MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392986980 · doi:10.3390/mining4010011

The Influence of Explosive and Rock Mass Properties on Blast Damage in a Single-Hole Blasting

2024· article· en· W4392986980 on OpenAlexaff
Magreth Sungwa Dotto, Yashar Pourrahimian

Bibliographic record

VenueMining · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExplosive materialRock blastingRock mass classificationGeologyForensic engineeringMining engineeringSeismologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In rock blasting for mining production, stress waves play a major role in rock fracturing, along with explosive gases. Better energy distribution improves fragmentation and safety, lowers production costs, increases productivity, and controls ore losses and dilution. Blast outcomes vary significantly depending on the choice of the explosive and the properties of the rock mass encountered. This study analyzes the effects of rock mass and explosive properties on blast outcomes via numerical simulation using data from the case study, and later validates the simulation results from the field blast fragmentation. The findings suggest that, for a given set of rock properties, the choice of explosive has a major influence on the resulting fragmentation. Strong explosives (high VOD and detonation pressure) favor large fracture extents in hard rocks, while weaker explosives offer a better distribution of explosive energy and fractures. The presence of rock structures such as rock contacts and joints influences the propagation of stress waves and fractures depending on the structures’ material properties, the intensity and orientations, and the direction and strength of the stress wave. When the stress wave encounters a contact depending on its direction, it is enhanced when traveling from soft to hard and attenuates in the opposite direction. The ability of the stress wave to cause fracturing on the opposite side of the contact depends on the intensity of the transmitted wave and the strength of the rock. Transmitted wave intensity is a function of the strength of the incident wave and the impedance difference between the interface materials. The presence of joints in the rock mass affects the propagation of the stress wave, mainly depending on the infill material properties and the angle at which the stress wave approaches the joint. Less compressible, higher stiffness joints transmit more energy. More energy is also transmitted in the areas where the stress wave hits the joint perpendicularly. Joints parallel to the free face offer additional fracturing on the opposite side of the joint. Other parameters, such as the joint width, continuity, fracture frequency, and the distance from the charge, enhance the effects. To achieve effective fragmentation, the blast design should mitigate the effect of variability in the rock mass via explosive selection and pattern design to ensure adequate energy distribution within the limits of geometric 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiningSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207