Scholars' Mine

Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations

1964

Estimating bench design parameters for open-cut excavation

Rajni K. Gandhi

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses

Part of the Mining Engineering Commons

Department:

Recommended Citation
Gandhi, Rajni K., "Estimating bench design parameters for open-cut excavation" (1964). Masters Theses.
5639.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/5639

This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This
work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the
permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 ESTIMATING BENCH DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
OPEN-CUT EXCAVATION

BY
RAJId K. GANDHI

THESIS

submitted to the faculty of the

SCHOOL OF MINES AND METALLURGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

MINING ENGINEERING

Rolla, Missouri

1964
 i

ABSTRACT

There are no direct relationships available that provide a

basis for bench design of multiple-bench, open-cut earth excavations

in competent materials when power shovels are employed. This study

was undertaken to determine if mathematical design expressions could

be developed when the production rate, material's properties, and

equipment operating characteristics were known.

It was found that all bench dimensions were a function of the

bench height, which in turn was controlled by the required rate of

production. The investigation revealed that suitable relationships

could be developed to guide in the control of bank stability, choice

of shovel capacity, determination of the drilling and blasting design

parameters, and selection of the necessary bench dimensions for

efficient operation.
 ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to

Professor Richard L . Ash of the Mining Engineering Department,

School of Mines and Metallurgy, University of Missouri at Rolls,

who offered continued assistance and guidance throughout the

investigation. Appreciation is due also to Professor Robert F .

Bruzewski, of the Mining Engineering Department for his value-

able criticism of the manuscript, and to M r . A. J . Bush of the

Engineering Graphics Department, who assisted the author in

developing the figures included in this thesis. The writer is

indebted to M r . Devendra V . Mehta, who willingly typed the

manuscript.
 ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pag*

ABSTRACT ..................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. ii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................ Tii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................... lx

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1

II. THE INFLUENCE OF SLOPE STABILITY ON BENCH DESIGN .... 3

A. GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA .......................... 3

B. BANK FAILURES ..................................... 5

CU DETERMINATION OF THE OPTIMUM STABILITY SLOPE

ANGLE, |p ...................................... 7

D. BASIC RELATIONSHIPS FOR WORKING BENCH DESIGN .... 18

III. BENCH GEOMETRY AND ITS CORRELATION WITH SHOVEL

OPERATION ......................................... 20

A. DIMENSIONAL LIMITATIONS .......................... 20

1. Swell Effects .................................. 20

2. Equipment Operating Requirements ............ 25

a. Minimum Bench Width ....... 25

b. Minimum Bench Length«•••••••••••••••••••••• 26

o. Optimum Bench Height•.••••••••••••••••••••• 27

 iv

Pag*

B. SHOVEL PRODUCTION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ............. 30

1* The Efficiency Hour .................... . 30

2* Cycle Time «**••...••••.•••••••*.••••••••••••*• 30

3* Required Shovel Bucket Capacity ..... 30

4* Relationships Between Shovel Bucket Capacity*

M a x i m a Damping Radius* and Radius of

Clean-Up ............. ..................... * 32

C. BENCH DESIGN PARAMETERS AS A FUNCTION OF

PRODUCTION ..................................... 32

1* Relationship Between Optimum Bench Height and

Production .............. 32

2, Relationship Between Minimum Bench Width and

Production ............. 35

3* Relationship Between Minimum Bench Length and

Production .......................... J6
IV/* BANK PREPARATION DESIGN .............................. 38
A* BLASTING RELATIONSHIPS ............................ 38

1* Burden Caculations .......................... 38

2* Other Charge Placement Factors ••••••••••••••*• 44

a* Stemming Limitations ••••••••••••••••••••••• 44

b* Minimum Required Sub-Drilling *............ 44

o* Hole Depth ••*••••... ••••••••••••••••••••• 44

d* Rules for Charge Spacing ••••*•••••••••••••« 47
 V

P age

B. EFFECTS OF BENCH HEIGHT ON BLAST TONNAGE YIELD ... 50

1. Basic Assumptions ............ .......... ....... 50

2. The Optimum Powder Factor •••«••» 52

0. DEPENDENCY OF DRILLING HATES ON BENCH HEIGHT .... 5L

1. The Drilling Cycle ............................. 5^

2. Hole Depth and Its Influence on Penetration ... $6

V, ESTIMATING BENCH DESIGN LIMITS FOR PRODUCTION ...... 59
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 59

B« ESTIMATING PROCEDURE .............................. 6l

1* Calculating the Maximum Allowable Value .... 6l

2. Selection of the Optimum Bench Height, LQ .... 62

3* Determination of Required Shovel Capacity, • 63

k. Approximating the Minimum Operating Bench

Length, .................................. 63

5. Depth of Bench Required forProduction, y ...... 6b

6. Minimum Benoh Operating Width Limitations, W ^ • 65

7. Selection of Drilling Equipment and the

Blasting System .......... 66

8. Stannary ....... . 70

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 72

 ▼i

Pag*

APPENDICES

I# LIST OP SYMBOLS ................................. 75

IX* SLOPE ANALYSIS El THE SWEDISH METHOD OF SLICES ..... 78

III* THE OPTIMUM SLOPE APPROXIMATION EQUATION ............ 81

IT* LIST OF EQUATIONS ................................ 85

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................. 87

VITA ............................ ...........................

 vii

LIST. OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Peg®

1* Modes of Failures in Open-Cut Excavations ...... 6

2. Stress Patterns Induced by Benching ........... 8

3. Schematic Mohr's Stress Envelope .............. ... 10

4. Analysis of Critical Slope Angle .............. 14

5. Bench C o m e r Showing Swell From Blasting Before

Collapse ........................... 21

6. Bench Geometry .................. 23

7. Relationship Between Optimum Height of Cut and

Bucket Capacity for Shovels 29

8* Power Shovel Production ....................... 31

9. Shovel Output Correction Curves ••••••••...•••••• 33

10. Loading Shovel Operating Characteristics ••..•••• 34

11. Bench Blasting Terminology ...................... 39

12. Relationship Between Relative Energy Ratio and

Adjusted Burden ............................ 43

13* Field Data for Relationship of Lodge Height

Ratio with Velocity Ratio ................... 46

14. Minimum Required Hole Depth for Bottom Priming

to Give Balance Stressing .................... 48

15. Square Drill Pattern Design .............. ••••••• 49

16. Relationships of Tonnage Yield with Ledge

Height .......................................... 53
 viii

Figure ?»«•

17* Influence of Hole Depth on Drilling Time •••••••• 55

18* Influence of Hole Depth on Penetration Rate ••••• 57

19* Swedish Graphical Method of Siloes to Determine

Slop* Stability •••••••••••••••••••••••••••*•• 80

 ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pago

X* Strength Data Ter Sane Competent Rocks •••••••••• 11

II* Strength Data for Some Altered or Fragmented

Materials ...................................... 12

HI* Rolationship Between Q and for Seme Selected

Rocks ................................ 16

IV. Approximate In-Bank Weight and Swell Factor ••••• 22

 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION,

Surf*''** *xcavat.ion acoount** for the major portion of all

materials removed from the earth (1, 2)* Competition in the world

market necessitates that maximum productivity be achieved at the

least possible cost# For these reasons, excavation techniques

must be continually Improvedj and economic evaluations must be

more accurately predicted#

At present, there have been no direct relationships developed

that provide reasonably accurate parameters on which to base the

design of benches in open-cut excavations# All but very shallow

excavations require benching# The Importance of benches to an

excavation is that their geometry directly controls operational

scheduling and rates of production# Successful excavation requires

synchronization of not only material* S properties and equipment

characteristics, but production rates that are consistent with

economic conditions#

Although procedures have been developed for the minimum

amortization rate of production, which will permit the maximum

present value of an excavation project, basic assumptions must be

made using a predetermined equipment system and excavation plan

(3, 4)* As for the selection of specific types of equipment and the

material removal technique to be followed, this would be largely

a matter of historical preference, which may or may not be feasible#

 2

Considerable advances have been made toward efficient equipment

balancing (5* 6) , drilling and blasting, and in techniques for the

maintenance of stable slopes,, Hovev*»% correlations between the

various controlling factors *re not thoroughly established, and

literature does not indicate that work is being done toward that

end. It is this correlation that is the greatest problem to esti-

n^to-rs and economic feasibility analysts. Therefore, the pairpose of

this investigation was first, to determine whether or not there are

correlations between the various controlling factors; secondly, if

so, in what manner the factors can be utilized to establish an

excavation plan with appropriate production equipment; and thirdly,

define the bench geometry necessary to ensure optimum production

under stable excavation conditions. For simplicity, the study was

confined to only those excavations in which power shovels were used

and the materials required drilling and blasting.

 3

CHAPTER II

THE INFLUENCE OF SLOES STABILITY ON BENCH DESIGN.

A. GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA,

In open-cut operations, the excavation plan is dependent on

the total quantity of material to be moved, the rate of required

production, the physical properties of the material handled, the

weather conditions of the locality, and the geological details of

the area in which the work is done, Ctice established, the normal

rate of excavation can be assumed to retaain virtually constant,

unless a major change in the capital structure of the organiza­

tion is made.

