Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Singh & Sinha (Eds) 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-62143-4

Innovations in blast measurement: Reinventing the past

ABSTRACT: A blast is a dynamic violent event generated over a few seconds and involves detonation waves, shock waves, and gas expansion that interact to produce the rock fragmentation, rock movement, environmental effects, and rock damage to the remaining rock. The blast outputs influence the overall productivity of mining, quarrying and construction projects. This paper reviews measurement systems and transducers that help us understand the blasting process. The geology, geometry, and the explosive and initiation systems are the inputs used to target desired blast outcomes. Careful measurement of these inputs and the resultant outputs provide a rich data set whose careful analysis and interpretation enables better and smarter blasts. Measurement systems range from informed visual observation combined with sophisticated instrumentation of high dynamic range and fast data sample rates. Some of the measurement systems described are relatively newmost are evolutions of prior approaches. 1 INTrODUctiON Blasting is a complex process that involves the interaction between three dominant aspects: the geology of the rock mass; the geometry of the exposed surfaces and the boreholes; and the explosives and initiation sequence. The rapid release of energy is used to fragment and move rock from its geological setting and make the broken rock available for excavation, transport and further, usually, mechanical comminution. The chemical energy of the explosives used in blasting does not all do useful worksome of it is converted to seismic energy (ground vibrations), acoustic energy (noise or airblast), and heat. A blast produces fine material of limited utility, unwanted gasses and air-borne dust. At some level all of the results of a blast have an economic effect to the mining, quarrying or construction project. Little and van Rooyen (1988) produced a useful summary of a blast which they describe as the explosives-rock mass interaction. Figure1 shows the three areas: blast geometry, loading and timing or blast design; rock mass characteristics; and, explosive characteristics. The rock mass inputs are a function of the geological setting of the orebody. The explosives characteristics are chosen by the blasting engineer based on the rock mass properties and the desired blasting objective. The blast design implements the explosives and initiation sequence given the geology and the available geometry (blasthole diameter, blasthole length, number of decks etc) to focus the available energy on the blasting objective. As with any engineering discipline, a blasting engineer needs to have confidence in the outcome

Figure1. Explosives-rock mass interaction (after Little and van Rooyen 1988).

of their design. The primary blast outputs (Fig.1) may be identified visually by a casual observer located in safe position. These are fragmented rock, the disposition and location of that fragmented rock, environmental outputs including ground vibration and airblast or noise, fume and dust. A less obvious outcome that may be observed after careful inspection is the damage of the remaining rock mass as evidenced by cracks that are near the perimeter of the blast. While such observations are needed and important in the feedback to the blaster for each blast, it is essential to have quantitative information to ensure that a rigorous process of blast control and improvement occurs. The challenge is formidable given the violent release of

23

energy in a blast and the engineering properties of the rock being broken and moved. Harries (1988) gives a non-exhaustive list of over fifty variables involved in managing a blast and opines that while some of the variables may be controlled this leaves an uncomfortably large number of variables whose effect on blasting and subsequent operations has to be assessed. Cunningham (1990) offered a broad template for the types of measurements that would help strengthen the decision-making for a blast designer. It complements the items identified in Figure1 and is given in Figure2. The blast measurements discussed in the present paper relate to the pre-blast inputs, the duringblast or in-blast factors, and the post-blast outputs of fragmented muck, and local damage. Limited discussion is given on some of the other inputs and outputs such as the geology, the ground vibration and airblast, dust and fume. It is beyond the scope of the paper to cover the effect of the blast on downstream processes such as excavation, hauling and subsequent processes. That would be another paper in its own right. The coverage of the blast measurements is in the chronological sequence of a typical blast and covers essentially the time in setting up the blast, the few seconds of the blast itself, and the time before excavation ceases. Sporadic examples are

given of past measurement techniques to contrast and compare with modern ones. The coverage is non-exhaustive, and while not exclusive to them, uses two primary sources: the International Symposia on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting and the United States Bureau of Mines Reports of Investigation. The latter give a good idea of where blast measurement technology was in the early 1950s to the early 1990s, while the former gives an idea of how things have developed from the 1980s to the present time. Unfortunately, this means that at times some important and relevant work is missed and the author offers his apologies for such omissions. In this paper reference is made to various types of equipment for the purpose of illustration and does not imply endorsement of any kind.

2 Pre-blast measUremeNts 2.1 General Pre-blast measurements relate to the geology, geometry, explosives and initiation systems (Fig.2). It is assumed that the explosives and initiation systems are fit for purpose and are deployed correctly and no further discussion on them is included here except in a later section on measurements during the blast phase. The geology of the orebody affects the blasting in a complex manner. Unlike some engineering materials, rock mass properties can vary at all scales of interest from grains to faults and joints and there is often some level of inhomogeneity and anisotropy. The dynamic loads applied by the blasting process generate extreme temperatures and pressures experienced by the rock close to the blastholes, and these loads involve stress waves and gas pressures over brief time scales. Discontinuities in the rock mass can have a significant influence on the fragmentation, heave, environmental outcomes, and damage to the remaining rock. The inherited geological properties of the orebody have been shaped by long-term processes in the earths crust and the mining induces exposure of geological structures at free surfaces that may influence the blasting outcomes (Little 2011). In applied geology, perhaps the most important impacts on blasting are economic and engineering geology. More specifically, structural geology mapping focuses on the variations in rock mass properties and the discussion here is restricted to two methods of assessing the geology on a scale that is relevant to typical mining and construction operations. The geometry of a blast refers to the location of free surfaces and in both underground and surface mining these include surfaces where blastholes are

Figure 2. Blast monitoring zones (after Cunningham 1990).

