Vol 87, February 2007 13

Design of Factor of Safety based Criterion for Control of

Flyrock / Throw and Optimum Fragmentation
A K Raina , Non
-
member
A K Chakraborty, Non
-
member
R More, Associate Member
P B Choudhury, Associate Member
Rock fragments that are propelled to unwanted distances due to improper design or unforeseen rock mass
conditions are known as flyrock. Flyrock is the most hazardous phenomenon in blasting as these pose
threat to personnel and property both outside and inside a mine. Prediction of flyrock has been a difficult
proposition owing to its random and probabilistic nature. An attempt was made to define the conditions
and design of a criterion that could not only define the throw but the safety conditions of flyrock or throw,
also. This paper defines a factor of safety for evaluating the safety conditions in respect of throw and
flyrock. Simple to determine design and rock factors have been proposed to ease the calculations and a
criterion for defining safe throw in relation to fragmentation.
Keywords Keywords Keywords Keywords Keywords : : : : : Flyrock; Factor of supply
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Flyrock is one of the intriguing problems in mining.
Fatalities and serious accidents due to the unwanted
propelling of fragments is a recognised fact.
Bhowmik, et al
1
have given a comprehensive appraisal of
the phenomenon and detailed the conditions responsible
for the occurrence of the flyrock. Several attempts have
been made to devise a criterion for prediction of flyrock;
the most referred ones are those of Lundborg
2
and Roth
3
.
Raina, et al
4
have brought out the intricacies of the
existing models, namely,
(a) inability to predict below 400 m; and
(b) rock conditions have been ignored to some extent.
Hustrulid
5
also brought out the shortcomings of such
models. Since, mines are fast approaching the habitats, it
will not be possible to determine the extent of flyrock with
the said models.
Two main factors that are responsible for flyrock are
(i) poor blast design; and
(ii) poor rock mass condition.
While blast design is controllable, the rock can not be
controlled. Hence, any criterion that defines flyrock or
throw should incorporate both these factors. Since,
production is a primary concern any criterion that could
define the flyrock should consider fragmentation, also.
Hence, a factor of safety was conceived for flyrock/ throw
prediction in relation to fragmentation.
NEED OF PREDICTION NEED OF PREDICTION NEED OF PREDICTION NEED OF PREDICTION NEED OF PREDICTION
Safe blasting conditions are essential for a mine in order
to prevent damage to structures, costly mine equipments,
and injuries and fatalities related to flyrock. A methodology
is needed to categorise blasts in terms of blast design,
practice and geological conditions of a mine. A statistical
evaluation of the above said blast parameters, is possible
and results can be put to test. More relevant/ significant
parameters not hitherto considered in prediction can be
incorporated into a unified model that should determine
the degree of safety with respect to flyrock occurrence.
Since, fragmentation is the most critical parameter in
production, there is a need to consider the same in safety
criterion. A condition therefore exists for optimisation of
the mine-mill system with the eye on both blast safety
and production. A trade
-
off study for this purpose should
be imperative on all mines to arrive at an optimum level
of safety and production. Flyrock danger zone can
accordingly be defined as the geo-mining conditions of a
mine and the site-specific safety criterion can be evolved
with fair number of trials. This should provide a means
and alternative methodology for miners and regulatory
authorities to define the site
-
specific and variable danger
zones as shown in Figure 1. A risk methodology (Raina,
et al
4
) can also be applied in conjunction with the factor
of safety developed and defined in this paper.
A AA AA K Raina, K Raina, K Raina, K Raina, K Raina, A AA AA K Chakraborty K Chakraborty K Chakraborty K Chakraborty K Chakraborty, , , , , R More and R More and R More and R More and R More and P PP PP B Choudhury B Choudhury B Choudhury B Choudhury B Choudhury
are with the Central Mining Research Institute, Regional are with the Central Mining Research Institute, Regional are with the Central Mining Research Institute, Regional are with the Central Mining Research Institute, Regional are with the Central Mining Research Institute, Regional
Centre, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006. Centre, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006. Centre, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006. Centre, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006. Centre, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006.
This paper was received on May 31, 2006. Written discussion on
this paper will be entertained till April 30, 2007.
14 IE(I) Journal-MN
CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION OF FACTOR OF CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION OF FACTOR OF CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION OF FACTOR OF CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION OF FACTOR OF CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION OF FACTOR OF
SAFETY ( SAFETY ( SAFETY ( SAFETY ( SAFETY (FS FS FS FS FS
H HH HH
) )) ))
In a blast there are two categories of forces. One set resists
breakage and throw and other is forcing the rock to break
or dislodge. It is thus possible to conceive a physical ratio
of such forces that defines the safety conditions of a blast
for throw / flyrock. This ratio can be referred to as a factor
of safety (for flyrock / throw).
