Rock Fragmentation by Blasting Sanchidrin (ed) 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48296-7

Waves, fractures and boundary effects associated with blast experiments conducted in cylindrical and block type specimens
H.P. Rossmanith
Institute of Mechanics & Mechatronics, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria

K. Uenishi
Research Center for Urban Safety and Security, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

V. Hochholdinger-Arsic
Formerly at Institute of Mining Engineering, Mining University Leoben, Leoben, Austria

ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the mechanics and physics of explosively induced detonation wave propagation, crack initiation, fracture network development and fragmentation in small scale laboratory specimens which are frequently used for model blast tests. Results of analytical and numerical simulations are compared with experimental outcomes from other sources and excellent agreement is obtained. Small cylindrical and block type specimens fabricated from concrete, sandstone and amphibolite are center-line loaded by linear explosive charges and supersonically detonated. Using shock wave theory, elastic wave propagation theory, and fracture mechanics it is shown that the type of boundary conditions prescribed at the outer boundary of the cylinder controls the extension of stem cracking and the development of the fragmentation pattern within the body of the cylinder and the cube specimens. In the case of a composite specimen where a cylindrical core of different material is embedded in a cylinder or in a cube, the level of fracturing and fragmentation is controlled by the conditions and possible delamination of the interface which in turn depends on the relative dimensions of the core and the block. Using known results from the theory of wave interaction with free boundaries and interfaces it will be shown that the fracture strain and the notch sensitivity of the material expressed by imperfections play an important role. Equally important is the ratio between the length of the pulse (space-wise or time-wise) and the characteristic dimensions of the models. Axi-radial boundary cracks and spalling will be explained on the basis of earlier wave propagation studies associated with supersonic blasting. Theoretical results are in good agreement with numerical simulations and recent experimental findings. 1 INTRODUCTION the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the University of Maryland (Fourney 19762006) and the Fracture and Photomechanics Laboratory of the Institute of Mechanics and Mechatronics at Vienna University of Technology (Rossmanith 19782006). In quarrying and mining, the transferability of laboratory experimental results to real field blasting work is of great importance and is very often key to success. Therefore, the transfer, i.e. the extrapolation of data from the lab to the field, becomes one of the main purposes of performing scaled specimen laboratory blast tests and the transferability of the results of model blast tests to the real world has led to the solution of important engineering blasting problems. A striking example is given by the large number of model blast tests performed between 197095 at the University of Maryland, at Vienna University of Technology and elsewhere, with respect to precise initiation timing by reducing

Over the past several decades, testing of laboratory scaled model specimens for research in blasting has been a favorite approach to understand the mechanisms of blasting in the field. Information obtained from observation of the behavior of down-sized specimens during laboratory blasts often serves as guidelines for field practice. However, in many cases the gap between the laboratory and field results cannot be easily bridged because the interpretation and the transfer of the results of laboratory model tests to the field is not a straightforward one, and many issues still remain unsolved. Numerous laboratory test blasts employing twodimensional plate type models in conjunction with high speed photo-dynamic recording techniques have been performed in the past (see e.g. the work performed at the Photomechanics Laboratory at

407

the scatter of the initiation caps and enhance the fragmentation. It was only after 1990 when electronic detonators were developed that the knowledge gained from the previously performed tests could be put to work. And the improved understanding of precise initiation blasting in conjunction with dynamic fracture mechanics and wave propagation paved the avenue for the development of advanced blasting technology based on the use of electronic detonators, a new technology which ultimatelywas adopted by all major quarrying and mining companies all over the world. The present investigation of the wave dynamics and associated fracturing of laboratory scaled model blast tests will show that, in certain cases and under certain conditions, results from scaled blasting tests cannot indiscriminately be transferred to real blasting situations. The reason lies in the nature of dynamic modeling and the differing large-scale boundary conditions between model and nature. Due to inherent size and shape effects, the fragmentation distribution obtained from small scale laboratory blast specimens may grossly differ from the fragmentation distribution in a real muck-pile. The present paper is mostly qualitative in nature and rests on the three-part paper published recently in the journal Fragblast (Rossmanith et al. 2005, Rossmanith & Uenishi 2006).