24

drilled as well as surfaces that bound void space into which the broken rock may move. In tunnel blasts this will include empty void holes drilled in the cut region of the dead-end face. The location and presence of such free surfaces are integral to the blast and in many cases are taken for granted. The other critical part of the geometry is the location and disposition of the blastholes themselves. The important parameters are the number of blastholes, the blasthole collar locations, the blasthole diameter and the blasthole depth. The free surfaces and the blastholes provide the blast designer the three dimensional volume of rock that is to be blasted and the distribution of explosives used to fragment and move it. 2.2 Geology In many cases the blast design has been effective in the given geology for some time and few, if any, alterations are made to it. In new projects the geology is examined in a limited way and perhaps more carefully. So geology is either ignored or given brief acknowledgement. It is suggested that this occurs due to the complexity of actually using the data obtained in a geological study. Nevertheless, progress has been made and needs to continue in the interest of better blast outcomes. Pugliese (1972) and Dick et al. (1983) suggest the important geological factors that influence blasting are the jointing, bedding, and relatively incompetent and weak zones such as voids, mud seams, and faults. They urge the use of a geologist to map each joint set and its direction, extent, and spacing. Bedding plane strike and dip should also be documented and note made of the location of the zones of weakness and the presence of any cavities, either formed by prior mining activity or by solution processes such as occurs in limestone. Apart from these features that are variously discontinuous, inhomogeneous or anisotropic, the intact rock properties such as density, elastic moduli and strength and hardness parameters should be obtained from representative samples. The geologist collects data from surface exposures and can use interpretation methods to infer sub-surface geological structure (Lisle 2004). Dick et al. (1983) recommend working closely with the driller and local site blaster when preparing a blast. The driller obtains some unique information while creating the blastholesthe drill penetration rate, the production of drill cuttings, drill torque, drill down-force, and the vibration of the drill string itself all help provide complex data that give information on the rock hardness, the presence of voids and water, and zones of soft and hard rock. Such information is available across the whole blast from an observant drilling and blasting crew.

The geologist and the driller have been using their observations to assist the blasting process for some time. No doubt their skills will remain important. But how have innovative methods been used to obtain further quantitative data concerning the geology? Three particular techniques are discussed briefly here: laser scanners or photogrammetric measurements that provide high-density terrain maps that may be interpreted to obtain joint set data; instrumented drills that obtain Measurement While Drilling (MWD) information that can be used to identify soft/hard zones; and, borehole logging that provides rock strata information based on a range of geophysical methods. Automated techniques to obtain structural geological information and joint sets in particu lar are of interest in geotechnical and blasting applications. Both 3D laser scanning (sometimes called LIDAR) and digital photogrammetry are used to collect the raw point cloud data that is transformed into polygons to define the surfaces including planar ones that are interpreted as joint planes (Poropat 2006). The application in surface mining has been growing as the availability of suitable scanning technology has become available (Cheung etal. 1996, Kemeny etal. 2006). A blasting example where the information may be used to determine in situ block sizes is described by Hamdi etal. (2006). Figure3 (Kemeny etal. 2006) shows the data processing steps for the point cloud data obtained using LIDARphotogrammetry will produce similar data. Figure4 shows an idealized case of a few joints from approximately orthogonal sets intersecting a block of rock. If the block is to be blasted, one would expect the in situ joints to provide some of the post blast surfaces of the fragmented rock. The location of the blastholes within the (surface) tessellation formed by the joints in each of the three axes directions will participate in the resulting fragmentation. In this case most of the blocks will contain blastholes but in some areas the blocks will not and these will be less likely to be broken well during the blasting process. Latham et al. (1999) review aspects of the creation of an in situ block size distribution based on measured discontinuity data. Hamdi etal. (2002) demonstrate the benefit of using a specific surface index (ratio of surface area of discontinuities to volume) rather than a characteristic size from a Weibull distribution to characterize the potential effect of the geology on the fragmentation size distribution produced by blasting. Borehole surveys provide another means of determining rock mass characteristics. An obvious starting point is to use the drill as a source of information on the sub-surface geologyMeasurement While Drilling (MWD). Wagner and Moser (1996)

25

Figure4. Schematic of joints intersecting a blast block.

Figure 3.Point cloud process for estimating joint set data (a) original point cloud rendered with grayscale (b) meshed point cloud to produce polygons (c) planar features identified as joint planes (d) joint sets interpreted (used by permission, Kemeny etal. 2006).

provide an example in tunnel blasting. Drilling data such as percussive frequency of the hammer, the energy of the hammer blow, and the rotation speed are correlated to various rock property parameters including ultimate compressive strength, density and so on. A challenge in this approach is how well the correlations persist across different rock types and various drilling parameters and that this may affect the interpretation of the rock mass parameters. They also show how in some locations the MWD parameters can delineate different rock hardness both from blasthole to blasthole and within any given blasthole. The information may be used to load the different zones with different strength explosives or modify the initiation sequence to produce better blast results. The geophysical exploration industry has developed a number of techniques that determine various rock formation properties by using wireline logging (see, for example, Ellis and Singer 2011). Logging While Drilling (LWD) is not part of the drilling machine but a tool designed to traverse the borehole and take measurements of interest. An example is the use of natural gamma logging to identify the location and thickness of coal seams to support blasting operations in coal mines with single and multiple seams. The natural emission of gamma rays is recorded with depth along the blasthole. In many cases the coal seam is relatively free of radioactive isotopes of elements or their daughter elements that emit gamma rays (potassium, thorium or uranium) and a dip in the log indicates the location of the coal seam. An example is shown in Figure5. When charging the blastholes, the blaster can ensure that the coal is not damaged by placing inert material in the coal-bearing zone (Goswami etal. 2008). The simple method of viewing, photographing or filming the interior of a blasthole to ascertain pertinent geological features should not be ignored (Williams and Johnson 2004). Figure 6 shows an

26

Figure5.Natural gamma log for a blasthole in a coal seam formation.

Figure 6. Borehole viewer image of unwrapped borehole wall. Left-hand side is a photographic image and the right-hand side is an acoustic image (Layne Christensen, Colog).

unwrapped photographic image of an empty blasthole and an acoustic image of the same hole when it was fluid-filled. 2.3 Geometry Surveying provides the basic 3D data for a blast. The data includes the coordinates of various points of interest and full point clouds of the terrain of various features such as the top of the bench and the free faces in surface mines, and similar features in underground workings containing stopes and tunnels. The blasthole collar locations are of utmost importance in blasting and their location with respect to each other and to the free faces are critical for a successful blast. A simplified analysis demonstrates quite significant variations in effective powder factors (mass

of explosives per unit volume of rock) by poor collar locations (Spathis 2006). Often the blasthole diameter is assumed to be equal to the nominal size of the drill bit. A small change in the actual blasthole diameter can cause a significant change in the volume of explosive used and modify its effective placement along the blasthole. The diameter change may be caused by a worn drill bit or by some of the blasthole wall falling off. Hutchings (1990) describes a wireline logging system that uses three calipers at 120 degrees to each other to measure the diameter of blastholes. His results were for large diameter holes (270311mm nominal) and in hard rock the diameters were generally larger than nominal by 310 mm, whereas for softer materials relatively severe deviations from nominal were observed with both increases and decreases in diameter. The depth of blastholes is usually measured by hand using a flexible tape measure with a weight on the end. The blaster is able to detect the depth to the bottom of the hole and also the horizon of any water/mud in it. The presence of water is important as some explosives are unable to perform well, if at all, if placed in water. The drill rig may be used to determine the length of the blasthole at the time of drilling, but the drill cuttings or the sides of weak blastholes may slough into the hole and modify its effective depth. Various methods based on laser or ultrasonic methods of measuring from the collar of a blasthole are fraught with difficulty, particularly in defining the depth if any water is present. The trajectory of a blasthole can modify the effective location of the explosives energy released at different depths along the blasthole. Killeen and Elliot (1997) describe the basic approaches for tracking a borehole. Figure 7 shows a borehole tracking system that uses oriented rods that maintain a bearing and is suitable for use in holes near vertical. Paley (1993) shows how laser alignment of

Figure7. Example of a borehole tracking tool used in blasting (www.mdl.com).

