The Suitability of Conventional

Geological and Geotechnical Data for

Blast Design
Andrew Scott, Gideon Chitombo and Italo Onederra

Abstract
Blast performance is controlled by the properties of the rock mass, the distribution of
explosive within the rock mass, the detonic properties of the explosive and the
dynamic interactions controlled by the detailed initiation timing. In principle, each
element of the blast design needs to be selected to facilitate the transition of the insitu rock mass properties to the characteristics targeted for the blasted muck. In
practice, the properties of the rock mass are often not given sufficient priority in blast
design.
This paper explores the blast design process from both a theoretical and practical
perspective with emphasis on the way that rock mass properties are utilised in
design. The rock mass properties that have most influence over blast performance
are discussed and compared with the parameters that are commonly reported in
geotechnical investigations.
Most geotechnical studies are undertaken to assess and manage the stability of pit
slopes and mine openings and often do not specifically target the needs of blast
design. This leads to differences in emphasis that include the scale at which rock
mass structure is considered and the representation of rock strength.
The discussion concludes that the data generated by conventional geotechnical
investigations are not entirely suitable for blast design. It is argued that modest
additional effort in the collection and analysis of geotechnical data could lead to a
significant improvement in the way that rock mass properties can be used to derive
blast designs that target specific blast performance. Practical examples are provided
relating to the evaluation of blasting requirements for feasibility studies and the
management of fragmentation, damage and excavation characteristics in operating
mines.

Introduction
Predicting the blasting requirements for any given rock mass is a basic component of
the blasting engineers role. Understanding the properties of the rock mass is an
obvious starting point. There are usually two groups responsible for determining
these properties at a mine the resource geologists and the geotechnical engineers.

2
Blasting engineers usually depend on these groups for the description of the rock
mass that they need for their blast designs as shown on Figure 1.

Resource
Data

Geotechical
Data

Resource
Geologist

Geotechical
Engineer

Blasting
Engineer

Figure 1

Basic rock mass data transfer to a Blasting Engineer

Geology and geomechanics expertise is generally provided to a mine through a

Technical Services Group that is not directly involved with the day to day mining
operations. Just as the orebody geologists are principally focussed on the economic
geology of the resource, the geomechanics engineers are focussed on the design
and stability of the excavation. Neither group is primarily concerned with the needs
of the blasting engineer and there are often barriers to the effective flow of
information between those that know most about the rock and those responsible for
its breakage.

Conventional Rock Mass Characterisation

Objectives
Geotechnical investigations are undertaken prior to mining to determine appropriate
mine design parameters such as pit slope, bench and berm dimensions in open pit
mines and stable spans and reinforcement requirements in underground mines. This
information is required during the pre-feasibility stage of a project to guide the
selection of the basic mining method to be employed. More detailed information is
then required to refine the detailed mine design as the project approaches and enters
implementation, and to then guide initial and on-going operations.
Sources of Data
During the pre-development stages of a mining project, data describing rock
properties can only be obtained from surface or down hole geophysical techniques or
from the direct observation or testing of drill core. Once mining operations have
commenced then the rock mass can be exposed, but direct access may still be
limited by physical or safety constraints.

3
Specific sampling and testing programs provide detailed information about the rock at
the specific sampling locations but understanding how these properties vary across
the area of interest remains problematic.
Data collected
The data collected will vary widely depending on the specific needs of each
operation. Three types of characterisation are generally undertaken:

economic
mineralogical
physical.