Thus, the factor of safety can be represented as a ratio of
resisting and contributing forces as given in equation (1).
(1)
A dimensionally balanced equation can be devised from
the blast parameters that are either linear or oriented in
the direction of throw or have a non
-
dimensional value.
Such an expression can be worked out from the factors.
Charge or explosive diameter (d
c
), drilled burden (B
d
),
blast hole depth (h
d
) and charge length (q
l
) with a rating
for major joint spacing (J
fr
) can be represented in a
mathematical expression to result into a factor of safety
(FS
H
).
A schematic representation and interplay of different
factors is shown in Figure 2 with the assumptions:
(i) The specific charge is kept constant and hence
eliminated.
(ii) Average joint spacing of 0.53 m (obtained from data
of four mines has been considered.
(iii) The average(s) of variables have been worked out
from the minimum and maximum values depending on
drill diameter.
(iv) Explosive properties are more or less similar in
Indian conditions, hence, assumed as constant.
(v) Despite of role of rock, these parameters are difficult
to assess in, hence, simple parameter of average joint
spacing has been considered and defined in terms of J
fr
as defined in equation (2).
(2)
where J
s
is the average joint spacing, m, for J
s
>1m, J
fr
= 100.
(vi) The balance of above said significant two-dimensional
parameters keeping all variables at an average value
explains an average factor of safety of 1 both in case of
horizontal flyrock and throw.
The earlier assertion explains the rationale of the design
of the factor of safety for flyrock control.
NUMERICAL MODELLING NUMERICAL MODELLING NUMERICAL MODELLING NUMERICAL MODELLING NUMERICAL MODELLING
In order to have an idea about the effect of different rock
and blast design parameters, numerical modelling was
done using PFC
2D
(Itasca). The results thus obtained are
presented here.
Figure 1 Danger/ flyrock zone in relation with the Figure 1 Danger/ flyrock zone in relation with the Figure 1 Danger/ flyrock zone in relation with the Figure 1 Danger/ flyrock zone in relation with the Figure 1 Danger/ flyrock zone in relation with the
probability of factor of safety of flyrock, the zones are probability of factor of safety of flyrock, the zones are probability of factor of safety of flyrock, the zones are probability of factor of safety of flyrock, the zones are probability of factor of safety of flyrock, the zones are
defined on the basis of safety and threat defined on the basis of safety and threat defined on the basis of safety and threat defined on the basis of safety and threat defined on the basis of safety and threat
Mine zone
Free face
Variable flyrock
danger zone
Working area
Distance indicated
are relative
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s

o
f

w
o
r
k
i
n
g
Figure 2 Simulation of factor (s) of safety for horizontal Figure 2 Simulation of factor (s) of safety for horizontal Figure 2 Simulation of factor (s) of safety for horizontal Figure 2 Simulation of factor (s) of safety for horizontal Figure 2 Simulation of factor (s) of safety for horizontal
t hr ow/ f l yr oc k t hr ow/ f l yr oc k t hr ow/ f l yr oc k t hr ow/ f l yr oc k t hr ow/ f l yr oc k
q
d
= charge diameter, m; d
h
= drill depth, m; B
d
= burden, m; S =
spacing, m; l
s
= stemming, m; q
l
= charge length, m; S
pq
= specific
charge, kg/m
3
; FS
H
= factor of safety (horizontal)
25
20
15
10
5
0
q
d d
h B
d S
l
s q
l S
p
q F
S
H
7
5
1
1
0
1
6
0
2
5
0
3
1
0
Vol 87, February 2007 15
The explosion in a rock bench has been simulated using
PFC
-
2D code. The various other properties and mining
parameters are listed in Table 1.
The ball size is chosen small to accommodate the explosive
particles within the blast holes size. However, particles of
smaller and variable dimensions are avoided here to
minimise the complicacies.
The ground excitation characteristics are provided in
Table 2.
The variations as given in Table 3 are simulated in the
modelling.