GEOMETRY AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The three-dimensional wave propagation and fracture network development analysis will be applied to the cylindrical and blocky, monolithic and composite specimen types shown in Figure 1. Model A. Monolithic cylindrical specimen with stress free outer surface. Model B. Monolithic cylindrical specimen with inextensible outer surface. Model C. A cylindrical core (material #1) embedded in a dissimilar cylinder (material #2) with stress-free outer surface and brittle interface with interface fracture toughness. Model D. Square block specimen with stress free outer surfaces. Model E. Square block specimen with inextensible outer surface. Model F. A cylindrical core (material #1) is embedded in a dissimilar square block (material #2) with stress-free outer surface brittle interface with interface fracture toughness. Model G. A cylindrical core (material #1) is embedded in a dissimilar square block specimen (material #2) with rigid outer surface and a brittle interface with interface fracture toughness.

Figure 1.

Scaled laboratory models used in the tests.

All models contain a central hole of diameter d0 which contains a fully coupled explosive charge which is initiated at one end of the column (usually bottom end). For reasons of simplicity, supersonic detonation conditions are assumed (Rossmanith et al. 1997, Rossmanith & Kouzniak 2004, Kouzniak & Rossmanith 1998) in all cases, i.e., the velocity of detonation, cd, of the explosive is larger than both, the longitudinal (cP) and shear (cS) wave speeds of the (acoustically harder) material: cS < cP < cd. 3 WAVECRACK INTERACTION IN SCALED LABORATORY MODELS

Column blasting is a basically three-dimensional process in space and time where the detonation front propagates at nearly constant velocity along the explosive column and produces stress waves in the surrounding rock. The detonation may occur

408

in a subsonic, transonic or supersonic fashion (Rossmanith et al. 1997). The associated resulting dynamic wave field is very complex and, in the field, structural geological features add to the complexity of a practical blast problem. If the stress or the strain in certain regions of the specimen reaches a critical value, flaw-type imperfections which are inherent in the material will be activated and possibly initiated, cracks may extend and eventually a fracture network will be generated which ultimately might lead to partial or complete disintegration of the specimen. One of the primary goals of this investigation is to achieve an improved understanding of the development of the fracture network in blasted laboratory size specimens. In particular, a fracture and wave propagation based explanation of the fracture network development in specimens tested at the Mining University in Leoben in Austria (Wagner 2002, Hochholdinger-Arsic 2009) will be presented here. A fully three-dimensional numerical simulation based treatment of the supersonic blasting problem in terms of the interaction of the conically shaped P and S waves with boundaries and interfaces was presented in Rossmanith & Uenishi (2005). Many investigators restrict themselves to the discussion of cylindrical blast waves which corresponds to infinite velocity of detonation. Although a certain level of insight can be gained in terms of wave interaction with boundaries and interfaces, the fully three-dimen-sional treatment of a blast problem is fundamentally different from a two-dimensional one. The full effect of the finite length of an explosive charge and the associated geometrical spreading of the blast waves cannot properly be investigated within the realm of plane problems but requires a three-dimensional framework. The wave field generated by the detonation of a column charge of reasonable length is decomposed into three elementary phases: the initiation phase, the steady-state detonation phase, and the termination or arrest phase. Each one of these phases contributes in its own particular fashion to the development of the fragmentation network. Several areas of fracturing will be highlighted: borehole breakdown, perimeter or boundary fracturing, interface delamination, as well as internal and external spallation (Vanbrabant et al. 2002). 4 BOREHOLE BREAKDOWN

Borehole breakdown has been the subject of numerous papers in the blasting literature, both, from a numerical, analytical, and experimental point of view. Among the experimental investigations of borehole breakdown most papers deal with two-