27

blastholes in ring blasting underground can reduce poor burden control at the toe of the blastholes. He observed a reduction in boulder counts in two stopes where the method was used. Liu and Tran (1999) advocate accurate blasthole collaring and managing the hole deviation from design as important measures for inverse drop raises in underground mines. Ouchterlony (2002) provides an informative analysis of drill hole deviations with reference to perimeter holes drilled for a road cutting. Lui (2009) describes a geometric analysis of the visibility of a light source to estimate drill hole deviation. The advent of automated laser scanning equipment and digital photogrammetric systems has delivered unprecedented 3D data of exposed surfaces in mining. Application of such methods in civil tunnels has been used for some time and the technology has found its way into mine development in underground mines (Wetherwelt and Williams 2006, Spathis etal. 2006). Figure8 shows a typical 3D survey of a mine development heading. It is usual to have parts of the tunnel surface in shadow zones depending on the location of the laser surveying instrument or of the cameras used in a photogrammetric analysisthese constraints are often safety-related to avoid a person being in regions of unsupported ground. Such blind spots are healed in software using assumptions of the regularity of the surrounding surface. Wimmer etal. (2009) describe a challenging application behind rings in a sublevel caving operation. The data provides the pre-blast geometry of free surfaces. Digital terrain models are used regularly in mining and recent work has involved relatively new equipment based on well established principles of photogrammetry (Moser et al. 2006, Gaich et al. 2009, and Wimmer etal. 2009). These provide data for geometric information as well as the geological data described earlier. Face surveys can yield the burden distances to a free face that a blaster may use to modify the charging of the holes to minimize the incidence of face bursting, airblast

and flyrock. Control of pit walls can be assisted and factors such as crest damage can be quantified using the 3D data. 3 DUriNg blast measUremeNts 3.1 General During blast measurements occur in the period of a few seconds from the initiation of the first detonator until the fragmentation and movement of the rock mass is complete. The end point of this period is when the blaster gives the all clear and people and equipment can re-enter the region of the blast. Apart from direct visual inspection of a blast event from a safe location, other measurements are made including the Velocity of Detonation (VOD), the timing sequence between decks and/or individual blastholes, high-speed cinematography, pressure, strain, crack opening, vibration and airblast, and motion of the rock face and sub-surface displacements. Many of these measurements rely on specialised equipment and therefore the data is often for specific projects rather than for routine monitoring of a normal blast. The role of the measurements are diagnostic such as when issues arise in a given project or they are of a research nature as blasting engineers seek to understand the mechanisms of the blasting process. They may also be used when a significant change in the blast design is planned. However, we can anticipate routine use as these measurement systems develop and become easier and cheaper to deploy. 3.2 Velocity of detonation (VOD) and initiation timing The measurement of the VOD in columns of explosives placed in the ground or in various cylindrical containers (cardboard, PVC, steel) rely mainly on estimating the time it takes for the detonation wave to propagate a given distance. The transducers that detect the detonation front rely on various physical mechanisms such as the light produced at or near the detonation front, the pressure that causes a discontinuity in the impedance of a sensing cable or some form of electrical continuity or disruption produced by the propagating front. Such measurements provide a distance versus time plot with data obtained at discrete locations or (essentially) a continuous record. A somewhat different measurement technique relies on the transducer forming part of a resonant circuit (Hopkins etal. 1988, Armstrong and Moxon 1990). A number of methods for the measurement of VOD are listed in Table 1 (Spathis et al. 2007).

Figure8. Survey of a blasted round in a mine development tunnel.

28

Table1. VOD measurement systems (after Spathis etal. 2007). Method 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Method type Discrete diode Discrete resistor Continuous resistor Electrical make/ break targets Optical detector Electrical resonance Electrical time domain reflectometer Measurement principle Discrete diode string Discrete resistor string Continuous resistance wire Standard cable loop Fibre optic cable Coaxial cable Coaxial cable Limitations Sample rate to identify voltage steps Maximum current down a blasthole Cable length Cable resistance Light loss 60m to 120m (due to quarter wavelength limit) Cable length (<600m) Typical resolution Distance between diodes (100mm) Distance between resistors (100mm) 50mm, depending on resistivity of wire Distance between different cable lengths Distance between different cable lengths (50mm) 50mm 100mm

Notes: 1. The generic VOD measurement methods described in Table1 are those known to have been implemented. 2. The limitations and resolution are estimates only and will vary with the actual implementation. In particular, the charge length and the number of blastholes to be monitored often dictate the type of transducer and system used. 3. Over the past several years there have been a number of commercial systems, usually based around Method 3, 4, 5 and 7.

Gibson et al. (1962) describe the use of a resistance wire transducer for continuous VOD measurements. Schultz (1987) presents some VOD data obtained using a number of discrete fibre optic cables located at known spacing along the explosive charges. Kristiansen etal. (1990) describe the use of both optical fibre and electrical make point methods on small samples of explosive in cubic concrete blocks. One of the more successful methods for measuring both VOD and timing data is the Time-Domain Reflectometer (TDR) that uses a coaxial cable as the transducer (Ouchterlony etal. 1996). This method is suitable for measuring the VOD in multiple holes within a blast provided due care is taken with respect to both the initiation sequence and the possibility of cut-offs that may disrupt the coaxial cable. Figure9 shows a typical VOD trace from multiple holes. The initiation times of some blastholes in a blast may be obtained by using event detection at each detonator/primer location. That is, timing events for each detonator/primer location are recorded by the disruption of a continuous transducer such as the coaxial cable of a TDR VOD instrument or the resistance wire also commonly in coaxial cable format. The time between these events gives the true delay between the firing of the respective decks or blastholes. Discrete event detectors may also be used. One technique for getting timing information is to use so-called tell-tales whereby a length of shock tube or possibly detonating cord is connected to the detonator/primer with the end of the tube visible

Figure9. (a) VOD traces measured in six holes (b) a single VOD trace. The VODs were measured using the TDR technique with a coaxial cable transducer.