T TT TTable 1 Constituent ball and wall properties (in SI units) able 1 Constituent ball and wall properties (in SI units) able 1 Constituent ball and wall properties (in SI units) able 1 Constituent ball and wall properties (in SI units) able 1 Constituent ball and wall properties (in SI units)
Radius Radius Radius Radius Radius Density Density Density Density Density Friction Friction Friction Friction Friction Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Damping Damping Damping Damping Damping
coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness bond strength bond strength bond strength bond strength bond strength bond strength bond strength bond strength bond strength bond strength coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient
0.25 2500 0.7 1e8 1e8 1e5 1e6 0.25
T TT TTable 2 Mining parameters (in SI units) able 2 Mining parameters (in SI units) able 2 Mining parameters (in SI units) able 2 Mining parameters (in SI units) able 2 Mining parameters (in SI units)
Hole diameter Hole diameter Hole diameter Hole diameter Hole diameter Bench height Bench height Bench height Bench height Bench height Explosive coupling Explosive coupling Explosive coupling Explosive coupling Explosive coupling
0.25 10 Full
T TT TTable 3 V able 3 V able 3 V able 3 V able 3 Variations in the site conditions ariations in the site conditions ariations in the site conditions ariations in the site conditions ariations in the site conditions
Par amet er s Par amet er s Par amet er s Par amet er s Par amet er s V VV VVaried dimensions aried dimensions aried dimensions aried dimensions aried dimensions
Joint properties Joint properties Joint properties Joint properties Joint properties Massive without Massive without Massive without Massive without Massive without Horizontal joints Horizontal joints Horizontal joints Horizontal joints Horizontal joints V VV VVertical joints ertical joints ertical joints ertical joints ertical joints Both vertical and Both vertical and Both vertical and Both vertical and Both vertical and V VV VVertical and horizontal ertical and horizontal ertical and horizontal ertical and horizontal ertical and horizontal
any joint any joint any joint any joint any joint with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing horizontal joints horizontal joints horizontal joints horizontal joints horizontal joints joints accompanied joints accompanied joints accompanied joints accompanied joints accompanied
with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with 3 m spacing with sheared plane with sheared plane with sheared plane with sheared plane with sheared plane
Burden, m 4.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
Initiation Bottom
Top
2 m long air-decking Bottom
with 2.5 m stemming Top
Stemming 2.5 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
T TT TTable 4 Maximum flyrock details able 4 Maximum flyrock details able 4 Maximum flyrock details able 4 Maximum flyrock details able 4 Maximum flyrock details
Condi t i ons Condi t i ons Condi t i ons Condi t i ons Condi t i ons Maximum flyrock distance, m Maximum flyrock distance, m Maximum flyrock distance, m Maximum flyrock distance, m Maximum flyrock distance, m Remarks on the maximum flyrock Remarks on the maximum flyrock Remarks on the maximum flyrock Remarks on the maximum flyrock Remarks on the maximum flyrock
In horizontal In horizontal In horizontal In horizontal In horizontal In upward In upward In upward In upward In upward
di r ec t i on di r ec t i on di r ec t i on di r ec t i on di r ec t i on direction direction direction direction direction
Vertical joint set, 5 m burden 62 26 Upward fly almost vertical
Horizontal joint set, 5 m burden 44 44 Upward fly in backward direction
Vertical and horizontal joint sets, 5 m burden 42 38 Upward fly inclined in backward direction
Vertical and horizontal joint sets with sheared
plane at 30
o
dip away from face, 5 m burden 64 38 Same as above
Vertical and horizontal joint sets with sheared
plane at 30
o
dip towards the face, 5 m burden 47 40 Same as above
Vertical and horizontal joint sets with less
burden (4 m) 70 44 Same as above
Vertical and horizontal joint sets with more
burden (6 m) Insignificant Insignificant No proper breakage
Vertical and horizontal joint sets with more 23 39 Horizontal fly more in backward direction
burden (6 m) but 1.25 times stronger explosive less in free face side
Vertical and horizontal joint sets with 5 m burden
and bottom air decking, stemming 2.5 m 58 78 Upward fly almost vertical
Vertical and horizontal joint sets with 5 m burden
and top air decking, stemming 2.5 m 25 Nil
The joint spacing has been chosen for easy appreciation of
the problem. However, smaller or variable joint spacing
dimension can also be incorporated. The results thus
obtained are presented in Table 4. An example of simulation
is given in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Blast with vertical and horizontal joints Figure 3 Blast with vertical and horizontal joints Figure 3 Blast with vertical and horizontal joints Figure 3 Blast with vertical and horizontal joints Figure 3 Blast with vertical and horizontal joints
simulated with PFC simulated with PFC simulated with PFC simulated with PFC simulated with PFC
2D 2D 2D 2D 2D
10 m
Bench and free face
Flyrock
16 IE(I) Journal-MN
FACTOR OF SAFETY DEFINED FACTOR OF SAFETY DEFINED FACTOR OF SAFETY DEFINED FACTOR OF SAFETY DEFINED FACTOR OF SAFETY DEFINED
Based on the earlier assertions the factor of safety for
horizontal as well as vertical flyrock can now be defined
as a balance in the factors that are aiding and factors
that are resisting the throw/ flyrock. The mathematical
expression is given in equation (3).
