9406 G Workman

FLYROCK PREDICTION AND CONTROL
IN SURFACE MINE BLASTING
J. Lyall Workman and Peter N. Calder

Calder & Workman, Inc., Washburn, N.D.
ABSTRACT
Flyrock can be a serious hazard associated with blasting. Many surface blasting accidents
involving injury result from excessive flyrock beyond the protected blast zone. Numerous
cases of equipment damage at the mine, quarry or construction site have resulted from flyrock.
Fragments propelled beyond the property limits of the operation have also caused injury and
damage.
This paper discusses the path described by flyrock ejected from the blast and the factors
that affect the throw distance. The initial fragment velocity and angle are most important in this
regard. A range of initial velocities that are associated with flyrock incidents are suggested.
Proper blast design is essential to avoiding excessive flyrock. Acceptable scaled depths of
burial are required at the top and face of the blast if flyrock is to be avoided.
The blast must be properly implemented according to design. Total quality management of
blasting operations is essential to eliminating flyrock incidents. Consistent stemming heights,
adequate front row burdens, correct blast hook-up and the avoidance of misfires are some of
the important factors to control.
Geology also plays an important role. Mud seams and open jointing are particularly
important in this regard. Voids in the ground, whether intersected or located between the
blasthole and the face can cause dangerous flyrock situations. Where geology is a factor
geological mapping of the bench faces should be performed to project the occurrence of
adverse zones in future blasts. Drills equipped with modern performance monitoring equipment
may also provide information useful for adjusting explosive loading in the presence of mud
seams and voids.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Flyrock can be a serious problem associated with blasting. Unanticipated flyrock is

hazardous to employees and equipment at the mine, quarry or construction site. Where blasting
operations are conducted in proximity to populated areas flyrock may also be a hazard to
Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

1994g - FLYROCK PREDICTION AND CONTROL IN SURFACE MINE BLASTING - P 59 1 of 15
people, structures and equipment not on the blasting site.
To avoid confusion the term flyrock requires definition. There are two zones of flyrock,
which may be termed "normal" and "excessive". Normal flyrock zone refers to the area where
flyrock is expected to occur. It is the zone from which personnel are evacuated prior to
blasting and is cordoned off during the blast.
The excessive flyrock zone is the area beyond the protected zone where flyrock does not
normally occur. Flyrock in this area is a result of poor blasting practice or undetected
geological conditions favoring the projection of rock fragments to large distances. It is this
latter type of flyrock that is the primary topic of this paper.
Excessive flyrock is one of the main causes of accidents associated with blasting (Dick,
Fletcher and D'Andrea). In 1988 the Mine Safety and Health Administration published a
report of blasting incidents among which were nineteen flyrock accidents, which were classified
under flyrock and concussion, and blast area security incidents (Fischer). The MSHA report
describes accidents involving people and equipment both on and off the property where the
blast occurred.
During the years 1978 and 1984 there were 45 flyrock accidents in surface mining alone
that resulted in injury or death (Fletcher and D'Andrea). These authors also report that flyrock
which travels beyond the protected blasting area causes 25 percent of the blasting accidents
occurring in surface mining.
The degree of displacement of the muckpile varies in surface mining according to the
equipment in use and the blasting task at hand. In quarries, where front end loaders are often in
use, a low blast profile is required for efficient loading, which requires substantial displacement
to spread the blasted rock out creating the reduced profile. In mines, employing electric mining
shovels a well fragmented and loosened muckpile is desired, but with less displacement in order
to keep the shovel working in a higher, more productive bank as much as possible.
Large displacements are desired when cast blasting is employed to displace overburden
above a coal seam into the previously mined dragline cut adjacent to the blast. In this instance
explosive energy is being used to excavate a portion of the material. Large displacements also
occur when cratering charges are used to produce ditches, or trenches in which pipelines may
be laid.
The area of normal displacement and flyrock will vary according to these differing needs.
The normal zone of flyrock can be predicted from an understanding of the design criteria and
the observation of blasting results at the property. Flyrock beyond the normal zone should not
be expected if the blast is properly designed and implemented, and the local geology is well
understood.