and coiled at the top of the blasthole. The flash of light is captured on high-speed film and the timing of each flash may be determined. An alternative approach is to use an infra-red detector to record the event (Blair and Little 1993). A method that

29

has not found wide application is the emission of electromagnetic pulses observed in quarry blasts and variously attributed to piezoelectric effects where rocks contain (say) quartz (OKeefe and Thiel 1990). A common approach for obtaining timing information is to record the vibration close to the blast and use the arrival time of the first onset of the individual waveforms from each hole. If a trigger is used with any given detonator, then the subsequent first arrival times may be referenced to that detonator as a nominal zero time. Figure10 shows vibrations from the early firing holes in a tunnel blast. Later arrivals overlap or in other cases may have broadened and the method is inadequate there. 3.3 Rock movement The movement of rock during the blast can be captured by cinematography. There can be no doubt of the power and energy of explosives when viewing a slow-motion film of a blast. Early use of highspeed cinematography of surface blasts established some of the important parameters in blasting (Blair 1959, Petkof etal. 1960). These include the forward velocity of the rock fragments projected from the near-vertical front face or from the bench surface in the case of crater blasting, and the time to first movement of the face. Figure 11 shows an early high-speed camera (Blair 1959). Currently, modern cameras with similar capabilities can be had as a

Figure 11. Early high-speed camera used for filming blasts (Blair 1959).

Figure10. Vertical particle velocity vibrations from the early firing holes in a tunnel round in hard rock. Clear separation between the vibrations from the cut holes is seen whereas in the later vibrations we see overlap that makes accurate timing measurements impossible.

consumer item with purpose-built cameras providing enhanced features. The use of multiple cameras enables different views of the blast (Chiappetta and Vandenberg 1990) and when deployed in pairs, dynamic digital photogrammetry may be used to interpret the stereo images. Chiappetta and Borg (1983) discuss the benefits of using high-speed photography as a diagnostic tool with emphasis on field controls of the blast implementation. The importance of four different time periods during a crater blast were identified in Chiappetta and Mammele (1987) after analyzing the high-speed films of their blasts: detonation, stress wave interaction with surfaces, a gas expansion phase and acceleration, and finally further gas expansion and material ejection. Misfires, poor loading practices, effectiveness of delay sequences for adequate burden relief, flyrock, location of massive ground movement and stemming effectiveness and ejection can all be assessed at some level. Interpretation of the forward velocity of the rock mass can be linked to the type of explosive and the timing sequence. Sometimes targets are placed in front of a face to improve the visibility of known points as they move with the rock (Cameron and Grouhel 1990). The method is limited by effects such as gas venting, dust and smoke that obscure a clear view of the rock motion as the blast proceeds. Empirical equations based on fits to measured data can be derived for the expected face velocity versus a normalized

30

ratio of burden to available explosive energy. Such equations do not account explicitly for timing and with the advent of electronic delay detonators, the measured throw of the rock has increased without recourse to different explosives energy alone. The high-speed cinematography analysis for face velocity relies on tracking a number of known targets and in that sense it provides a set of discrete velocities for the targets used. Some alternatives for estimating face velocities for surface blasts have been tested successfully for both discrete targets and in a distribution sense. Discrete measurements have used an electromagnetic velocity gauge that produces an output proportional to the velocity of a magnet passing through a coila direct use of Faradays law (Young etal. 1983). The use of the Doppler shift of microwaves has also been used (Felice et al. 1991, Spathis 1993) and this method provides a distribution of velocities over time as the rock moves and until the scene becomes opaque to the microwaves. Figure12 shows one of the original designs of the Doppler radar unit used for measuring the face velocity distribution. The discussion in this section has been on rock movement of visible surfaces. It is important to consider the movement within the rock mass as well. For example, it may aid in the understanding of the mechanics of the dynamic rock displacement which can be used to improve blast models. An example is the opening or creation of cracks or dilation by rock movement. Such behavior has been inferred from the negative dynamic air pressures measured in sealed sections of witness holes behind a blast (Brent and Smith 1996). 3.4 Strain and pressure Blasting produces strain and pressure in rock and it is natural to measure these as they are associated with failure criteria. Dynamic fracture, as opposed to quasi-static fracture has some unique features: a limiting velocity of the propagating cracks (typically the Rayleigh wave velocity), crack branching that seeks to reduce the energy in the material, and rate-dependency of the fracture processes (Meyers 1994).

Early approaches for measuring the dynamic strain during a blast (Obert and Duvall 1949, Duvall and Aitchison 1956) acknowledged the importance of correct coupling of the strain gauges to the rock mass. The strain gauges were bonded to a segment of diamond drilled rock core taken from the same hole in which the measurement was to be made. The core with the strain gauges attached was placed in the borehole and bonded to the rock using a high strength cement. Results from one set of experiments in a granite rock are shown in Figure 13 (Aitchison and Tournay 1959) and these are reproduced here as such data is scant. The strains levels are quite distinct for the two different explosives with the liquid explosive (nitrogen tetroxide and kerosene) producing generally higher strains than the semigelatin dynamite. The measurements are no closer than about a metre from the charge for these data. Brinkman (1990) measured strains close to lined and un-lined blastholes in radial and tangential directions. Other work using a six-component straingauged cube gave the complete strain tensor that showed more complex behaviour including the presence of shear strains and strains attributed to different wave types and to reflections (Winzer etal. 1983, Stagg and Rholl 1987, Anderson et al. 1984). A limited number of strains measured in an underground coal mine roadway during blasting was compared to that inferred from vibration measurements assuming a simple plane wave model (Lewandowski etal. 1999). The result of that work

Figure 12.Original style of Doppler radar unit for measuring face velocity distributions.

Figure 13.Peak radial strain levels measured in granite from two different explosives (after Aitchison and Tournay 1959). The solid lines are least squares fits derived by linearising the data using log-log transforms of the original data.