dimensional problems, i.e. with blasting of relatively thin plates, where the above-mentioned three phases do not develop appropriately or not at all. Apart from the theoretical problem of a constant speed supersonically detonating infinitely long column charge in an infinitely extending linear elastic media the simplest monolithic blast test specimens is that of a flat ended cylinder of length H, diameter D, having the blasthole of diameter d0 along the centerline (Kouzniak & Rossmanith 1998). When a linear column of explosive is initiated, the detonation front moves with finite velocity of detonation, cd (often called VOD). The detonation front is the plane which separates the unreacted part of the explosive column from the reacted part, i.e. the volume where the detonation gases act on the blasthole wall. The centrally located line charge is detonated at one end and the detonation front propagates with nearly constant speed along the explosive column. The 3D wave fields generated have been discussed previously in various papers in the Fragblast journal; in all of these cases full coupling of the charge to the borehole wall and the surrounding material was assumed. When the detonation front passes along the z-axis, a high intensity pressure shock acts on the borehole wall. The shock amplitude can be as large as several times the yield limit of the material. Under such intense shock pressures the material reacts by fluidization. The radially expanding shock wave front (wave speed and particle speed of the same order of magnitude; several km/s) in the material will be followed by an even faster rarefaction wave (faster because the rarefaction shock is moving into the previously shocked material). The rarefaction wave eventually catches up with the shock front and reduces the shock wave to an ordinary elastic wave of high intensity (high wave propagation speed but rather low particle speed). The radius, rhdz, of this boundarysurrounding the hydrodynamic zone or crush-zonecan relatively easy be calculated. Inside this radius the material is completely fluidized or pulverized and in the post mortem puzzle this region remains empty. Actually, this regime is a cylinder centered at the borehole axis. When the experiment is done in Plexiglas, this region can easily be seen in a famous photograph shown in the book by Persson et al. (1994). Once the wave has been reduced to an ordinary elastic wave, the material behaves elastic and due to the large circumferential strain a multitude of so-called borehole cracks emerge from the rhdzboundary. In the 2D version, i.e. in a plate specimen, this dynamic crack system resembles a ring with dense needles where the cracks are of almost equal length and propagate at nearly the same speed. This system is inherently unstable because the stress field intensity decreases with increasing

409

radius from the center of the borehole. These cracks are in fierce competition for stress field energy and, therefore, not all cracks continue to propagate. Energetically favorable cracks advance at the expenses of less favorable ones and, hence, the cracking pattern shows several ring type regions with the number of radial cracks decreasing. From a fracture mechanics point of view (Tada et al. 1973, Rossmanith 1983, Atkinson 1985, Broberg 1999) the plane version of the borehole breakdown problem has been attacked by using static fracture mechanics principles. Ouchterlony (1983) derived the stress intensity factor for various shapes of pressurized and non-pressurized star cracks of equal and unequal lengths. The result is that for a constant pressure acting either exclusively in the borehole or in addition on the crack faces, the value of the stress intensity factor decreases with the number of the radial stem cracks. Although a rough approximate dynamic value of the stress intensity factor for a constant speed running radial crack (in a plane!) can be derived by using the principle of linear superposition and patching up a generalization of Brobergs solution for the constant speed running crack bisecting a strip to include internal pressurization, dynamic fracture problems of this sort are best solved by means of numerical simulation (Freund 1990, Broberg 1999). Using shock wave analysis, the radius of the crush-zone (see Figure 2) approximately depends on the time t1 it takes for the rarefaction wave to catch up with the shock front, i.e. with the length and the amplitude of the shock. The number of borehole cracks also depends on the amount of explosive charge. For steady-state conditions the wave field radiated from the detonation front of a line charge in 3D consists of two Mach cones, the P wave cone which encompasses the S wave cone. With no reflected stress waves present, the borehole breakdown phenomenon will occur undisturbed and will obviously be the same for small and large specimens (of the same material). Information about the finite size of the specimen is carried by the reflected waves. When these reflected waves hit and interact with the emerging borehole cracks the stress field becomes very complex. Assuming that the front of the outgoing wave reaches the outer boundary of the specimen at time t2, interaction between the reflected wave and the emerging cracks begins at time t3 after detonation. From this it becomes clear, that the size of the specimen has an important bearing on the fracture network due to borehole breakdown. Consider a series of identical blasts (primarily identical amount of explosive in the same material) performed in a series of specimens with

time

Borehole

Crush zone boundary

Specimen boundary

tfa

Crack

tci a

ar

tca t2

S-wave P-wave

T t* 1

i t1 ro = do /2

Shock radial position

rhdz rac raf Lcf D/2 Lca

Figure 2. Lagrange diagram associated with twodimensional borehole breakdown, crush zone formation and propagation of radial borehole cracks: a) simplified analysis by referring to wave fronts only, b) regarding finite length waves and delayed radial crack formation.

Figure 3. The various zones which develop around the blasthole: S = shocked zone, A = crush zone, B = long cracks, C = outer field.

decreasing outer diameter. First consider the limiting case where the blasthole is in an infinitely extended medium with no reflecting boundary, i.e. D = . In this case the crush-zone and the fracture zone can fully develop and serve as a standard. The other extreme case is a column charge which freely detonates under unconfined conditions. Obviously, there is neither a crush-zone nor