2.0 PREDICTING FLYROCK TRAVEL
2.1 Projectile Motion
It is instructive to examine the parameters that affect the path of flyrock travel. For this
discussion the point of departure is taken as the moment when the chunk has just broken free
and begins to be propelled away from the blast. The rock will travel according to the rules of
projectile motion along a parabolic path. It is assumed that the fragment moves freely and does
not interact with other chunks, which would alter its velocity and trajectory and reduce the
throw distance.
For projectile motion the travel of the rock is described by the initial velocity of the chunk
and the angle at which it departs the face or top of the blast. For chunks ejected a distance
above grade the height of the rock above grade also affects the distance travelled and the
maximum height to which the rock rises.
Two expressions may be derived for the distance travelled by the flyrock (Chiapetta, Bauer,
Dailey and Burchell). Air resistance, and wind direction and speed are neglected. This is
reasonable given that flyrock usually (but not always) travels less than 3000 feet and rises only
a few hundred feet at maximum. These relationships are:
R1 = V0 2 sin 2 θ /g
R2 = V0 cos [V0 sin θ + .(V0 sin θ )2 + 2g H]/g
where:
R1 = Distance travelled by the rock along a horizontal line at the original elevation of the
rock on the face.
R2 = Total distance travelled by a fragment ejected from the blast accounting for its height
above the pit floor.
V0 = The initial velocity of the rock.
θ = The angle of departure with the horizontal
g = Gravitational constant
Therefore, the horizontal distance travelled by the rock is dependent upon the initial velocity
of the chunk and the angle above the horizontal at which it is ejected. The maximum distance
will occur for an angle of 45 degrees and it must be assumed that, for a given velocity, some
fragment will be ejected at this angle.
The weight of the rock does not enter into these equations directly. However, for a given
applied force smaller chunks will have greater acceleration since the acceleration equals the
applied force divided by the mass of the rock. Therefore, one would expect to find smaller

fragments at longer distances from the blast.
The maximum height to which the flyrock rises can also be calculated.
where h1 = Maximum height along range R1, feet

h2 = Maximum height along range R2, feet
To calculate the height to which the chunk has risen at any point on the trajectory the
following equation may be used.
where hi = The height of rise at any given horizontal distance measured relative to the
original elevation of the fragment
Ri = The horizontal distance along the trajectory
Finally, the time a piece of flyrock will take to travel a given horizontal distance can be
calculated.
where t = the travel time in seconds

X = the horizontal distance travelled
Figure 1 illustrates these concepts. Figure 2 shows the flyrock travel path for a rock ejected
at 175 ft/second (52.4 m/sec) and a45. angle. The chunk will rise to 238 feet (72.5 meters)
above its starting elevation and return to the initial elevation at a horizontal distance of about
930 feet (284 meters). By contrast a rock ejected at the same angle but at 125 ft/second (38
meters/second) will only rise about 150 feet (45.7 meters) and travel 460 feet (140 meters)
before returning to grade.
In the case of narrow benches in an open pit or quarry the fragment may continue to fall
below grade. From figure 2 one can see that a rock free to fall 500 feet (152 meters) below
grade, as might happen when starting a new phase in a pit employing laybacks, will travel 1350
feet (412 meters) horizontally for the same initial velocity and angle.

2.2 Initial Velocity
Given that the angle yielding the maximum range of flyrock is 45 degrees, then the initial
velocity of the chunk is the primary descriptor of how far the fragment will travel. Therefore, it
is useful to know something about the initial velocities that may be imparted to the rock.
There are numerous variables that affect the initial velocity imparted to a rock on the face or
at the top of the blast. Therefore, it is doubtful that computational techniques alone will
consistently give accurate results for fragment velocity. Thus, determination of safe evacuation
distances from blasts will always depend to a significant degree on observations at the
operation. Important variables that affect flyrock velocities are:
Stemming height Drilling accuracy

Front row burden Backbreak & loose rock at the top surface
Burden and spacing Unsuitable stemming material
Geology Excessive explosive consumption
Millisec. delay timing Blasthole loading procedures