31

indicated the need for more data as there were some significant differences between the measured and calculated data. The measurement of pressures in a blast is not common and like the measurement of dynamic strain demand care and suitable transducers coupled to the rock mass. Data obtained from dynamic pressure measurements may be used to study the potential for desensitisation of explosives or sympathetic detonation (Mohanty 2009). Figure 14 shows a summary of the types of high pressure transducers used and the pressures for which they are useful. These include piezoeresistive gauges such as carbon resistors and manganin gauges, and piezoelectric gauges based on quartz, Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF) or other materials. The dynamic pressures from explosives are large and their risetimes are short, so that the gauges tend to be small and the data acquisition system is specialised (see, for example, Decker et al. 1972, Menaccci and Chavez 2005). Manganin gauges tend to handle a higher pressure range than carbon resistor gauges but while both demand good calibration it appears that manganin gauges have some specific challenges (Braithwaite etal. 2009, Rosenberg etal. 2009). The resistance of manganin gauges increases with applied pressure while that of carbon resistors decreases with applied pressure. Carbon resistor gauges are used to measure dynamic pressures in blasts close to detonating charges because they have a satisfactory dynamic range, frequency response and are inexpensive. Liu (2002) presents some results obtained in an underground mine in granite. Figure15 shows the data measured at distances of 196 to 406 mm or approximately between 12 to 25 blasthole radii to a single exploding charge. Onederra et al. (2011) discuss pressure measurement using a carbon resistor gauge and also the use of a photo diode for

Figure15.Peak dynamic pressure versus spacing measured from a short explosive charge using carbon resistor gauges (after Liu 2002). The solid line is a power law fit to the data.

temperature measurement in a 270 mm diameter blasthole loaded with heavy ANFO. 3.5 Vibration and airblast Perhaps the most common measurements taken during a blast are of the ground vibration and/ or airblast. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to cover the topic in detail and the reader is referred to a recent review of vibration measurement, modelling and mitigation from blasting by Spathis (2009). Such data are often required for a mine, quarry or construction project to meet their licencing authority requirements but they may also be used as a diagnostic tool for checking the blast design and the effectiveness of different explosives. For example, the proportion of energy that occurs as radiated seismic energy appears to be different for different explosives. It appears that the seismic energy is approximately between 5% and 15% of the available chemical energy for a range of explosive types and method of coupling the explosive to the rock mass (Fogelson et al. 1959, Spathis 1999). Near-field vibration measurements are sometimes used to determine the extent of damage (Bogdanoff 1996). The work highlights the importance of using appropriate transducers and recording systems to match the dynamic range and frequencies produced by the blast at close distances. Airblast measurements may also be used as a diagnostic tool to assess blasting effectiveness. For example, airblast measurements were a good choice to evaluate the effectiveness of stemming

Figure14. Gauge selection chart for measurements of pressure near an explosive (see www.dynasen.com).

32

cones to contain stemming material and reduce peak airblast levels (Little and Murray 1996). 4 POst-blast measUremeNts 4.1 General A blast transitions a solid volume of rock into a displaced pile of fragments: the geometry changes with altered shape and disposition, fragmentation occurs and some damage to the remaining rock mass is evident. Post-blast measurements are discussed in this context and downstream measurements involving the excavation, diggability and mineral processing are not covered here. Most of the postblast measurements are not time-dependent. 4.2 Geometry As with pre-blast measurements of geometry, laser surveying and photogrammetry are used to obtain post-blast data concerning the shape and location of the blasted rock. For surface blasting, Carter (1990) proposed the use of the moments of a statistical distribution as objectives ways to describe the shape and location of the muckpile. He showed results for the centre of gravity, radius of gyration, skewness, flatness and rotation angle of the muckpile formed in front of a blast where the floor was relatively flat. However, in other circumstances where the complexity of the geometry, say in throw blasting with different available void space, we may require other figures of merit that account for specific situations (Brent and Noy 2006). Reference has already been made to the generation of pre-blast 3D point cloud data for tunnels (Wetherelt and Williams 2006, Spathis etal. 2006). Post-blast geometry measurements of volume, surface area or cross-sectional area are used to assess blast results in tunnels. The data are interpreted as overbreak and underbreak and are used to improve the blast design (Hustrulid and Iverson 2009, Kim and Bruland 2009). The measurement of the number and length of half-barrels on the perimeter of a blast are also used for this purpose although the presence of half-barrels does not necessarily mean limited damage into the rock mass (Niklasson and Keisu 1993, Rustan 1996, Fjell borg and Olsson 1996). The geometry obtained by surveying the surfaces of a blasted area do not provide any detail on the extent of movement within the rock mass. Tracking the sub-surface movement within a given blast can assist in understanding the mechanics of blasting. A significant economic benefit comes from the tracking of ore-waste boundaries in order to not lose valuable ore or process waste unnecessarily.

Such measurements are challenging (Taylor et al. 1996). A recent development has proven successful and uses sub-surface radio beacons to track ore-waste boundaries (Thornton 2009). Figure16 shows the difference in surface movement compared to sub-surface movement measured using the radio beacon method. Separate technology uses RFID tags for material transport through the mining and milling process (Wortley etal. 2011). 4.3 Cracking There is a strong link between the blasting process and the geomechanical response of the rock mass. At the very least, the blast alters the geometry so that the in situ stress is redistributed following the release of the broken from the intact rock. Geotechnical measurements may be made over time after a blast as the rock mass gradually responds to the stress regime changes. The nucleation, extension and movement of cracks, joints and faults may be measured by various transducers. For example, displacement gauges were used in a project that excavated a diversion tunnel in an underground power station (Zhu etal. 2002). Acoustic emission is a useful post-blast measurement that can locate the zone where a rock mass is responding to a blastinduced stress change. A laboratory study shows the common observed effects including the Kaiser effect whereby the number of acoustic emissions increase after the stress is beyond a previous threshold (Seto etal. 1996).

Figure16.Diagram showing the difference in measured surface and sub-surface displacements for a blast. The surface displacement is determined by the movement of the witness hole collar while the sub-surface movement is detected using a radio beacon. (used by permission, Thornton 2009).

33

Visual inspection and photographic records remain useful and important in measuring the extent of cracking as a measure of damage to the remaining rock mass after a blast. It is wise to repeat such observations and photograph the areas particularly in underground situations where the stress regime may cause time-dependent changes after a blast. Figures 17 and 18 show the cracking behind a surface blast and the half-barrels identified in a panoramic image of a tunnel round, respectively. 4.4 Fragmentation The size distribution of the fragmented rock postblast has received much attention, particularly with the advent of computer-based image analysis techniques. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to cover the topic in detail but Franklin and Katsabanis (1996) describe various systems and analysis techniques and Spathis (2009) describes prediction methods for the various features of the size distribution. It is recognised that optical methods do not replace full screening of the muckpile but the aim is to obtain useful and meaningful data that will help the design of better blasts. The optical methods are typically passive although one novel method used a light stripe across a conveyor belt (Yeung etal. 1990).

The choice of representative image samples is critical and because most methods rely on analysis of multiple 2D images, it is important to take images normal to the angle of repose of the muckpile surface. Photogrammetric methods that access the missing third dimension have been developed with the prospect of using them across various parts of the mining process including immediately at the excavation area (Noy 2006).

Figure17.Photograph at the back of a blast showing cracks in the remaining rock mass.