The size of the project is extremely important in selecting

the equipment to be used. However, the variety of equipment avail­

able today makes it difficult to determine which combination of

maohines should be utilized to obtain the best results. As a rule,

it is customary to make a preliminary equipment selection for each

possible operating plan. The direct operating cost of each unit

under a specific set of conditions remains relatively constant as

the project size varies, but the unit capital equipment cost

decreases as the rate of production increases. It follows then,

that for a project involving large volumes, equipment with low

operating cost and relatively high equipment capital cost afford

the best overall economics; whereas, for a project involving

small volumes, equipment with Inherent higher direct operating

 4

costs and low equipment capital expenditures are more suitable

economically*

The overall size of a mining excavation is dependent on ore

grado, the strike-length of the deposit available for' benching,

the required bench width, the height of bench working faces, and

the number of operating benches* Slopes should be steep enough to

give economical mining and flat enough to ensure safety*

The optimum height of a working face depends on the produc­

tion requirements, and the equipment system applied to the opera­

tion* It must not exceed the critical height calculated from the

physical properties of the material to be excavated* The width of

a bench is a function of its height, and of the equipment opera­

ting requirements*

Orientation of benches in open-cut excavation necessitates

careful planning to ensure production requirements* For dipping

deposits, benches should normally be oriented parallel to the

strike of the ore-body, or the trend of the long axis* Orienting

benches parallel to the strike helps in the final phase of the

excavation* This is because the entire length of the bench will

encounter waste rock at one time, which is advantageous for grade

control*

Climatic conditions and holidays interrupt the continuity of

any operation* It is necessary then, to estimate how many full

working days per year will be available for production* The annual

production requirements must be reduced to daily and hourly produc­

 5

tion rates. From these estimates, it is possible to approximate

the probable sizes and types of equipment that will be needed*

However, before the final selection is nr.de, the working conditions

for tho equipment must be carefully considered,

B. BANK FAILURES.

Open-cut excavation walls may collapse as a result of struc­

tural instability of the materials, Whore failure of a bank

involves a downward and outward movement of an entire mass of

material, the action is called a Slide. For illustrating slope

failures, slides may be classified as shown in Figure 1 (7»8)*

The first type of failure is that of a Rock Fall, This is simply

tho fall of loose blocks when the slope angle is greater than the

angle of repose of the blocks. Rotational-Shear Failure, on the

other hand, produces a movement of an almost undisturbed segment

along a circular, or spoon-shaped, surface and occurs mainly in

non-brlttle material and massive rocks. Plane-Shear Failure results

when a geological plane of weakness exists within the bank in such

a direction as to provide a preferential path of failure. Block

Failure is the tern given to a bank failure when there is a general

break-down of the rock mass, a type of failure that is character­

istic of brittle rocks. The latter type always contains a family

of joints that divides the mass into a system of blocks, which may

or may not be cemented together. In addition, there is the single

Bonch Failure.
Figure 1* Modes of Failure in Open-Cut Excavations (7)*

o\
 7

When open-cut excavations are made in material subjected to

any form of regional stress field, the effect is to alter the

stress pattern in the vicinity of the cut* The stress patterns

within a rock bank depart o.. the stress history* When an excava­

tion is made, a series of stress re-distributions takes place*

The changes generally extend over a relatively long period of

time, either by abrupt movements, or by slow yielding* Alterna­

ting, or vibrating.loads accelerate the effects* The actions will

progress until now stress conditions are achieved, compatible with

the resistances offered by the rock mass, or until the point of

failure is reached* The resulting changes will depend on the geo­

metry of the excavation, which in section, depend on the width of

the bench and the height of the working face, as shown in Figure 2

(9)*

C. DETERMINATION OF THE OPTIMUM STABILITY SLOPE-AMJLE, ^ .

The stripping ratio (9) and bench geometry depend upon the

Optimum Slope Angle, which is defined as the steepest angle with

the horizontal plane at which the slope can be cut and yet stand

safely* A slight change in slope can grossly affect the amount of

waste to be removed and the stability of the walls of the entire

excavation*

From the available literature, it appears that there is no

accurate method for predicting bank failures, due to the complex­

ity of the problems involved* However, numerous investigations

Figure 2. Stress Patterns Induced by Benching (9)*
 9

(10, 11, 12) have indicated certain basic fundamentals probably

exist that describe the mechanics of bank stressing* Overall

yielding may be difficult to evaluate; although individual bench

failures can be analyzed according to their particular conditions*

Providing that single bench damage does not measurably affect the

overall stability of an entire bank, one can approximate with a

reasonable factor of safety the necessary slope angle to prevent

failure# It must be remembered however, that for such an excava­

tion, moisture conditions, seepage, etc#, can greatly can pound the

susceptibility of stresses to induce slides#

Most methods of stability analysis are predicated on soil

mechanics principles# The general assumption, which is reasonably

confirmed by field results, is that a bank will slide along a

curved surface fraa shear stressing# The basic criterion used is

that resistance to sliding along a curved surface, or any potential

surface of shear, in homogeneous rook masses can be expressed by

Coulomb’s relationship, S “ c *♦* tan (j) • In this equation,

S is the unit shear yield stress, e is the unit cohesion factor,

<5** is the unit stress applied normal to the sliding surface, and

tan ^ is the coefficient of internal friction# The relationship

is expressed graphically by M o h r ’s stress envelope, as shown by

Figure 3#

Strength data frcm laboratory tests on various materials are

given by Tables I and II# It should be noted fran the data that

there is a considerable difference in the values for shear stress

 T

Figure 3* Schematic Mohr's Stress Envelope (13)•

o
 TABLE I . S tren g th Data For Some Competent Rocks ( 13) .

Rock Type Compressive Elasticity Tensile C Equation of Mohr's

*
Strength Modulus Strength Envelope
(Compression)
psi x 10^ psi X 10® psi psi deg. (ref. Fig. 3)

Chert 29.3 8.15 820 2550 71.5 Y - 2550 + 3.0 x

Coal 6.2 - - 1600 38.5 Y - 1600 + 0.8 x

Granite 28.0 3.17 410 1720 76.5 Y - 1720 + 4.2 x

Green Stone 29.1 8.82 380 1700 77.5 Y - 1700 + 4.5 x

Greywacke 7.9 1.80 700 1200 59.5 Y - 1200 + 1.7 x

Limestone 21.3 9.50 350 1320 75.5 Y - 1320 + 3.9 x

Marble 30.8 7.15 863 2650 71.0 Y - 2650 + 2.9 x

Salt Rock 2.2 1.35 85 210 72.5 Y - 210 + 3.2 x

Sand Stone 14.8 2.00 230 900 76.0 Y - 900 + 4.0 x

Shale 5.2 1.09 1538 1420 31.0 Y - 1420 + 0.6 x

Silt-Stone 5.0 12.60 440 750 59.5 Y * 750 + 1.7 x

C - Cohesion
£ - Angle of Internal Friction
 12

XABLS II. Strength Data fop Son* Altered

or Fragmented Materials (14, 15).

Rook Type Cohesion Friction Equation of Mohr*s

Angl* Envelop*

psi deg. (R*f. Fig. 3)

Decomposed 7*0 18 Y— 7.0 ♦ 0.30 x

Limest on*

Altered 5.0 y\ Y - 5.0 ♦ 0.67 x

Quatzite

Altered 6*0 40 Y * 6.0 ♦ 0.84 x

Schist

Dens* Sand 7.0 32 Y * 7.0 ♦ 0.61 x

and Gravel

Medium 7.0 20 Y ** 7.0 ♦ 0.36 x

Clay

Soft 2.8 15 Y » 2.8 «► 0.27 x

Clay

Liquid 0.7 15 Y * 0.7 ♦ 0.27 x

Clay
 13

yields and angles of internal friction between competent rocks

and altered, or fragmented, materials*

Slopes may be analysed graphically b y tho classical Swedish

Method of Slices* This method, frequently employed to ascertain a

so-called factor of safety for slopes, is described in Appendix II

(16)* The factor of safety may be expressed by tho ratio

tan / tan <j) ^ , where- is the material*s angle of internal

friction and ^ ^ is the designed angle® Terzaghi (17) suggested

the factor should not be less than 2*0 for soils and similar non-

ccmpstent materials*

Based on Spangler*5 work (18), another method of analysis that

is relatively simple can be used to approximate the critical slope

angle, p , whore shear failure could be expected to occur* The

method assumes a bank is composed of homogeneous mater^ls, without

Jointing planes or other geological structural weaknesses* The

solution givos the following expression (see Appendix I for the

complete symbol system):

(1 )

Derivation of the relationship can be found in Appendix III, while

Figure k illustrates the various components used'* The maximum

height of bank, Q, for various materials- at different /S values

that will stand before shear failure are given by Table I H , calcu­

lated by the approximation Equation 1* It should be noted, however,

 14

figure 4. Analysis of Critical Slope Angle (18),

 15

that Q becomes very high when the cohesion and angle of internal

friction are relatively largo* In view of field observations* the

approximation would not appear to b© realistic for oeapetent rocks^

where laboratory tost results were used in the analyses* On the

other hand* Trollope (19) suggested from his work that the

valuo should not exceed 3^ degrees (0*67 to 1) for block systems

of competent rocks* This value would agree favorably with data

for the altered or fragmented material* Competent rocks would be

expected to be strongly influenced b y jointing and stratification*

co that some compromise most likely would bo necessary for a final

solution*

Laboratory studies on photoelastic models by Gem ah (9) indica­

ted that when ^ was larger than 60 degrees, bank failures at the
toe or above were possible* When was &7 degrees or less* all

recognized types of failures could occur* Both Gomah (9) and

Fellenius (21) deduced that near 53 degrees (1*32 to 1)* or below*

base failure would occur* This is because the sliding surfaces

would lie below the slope toe and not pass through it*

The degree of competency, water conditions* total pit depth*

and the material's physical properties all will significantly

influence the optimum design value* The mechanisms Involved in

bank failures are inherently complex, and investigators differ in

their opinions as to the optimum slope angle* However* it does

appear quite likely that slope angles near 58 degrees (1*60 to 1)

can b e held safely for shallow excavations in strong materials* On

 TABLE III. Relationship Between Q and /8 For Some Selected Rocks
(From Equation.1 and Tables I and II. See Appendix I for Symbols),

Physical Granite Marble Salt-Rock Sand Stone Shale Soft Lime Altered Altered Dense
Properties Stone Quartzite Schist Sand and

of Rocks Gravel

$ - deg. 76.5 7 1 .0 72.5 7 6 .0 3 1 .0 18.0 34.0 40.0 3 2 .0

NJ'X
!\5
ON
1720 210 900 1420 6 10

O
C - psi. 7 5
dr - tons/cu. ft. 0 .0 7 0 0.080 0.080 0.073 0 .0 6 0 0 .0 7 2 0.082 0 .0 7 2 0 .0 5 8

410 863 85 230 1538 - - - -

( T t - Psi*

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
P
90 * * * * * 29 38 46 90
80 * * * * * 36 44 70 125
70 * * £ £ * 56 68 98 189
60 * * * * * 76 120 240 303
* * * * * 117 2 68 635 620
50
4o * * * >r * 208 880 *
* * * * 580 * * *
30

* Exceeds 1,000 feet

H
On
 17

tho other hand* for deop pits in reasonably strong rocks and for

highly fractured materials in shallow openings* slopes as low as

20 degrees (0.3& to 1^ may bo required*

To illustrate the various slope requirements for excavations*

experience at the deep Bingham Canyon opon-pit of the Utah Copper

Corporation in Utah showed that it was necessary to maintain a

slope angle between 23 and 26 degrees (near 0*4-5 to 1)* However*

broken material dumped loosely as waste stood at J8 degrees (0*78

to 1)* At the Asarco Mission Mine in Arizona (21)* the alluvium

over burden was worked with a ji value of 37 degrees, while the

ore slope was kept near 4-5 degrees* The Pima operation in Arizona

(22)* the Marquesado iron mine in Spain (23)* and some of the iron

open-pits in Utah (24) operated with a 58 degree back slope (1*60

to 1).