(3)
where C
f
is the factor for correction (rock mass); d
c
,
charge or explosive diameter, m; B
d
, drilled burden, m;
h
d
, blast hole depth, m; q
l
, charge length, m; J
fr
, rating
for major joint spacing (equation (2)); charge
length, m where h
d
is the hole depth, m.
Certain conditions that may resist throw and contribute
to throw but are not common need to be given a weight.
Hence, the factor C
f
representing such conditions and
applied to the factor of safety (FS
H
) for different conditions
is defined in Table 5.
FIELD DA FIELD DA FIELD DA FIELD DA FIELD DAT TT TTA AA AA GENERA GENERA GENERA GENERA GENERATION TION TION TION TION AND V AND V AND V AND V AND VALIDA ALIDA ALIDA ALIDA ALIDATION TION TION TION TION
Different design parameters were measured in the field
trials and recorded. Flyrock and throw was monitored
using normal video camera and high speed camera. Initial
velocity of the flyrock was calculated with the help of high-
speed motion camera (MREL make, capacity up to 10 K
fps in colour) and blaster's motion analysis software (MAS).
The field data thus generated was compiled for further
analysis. Statistical tests for reliability and usefulness of
parameters were conducted on the data. It was observed
that the factor of safety (FS
H
) worked out from the
component design parameters of the blasts along with the
rock characteristics and special conditions can well be
represented as a normal distribution. The data when
resolved as a function of natural logarithm, the factor of
safety plots as a normal curve. Hence, the reliability of
the model is verified.
A simple classification scheme based on the factor of safety
mentioned earlier is defined in Table 6.
FACTOR OF SAFETY OF THROW/FL FACTOR OF SAFETY OF THROW/FL FACTOR OF SAFETY OF THROW/FL FACTOR OF SAFETY OF THROW/FL FACTOR OF SAFETY OF THROW/FLYROCK IN YROCK IN YROCK IN YROCK IN YROCK IN
RELA RELA RELA RELA RELATION TO PRODUCTION TION TO PRODUCTION TION TO PRODUCTION TION TO PRODUCTION TION TO PRODUCTION
Factor of safety can be used for production and quite useful
in mines to improve the confidence of the mining personnel,
protect the equipment from damage and at the same time
to balance the production.
The factors that define productivity are many in number
that may include parameters related to the mine-mill
fragmentation system. There are controllable and non-
controllable parameters involved. The safety measures are
different in different cases and costs can be quite high, if
excessively safe blasts are conducted. Different parameters
of a blast design need to be optimised so as to have a better
production with less environmental impact. Hence, a
scheme for optimising fragmentation without comprising
on safety is defined here.
The following scheme is adopted to work out the criterion.
1. FS
H
as defined earlier
2. Fragmentation: Fragmentation is measured in terms
of mean fragment size (K
50
). This factor determines the
efficiency and productivity of the equipment and mine.
Hence, K
50
can be readily used for trade off study and is
T TT TTable 6 Classification based on factor of safety for able 6 Classification based on factor of safety for able 6 Classification based on factor of safety for able 6 Classification based on factor of safety for able 6 Classification based on factor of safety for
horizontal flyrock horizontal flyrock horizontal flyrock horizontal flyrock horizontal flyrock
FS FS FS FS FS
H HH HH
Flyrock safety Flyrock safety Flyrock safety Flyrock safety Flyrock safety Flyrock distanc, m Flyrock distanc, m Flyrock distanc, m Flyrock distanc, m Flyrock distanc, m
<0.5 Unsafe >40
0.5 1.0 Likely unsafe 40 15
1.0 2.0 Safe 15 5
>2 Very safe 5
T TT TTable 5 Factor ( able 5 Factor ( able 5 Factor ( able 5 Factor ( able 5 Factor (C CC CC
f f f f f
) for ) for ) for ) for ) for FS FS FS FS FS
H HH HH
Ro l e Ro l e Ro l e Ro l e Ro l e Condi ti on Condi ti on Condi ti on Condi ti on Condi ti on Correct i on Correct i on Correct i on Correct i on Correct i on
f act or f act or f act or f act or f act or
Favourable Special techniques applied
1. Decking (bottom, top, middle
solid or air decking that
reduce charge concentration)
2. Use of Nonel-shock tube
combination that reduce flyrock
due to bottom initiation 1.11.2
3. Use of in-hole multiple
delay technique that divides
charge in several segments in
a single hole and that blast at
different times.