410

a fracture zone. If the explosive column charge detonates in a thin cylindrical specimen with D/2 < (rhdzro) then the rarefaction wave does not catch up with the front of the initial shock before the latter is reflected from the free boundary. In this case the entire cylindrical specimen is under a hydrostatic state and as the material behaves like a fluid there is an infinitely dense fracture network. As a result, the specimen will be completely pulverized. One would say, the specimen has been highly overcharged. A similar situation does occur in a composite specimen where the front of the shock hits the interface before the rarefaction wave has caught up with the shock front. Another problem is the stability of the radi-axial cracks which emerge from the highly fractured zone A into B. For perfectly symmetrical borehole break-down a system of equidistant fast running radial cracks would emerge and the dynamic stress intensity factor Kd (c; t) is usually a monotonically decreasing function of time or distance (Freund 1972). When the SIF has been reduced to the arrest toughness value, Ka, all cracks arrest at the same time ta at the same radius ra = rA. Perfectly symmetrical borehole break-down, however, is never achieved, as in reality there are always certain smaller or larger imperfections present. Crack incubation and initiation occurs at slightly different times and due to local unloading phenomena the earlier cracks might advance at the expenses of the later incubated ones. 5 WAVE REFLECTION AT AN INTERFACE OR AT THE OUTER BOUNDARY

s n

nt t

Free boundary

SP PP

Figure 4. Circular blast P-wave reflection at a free boundary.

= Z2/Z1 = 2cP /(1cP )

2 1

(1)

The acoustic impedance mismatch controls the amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted stress waves. Similar and dissimilar conditions are characterized by 1 and 1 (i.e., either << 1 or >> 1), respectively. When the material properties are strongly different, the two cases Hard core in a soft jacket and Soft core in a hard jacket produce very different results in terms of stresses, cracking and fragmentation patterns. The terms hard and soft refer to high and low levels of the acoustic impedance of the materials. The primary effect of any strong dissimilarity is to be found in the sequence of events in the dynamic process, i.e., whether or not certain events will occur before others. Key competitive events, which control fracture formation and fragmentation, are: IOB Interaction of P2P1 with outer boundary, IBH Interaction of P1P1 with blast-hole boundary, ICI Interaction of P1P1P1 with interface, and IJI Interaction of P2P2P1 with interface. Their interplay is listed in Table 1. The sequence of dynamic events controls the formation of blast-hole cracks, extension of blast-hole cracks, interface delamination, spallation at outer boundary region normal surface cracking spallation at blast-hole boundary spallation in core near interface spallation in jacket near interface

When a plane or circularly shaped (P or S) stress wave) impinges on an interface or a free surface, several new waves will be generated (for P: PP and SP; for S: SS and PS). Figure 4 shows the case of P-wave interaction with a free plane surface. For wave interaction with a dissimilar interface reflected and transmitted waves are generated (for P-wave interaction: P1 P1P1, S1P1 and P2P1, S2P1; for S-wave interaction: S1 P1S1, S1S1 and P2S1, S2S1, Kolsky 1963, Uenishi & Rossmanith 1998). In models C, F and G wave interaction with the circular interface will generate a rather complex wave pattern which might be translated into a fracture network. What will happen in reality depends to a great extent on the acoustic impedance mismatch of the core and the outer cylinder. The acoustic impedance is the product of wave speed and density of the material, Zi = icPi (i = 1, 2), whereas the acoustic impedance mismatch is defined as the ratio of the acoustic impedances of the two partner materials,

The type of outer boundary conditions, whether the jacket is free to expand, or constraint by rigid die conditions has a pronounced influence on the formation of cracks normal to the outer surface and on interface delamination. Intense fragmentation is found for various combinations of specimen

411

Table 1. Occurrence of dynamic events in composite blast test specimens. Event 1: Hard core/soft jacket 2: Soft core/hard jacket Similar size of core and jacket IBH before IOB IOB before IBH ICI before IJI IJI before ICI Large core/thin jacket IBH about IOB IOB before IBH IJI about ICI IJI well before ICI Small core/thick jacket IBH before IOB IBH about IOB ICI well before IJI ICI about IJI
P-wave cone F2 Sub-arc flaw F1