In practice* as excavation depths are increased, slope angles

must be reduced* Similarly* if work is extended below the water

table and seepage water is pumped out of the excavation* addition­

al flattening of the slope is required* This suggests that there

may be one relationship between the and Q values for above the

water table and another for below*

Walls of open-pit excavations may remain intact for periods

ranging from days to years* But in time* banks will tend to fail*

either transitionally or instantaneously, indicating that some type

of time-dopendent deterioration takes place in the rock (25,26)*

Possible causes would include plastic flow* failure due to absorp­

 18

tion of moisture with a corresponding volume expansion, and crack

propogation due to tectonic stresses and the migration of water*

Since there is no accepted means to predict time-dependency fail­

ures, it is considered good practice to advance cuts as rapidly

as possible* Furthermore, bench excavations near the surface should

always precede well in advance of the lower levels*

In general, it is a reasonable assumption to project slope

angle predictions from a possible maximum of $8 to a minimum of

34 degrees in c capetent rocks, so as to provide a working range or

slopes* A more exact slope can be determined by studies of the

field operating conditions* Core samples are usually available

when excavations are prospected, so that laboratory tests of mater­

ials properties can be conducted* From weather and hydrological

data and geological structural analyses, stability probability

studies can be then conducted and evaluated* from these studies,

the total depth-to-width ratio of the final excavation can be

reasonably approximated to provide the basic design tan ^ •

D. BASIC RELATIONSHIPS FOR WORKING BENCH DESIGN.

It can be assumed that bench design geometry must be such

that the ratio of bench height to width must not exceed tan jji ,

or the limiting slope required for bench stability (Figure 6)*

Since must be less than , the geometry can be expressed as

followst
 19

L / Wh = tan Y (2)

and L / - tan |3 » (35

where "V is tho angle which tho lino connecting tho toos of all

working benches makes with tho horizontal piano*

Th® selected bench height, L, will b© limited by the specifica­

tions of loading machines required to maintain production levels,

vhila tho total bench width, W^, is governed by the operating

dimensions of the equipment used for both loading and haulage, and

the required amount of bench blasted to maintain production* It is

necessary to correlate loading machine characteristics to L,

establish t to handle both loading and haulage units, and

ascertain that the designed L/W^ ratio does not exceed the slope

limit for stability, or tan |3 • For purposes of this study,

tan B will be limited to the range of 0*56 to 1*6, which would

cover most excavations in competent rocks found at the majority

of open-pit mines and construction projects*

 20

CHAPTER III

BENCH GEOMETRY AND ITS CORRELATION

WITH SHOVEL OPERATION.

A. DIMENSIONAL LIMITATIONS.

1* Swell Effects.

The Increase in volume that a material undergoes when broken

from the solid is termed Swell* It is commonly expressed as a

ratio called the Swell Factor, S^, which is characteristic of

each material (see Table IV)* The Factor may be determined by

comparing the loose weight of a unit volume of material to its

solid weight, or by comparing the volume of a unit weight of the

substance in its solid state to that when broken* Figure 5 repre­

sents a block of solid material and the new volume after blasting*

A vertical section through the block in the L-y plane is illustra­

ted by Figure 6.

One can assume that the depth of bench blasted, y, and its

width, 1, are functions of the height of the bench, L, c:* y = aL,

and 1 = bL, where a and b are constants of proportionality* If the

volume of the original block is V * Iyl, then, substituting for y

and 1 in terms of L, V * L(aL)(bL) = abL3* After blasting the new

volume can be calculated by the following expressions

V # = abL3 / Sf %
 21

Pigwre 5* Bench Corner Showing Swell

Prom Blasting Before Collapse*

 22

TABLE IV* Approximate In-Bank Waight

and Swell Factor (27, 28)»

Material In-Bank Natural Approximate

Weight Angle of Swell Factor,
Repose
s*
lb/cu.yd* deg*
lb* /cu*ft* (solid)

Bauxite 2700-^325 30-45 0.75

Clay, Light 2800 18 0.82

Copper Oro 3800 30-45 0.74

Earth, Dry 2800 30 0.85

Gravel, Dry 3250 37 0.89

Granite *>500 30-45 0.67-0.56

Iron Ore 6500-8700 30-45 0.45

Limestone 4-200 30-45 0.60-0.57

Stone 3240-3920 30-45 0.74

Sand, Dry 3250 34 0.89

Shale 3000 30-45 0.75

Slate 4-590-4860 30-45 0.77

Trap 5075 30-45 0.67

Figure 6* Bench Geometry*
 24

Also, L * L* S^ 3 , y « y 9 S^ 3 , and 1 « 1* S^ 3 .
For convenience in analysis, no vertical rise of broken

naterial can be assumed, or the original bench height, L, can be

considered as remaining constant* Thus, from Figure 6 it can be

seen that the enlarged cross-sectional area in the L-y plane will

bo as follows*

Substituting for the equivalent L', 1*, and y 9, we obtain

l/3
which gives a X / Sf' * 0*5(y,,t - y ,# 4 2 y 99)*

Thus.

Since

where Y m materials natural angle of repose,

 25

Regrouping and substituting for L*,

y»® * y*®* - (L cot ^ ) / S^ 3 *

Also, 2a L * S ^ 3(y®«® 4 y*») *= S^Cy®** 4 y**® _ L cot Y/SI^J^

x r r y

to give 2y*«® « (2a L 4 L cot ^ ) / sj/ 3 .

Regroupings, y i? g « (0^5 L/s^/ 3)(2a 4* oot'b ) ®

Since s « y 9*® «» y , and y “ s L #

then z ■ (0*5 L / s ^ 3)(2a 4 o o t H ) - a L , ft, (4)

When it is assumed that the broken material will stand no higher

than the original bench height$ the part of the bench width required

to accomodate the swell can be then represented by z. For the bench

length, it follows that the part of the length required for swell, u,

would be similar to z, or

u » (0.5 L/,S^/3 )(2b 4 o o t Y ) - b L , ft. (5)

2. Equipment Operating Requirements.

a. Minimum Bench Width. Fear efficient loading and

haulage, the minimum bench width before blasting, W^, could be

 26

approximated by a summation of all required operating distances.

Shovel operation necessitates a distance of not less than the sum

of its dumping radius. R , and its floor cutting radius, G, A

8

minimum of five times the width of a single haulage unit, W^,

could be assumed for haulage as follows! one truck width each for

the loaded unit and for a returning empty unit that may need to

pass at the shovel rear, one width for passing clearance between

units, and two or more widths from the outside edge of the bench

for safety in the event of possible bench failure* The distance

neoessary to accomodate swell of the broken material to be loaded,

s, must also be included* The total minimum bench width would then

be as followsl

From Equation if, and substituting for s,

(6 )

It will be remembered that from Chapter II the designed optimum

stability slope angle requires that L / Wm “ tan * Thus, it can

be assumed that as a limiting factor Wm ■ L cot ^ *

b* Minimum Bench Length* Although shovels can be positioned

in many ways, loading methods can be considered as variations

of two basic procedures! frontal or parallel approach (29)*

 27

The frontal approach is when the forward advance of a shovel, as

digging progresses, is normal to the length of a bench face* The

shovel crowds directly into the broken pile until it has dug a

scmi .-circular path* The method has the advantage in that trucks

can be loaded on two sides of the shovel, providing sufficient

room exists, which greatly reduces loading time losses from truck

spotting.

Prom this study tho frontal approach will be assumed* Thus,

the room needed for maximum loading flexibility would be twice

the total distance of the sum of the dumping radius of the shovel*,

R„j and a minimum distance of atleast two truck widths, W^, for

each side of the shovel* The minimum bench length, 1, therefore,

would be as follows t

2(RS ♦ 2 tft ) • u ♦ ^ ,

Solving for 1, and substituting for u in terns of the bench height*

\ * 2(RS ♦ 2 W t ) S^ 3 - 0*5 L cot Y , ft. (7 )

c* Optimum Bench Height* A shovel's maximum cutting

height strongly influences the bench height that will provide

optimum production* It has been shown that the optimum height can

b e considered as approximately 0*6 times the maximum cutting

height (2?)* Figure 7 illustrates the relationship for shovels of
 28

different bucket capacities*

If a working bench is too high, shovels necessarily will under­

cut the pile of broken material* Rock fragments in the top portion

of a loose pile will either fall on the shovel or directly in front

of it. The condition is hazardous and may cause extensive damage

and possible injuries* On the other hand, bench heights that are too

shallow require excessive shovel movement, with corresponding lower

production rates* In addition, it is generally difficult, if not

impossible, to load a dipper bucket full with a single pass when

benches are too low*

If vertical swell is assumed to be accomodated horizontally as

determined for the minimum bench width, the optimum bench height,

L q, can be approximated on the basis of shovel bucket capacity, C\^,

From Figure 7 it will be noted that a change in shovel character­

istics for presently available machines occurs when the bucket capa­

city is about 18 cu* yd*, or those sizes available only for stripping

shovels* The latter are designed for a long reach and large capacity,

while loading shovels, with 12 ou* yd* capacities or less, have short­
er reach but greater speed and digging power for close-in work* Since

the latter condition is required for this study, only shovels with

bueket capacities less than 18 cu* yd* will be considered*

The relationship between optimum bench height, LQ, and loading-

shovel buoket capacity, C^, can be approximated from Figure 7 as

follows l

(8)
Figure 7* Relationship Between Optimum Height of Out and Bucket Size for Shovels (30)
 30

B. SHOVEL PRODUCTION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS.

1* The Efficiency Hour.

Che can expect that a shovel normally would not operate

continuously for 60 minutes every hour over the life of an excava­

tion project. To account for time losses* the efficiency hour is

usually applied against the machine’s estimated production capa­

city. Shovels generally produce only about $0 minutes per hour* or

at 83 per cent capacity.

