1· .. . . . .... .. . Jx:l· :
. .. .. .. .. . ·lr:a ··I' · .. :. ::. . .
. I .,
!:
. , .. ... .. •.-1-· " " .:x:
:! : ::.i .. ·.:''.'...' ' .J:· ·'l· r:a .: ·; ; ::::
.1 ,_ .. 1 1 1, , , ... . ' ·•· . 1, ........ . . . . . . . . .... . . . ..
. : J i· ! ;! .:1::.. .. ·' " ... , ... . .. .
.. . .. . .. i . . .. .. .' .. 'i ; I . ,. I j l i. • ' . .. ' ; .. ' i i I I . ' .. ' • I ' . : .. . : ......... ; .. .. . .. .. ....... .
0 .11 I I . ,, . .I .... i I 1li, . '· . : . · . .:. ·· : j I ' !' i t .i '• l , ' , _ •·'-'
1
i. ,,.,, : _. 1
10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ioo ioo 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 iooo i:Joo 3 4 5 6 78 9 ioooo
Tens '- l!u;rreds , Tho~ands
W (lbs)

Figure 7-D: CORRELATION FACTOR (s/W 1fi) FOR BENCH TOP FLYROCK
1~000 .. :::
, I !

....: ,.. ,.......

: 0 0 • • • ~.: : . • • • •• • •
. .. .
• • : •

·o .t o ./5 o:2 0.25 o.3 o.4 o.5 o .6 0.1 o1!o.9 · _

10 1.5 2 2 .5 3 4 s 6 1 a s 10
1 3 1 3
s/N / (ft/lb / )

Figure 8-D: MAXIMUM RANGE FOR BENCH TOP FLYROCK FOR

ANFO~LOADED SHOTS IN GRANITE AND SANDSTONE

79
 S. What is the maximum flyrock range for an ANFO shot in
granite with 40 pounds of ANFO per 3 inch diameter
borehole with 4 feet of stemming?
Solution: W = 40 lbs: s = 4 ft: d = 3 in. Proceed as
in example 4 a l ong the broken lines in Figure 7-D
labelled "exa·mple S" to get s/W l ,/3 = 1. 2 ft/lb 1P . In
Figure 8-D proceed along the broken lines labelled
"example S" to get a maximum flyrock range of 640 feet.
6. What is the maximum flyrock range for an ANFO shot in
limestone with 700 pounds of ANFO per 6 inch diameter
borehole with lS feet of stemming?
Solution: w = 700 lbs: s = lS ft: d = 6 in. Proceed as
in example 4 along the br;oken line labell~d " exampl e 6
in Figure 7-D to get s/WV3 = 1.7 ft/lb 1~. Then in
Figure 8-D proceed along the broken line labelled
" example 6" to obtain an approximate flyrock range of
2SO feet.

D-3 Elevation Correction

Flyrock from a tall benc·h (regardless of whether it.

originates from a free face or from a bench top) can travel
further than flyrock from a low bench. The charts and examples
of the preceding sections. give flyrock range, Lm, for an
imaginary bench that is at the same elevation as its
surroundings. Normally benches are at an elevation that is
higher than their surroundings. Thus a correction has to be
applied to the flyrock ranges given in the preceding section to
take into account the effect of higher elevation . The corrected
flyrock range is given as a function of elevation above
surroundings in Figure 9-D. The following examples will
illustrate the use of this chart.

7. What is the maximum flyrock range of example l if the

top of the explosive column is SO feet above the
surroundings (this is the distance l abe ll ed ~ in Figure
1-D) ?
Solution: Enter Figure 9-D at bottom at the vertical
line labelled SO feet. Proceed along this line (as

80
 0 20 40 60 80 100
Height of Explosive Column or Height of Bench (Pt)

Figure 9-D: ELEVATION CORRECTION FOR MAXIMUM FLYROCK RANGE

81
 shown by the broken l ine labelled "example l") to a
point about midway between the curves labelled Lm = 100'
and Lro = 200 ' (since the L = 145' obtained in e~ample 1
is about halfway between 1~0' and 200') and then move
horizontally to the left (as indicated by the broken
l ine) to r ea d a corrected flyrock range of 185 feet.