Millisecond delay accuracy and hookup
In general it would appear that initial velocities below 100 ft/sec (30.5 m/sec) do not often
result in problems. At this velocity a rock will travel 312 feet (95 meters) before returning to
the starting elevation. At most mines and quarries the protected blast zone will be greater than
this distance. Evacuation distances for personnel of 300 feet (91.5 meters) are not prudent in
our view.
It is likely that most flyrock that does cause problems will have initial velocities in the range
of 100 to 200 ft/sec. For example figure 3 shows face velocities as a function of the scaled
burden off the side of a cylindrical charge. This graph indicates that a velocity of 100 ft/sec
(30.5 m/sec) may occur at a scaled burden of 2.2 ft/(lb/ft). (1.0 m/(kg/m).. At 200 ft/sec
(61m/sec) the scaled burden is 1.25 ft/lb. (.56 m/kg.) and at 300 ft/sec (91.5 m/sec) it is about
1.0 ft/lb. (0.45 m/kg.). Table 1 shows the burdens that would correspond to these velocities
for typical blasthole diameters when ANFO at a density of 0.85 gm/cc is the explosive.
While most velocities of excessive flyrock are likely to be in the range cited above incidents
where the velocity must have been greater have been reported. Fletcher and D'Andrea for
example discuss a case where flyrock was thrown over 3,750 feet (1,143 meters). The
elevations of the ejection and impact points are not given, but if it is assumed that these are
similar then the initial velocity must have been in the range of 350 ft/sec (107 meters/sec) if the
angle of trajectory was 45.. If the angle was 30. or 60. then a velocity of 375 ft/sec (114
m/sec) would have been necessary.
Fischer reports a case where flyrock travelled 2500 feet. In this case, for a 45. angle, an

initial velocity of 280 ft/sec (85m/sec) would be required to return the chunk to its original
elevation. Again, the initial velocity would be greater for other trajectory angles.
Figure 3 and table 1 show that the burdens associated with high velocity are very small
compared to what one would expect in bench blasting in open pits. Scaled burdens between
2.5 ft/lb. and4.0 ft/lb. (1.1 m/kg. - 1.81 m/kg.) are quite typical depending on the material.
Therefore, it would seem clear that these high fragment velocities result from problems in blast
design or field implementation, because under normal circumstances initial velocities of less than
100 ft/sec (30.5 m/sec) would be expected.
3.0 FLYROCK CAUSES AND CONTROL
3.1 General Discussion
Excessive flyrock must be avoided. These incidents can be disastrous from a safety,
equipment and structure damage, and public relations point of view. Therefore, the velocity of
fragments propelled from the blasting area must be kept below a threshold value to insure that
problems do not arise. This means that blasting at the mine, quarry or construction site must be
performed in a correct and careful manner. Nowhere is total quality control more important
than in blasting operations.
Proper blast design and accurate implementation of the blast are the two areas of
fundamental concern for controlling flyrock velocities and keeping the fragments within the
normal flyrock zone. A third important parameter is understanding the localized geology and
adjusting the explosive loading to avoid placing energy in areas where it will be poorly confined.
3.2 Blast Design
If the blast design is improper and conducive to flyrock no amount of care in the field will
avoid the production of excessive flyrock. Therefore, this is where flyrock control must begin.
It is essential that the correct burden and spacing be used for the given rock formation and
explosive. Inadequate burden will not properly contain the very high pressure explosion gases.
Less work will be transferred into the burden and more gas venting will occur. Excessive
flyrock may be associated with the escape of these gases.
Burden and spacing dimensions that are too large will result in an overconfined blast.
Velocity vectors will be oriented in a more upward direction and more flyrock can result. The
spacing dimension should not be less than the burden.
The burden selected should yield a scaled depth of burial that is consistent with the rock
being blasted and its geology. Figure 4 illustrates what occurs for charges of the same
explosive in the same rock for different burdens. As the burden is reduced below optimum

flyrock and noise increase. Figure 5 plots the scaled crater depth versus the scaled burden for
charges fired in granite. The optimum scaled burden is about 2.7 ft/(lb/ft). (1.22 m/(kg/m).).
For lower scaled depths of burial than optimum displacement and flyrock increase. Therefore,
blast designs that incorporate a burden that yields a scaled burden significantly less than
optimum for the given explosive and rock formation will be more prone to excessive flyrock
production.
The energy input into the blast should be reasonable for the rock to be broken. As a
practical matter this is usually measured as powder factor, or ANFO equivalent powder factor
if one wants to make comparisons between explosives in the same rock type. If the powder
factor is too high more flyrock is quite likely. The burden and spacing dimensions are directly
related to the powder factor. Therefore choosing a powder factor which is too high for the
material being blasted will result in pattern dimensions which are too small and more flyrock will
result.
Portions of a blast may be overloaded if a waterproof explosive of greater density and