2. Cycle Time.

The operating production cycle for a shovel consists of four

basic phasesS crowd* hoist* swing* and dump 0 Total cycle time is

the time required to dig* swing* dump into haulage units* and swing

on return to the initial digging position.

A number of factors influence the digging time* among which

would be the degree of rock displacement and fragmentation achieved

from blasting* the weight and hardness of the material loaded, the

bank height* etc. The swing is controlled largely by the loading

position of haulage units* while dumping time for a shovel depends

on the sizing and oohesiveness of the material handled.

3. Required Shovel Bucket Capacity.

It is generally accepted that shovel production is at maximum

when materials to be loaded are well-blasted and bench heights are

at the optimum (31)* Figure 8 illustrates trends in the relative

Figure 8. Power Shovel Production (31)*
 32

production rates that might bo expected for different material’s

qualities* It is interesting to note that the rates indicated in

Figure 8 for well-blasted rock compare favorably with the following

standard rule-of-thumb for estimating output (27)* Ps * 100 Cd*
where P. is the shovel production rate in cu* yd* per hour (broken),

for a 50-minute hour, 90-degree swing, and an optimum depth of cut*

Production in tons per hour would be

Pfl * 2700 Cd Sf dy , tons / hr. (9)

If the optimum depth of cut and the normal 90-degree swing angle

cannot be present, production rates must be adjusted* Correction

factors for the output are given in Figure 9 (32, 33)*

If* Relationships Between Shovel Bucket Capacity, Maximum

Dumping Radius, and Radius of Clean-Up*

From Figure 10 it can be seen that for a loading shovel the

maximum dumping and clean-up radii are related to the bucket capa­

city, or Rg ■ h-,3 Cd ♦ 23 and 0 * 2.7 C^ ♦ 15* The respective

radii oan be related to one another as follows*

( 10 )
 33

Figure 9# Shovel Output Correction Curves (32)

0 A 8 12 16

Bucket Size, 0d (cu* yd.) KM

?igure 10. Loading Shovel Operating Characteristics (33ft

 35

C. BENCH DESIGN PARAMETERS AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCTION.

1. Relationship Between Optimum Bench Height and Production.

It is possible to determine optimum bench height for any rate

of desired production from Equations 8 and 9» or

(11)

2. Relationship Between Minimum Bench Width and Production.

In planning a bench design, it would be convenient if the

minimum required bench width could also be determined from produc­

tion requirements. The derivation follows from Equation 6, or

Substituting for R 8 and 0 in terms of Cg (as shown in Figure 10),

But ad » P8 / (2700 Sf dy), and Lq - Jp # / (1500 Sf drj}+ 18.

Therefore, assuming the optimum bench height equals L, and substi­

tuting for C , and L in terms of P ,

d o s ’
 36

Expanding terms, vs obtain

Regrouping and simplifying,

3* Relationship Between Minimum Bench Length and Production.

The minimum bench length required for operating can be estima­

ted on the basis of production in a similar manner as was the

width.
 37

If L. * L, and the values of R and L are substituted by C ,

o ’ 8 d
(from Equations 8 and 10) in Equation 7* or

1* * 2 (Rs * 2 Wt > Sf ^ * °»5 L oot V ,

then,

But from Equation 9* <?d - P# / (2?00 d^). Substituting for Cd*

2 ^(4.3 Ps ) / (2700 Sf d^) ♦ 23 + 2 W^j S^ 3

- 0.5 ^(1.8 P# ) / (2700 Sf df ) 4 u | oot V .

Regrouping,

Thus, once the desired production is known, the material

characteristics and dimensions of haulage units can be utilised to

design the minimum required geometry for benches.

 38

CHAPTER IV

BANK PREPARATION DESIGN.

A. BLASTING RELATIONSHIPS.

Numerous basic relationships exist for various explosive

charge configurations (34, 35» 36, 37j 38* 39)* Of these relation­

ships* the least understood but most important is that of the

burden dimension* B, which in cratering terminology is expressed

as tho optimum depth of burst (40)* Bench blasting is essentially

only a modification of the cratering concept* with the free face

geometry being the only difference.

Figure 11 illustrates normal bench blasting terminology. It

should be noted that a distinction must be made between the true

burden* B #* and the apparent burden* B. Even though inclined

blastholes have been reported to give superior blast results*

notably b y reducing toe difficulties and increasing apparent bur-

dons (36, 41* 45)* analyses show that the true burden does not

change for a constant charge weight*

1* Burden Calculation*

In the literaturOjmany methods are suggested for the theore­

tical determination of the true burden value* B'» for certain

blasting conditions* Host of the calculations apply to homogeneous*

isotropic materials* with ideal detonation reactions assumed for

tho explosive used*

 39

figure 11 Bench Blasting Terminology (41)•

 40

However, the burden will be variable, dependent of the explo­

sive properties of the charge and the rock characteristics, as for

example, the yield strength to fracture, dampening or absorption

of energy properties, density, etc., (42, 43), Since, it is not the

purpose of this investigation to evaluate an exact burdon valua,

approximations will be assumed with the condition that reasonable

adjustments can be made to fit individual local operating condi­

tions* In this respect, the approximation relationship proposed by

Aah (41) is the most convenient for estimating the true burden

dimension, or

B* * Kg (D^ / 12) , ft., (14)

where D is the charge diameter in inches and Kg is a dimension­

less constant that varies from 20 to 40, dependent on the explo­

sive’s and material’s characteristics*

An approximation for the appropriate Kg constant in average

rock can be determined on the basis of the relative energy (RE) of

an explosive as compared to a standard, the latter which Ash consid­

ered would be a product having a specific gravity of 1 *2, and a

reaction velocity (V\ ) of 12,000 feet per second (41). The standard

was determined as having an RE value of 173 x 10^ , the RE value

being defined as (S G )
o 0 • Since it has been generally accepted
that the pressures developed by explosives would be a diroot func­

tion of the product of an explosive’s density and the square of its

reaction velocity (41), the RE ratio would be considered a reason­

able index of the kinetic energy potential of an explosive* There­

fore, correlations can be obtained between various explosives if

tho density and velocity parameters are known with a reasonable

degree of accuracy* without the necessity of making the appropri­

ate ccnple;: pressure calculations (4-3, 44, 4-5)*

To be representative of most rocks, the standard material was

considered by Ash to have a density of 2*7 gm/cc* On this basis,

the average Kg ratio for the standard explosive when used to blast

tho average rock could be approximated as having a value near JO*

Even though it is recognized that materials vary considerably in

regard to their ability to be fractured, the error In the burden

value is considered not to be appreciably great* Final adjustments

for determining a more exact value could b e made on the basis of

comparing a rock's density to the standard with little difficulty*

Approximating a Kg value for other than the standard explo­

sive in normal rock requires that the density and velocity of the

explosive used be determined and its RS value calculated, that is,

RE “ (S Ga ) V? • For example, for a blasting agent with a 0*9

°2
specific gravity and a reaction velocity of 10,000 feet per second,
the RE would be only 90 x 10^, or (0*9) (10*)2* The Kg ratio for the

particular explosive is determined by multiplying the cube root of

tho ratio of the explosive's RS to that of the standard (i*e*^

173 x 10^) b y the standard ratio of JO* Tho manipulation would

b o as follows t
 42

h m \ (“ 2 / “ i )1/3 »

or « 30 ( 90 x 10 6 / 173 x 106 )X' 3 ■ 29 .

The true dimension as a function of the charge diameter could then

be approximated by use of Equation 14,

Assuming that a Kg ratio of 30 represents conditions for the

standard explosive and average rock, one can approximate tho true

burden for any explosive in any rock density. If the density (d )

r
for the average rock is 0,084 tons/cu, ft, (S, G, m 2,7)* then it

follows that I

From Equation 14* the true burden then becomes

or B*

Providing that the true burden has been determined for any explo­

sive charge* one can approximate the necessary adjusted true burden

for any other explosive on the relative energy basis. Figure 12

illustrates the adjusted burden values for various relative energy

ratios that may exist when blasting in the same rock with difforent

explosives.
 43

Figure 12. Relationship Between Relative Energy

Ratio and Adjusted Burden (48).
 2* Other Charge Placement Factors*

Because charge placement strongly Influences stress distribu­

tion within a rock ledge, the charge length, stemming, sub-drilling,

and spacing between adjacent blast holes in multiple charge blasts

must all be considered, in addition to the true burden value for

each single charge*

(a) Stemming Limitations* Pearse showed that for solid

rock, the minimum stemming dimension, T, should be approximately

equal to that of the burden (46)* However, studies in other than

solid rock Indicate that the T value may be from 0*5 to 1*0 times

the B* dimension* For approximation, Ash and Pearse (**7) suggested

use of a &£ factor, or stemming ratio, as follows t

Kj * T / B* « 0*7 > 1*0 . (16)

(b) Minimum Required Sub-drilling* The sub-drilling,

J, is dependent on the existence of a floor-level shear plane. For

vertical holes in solid rook, J can bo approximated to bo not less

than 0*3 times tho burden (41), or

« J / B* - 0.3 (17)

(o) Hole Depth* From the above expressions, it oaa

be assumed that the minimum hole depth, H*, should not b e less

than the son of the bench height, L, and the sub-drilling, J, or

 45

H® * L ♦ 0*3 B* , ft.