8. What is the maximum flyrock range of example 5 if bench

is 100 feet above surroundi n gs (height h . in Figure 1-D)?
Solution: Enter Figure 9 -D at bottom at the vertical
l ine labelled 1 00 ' . Proceed as s h own by the broken line
labelled " example 5" to a point about one-quarter of the
dista n ce between the curves labelled Lm = 600 ' and Lm =
800 ' (Lm is 640' in example 5 or 40' above Lm = 600.
The difference between L~ = 800' and~~= 600' is 200' :
thus 40 7 200 is about one -quarter). Move horizontally
to the left along broken line to read a corrected
flyrock range of 740 feet.

As a general ru l e, elevation corrections for flyrock ranges

are s mall if bench heights are small . Corrections are also
re l ative l y small if the uncorrected flyrock range (Lro) is already
l arge.

82
 APPENDIX E
SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF THE UTILIZATION OF EXPLOSIVE ENERGY
I N BREAKING ROCK

Although the utilization of explosive energy in rock blasting

is only indirectly related to objectives of the present study, this
is a subject of much inte~est and has received periodic attention
over the years (References 8, 13, 15 irid 2~). Some of the deduc-
tions of the present study may cast additional light on this somewhat
controversial matter and are consequently included in this report.

The model developed in the present study is capable ofestimating

the following:

o kinetic energy of the broken rock,

o kinetic energy of the detonation product gases,

o energy losses that do not contribute to propelling broken

rock or product gases.

Presumably these energy losses consist of:

0
residual energy in the product gases after they have
expanded to a stage where they are no longer capable
of breaking rock,
0
gas venting losses through cracks or blown-out stemming,
0
generation of seismic waves in the surrounding rock,
0 crushing the rock immediately around the borehole,
0 energy consumed in actually breaking the rock and related
energy losses due to inter-rock friction as the rock
breaks apart and/or losses due to plastic deformation of
the rock. ·

Estimation ~ of all these individual quantities is no simple

~ask and, in fact, may be impossible with existing data. However,
combining some of the loss terms simplifies the calculation and
permits formulating some intriguing hypotheses concerning the
optimum use of the chemical energy of the explosive for breaking
rock in bench blasting.

83
 Let us consider the energy used to -break rock and to impart
kinetic energy to the broken rock as "useful energy." The energy
to crush rock around the borehole and to produce a seismic wave
in the rock will be called "wasted energy." For the time being,
we shall ignore "wasted energy" due to venting of detonation
product gases. The kinetic energy of the br-oken rock is mu~/2
and the work of breaking the rock (according to the model of
Section 3.2.1) is mK 3 W or simpl y mK' . The sum E of these two
r
energies is:

but from equation (12) u~ = S(c/m) -2K ', where Sis the slope
of the u~ vs. c/m plot and -2K ' is the intercept. Consequently ,

l: = (m/2) ·[3(c/m) - 2K' + 2K'] = Sc/2. (E.- .1 )

The "use:fi.ul energy " per unit weight of explosive, a, is just S/2.
The ratio of l: to the tota l chemical energy cQ of the explosive
is :

E/cQ = S/2Q. (E-2)

The "wasted energy" per unit weight of explosive, according

to Section 3.2.2 is K1 Ws +K 2 Wc = K" . Now, from equation (12)
K ' ~E ' = 1- S/2E ' and the ratio of "wasted energy" to the chemical
energy of the explosive is:

K"/Q = E ' /Q(l- S/2E ' ) = 2E' /2Q- S/2Q. (E - 3)

Now, we can examine the conditions for minimizing the ratio

of "wasted energy " to "useful energy" , namel y K "ja . From the
above K"/a= (E ' -S/2)/(S/2) =2E ' /S-l. Since S=2E'(l-K ' '/E ' ),

K"/a = 1/( 1 -K"/E') -1 = (K"/E ' )/(1-K "/E ' ). (E-4)

84
 According to equation (E-4).., for a given rock (i.e. , a given ·K"),
K' 1a becomes progressively smaller as 2E' increases. Similarly,
by eliminating S, a = 2E ' ( 1 - K "/E') /2 and a, the useful work per
unit weight of explosive increases as 2E' increases. Thus
explosives with large values of f2ET are expected to be more
·-·-efficient than explosives with low 12E ' .

