Mechanical rock breaking offers a non-explosive alternative for excavation in underground mining and confined environments, driven by safety, environmental, and efficiency imperatives (Caldwell, 2004).
These methods significantly reduce hazards like flyrock and toxic fumes, minimize noise and vibration, and enable continuous operations, which is crucial for productivity and earlier access to ore bodies (Wirtgen Group, n.d.).
This makes them ideal for sensitive areas near infrastructure or in weak ground conditions where blasting is problematic (RockZone Americas, n.d.).
Technologies include hydraulic hammers for impact breaking, rotary drum cutters (like roadheaders) for precise cutting, and non-explosive chemical (e.g., expanding grout) or gas expansion systems (e.g., Cardox, Nonex, PCF) for controlled fracturing (RockZone Americas, n.d.).
While offering precision and reduced environmental impact, limitations include rapid tool wear in very hard or abrasive rock, potentially lower production rates than large-scale blasting (AlHabib, 2023).
Numerical modeling (FEM, FDM, DEM) is indispensable for predicting complex ground behavior, optimizing designs, and mitigating risks in these challenging settings (Douglas Partners, n.d.).
Why might blasting be a bad option in some underground mining projects? Share your thoughts!
