If you have access to OneMine as part of a member benefit, log in through your member association website for a seamless user experience.
|INTRODUCTION The driving of drifts is a very important aspect of underground mining. It is not unusual for the percent¬age of rock broken during development in a mine using sublevel caving, for example, to be as much as 25% of the total. If one also considers the amount broken for transport, ventilation, and exploration drifts, one can easily understand that the planning and excavation of drifts play a major part in the total economics of the mine (Fig. 1). Increasing mechanization in mining demands larger tunnel areas for transport and mining equipment. With modern machines the hard work involved in using hand¬held pushers is gone, and a better environment is achieved. More rational methods could be used, but much of the experience the working man acquired by working close to the rock face (such as utilizing the natural weak planes in the rock when he placed the drill¬ing holes) has unfortunately been lost. By having sepa¬rate shifts for drilling, loading, and hauling, more atten¬tion has to be placed upon a well-designed drilling pattern. Some reduction in the number of holes required can be achieved with mechanized drilling because of the larger holes that can be produced. On the other hand, it is probably not possible to achieve the same precision as with pneumatic pushers, and it is difficult to utilize the larger holes because these cause more damage to the re¬maining rock. Recently, however, the precision has be¬come very good with the parallel booms and automatic devices for setting the lookout angle (Fig. 2). A larger arch of the drift roof requires a more carefully executed blasting procedure than before in order to prevent rock fall and to insure a sufficiently long stand-up time. In this chapter, empirical relationships that can be used to design an economic and optimal drift blasting design will be presented. The principles of the calcula¬tion method are based upon the earlier work of Langefors and Kihlström (1963) and Gustafsson (1973). COMPARISON OF EXPLOSIVES To provide for the use of various explosives it is necessary to have a basis of comparison. Several meth¬ods have been developed to characterize the strength of an explosive. Some examples are comparison of values given by (1) calculated explosion energies; (2) the ballistic mortar test; (3) the Trauzl lead block test; (4) the brisance test; (5) the weight strength concept; and (6) the underwater test. However, most of these meth¬ods should be used carefully when stating the breaking|