Figure 19. Cubic-inch wireless sensor nodes (motes) constructed using off-the-shelf technology. (a) a radiofrequency mote with temperature and light sensors. (b) a laser mote with temperature, light, humidity, and barometric pressure sensors (Fig.1 from Kahn etal. 2000).

Figure18.Panoramic photo of the unwrapped surface of a tunnel round. The white paint lines are identified half-barrels. The length of the round was approximately three metres.

Figure20. Scheme of a sensor network using clustered sensor nodes (Fig.2 from Grosse etal. 2010).

34

Figure21. Contour map of peak particle velocity levels obtained from an array of geophones. (Fig. 3 from Froedge 1989).

5 DiscUssiON aND cONclUsiONs The present review paper has focused on the measurement of parameters that directly affect the primary blast outputs of rock fragmentation, rock movement, environmental effects such as ground vibration, and post-blast damage to the remaining rock mass. Measurands include the geometry, geology, kinematic quantities of particle displacement, particle velocity and particle acceleration, airblast, permanent displacement, strain, pressure, temperature, velocity of detonation, timing sequence information, fragmentation size distribution, the presence, location and size of cracking, amongst other parameters. The measurement systems are typically point measurements at points of interest amongst a complete field of possible measurement locations. Given the complexity of a rock mass, the extraordinary power of a series of detonating charges that form the blast, and the highly non-linear nature of their interaction, it is impossible to imagine that a few point measurements will capture the critical elements that describe the complete blasting event. Most projects rely on simple figures of merit and often on the downstream effects of the primary blast outputs of excavation speed to access ore and ore production. However, the internal measurements discussed here may be used in a diagnostic sense that provides feedback to the blast design and implementation. The question is: what more should be done or could be done? It appears that one important direction is to massively increase the amount of data and the ease of collecting it. There has been a trend to miniature measurement devices that can communicate

their data in either an ad hoc manner or more regularly and on demand. A typical configuration is the use of so-called micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) combined with a mote, whose dictionary definition is a particle, or speck, especially of dusttheir combination has been termed smart dust for units on the scale of a millimetre-cubed (Kahn etal. 2000). Figure19 shows two motes on the scale of a cubic inch. The trend is to make the sensors smaller so that they use less power, sometimes relying on energy harvesting, and enabling self-healing of net work communications to ensure robust data transmission to a base station. The network may be built up of several sub-networks (Fig.20, Grosse etal. 2010). The use of such miniature scale sensor networks can be seen as a natural extension of multiple point measurements taken by traditional-scale systems. For example, Frodge (1989) presents examples of over 100 vibration transducers used to obtain maps of vibration levels around a blast. Nutting and Froedge (1990) show similar data. While their transducers were not networked, the intent was clearobtain many vibration data points in the region of interest. Figure21 shows a contour map of the vibration levels possible using such systems. While taking more measurements of parameters in a blast is one direction, there remains the challenge of obtaining accurate data from just one transducer. For example, it is well-known that coupling of ground vibration transducers can influence the measured vibration level. Measurements of any parameter in the near-field is fraught with practical difficulties such as dynamic range, frequency response and response time of the transducer, not to mention the actual survivability of the transducer itself. Novel transducers are imminent. For example, recent research on optical fibre transducers offers the prospect of data in various domains around a blast (Wild and Hinkley 2008, Wild and Hinkley 2009, Gholamzadeh and Nabovati 2008). Once data is acquired it is necessary to store and analyse it. The trend is to web-enabled database systems whereby the data recorded by transducers is automatically uploaded to a web site where some analysis may occur and notification of any exceedances is sent to registered users. Innovations come from many directions but as indicated in some of the measurement methods described here, it is always worth looking into the past as well as seeking solutions in the future. ackNOwleDgemeNts I would like to thank my colleagues at the CSIROs then Division of Geomechanics, and at Orica

35

Mining Services (formerly ICI Explosives) for sharing my unplanned trajectory in the study of measurement systems in mining. In particular, my thanks go to the technicians whose skill makes possible the translation of ideas into working, useful devices. refereNces
Aitchison, T.C. & W.E. Tournay (1959). Comparative studies of explosives in granite. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Report of Investigations 5509. Anderson, D.A., Winzer, S.R. & A.P. Ritter (1984). Timehistories of principal strains generated in rock by cylindrical explosive charges. Proc. 25th US Symp. Rock Mechanics, June 2527, Evanston, pp. 959968. Armstrong, L.W. & N.T. Moxon (1990). Low shock energy emulsion based wet hole explosives. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, 2631 August, pp. 4553. Blair, B.E. (1959). Use of high-speed camera in blasting studies. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Information Circular 5584. Blair, D.P. & T.N. Little (1993). The assessment of open pit blast performance using infra red, ainrblast and video techniques. Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna, 58 July, pp. 253260. Bogdanoff, I. (1996). Vibration measurements in the damage zone in tunnel blasting. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 177185. Braithwaite, C.H., Chapman, D.J., Field, J.E. & W.G. Proud (2009). On the source of noise in gauge traces in geological materials. Proc. AIP Conf. Proc. 1195 Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, 28 June 3 July, Nashville, pp. 878881. Brent, G.F. & G.E. Smith (1996). Borehole pressure measurements behind blast limits as an aid to determining the extent of rock damage. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 103112. Brent, G.F. & M.J. Noy (2006). Throw blasting analysis. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, 711 May, pp. 255261. Brinkmann, J.R. (1990). An experimental study of the effects of shock and gas penetration in blasting. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, 2631 August, pp.5566. Cameron, A. & P. Grouhel (1990). The effects of the quality of bulk commercial explosives on blast performance. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, 2631 August, pp.335343. Carter, C.L. (1990). A proposed standard for the objective measurement of muck pile profiles. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, 2631 August, pp.159162. Cheung, L.C.C., Poniewierski, J.M., Ward, B., LeBlanc, D., Thurley, M.J. & A.P. Maconochie (1996). SIROJOINT and SIROFRAG: New techniques for joint mapping and rock fragment size distribution. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 253258.