The extent of the mineralisation and its distribution within the rock mass form the
basic drivers for the definition of an orebody. The net value of the ore depends on
the costs associated with mining, transport and processing. These costs depend on
the characteristics of the orebody and so a cyclic series of evaluations is required
where initial estimates of mine geometry, blasting, excavation, haulage, comminution
and processing performance are made to provide a first pass definition of the
orebody. Subsequent planning cycles refine these estimates into a bankable mine
plan. Optimising this plan depends strongly on the extent to which the mineralogical
and physical characteristics of the ore are understood.
The nature of the minerals present and their association with each other control the
ease with which the target minerals can be separated from the gangue. Liberation
versus particle size and the presence and influence of contaminants on the final
saleable product are key factors.
The physical characteristics of the ore are given less attention by resource geologists
than the economic or mineralogical aspects. There is much less attention payed to
the geology of the waste in most mines. This leaves the physical characterisation of
ore and waste to the geotechnical engineers. Breakage behaviour is commonly
estimated in the form of the Bond Index (Bond 1952) which is obtained from
controlled breakage tests of small scale samples. The Bond Index does not relate
well to blasting requirements.
Rock Mass Characterisation Schemes
A number of rock mass characterisation schemes have been developed that
summarise the data available from exploration or field investigation programs. These
schemes present the data in a form that is relevant to the objectives of each
characterisation. The simplest example of such a scheme is the Rock Quality
Designation or RQD defined as the proportion of drill core that is recovered in lengths
greater than 100mm. While it is reasonable to argue that poorer rock will have a
smaller proportion of its core in lengths greater than 100mm, the simplicity of the
index and its shortcomings as a measure of potential rock mass competence are well
documented.

4
More sophisticated indices are commonly and effectively used to describe the quality
of a rock mass with regard to its likely stability when excavated as a slope or
underground opening. These focus on the spacing, orientation and physical
properties of the discontinuities observed within a rock mass, weighting simple
measures of these properties according to their expected influence on the physical
behaviour of the rock mass. The most commonly reported indices are Rock Mass
Rating or RMR (Bieniawski, 1973), Q (Barton, Lien and Lunde, 1974) and the
Geological Strength Index or GSI (Hoek, 2000).
Table 1 summarises the parameters used by the popular geotechnical rock mass
characterisation indices and the process of blast design during feasibility, operations
and investigations.
Table 1

Summary of some geotechnical and blasting parameters

Geotechnical
RQD

Physical

Density
Groundwater
Stress

Rock Strength

UCS
PLS
Field Index

Structure

FF
Spacing
Orientation
Persistence

Discontinuities

Surface Roughness
Alteration
Fill
Cohesion
Friction Angle

RMR

Blasting
Q

GSI

Feasibility

Operations

Investigations

Breakage

Tensile Strength
Fracture Toughness
Comminution

Dynamic

P Wave Velocity
Young's Modulus
Poisson's Ratio

While a number of useful blast design inputs are also inputs to the geotechnical
indices, these indices themselves are of limited value for blast design. Each of them
will, in their own way, indicate the relative quality of the rock they describe. Higher
quality rock (as indicated by the indices) will tend to have fewer, stronger
discontinuities and hence will probably require more intense blasting effort to achieve
the same fragmentation result as rock described as being of lower quality. However,
beyond this sort of qualitative comparison, the indices do not provide any specific
guidance as to how a blast should be designed to achieve any specified objectives.

Blast Design
The Blasting Process
The blasting process can be described reasonably well in words but the blasting
sciences are not yet able to explicitly predict the detailed outcomes from rock

5
blasting. The influence of particular rock mass properties on blasting performance
still tends to be described qualitatively rather than quantitatively.
When an explosive detonates in a blast hole it rapidly transforms into gases at very
high temperature and pressure. The chemical reactions take place at and behind the
detonation front which travels along the explosive column faster than the acoustic
velocity of the un-reacted explosive, creating a shock condition. The pressure
generated in the blast hole imposes shock loading onto the blast hole wall. The
resulting stresses compress and crush the rock in the vicinity of the blast hole.
Beyond the crushed zone, the stress wave compresses the material at the wave front
and induces a tangential tensile stress. If the intensity of this stress is greater than
the dynamic tensile strength of the rock, radial fractures will develop. When the
compressive wave front encounters an open discontinuity or interface, a proportion of
its energy may be reflected as a tensile wave. The complexity of the rock mass
structure ensures a complicated series of stress interactions within the rock mass
moments after detonation.
During and after the stress wave propagation, the explosion gases penetrate the
available fractures, extending and dilating them. The lack of restraint available at a
free face creates an imbalance of forces and allows the burden rock to move.
Eventually the explosion gases find their way through the fracture network or
stemming to the atmosphere. Rock movement continues beyond this point as a
result of the momentum generated up to this point in the process.
Rock mass properties influencing the blasting process Process
This description of the blasting process identifies a number of rock mass properties
important to blasting performance. These include:

rock mass stiffness which controls the distortion of the blast hole wall
and hence the pressure developed in the blast hole

dynamic compressive strength which controls the crushing that occurs

at the blast hole wall

attenuation properties of the rock mass which determines how far the
stress wave travels before its energy falls below the levels that cause
primary breakage

dynamic tensile strength of the rock which influences the extent of new
fracture generation in both the shock and gas phases of breakage

in-situ fracture frequency, orientation and character which together

define the in-situ block size distribution and influence the attenuation
of the shock wave and the migration of explosion gases

density of the rock mass which affects its inertial response to the
forces imposed on it during blasting.

It is possible to identify the impact that changes in these properties are likely to have
on blasting performance. However, there are no generally accepted formulae

6
available to define how the classic blast design parameters (explosive type, blast
hole diameter, burden, spacing, initiation timing, etc) should be tuned to achieve
targeted blast performance in response to these properties. Blast design is a more
subtle process that depends heavily on qualitative experience and a simpler
description of the rock mass.
Blasting involves both the creation of new fractures and the extension of existing
cracks and joints to loosen and liberate in-situ blocks within the rock mass structure.
The fine end of the fragment size distribution curve is controlled by the substance
strength and the breakage energy provided by the explosive. The coarse end of the
size distribution curve is influenced by the in-situ rock mass structure and the spatial
distribution of the explosive within the rock mass. Muckpile movement is influenced
by the rock density and stiffness, the heave energy and distribution of the explosive,
and detailed initiation timing. The minimum description of rock mass properties
influencing blast performance therefore needs to include:

density
strength
stiffness
fracture frequency (degree of fracturing and condition of fractures)

together with an understanding of the variability of these parameters across the

mining area.
There is no single proven, recipe to guide blast design. Many practitioners delight in
their individual approach to this challenge and so there are many correct
approaches. Armed with a reasonable description of these rock mass properties,
simple models or rules of thumb can be used to evaluate alternative blast designs.
The provision of more specific rock mass characteristics (as sometimes included in
detailed geotechnical investigations) usually adds little value as there are simply no
formulae available to incorporate these data in the blast design process.
The Blast Engineering Process
Flow charts like that shown on Figure 2 can be used to describe the sequence of
processes involved in the engineering of blasting operations at a mine. While the
details may vary from site to site and there are many legitimate ways to draw such a
diagram, there is general agreement that blast design needs to respond to:

the design objectives

rock mass properties
geometry, mining conditions and constraints

and needs to build on specific experience acquired within the operations. The
sophistication of the process will determine the extent to which this experience is
captured from the formal monitoring and analysis of the operations and the
complexity of the models and simulations that are used. Approaches could vary from
the subtle influence of an individuals personal experience to the formal
implementation of the latest blast monitoring and modelling tools.

Figure 2

Blast Engineering approach to design and optimisation

The Blast Engineering process will vary in detail depending on whether the mine is
the subject of a feasibility study, is in routine operation or is the subject of a detailed
investigation.
Feasibility Studies
During the feasibility stage of a mining project, data is limited to what can be obtained
from drill holes and drill core. As this stage of a project is usually regarded as being
an extension of the exploration task, the collection and analysis of such data is
usually managed by the resource geologists. The resulting data usually contain
significant detail regarding the lithology, mineralogy, alteration and grade of the rock,
with limited description of its strength or structure the critical elements affecting
blasting.
Geotechnical engineers involved in these programs will focus on the mine design
requirements which normally results in the data being summarised in the form of
geotechnical indices like those shown on Table 1. Once summarised in that form it is
impossible to extract the core parameters needed for blast design, so the blasting
engineer must wade though the raw data to identify the underlying parameters.
Operating Mines
Operating mines have the best possible access to the rock mass to characterise its
blasting properties. However, access can still be limited by safety considerations and
the general pace at which the operations develop and the resources available to
collect, analyse and apply the data. It is unlikely that many operations would
encourage the close access to a rock slope shown on Figure 3.