4. Stemming methods (nicely
tamped, use of stone crusher
chips etc)
Unfavourable Choke blast or solid blasting
Weak zones (both in horizontal
and vertical direction (if no
measures are taken) 0.7
1. Karst features (presence of
cavities in the rock mass 0.5 0.6
2. Weak layers within competent rock 0.7
3. Use of detonating fuse as in-hole
initiation system 0.80
Vol 87, February 2007 17
can be of great help to blasters in defining the blast design
parameters in terms of safety of throw/ flyrock.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
A factor of safety based criterion for flyrock prediction could
be established through this study with conceptual
definition and field data validation. The criterion has been
applied to the fragmentation in terms of fragmentation
ratio and provides a means to relate fragmentation with
throw in terms of safety of the operation. It is expected
that the criterion shall be of great help to regulators,
mining engineers and planners to devise strategies for safe
excavation of the mineral in near habitat environments
and define the safety conditions for within and beyond the
mine limit.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are thankful to the Director, CMRI for his
permission to publish the findings and to Shri S Bhowmik
and Shri P Srinivas for their fruitful assitance in this
study. This paper incorporates partial findings of the
Ministry of Mines, GOI sponsored project on flyrock
prediction. The financial assistance provided the MOM,
GACL and MOIL, the help provided by different mines
and the personnel is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES
1. S Bhowmik, A K Raina, A K Chakraborty, M Ramulu, P B Sahu,
A Haldar, P B Choudury, P Srinivas and C Bandopadhyay. Flyrock
Prediction and Control in Opencast Mines: A Critical Appraisal.
Mining Engineers Journal, vol 6, no 5, 2004, p 10.
2. N Lundborg. The Hazards of Fly Rock in Rock Blasting. Report
DS1974, Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, 1974, p 12.
3. J A Roth. A Model for the Determination of Flyrock Range as a
Function of Shot Condition. US Department of Commerce, NTIS
Report No PB81222358, 1979, p 61.
4. A K Raina, et al. CMRI Internal Report GAP/003/MT/NRC/DOM/
02-03, 2006, p 100.
5. W Hustrulid. Blasting Principles for Open Pit Mining. General Design
Concepts, A A Balkema (ed), Rotterdam, vol 1, 1999, p 285.
used in conjunction with the shovel bucket volume (V )
to determine a factor called as fragmentation ratio (F
r
)
as given in equation (4).
(4)
Since, fragmentation is site specific, the standard
equation of Cunningham (1983) is applied to assess the
K
50
(5)
where A is the rock factor whose values for different rocks
are: medium rocks 7, hard highly fissured rocks 10, hard
weakly fissured rocks 13; V
b
, volume of rock to be blasted
= (B
d
S B
h
), m
3
; q
hole
, explosive/hole, kg; B
h
,bench height,
m; E, relative weight strength of the explosive, (100 for
ANFO); and Q , overall specific charge, kg/m
3
.
Figure 4 explains a plot of the factor of safety and
fragmentation ratio. This relationship can be used for
optimisation study. Different safety zones have been
defined in this figure to assist the blaster to strike a
balance between the constituents. The categories thus
conceived are defined in Table 7.
The decision on the factor of safety and fragmentation ratio
T TT TTable 7 Different flyrock safety categories related to able 7 Different flyrock safety categories related to able 7 Different flyrock safety categories related to able 7 Different flyrock safety categories related to able 7 Different flyrock safety categories related to
productivity productivity productivity productivity productivity
Cl ass Cl ass Cl ass Cl ass Cl ass Saf e t y Saf e t y Saf e t y Saf e t y Saf e t y Fragment at i on Fragment at i on Fragment at i on Fragment at i on Fragment at i on Pr oduc t i on Pr oduc t i on Pr oduc t i on Pr oduc t i on Pr oduc t i on Co mme nt s Co mme nt s Co mme nt s Co mme nt s Co mme nt s
I II II Safe Optimum Optimum Needed or
desirable
III III III III III Safe Excessive Good Optimisation
required
II II II II II Likely Optimum Optimum Acceptable
unsafe with repeated
experiments
I V I V I V I V I V Likely Excessive Good Safety and
unsafe fragmentation
need to be
improved
Figure 4 Fragmentation criterion for flyrock Figure 4 Fragmentation criterion for flyrock Figure 4 Fragmentation criterion for flyrock Figure 4 Fragmentation criterion for flyrock Figure 4 Fragmentation criterion for flyrock
Shaded zone represents either the unproductive or unsafe
unacceptable conditions; Factor of safety here is FS FS FS FS FS
H HH HH
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
F
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o
,

F
r
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Factor of safety
II I
IV III