For stress balance in the vertical and horisontal free faces,

the minimum bonch height, L* s should not be less than the 3® value.
If this condition does not exist, cratering in tho horisontal face

would occur, with possible toe formation occurring in the bench at

floor level. Studies by Pearse (48) of many field blasts show that

tho ledge height ratio, L / B®, should always be equal to or great­

er than 1, as shown in Figure 13. Therefore, the minimum hole

dopth would be

H® ■ B® ♦ 0.3 B # - 1.3 B® , ft. (18)

The exact value for the minimum required hole depth had been

shown b y Ash and Pearse (4?) to b e dependent on the relationship

between the reaction velocity of the explosive and that of energy

propagation in the rode blasted, or the Ky ratio. In practice, the

value for the Ky ratio varies between 0.8 and 1.5* Extremes could

occur b u t are unusual* For most materials, the Ky ratio could be

considered as 1 .0, which suggests that energy wave front pr opera­

tion in the rode would be expected to move in a plane oriented at

45 degrees with the charge column. The significance of this effect

is that once the bench height exceeds the burden, stressing and

displacement will be unbalanced and movement of the fragmented rock

will bo directly influenced by the primer location. In this instance,

 46

Figure 13* Field Bata for Relationship of Ledge

Height Ratio w i t h Velocity Ratio (48)•

 47

top priming would give high piles of broken material, while floor

level priming would tend to scatter or lower broken-rock piles*

Thus, collar priming would be desirable if bench heights are lower

than optimum, while bottcm-of-hole initiation would servo best for

benches higher than optimum* The influence of the ratio on the

minimum hole depth required for balanced stressing with bottom-of-

hole priming is illustrated by Figure 14 (41)*

(d) Rules For Charge Spaoing* There are differences

in opinions in regard to the most suitable spacing distance, S,

to use between adjacent charges* Studies show that the preferred

spacing is a function of the relationship of the burden to the

initiating timing-interval employed between adjacent charges, with

modifications to account for the structural features of the mate -

rial being blasted (49, 50, 51* 52, 53)* The relationship, termed

the spacing ratio, oan be expressed as follows: Kg = S / B* •

To resolve the problem of selecting the most suitable Kg, the

system of equivalent drill patterns as discribed by Ash (4l) can

be utilised* For simplicity, square drill patterns are considered

rather than staggered arrangements for this investigation, with

holes I n the seme row Initiated in a sequence timing-arrangement,

as shown in Figure 15* In this case, the apparent burden and spac­

ing distances should b e nearly equal, so that the true burden, B* ,

would b e equal to ^ 2 / 2 times the apparent burden* The apparent

burden and spacing would thereby be greater than the true burden, or

(19)
 48

Minimum Hole Depth

Figure 14, Minimum Required Hole Depth for Bottom

Priming to Give Balanced Stressing (41)•

Figure 15. Square Drill Pattern Design, Plan View,

4>
vo
 50

B. EFFECTS OF BENCH HEIGHT ON BLAST TONNAGE YIELD.

1. Basic Assumptions.

The configuration of a blast area and tho relative positions

of free faces in respect to one another directly influence tho ton—

nag® yield obtained from a blast. However, if tho blast pattern is

assumed to be square and a corner exists with two adjacent vertical

faces completely open, the number of blasthole rows will have no

effect on the yield (41). Fbr this investigation and for simplifi­

cation, such a configuration will be assumed. Therefore, the overall

powder factor yield in tons/lb. of explosive for an entire blast

will not differ from that for a single blasthole.

For estimating purposes, it can be shown that the rock density

in tons/ cu. ft. for any rock could be expressed as follows (41):

Cy ■ 0.03125 (S G p ) , tons , (2 0 )

while tho loading density for any oxplosive in lb./ft. of blasthole

can be determined from the following expression (41):

dU « 0.34 D? ( S G )
9 0 , lb./ft. (21 )

If square patterns are used, it was shown earlier that the apparent

burden and spacing for a blasthole would be equal. Thus, the tonnage

yield, W, would be simply

 51

W « 0.03125 B 2 L (S Gy ) , tons •

From Equations 14 and 19* however, tho above expression becomes

W « 0.000434 k | D 2 L (S G r ) , tons .
9
(22)

If the charge length for a blasthole, PC, is the difference

between the hole depth and the stemming used, then PC * H .. T

(Figure 11). But from Equations 16 and 17, the PC value could be

expressed in terms of the true burden as follows t

PC ■ H - T « L - 0.4 B».

FTom Equation 14, the relationship can be also given in terms of

the Kg, and D# used, or PC » L - 0.033 * B D e* However, the explosive

charge in lb., E, is the product of the explosive's loading density

and the charge length, or I * d f (PC). Using the above expression

for the PC and Equation 21, the total blasthole oharge can be then

determined from the followings

S - 0.34 D* (S G #)(L - 0.033 % *>e ) • lb. (23)

Therefore, the powder factor, or tonnage yield per 3b. of explosive

oharge, would bo as follows!

 52

* 0.00128 Kg L (S Gr /S G e )/(L - 0 . 0 3 3 % %)#tons/lb. (24)

Using a % value of 30 for quick estimating, which assumes a rock

and an explosive both of which have average specific gravities, or

2,7 and 1 .2, respectively, the powdor factor could be approximated

by use of the expression

Pf - 2.59 L / (L - D0) , tons / lb.

2. The Optimum Powder Factor.

Figure 1§ illustrates the calculated tonnage yield per lb. of

explosive used for various % ratios and bench heights. It is inter-

•sting to note that when using Equation 24 there is a pronounced

increase in tonnage yield within tho lower bench heights regions,

with the trends being the greatest with increasing higher %

factors. The optimum powder factor, by definition where tonnage

yield is largest, occurs where the bench height equals the true

burden dimension (L ** B*). If the burden should exceed the bench

height, cratering with upward throw, back break, and violence all

could be anticipated to occur. In addition, initiator and primer

costs would be drastically reduced as hole diameters increase,

indicating the desirability of using the largest holes possible,

consistent with proper fragmentation sizing.

Figure 16. Relationships of Tonnage Yield with Ledge Height.

ui
04
 5*

C. THE DEPENDENCY OF DRILLING RATES ON BENCH HEIGHT,

Since most blasting today utilizes the inexpensive blasting

agents, the cost for drilling constitutes the largest share of bank

preparation expense. For this reason, it would bo logical to select

drill equipment that provides blastholes which give the largest

attainable yield of blasted material. However, blasthole placement

must also ensure the necessary rock fragmentation and displacement

requirements to permit maximum power shovel production,

1, The Drilling Cycle,

The normal cycle in drilling consists of the times consumed b y

four distinct phases! (1 ) the time consumed for actual penetration

in the rock by the drill, (2) the time spent for adding extra drill

steels, (3) time required to remove the strings of steels aft or

hole completion, and (4) time for moving and setting up to drill

the next blast hole. For relatively short holes, the penetration

phase constitutes most of the oyole time, while moving and removing

drill steels normally require only a small fraction of the total.

However, as hole depths increase, the times required to add and

remove drill steels become progressively greater. This fact is shown

by Figure 17, which illustrates the percentages of total cycle spent

by each phase in drilling 3-1 /8-in, diameter blast holes of

increasing hole depths, in limestone and silica sandrock. The drill-

steel section length was 10 ft. Even though the data covered studies

pertinent to only one set of condition (57), the trend in percentages

of cycle time used for each phase would be representative for

Figure 17* Influence of Hole Depth on Drilling Time (57)*

VJl
ui
 56

most conditions*

2* Eolo Depth and Its Influence on Ponotration*

It would bo reasonable to conclude that the length of drill-

stool sections used is a significant controlling factor in regard to

the proportion of cycle time available for penetration* One could

expact, therefore, that the maximum footage achieved per unit of

time occurs when additional steels are- not required* Similarly,

drag- by couplings and steels within holes would increase as depths

become greater, and the removal of cuttings would become more

difficult with dopth* Figure 18 shows the effects, with a decrease

in penetration rates occuring for increasing hole depths in a

relatively soft and abrasive material* The trend would be also

indicative for most other equipment when drilling the same material,

with the relationship between hole diameter and that for the steel

and couplings appearing to be the controlling factor* For this

reason, penetration rates for the large diameter blastholes would be

expected to bo influenced less by the aforementioned effects*

Although penetration rates would normally decrease proportion­

ately with increasing hole diameters for any particular drill and

type of material, manufacturers design their equipment much more

powerful and rugged for drilling the larger diameter holes* The net

result is that penetration rates for large holes are only slightly

less than those with smaller diameters* For many of open-pit

excavations, the larger drills have not only achieved remarkably

Figure 18. Influence of Hole Depth on Penetration Rate (57h

U)
->3
 58

high footages, costs per unit yield (ton or cubic yard) have

decreased because of the greater ruggedness of the equipment and

the Increased drill pattern proportions (21, 5^* 55* 56)• It would

seen logical, then, that maximum drill footage per unit of time

could be accomplished best by using the largest possible hole

diameter, consistent with the established limits for the optimum

bench height®
 59

CHAPTER V

ESTIMATING BENCH DESIGN LIMITS FOR PRODUCTION.

A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.

In previous chapters a number of expressions were developed

that related the geometry of working benches in open-cut excavations.

For the study, solutions were restricted to excavating competent

materials ty means of power shovels, for the sake of simplicity in

application and to keep variables to a minimum. However, the rela­

tionships necessitated certain initial facts be obtained before

reasonable solutions could be made. The necessary pertinent data

that first had to be determined included the following*

(1) The materials characteristics* namely, the natural angle

of repose, angle of internal friction, the in-place

density, the unit cohesion, and the swell factor;

(2) The optimum, or most economically feasible, production

rate, for reasons of ease in calculation to be expressed

in units of tons/hr. per working location;

(3) The range of available shovel capacities;

(4) The truck width of the required haulage units;

(5) Footage rates for a specific range of drilling units;

and (6) Specifications of the explosives to be used.

To develop an analysis, it is assumed that a production rate

has been previously ascertained from an economic feasibility study,

which considered not only the total quantity of the material to be

 6o

moved but also the economic time limit available to amortize the

capital investment and to ensure complete extraction* In construc­

tion work, the quantity and total working time for completion would

be generally stipulated in the contract specifications* For mining,

a value normally is estimated that would take into account the total

potential ore reserves, market conditions, and items such as allowed

stripping ratios, etc* In both cases, however, the final estimate

for the average produotion rate should be reduced to a tons/hr.

basis for each anticipated working place* For relatively large

operations, at least two, but generally moire, locations must be

worked to level the inevitable production fluctuations that arise

throughout any normal work period*

For any excavation of some depth, the question usually arises

as to the size and number of specific benches to be worked* The exaot

geometric proportions would have a very strong influence on produo­

tion scheduling* It is necessary that the series of benches o on form

to the limiting angle of slope stability before blasting, or ^ , as

would be determined from the materials’ characteristics*

To illustrate the steps in determining bench design limits, a

typical massive ore deposit commonly worked by open-cut mining

methods could be considered* Specifications of the deposit follow?