wave front

Hyperbolic arc

size and acoustic impedance. For short realistic pulses, interface cracking is expected to occur primarily in the outer boundary layer. For very long pulses, i.e. very large , different multiple reflected sections of the incident wave will superimpose in the two regimes and only a numerical simulation will be able to provide an answer to questions on the dynamic behavior of the specimen during blasting and the formation of cracks and fragments. If a hard core is embedded in a soft ring and excited by a long blast-induced stress pulse the incident pulse is multiple reflected in the core region before the reflected tensile P2P2P1 wave from the jacket reaches the interface. For reasonably strong impedance mismatch contrast the reflected tensile P1P1 wave which focuses on the blast-hole region will enhance the formation of radial bore-hole cracks in the core region. Interface delamination is suppressed in the case of a rigid jacket boundary because the reflected P2P2P1 wave is compression. Again, for all times, the jacket section is subjected to compressive stresses. Quantities which control the wave and fragmentation pattern have been identified to be: the ratio between the length of the stress wave pulse generated at the borehole boundary due to explosive pressurization and the characteristic dimension of the specimen; the type of boundary condition (free or rigid) at the outer specimen surface; the shape of the outer boundary of the specimen; and the acoustic impedance mismatch between the core and the outer region in composite blast test specimens. Applying the method of Lagrange diagrams (Rossmanith 2002) in wave propagation and wave front constructions and observing Figure 5, one finds that the resulting wave dynamics is entirely

Figure 5. 3D-wave reflection at free surfaces of a block type blast test specimen.

controlled by the interplay of the stress waves reflected and transmitted at the interface and the outer, as well as the blast-hole boundary. In contrast to circular symmetrical specimens, where the reflected waves converge towards the center with strongly increasing amplitudes, the longitudinal and shear waves that are reflected from the free or rigid specimen boundaries do not focus in the square specimens but are divergent. Their structure depends on the angle of incidence of the impinging wave. There is a size effect in laboratory size blast test specimens. The effect of different boundary conditions at the outer boundary, stress free or rigid, becomes larger in smaller diameter test specimens where the cone waves still have larger amplitudes when they are reflected at the boundary. In turn, the reflected stress waves may enhance or suppress the formation of fractures and bore-hole cracking. A free outer boundary favors the formation of spalls, possibly multiple spallation for longer pulses, and assists in the delamination at the interface. If the outer boundary of the jacket is rigid and in-extensible, the reflected P2P2P1 wave is a compression wave (in the central region) and large compressive stresses may be generated at the interface by superposition of the P1P1P1 and P2P2P1 waves. It is interesting to notice, that in this case the jacket is subjected to high compressive stresses at all times. 6 OUTER BOUNDARY CRACKING

In relatively small laboratory blast specimens the radially emerging borehole cracks will either arrest within the specimen due to loss of driving force or terminate at an interface or at the outer boundary.

412

Flaws / imperfections at positions I and II I

12 2 sI,II II cP

R I,II

Figure 6. Initiation of a surface flaw and unloading waves.

focusing of the reflected wave. Note the regular spacing of the edge cracks due to the symmetry of the expanding stress wave. Figure 9 shows the reconstruction of the fragmented amphibolite specimen where the pattern sketched in Figure 7 can easily be recognized at the outer surface of the cylinder. Finally, Figure 10 shows the fragmentation pattern in a concrete cube block with edge length of 300 mm. The most striking result is the non-uniform distribution of the boundary cracks showing a higher density of cracks in the mid-sections of the edges and no radial cracks that run towards the corners. This is the result of the uneven distribution of the strain in the blast wave when it hits the corner, different arrival times of the wave

Figure 7. Formation of boundary cracking from seed points/imperfections.

Fracturing of the outer surface is observed and this occurs due to wave superposition during wave reflection, where the circumferential strain exceeds the ultimate limit strain. If, at site I in Figure 6, the SIF of the flaw exceeds the critical value, the fracture toughness, a crack is initiated and unloading (compressive) waves will be sent out from that site. Hence, no other crack may be initiated in the near vicinity of that site. The spreading of surface Rayleigh-waves prevents the formation of cracks within the region covered by the unloading waves. This indicates that there is a limiting distance for formation of new cracks. In practice the origins of the flaws, the seeds, are usually randomly distributed and one obtains a pattern of the form shown in Figure 7 where the development of the fragmentation pattern can be seen. 7 FRACTURE NETWORK IN BLOCKS EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Figure 8. Small scale blasting test in monolithic sandstone cylinder (diameter 300 mm) showing regular crack spacing at outer boundary and crushed interior.

The results of the preceding theoretical analysis were then compared with experimental results obtained from the literature (Wagner 2002, HochholdingerArsic 2009). At the Mining University in Leoben in Austria a series of small scale blasting tests were performed in sandstone, amphibolite and concrete. Figure 8 shows the fragmentation network due to wave reflection at the outer free boundary and subsequent crushing at the center due to wave

Figure 9. Smale scale blasting test in monolithic amphibolite cylinder (diameter 300 mm) showing a random crack pattern at outer boundary and crushed interior.