Since imparting too much kinetic energy to the broken rock

is undesirable (it creates far - ranging flyrock) , optimum use
of the chemical energy of the explosive is expected for explosives
with large 2E ' but with borehole diameters and burden to the free
face chosen to keep c/m small. The factor 2E ' can be increased
9Y using an explosive whose detonation velocity, D, is large or
an explosive whose r is small since 2E' ::,:const [ D2 /(f -1)]. Thus,
the effectiveness of the relatively low detonation velocity
ANFO may be attributed to its low r.
We will use the vertical face data for granite to estimate
an energy balance for rock blasting, since these data are the
most extensive that we now have. Specifically we ·.will use
equation ( 13.) in wh.i ch all the data ·have been normalized to a
~ for EL506C sheet explosive. According to Reference 15, Q,
the total chemi cal energy of this explosive is about 4 x lOH' ergs/g.
The ratio of the kinetic energy of the broken rock to Q is given
by (m/c) (v~/2Q). The ratio of the energy to break rock to Q is
given by (m/c) (.K 3 Wr/2Q). The tabulation below shows these rock
kinetic energy and rock breakage energy ratios, as well as.Z/cQ,
as a f~nctidn 6f ·c/m.

(c/m) 10 4 (m/c)l0- 3 mv 2 /2cQ* mK 3 Wr/cQ ** I:/cQ

0

2 5 0 . 071 0.365 0 . 436

3 3.33 0.192 0 . 244 0.436
5 2 0.290 0 . 146 0.436
10 1 0 . 363 0.073 0.436

* From equation ( 13)

2
** For 2K 3 Wr = 5.84 x 10 6 (em/sec)

85
 As shown above, the sum of the two ratios is constant
and independent of c/m. Thus, for the conditions described,
the " useful energy " is about 44% of the chemical energy of
the explosive.

According to equation (E~3) the energy that is used in

generating the seismic wave in the rock plus the energy used
in crushing the rock surrounding the borehole can be estimated
as follows. Since 2E ' = (2.3xl0 5 ) 2 (cm/sec) 2 , S=3.478xl010 (cm/sec) 2
and Q ~ 4 x 1010 ergs/g,

K "/Q = 0. 2 2 6 .

Thus , the energy consumed in imparting kinetic energy to the

broken rock , breaking the rockr . generating the seismic wave and
crushing the rock around the borehole amounts to 0.436 + 0.226 :
0.662 or about 2/3 of the chemical energy of the explosive . It
may be expected that the remaining 1/3 of the chemical energy
is "lost '1 through gas venting ai).d residual energy of the product
gv.scn . Howcve:::: f this may not be the __.case ..

Anderson~·/ ~how~d that the average escape velocity

of product gases from a slab of explosive backed by a rigid boundary
attains a maximum value of about 0 . 3D, where D is the detonation
velocity of the explosive. Thus , an extreme upper limit of the
ratio of kinetic energy of the escaping gas to the chemical energy
of the explosive (assuming that all the product gases vent) is
(0 . 3D) 2 /2Q = 0 . 54. Obviously this ratio is a gross overestimate ,
but it does suggest that -appreciable energy can be lost through
venting . These losses might be expected to be proportional to
c , and thus be automatically included as an additional constant
in the bracketed term of equation (12) , and be part of. what we
have called seismic and crushing energies. However, these venting
losses may differ not only for different strata but also for
different explosives in the same strata . Thus the relation
between venting losses and c may be quite complex .

86