(a) Ultimate size* 4000 ft* along the strike, 1500 ft, wide,

and 800 ft* deep;

(b) Rook type* Slightly fractured quartz porphyry, oopper

ore;
 61

(o) Materials characteristicst SGy = 2.7» or

dr *= 0*084 tons/cu. ft., c = 720 psf, (p *» 3^ deg.,

^ * 40 deg., and ** 0.67;

(d) Required production: 1C00 tons/hr./working place, for

two or more separate locations;

(e) Shovel capacities desired: 3 to 10 cu. yd.;

(f) Truck widths: 15 ft. maximum;

(g) Drills preferred: 6 to 15 in. diameter, with $0 ft/hr.

average footage;

(h) Explosive desired: ANJF0, 9^/6, SGQ ** 0.9* and

V * 12,000 fps.
©

B. ESTIMATING PROCEDURE.

lo Calculating the Maximum Allowable ji Value.

From the given materials data, a table containing the re spec -

live limiting slope angles for various depths first should be deter­

mined from Equation 1, or

Q dy / 4 o (cos J ),

as follows:

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

Q (ft.) f 38 44 63 120 268 880 * *

( * exceeds 1000 ft.)

 62

Thus, the limiting slope angle, ja , for all benches to full exca­

vation depth and the angle whose tangent equals the ratio of each

specific bench height to minimum operating bench width, or L/W ,

m
must not any time exceed tangent of 40 deg. However, it should be

noted that the bench faces themselves could vary from vertical to

60 deg. depending on each specific working bench height, L*

2. Selection of the Optimum Bench Height, LQ .

Since the production rate, Pg, had been established, the

particular Lc value that would give optimum shovel loading could be

approximated directly by use of Equation 11.

If L0 « \Ps I (1500 Sf dy) ♦ 18 ,

then, Lo " 1000 / 1500 (0.67)( 0 . 0 8 4 4 - 18,

or Lq = 30 ft.

The value calculated, however, does not mean that the bench height

need be restricted to only that specific height, but in practice it

could approach 45 ft., which would be the approximate maximum cut­

ting height for a shovel that achieves optimum production from a

30 ft. bench*
 63

3. Determination of Required Shovel Capacity, Cd *

To obtain the production desired, the power shovol bucket

capacity can be estimated by Equation 8 as follows*

If cd ■ <L0 - 18) / 1.8 ,

then, (30 - 18) / 1.8 ,

cd =
o

or 6-1/2 to 7 ou. yd.

ll

The calculated C , value can be checked by means of Equation 9»

a
which gives

cd * Ps / (2700 Sf c^) ,

crd * 1000 / (2700) (0,67)(0.084) ,

4. Approximating the Minimum Bench Length, 1^.

On the assumption a frontal loading approach is desired, where­

by trucks would be loaded on both sides of the shovel, the value

specifies the minimum length of the bench that must be blasted to

ensure unrestricted loading at maximum rates. Equation 13 can be

utilised for estimating its value.

 64

If \ m <ps / 2700 sf dr K 8 *6 sf^3 “ 0*9 cot V )

♦ 2 s f (23 + 2 W t ) - 9 cot V ,

than , 1000 / (2700)(0.67)(0*084); 8.6 (0*88) - 1.08

♦ 2 (0.88) 23 ♦ 2(15)| - 9 (1.2) .

Simplifying» - (1000 / 1 5 0 ( 7 . 6 - 1.1) ♦ 1.8 (53) - 1.1 t

or 1^ * 130 ft.

5. Depth of Bench Required for Production, y.

With the minimum bench operating width and optimum bench height

selected, the depth of bench requiring blasting, y, can be easily

determined for the specific production rate. This is done simplest by

equating the given P to the bench tonnage as determined by the rock

s
density and olaoulated bench geometry, or jr L q dy. Thus,

1000 - y (130)(30)(0.084) ,

or y * 30.5 ft.

The significance of the y dimension is that if the operating bench

length were kept constant at the minimum calculated value, y would

 65

represent the depth of the bench needed to provide one hour*s

production. Since the optimum bench height, LQ , is relatively

fired for any specific shovel capacity, one can vary 1^ or y in

any even multiples of their minimum values to suit the daily produc­

tion requirements. The specific ratio of 1 to y would be about

4.3 to 1,

6. Minimum Bench Operating Width Limitations, Wm *

Since the y dimension has been ascertained, the Wm value can be

estimated by using Equation 12, or

/ (3000 Sf (cot l f + 2 a ) + 7.78 - 2

♦ 9 S-1/3 (cot ♦ 2 a) ♦ 38 18 a + 5 W t ,
f

Because both y and LQ are known, the constant “a* would be approxi­

mately 1, l,e», y * a Lc.

Thus, W. j^OOO / ( 3 0 0 0 ) ( 0 . 6 7 X 0 . 0 8 4 ^ ( 1 / 0.88)(1.2 + 2)

♦ 7.78 - 2J ♦ (9 / 0.88)(1.2 ♦ 2) ♦ 38 - 18 ♦ 75.

Simplifying, ^ - (5.95X9.4) ♦ 32.8 *► 95 ,

or * 184 ft.
 66

From Figure 6 it will be seen that the Wffl value allows for

maximum truck mobility and loading of trucks to the shovel rear*

Since loading normally would be done on the sides of the shovel, as

was considered in determining the 1 dimension, the clearance

distance at the shovel*6 rear need be equal to only the shovel*s

clean-up radius, G, not R • The reduction can be determined from

8

Figure 10* or Equation 10, which indicates a difference of 25 ft*

Thus, normally need be only 160 ft* In addition, if only one­

way truck passage is desired at the shovel rear, the distance

can be reduced another 15 ft*, or to 145 ft*

It may be deduced from a consideration of the reduced LQ / W m

ratio that the slope stability would be still well within safe

limits* The reduced slope would be only 0*21 (30 / 145)» whioh is

much below the critical tan of 0.84, or previously determined

40 deg* (Section l)o

7* Selection of Drilling Equipment and Blasting System,

For determining a practical range of drill hole sizes and blas­

ting patterns that will satisfy production requirements, use of Equa­

tion 15 provides a convenient estimate of the true burden necessary

for any blasthole diameter*

If B* - (0.21 De / dy)

then for any given rook and explosives characteristics

 67

The solution to tha above expression simplifies to

B* = 2 .3 IT0 = 2 .3 Dg ,

if free flowing explosives are assumed to be used and = Lu. This

would correspond to a Kg ratio of 27.6.

Because the limits for normal bench blasting require th© L/B®

ratio bo not less than 1 or greater than 3*7 (41, 48), the rang© of

hole diameters adaptable to the given conditions would be between

0.44 L and 0.12 L. If L equals LQ » or 30 ft., then hole diameters

between 13 and 3-1/2 in. conceivably could be used.

The exact blast hole diameter selected would be a function of

both the ecenemies and drill footages attainable. The tonnage from

the larger hole would greatly exceed that made available by the

smaller 3-1/2 in. diameter. This can bo shown by Equation 22.

If D# = % , W “ 0.000434
2 2
27®6 were used, the tonnage per hole would be 0.000434(27*6) Eg (81),

or W ■ 26.6 Dg tons. Substituting the maximum and minimum hole

sizes for Dg , W * 4500 for the 13-in. and W * 326 tons for the
3-1/2 in. hole. Since both drilling machines were assumed to drill

50 ft./hr., it can be deduced that almost 6 hr. of shovel produotion

 68

would be made available from a single hour of 13-in* drill opera­

tion* For a single hour's drilling by the 3-1/2 in, machine, however,

only l/2 hr. of shovel production would be provided.

As was discussed in the previous Chapter, the maximum tonnage

yield per pound of explosive would be achieved from the largest

possible hole diameter, i,e,, 13-in, On the other hand, the possibil­

ity of large boulders, which always reduce shovel loading rates,

would be the greatest for tho' very large holes because of the extended

burdens and spacings* The effects, of course, are largely dependent

on the material's characteristics* The excess drilling capacity of a

13-in, drill further suggests that it might be uneconomical to use,

in the event it is frequently idle, or must be moved often between

many different locations.

The exact choice of the drill size, obviously, will depend on

production scheduling. However, for the sake of simplicity it could

be assumed that one drill should be assigned to each power shovel in

operation, but produce a 25 percent tonnage exoess to cover possible

drill breakdowns. For this case, a total of 1250 tons must be

provided per drill hour of operation. The advantage of the one drill-

per-shovel combination is that it provides a closely coordinated

team, which in turn simplifies equipment scheduling for management.

If 50 ft,/hr, is assumed to be the average drill footage attained and

an estimated 35 ft* would be required per hole, including 5 ft, for

sub-drilling, each hole would be drilled in 0,7 hour. Thus, 875 tons,
should be provided by each blast hole. The diameter could be estimated
 69

2
from the expression W = 26.6 Dg , derived from Equation 22, where
2
8 75 “ 2 6 .6 Dg , t o g i v e Djj = 5»?5 i n c h e s .

The required apparent burden and spacing for each hole in the

assumed square pattern (Figure 15) could be approximated by means of

Equations 14 and 19 as follows, providing “ Dgi

If B - S * 1.4 B* and B* * Kg Dg / 12 ,

then F * S » 1*4 Kg Dg / 12 ,

Also, B « S * 1.4 (27.6)(5.75 / 12)

or B ■ S * 18.5 ft*

Ft*om Equation 24 the powder factor could be determined, or

Pf - 0.00128 4 L (SGr / SGe ) / (L - 0.033 Kg V .

Substituting,

0.00128 (27.6)2 (30)(2.7 / 0.9) /[p0 - 0.033(27*6)(5*75)j,

or 3.56 tons / lb.

 70

To provide sufficient working width for the shovel and trucks,

a total of seven holes in a single row along the bench face would be

needed, or 1 / S * 130 / 18 .5 , requiring a total of five hours of

m
drilling. Thus, the drill could koop well in advance of the shovel.

A number of possibilities are available that can bo approximated

quite easily to suit individual productj on schedules. Only five basic

relationships need be used, or Equations 14, 15, 19» 22, and 24.

However, it should be noted that as a rule, the largest diameter blast

hole should be used whenever possible, consistent with the rock

fragmentation and displacement required to sustain maximum shovel

loading rates. The bench height is the single most important design

parameter for economical and efficient drilling and blasting procedures.

8. Summary.

In review, estimates of the various design parameters for the

sample problem are as follows I

a. The Critical Stability Slope Angle, ^ I 40 deg., and

L / W = tan 40°.

b. The Optimum Bench Height, L q t 30 ft.

c. Required Shovel Capacity, C^l 6-1/2 to 7 ou. yd.

d. Minimum Operating Bench Length, 1^1 130 ft.

e. Minimum Depth of Bench Required for Blasting, y* 30.5 ft.

f. Minimum Operating Bench Width, V^l 184 ft.