413

Figure 10. Fragmentation pattern in a cube type blast specimen fabricated of concrete (edge length 300 mm) showing uneven crack distribution and the formation of relatively large corner fragments.

depending on the angle of incidence, and the existence of unloading along the outer boundary. 8 CONCLUSIONS

The results of a rigorous analytical analysis of wave interaction and fracture network formation in small scale blast specimens has been compared with experimental results obtained from lab blasts performed in sandstone, amphibolite and concrete. Cylindrical and blocky monolithic and dissimilar cored models were utilized. The comparison of the various fragmentation zones showed that the analysis was capable to explain a string of curious features in the fragmentation pattern, particularly associated with the network formation on the outer mantle surface of the specimens and the formation of relatively large corner fragments in the cube specimens. Although these results assist in understanding the formation of fracture network formation in small specimens, the transfer of these results to large blast operations in rock mass is NOT straight forward, because many of the effects which are present in the lab models will not occur in a larger rock mass where joints and faults and other structural or material inhomogeneities will fundamentally alter the fracture pattern. REFERENCES
Atkinson, B. 1985. Fracture Mechanics of Rock. London: Academic Press. Broberg, B. 1999. Cracks and Fracture. London: Academic Press. Fourney, F.W. 19762006. Collection of Reports published by the Photomechanics Laboratory of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Maryland.

Freund, L.B. 1972. Crack propagation in an elastic solid subjected to general loadingI. Constant rate of extension. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 20: 129140. Freund, L.B. 1990. Dynamic Fracture Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. Hochholdinger-Arsic, V. 2009. PhD Dissertation in preparation, Mining University Leoben, Austria. Kolsky, H. 1963. Stress Waves in Solids. New York: Dover Publications. Kouzniak, N. & Rossmanith, H.P. 1998. Supersonic detonation in rock massAnalytical solutions and validation of numerical modelsPart 1: Stress analysis. Fragblast Int. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 2(4): 449486. Ouchterlony, F. 1983. Analysis of cracks related to rock fragmentation. In Rock Fracture Mechanics, CISM Course #275, pp. 3168. Vienna-New York: Springer-Verlag. Persson, P.A., Holmberg, R. & Lee, J. 1994. Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press. Rossmanith, H.P. 19782006. Collection of Papers published by the Fracture & Photomechanics Laboratory of the Vienna University of Technology. Rossmanith, H.P. (ed.). 1983. Rock Fracture Mechanics. CISM Course #275. Vienna-New York: Springer-Verlag. Rossmanith, H.P. 2002. The use of Lagrange diagrams in precise initiation blasting. Part I: Two interacting blastholes. FragblastInt. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 6(1): 104136. Rossmanith, H.P. & Kouzniak, N. 2004. Supersonic detonation in rock massPart 2: Particle displacements and velocity fields for single and multiple non-delayed and delayed detonating blastholes. FragblastInt. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 8(2): 95118. Rossmanith, H.P. & Uenishi, K. 2005. On size and boundary effects in scaled model blastsSpatial problems. FragblastInt. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 9(2): 129174. Rossmanith, H.P. & Uenishi, K. 2006. The mechanics of spall fracture in rock and concrete. FragblastInt. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 10(34): 111162. Rossmanith, H.P., Uenishi, K. & Kouzniak, N. 1997. Blast wave propagation in rock massPart I: monolithic medium. FragblastInt. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 1(3): 317360. Rossmanith, H.P., Hochholdinger-Arsic, V. & Uenishi, K. 2005. Understanding size and boundary effects in scaled model blastsPlane problems. FragblastInt. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 9(2): 93125. Tada, H., Paris, P.C. & Irwin, G.R. 1973. The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook. St. Louis, USA: Del Research Corp. Uenishi, K. & Rossmanith, H.P. 1998. Blast wave propagation in rock massPart II: Layered media. FragblastInt. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 2(1): 3977. Vanbrabant, F., Chacn, E.P. & Quiones, L.A. 2002. P and S Mach waves generated by the detonation of a cylindrical explosive chargeExperiments and simulations. FragblastInt. J. for Blasting and Fragmentation 6(1): 2135. Wagner, H. 2002. Bruchvorgnge im GebirgeErfahrungen aus dem Bergbau (Fracturing of rock massExperiences from Mining Engineering). Proc. 7th Conf. on Gefge und Bruch, 1012 April, pp. 619. Montanuniversitt Leoben.

414