8
Blast designers in operating mines still tend to focus on simple field strength
measurements and qualitative descriptions of rock mass structure. There is usually
strong guidance provided by previous experience in similar conditions. This
experience may be captured formally in the form of a blast performance data base or
less formally through the local experience of individuals.

Figure 3

Field mapping and strength assessment may be limited by access and

safety issues

Investigations
Site based research activities have demonstrated how comprehensive data sets can
be collected to describe blasting performance. These activities can then provide the
feed-back and analysis loops shown on Figure 2.
The following examples
demonstrate how the intense measurement of rock mass characteristics allowed the
blasting process to be re-engineered to provide significant benefits to the business.
Cerro Colorado
In 1997 a detailed program of field and laboratory rock mass characterisation was
undertaken for the Cerro Colorado mine in the north of Chile (Scott et al 1998). The
mine produces copper metal via the leaching of crushed ore. The ultimate recovery
of copper and the rate of leaching were affected by the size distribution of the
agglomerated crushed ore. The Cerro Colorado ore contains clay minerals that are
released as fines in the crusher product. Initial investigations by Cerro Colorado
indicated that about half of these fines were being generated in the mine and about
half were generated in the crushing and screening plant.
Detailed field fracture mapping and point load strength testing were complemented
by laboratory determination of energy - breakage behaviour and fines liberation. This
allowed the definition of six geometallurgical domains within which the rock type,
structure, mining characteristics and processing performance were consistent.
Modelling based on the characteristics of these domains guided the design of blasts
to minimise the generation of fines. Changes were also made to the crushing

9
strategies employed. These changes to the mining and crushing practices led to a
significant reduction in the proportion of fines in the crushed ore and the ability to
predict, and hence manage, the fines content of the leach pads.

Figure 4

Example of soft blast using air-decks and improved geometry to

reduce fined generation at Cerro Colorado

Mount Keith
The value available from increasing the intensity of ore blasting to improve
excavation, crushing and milling was evaluated and demonstrated at the Mount Keith
Nickel mine in Western Australia during 1999 and 2000. The evaluation required the
detailed characterisation of different ores, the measurement of blasting performance
and tracking ore from individual sources through the ore handling, crushing and
grinding processes. These processes were successfully modelled and a long term
trial was undertaken involving the intense blasting of selected ores and reduction in
the closed side setting of the primary crushing. These initiatives resulted in a
sustained increase in mill throughput and reduction in mill power draw (Scott, Morrell
and Clark, 2002)

13
Type 1

12
11

Type 2
Type 3

Type 4

10
Figure 5

Bench plan and geometallurgical ore types from Mount Keith Bench

10
Prior to this program the resource geologists, mining engineers and metallurgists had
their own focussed approach to ore characterisation. A significant breakthrough in
the Mine to Mill optimisation was the effective correlation of blasting and comminution
behaviour with established mineralogical and alteration classifications. This allowed
operations to be tuned to suit different parts of the orebody without exhaustive local
strength testing and structural analyses.
The time and resources required to continue each of these detailed investigations
probably make them unsustainable in the long term. However, these programs led to
a level of understanding that allowed useful relationships to be developed with other,
more accessible rock mass properties. These relationships allowed the on-going
operations to be managed effectively based on more modest field data requirements.

Common Data Challenges

A number of challenges that are encountered by blasting engineers endeavouring to
interpret conventional geotechnical data are identified and discussed in the following
sections.
Language
A subtle, but real impediment to the sharing of information involves language.
Different professional groups tend to think about the rock in terms that have most
meaning for their immediate purpose. For instance, the following descriptions might
be used:
Geologist

Andesite containing oxide mineralisation and sericitic

alteration

Rock Mechanics

Medium strength rock with tight jointing, RQD 65%,

GSI 60

Production Engineer

Medium strength, blocky ore

Metallurgist

Brittle, high throughput ore yielding significant fines.

