The Influence of Explosive and Rock Mass Properties on Blast Damage in a Single-Hole Blasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rock blasting for mining production, stress waves play a major role in rock fracturing along with explosion gases. Better energy distribution improves fragmentation and safety, lowers production costs, increases productivity, and controls ore losses and dilution. Blast outcomes vary significantly with the choice of the explosive and the properties of the rock mass encountered. This study analyzes the effects of rock mass and explosives properties on the blast outcomes through numerical simulation using data from the case study and later validates the simulation results from the field blast fragmentation. The outcomes suggest that, for a given set of rock properties, the choice of explosive has a major influence on the resulting fragmentation. Strong explosives favor large fracture extents in hard rocks, while less strong explosives offer a better distribution of explosive energy and fractures. The presence of rock structures such as rock con-tacts and joints influences the propagation of stress waves and fractures depending on the structures' material properties, intensity and orientations, and the direction and strength of the stress wave. To achieve effective fragmentation, the blast design should mitigate the effect of variability in the rock mass by ensuring adequate energy distribution within the limits of geo-metrical design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".