 71

g* Drilling and Blasting Parameters*

(1) Optimum Hole Diameter, D^.1 5 - 3 in*

(2) Apparent Burden, B* 18*5 ft.

(3) Spaoing Between Hole.j, 5} 18*5 ft.

(4) Estimated Powder Factor, P^l 3*56 ton / lb.

 72

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECCMKENDATIONS

It had been determined by this investigation that material

properties* loading and drilling equipment char act eristics* explo*®

sives qualities* and required production rates could be correlated

for any open— out excavation using the benching method* The allow­

able limits for bench dimensions could be ascertained for optimum

production rates and stable operating conditions* Bench dimensions

strongly control the costs and methods utilized for materials load­

ing* drilling, and blasting* Since the study was confined to hand­

ling competent materials by means of power shovels, definite rela­

tionship® were found to exist between shovel capacities, drilling

rates, explosive grades, and material properties* Efrem the relation­

ships, the operating design parameters for benches were then obtain­

ed from ten basic expressions, as follows %

(1) For slope stability.

sin 83 Q' d / ^ o (cos

(2) For bench stability,

(3) For the optimum bench height for any production rate,
 73

L0 - [P, / (1500 8f d j j ♦ 18, ft.

(^) For the optimum bench height for any shovel capacity,

L0 * 1.8 Cd 4 18, ft.

(5) For the minimum operating bench width,

Wm » [ p 8 / (3000 S f d j | [ s j l/ 3 (o o t JT 4 2 a )

4 7.78 - 2 4 9 S"1^3 (cot Jf 4 2 a )

■ f 3 8 - 1 8 a 4 5 W t , ft.

(6) For the minimum operating bench length,

1 P g / (2 700 Sf d ^ r j (8 .6 0.9 cot Y )

m
4 2 S^3 (23 4 2 Wt ) - cot Y ft.

(7) F&r the tonnage yield per blasthole for any bench

height, explosive diameter and grade, and material's density,

W * 0.000^34 L SGr , tons.

(8) For the true burden to use for any blasthole, explosive

type, and material's density,

 74

B* * (0.21 D / d )(S G / 173 x lO6)1 ^3 , ft.

6 * ® ©

(9) For the maximum yield per blasthole,

Pf * 0.00128 K| L (S G'r / S G e )(L - 0.033 ^ ^ ) , tons / lb.

(10) For the optimum blasthole diameter, the production rata

and tonnage per hole can be equated as a function of the hourly drill

footage rate.

Results frctn the studies substantiated present trends in opon-

cut excavation to utilize the largest possible shovel capacities and

blasthole diameters. Furthermore, it was found that the bench height

provided the key dimension upon which all other operating paramaters

most likely could be based. It was noted, however, that the larger

the shovel capacity, the larger could be the permissible blasthole

diameter. But the optimum bench height did not increase in like pro­

portion, thereby permitting powder factors consistently to improve.

Since the assumed values were approximate, more exact data

should be developed to confirm results obtained from this investiga­

tion. Additional correlations should be established for other types

of equipment and operating conditions. It is also recommended that

computer programs be developed which would provide accurate economic

evaluations as well as supplement operations-rosearch techniques

concerned with excavation problems*

 APPENDIX I

TABLE OF SYMBOLS.

c< Arbitary slop® angle passing through bench too, dog*

Optimum slope angle for stability, deg.

V
Natural angle of repose, deg.

Angle of internal friction, deg.

4
Design angle of internal friction, deg.
-d
r Actual bench or bank slope angle, deg.

Stress, psi.
<5
tan Coefficient of internal friction.

a A constant factor, equal to y / L.

B Apparent burden, ft.

B* True burden, ft.

B* * Adjusted true burden, ft.

b A constant factor, equal to 1 / L.

c Unit cohesion, psi.

C Primary explosive charge, excluding the primer, lb.

Bucket oapacity of shovel, cu. yd. of broken material.

Diameter of explosive, in.

Explosive loading density, lb. / ft. of hole.

Density of rock, ton / cu. ft.

E Total blast hole charge, lb.

G Radius of clean-up for shovel, ft.

ff . Length of blasthole, ft.

'Minimum length of blasthole, ft.

 76

J - Subdrilling» ft*

Kg - Burden ratio*

Kj ~ Sub-drilling ratio.

Kg - Spacing ratio,

Ko - Stemming ratio.

K^. - Velocity ratio.

L - Bench height, ft.

L* - Bench height after blasting, ft.

L0 - Optimum bench height, ft.

1 - Bench length, ft.

1* - Bench length after blasting, ft.

M - Length of curved sliding surface, ft.

N - Normal weight component, lb.

&
N «• Normal resistance to sliding component, lb.
r
n - Number of slices.

P — Primer explosive charge, lb.

PC - Charge length of explosives column, ft.

P^ — Powder factor of explosives, ton / lb.

P - Production, cu. yd. / hr., or ton / hr.

s
Q - Total height or depth of excavation, ft.

R — Maximum shovel dumping radius, ft.

8
S - Spacing between blastholes, ft.

SG - Specific gravity of explosive.

SGp - Specific gravity of rook.

- Swell factor.
 77

sa - Applied shearing force, lb.

S — Shearing resistance of rock, lb.

r
T — Steaming length, ft.

u — Additional distance along bench length required for swell, ft.

V - Reaction velocity of explosive, fps.

Vr — Energy propogation velocity of rock, fps.

W — Weight of rock for any specified volume, tons.

W. — Bench width after blasting, ft.

b
- Minimum operating bench width, ft.

- Truck width, ft.

y - Original bench depth, ft.

y* - Bench depth after blasting, ft.

z - Additional distance along bench width required for swell, ft.

 78

APPENDIX II

SLOPS ANALYSIS BT THE SWEDISH METHOD OF SLICES .

In Applying this method, it is necessary to select arbitarily

a trial curved surface for which the total shearing strength is

determined, in order to establish the stability factor of safety*

Additional curved surfaces are selected and analysed, until the

designer is satisfied that he has established the location of the

weakest surface and has determined the degree of stability of the

existing slope.

The slope of the curved failure surface probably approaches

that of a circle in homogeneous rock, but may deviate from a circu­

lar arc in stratified and other non-homoganeous rook. The method

is applicable to any shape of curved surface.

A cross-section of the slope to be analyzed is drawn to scale,

as shown in Figure 19. The rock above the assumed curve is divided

into vertical slices of equal width of any convenient size. The

weight of each slice is computed by multiplying the volume of the

slice by the unit weight of the rock. Usually, the thickness of the

cross-section is taken as unity. The weight of a slice is considered

as a vertical force that intersects the base of the slice at its

center. The weight, in turn, is resolved into two components,

and N^, which are parallel and normal, respectively, to the base.

is the applied shearing force that tends to move the slice down­

hill. The algebraic sum of all values gives the resultant shear­

ing force acting along the trial curved surface.

 79

Resistance to sliding along the curved surface, or any poten­

tial surface of shear in homogeneous rock masses, is expressed by

Coulomb** equation as follows (16)S

S * o 4-3" tan Q «

In the Swedish method of slices, total resistance to sliding

would be the sum of the total cohesion (unit cohesion times the

total length of the curved surface), the product of the sum of tha

normal force components, and the coefficient of friction of the

rook* Thus, for stability

n n

Z_sA » 2 - s »
1 * 1 r
n

where cM tan

To determine the stability factor of safety, the following

expression can be used!

n n n n

r. ■ (cM 4* X n tan 6 )/ ^ " S *

• i i * i r i* *
Figure 19* Swedish Graphical Method of Slices to Determine Slope Stability (16)*

co
o
 81

APPENDIX III

THE OPTIMUM SLOPE APPROXIMATION EQUATION*

(After Spangler)

For & given material for which the unit weights cohesion*

o * and the angle of friction* & , are known* it is possible to

express the slope angle* (below which the bank is likely to

slide)* in terms of the depth of the excavation, Q, the latter

which Spangler had determined on principles of soil mechanics (18)«

However* for design of slop® it is more advantageous to solve for

* The relationships can be derived by reference to Figure 4

as follows t

* - h. * h 4 h
n

or (i)

In Figure h, AB represents a slope of height* Q* in a homo­

geneous mass of rook*

Let °( be an angle of arbitary value, which defines a plane

AC passing through the toe of the slope* The shearing force, S^*

on this plane depends on the weight of the rock above* and the

angle 9 where shear will occur* Thus*

S - W sin ^ . (ii)
a
 82

The shearing resistance, Syf on plane A C is equal to tha

shearing force at stresses less than failure. It consists of some

value of cohesion plus a frictional force. Thus,

Sr * elf + W cos o L tan » (ill)

For S,

W sin OC * c IT ♦ W cos C< tan • (iv)

In ABC, the weight would be as follows:

W » 0.5 dy QH" cosec ^ sin ( ^ - °C) (y)

Substituting the value of W in Equation (iv),

0.5 d^ QH cosec jp sin ( ^ - 04 ) sin

elf <■ 0.5 dy Off oosec sin ( J3 - ° C ) cos °( tan (j)

Regrouping and solving for o, Spangler (18) obtained

0.5 dy Q oosec sin ( |3 ) sin ( o( . (j) ) / °°s ^.^(Vi)

 83

Taking the first derivative of c with respect to ©C and

equating it to obtain the critical value of i

dc/de< * (0«5d^ Q cosec p / c o s ^ ) sin(o(-^) o o s ^ p - ' O

- (°»5<3Ji Q oosec p / c o s ) sin(c<-^) cos(p-c() •

For the minimum value of o*%, , where dc/d<*. * 0,

0 «* sin ( p ) cos ( «K - ^ ) - sin («< - ^ ) oos ( p - oC ) •

Therefore, 0 *» sin ( p -©(, -'K + ^ ) B sin ( p + ( ^ - 2 ° 0 *

FOr values of o£ below 90°, 0 s* p + ( j ) — 2 « K , o r

- 0*5 ( p + § ) • (vii)

Substituting the value of ©<, , obtained from Equation (vii), in

Equation (vi),

or o = 0 * 5 ^ Q coseo

Simplifying,

a - d^, a (viii)
 84

Therefor®,

(ix)

which gives,

/ (jL - cos ( | b - ^

If a bank failure occurs, it will develop along a surface whore

the shearing stress is greater than the shearing strength. The

above expression is applicable to failures of surfaces that are due

to shear only*
 85

APPENDIX IV

LIST OF EQUATIONS .
 86

21. * 0.34 SGe

d*
22. W - 0.000434 k | D* L SGr
CM
C'V

5 - 0.34 D* (SGe)(L - 0.033 D# )

.