While these descriptions are appropriate in each context, they do not necessarily
provide the blasting engineer with the description required. Ideally, there needs to be
one data base containing the raw rock mass data with the facility for each group to
interrogate the data base for information in the most appropriate form for their
purpose.
Domains
It is generally appropriate to identify areas of similar blasting characteristics into
domains. This is a popular approach with geologists and geomechanics engineers
who define areas of the mine where the orebody properties or stability will be similar
and so can be managed in a consistent manner. While there may be some common
elements between geotechnical domains and blasting domains, they may not be the

11
same in any given mine and the simple adoption of the geotechnical domains as
blasting domains may limit their relevance.
It is sometimes appropriate to define geometallurgical domains as being areas
within the mine where the properties of the ore will provide similar mining and
processing performance. Blasting characteristics would be one of the key drivers of
such a classification.
Rock Substance Strength
Blasting is a dynamic process and it is reasonable to conclude that some measure of
the dynamic strength of the rock is required to understand its blasting behaviour.
However, appropriate models or design rules are not readily available to utilise such
data. Empirical models can satisfactorily utilise static strength parameters which are
far easier to measure and more likely to be available from conventional geotechnical
investigations.
The most common representation of rock substance strength is the unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) which requires the laboratory measurement of a sample
of defined dimensions following an international standard procedure (Brown, 1981).
The test is expensive and is unlikely to be undertaken in large numbers. UCS values
are likely to be biased towards high values because only intact core can be selected
for testing and the test result is rejected if a structural imperfection interferes with the
expected failure mechanism of induced shear. Such small scale structures do
contribute to blast breakage.
A problem arises when other simpler estimates of strength are described in data
bases as being UCS values. These estimates may be from simple classifications or
field indices based on the blow of a geological hammer (Hoek 2000). Strength may
be interpreted from geophysics or converted from point load tests. Point Load Test
results can form a very useful guide to blasting requirements. The test is simple and
inexpensive and can be performed on field samples by site personnel in the field.
While the results are subject to some scatter, a sufficient number of tests can result
in indices that correlate well with blasting, crushing and mill performance. However,
it is important that the basis of any conversion between point load strength and UCS
is known.
Relationships should be sought between strength, lithology and alteration (or any
other appropriate rock mass property) so that the available data can be extrapolated
beyond the immediate areas where data has been gathered. It is important that the
basis of these relationships is stated so that there is no confusion regarding the
meaning of the numbers that are finally used.
Discontinuities
In any rock mass the rock substance may be disrupted by a number of types of
discontinuities. These may range from faults, joints, bedding planes and foliation to
more subtle healed fractures or micro-fractures. In terms of blasting, these micro-

12
fractures are important because they provide distinct planes of weakness which
assist the generation of blast fragments.
Structures within a rock mass are generally not continuous but they do tend to occur
in geometric patterns or sets which share common characteristics such as orientation
and spacing. While not always intersecting to form free blocks within the rock mass,
inspection of muckpiles generally reveals a large number of blocks (usually the larger
fragments within the muckpile) that are bound by joints on several sides. Blasting
extends the existing discontinuities to complete the definition of these blocks which
are then freed by the movement of the blast volume to form the muckpile. The
coarse end of the fragment size distribution is strongly influenced by the size of these
in-situ blocks.
Geotechnical engineers concerned with the failure of a slope are inclined to ignore
structures that cannot contribute to the failure of that slope. Engineers concerned
with the stability of a development drive are only concerned with the structures that
affect the stability or reinforcement requirements of that drive. Blasting is affected by
all structures, large and small. Anything that provides a plane of weakness through
the rock mass might be exploited by the blast fracture mechanisms to form
fragments. However, it is common for material logged for geotechnical (stability)
purposes to overlook the smaller and more common of these discontinuities.
Figure 6 shows an example of healed structures affecting blasting results. The core
in Figure 6 is relatively fractured with an RQD of about 50%. Stick lengths (and
hence potential block sizes) over 300 mm are readily seen. This material was
blasted in a sub-level open stope and no fragments greater than 100 mm were found
which was quite an anomalous result for the mine. Close inspection of the core from
this area (Figure 7) shows that even the intact lengths of core contained many
potential planes of weakness that had not yet fractured but would require little
explosive energy to break. The micro-fractures controlled the blast fragmentation but
were not logged or noted in the geotechnical appraisal of the core.