Chiappetta, R.F. & D.G. Borg (1983). Increasing productivity through field control and high-speed photography. Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, 2226 August, pp. 301331. Chiappetta, R.F. & M.E. Mammele (1987). Analytical high-speed photography to evaluate air decks, stemming retention and gas confinement in presplitting, reclamation and gross motion applications. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, 2326 August, pp. 257301. Chiappetta, R.F. & B. Vandenberg (1990). High-speed motion picture photography analysis in 3DA new approach to analyzing full scale blasts. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, 2631 August, pp. 245250. Cunningham, C.V.B. (1990). The role of blasting instrumentation in promoting mining profitability. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, 2631 August, pp. 245250. Decker, D.L., Bassett, W.A., Merrill, L., Hall, H.T. & J.D. Barnett (1972). High-pressure calibrationA critical review. Journal Physical Chemistry Reference Data, pp. 179. Dick, R.A, Fletcher, L.R, & D.V. DAndrea (1983). Explosives and Blasting Procedures Manual. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Information Circular 8925. Duvall, W.I & T.C. Aitchison (1956). Rock breakage by explosives. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Information Circular 5514. Ellis, D.V. & J.M. Singer (2011). Well logging for earth scientists (2nd edition). Springer, Amsterdam. Felice, J.J., Beattie, T.A. & A.T. Spathis (1991). Face velocity measurements using a microwave radar technique. Proc. 7th Res. Symp. On Explosives and Blasting Technique, ISEE, Las Vegas, 67 February, pp. 7177. Fjellborg, S. & M. Olsson (1996). Successful long drift rounds by blasting to a large diameter uncharged hole. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 397405. Fogelson, D.E., Duvall, W.I. & T.C. Aitchison (1959). Strain energy in explosion-generated strain pulses. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Report of Investigations 5514. Franklin, J.A. & T. Katsabanis (1996). Measurement of Blast Fragmentation. Proc. Fragblast 5 Workshop on Measurement of Blast Fragmentation, 2324 August, Montreal. Froedge, D.T. (1989). Outsmarting blast vibrations. Coal, Nov., pp. 6769. Gaich, A., Ptsch, M., Moser, P. & W. Schubert (2009). How 3D images support bench face profiling, blast planning and rock mass characterisation. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September, pp. 8590. Gholamzadeh, B. & H. Nabovati (2008). Fibre optic sensors. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 42, pp. 297307. Gibson, F.C., Bowser, M.L., Summers, C.R., Scott, F.H. (1962). An electrical method for the continuous measurement of propagation velocities in explosives and propellants. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Report of Investigations 6207.

36

Goswami, T., Brent, G. & L.Hain (2008). Reducing coal damage and loss with a new blasting technology. Proc. 34th Ann. Conf. Explosives and Blasting Technique, ISEE, New Orleans. Grosse, C.U., Glaser, S.D. & M. Krger. Initial development of wireless acoustic emission sensor motes for civil infrastructure state monitoring. Smart Structures and Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 197209. Hamdi, E., du Mouza, J. & J.M. Le Cleach (2006). Mirco-fragmentation energy evaluation in rock blasting. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, 711 May, pp. 134139. Hamdi, E., du Mouza, J. & J.A. Fleurisson (2002). Influence of rock mass structure on blast efficiency. Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Beijing, 1115 August, pp. 747754. Harries, G. (1988). The assessment and optimisation of blasting. EXPLO 88Explosives in Mining Workshop, AusIMM, 2324 November, pp. 12729. Hopkins, M.L., Torrance, A.C. & N.T. Moxon (1988). Development of explosive monitoring techniques for use in quality control and production blast analysis. EXPLO 88Explosives in Mining Workshop, AusIMM, 2324 November, pp. 3943. Hustrulid, W.A. & S.R. Iverson (2009). Evaluation of Kiruna drifting data using the NIOSH design approach. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September, pp. 497506. Hutchings, J. (1990). Blasthole diameter and its effect on explosive distribution. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Brisbane, 2631 August, pp. 273277. Kahn, J.M., Katz, R.H. & K.S.J. Pister (2000). Emerging challenges: mobile networking for smart dust. J. Communications and Networks, 2, pp. 188196. Kemeny, J., Donovan, J. & C. Rodriguez Silva (2006). Application of ground-based Lidar for pre-blast rock mass characterisation. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, 711 May, pp. 5054. Killeen, P.G. & B.E. Elliot (1997). Surveying the path of boreholes: A review of developments and methods since 1987. Proceedings of Exploration 97: Fourth Decennial Int. Conference on Mineral Exploration, edited by A.G. Gubins, GEO F/X, Toronto, 1418 September, pp. 709712. Kim, Y. & A. Bruland (2009). A study on the estimation of the tunnel contour quality index in a drill and blast round. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September, pp. 507513. Kristiansen, J., Kure, K., Vestre, J. & I. Bergqvist (1990). An investigation of heave and fragmentation related to explosive properties. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 2631 August, pp. 8390. Lathm, J.-P., Munjiza, A. & P. Lu (1999). Components in an understanding of rock blasting. Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannesburg, 812 August, pp. 173181. Lewandowksi, T., Keith, G., Croucher, M. & A. Richards (1999). The impact of surface blasting on underground openinggeotechnical assessment. 6th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannesburg, 812 August, pp. 131137.

Lisle, R.J. (2004). Geological structure and maps: A practical guide (3rd Edition). Elsevier, Oxford. Little, T.N. & F.van Rooyen (1988). The current state of the art of grade control blasting in the Eastern Goldfieds. EXPLO 88Explosives in Mining Workshop, AusIMM, 2324 November. Little, T.N. & C.E. Murray (1996). The development and trialling of a cement grout blasthole stemming enhancement cone. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 331341. Little, T.N. (2011). Four useful blasting geology frameworks. Presentation in 1st International Blasting Geology Workshop held in conjunction with EXPLO 2011, 10 November, AusIMM, Melbourne. Liu, Q. & H. Tran (1999). Drilling and blasting techniques for developing inverse drop raises. Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannesburg, 812 August, pp. 5359. Liu, Q. (2002). Estimation of dynamic pressure around a fully loaded blasthole in rock. Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Beijing, 1115 August, pp. 267272. Liu, K.Q. (2009). New methodology for the quality control of long-hole drilling in underground hard rock mines. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September, pp. 301310. Mencacci, S. & R. Chavez (2005). The measurement and analysis of detonation pressure during blasting. Proc. 3rd World Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, 710 June, Brighton, pp.231236. Meyers, M.A. (1994). Dynamic Behaviour of Materials. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Mohanty, B. (2009). Intra-hole and inter-hole effects in typical blast designs and their implications on explosive energy release and detonator delay timeA critical review. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September, pp. 2331. Moser, P., Gaich, A., Zechmann, E. & A. Grasedieck (2006). The SMX Blast MetrixA new tool to determine the geometrical parameters of a blast based on 3D imaging. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, 711 May, pp. 8084. Niklasson, B. & M. Keisu (1993). New techniques for tunnelling and drifting. Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna, 58 July, pp. 167174. Noy, M.J. (2006). The latest in on-line fragmentation measurementstereo imaging over a conveyor. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, 711 May, pp. 6166. Nutting, M.J. & D.T. Froedge (2000). The mapping of vibration patterns around a blast. Proc. 6th Research Symp. Explosives and Blasting Technique, 89 Feb., Orlando, pp. 165178. Obert, L. & W.I. Duvall (1949). A gage and recording equipment for measuring dynamic strain in rock. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Report of Investigations 4581. OKeefe, S.G. & D.V. Thiel (1990). Radio noise monitoring during rock fracture at blast sites. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 2631 August, pp. 279281.