24. » 0.00128 k | L (SGr / SG#)(L - 0.033 Kg »#)

Pf
 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. NICHOLS, H. L., Jr. (1955). Moving the Barth. North Castle

Books, Greenwich, Connecticut.

2. CARSON, A. B. (196l). General Excavation Methods, F. W. Dodge,

New York, February.

3. SAINSBUHY, G. M. (i960). Methods for Calculating the Minimum

Amortization tonnage and Maximum Present Value for

an Ore Body. Thesis, Missouri School of Mines and

Metallurgy.

4. GXLLBTE, H. P. (1916, Revised 1918). Handbook of Rock Excava­

tion Methods and Cost. McGraw Hill Pub. Co., N. Y.

5. HENDERSON, B. R. (1963). How to Boost Open-Pit Productivity.

Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 164, No* 11,

November.

6. ---------- (1954). Open-Pit Mining. Guide Book, Engineering

and Mining Journal, Vol. 162, No. 6, July.

7. COATES, D. F. (1962). How to Minimize Open-Pit Wall Failures.

Mining World Magazine, April.

8. JENNINGS, J. E. and BLACK, R. A. L. (1963). Factors Affecting

the Angle of Slope in Open-Cast Mines. Transactions

of Sooiety of Mining Engineers of A3ME, Vol. 206,

March.

9. GCMAH, A. H. (1963). Application of Photo-Elasticity to the

Stability of Slopes in Open-Pit Mines. Thesis,

Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy.

 88

10* WILSON* S. D. (1959)* Applications of the Principles of Soil

Mechanics to Open-Pit Mining* Quarterly of the

Colorado School of Mines* Vol* 5^* No. 3# July*

11. M ULLER * L* (1959)* The European Approach to Slope Stability

Problems* Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines*

Vol* 54* Mo* 3, July*

12* VINE* W* A* (1958)* Slope Stability in Open-Fit Mines* Mining

Congress Journal, Vbl. 103* No* 6* August*

13. WUERKER* R* 6 * (1959). The Shear Strength of Rocks. Mining

Engineering* Vol* 26l* No* 6* October*
14* COATES* D. F*, McRORIS* K* L., and STDBBINS* J* B* (1963).

Analysis of Pit Slides in Some Incompetent Rocks*

Society of Mining Engineers of A1ME* Pre-Print

NO. 63A 062, July*

15. KRYLINE* D* P* (1941). Soil Mechanicst Its Principles and Its

Application* Sixth Edition* MoGraw Hill Book Co** Inc**

New York*

16* TAYLOR* D* W. (1958)* Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics* Third

Edition* John Wiley and Sons* New York*

17. TERZAGHI, K* and FECK, R* B* (1958). Soil Mechanics in Engi­

neering Practice* Second Edition* John Wiley and

Sons* New York*

18. SPANGLER* M* G* (1959)* Soil Engineering* Second Edition* Inter­

national Text Book Co** Scranton* Pennsylvania.

 S9

19, TROLLOPE, D. H. (1960)* The Mechanics of Rocks Slopes#

Society of Mining Engineers of AIMS, Pre-Print

No. 60A 037, February#

20# FELLENICS, W# (1939)* Erdstaticho Borachnungon nit roiburg

Und Kohasion and Adhasion, und Untor Annachmo

Kreiszylind Rischer Gleitflachen, Revised Edition,

Berlin? Ernst#

21# ARG'ALL, G. R#, Jr# (1962)# Asarco’s Mission Copper# Mining

World Magazine, Vol# 208, No# 19, January#

22. THUKMOUND, R. E ., OLK, J . F . , KCMADXNA, G# A ., JOURNSAX, J . A#,

Spaulding, E# D#, and Esrlund, R. W# (1958)* Pima?

A Three-Part Story, Mining Engineering, Vol# 201,

NO# 16, April#

23# HUTTL, J. E# (1959)* Marcquesado: Spain’s Largest Iron Ore

Producer# Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol# 20,

No# 12, December#

2h0 J3ELL0M, D# P# and NUGENT, L# (1963)# Iron Mining, Healthy Utah

Industry, Mining Engineering, Vol# 206, No. 26,

November#

23# OBERT, L # , DUVALL, C« R# and MERRILL, R# H# (i960)# Design of

Underground Openings in Competent Rocks, USEM,

Bulletin 587.

26# MAC IVERj, B# N# (1961). Eow tho Soil Engineer Can Help the

Mill Man in Construction of Tailing Dam. Engineering

and Mining Journal, Vol# 201, No# 8, May#

 90

27. ———— (i960)* Basic Estimating• Sales Division, Inter­

national Harvoster Equipment Company*
28* DREVDAHL, E* R. (1960)* Estimation of Power Shovel and Drag­

line Output for System Analysis* Symposium of

Surface Mining Practices, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson,

Arizona, October*

29* --------- (1955)o Power Cranes, Shovel, Dragline Attachment,

Traction and Operations# Power Crane and Shovel

Association, Technical Bulletin No* 4*

30* — — ——— (1958)* Coal Age, Guide Book* Coal Age, Mid-July*

31. DREVDAHL, E. R* (1961)* Profitable Use of Excavation

Equipment* Desert Laboratories, Inc*, Tucson, Arizona*

32* — — — (1955)* Proper Sizing of Excavators and Hauling

Equipment* Power Crane and Shovel Association,

Technical Bulletin No* 3*

33. — — —— (1958)* Strip Mining 1 Design and Operating Princi­

ples* Coal Age Special Publication*

34* LIVIN3STDN, C. W* (i960)* Explosives Research Applied to

Mine and Quarry Blasting* Mining Engineering,

Vol* 203, No* 21, January*

35* LAN3FQRS, U* (1955)* Principles of Tunnel Blasting* Water

Power, VOl* 100, No* 3, London*

36* ASH, R. L. (1961). Drill Pattern and Initiation-Timing

Relationships for Multiple-Hole Blasting. Quarterly

of the Colorado School of Mines, Vol. 56, No. 1,

January*
 91

37. KOCHANQSKY, B. J. (I96I). Theory and Practice of Inclined

Drilling for Surface Mining. Quarterly of the

Colorado School of Mines, Vol0 56* No. 1, January.

38. SPAETH, G. L. (i960). Formula for Proper Blast-Hole Spacing.

Engineering News Record, Vol. 218, No. 3* April.

39. JOHNSON, G. W. and VIOLET, G. E. (1959)* Phenomenology of

Nuclear Explosives. Technical Series Bulletin, No. 97*

Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy.

40. NQRDTKE, M. D. (1964). Cratering Experience with Chemical and

Nuclear Explosives. Third Plowshare Symposium on

Engineering with Nuclear Explosives, Davis,

California.

41. ASH, R. L. (1963). The Mechanics of Rock Breakage. Pit and

Quarry, Vol* 56, Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, August,

September, October, and November.

42® Q UAN, C* K. (1964). The Characteristics of Radial Strain

Propagation Induced by Explosive Impact in Jefferson

City Dolomite. Thesis, Missouri School of Mines

and Metallurgy.

43. COOK, M. A. (1959). The Science of High Explosives. American

Chemical Society Mono. Series No. 139* Reinhold

Publishing Corporation, New York.

44. CLARK, G. B . (1959). Mathematics of Explosives Calculations.

Technical Series Bulletin, No. 97* Missouri School

of Mines and Metallurgy.

 92

45. MILOSEVIC* M. I* (1962)* Inclined Drilling Proves Best*

Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 163* No. 31*

March.

46. PEARSE, T. E. (1955). Brock Elasting. Mine and Quarry

Engineering, London, January.

47. ASH, R. L. and PEARSE, T. E. (1962). Velocity Hole Depth

Related to Blasting Results. Mining Engineering,

Vol. 203, No* 21, September.

48. PEARSE, T. E. (1962). The Influence of Bench Geometry on

Blasting Effects for Vertical Cylindrical Charges.

Thesis, Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy.

49. BAUER, ALAN (1961). Application of the Livingston Theory.

Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, Vol. 56,

No. 1, January.

50. FRAENKEL, K. H. (1952)* Factors Influencing Blasting Results.

Manuel of Rock Blasting, 6t 02, Atlas Copco and

Sandwik Steel Works, Stockholm.

51. GATES, M. (1964). Blasting Design Criteria. Civil Engine©ring,

Vol. 201, No. 16, January.

52. ANDERSON, 0* (1952)* Blast Hole Burden Design. Proceedings,

Australian Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,

NO. 166-167* Melbourne.

53. WESTWATER, R. (1957)* Heading Blasting. Mine and Quarry

Engineering, London, July,

 93

5^* PIPER, W. G , (196^), Large Diameter Drill Holes in Overburden

Blasting, Excavation Engineer, Vol, 53* No, 3» March,

55, The Open-Pit l Low Cost and High Production,

Engineering and Mining Journal, The Mining Guide Book,

Vol, 62, No, 6, June,

56, BONNER, S, 0, (1959)* Berkeley Piti Mining Plan and Operations,

Mining Engineering, Vol, 11, No, 3, March,

57, ASH, R®. L® (1964)® Personal Cormunioations,

 <&

VITA

Rajni K. Gandhi was born on March 15, 1931 at Palanpur,

India. Ho received his primary and secondary education at Bombay,

India. In 1947 , to was admitted to the St. Xavier’s College,

Bombay, and received the degree of Bachelor of Science in Geology

in 1951. In 1952, he resumed studies at the Camborne School of

Minos, Camborne, England, ar,d received an Associateship in Mining

Engineering in 1955.

In 1963, he enrolled in the Graduate School of the University

of Missouri, School of Mines and Metallurgy, Rolla,

His practical experience included summer employment with the

National Coal Board, England, and the Boliden Gruvaktiebolag,

Laisvall, Sweden. From 1955 until 19 63, he hold responsible posi­

tions at the mines of Shivrajpur Syndicate Limited, Bombay, and

Bird and Company, Calcutta, India,