Figure 6

Core from a stope with very fine blast fragmentation

13

Figure 7

Details of micro-structure responsible for fine fragmentation

Figure 8 shows the opposite problem. A rock mass may appear to be well jointed,
but in this case most of the joints were strongly annealed and proved to be as strong
as the rock substance itself. Most blasted fragments from this rock mass were
composite particles with these annealed joints still intact as shown on Figure 8. This
rock mass is therefore considerably more difficult to blast than an initial appraisal
might suggest.

Figure 8

Composite rock fragments with intact healed joints

Presentation of Data
Care is required in the presentation of data to ensure that the end user interprets it
correctly. Statistics can be used to present both sides of an argument and simple
statistics can be genuinely misleading. Figure 9 shows a frequency distribution for
the strength of a particular rock mass and Figure 10 shows the distribution of fracture
frequency. From these plots it is easy to describe the material as having an average
unconfined compressive strength of 75 MPa and fracture frequency of 1 or 2 per
metre.

14
Strength - Augite Basalt
50%

Frequency

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 25

25 - 49

50-74

75-99

100-149

>150

UCS MPa

Figure 9

Distribution of rock strength data

Fracture Frequency - Augite Basalt

100%

Frequency

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
<2.5

<5

<7.5

<10

>10

Fracture Freque ncy

Figure 10

Distribution of fracture frequency data

Figure 11 and 12 show these properties plotted against the length of a particular
blast hole. It is clear that while the statistics indicate the average or most common
values for UCS and FF, these average values do not apply to all of the rock. The
properties can be quite different on the scale of an individual mine bench and blast
design will need to respond to these specific local conditions.

120

Est UCS MPa

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

165

180

195

210

225

Depth

Figure 11

Actual rock strength versus depth

240

255

270

285

300

15

Fracture Frequency

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

165

180

195

210

225

240

255

270

285

300

315

Depth

Figure 12

Actual fracture frequency versus depth

Just as Q or RMR are suited to particular models or analyses of rock mass stability or
support requirements, the data provided for blast design must suit the design
approach that is to be used. There is no point providing detailed structure mapping
data if the blast design process does not respond to structure. Similarly, if a mine
bases its blast designs on a field assessment of rock strength then a major program
of point load strength testing may well be wasted unless a translation table is
provided between these values and the traditional assessment technique.

Future Data Requirements

Blast designers need access to the raw data collected by the different groups
interested in rock mass characterisation. The requirements of the blasting engineers
are quite specific and different from the requirements of the resource geologists or
geotechnical engineers.
Figure 13 shows a much better approach to the
management of these data than was shown on Figure 1

Resource
Geologist

Geotechnical
Engineer

Raw
Rock Mass
Data

Blasting
Engineer

Figure 13

Better approach to the management and distribution of rock mass data

This raw data needs to avoid the problems identified in the previous sections and
should include a basic description of density, strength, fracture frequency and
stiffness. The true economic benefits potentially derived from these data will always

16
justify the cost of their acquisition. However, techniques are needed that are less
dependent on personal effort and that provide a better understanding of the variation
in these properties across the mining area.
Future developments should see useful blast engineering data generated from:

monitoring the performance of drills

down-hole and surface geophysics
photogrammetry.

