• Explosives and Blasting
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.40-48
• /
• 1996

• Explosives and Blasting
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2004

In bench blasting, rock fragmentation is one of the most important factors determining productivity. Rock fragmentation could be affected by various conditions and these were hewn that rock joint conditions and in-situ block sizes were the biggest effect on it. This research is focused on what or how to influence on rock fragmentation according to relation between blasting conditions and the in-situ rock conditions such as rock joint conditions and in-situ block size. Field measurements were carried out in 3 open pit limestone mines, where in-situ rock conditions and blasting conditions were fully investigated. The results show that the parameters interact with blasting conditions complicatedly and especially in-situ block size has bigger effects. Dip direction of major joint set also can affect on fragmentation. Mean fragment size become smallest when dip direction of major joint set is about $30^{\circ}$ with the bench direction. The reason is considered to be come from difference of propagation paths of elastic wave.

• Tunnel and Underground Space
• /
• v.14 no.5
• /
• pp.353-362
• /
• 2004

Prediction of fragmentation in bench blasting is one of the most important factors to establish the production plan. It is widely accepted that fragmentation could be accurately predicted using the Kuz-Ram model in bench blasting. Nevertheless, the model has an ambiguous or subjective aspect in evaluating the model parameters such as joint condition, rock strength, density, burden, explosive strength and spacing. This study proposes a new method to evaluate the parameters of Kuz-Ram model, and the predicted mean fragment sizes using the proposed method are examined by comparing the measured sizes in the field. The results show that the predictions using Kuz-Ram model with the proposed method coincide with field measurements, but Kuz-Ram model does not reflect the in-situ rock condition and hence needs to be improved.

• Explosives and Blasting
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.29-41
• /
• 2024

The increasing demand for metallic minerals due to global growth and the continued exploitation of near-surface minerals requires safe and efficient ways to mine ores present in deep mines. In deep mines, stresses concentrated around the cavity increase, which can lead to problems such as induced seismicity and rockbursts. In addition, the transfer of energy from blasting to deeply located faults can cause fault slip, which can lead to earthquakes, and controlling these events is key to deep mining methods. In this technical report, we will introduce the Underhand Closed Bench (UCB) mining method, which can control possible accidents and increase productivity when mining in deep mines.

• Explosives and Blasting
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.13-31
• /
• 2011

Air deck charge blast methods have been applied to improve the fragmentation in open cut bench blastings for mining developments. However, during large scale bench blasting operations, there exist some problems such as boulder productions due to explosive charge concentration. Especially, in case of lime stone mining, when air deck method is applied, there has been unintentionally concentrated on charging because the inside holes are often broken by erosion and decomposition. In this study, compared with general blasting, air deck blasting has been focused in lime stone mining. In other to maximize its efficiency, inside hole was examined by endoscope in advance and deck charge using air tube was applied to the section in which concentration might be taken place. Blasting efficiency, fragmentation, charging reduction rate, and total working hours (from charging to blasting) were the main object for comparing, and as a result, air deck was more efficient then the general blasting in all aspects except total working hours.

• Explosives and Blasting
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.61-66
• /
• 1997

• Journal of the Korean GEO-environmental Society
• /
• v.16 no.9
• /
• pp.23-32
• /
• 2015

This study examined blast testing measurement data which had been obtained from 97 field sites in Korea to investigate the comprehensive characteristics of rock blasting-induced vibration focusing on the effect of excavation types (tunnel, bench) and rock types. The measurement data was from the testing sites mostly in Kangwon province and Kyungsang province and rock types were granite, gneiss, limestone, sand stone, and shale in the order of number of data. The study indicated that the blasting-induced vibration velocity was affected by the excavation types (tunnel, bench) and bench blasting induced higher velocity than tunnel blasting. In addition, the vibration velocity was also highly affected by the rock types and therefore, it can be concluded that rock types should be considered in the future to estimate a blasting-induced vibration velocity. Furthermore, the pre-existing criteria was compared with the results of this study and the comparison indicated that there was a discernable difference except for tunnel blasting results based on the square root scaling and therefore, further studies and interests, which include the effects of rock strength, joint characteristics, geological formation, excavation type, power type, measurement equipment and method, might be necessarily in relation to the estimation of blasting-induced vibration velocity in rock mass.

• Explosives and Blasting
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.37-44
• /
• 2005

Recent studies reported that natural block size of rock and joint orientation highly affect on rock fragmentation. In this study, blasting test using high strength cement mortar was carried out to verify this fact. The result of this test indicated that fragmentation is influenced by the joint interval, and at same joint interval condition, fragmentation depends on joint orientation. These results are significantly coincident with field investigations.

• Explosives and Blasting
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.13-25
• /
• 2023

The conventional bench blasting method uses the bottom initiation in all blast holes in a round, whereas the MDS (mixture detonation system) method applies the bottom and top initiations alternately according to the spatial position or temporal sequence of each blast hole. The former and latter are respectively called the SMDS (spatial MDS) and TMDS (temporal MDS) methods. Another variant called MMDS (modified MDS) is designed for the specific use in the site having a fly-rock problem. This study compares the MDS method to the conventional method in the aspect of rock fracturing effect. The comparison is made by numerical simulations for a two-row bench blasting model in the LS-DYNA. The SPH-FEM coupling method is utilized for constructing the blasting model. The SPH elements are used for the rock in the near-field region of the blast holes, and the FEM elements for that in the far-field region. The RHT material model is used for the rock. As a result of the simulations, it was found that up to 0.4 m deeper damaged zone was appeared in the SMDS method than in the conventional method for the case of the burden 1.6 m and bench height 3.0 m. In addition, the fly-rock velocity to the normal direction of the bench slope was appeared about 2.0 m/s lower in the MMDS method compared to the other methods.

• Explosives and Blasting
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.21-31
• /
• 2002

We did bench blasting upon the natural rock which it's uniaxial compressive strength was about $1,420~1,476kgf/\textrm{cm}^2$. This is the results we inferred after measuring, analyzing the ground vibration velocity of the front and back direction from the free face of the bench blasting. We have to induce the square and cube root scaled equation and the general equation to guarantee confidence upon the data when analyzing the measurement data of the test blasting. The variable distance is in reverse proportion to the permitted ground vibration velocity. The shorter is the exploding point to a protection structure, the bigger is the reflection that the direction of the free face experts the ground vibration velocity, The ground vibration velocity front of the free face tends become reduced about 38~46% compare with back of the free face in the range that the permitted ground vibration velocity is 2.0~5.0mm/sec. In case of 2.0mm/sec, when a protection structure is within about 95m, the max. allowable charge weight per delay on positing front of the free face can be more used about 2.61 times than that on positing back of the free face, in case of 3.0mm/sec within about 78m more about 2.38 times, in case of 5.0mm/sec within 60m more about 2.10 times. In case of 2.0~5.0mm/sec when a protection structure is within about 200m front from the free face, the max. allowable charge weight per delay can become about 1.52 times than the case on back to the free face.