energy output is used in wet holes. Stemming heights may need to be increased. If front row
holes are to be loaded with the waterproof product careful consideration must be given to the
minimum front row burden that can safely be carried on these blastholes. Since the weight of
explosive per foot will increase with the denser explosive the scaled burden will decrease for
the same burden dimension.
It is essential that the correct amount of stemming be used in the blasthole. The top portion
of a production charge acts as a spherical cratering charge to break out to the top surface. If
the scaled depth of burial of this portion of the charge is not adequate there will be increased
flyrock off the top of the charge.
Figure 6 plots spherical cratering relationships in brittle rock. Optimum crater dimensions
are produced at a scaled depth of burial of 2.0 ft/lb1/3 (0.90 m/kg1/3). Note however that
maximum flyrock distance is achieved at a scaled depth of burial of about 1.0 ft/lb1/3 (0.45
m/kg1/3). Therefore, blastholes that are loaded too close to the top will be very prone to
produce excessive flyrock. From the figure one can note that flyrock travel will be much less
indeed when a scaled depth of burial at the top of the charge that is near optimum is used.
The location of the front row is very important to containing both flyrock and airblast.
Position of the front row holes must be adjusted as required, on the blast plan map, to account
for irregularities in crest and toe positions. If blasts are not designed on a plan map then these
adjustments will have to be made when the blast is laid out in the field. Clearly benches with
regular faces will be least problematic regarding front row burdens. Primary factors in
achieving regular faces are minimizing backbreak and insuring that the excavator does not
overdig portions of the blast. Scaled depth of burial should be checked on the front row holes
to insure that these are not too much less than optimum. This should be done for both the body
and top of the charge.

Bench heights should be acceptable for the blasthole size and pattern in use. In general the
bench height should not be less than the burden otherwise cratering to the upper surface will
become more prevalent. This may lead to more flyrock.
It is essential that the blast have adequate relief to allow the rock blasted on the previous
row of a multirow blast to displace before subsequent rows detonate. Figure 7 shows that the
minimum time required for the onset of movement is 1 millisecond per foot of burden (3.3
ms/meter) (Bauer, Calder and Workman). Delay times less than this will be more likely to lead
to excessive flyrock. Optimum delay times for relief are often 2-2. ms/ft (6.5-8.2 ms/meter) of
burden. If the blast cannot relieve velocity vectors will be increasingly oriented toward the top
surface and more violent movement of the top is quite likely.
3.3 Blast Implementation
Given that proper blast designs have been developed it is essential that the drilling and
blasting crews accurately implement the blast. No matter how good the design it will not
prevent excessive flyrock if procedures in the field depart from the plan.
Properly preparing the blast in the field begins with drilling accuracy. If the blastholes are
not consistently drilled according to the designed pattern then there will be holes that are
underburdened and others which are overburdened. Either way more flyrock can result as the
initial velocity of fragments increases. Each pattern should be staked out on the bench. Care
should be taken not to knock out or run over stakes. Once the pattern has been staked access
to the blast site should be limited.
Drilling accuracy should also include not overdrilling the subgrade. Unnecessary subgrade
drilling will result in more broken rock at the top of the blasts on the next bench down. Loose
rock near the surface can be especially prone to being ejected at high velocities.
Before loading the depth of each blasthole must be measured. This should be done as close
to the time of hole loading as possible to avoid situations where sluffing or caving reduces the
hole depth between the time of measuring and loading. If a blasthole is short and this is not
known explosive will be loaded too high in the hole and there will be too little stemming. The
scaled depth of burial of the top of the charge will be less than optimum and the top will move
at greater velocity. Fragments are likely to be projected into the excessive flyrock zone.
The rise of explosive in each hole must conform to proper design. If the explosive collar
heights and therefore stemming heights are variable excessive flyrock will result in some areas of
the blast while the top will be poorly fragmented in other areas. Accurate collar heights by
contrast will lead to uniform, good top breakage without fragments being ejected at high
velocities. The stemming column must be of sufficient length in every hole to insure an adequate
depth of burial for the top of the charge.

