Underground Round Charge & Powder Factor

How much explosive a development round takes, and whether the powder factor that falls out of it is sane for a heading that size.
Underground development headings only — a face with one free face, broken to a cut. It is not surface bench blasting, where the burden breaks to an open face and the arithmetic is different. It is not a blast design: no delay timing, no initiation sequence, no vibration or airblast prediction, and no perimeter-control design. Blasting is licensed work.

A charged development face underground, blastholes loaded, dust in the air

Step 1 — The heading and the round

The face area is what the powder factor is judged against.

Step 2 — The explosive

The loading factor is an equation, not a lookup.

Step 3 — The holes

Relief holes carry no explosive and are counted separately.

No smooth-blasting charge is suggested for you. The corpus publishes perimeter-control specifications only for surface presplitting and cushion blasting, at borehole diameters of 2 to 6.5 in. Those are not underground perimeter holes, and carrying them across would be putting a bench number on a heading. Set the share from your own standard, or leave it at a full column and read the answer as an upper bound.

Step 4 — Checks

Published limits. Outside them you are past what the sources cover.

QuantityPublishedYours

The powder factor band and the V-cut width rule are both from SME Mining Engineering Handbook p. 452. The loading factor is Equation 11.2, SME Mining Reference Handbook 1st ed. p. 205, after IME 1997.

explosive per round
powder factor
advance per round
StepValueWhere it comes from

Where the powder goes

Why small headings burn more powder

Why the powder factor is not a constant

SME Mining Engineering Handbook p. 452, in full:

"Because the same sized burn cut is used for a small-diameter tunnel or a large R&P heading, the powder factor drops from around 6 kg/m³ for a very small heading to 1.2 kg/m³ for a large heading."

That sentence contains the whole idea. The cut is a fixed-size feature: it takes roughly the same holes and the same powder to open a void whether the heading around it is 6 m² or 30 m². In a small heading that fixed cost is spread over very little rock, so the powder factor is high. In a large one the same cut is a rounding error against the face holes.

So a powder factor is only high or low relative to the size of the heading it came from, and comparing two headings' powder factors without comparing their areas is close to meaningless. This page always reports the two together.

The Reference Handbook plots the same relationship as Figure 11.4, "Relationship of powder factor to heading area", with separate curves by rock type and hole diameter. That figure is a picture, not a table. It is not in the text layer and cannot be read off as data, so this page uses the two published endpoints and does not draw a curve between them. If you want the curve, read it off p. 285 of the printed book.

The loading factor equation

SME Mining Reference Handbook 1st ed. p. 205, Equation 11.2, after IME 1997:

LF = 0.3405 d² ρ

where LF is the loading factor in lb/ft, d the explosive column diameter in inches, and ρ the specific gravity of the explosive.

The book prints a 28-row table of this equation evaluated at 11 densities, and says in its own words that "values not contained in Table 11.3 can be calculated" from the equation. So this page computes it rather than carrying the table, which removes a whole class of transcription risk from the page you are reading.

The constant is derivable and worth checking, because a constant you can derive is one you do not have to trust: a cylinder of diameter d inches has area πd²/4 square inches, a foot of it is 12πd²/4 cubic inches, and water weighs 0.0361273 lb/in³. Multiply those and you get 0.34049, which is the printed 0.3405. Nothing was taken on faith.

What this tool does not know. It sizes the powder, not the blast. It does not design the cut, place a single hole, choose delays or an initiation sequence, or predict fragmentation, overbreak, vibration or airblast. It assumes every charged face hole carries the same column, which no real round does. It says nothing about how the round is loaded, primed or tied in, nothing about misfires, and nothing about re-entry: Underground Auxiliary Ventilation declines to compute post-blast clearance for the same reason, which is that the corpus says the published models "lack accuracy for some conditions and geometries" in a blind heading. Every published value here has been checked against the printed page.

Spending more time on spreadsheets than on the job?

We build the reporting and admin automation for mining contractors, so the numbers keep themselves.

Book a 20 min call