37

Onederra, I., Cavanough, G. & A. Torrance (2011). Detonation pressure and temperature measurements of conventional and low-density explosives. Proc. EXPLO 2011 Blasting: Controlled Productivity, AusIMM, Melbourne, 89 October, pp. 133136. Ouchterlony, F., Nie, S., Nyberg, U. & J. Deng (1996). Monitoring of large open cut rounds by VOD, PPV and gas pressure. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 167176. Ouchterlony, F. (2002). Drill hole deviations in a road cut perimeter, experiences from measurements at Sdertlje. Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Beijing, 1115 August, pp. 341354. Paley, N. (1993). Improving the drilling of blast designs with laser alignment. Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna, 58 July, pp. 455462. Petkof, B., Aitchison, T.C. & W. Duvall (1960). Photographic observation of quarry blasting. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Information Circular 5849. Poropat, G.V. (2006). Remote 3D mapping of rock mass structure. Laser and Photogrammetric Methods for Rock Face Characterization (F. Tonon & J. Kottenstette, eds.), Golden, held in conjunction with GoldenRocks 2006, the 41st U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Colorado School of Mines, 1721 June. Pugliese, J.M. (1972). Designing blast patterns using empirical formulas: A comparison of calculated patterns with plans used in quarrying limestone and dolomite, with geologic considerations. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Information Circular 8550. Rosenberg, Z., Ginzberg, A. & E. Dekel (2009). High shock measurements using commercial manganin gauges. International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 13651370. Rustan, A. (1996). Micro-sequential contour blasting theoretical and empirical approaches. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 157165. Schultz, D.L. (1987). Fibre optic probe used to measure downhole detonation velocities of explosive columns. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Information Circular 9135l. Segui, J.B. & M. Higgins (2001). Blast design using measurement while drilling parameters. Proc. EXPLO 2001 Blasting: Techniques and technologytoday and tomorrows, AusIMM, Hunter Valley, 2831 October, pp. 231235. Seto, M., Nag, D.K., & V.S. Vututkuri (1996). Evaluation or rock mass damage using acoustic emission technique in the laboratory. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 139145. Spathis, A.T. (1993). Muckpile shape predictions from measured burden velocity distributions. Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Vienna, 711 May, pp. 233238. Spathis, A.T. (1999). On the energy efficiency of blasting. Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Johannesburg, 812 August, pp. 8190.

Spathis, A.T. (2006). Powder factors in asymmetric blast patterns. Int. J. Blasting and Fragmentation, Vol. 10, Nos. 34, pp. 97108. Spathis, A.T., P. Lesberg & L.W.Armstrong (2006). Tunnel blasting using precise electronic delay detonators and bulk emulsions. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, 711 May, pp. 411416. Spathis, A.T. (2007). Suggested methods for the measurement of the velocity of detonation of an explosive in a blast. Unpublished manuscript for Working Group of the Fragblast International Organising Committee (Chairman: A.T. Spathis Members: G.F. Brent (Australia), R. Frank Chiappetta (USA), Richard D. Dick (USA), M. Higgins (Australia), S. Hosein (United Kingdom), S.K. Kanchibotla (Australia), B. Mohanty (Canada), Qian (Ken) Lui (Canada), I. Onederra (Australia), A. Rorke (South Africa), A. Rustan (Sweden), E. Sellers (South Africa), A. Wetherelt (United Kingdom)). Spathis, A.T. (2009). A brief review of the measurement, modelling and management of vibrations produced from blasting. In Vibrations from Blasting (A.T. Spathis and M.J. Noy Eds). Workshop hosted by Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September. CRC Press, Leiden. Spathis, A.T. (2009). Formulae and techniques for assessing features of blast-induced fragmentation distributions. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September, pp. 209219. Stagg, M.S. & A. Rholl (1987). Effects of accurate delays on fragmentation for single-row blasting in a 6.7 m (22 ft) bench. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, 2326 August, pp. 210223. Taylor, S.L., Gilbride, L.J., Daemen, J.J.K. & P. MoussetJones (1996). The impact of blast induced movement on grade dilution in Nevadas precious metal mines. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 407413. Thornton, D.M. (2009). The application of electronic monitors to understand blast movement dynamics and improve blast design. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September, pp. 287300. Wagner, H. & P. Moxer (1996). Rock and rock mass properties prediction based on drilling parameters for underground drift blasting. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, 2529 August, pp. 415423. Wetherelt, A. & D.C. Williams (2006). Using high definition surveying (HDS) to quantify tunnel hole burdens and fragmentation. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Santiago, 711 May, pp. 5560. Wild, G., & S. Hinckley (2008). Acousto-ultrasonic optical fiber sensors: Overview and State-of-the-Art. IEEE Sensors Journal, 8(7), pp. 11841193. Wild, G., & S. Hinckley (2009). Distributed optical fibre smart sensors for structural health monitoring: A smart transducer interface module. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Intelligent sensors, sensor networks and information processing, Melbourne, 710 Dec., pp. 373378.

38

Williams, J.H. & C.D. Johnson (2004). Acoustic and optical borehole-wall imaging for fractured-rock aquifer studies. J. Applied Physics, 55, pp. 151159. Wimmer, M., Ouchterlony, F., Moser, P., Nordqvist, A. & G. Lenz (2009). Referenced 3D images from inside cavities and behind rings. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Granada, 1317 September, pp. 91100. Winzer, S.R., Anderson, D.A. & A.P. Ritter (1983). Rock fragmentation by blasting. Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, 2226 August, pp. 225249. Wortley, M., Nozawa, E. & K.J. Riihioja (2011). Metso SmarTagthe next generation and beyond. 35th APCOM Symposium, Wollongong, 2430 September, pp. 841851.

Yeung, C.C. & A. Ord (1990). An on line fragment size analyser using image processing techniques. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, 2631 August, pp. 233238. Young, C., Founrey, W.L., Petti, N.C. & B.C. Trent (1983). Electromagnetic velocity gauge measurement of rock mass motion during blasting. Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, 2226 August, pp. 289300. Zhu, C., Ni, J., Xu, H. & D. Shu (2002). Monitoring and analysis on effect of excavation blasting of diversion tunnel in underground station. Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Beijing, 1115 August, pp. 732737.

39