It is very important that the blaster bob the holes with the blasting tape during loading.
While it may seem time consuming it is the only way to be certain each hole is loaded to the
proper collar. Reliance on the weighing and control systems on modern bulk loading trucks is
not prudent. While these systems may put the right weight of explosive in the hole they cannot
tell the blaster about short holes, cavities that have been intersected or other factors that can
affect the column rise. Also malfunctions in the truck control system may not be immediately
evident.
Suitable stemming material should be used. Drill cuttings are often employed and in many
cases are adequate. However, in wet holes drill cuttings are often rifled from the hole at high
velocity and contain the explosion gases for very short periods of time. Also, fine powdery drill
cuttings, such as may occur if the drill has inadequate bailing velocity, can be rifled at high
velocity.
It has often been found that stemming material in the range of +1/2 inch-3/4 inch (+13
mm-19 mm) provides the best service. If a source of this material is available it will be
especially useful for stemming wet holes or for replacing drill cuttings having unsuitable
characteristics.
In a study of flyrock generation (Kopp, Cumerlato and Fletcher) it was noted that high top
surface velocities were often associated with high stemming velocities. The highest top surface
velocity recorded on high speed films was 140 ft/sec and this was associated with a stemming
velocity of 1500 ft/sec. Although there is scatter in the data the trend was clearly that higher
stemming velocities tended to correlate with higher top velocities. This is to be expected as
high stemming velocities would indicate the rapid release of the high pressure explosion gases to
the top. Greater force will be exerted on chunks in the collar region and fragments may well be
ejected at higher velocity. Therefore, use of an adequate stemming material is important to the
control of flyrock, as well as adequate stemming length..
Front row burden is an important issue in controlling flyrock. Adjustments must be made,
when designing the blast, for irregularities in the face. Also, it is important that the shovel not
overdig the back of the previous blast if the front row of the next pattern has already been
drilled. In addition it may be necessary to adjust the stemming on the front row.
The bench face will have an angle less than 90 degrees. This may result from geological
structure, backbreak or the digging action of the excavator. Usually the front row holes are
drilled near the crest to avoid excessive toe burdens. Because of the bench face angle the
burden on the charge decreases from the toe to the crest of the bench. Loading explosive to
the same collar as used on other rows may result in low scaled depths of burial in the upper
region of the hole. Rapid gas venting and high flyrock velocity can be a direct result.
Therefore, increasing the front row stemming where part of the column would otherwise be
under-burdened will be essential to avoiding flyrock.

Once a millisecond delay pattern has been designed for the blast it is imperative that the
hookup is correctly implemented by the blasting crew. Out-of-rotation firing is an important
cause of flyrock incidents as it leads to poor relief of portions of the blast. If the firing rotation
is being accomplished using down-the-hole delays it is very important to be certain that the
correct delay period is placed in each hole as it will be difficult to alter the sequence later if an
error has been made. It is essential that the blaster carefully walk the blast after it has been
hooked-up to insure that the sequence has been correctly connected. This procedure should
not be thought of as just a formality.
Backbreak should be kept to a minimum. Otherwise there will be loose rock on the face
which may be propelled at high velocity if gases rapidly vent through to the face with limited
attenuation of pressure. Backbreak is best controlled by insuring good relief away from the
back row and by adjusting the energy input to the back row if necessary.
Misfires are to be avoided. Misfired holes increase the burden on subsequent holes firing in
the pattern. Such overconfinement can lead to excessive flyrock. Using the right explosive for
the application, proper priming, avoiding gaps in the column, insuring the integrity of detonating
cord or tube downlines and being certain that all holes are connected during hook-up are all
key factors in avoiding misfires. If misfires exposed in the bank must be reshot great care must
be taken, and equipment and people must be evacuated to greater distances than usual as these
shots are often less confined and more prone to produce unwanted flyrock.
Hard toe conditions are to be avoided. Toe shots have led to numerous flyrock incidents in
mines and quarries. The keys to avoiding hard toe are good blast design and proper
implementation as discussed above.
3.4 Effects of Geology
Primary concerns with regard to geology are weak mud or clay seams and cavities in the
ground. Open joints or bedding planes can also be a problem.
Weak seams and open joints provide paths along which explosion gases can rapidly vent to
the face or surface at high pressure and accelerate fragments to high velocities resulting in large
throw distances. Cavities may accidently be filled with explosive creating a large explosive
loading for the burden involved. Or these voids may simply reduce the resistance of the burden
to the high pressure gases formed in the detonation.
In areas where mud seams or jointing are known to result in gas venting the bench faces
should be mapped so that the trend of these geological features, through subsequent blast
areas, can be projected. Hole loading should be adjusted where required and may include
deck loading.