In addition to these techniques providing useful data for blast engineering, they also
have the potential to provide useful information to the resource geologists and
geotechnical engineers.
Data from blast holes
Detailed data describing the characteristics of the rock mass to be blasted could be
obtained from the performance of the blast hole drill. This source of data has the
advantage of being evenly distributed within the blast volume, but suffers the
disadvantage of only becoming available after the blast pattern has been designed.
Nevertheless, the amount and type of explosive used and the detailed initiation
pattern for the blast can still be changed to suit the properties of the rock mass after it
has been drilled.
The interpretation of material properties from drill performance advanced
considerably during the 1990s (Peck and Pollit, 1995). This capability has been
enhanced by increasing the data processing power on the drill and using
sophisticated pattern recognition systems to provide real-time advice for the drill
operator and modern communications and data handling systems to relay this
information back to the mine office. Research is being conducted at the University of
Queensland to interpret rock mass structure from the attenuation of vibrations
generated in the rock as drilling proceeds.
Data from geophysics
Data from remote geophysics has played a major role in minerals exploration for
many years. Gravity, magnetic and seismic techniques have been responsible for
the identification of otherwise hidden resources. Near-field techniques such as
natural gamma, focussed electric resistivity, magnetic susceptibility, gamma-gamma
and sonic velocity logs have been successfully used to delineate and characterise
strata in the oil, gas and coal industries for many years. These techniques are now
finding application in the hard rock minerals industries.
Sophisticated tools such as automatic strata identification through the statistical
analysis of multi-parameter logs are becoming available for routine industrial use
(Schepers, 1996). Radar, seismic and radio tomography are finding increasing
application in guiding mine development work, particularly the definition of structure.
Seismic analyses appear to offer the greatest potential for the definition of structures
relevant to blasting.

17
P-wave velocity (the speed of propagation of a compressive wave) through the rock
mass is used by many blast designers as it combines a number of the properties
known to affect blasting performance and is found to be indicative of the blasting
intensity required to achieve target blasting outcomes.
Data from Photogrammetry
Remote sensing systems such as laser mapping and terrestrial photogrammetry can
be used to map lithologies and discontinuities in a rock mass without the need for
personnel to come close to the rock mass exposure. The resulting analyses can
provide estimates of joint position and orientation. Further analyses can derive joint
statistics to estimate the in-situ block size or enable detailed modelling of the rock
mass structure for use in stability, damage or fragmentation models.
Poropat (2001) reviews the basis of these methods and describes how large areas of
otherwise inaccessible rock slopes can be mapped in 3 dimensions with an accuracy
equivalent to conventional survey techniques. The speed and ease with which the
base images can be obtained and analysed overcomes the most significant
impediments preventing the routine acquisition of rock mass structural data these
were the limited access available to large rock exposures and hazards associated
with placing personnel close enough to these exposures to take structural
measurements.
The routine collection and analysis of rock mass structural data should enable a
much better understanding of the influence of structure on blasting performance at a
given site. It should then be relatively simple to modify blasting practices to work
effectively with the structural characteristics of each blasting area.

Conclusions
The design of mine blasts needs to be driven by rock mass properties if maximum
value is to be generated from blasting operations. The geologists and geomechanics
groups at a mine have the best understanding of the rock mass properties and their
variability, but this information is not always available to the blasting engineers in the
most appropriate form. Blasting engineers need to be involved in the design of rock
mass data gathering activities to ensure that their needs are met. A data
management structure is recommended to ensure that the available data is shared
between those that need it.
Blasting engineers need to be able to identify blasting domains within the rock mass
and for each domain they need, as a minimum, to understand the following on a
bench or stope scale:

density
strength
stiffness
fracture frequency and description of rock mass structure (degree of
fracturing and condition of fractures).

18
Suitable blast design formulae are not generally available that utilise more specific
rock mass properties. Research is currently being undertaken that seeks to describe
the rock mass more explicitly and apply detailed descriptions of the dynamics of
explosive-rock interaction to provide a more quantitative environment for blast
design. The future application of these models will depend on access to appropriate
rock mass data. Safety and practical issues will require these data to be collected
remotely suggesting that geophysics and image analysis will need to be used for this
purpose.
In the meantime it is recommended that geologists and rock mechanics groups
become more conscious of the needs of the blasting engineer so that more of the
data and understanding that currently exists can be used to guide the design of
blasting operations and that opportunities for the collection and utilisation of even
more relevant data are not over-looked.