In areas where voids occur the explosive should be loaded inside plastic liners to avoid
overloading a hole that intersects a void. Drillers should be alerted to record any indication that
a void may have been penetrated. Where modern day drill performance recorders are used
the output from these units may also help identify the intersection of voids.
Even where great care is taken to map and incorporate the geology into blast design and
implementation cases may occur where adverse geological conditions exist in the bank that are
unknown. Therefore the area evacuated and barricaded before blasting should not be in close
proximity to the normal flyrock zone. Rather there should be a factor of safety between the
two which allows for the unknown.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
1. The initial velocity and angle with the horizontal are the primary parameters governing
how far from the blast a fragment is propelled. The angle that yields the greatest throw is 45
degrees and it must be assumed that chunks will periodically be ejected at this angle.
Therefore, velocity is the most important variable affecting throw.
2. The ground is a non-homogenous material affected by geology, backbreak and

subgrade drilling on the bench above. Thus it is difficult to calculate exact initial velocities in any
situation. Most excessive flyrock incidents will involve rock ejected at velocities between 100
ft/sec and 200 ft/sec (30.5 m/sec - 61 m/sec). However, chunk velocities in excess of 300
ft/sec (91.5 m/sec) have been reported.
3. As the scaled depth of burial falls below optimum at the top of the charge or off the side
of a cylindrical column charge displacement and flyrock will increase.
4. The primary causes of flyrock are poor blast design, inexact implementation of the shot
or adverse geological conditions that have not been allowed for.
5. All those involved in drilling and loading the blast must work diligently to insure that the
shot is prepared and tied-in as designed. Any errors that may lead to flyrock must be reported
and adjustments to the protected blast area made if required. Everyone involved in blasting
must always remember that errors in preparing the blast not only affect their safety, but the
safety of others at the operation and beyond.
6. Total quality control of blasting operations is essential when blasting at the mine, quarry
or on construction projects.
REFERENCES
Bauer, A., P.N. Calder and J.L. Workman, Drilling and Blasting in Open Pits and Quarries,
Course Notes, Calder & Workman, Inc., 1987.

Chiapetta, R. Frank, A. Bauer, P.J. Dailey and S.L. Burchell; The Use of High Speed Motion
Picture Photography in Blast Evaluation and Design; Society of Explosive Engineers; Dallas,
Texas; February, 1983.
Dick, Richard A., Larry R. Fletcher and Dennis V. D'Andrea; Explosives and Blasting
Procedures Manual; Bureau of Mines IC 8925;1983.
Fischer, Richard L.; Blasting Incidents in Mining, Mine Safety and Health Administration PC
7026; 1988
Fletcher, Larry R. and Dennis V. D'Andrea; Control of Flyrock in Blasting; Proceedings of the
Twelth Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, C.J. Konya, Ed; Society of
Explosives Engineers, February,1986.
Kopp, John W., Calvin L. Cumerlato and Larry R. Fletcher; Flyrock Generation in Limestone
Quarries; Proc Midwest Mine Health and Safety Conference; Marion, Illinois, July1992.
Figure 1: Example of Flyrock projected from the face

illustrating the parameters involved.

Figure 2: Path followed by a
fragment ejected at a velocity of
175 ft/sec and an angle of 45
degrees
Fgiure 3: Face velocity as a

function of scaled burden on a
cylindrical explosive charge

Figure 7: Time before the face
begins to move as a function of the
burden on the charge


9406 G Workman

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

9406 G Workman

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FLYROCK PREDICTION AND CONTROL

IN SURFACE MINE BLASTING

J. Lyall Workman and Peter N. Calder

Flyrock can be a serious problem associated with blasting. Unanticipated flyrock is

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2.1 Projectile Motion

R2 = V0 cos [V0 sin θ + .(V0 sin θ )2 + 2g H]/g

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

where h1 = Maximum height along range R1, feet

where t = the travel time in seconds

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Stemming height Drilling accuracy

Millisec. delay timing Blasthole loading procedures

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

3.0 FLYROCK CAUSES AND CONTROL

3.1 General Discussion

3.2 Blast Design

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Portions of a blast may be overloaded if a waterproof explosive of greater density and

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

3.3 Blast Implementation

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

3.4 Effects of Geology

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2. The ground is a non-homogenous material affected by geology, backbreak and

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Figure 1: Example of Flyrock projected from the face

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Fgiure 3: Face velocity as a

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Copyright © 2000 International Society of Explosives Engineers

Você também pode gostar